Habitual offenders keep offending until forcibly stopped.

Grenfell doesn't seem to come into. I can see why he was let off. It wasn't about hardship he'd suffer rather hardship others would suffer....

Does that mean I can drive like an ijiot and ignore all traffic law as I'm registered carer for SWMBO who would suffer extreme hardship if I was banned.

Possibly, yes.

A friend of mine, with 9 points, was clocked at 51 in a 30 - I was with him, I knew he was not deliberately speeding and had missed the sign which I told him about immediately. However there was a mobile camera clocking vehicles as they passed the sign.

He pleaded hardship on behalf of his 102 year old mother, over an hour's drive away, whom he visits twice a week.

He probably the best driver I know. It's all very well to say 6 points is careless etc, but sometimes it just happens however careful you are, with frequently changing limits, poor signage (this particular one was only visible from short range owing to overhanging trees), and the frequent poor provision of repeaters on roads with street lighting and A roads without.

I have picked up more points while trying not break any limits than I ever did when I drove at the highest 'safe' speed I could get away with, scanning for police cars and cameras. Not sure what that proves...

I was being slightly mischievous when I said I wouldn't ban anybody *just* for doing 116mph, although it's true. However In most circumstances it would be dangerous on UK roads, if only because it is liklel to be at least 40mph faster than any other traffic nearby. And the A55 is not one of my favourites either, up and down, bends, short slip roads, a signifcant minority of users who insist on speeding whatever the conditions.

Edited by Manatee on 12/01/2018 at 16:27

A rather long-winded response because there's lots of muddled thinking and mis-information here which I hope to correct. For example:

It has got silly - the exceptional circumstances were originally required to relate to the offence, not the offender.

This driver’s plea was nothing to do with “exceptional circumstances” (or more properly "Special Reasons", which must indeed relate to the offence not the offender). This was a plea of “exceptional hardship” which is totally different (see below).

It seems to me that refusing to ban anyone for doing 116 mph goes against the guidelines.

No it doesn't. Again, see below.

He'd obviously hired one of the many 'Mr Loophole' lawyers to get away with it:

No he didn’t. He hired a local solicitor. Many people represent themselves when making an exceptional hardship argument and there are some schools of thought that believe this is a better approach.

I saw the figures some time ago about the number of people who should have been banned but had been let off for exeptional harsdship. It surprised me at how many there were.

See below.

So to the crux of the matter. The guideline penalty for a speeds of 101mph or more is either a ban of between 7 and 56 days or six penalty points. However, Magistrates have guidance which suggests that where they are faced with such a sentencing choice, if the penalty points take the driver to twelve or more then they should impose points and subject the driver to a “totting up” ban.

This is exactly what happened to Mr Hickling. He was given six points, taking him to twelve. However he then went on to argue that “exceptional hardship” would be visited upon him and/or others if he was disqualified and the court accepted his argument, allowing him to keep his licence. Interestingly had he been banned for the single offence (and it is doubtful that he would have been banned for as long as 56 days) he would not have had the opportunity to make his hardship plea. That is only available for “totting up” bans. The Magistrates accepted his argument (which they do in about 25% of such cases).

To argue that they should have banned him instead of imposing points (because he might succeed with an EH plea) is procedurally flawed. The Magistrates have to sentence him first (in accordance with their guidance) and then hear his plea. To consider it otherwise would be perverse because (a) they don’t know if the defendant will make an EH argument and (b) they do not know, if he does, whether he will be successful. Whilst 116mph is serious speeding, the nature of the individual offences which lead to the totting up ban are not a consideration when deciding on an EH plea. Mr Hickling was treated no differently to thousands of other motorists and I have known far weaker EH arguments succeed.

Defence lawyers will be busy picking their way through the case so that they can keep other speed freaks on our roads

No they won’t because they have no need. Every EH plea is judged on its own merits and decisions made in Magistrates’ Courts do not set precedents. In any case lawyers are well versed in the makings of an EH argument that is likely to succeed.

Finally, for what it’s worth, I am of the belief that there should be no opportunity to argue exceptional hardship. To get a totting ban a driver has to commit at least two and more usually four offences within three years. He has ample opportunity to modify his driving to keep within the law. People suffering mandatory bans for a single offence (such as excess alcohol or dangerous driving) or discretionary bans (such as speeding) have no such argument open to them and they have no opportunity to modify their behaviour. But the law is as it is, not as we’d like it to be. Responses to this question seem to suggest that Mr Hickling had received preferential treatment. He didn’t.

Edited by Middleman on 12/01/2018 at 22:04

Aye, thanks for the correction, Middleman.

I humbly beg your pardon for my uninformed waffling, Yer 'Onor. ;0)

The individual speeding offences have all been punished separately. Smug people who trot out the "just don't speed" thing seem to be suggesting that people do it deliberately. Maybe some do, but IMO most don't. There is a large random element to straying over the limit and being caught and I defy anybody to say that have never inadvertently exceeded a limit and then corrected their speed when they realise.

A totting option is undoubtedly necessary to deter those people who would deliberately flout the law and treat fines as a fee for do so. That is not the majority IMO who are banned under totting up. A totting ban should be the exception, not the rule.

Before suggesting that, consider this: enforcement of speed limits does not begin until the recorded speed is (Limit + 10% + 2mph). So 79mph in a 70mph limit. That is quite a bit of built in tolerance for those who "inadvertantly stray over the limit" from time to time. But most people know this and so treat 78mph as a revised "limit". That is very often their downfall. Straying a little over 70mph would not cause them any problems; straying a little over 78mph would.

