Theses sought of driver should be taken of the road for good

CaveDweller said:
Needs tortured from the toes up. I've seen drink drivers get more time than that. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

So torture is ok for motoring related crimes? What about armed robbers, nonces etc.

Hopefully the jail stretch and long ban may reform his ways, but looking at the record here I suspect not. He's clearly had a tracker fitted, why drive like that knowing your being recorded?

He pointed out Clunie had appeared in court 46 times since he was 16 and had been disqualified from driving on three previous occasions.

3 previous bans - edit - life ban isn't a bad idea. He's demonstrated a track record of not learning from his mistakes. He of all people, should know better.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
So torture is ok for motoring related crimes? What about armed robbers, nonces etc.

Hopefully the jail stretch and long ban may reform his ways, but looking at the record here I suspect not. He's clearly had a tracker fitted, why drive like that knowing your being recorded?

He pointed out Clunie had appeared in court 46 times since he was 16 and had been disqualified from driving on three previous occasions.

3 previous bans - edit - life ban isn't a bad idea. He's demonstrated a track record of not learning from his mistakes. He of all people, should know better.
Click to expand...

Apart from motoring convictions, no other crimes were mentioned. Yes torture should be used for all sorts...peados, murderers, terrorists, wife beaters etc etc...and I'd be glad to carry it out (y)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
The thing is their seem no way of taking this idiot of the roads forever,and his sentance is a joke :mad:

46 offences & 3 driving bans it's just one big joke :(
 
simonblue said:
The thing is their seem no way of taking this idiot of the roads forever,and his sentance is a joke :mad:

46 offences & 3 driving bans it's just one big joke :(
Click to expand...

Lifetime disqualifications are never handed down. 10yrs I think is the highest that can handed out.

For the offence of causing death by careless driving it's quite a long one, typically one more in line with the more serous charge of causing death by dangerous driving.

5yrs in the pokey is a long time.
 
ST4 said:
Lifetime disqualifications are never handed down. 10yrs I think is the highest that can handed out.

For the offence of causing death by careless driving it's quite a long one, typically one more in line with the more serous charge of causing death by dangerous driving.

5yrs in the pokey is a long time.
Click to expand...

Like he'll do anything like 5 years unless he punches a prison officer while he's in there
 
neil_g said:
maybe we should introduce a 12 points and you lose your licence for good.

id bet people would be a LOT more careful on the road.
Click to expand...

I have always thought that losing your licence for 12 points should mean that you have to re-apply and retake your test.
This may mean that mean that the basics of driving are brought home again.
 
wack61 said:
Like he'll do anything like 5 years unless he punches a prison officer while he's in there
Click to expand...

Maybe so. In the same way a rapist never does the full 15yesrs but they're on licence in the community but still serving the sentence. Strict conditions are applied. He's off the road for a decade and there's no reduction on that for good behaviour.
 
ST4 said:
Sometimes it can. Depends how the points are gained. Any dangerous conviction will mean a test retake
Click to expand...

I was not aware of that.

I would guess that the person who gains the points by a number of 3 point offences would be the type of driver who needs to be retested.
 
Given how easy it is and that every driver has strayed above the limit, I am not sure that's practical.
Click to expand...

Some of us manage quite well to not get them.

And I agree, if someone's got 4 lots of 3 points in a rolling period, they aren't learning, so either full disqual for life isn't a problem from my point of view. At the very least the re training, test and restrictions like those given to new drivers seems like a very good idea.
 
ST4 said:
Given how easy it is and that every driver has strayed above the limit, I am not sure that's practical.
Click to expand...


Straying over the limit by a small amount is 3 points so that would be 4 separate times, if you do not learn from that you should need re-training.
 
huffy said:
Straying over the limit by a small amount is 3 points so that would be 4 separate times, if you do not learn from that you should need re-training.
Click to expand...

I find this a bit worrying if you do a lot of mileage over different roads.

The average driver goes over the same routes on a regular basis and can therefore 'learn' where the fixed cameras are. This means they can drive like idiots most other places.
Many cameras are set up on the edges of towns and villages which many people cross rarely but the "professional" driver croses these umpteen times per day.
It is easy to slip over the limit to a small extent and still be safe - I would much prefer that drivers watch the road than be constantly checking for IMHO a minor infraction.
 
ST4 said:
How often have you sped, even slightly in the last 4 years?
Click to expand...

