Life without a car?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SFTPhotography

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Suspended / Banned
Messages
20,926
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
"A friend" has been charged with section 2 dangerous driving for going an alledged nearly 140mph down a quiet, well fenced and well sighted section of the M74 a couple of weeks ago.

He has appointed a road traffic solicitor as he would like the best represtation he possibly can get and outcome. He is very concerned about his ability to maintain his landscape photography hobby without the ability to drive and likes going up places like Rannoch Moor etc and needs a car.

What advice can you give him with regards to getting good landscape images without driving?
 
Nothing much can be done apart from making new friends with sand interests and tag along.

Failing that it will have to be bike/bus or other modes of transport
 
I suppose "he" could explore urban photography more and try work on that. He works in Glasgow and can pack a camera and use tube/trains etc

Has anyone here had such a charge brought against them and whats the DSA extended test like?

The driver of the car deeply regrets being involved in such a thing
 
Last edited:
You cant, simple as that. buses don`t go far enough and take an age, its a nightmare navigating the railways, and any distance over 70 miles is usually a 2 day job if you want to spend quality time at your destination. Unless he lives in the heart of the lake district or dales!
 
Naw, he lives in the city. He likes getting golden hour morning shots and trains etc don't run at the times he can get there.

Is it worth him rekindling an old friendship to get driven about?. Me thinks hes screwed
 
Ban may only be a couple of months. He should just suck it up and do without taking photos. Might watch his speed a little more carefully!

Only way to avoid a ban is if you can prove serious hardship or someone else would suffer eg dependent parents or sick children. Moaning about a hobby is likely to get it extended :)
 
not to be harsh but he probably should have thought of that before driving like a knob - well fenced and sighted or not there is never an excuse for driving twice the national speed limit , what if he'd had a blow out for example ?

Does 'he' genuinely regret doing it, or only regrets getting caught ?

his options now are lifts, public transport , or bike/foot - an excursion into rannoch moor by train and then by foot is perfectly feasible , yes trains are expensive, but think of all the cash he'll save on petrol, insurance, running costs etc
 
Last edited:
How long is the ban likely to be?

He wil just have to live with the difficulties he has caused himself and perhaps rethink what he takes pictures of until he gets his licence back.

Depends what the "old friend" will get out of it!


Heather
 
Offence took place in Scotland, but the ban if convicted will be at least a year?

He does genuinely regret doing what he did, but he doesn't feel he was going that fast and if he was, is horrified he did that.
 
are we talking about you here ?
 
A friend of mine got a 3 month ban for 105mph on the M4.

I went along for the case.

His charge was speeding not dangerous driving. Essentially his speed was more than 30mph above the speed limit for the road so no ticket but a definite court appearance.

Dangerous driving within the Road Traffic Act is seen as wholly different matter. Not sure how this is handled in Scotland but probably no different from England and Wales.

This link help to bracket the punishment choices

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dangerous_driving/

If the 2 years imprisonment on the list was imposed then the matter of his landscape photography hobby is a total irrelevence.

The driving ban lists as a MINIMUM 12 month ban.

So I would think he should not worry about anything apart from getting the expert solicitor to negotiate the least punishment and failing that he should practice communal showering without letting go of the bar of soap.

I think leniency may be at a premium at 140mph captured on calibrated equipment.

Steve
 
lol come on you can tell your going fasssssssssst at that speed was it the avg speed cams that got him? there working on the m74 have been for a good few months now id say hes looking at 1-2 years ban and a large fine and pos a test re sit , is he on here? what was he driving its got to be a bike or a m3/m5 or some sort of st or cos
 
Last edited:
The minimum disqualification period for S2 Dangerous Driving is 12 months. If he has any previous bans during the last 3 years for 56 days or more he could find himself banned for at least 2 years. The offence carries up to 6 months imprisonment in the Magistrates Court and up to 2 years imprisonment at Crown Court. Avoiding a ban on grounds of exceptional hardship will be very difficult to achieve in a case like this. He needs to get a good lawyer who is very experienced in defending such matters. His best chance of getting off is if the authorities slip up (which does happen)!
 
A diesel estate car is the car of choice car. Many cars these days can do 140mph. An Insigina will do it.

He was caught by a concealed policeman behind a gantry and a front facing laser gun. He saw in the mirror the hidden traffic car and stopped for the police when he saw the car light up. He has no previous bans and a 3yr old plus SP50
 
hoochy1 said:
lol come on you can tell your going fasssssssssst at that speed was it the avg speed cams that got him? there working on the m74 have been for a good few months now id say hes looking at 1-2 years ban and a large fine and pos a test re sit , is he on here? what was he driving its got to be a bike or a m3/m5 or some sort of st or cos
Click to expand...

