The Lemon Fool

I see he has been banned from driving for 6 months, and he is in the middle of organising the Coronation. Of course he deserves it. With 9 points on his licence he picks up his phone to speak to his wife whilst driving in central London and drives through a red light. I usually try to give such people the benefit of the doubt but what an idiot. Well done the magistrate who stood up to him because he was guilty of not one offence but two simultaneously. Should have had a longer ban. I hope there is no appeal process available.

Dod

Should have added that he claimed 'exceptional hardship' if he was banned but the magistrate said that she did not see 'exceptional hardship' (which would have allowed her not to ban him) but merely 'inconvenience' since he had the means to hire a driver as required. Good for her!

Dod

Yes, not much sympathy with car phone users. I also think hands-free should be banned, and for that matter touch screens.
All a ridiculous distraction.

V8

88V8 wrote:Yes, not much sympathy with car phone users. I also think hands-free should be banned, and for that matter touch screens.
All a ridiculous distraction.

V8

I think on balance that I agree with you re hands free phones although I use mine from time to time. Touch screens whilst driving is crazy, because at least with hands free it can be controlled from the steering wheel and we can soon know where the button is. At least that is my justification.

Dod

Duk of Norfolk is a local laird where I live. No love lost because his estate office has just imposed parking charges on a large parking area on the Downs above Arundel. This is a famous facility for everyone around to enjoy the many footpaths nearby - it has been in used for decades.
The charge itself is bad enough, but they have restricted the hours in which you can park so much that only a short walk is possible. I have often lead walking groups from there for about 8 miles and if one adds in the fact that people like to arrive early (if the come from a distance) and like a cuppa at the end at the Cafe, there is simply no way I could invite people to risk it - we are not young whippets!

Haven't been there since charges were imposed, and I feel sorry for the Cafe which must have lost a lot of business.


Arb.

Dod101 wrote:

88V8 wrote:Yes, not much sympathy with car phone users. I also think hands-free should be banned and for that matter touch screens.
All a ridiculous distraction.

I think on balance that I agree with you re hands free phones although I use mine from time to time. Touch screens whilst driving is crazy, because at least with hands free it can be controlled from the steering wheel and we can soon know where the button is.

My quibble with hands-free is that it's distracting to hold a conversation while one is driving.
At least when the passenger is in the car they can see when you need to concentrate and shut up, not so on the phone.

Mind you, it's not as dangerous as two women in a car, given that women need to look at each other to see what their counterpart really means....

V8

88V8 wrote:

Dod101 wrote: I think on balance that I agree with you re hands free phones although I use mine from time to time. Touch screens whilst driving is crazy, because at least with hands free it can be controlled from the steering wheel and we can soon know where the button is.

My quibble with hands-free is that it's distracting to hold a conversation while one is driving.
At least when the passenger is in the car they can see when you need to concentrate and shut up, not so on the phone.

Mind you, it's not as dangerous as two women in a car, given that women need to look at each other to see what their counterpart really means....

V8

Ooh: naughty, naughty.

88V8 wrote:

Dod101 wrote: Mind you, it's not as dangerous as two women in a car, given that women need to look at each other to see what their counterpart really means....

V8

I know a man like that!

I read in the i newspaper today that the Duke of Norfolk is a descendent of Elizabeth 1. Is there something the history books do not tell us about, perhaps she was not a Virgin Queen after all

malkymoo wrote:I read in the i newspaper today that the Duke of Norfolk is a descendent of Elizabeth 1. Is there something the history books do not tell us about, perhaps she was not a Virgin Queen after all

He's a descendant not of Liz1 but of her grandmother, the 4th Duke was Liz' second cousin. Perhaps you ought to get your history from the history books rather than newspapers?

He was unsuccessful in his plea of exceptional hardship ie he needed his license to organise the coronation.
Thing is, 'exceptional hardship' means just that - not mere inconvenience.
The exception is usually pleaded by the likes of taxi drivers, self employed builders- people who really need their license in the absence of which they are unable to work meaning no money coming in meaning cant pay mortgage meaning home at risk etc- the kind of punishment that Parliament did not intend when introducing the 'totting up[ procedure.

He didn't have much of a chance and I'm surprised he tried it on.
He's the duke of Norfolk and immensely rich and influential and the inference being if he really does need to drive, he can afford a driver to take him where he needs to go.
Coronation wont be for a year anyway.

I can't believe he didn't claim he'd been enchanted!

Beerpig wrote: The exception is usually pleaded by the likes of taxi drivers, self employed builders- people who really need their license in the absence of which they are unable to work meaning no money coming in meaning cant pay mortgage meaning home at risk etc- the kind of punishment that Parliament did not intend when introducing the 'totting up[ procedure.

Seems like a loophole that probably does more harm (when successfully invoked) than good.

It was in the ballpark of the turn of the century that a woman successfully pleaded exceptional hardship 'cos she had to take Junior to school: walking would be too dangerous 'cos of the traffic. The offence for which she was in court was killing one of those sprogs by careless driving in her Chelsea Tractor.

Beerpig wrote:Thing is, 'exceptional hardship' means just that - not mere inconvenience.
The exception is usually pleaded by the likes of taxi drivers, self employed builders- people who really need their license in the absence of which they are unable to work meaning no money coming in meaning cant pay mortgage meaning home at risk etc- the kind of punishment that Parliament did not intend when introducing the 'totting up[ procedure.

I would question how someone who needed to have a driving licence to earn a living had accumulated 12 points and was pleading ‘exceptional hardship’.

If they had just picked up 12 points in a short period before they had received the notifications then I might consider their request reasonable since they hadn’t had an opportunity to modify their behaviour.

But if they had been picked up over a period of time and someone had still managed to reach 9 points and yet had still been driving like an idiot (just like the Duke of Norfolk driving through a red light whilst on the phone) and was still pleading to keep their licence, then personally I would double the penalty that would have otherwise applied because they are obviously too stupid to be allowed to drive.

And if that means they can’t earn a living, well perhaps they should have reflected on that each time they were awarded the points before.