I have not been caught and if I was approaching 12 points I would be very careful and changing my driving habits.
 
ChasG said:
I find this a bit worrying if you do a lot of mileage over different roads.

The average driver goes over the same routes on a regular basis and can therefore 'learn' where the fixed cameras are. This means they can drive like idiots most other places.
Many cameras are set up on the edges of towns and villages which many people cross rarely but the "professional" driver croses these umpteen times per day.
It is easy to slip over the limit to a small extent and still be safe - I would much prefer that drivers watch the road than be constantly checking for IMHO a minor infraction.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. It's just internet pontificating in response to omg a speeding driver killed someone scenario. Given the relatively few people killed or seriously injured due to RTAs vs the number of road journeys undertaken the roads are perfectly safe and there's no real need to change anything on the roads
 
ST4 said:
How often have you sped, even slightly in the last 4 years?
Click to expand...

Considering how often you have to speed until you are caught, it is only the really unlucky that get caught every time they speed.

Of course everyone with 12 points only ever sped four times and were really unlucky...
 
RichardtheSane said:
Considering how often you have to speed until you are caught, it is only the really unlucky that get caught every time they speed.

Of course everyone with 12 points only ever sped four times and were really unlucky...
Click to expand...

Some are luckier than others it had to be said. Lifetime bans for four speeding convictions is just crazy and wholly disproportionate to the crime. Disqual for 6months to 12months for totting up isn't.
 
ST4 said:
Some are luckier than others it had to be said. Lifetime bans for four speeding convictions is just crazy and wholly disproportionate to the crime. Disqual for 6months to 12months for totting up isn't.
Click to expand...

Do you disagree that someone who gets caught speeding the fourth time was incapable of learning from the previous three times?

I'm not commenting on the length of a ban here.
 
You can drive though 4 cameras in a single stretch of motorway (on a single journey) !!" - think average speed camera - SPECS.. Does the above also apply?
 
In this case surely this is time to change the law. Banned three times, 46 times in court for offences and now killed two people. There's no changing this person, so they don't deserve a licence.
 
CaveDweller said:
Apart from motoring convictions, no other crimes were mentioned. Yes torture should be used for all sorts...peados, murderers, terrorists, wife beaters etc etc...and I'd be glad to carry it out (y)
Click to expand...
There are few people prepared to torture and most of those have serious psychological issues, I'm surprised someone would be prepared to be so openly willing
 
I find this a bit worrying if you do a lot of mileage over different roads.
Click to expand...

I don't find it worrying and I do around 28,000 miles a year, and I've yet to get a speeding ticket.

I would much prefer that drivers watch the road than be constantly checking for IMHO a minor infraction.
Click to expand...

Some of manage to do both, many don't do either, and thats the problem.
 
jakeblu said:
There are few people prepared to torture and most of those have serious psychological issues, I'm surprised someone would be prepared to be so openly willing
Click to expand...

They're coming to take me away ha ha. They're coming to take me away ho ho, he he, ha ha to the funny farm.

I wouldn't actually do it, just some people like in the article really wind me up.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Do you disagree that someone who gets caught speeding the fourth time was incapable of learning from the previous three times?

I'm not commenting on the length of a ban here.
Click to expand...

Not completely incapable, just a lot less likely too. Normally 2 strikes. Then again, I suppose in a years worth of driving everyone will have sped, even slightly, on four or more occasions. The police do however have tolerances, so 4 strikes is maybe kind. But I do not think lifetime bans are the answer, its too draconian. Perhaps a short disqual for the 1st offence (30days) the second (60days) the thrid 90 days to really ram the point home rather than just points and a fine.
 
Why shouldn't it be draconian Steve?

You don't have a drivers license as a right, it's a privilege, if you abuse it, then why shouldn't it be taken away?

Look at the plus side. The deterrent effect would stop a lot of speeding. Traffic would run faster, you only have to look at the M25 to see that happening. Less cars on the road, means shorter journey times. Whats not to like...?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
Bernie174 said:
Why shouldn't it be draconian Steve?

You don't have a drivers license as a right, it's a privilege, if you abuse it, then why shouldn't it be taken away?

Look at the plus side. The deterrent effect would stop a lot of speeding. Traffic would run faster, you only have to look at the M25 to see that happening. Less cars on the road, means shorter journey times. Whats not to like...?
Click to expand...

