Psamathe wrote:Cases like this make me think the French VSP system has advantages. Sounds like for some petrol head like Coogan, making him drive around in a VSP for 6 months would be a far better punishment than a fine he can afford without even noticing. But make him drive a VSP, to to his to be broadcast TV series using a VSP would be a good (and very public) punishment.
Ian
The programme wouldn't be made until later then.
That would be his choice. If his program is so important then he should not have broken the law and jeopardised the program.
I'm a great fan of the VSP thing - not as the main punishment but where somebody uses some excuse to avoid a ban then their license is changes to only allow them to drive VSP class vehicles (maybe for double the time they would have been banned for). So all these celebrities could no longer use the "my charity work will suffer" type excuses as they could still do "their charity work" but it would have to be riving a VSP rather than a top of the range Porsche/Range Rover/etc.
squeaker wrote:Maybe the production company should think twice about using an actor with such a poor driving record in a programme involving lots of driving? Alan Partridge using public transport sounds more entertaining to me
It would be fun to take the mick out of car freaks and snobs. Partridge as a slightly warped Clarkson.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
I thought the old way was to put the car on a trailer and tow it around while filming so the actor didn't need to actually drive?
Personally the judge missed a trick. He should have doubled the 6 month ban. Anything to try and make sure another Steve Coogan talentless, self promoting, programme being made.
But on a purely justice pov hardship of his fans and production company workers should not be considered. It's widely known that he's a petrolhead with a liking for fast transportation. It's highly unlikely he obeys the speed limits at other times. Highly likely he's the type to speed them brake sharply at speed cameras. He's very unlucky to get caught perhaps!
Mike Sales wrote:I often see on-screen pieces in which the actor or presenter is ostensibly driving on open public roads. These do look very convincing. I really doubt that they are faked.
They're often done with the car being towed on a low trailer for the dialogue bits, intercut with shots of the car actually being driven where you can't see them actually talking. Very easy to do, cheap and perfectly safe.
Are you sure? Do you have special knowledge of this? When I wrote to the BBC about one which was shot on a crowded street they did not use this justification. Shots of drivers chatting to camera are commonplace. Why would they go to the length of using a trailer when a different setup would work equally well? I am usually convinced. I shall have to watch more closely in future.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
How many footballers with far less excuse get nobbled at silly speeds, plead that they need their license and get off? I'm far more willing to accept the excuse that Coogan needs his car (in this instance) than a footballer who can afford a chauffeur or even pay to have a taxi on standby 24/7.
The problem is that most people get away with the same (or worse) day in day out and never get caught.
kwackers wrote: The problem is that most people get away with the same (or worse) day in day out and never get caught.
It sounds as if Coogan gets away with it usually as well. If drivers expect to get away with it even when they are caught (very seldom) it does not help to solve the problem.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
kwackers wrote: The problem is that most people get away with the same (or worse) day in day out and never get caught.
To me the issue in this case is that he does not learn from his mistakes e.g. (from the original article: "The court heard the actor had a history of speeding offences and had attended a drivers awareness course just two months ago." "Coogan admitted his driving record was not good" 'She [the Magistrate] told Coogan: “We have also taken into account your driving record, which is not very good.”'
Also, Corgan clearly states that "I’m trying to slow down and I try to observe the average speed limits that have come in". So he is not slowing down but trying to slow down. He should be succeeding not trying if he is being given lenient sentences. And what are these "average speed limits" he is trying to keep within?
Coogan is just one face of a bigger problem - which is what I was trying to get at. If you can do something 'naughty' but which benefits you and be 99.9% sure you'll get away with it then why not do it?
Catching people who've been speeding is a bit like catching murderers. The damage is already done, you need to stop them doing it in the first place and it matters not whether someone has been caught before because they still assume they'll get away with it. And 36 in a 30 is probably lower than most so perhaps he has learned from his past mistakes but can't just shake the idea that he'll get away with it apart from the 0.1% of the time when he won't.
He's unlucky, nothing more nothing less. I'm far less worried about him and more about the fact that your ordinary Joe's and Joe'esses are barrelling around the streets with no fear of being caught.
kwackers wrote:Coogan is just one face of a bigger problem - which is what I was trying to get at. If you can do something 'naughty' but which benefits you and be 99.9% sure you'll get away with it then why not do it?