:LOL:
 
http://cars.aol.co.uk/2012/08/08/five-speeders-caught-at-over-140-mph/

Tell your "friend" that if he gets banged up not to take his camera into the clink. It'll get nicked.
Seriously, I cannot imagine there not being a very large fine as part of the sentence. Think I would drop the "well fenced", well sighted, quiet road" mullarkey. With an offence like that there are no mitigating factors and no justification. Large dollops of humble pie are on the court menu.
 
Got caught here in Guernsey doing twice the limit and a little bit, ok speed limit is 35 got caught doing 87 on a bike.
totally regret it and learned a hard lesson that £500 out of my pocket and cycleing in all weathers too and from work, collage, pub etc for one year is not fun.

oh and by the way no matter what your friend says when you are doing 140mph you KNOW you are doing that speed, many cars even vans can do it yes but you do KNOW so no excuse
 
ST4 said:
Thats not important
Click to expand...

so thats a yes then

ST4 said:
A diesel estate car is the car of choice car. Many cars these days can do 140mph. An Insigina will do it.
Click to expand...

140 is within the capability of most cars, ive had my 05 plate focus TDCI up to 135 mph (on a track), but that doesn't mean its sensible to do it on a public road.

and i'd leave the " I didnt realise how fast i was going" argument out of court if I were you - thats a clear admission of not driving with due care, I mean how can you not notice that your spedo is reading 140mph , its not like inadvertenly goinig up to 80, Unless the speedo is bust of course (but in that case the car isnt roadworthy so thats not a defence either)
 
arclight said:
http://cars.aol.co.uk/2012/08/08/five-speeders-caught-at-over-140-mph/

Think I would drop the "well fenced", well sighted, quiet road" mullarkey. With an offence like that there are no mitigating factors and no justification. Large dollops of humble pie are on the court menu.
Click to expand...

Yes, but an aggrivating factors would be

1. Poor sighted - so you cannot see hazards approaching
2. Lots of traffic-increasing the risk to other people
3. Weaving in and out of lanes-increasing the increases of a collision, loss of control and increased danger to road users
4. Not co-operating for the police.
5. Badly fenced with no barriers-animals can therefore enter and increase the odds of an RTA
6. Under the influence of alcohol

Anyone of those probably would lead to the custodial aspect of sentencing?
 
Is 'but I was only driving ridiculously fast, I did take care not to do it in a badly fenced area' really a viable defence?
Your 'friend' needs to suck it up. Reigniting friendships because 'he' now wants lifts places is pretty cold too, is it not?
 
Headless Lois said:
Is 'but I was only driving ridiculously fast, I did take care not to do it in a badly fenced area' really a viable defence?
Click to expand...

No, but its not as dangerous as doing something like this elsewhere and its how you impress that on the judge that yes it was stupid for my friend to do this, but it wasn't suicidally stupid.

Its the extent of it that could vary the sentence or indeed the charge may be changed?

Who here actually has been in this position?
 
ST4 said:
Yes, but an aggrivating factors would be

1. Poor sighted - so you cannot see hazards approaching
2. Lots of traffic-increasing the risk to other people
3. Weaving in and out of lanes-increasing the increases of a collision, loss of control and increased danger to road users
4. Not co-operating for the police.
5. Badly fenced with no barriers-animals can therefore enter and increase the odds of an RTA
6. Under the influence of alcohol

Anyone of those probably would lead to the custodial aspect of sentencing?
Click to expand...

True - your solicitor can lead the absence of those as mitigating circumstances, but its important that you arent seen to be making excuses - tbh at 140 mph you don't have clear visibility of whether an area is well fenced, or of approaching hazards such as fog patches, smoke etc anyway.
 
The locus gives you over 1mi clear visibility and at least, the driver knows the area and road well. But he accepts such a speed is a nonsense and will take a lot more care on the roads, even if acquitted of such a charge
 
It seems like he's fishing round for excuses, which won't work when he has been clocked at twice the speed limit. Clear roads, little traffic, good weather, relatively clean driving history - yeah thats nice, the driver still got caught at 140mph. His best bet is to get a good solicitor who can negotiate the sentence down.

At the end of the day, when you've been caught speeding well in excess of the speed limit, the courts won't look favourably on any excuse unless you had some one dying in the passenger seat, this is not the same as being caught at just over the limit where excuses may work. There is no way you can do 140mph without noticing, I find tunnel vision starts setting in at that speed. The driver knew there was a chance to be caught, there was a chance of a ban, fine and imprisonment when he decided to put his foot on the throttle. I think it's time for the driver to man up, admit the fact he did wrong and got caught and just deal with what ever punishment is dealt out.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
The locus gives you over 1mi clear visibility and at least, the driver knows the area and road well. But he accepts such a speed is a nonsense and will take a lot more care on the roads, even if acquitted of such a charge
Click to expand...