It's draconian because driving is often required for employment, family life, etc. We also do not ban people from pubs, alcoholic consumption for crimes commited whilst under the influence of alcohol, we don't ban people from having dogs, or confiscate family pets if the owners are caught not picking up dog turd. If you ban people from driving for minor motoring offences, then other area's of the law need to be made more draconian too.

Actually, you know what, this tough approach for ALL area's of lawlessness really appeals. You're right. System needs toughened up but in all areas not just motoring.
 
Well, people should think about speeding then before they do it. My employment depends on my having a licence, I have zero points.

It's not for "minor motoring offences", though, it's for repeated driving offences. Like all crimes it needs to be deterred, because it is a crime. At the moment, people seem to think they can pick and chose what laws they obey, speeding is fine, but theft should be a hanging offence. Crime's crime, and you don't deter it by having nampy pandy punishments. If a particular crime becomes more prevalent, the answer is rigorous enforcement and punishment.
 
Bernie174 said:
I don't find it worrying and I do around 28,000 miles a year, and I've yet to get a speeding ticket.



Some of manage to do both, many don't do either, and thats the problem.
Click to expand...


But Bernie you are on the side of the angels.
While you say you have not yet received a ticket it doesn't logically extend to never having sped

You also say some can do both - unless they have a different visual system eg HUD it is not physically possible
 
Bernie174 said:
Well, people should think about speeding then before they do it. My employment depends on my having a licence, I have zero points.

It's not for "minor motoring offences", though, it's for repeated driving offences. Like all crimes it needs to be deterred, because it is a crime. At the moment, people seem to think they can pick and chose what laws they obey, speeding is fine, but theft should be a hanging offence. Crime's crime, and you don't deter it by having nampy pandy punishments. If a particular crime becomes more prevalent, the answer is rigorous enforcement and punishment.
Click to expand...

So, you would agree that dog fowling should see more rigerous enforcement and punishment and drunken and disorderly offences more rigerous efforcement and punishment as well. Where I live the pavements are littered with dog crap, and the police/council are powerless to stop it and the punishment if caught is f all. Confiscation of pets, massive fines, bans from having pets would probably scare people into obeying the law. Same with drunken offences, with electronic tagging and curfew orders, with severe punishment for breaching would hopefully work.

The issue is Bernie, and you well know it, is in this society it wouldn't work. No government would impose such rigerous law enforcement as too many break these minor laws and it's a total vote loser as you're putting the siginificant majority of normal people into the realms of criminality. I am not actually disagreeing with your point, its logical, sensible and without fault. However, you have to apply that logic to all areas of life and people would say it would be too strict. I like the idea alas.
 
Last edited:
ChasG said:
You also say some can do both - unless they have a different visual system eg HUD it is not physically possible
Click to expand...

I have a limiter in my car which is usually set to slightly over the posted limit (GPS checking of the speed compared to the indicated [hence limited] speed shows me what to set the limiter to) but rarely come up against the set limit in town - I drive by ear and can tell to within a couple of MPH what speed I'm doing. Through roadworks and where the massive yellow gantries carrying average speed checkers I observe the posted limit as indicated. Not had a camera issued ticket. Ever. Never had a ticket while driving a car TBH, only a couple of SP30s issued by real plod when riding a bike.
 
Nod said:
I have a limiter in my car which is usually set to slightly over the posted limit (GPS checking of the speed compared to the indicated [hence limited] speed shows me what to set the limiter to) but rarely come up against the set limit in town - I drive by ear and can tell to within a couple of MPH what speed I'm doing. Through roadworks and where the massive yellow gantries carrying average speed checkers I observe the posted limit as indicated. Not had a camera issued ticket. Ever. Never had a ticket while driving a car TBH, only a couple of SP30s issued by real plod when riding a bike.
Click to expand...

So when you had a motorbike you did speed. All to often you see motorbikes travelling grossly excessively above the NSL, sometimes well over double. My old boss would wind his up to 180mph on roads like the A9 etc.
 
I still do have motorbikes and rarely speed on them - I'll live longer that way and I'm rather fond of life! Plenty of bold motorcyclists and a fair few old motorcyclists but few old, bold motorcyclists.
 
But Bernie you are on the side of the angels.
While you say you have not yet received a ticket it doesn't logically extend to never having sped

You also say some can do both - unless they have a different visual system eg HUD it is not physically possible
Click to expand...

Actually, you can. It's very easy to do, and at the moment, I'm getting lots of practice on the M3 every day!

