18 year old DVLA Licence Revocation

[cts1975]

My 18 year step son has been caught by a mobile camera doing 62mph in a 40mph. It looks like it will be 6 points and a licence revocation as he is within 2 years of passing his test.
My understanding is that the revocation is automated and that he will have to appeal this in order to go to court. I've been told that driving convictions means that he wont have access to the duty solicitor on the court day.
I'm really looking for the cheapest way possible of having him represented in court to have his mitigations put across to the judge.
Any advice appreciated.

 

[andygambles]

How is he mitigating doing 62mph in a 40mph zone?

 

[bovine]

Unless he has some really good reasons for doing that speed, I probably wouldnt bother. Chances are it would make no difference and just end up losing you the money.

 

[tony84]

Did he have legal cover on the policy?

 

[IanG]

Cheap and defending an 18yo doing 60 in a 40 don't seem to go together.

 

[cts1975]

Sorry I haven't been that clear. I've no intention of defending the 62mph in a 40mph.
The mitigation would be more towards the hardship of a driving ban, as he commutes daily to Manchester Uni. Part of his funding has been spent on insurance leaving him very little to fund train fares for his commute.

I will check the policy for legal cover

 

[IanG]

You can do that by writing to them but my understanding is that unless the vehicle itself is what is earning the money, ie. professional driver then you're not going to have much success. But see how you go.

Funding the train fares I can't see being a problem being that he'll have a car to sell? Or is he borrowing yours?

May get the balance of the insurance back when you cancel that. Or they may take the view that he's not fuelling the car, parking it etc. Unless the car is cheaper than the train that's a weak case and even if it is, unless the car is free then it will release funds for the train fare when he can no longer use it.

Either way, doesn't need a brief, just write to them with the sob story and it'll be up to them. Although I personally don't fancy his chances. The scheme is in place to discourage driving at 50% over the limit, something he'll probably not do after the ban.

 

[sirearl]

What a ridiculous punative law that serves no purpose.

Life is hard enough for the young in this society without having laws that make it harder for them.

Much better to have youngsters attend further training courses as a penalty.IMHO

 

[bovine]

You say that, but I bet when he gets his licence back he won't be speeding!

But it may be unfair, some 40 zones really feel like they should be set higher.

 

[cts1975]

Well it was the 50/40mph zone at the end of the M56 in Manchester, easily done after 20 miles in a 70.
The car is on contract hire until Jan 2017. We can return it but all payments have to be made on the contract.
His insurance will have to stay valid to cover the car until the end of the contract hire

Its really down to pleading in court to get a short ban and a fine or accept the revocation. He will then have to take his theory and practical tests again. Then start his new licence with 6 points on from the beginning which would stay for 3 years.

 

[sirearl]

You say that, but I bet when he gets his licence back he won't be speeding!

But it may be unfair, some 40 zones really feel like they should be set higher.

Its unfair because it discriminates against the young.

We all know that 99% of drivers speed at some point.

Being young does not make one a bad driver,being stupid does and that lasts a lifetime.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Earl I think you need to consider the potential possibilities of his action, rather than what actually took place,

Many a teenager is in Prison for using a knife they thought was harmless to carry

 

[sirearl]

Earl I think you need to consider the potential possibilities of his action, rather than what actually took place,

But that applies to all drivers that speed.e.t.c.

 

[DavidWH]

I know that section of road very well, and the camera van usually parks under the bridge and is hard to spot, it's worse when heading out of Manchester because of the bend in the road, and slight hump.

What isn't hard to spot is large signs before the M60 exit indicating the speed limit.

On a side note I got clocked doing 97mph on the M74 a week after passing my car test (been riding bikes for years) and got the standard 3pts and £60 fine, so I'd wait and see what they come back with after returning the NIP.

 

[tony84]

I know the spot also and the van that is very well hidden until the very last minute. I have been caught out by that but I was doing 44mph and never received a ticket.

Im not sure you can really defend it. There are signs saying reduce to 50mph and then more signs shortly after saying reduce to 40mph. I think its harsh that they hide behind the bridge just after the drop to 40mph - your dropping from 70mph to 40mph in a mile or so. But to still be going at 60mph isnt great. I dont think there is anything to lose, but I dont think you will get anywhere.

Aside from that, trying to get insurance next year is probably going to be more expensive than a train ticket.

 

[MikeJ]

Its unfair because it discriminates against the young.

No it doesn't. It discriminates against the recently qualified.

We all know that 99% of drivers speed at some point.

I don't know that. Even if it's true, then that means there's good reason to clamp down on speeding.

Being young does not make one a bad driver,being stupid does and that lasts a lifetime.

Clearly.

Imagine his friends at college hearing this story. They'll all slow down, and quite possibly lives will be saved. Or they could let him off the ban, and they'd all think they can get away with it.

Speeding kills. We need to take the same attitude to speeding that we took to drinking and driving in the 70s/80s/90s.

 

[john1989]

The year before last my grandma passed away. I drank quite a lot that evening.


The following afternoon I got in my car and was pulled over and breathalysed. I was just over the drink drive limit. Literally just over.


I spent a lot of money in legal fees to put across my mitigating circumstances and the hardship of commuting to my job (around 25 miles involving a bus and two trains) and all the rest.


Once I was in court, I was out within 15 minutes. A 12 month driving ban. To put the boot in, my solicitor told me afterwards that they’ve pretty much already sentenced you before you get through the door.


