www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004...m
Or:
The Duke of Gloucester, the Queen's cousin and president of the Institute of Advanced Motorists, was yesterday banned from driving for six months. The speeding conviction for the 60-year-old duke, who was caught on a speed camera doing 70mph in his Ford in a 60mph limit, meant that three penalty points were added to his licence, bringing the total to 12. It is his fourth speeding offence in three years.
The conviction has resulted in an automatic ban for the duke and his automatic disqualification from membership of the institute. However, the organisation said that for the moment he would remain its president.
The duke, appearing before magistrates in Ely, Cambs, spoke only to confirm his name and his Kensington Palace address, adding as he admitted the offence: "I do not recall the event, so I do not really remember the circumstances."
The duke, the grandson of King George V, was also fined £60 and ordered to pay £35 costs. He was caught on Aug 11 as he drove along the A47 near Peterborough.
Flynn Jennings, prosecuting, said the duke already had nine points on his licence for three other speeding offences.
Alan Williams, the chairman of the bench, told the duke: "We are going to treat this the way we would treat a normal fixed penalty. We will be fining you £60 with £35 costs and three points on your licence. That means you are disqualified for a period of six months. Can you pay the fine today?"
After the duke had said he could, Mr Williams added: "If you are caught driving during that six-month period, that could lead to a custodial sentence but I'm sure that will not apply in this instance."
The duke, who is 18th in line to the throne, had been due to appear in court last week but the hearing was postponed because he had to attend the memorial service for Princess Alice, his mother, who died in October aged 102.
His future as president of the Institute of Advanced Motorists will be decided when its ruling council meets. Under the institute's rules, he is automatically expelled as a member after receiving a driving ban and could only be readmitted after the ban has expired and if he completes an advanced driving test.
Vince Yearley, the spokesman for the IAM, said: "Today's verdict does not change the fact that His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester has been an effective and enthusiastic president of the IAM for more than 30 years.
"With his support, in that time, the IAM has grown in both membership and influence to become the foremost advanced driving organisation in the UK contributing to road safety.
"Membership rules of the IAM however will be applied without exception and as a result the duke will have his current membership removed."
|
Tut,tut.
But I fail to see what spurious journalistic trivia like being grandson to George V or 18th in line to the throne has anything to do with anything. In the unlikely event he ever got to be King he wouldn't need to drive anyway.
|
|
Very sad - a Duke having to drive a Ford... :-)
|
Very sad - a Duke having to drive a Ford... :-)
But probably only while his chauffeur was busy valeting his Rollers, Bentleys, Jaguars etc. etc.!
--
L\'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
>>>>>But probably only while his chauffeur was busy valeting his Rollers, Bentleys, Jaguars etc. etc.!
Maybe he should have said it was his chauffeur driving.
But surely a Jaguar is only a souped up Ford anyway.....
However it's pleasing to see the law is enforced (in this case anyway) against the landed gentry as well as the peasantry.
|
|
|
|
After the duke had said he could, Mr Williams added: "If you are caught driving during that six-month period, that could lead to a custodial sentence but I'm sure that will not apply in this instance."
Interesting that the Duke was told he could be imprisoned if caught driving whilst disqualified. I've not seen anyone given a custodial sentence in the reports in our local paper. In fact only this week a nineteen year old boy was fined £50 with £50 costs for riding a bike on the footpath without lights, and other villains were given conditional discharges and fined £150 for driving without insurance.
|
IIRC The Duke is an architect and does not receive any money from the HM The Queen or Civil list. I think he is a lot more modest than the BR thinks and well done to him from not trying to argue that he needs his car for his business. Do you think David Beckham really needs his driving licence or Alex Ferguson. On the wages they earn, I would happily be their chauffeur for 1% of their earnings.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
|
|
The conviction has resulted in an automatic ban for the duke and his automatic disqualification from membership of the institute. However, the organisation said that for the moment he would remain its president.
I'm personally shocked they're letting him stay on as president, even for a short while. He's in the highest rank of the IAM, meaning he should set an example to all its members, yet he can't even spot a speed trap.
|
|
Gracious! Next thing, they will be convicting politicians or their drivers for driving infringements.
|
Do I detect a smattering of class warfare...?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
He shouldn't "be able to spot a speed trap"; he shouldn't have been breaking the speed limit in the first place.
|
Maybe so but the offence was 70mph in a 60mph zone,if you were driving at 60mph and came up behind somebody doing 50mph I suggest that to overtake safely ie in the shortest possible exposure time you would easily briefly exceed the limit,I suggest that a proper traffic patrol rather than a camera would not have resulted in prosecution.
ndbw
|
if you were driving at 60mph and came up behind somebody doing 50mph I suggest that to overtake safely ie in the shortest possible exposure time you would easily briefly exceed the limit.
