Freddie Far too Flipping fast Flintoff...

[snibgo]

Re the 3-year exceptional hardship, the Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines, under ‘Totting up’ disqualification, says:

Any circumstances taken into account in the preceding three years to reduce or avoid a totting disqualification must be disregarded.

The legislation is RTOA 1988, s35:

No account is to be taken under subsection (1) above of any of the following circumstances—

(a)any circumstances that are alleged to make the offence or any of the offences not a serious one,

(b)hardship, other than exceptional hardship, or

(c)any circumstances which, within the three years immediately preceding the conviction, have been taken into account under that subsection in ordering the offender to be disqualified for a shorter period or not ordering him to be disqualified.

[karlt]

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%

Indeed. If you were being overtaken by lorries, you weren't doing 70.

[Flinders]

My speedo seems to read fairly accurately, if the roadside things which indicate your speed are anything to go by- in 30 mph zones, when my speedo says 30, it registers as anything between 27-30, mostly about 29.
On motorways, if I go at lorry speeds, it reads a little under 60.
However, when I do 70, I'm regularly overtaken by vans, and more especially cars, which must be doing at the very least 10mph more than me, and often at least 20 mph faster, given by the time it takes to overtake.

IMHO, all motorway junctions ought to have average speed monitors, and people ought to be fined and 'pointed' for every section where they exceed an average speed of 70 (give or take the legal percentage for error). I'd bet that it would reduce accidents, but it would certainly reduce the consequences of any accidents.

[[XAP]Bob]

IMHO, all motorway junctions ought to have average speed monitors, and people ought to be fined and 'pointed' for every section where they exceed an average speed of 70 (give or take the legal percentage for error). I'd bet that it would reduce accidents, but it would certainly reduce the consequences of any accidents.

Absolutely - you don't even need them on the gantry, just on the slip roads. Although having them on service station sliproads would also be required.

[Bonefishblues]

IMHO, all motorway junctions ought to have average speed monitors, and people ought to be fined and 'pointed' for every section where they exceed an average speed of 70 (give or take the legal percentage for error). I'd bet that it would reduce accidents, but it would certainly reduce the consequences of any accidents.

Absolutely - you don't even need them on the gantry, just on the slip roads. Although having them on service station sliproads would also be required.

They are already the safest roads in Europe iirc. We can find other better uses for our road safety pound, surely?

[beardy]

A good point but I would counter it with this.

Motorists learn through habit, rigid enforcement of speed limits for large numbers of motorists doing large mileages will break their speeding habit, they will eventually get used to having to drive to the limit.

It would not cost anything all the fines would actually create a big profit to be spent elsewhere.

There is one tiny fly in the ointment, too many people with just enough power wouldnt let the authorities get away with imposing it.

[[XAP]Bob]

There is also the "low hanging fruit" - motorway speed limits are easy, and virtually universally ignored.

By encouraging compliance on these roads, the hope is that compliance will become more natural.

If we also actively enforce totting up bans then there will be fewer motorists on the road...

[Bonefishblues]

Such an approach would run the risk of inculcating a 'limit compliance equals safe' culture, I'd suggest.

[[XAP]Bob]

better than the current limit+20%=safe culture

[Bonefishblues]

better than the current limit+20%=safe culture

There is?

I think there's significant ambiguity in drivers' minds as to what the limit actually is on a motorway. As an ex M40 commuter of many years the 'limit' was c85 mph. I'd suggest that speeds were on average rather higher Mon to Fri, and lower at the weekend. I similarly thought the standard of driving significantly lower at weekends, with significantly poorer lane discipline and observation.

TBH I think it better to focus on good driving practice and bad. Also good road design and poor.

I think there's much more mileage in that arena than speed enforcement in most areas. Only a poor driver would consider 30mph to be safe outside a school at 3pm, yet ostensibly it would be legal.

Shame there are, effectively, zero traffic officers to detect and deal with the poor driver.

[reohn2]

......There is one tiny fly in the ointment, too many people with just enough power wouldnt let the authorities get away with imposing it.

Shame there are, effectively, zero traffic officers to detect and deal with the poor driver.