At the time, I felt very hard done by. Getting done the day after felt like I got a raw deal. But like I did, your son in law needs to accept that the law is the law. He will do what I did and hate every minute of commuting on public transport. But he will learn from it, and once he has his licence back, he’ll value it a hell of a lot more.


Had I hit someone whilst driving and it turned out that I was over, I would have felt extreme guilt. Your son in law needs to accept that driving way above the speed limit could have seriously injured, but more probably, killed someone.

 

[andygambles]

Its unfair because it discriminates against the young.

We all know that 99% of drivers speed at some point.

Being young does not make one a bad driver,being stupid does and that lasts a lifetime.

It is not discriminating against the young. This ruling applies to all new drivers within the first 2 years no matter how old they are.

 

[sirearl]

The biggest cause of accidents by far is lack of observation nearly 50% of all accidents.

inexperienced drivers 5%

Speeding play a relatively small part in accidents.

 

[john1989]

Maybe the lack of observation was because they were going too fast to notice?

 

[Bazza500]

I will check the policy for legal cover

Legal cover is for representation if you have an accident not to defend you against speeding

 

[Mr A P Davies]

I used to ride a motorcycle, often at license loosing speeds. I don't any more, coz I can't afford it, but that's besides the point.
When I was doing it, I was pretty clued up on the law.
One thing that came up time and again in various discussions was, never go to court without representation. (No, I never ended up in court)

The reason given was, it's a procedural thing. For most people, court rooms are an unfamiliar environment, with weird and arcane rules and customs. You don't need someone to defend you, just someone there to protect you from yourself, and your general lack of knowledge.

It sounds like the boy is going to get bent over and reamed out anyway, but it's still worth having someone who knows how to keep the damage to a minimum.

For example, can you get hold of the calibration certificate for the speed camera? Do you even know what that is, does the boy?
Your representation should know, and will know how to obtain it, if it's there, which it may well not be, in which case, he walks.
This was 10 or 15 years ago, so that may be well out of date now, but it makes the point.

 

[sirearl]

Maybe the lack of observation was because they were going too fast to notice?

More likely to be using a mobile or playing with some of the hundreds of buttons on modern cars.

 

[MikeJ]

The biggest cause of accidents by far is lack of observation nearly 50% of all accidents.

inexperienced drivers 5%

Speeding play a relatively small part in accidents.

It's great when people quote statistics. You can get statistics to mean anything if you try hard enough.

At a guess, I'd say most accidents are minor knocks in car parks and the like, where speeding (as in, exceeding the speed limit rather than driving faster than you should be driving for the situation) isn't an issue.

"Inappropriate speed contributes to around 14% of all injury collisions, 15% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death and are recorded by the police"

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/inappropriate/

 

[Chris Ashdown]

If there was no speed involved there would not be any accidents with moving vehicles

 

[ldjames]

Its unfair because it discriminates against the young.

We all know that 99% of drivers speed at some point.

Being young does not make one a bad driver,being stupid does and that lasts a lifetime.

Couldn't have put it better

For your son, I don't think it's worth finding a solicitor to defend it. A friend was in the same position when he was 18/19 and paid £xxxx. He managed to have it reduced to 5 points so he could keep his licence. The drawback being that his insurance was astronomical before he got those 5 points.

As for speeding in general, I've never had an accident but I tend to daydream more at lower speeds.

 

[Henry Simons]

Whilst I understand that cost can be an issue. I would recommending hiring a private road traffic law solicitor. From experience, due to the very nature of legal aid work, a duty solicitor is not able to commit 100% to the case and this can have a negative impact. I would recommend contacting Edward Hayes Solicitors, they have a particularly solid reputation. Here's a link to get in touch with them:http://www.edwardhayes.co.uk/contact-us

 

[Scalloway]

If there was no speed involved there would not be any accidents with moving vehicles

I've had two accidents in the past 6 months. The first one was where somebody reversed into my car in a carpark. The damage was sufficient for the insurance company to write the car off - it was 12 years old.

The second time I was doing about 2 mph down an icy slope ten days ago, The tyres locked as I turned and I slid over a bank, causing about £1,500 of damage.

 

[IanG]

I think his point is that you need to be doing at least some speed in order to crash.

Stats aside - picked out the sky as they are - in this case this guy is going to have to go through the motions.

Leased car sounds bad news but there again if you knew you were strapped up you'd probably want to keep the licence in order to use the thing.

 

[cts1975]

Just to update. The paperwork was all sent back and we are waiting for a response or court summons. I will update this thread accordingly.

 

[cts1975]

Postal offer of £100 fine & 3 points. All his luck in one go.

 

[john1989]

Postal offer of £100 fine & 3 points. All his luck in one go.

Did you use a solicitor in the end of self-represent?

 

[cts1975]

Apparently Manchester don't take you court unless you decide not to accept their offer that is sent in the post. We did include a letter which explained the mitigating circumstances when we responded to the summons. Greater Manchester Police have a panel who will consider the mitigation before sending out an offer.

 

[john1989]

Apparently Manchester don't take you court unless you decide not to accept their offer that is sent in the post. We did include a letter which explained the mitigating circumstances when we responded to the summons. Greater Manchester Police have a panel who will consider the mitigation before sending out an offer.

Interesting. Thanks for keeping us updated.

 

[billmccallum1957]

I did hear of a government minister who got his wife to accept the points, you could have taken that route.

 

[cts1975]

Absolutely no chance - he was driving he can take the wrap!