Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Middle Lane Hogger Fined
149 Answers
wigan decorator ian stephens believes he's been picked on because he drives a white van
http://
but he didn't go to court to argue his case -
//I can’t afford nearly £1,000. I didn’t go to court because I have to go to work.//
white van man arrogance? or pragmatism borne of police harrassment?
http://
but he didn't go to court to argue his case -
//I can’t afford nearly £1,000. I didn’t go to court because I have to go to work.//
white van man arrogance? or pragmatism borne of police harrassment?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think, as I have explained earlier, ron, it is a matter of pragmatism.
Speeding is really an "absolute" offence. (i.e. you were either speeding or you were not). But unlike, say, No Insurance (which is similar - you either have insurance or you do not) evidence needs to be adduced to prove the offence (if called upon). This evidence is usually provided by means of mechanical devices and the accuracy of these can be questioned, as can the measurement methodology, etc. It is far less likely that a challenge will be launched to suggest the machine is more than 10% inaccurate than to suggest it was just 1% adrift. So whilst travelling above the legal limit is not "allowed" as such leeway is provided to make prosecutions more secure.
Yes, db, I agree this man is a complete pillock. He had the opportunity to dispose of the matter for £100. He declined presumably because he believed he had some sort of defence. He also suggested he had been victimised because of the type of vehicle he was driving.
He failed on two occasions to turn up for a hearing. I believe he reckoned if he left well alone it would disappear into the ether. Well it didn't and it came back to bite him - hard.
Speeding is really an "absolute" offence. (i.e. you were either speeding or you were not). But unlike, say, No Insurance (which is similar - you either have insurance or you do not) evidence needs to be adduced to prove the offence (if called upon). This evidence is usually provided by means of mechanical devices and the accuracy of these can be questioned, as can the measurement methodology, etc. It is far less likely that a challenge will be launched to suggest the machine is more than 10% inaccurate than to suggest it was just 1% adrift. So whilst travelling above the legal limit is not "allowed" as such leeway is provided to make prosecutions more secure.
Yes, db, I agree this man is a complete pillock. He had the opportunity to dispose of the matter for £100. He declined presumably because he believed he had some sort of defence. He also suggested he had been victimised because of the type of vehicle he was driving.
He failed on two occasions to turn up for a hearing. I believe he reckoned if he left well alone it would disappear into the ether. Well it didn't and it came back to bite him - hard.
-- answer removed --
I forgot to add that he is considering an appeal. Well good luck with that. He does not make it clear whether he will appeal against the conviction or the sentence. There's not been much mention of the details of the offence itself. But if he appeals against sentence he will be in for a shock. The only possible flaw in the sentencing I can see is the amount of the fine as he may have a net income of less that £400pw upon which it was almost certainly based. However his opportunity to provide that detail was in court following his trial and he failed twice to appear because he wass too busy (despite having more tha adequate notice of the dates). It is unlikely that a Crown Court judge will offer much sympathy in those circumstances and he may find another £400-£500 in costs ordered against him for the appeal.
TTT, you have either not long passed your test, very inexperienced with your Motorway Knowledge & the rules, In my years of driving I have come across motorist the likes of you, In fact I have reported a few, accident's don't happen on a Motorway TTT, they are caused by inconsiderate person's that think of no-one but themselves, you fit the Category of a very inexperienced Driver, Should you reply to my comment and *** me off, you are very welcome, the difference is, I know what I'm talking about.
You don't know me you know nothing about me. I've been driving 33years, I have 2 cars and 2 motorcycles, my licence is clean I have never had a fault crash. Been hit up the jaxy at lights once. The middle lane rule is silly and dangerous. No amount of preaching from the self appointed "experts" will ever convince me leap frogging down the road is safer than staying in the middle lane at 80max like I do as much as possible.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.