If 'he' says that he'll be perceived as making excuses , can he be sure that nothing has changed since his last visit - that theres no holes in the stock fencing, that theres not a broken down vehicle showing no lights , or a pot hole, or debris in the road

can he guarantee that another road user won't stop suddenly (closing at 140mph you won't have time to stop safely even if you see the hazard) etc


'he' needs to accept that he isnt going to be acquited , because by your admission he is indeed guilty of driving like an absolute prannock - in my opinion 'he'd' be better off pleading guilty rather than wasting everyones time by making them prove what is self evident.

To be honest he isnt going to avoid a ban either , unless he can demonstrate extreme hardship

I havent been precisely in this position , but years back I was stopped doing 120 mph on the A50 - fortunately I had a "good" reason, ie that I had a colleague with me coughing up blood, and we hadn't been able to get an ambulance - these mitigating circs let to no charges being pressed, but i still got a substantial *******sing about endangering myself and others by driving faster than was safe for my tyres/brakes etc
 
Last edited:
At 140 you are taking a gamble
He Lost............
He will now pay for that stupidity.

With any luck he will learn from it.

Can't do much Landscape photography in Prison.... so it could have been worse.
 
faddius said:
It seems like he's fishing round for excuses, which won't work when he has been clocked at twice the speed limit. Clear roads, little traffic, good weather, relatively clean driving history - yeah thats nice, the driver still got caught at 140mph. His best bet is to get a good solicitor who can negotiate the sentence down.

At the end of the day, when you've been caught speeding well in excess of the speed limit, the courts won't look favourably on any excuse unless you had some one dying in the passenger seat, this is not the same as being caught at just over the limit where excuses may work. There is no way you can do 140mph without noticing, I find tunnel vision starts setting in at that speed. The driver knew there was a chance to be caught, there was a chance of a ban, fine and imprisonment when he decided to put his foot on the throttle. I think it's time for the driver to man up, admit the fact he did wrong and got caught and just deal with what ever punishment is dealt out.
Click to expand...

Yes, a statement to the court that the driver, was stupid, irresponsible and reckless and can offer no possible justification for his behaviour. A full admittance of being wrong (with no buts or qualification) and will accept whatever punishment that the court deems fit.
Even saying he regrets his action will come over as regretting having been caught.
 
big soft moose said:
140 is within the capability of most cars, ive had my 05 plate focus TDCI up to 135 mph (on a track), but that doesn't mean its sensible to do it on a public road.
Click to expand...

What track has a long enough straight to get a Focus TDCi up to 135mph?:thinking:
 
if the laser was passed that week you have had it id get your lawyer to get that proven if so i would plead guilty and hope the judge is not to hard on you/him there is a traffic lawyer on the high street just up from the barras in glasgow i hear there dam good,best of luck
 
Not being funny here but why is the person so concerned that he won't be able to fulfil his landscape photography hobby... that would be the least of my worries- how I would get to work would be my main concern, not what I'm going to do with my days off now I can't get to all those lovely landscape destinations.

FWIW they shouldn't have been driving at 140mph, straight quiet road or not, just got to suck it and see but you should be banned- the what ifs of what could have happened had it not gone to plan are not even worth thinking about.
 
ST4 said:
Naw, he lives in the city. He likes getting golden hour morning shots and trains etc don't run at the times he can get there.
Click to expand...

He could buy a tent and a rucksack from Go Outdoors or similar shop, camp the night before and he will be able to sunset shots too

ST4 said:
He was caught by a concealed policeman behind a gantry and a front facing laser gun. He saw in the mirror the hidden traffic car and stopped for the police when he saw the car light up. He has no previous bans and a 3yr old plus SP50
Click to expand...

Find it hard to believe a policeman hiding behind a gantry on the M74 and he couldn't see him ahead.
 
you sorry "he" will need to suck it up and use public transport.

following a broken car ive been using the train for a year now. i have to get up early and i get into work way before i need too with no choice due to times. i also get home late because my train home doesnt go all the way and i either walk or change stations.

man up and take it on the chin :D
 
hoochy1 said:
if the laser was passed that week you have had it id get your lawyer to get that proven if so i would plead guilty and hope the judge is not to hard on you/him there is a traffic lawyer on the high street just up from the barras in glasgow i hear there dam good,best of luck
Click to expand...

Whilst I understand the need for calibration etc and there are rules regs and loopholes even if not cal that week then surely would only be a couple of mph out... not like he was doing 87mph...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top