I am not a paragon of virtue, but nor am I stupid. So lets qualify something, anyone who gets a ticket from a fixed camera is stupid or reckless. They are in big yellow boxes with markings on the road, on roads marked with warning signs as well as clear speed limit signs. No one has the right to complain when they get a ticket under those circumstances and if they do get a ticket they should be banned from driving simply because they are too thick to be in charge of something as powerful and dangerous as a car.

On other roads, if you open your eyes, and look beyond the end of your bonnet, you'll see unmarked speed traps, or work out where they are likely to be. But then I don't get mental either. I know how big my willy is, and I don't have anything to prove. Granted I have done the very fast driving thing, a lot and lawfully, and maybe thats why I don't feel the need any more.

But you see thats the problem, some people think they have something to prove. Others, the majority, don't look beyond the end of their bonnet, thats why so many are caught in fixed traps. Thats why there are so many shunts on the M3 every morning.

So yes, I speed, but usually within the HO Guidelines on speeding, I don't intend to get caught and have to prove I am stupid by paying cash to HMG. If I ever do get a ticket, then I'll gladly admit it was my own fault, not indulge in the childish "Its a stealth tax", or "Its not fair".

The issue is Bernie, and you well know it, is in this society it wouldn't work. No government would impose such rigerous law enforcement as too many break these minor laws and it's a total vote loser as you're putting the siginificant majority of normal people into the realms of criminality. I am not actually disagreeing with your point, its logical, sensible and without fault. However, you have to apply that logic to all areas of life and people would say it would be too strict. I like the idea alas.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, no Government will ever do it. But I have bad news for you, people who are caught speeding and have been sentenced by a court are already criminals. You now have a criminal record for example, albeit a proper one, for Dangerous.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Actually, you can. It's very easy to do, and at the moment, I'm getting lots of practice on the M3 every day!

I am not a paragon of virtue, but nor am I stupid. So lets qualify something, anyone who gets a ticket from a fixed camera is stupid or reckless. They are in big yellow boxes with markings on the road, on roads marked with warning signs as well as clear speed limit signs. No one has the right to complain when they get a ticket under those circumstances and if they do get a ticket they should be banned from driving simply because they are too thick to be in charge of something as powerful and dangerous as a car.

On other roads, if you open your eyes, and look beyond the end of your bonnet, you'll see unmarked speed traps, or work out where they are likely to be. But then I don't get mental either. I know how big my willy is, and I don't have anything to prove. Granted I have done the very fast driving thing, a lot and lawfully, and maybe thats why I don't feel the need any more.

But you see thats the problem, some people think they have something to prove. Others, the majority, don't look beyond the end of their bonnet, thats why so many are caught in fixed traps. Thats why there are so many shunts on the M3 every morning.

So yes, I speed, but usually within the HO Guidelines on speeding, I don't intend to get caught and have to prove I am stupid by paying cash to HMG. If I ever do get a ticket, then I'll gladly admit it was my own fault, not indulge in the childish "Its a stealth tax", or "Its not fair".



You're absolutely right, no Government will ever do it. But I have bad news for you, people who are caught speeding and have been sentenced by a court are already criminals. You now have a criminal record for example, albeit a proper one, for Dangerous.
Click to expand...

Aye. It drops off after 10yrs and is a bit of a PITA if you try change jobs but my current employer isn't bothered about it and day to day life, other than being off the roads for a bit is wholly unaffected by having a proper criminal record. A point of reference, speeding convictions unless at court don't usually need declared and are socially acceptable. Court convictions open you up to all sorts of awkwardness if your job hunting. Mercifully I'm not per se but I did apply somewhere else and was told to do one.

I'll take the point about getting done on camera. Unmarked car got me speeding but to be honest I should have twigged why a joining the motorway Volvo estate was following a safe and respectable distance at around a ton.

Second time. They were hidden good and proper but I do accept I should have guessed where they set up would be a good place to catch wannabe ayrton sennas.

Why did I do it, really as it was quiet and wanted to see what the car could do. I really ought to have gone to a track day, German autobahn really.

As should have our road test editor. Anyway this threads about him, not me speeding or you either.
 
Last edited:
The cameras may be hidden, they may be in plain sight and painted loud enough to make your eyes bleed.
The fact remains that you will only ever get "done" for speeding if you are, in fact speeding.
And yes I have driven in excess of the limit, and no I have never received any points etc.
However, if I had, I wouldn't bleat about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top