These seem to be the problem IMO,it's become the norm to speed,and get away with it,even if caught it's looked on as an occupational hazard or just bad luck .
The problem also is that speeding is relied on by business,there is something seriously wrong with a society that asks or imposes unrealistic or illegal targets and practices to get the job done IMO.

There's also something seriously wrong with a society that is left to police itself,if anyone's in any doubt about that,one only has to look at the media and banking,to mention but two businesses that very obviously failed spectacularly with disastrous results.
It seems we've decided we can't afford to keep to speed limits or police our roads and that current KSI figures are an acceptable cost

Even someone on here complained when I used the word 'crime' describing speeding offences,complaining that it wasn't 'real' crime .

[blackbike]

Mr Flintoff is a multi-millionaire well known for his houses in super rich areas.

He could easily afford a chauffeur or taxis for a year.

It's bizarre that many a Mondeo salesman and HGV driver will suffer real and deserved hardship from a driving ban while rich Mr Flintoff is protected from mere inconvenience.

[Bonefishblues]

The same opportunity to make a plea of exceptional hardship is open to Mondeo and Lorry man.

Flintoff made the plea - or better put, the plea was made on his behalf, I expect.

It was accepted. That's it - unless the inference is simply because one is wealthy and has multiple houses, then one should be disqualified from making such a plea. His plea was not made on economic grounds - presumably that wouldn't have gone very far. IIRC it was around his children's privacy, and the continuation of his Charitable Foundation's work.

Besides, presumably many Mondeo and Lorry men are having such please accepted. See here: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1861.html

[blackbike]

The same opportunity to make a plea of exceptional hardship is open to Mondeo and Lorry man.

Flintoff made the plea - or better put, the plea was made on his behalf, I expect.

It was accepted. That's it - unless the inference is simply because one is wealthy and has multiple houses, then one should be disqualified from making such a plea. His plea was not made on economic grounds - presumably that wouldn't have gone very far. IIRC it was around his children's privacy, and the continuation of his Charitable Foundation's work.

Besides, presumably many Mondeo and Lorry men are having such please accepted. See here: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1861.html

Flintoff has the wealth to pay for a driver for a year.

Nobody is interested in Flintoffs's children. He isn't David Beckham or Prince William whose children fascinate the Eastenders/Coronation St watching classes. Next to nobody knows the names of Flintoff's children or even if he has any or not.

What we see here is a simple case of a rich man getting easy treatment from the legal system even as he puts lives at risk because of his criminal driving habit..

[Bonefishblues]

The same opportunity to make a plea of exceptional hardship is open to Mondeo and Lorry man.

Flintoff made the plea - or better put, the plea was made on his behalf, I expect.

It was accepted. That's it - unless the inference is simply because one is wealthy and has multiple houses, then one should be disqualified from making such a plea. His plea was not made on economic grounds - presumably that wouldn't have gone very far. IIRC it was around his children's privacy, and the continuation of his Charitable Foundation's work.

Besides, presumably many Mondeo and Lorry men are having such please accepted. See here: http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1861.html

Flintoff has the wealth to pay for a driver for a year.
That's not at issue. He did not claim exceptional hardship on economic grounds

Nobody is interested in Flintoffs's children. He isn't David Beckham or Prince William whose children fascinate the Eastenders/Coronation St watching classes. Next to nobody knows the names of Flintoff's children or even if he has any or not.
You assert that to be the case. Neither you nor I know the facts of this, of course. How would you propose to determine the correct "fame quotient" then? I'm not sure the "Soap Test" shall we call it, would prove particularly reliable or replicable in Court.

What we see here is a simple case of a rich man getting easy treatment from the legal system even as he puts lives at risk because of his criminal driving habit..
Where to start? You weren't in Court. Neither you or I heard the detailed arguments made. It is a fact that they were accepted by the Court, using legal precedent to guide its deliberations, rather than reading media reports about the case. I have evidenced that such a defence is available, and is used successfully by tens of thousands of individuals each year. I fail to see why Flintoff is different. He was punished for the crime of speeding, just not to the extent you would prefer.

See embedded comments.
Your argument, summarised, seems to be "He's rich, so therefore he got off, and I'm cross about that"