Speeding! Any Advice?

[glojo]

IMHO the "professional drivers" should be the best on the road, not the worst! If anything the law should be *more* strict with them than with casual or commuter motorists, someone is *paying* them to drive that vehicle and they should treat it with at least the responsibility of a private driver.

Hi Shude
Totally 100% agree. Lorry drivers and indeed psv drivers have a huge responsibility and when driving their vehicles should realise that.

Again I throw a suggestion into the pot.. Should professional drivers be penalised more severely when driving their large vehicles.

In my example to Pammy of the lorry driver in a car taking his wife to hospital. This driver was on a main road when he was struck by a car pulling out of a minor road.

The truck driver was not in a lorry.

I am certainly NOT defending anyone or any cause.


Regards,
John

 

[Shude]

Totally 100% agree. Lorry drivers and indeed psv drivers have a huge responsibility and when driving their vehicles should realise that.

Again I throw a suggestion into the pot.. Should professional drivers be penalised more severely when driving there large vehicles.

In my example to Pammy of the lorry driver in a car taking his wife to hospital. This driver was on a main road when he was struck by a car pulling out of a minor road. The truck driver was not in a lorry.

Maybe if the professional driver is driving the company vehicle then he should be more severely penalised. If it's his own car and it's a weekend or something then he's basically like you or me or anyone else on the road. This gets difficult if you're dealing with a taxi driver who runs a personal vehicle as the taxi, but I suppose if he has a fare or he's simply "on duty" then he has a greater responsibility.

 

[pammy]

John - there are always cases where you sympathise and see how the law cannot mitigate for all circumstances. What it does is allow for the majority of the time and cases.

The case you quote in the eyes of the law is likely to be seen as tough luck and that can happen to any of us. Being totally callous and playing the devils advocate - the lorry driver took a judgement call - does he risk his license or his wife, but it is his call - no one Else's. Ill wife or not - he was still over the legal limit to drive and although a car rammed him - it could well have been the other way around with him causing an injury or perhaps worse.

I know what my decision would have been in such circumstances - but what I might think is the right decision is not necessarily what the law and another would see as the right decision.

Having said that, the magistrates do have the power to consider mitigating circumstances when considering the verdict and sentence so in the example case, they could well consider that all told the lorry driver was unfortunate and fine him rather than ban him. It does not however alter the fact that he broke the law and so the court should decide his punishment based in his circumstances. The thought that it could fall to the police doesn't bear thinking about as imagine the position they would be in

If you start to give get outs to a certain group or type of person, then you open the flood gates for everyone to claim special dispensation from being held accountable for their actions and potentially anarchy.

 

[Pietre]

The law is the same for every person in the land, and there is no statute to differentiate from one level of society to another, but, this only works when the judiciary bear this in mind and dont try to stretch certain points in law to allow for certain promonent members of society to get around certain points of law. If you take Mr Beckham, speeding away from the news reporters doing their job, instead of losing his licence like the rest of us, he gets a fine that isnt even the price of an evening meal to his income and no points, if that was me, i would get a ban. The law is the law and should be the same for all. It's like animal farm, "No one shall lay in a bed" amended to add "Except pigs", what starts as the one rule for all is amended for the peer group that has power and connections.

 

[glojo]

Having said that, the magistrates do have the power to consider mitigating circumstances when considering the verdict and sentence so in the example case, they could well consider that all told the lorry driver was unfortunate and fine him rather than ban him.

Your point is well put and I am only unsure of the one point. PLODD will no doubt be the expert, but I thought that the actual offence of drink driving carries a minimum 12 month ban?

The law is the same for every person in the land, and there is no statute to differentiate from one level of society to another,

Hi Pietre,
Certainly not sure on that point either. Diplomats come to mind with their Diplomatic Immunity (Libyian Embassy Siege)

The Head of State. She is 'The Crown' as in Crown Prosection and I do not think she can be prosecuted. No doubt there might be technical charges.

Our Ministers of State also have varying types of immunity.

Then we have that horrible can of worms, 'Not in The Public Interest' How I hate that decision, made usually by people who are completely detached from reality.

Regards,
John

 

[Pietre]

Does this mean that Huxley was correct in his portayal of life with Animal Farm? standards and punishment varies with the status of the person commiting the crime? This also is a double edged sword as when a person in public life commits an offence and is convicted, public opinion can force that person to leave their job or give up a position of power, which would not apply to Mr Average commiting the same offence. But everyone should be measured using the same yardstick and dealt with according to a structured penalty system. And one that was enforced correctly and not watered down by a do gooder telling me the lout who just keyed my car had a poor upbringing and should be sent on holiday to the Red Sea, and have a months probation, but if i speed on my bike by a few miles an hour i can get fined a fortune and possibly put in prison.

 

[PJH]

If you start to give get outs to a certain group or type of person, then you open the flood gates for everyone to claim special dispensation from being held accountable for their actions and potentially anarchy.

True, everybody can be a minority group with certain circumstances.
If you try to make the system more fair, people will argue for more exceptions.

 

[Guy]

In some countries the lorry driver in Glojo's example would lose his private licence, but not necessarily and automatically his professional or HGV licence.

Offences committed in his lorry would of course cost him that licence.

That seems to me to be a much more enlightened approach than we have in English law.

Unfortunately, the more the law strives for consistency and predictability in terms of sentence, the more likely it is to throw up an apparent injustice.

Glojo's lorry driver, with an exemplary professional record should surely not be deprived of his livelihood, perhaps even his home, by virtue of a mandatory sentence? Meanwhile in neighbouring courts, magistrates are encouraged to use prison only as a last resort for theft, minor frauds - anything other than serious repeat, violent or sexual offenders. The result is that thousands of pounds are spent on rehabilitating the thief via probation or community service, and the lorry driver is simply banned and sent home.

 

[glojo]

It is nice to read differing points of view without people digging their heels into one position or the other.

I would be interested to hear 'Gravs' point of view on the points that Guy has raised.

Good morning everyone,
John

 

[Plodd]

Your point is well put and I am only unsure of the one point. PLODD will no doubt be the expert, but I thought that the actual offence of drink driving carries a minimum 12 month ban?

Correct John.

I believe some of the Scandinavian countries have a policy where drink drivers are jailed, but only at the weekends. This leaves them free to continue with their employment and provide for their families but deprives them of free time as a punishment. Top idea imho.

 

[RichieRuss2000]

Like I said before... are you really sure you were driving? perhaps you had some relitives or a visitor over that may have been driving? when they forward the NIP to them they may no be sure if they were driving either... Even the cameras that take front on pictures are not very clear!