the certainty of a (a potentially lengthier one - my speculation) ban at any point in the next 3 years if he reoffended.
Not really, many of those 9 points could well be a few years old themselves. He could even be able to break the speed limit in a few months time, get done and still be under his twelve points.
Yes, possibly - depends on when they were accrued during the 3 years.
It's not easy to check the history of totting-up using the internet because most of the hits are ads from lawyers keen to advertise their services.
So, this is largely "IIRC." Totting up was introduced by Ernie Marples in the early 1960's and it was pretty much "three strikes and you are out." A licence endorsement was just that and differential points were introduced later. There was also no leeway for hardship. This meant that when somebody alleged they would lose their job with their licence, some courts opted to find "special reasons" for not endorsing the defendant's licence. This led to the introduction of "exceptional hardship." (I'd be more than happy to bow to anybody else with a better memory or a decent link.)
On an earlier thread, somebody did link to the number of defendants who successfully argued exceptional hardship and the number's not small, which suggests that there may be hardship but it's becoming commonplace, rather than exceptional. It would be interesting to see some figures for the cases where this argument is rejected.
No doubt the solicitor in this case had a lot to say that wasn't reported, but IMO the defendant's case as reported in the media might be summed up as "I'm a celebrity, I need a car." The well-known phrase or saying is that somebody drove a coach and horses through it. Flintoff has driven a car with a lot of horsepower through it.
In slight defence of the WVM, I drove vans for a few years before I was aware of the lower limit and even then wasnt aware of the exact details, remember things were not so easy before t'web.
So he was doing 57mph, which either was a cautious adherence to a sixty limit or a full exploitation of the ACPO 10% plus two rule. It does rather annoy me to see them catching drivers like that when there are times and places where you could guarantee drivers passing over 30mph above the limit as frequently as the Police could process them.
So any body care to say what the speed limits are that they should obey in a Citreon Berlingo?
beardy wrote:In slight defence of the WVM, I drove vans for a few years before I was aware of the lower limit and even then wasnt aware of the exact details, remember things were not so easy before t'web.
So he was doing 57mph, which either was a cautious adherence to a sixty limit or a full exploitation of the ACPO 10% plus two rule. It does rather annoy me to see them catching drivers like that when there are times and places where you could guarantee drivers passing over 30mph above the limit as frequently as the Police could process them.
So any body care to say what the speed limits are that they should obey in a Citreon Berlingo?
Car based van = car IIRC
Of course knowing whether the van is car based or not is a different matter for some of them...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
As the former owner of a Citroën Berlingo (I can even put the dots on ) I think it's restricted to the same speed limits as a private car, but I'd not bet money.
My explanation would be that it's a dual purpose vehicle - in layman's terms an estate car. I think the subject has been clouded by the existence of the classification car-derived van ie vans with the bodyshell of an existing model of car but with no windows behind the driver. The car version of the Berlingo is a van-derived car which isn't a legally-defined type of vehicle but my explanation of the difference. Obviously a Berlingo van is just a van. I'll admit to calling my own Berlingo a mobile shed, but that's just a term of derision.
beardy wrote:In slight defence of the WVM, I drove vans for a few years before I was aware of the lower limit and even then wasnt aware of the exact details, remember things were not so easy before t'web.
So he was doing 57mph, which either was a cautious adherence to a sixty limit or a full exploitation of the ACPO 10% plus two rule. It does rather annoy me to see them catching drivers like that when there are times and places where you could guarantee drivers passing over 30mph above the limit as frequently as the Police could process them.
So any body care to say what the speed limits are that they should obey in a Citreon Berlingo?
TBH if I had 11 points on my licence I'd know every speed limit for my vehicle(s) and I'd make sure I didn't break them,ignorance is no excuse or defence.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
I drove to London and back on the M4 yesterday, a rare experience. I set my cruise control at 70mph, never exceeding that, but slowing where necessary at intersections. Virtually all motor vehicles passed me at far greater speeds, including vans and lorries. Why aren't safety cameras operating on every gantry and bridge? The revenue take would be huge.
jezer wrote:I drove to London and back on the M4 yesterday, a rare experience. I set my cruise control at 70mph, never exceeding that, but slowing where necessary at intersections. Virtually all motor vehicles passed me at far greater speeds, including vans and lorries. Why aren't safety cameras operating on every gantry and bridge? The revenue take would be huge.
It could have been that, as with many cars, while your speedo was showing 70mph your actual speed was 63mph while they were doing 70mph either with more accurate speedos or had compensated for their speedo inaccuracy based on GPS calibrations. I have driven a number of cars and for a speedo indicated 70mph the GPS measured speed ranged between 63 and 70mph and it seemed to be manufacturer dependent, not calibration variability. The statutory requirement is for the speed to read within +0/-10%
jezer wrote:I drove to London and back on the M4 yesterday, a rare experience. I set my cruise control at 70mph, never exceeding that, but slowing where necessary at intersections. Virtually all motor vehicles passed me at far greater speeds, including vans and lorries. Why aren't safety cameras operating on every gantry and bridge? The revenue take would be huge.
Because, nominally, the limit isn't 70. ETA I posted this before I left for work and must admit I did expect a bit of "incoming" by the time I got here