Especially when the lovely person you are overtaking decides to speed up to/beyond the speedlimit themselves, and thus try and kill you.
|
|
The IAM are advocators of safer driving. There is no indication that the Dukes driving was anything other than safe, IMHO.
|
At the risk of this thread being relocated to the "Speeding, not includingcameras" thread, this is just another consequence of automatically equating exceeding a speed limit as dangerous, regardless of the circumstances.
Personally, I would like to see the offence of exceeding a speed limit replaced by a charge of dangerous driving.
If speeding is dangerous it should be prosecuted as such.
However, I bet the CPS wouldn't make 3 million dangerous driving charges per year stick quite so easily.
|
|
|
What astonished me was that he had numerous previous speeding fines on his licence. Whether or not he was a safe driver, the IAM require that a driver adheres to speed limits in order to pass the IAM test. So isn't having a President who breaks speed limts complete hypocrisy? If you thnk speed limits are daft, then say so, or vica versa, but don't say one thing, and practice another. Seems to me that it makes the organisation look a wee bit silly.
Anyway, he has resigned, or has been pushed, so he is no longer the President.
I'm not sure the RSPB would have as president someone with convictons for cruelty to animals?
|
"I'm not sure the RSPB would have as president someone with convictons for cruelty to animals?"
No, but I bet he's run over a pheasant or two without it being habitual or deliberate
|
|
|
the IAM require that a driver adheres to speed limits in order to pass the IAM test.
The IAM also requires that drivers have continual observation of what's ahead. This (unofficially) includes speed camera signs, yellow GATSOs, vans with windows missing, men in green vests holding speed guns, etc. And what's the betting that all these speeding offenses happened on the same stretch of road?
|
>> the IAM require that a driver adheres to speed limits in >> order to pass the IAM test. The IAM also requires that drivers have continual observation of what's ahead. This (unofficially) includes speed camera signs, yellow GATSOs, vans with windows missing, men in green vests holding speed guns, etc. And what's the betting that all these speeding offenses happened on the same stretch of road?
Nail, Head, hit.
|
|
|
|
Whether or not he was a safe driver,the IAM require that a driver adheres to speed limits in order to pass the IAM test.
Not strictly, you can break the speed limit to prevent an accident. I did. Slowing from 70 to 30 with an idi*t behind me meant I crossed the 30 sign at 45 but slowed in a controlled manner to reduce the chance of being rear-ended.
That and a few mph over 60 while overtaking on country lane.
|
SeeFive's point is quite an important one. The technology exists for big brother to control the maximum speed of vehicles to any prevailing limit using GPS and cruise control. But that would be incredibly dangerous because it takes control away from the driver. It is usually safer to accelerate out of danger than to brake into it, so if the ability to accelerate over a limit is taken away then crashes and deaths are bound to rise.
HJ
|
yep a well trained balanced person with experience and knowledge is always going to be a better judge of best speed to travel than an arbitary limit imposed politically by anti-car nutters endorsed by the very same road engineers designing the worst accident black spots, and pandering to the anti-car nutters to keep their slice of the road engineering pie, with NO advanced driver or high milage driver input, enforced in an arbitary way to generate cash by cameras
why dont they do a few ministers for sitting in the back of their limos with no seatbelt, as they often do, or H for having a go at the photographer ? not in the public interest?
unfair laws imposed unfairly will back fire eventually
|
|
|
>>>>It is usually safer to accelerate out of danger than to brake into it.
Yup. One reason I frequently feel safer on my bike than in a cage. A point largely uncomprehended by the anti-bike brigade.
|
|
Given that most drivers will exceed speed limits on many occasions, he has either been extremely unlucky to pick up so many points for speeding, or he is a driver who exceeds speed limits by more than the norm. In addition, as all speedometers will register a higher speed than the actual speed of the car, he should have been aware that he was well above the speed limit.
|
probably he simply does more miles than most, and is a victim of the crazy way minor speeding while driving safely is targetted to the exclusion of very dangerous driving
he isnt the only safe driver to be banned in this way, which is why the crazy anti car brigade in positions of power are loosing totally the hearts and minds battle with those out there keeping the country running
|
Don't think we're being targetted, just that speed camera's literally take a snapshot of your driving, whilst a traffic copy can view the wider picture.
|
|
|
|
It is usually safer to accelerate out of danger than to brake into it.......
Based on what statistical evidence?
|
ha ha spent a lot of time with a stats professor lately, dont think stats will provide the answers you need
|
was shocked to see this quoted, is this correct?
5,000 people die each year from infections picked up in hospital - more than
the number of people killed each year on Britain?s roads.
puts the speed camera debate in context eh, they should put cameras on the cleaners in the hospitals would probably save more lives
|
|
|
|
So we should all take corners in 5th with no power should anything happen? Of course not. We need tip top brakes, but I'd also like to be able to boot it should I need to for any hazard that may occur.
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
deaths are bound to rise.
Which they are already doing. But by cunningly tightening the definition of a "serious injury", and making the target the total of deaths and serious injuries, HMG is magically able to say that the roads are safer! Ta Dah!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
