Cycling UK Forum

I'm all for stricter enforcement of drivers, I believe it'd make our roads a safer place to be, whatever mode of transport we were using.
However in relation to this story I'm not sure it's fair to assume the ban was reduced because of his celebrity, I understand there are thousands of drivers allowed to keep their license after going over the 12 points. They make the case to a magistrate to decide, we can argue about whether this should be allowed, I'd argue not, but it is and there's nothing that suggests Coogan was treated any different to any other driver pleading that they needed to drive for their business/employment.

PH wrote:I'm all for stricter enforcement of drivers, I believe it'd make our roads a safer place to be, whatever mode of transport we were using.
However in relation to this story I'm not sure it's fair to assume the ban was reduced because of his celebrity, I understand there are thousands of drivers allowed to keep their license after going over the 12 points. They make the case to a magistrate to decide, we can argue about whether this should be allowed, I'd argue not, but it is and there's nothing that suggests Coogan was treated any different to any other driver pleading that they needed to drive for their business/employment.

My concern over the "celebrity" aspect is that it is often prominently reported all over our press, often with the offender grinning like a Cheshire Cat having been treated extremely leniently. and that publicity creates a perception amongst many petrolheads that even if they get caught they can still get off and avoid a ban. So the "celebrity" cases erode away what little enforcement they is.

I'm not suggesting that celebrities get treated differently from anybody else. Which is where I come round to the VSP, not as a routine punishment but e.g. take the ban and fine as per the magistrate decides or, if you can make a case about needing to drive then you can only drive VSP category vehicles for e.g. 3 times the ban set by the magistrate.

In this case Coogan argued he had a specific limited duration commitment where he needed to drive so for me it completely beggars belief as to why his bad was not just delayed until after that limited duration commitment (maybe shows how readily the courts are to allow lenient punishments). But I suspect for many the "need to drive" is an ongoing long term requirement (e.g. self-employed plumber) so delaying the ban would not be a solution.

Ian

PH wrote:

100%JR wrote:I
Certainly wasted on you. I hope next time you don't get the option and a lengthy ban. The evidence that speed kills is overwhelming, the arrogance of those who deny it or think they're somehow beyond it is appalling, they shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Thanks for that.I'll sleep better now.You're obviously one of the professional "outraged/appalled/incensed" types who frequent the internet?
The only people who get banned for "speeding" are those who want to get banned.FYI there's always an option of a SAC despite the rubbish spouted by the DVLA.You just have to know how to go about it.As I said on another topic I've been "caught" around 18 times since 2011....no points,no convictions Unenforceable So many loopholes if you care to do the groundwork
"Speeding" isn't the problem.The stupid,outdated limits are.Until the limits are brought into the 21st century then I will "speed".

Oh the arrogance of it

reohn2 wrote:Oh the arrogance of it

The arrogance of some drivers illustrates perfectly why limits are needed.
It is also the attitude which will not allow the law to be properly enforced.
Until drivers can be trusted to think of the safety of others we will need traffic laws. It is a disgrace that they are not enforced.

Mike Sales wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Oh the arrogance of it

The arrogance of some drivers illustrates perfectly why limits are needed.
It is also the attitude which will not allow the law to be properly enforced.
Until drivers can be trusted to think of the safety of others we will need traffic laws. It is a disgrace that they are not enforced.

+1

He only got fined £750.

That’s a fair bit of money for me but for him that’s got to be small change.

Less than a night out for him I reckon.

Hi,

reohn2 wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:

reohn2 wrote:Oh the arrogance of it

The arrogance of some drivers illustrates perfectly why limits are needed.
It is also the attitude which will not allow the law to be properly enforced.
Until drivers can be trusted to think of the safety of others we will need traffic laws. It is a disgrace that they are not enforced.

+1

I agree