But leaving that aside, how would a court distinguish between a driver caught doing 80mph on a motorway who had inadvertantly exceeded the limit - plus the allowance - (for the fourth time) and so does not deserve to be banned and one who habitually travels at 80mph as a minimum (as many do)? Of course it would be impossible. A driver who accidentally and occasionally strays above the limit will have three "warnings" (In fact four in England & Wales as one offence would attract the offer of a Speed Awareness Course with no points) to watch out. Part of being a competent driver is managing your driving so as to keep within the speed limit. If you are genuinely trying to stay within the law but are caught failing to do so five times in three years, six months off the road may give you time to think about whether you should take some further tuition.

Edited by Middleman on 13/01/2018 at 12:42

Leaving aside the question of whether the penalty in this case was fair or appropriate, there can be very few drivers who are unaware of the possible consequences of being caught speeding - especially by a large amount. I think it must be unlikely that this offence was other than intentional, expecting not to be caught. Rather than pleading for special treatment to prevent 'exceptional hardship', might the magistrates have been persuaded by evidence to suggest that doing well over 100mph was unavoidably necessary in the circumstances?

The tolerance isn't always relevant…

Why not? It’s always allowed and I would say it is very relevant because it allows for the very transgressions you suggest should be permitted as “inadvertent”.

But fair it isn't.

No it certainly isn’t. It allows a driver who has committed up to four offences, exceeding the speed limit by a considerable margin, to remain on the road alongside drivers who have managed to avoid such transgressions..

When issues such as variable limits, inadequate signage and so on are raised the evidence usually points to a driver failing to pay attention rather than any such inadequacies. Driving is a complex business that requires considerable concentration.

I think we will simply have to agree to differ on this one :-)

Edited by Middleman on 13/01/2018 at 17:29

No driver has to accept a Fixed Penalty so it's bluntness is not relevant.

I think most people's belief is that it will cost them considerably more, regardless, not to accept the fixed penalty so the option is irrelevant.

No one has mentioned the availability of insurance which will pay out for taxi/chauffeur expenses if driving is such an important part of your job and you are banned for some time. About 40yrs ago when my driving behaviour was more, er, cavalier, I had such insurance for a while. So arguing 'exceptional hardship' should carry no weight at all.

IIRC the offering of such insurance was outlawed several years ago, at least so far as drink driving is concerned.

Bromp's story illustrates a significant problem over speed limits.

Many drivers seem hardly to accept the reality of speed limits - that they are there and are increasingly frequently enforced, so that they are surprised and even upset if they're caught. A cavalier attitude, if you like.

And there's also a mind-set amongst some to the effect that speed limits are inherently unfair - an infringement of personal liberty, perhaps - and, if they think they won't be caught, they're free to drive as fast as they like. In other words, they have no sense of morality about it - no belief that speeding might actually be wrong.

I can just about forgive someone not realising they're in a speed limit if the road is unfamiliar (though it's always pretty clear if they have any powers of observation - built-up area, street lighting etc.), or not realising the limit had changed (e.g. 40 to 30), but I've no sympathy for those who disregard or at best reluctantly accept the need to keep to the limit, whatever it is.

We used to have much the same problems with attitudes towards drink-driving; then it changed. I'm not sure I see much of the same shift with regard to speeding.

Edited by FP on 14/01/2018 at 13:00

"It's not a question of morality, it's the frustration that some of our limits are unnecessary, and the knowledge that other countries do it better. 60mph in the pouring rain on a dark night on the crowded curvy M1 round Luton is fine, but a mere 70 in broad daylight on long quiet country stretches of our motorway system between junctions is absurdly restrictive. It's high time we had a more intelligent flexible system."

I have a great deal of respect for John F, but I'm afraid this response illustrates the problem I was attempting to explain.

The 60 mph limit past Luton is imposed a lot of the time, not just in the dark and when it's raining. Inside information tells me the reasons are several: it reduces traffic noise close to residential areas; it reduces pollution levels close to Luton and Dunstable Hospital. I mention this to show that the motorist's perception of why speed limits are imposed may be wrong.

It has been decided that the upper limit on motorways and dual carriageways (oh yes - a lot of drivers don't know this) is 70. The main reason for its introduction in 1969 was safety; since then other speed limits were introduced, for example, during the oil crisis of 1973, to save fuel. Clearly, speed limits have at least some relevance to safety and pollution - and to noise.

We can argue endlessly about what the maximum should be, citing improvements in car design, road surface and so on. I would say the present situation is a reasonable compromise between the various factors. I don't see 70 mph even on a quiet motorway as being "absurdly restrictive" - sorry, I just don't. And I know that, just as my car's economy drops off the faster I go, so does the amount of pollution it chucks out.

Edited by FP on 14/01/2018 at 14:33

But he still thinks it's all grossly unfair.

I'm sure he does:

He cheerfully admits he'd had his cruise set to 95 along the A38 and onto the M5.

For a professional driver, sitting on six points, to have his cruise control set on 95mph (whether he believes the cameras were operational or not), I’m afraid the man is foolish in the extreme (I originally put it stronger than that, but my description was censored!)

Edited by Middleman on 14/01/2018 at 13:00

"Speeding fines are simply a tax on stupidity."

I don't think anyone can really argue with that, as long as the definition of stupidity includes the certainty of not being found out .... :-)