Catching people who've been speeding is a bit like catching murderers. The damage is already done, you need to stop them doing it in the first place and it matters not whether someone has been caught before because they still assume they'll get away with it. And 36 in a 30 is probably lower than most so perhaps he has learned from his past mistakes but can't just shake the idea that he'll get away with it apart from the 0.1% of the time when he won't.
He's unlucky, nothing more nothing less. I'm far less worried about him and more about the fact that your ordinary Joe's and Joe'esses are barrelling around the streets with no fear of being caught.
I would agree but also wonder if the high profile "celebrity" cases where they get off because of excuses like this one reported all over the press help give the impression to your ordinary Joe's and Joe'esses that they will get off in the unlikely event of their being caught.
Which is partly why I regularly wonder if the French VSP system might avoid these excuses being so readily accepted. Instead of a press report about him getting treated leniently we'd be seeing pictures of him driving a dinky little VSP. The pictures in the press of him grinning like a Cheshire Cat having got off lightly give everybody one impression whereas a picture of him driving a VSP would give a very different public impression.
Coogan admitted his driving record was not good, but said he had now taken steps to change his behaviour: “I’m trying to slow down and I try to observe the average speed limits that have come in.
I thought a speed limit was a limit not to be exceeded, not that e.g. in a 30 limit you can do 40 as long as your average is 30 or lower. Is he talking about average speed cameras? - which to me is just another type of speed camera; so a 70 mph speed limit road with average speed cameras still means legally you must never go above 70 mph.
Or have I missed some new type of speed limit?
Ian
That's the theory but in practice they mean drivers mustn't average more than 78 mph
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Psamathe wrote:Cases like this make me think the French VSP system has advantages. Sounds like for some petrol head like Coogan, making him drive around in a VSP for 6 months would be a far better punishment than a fine he can afford without even noticing. But make him drive a VSP, to to his to be broadcast TV series using a VSP would be a good (and very public) punishment.
Ian
The programme wouldn't be made until later then.
That would be his choice. If his program is so important then he should not have broken the law and jeopardised the program.
I'm a great fan of the VSP thing - not as the main punishment but where somebody uses some excuse to avoid a ban then their license is changes to only allow them to drive VSP class vehicles (maybe for double the time they would have been banned for). So all these celebrities could no longer use the "my charity work will suffer" type excuses as they could still do "their charity work" but it would have to be riving a VSP rather than a top of the range Porsche/Range Rover/etc.
Ian
I was explaining that your thought that in some way he would be forced to use on of those for the series or in another context was highly unlikely, I wasn't debating the plethora of other issues you raise.
Coogan admitted his driving record was not good, but said he had now taken steps to change his behaviour: “I’m trying to slow down and I try to observe the average speed limits that have come in.
I thought a speed limit was a limit not to be exceeded, not that e.g. in a 30 limit you can do 40 as long as your average is 30 or lower. Is he talking about average speed cameras? - which to me is just another type of speed camera; so a 70 mph speed limit road with average speed cameras still means legally you must never go above 70 mph.
Or have I missed some new type of speed limit?
Ian
That's the theory but in practice they mean drivers mustn't average more than 78 mph
So no such thing as an "average speed limit" but just a type of speed camera - which shows that Coogan's comments to the court show that he does not even understand the concept of a "speed limit". He said "I try to observe the average speed limits that have come in".
Coogan admitted his driving record was not good, but said he had now taken steps to change his behaviour: “I’m trying to slow down and I try to observe the average speed limits that have come in.
I thought a speed limit was a limit not to be exceeded, not that e.g. in a 30 limit you can do 40 as long as your average is 30 or lower. Is he talking about average speed cameras? - which to me is just another type of speed camera; so a 70 mph speed limit road with average speed cameras still means legally you must never go above 70 mph.
Or have I missed some new type of speed limit?
Ian
That's the theory but in practice they mean drivers mustn't average more than 78 mph
I loaded a Tom Tom app the other day which, among other things has real-time speed limit info on it and was amazed to see that it also gives you a real-time average speed through average speed monitored areas. Remarkable.
