Road safety charity condemns 'mockery' of penalty system as 104 drivers in Bradford are still on the roads with 12 points or more

104 drivers in Bradford are still on the roads with 12 points or more

Speeding offences are a major cause of penalty points

Speeding offences are a major cause of penalty points

A typically busy Bradford road

A typically busy Bradford road

Busy traffic around Bradford city centre

A typically busy Bradford road

A car passes a speed camera

First published in News
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author Exclusive by , T&A Reporter

A TOTAL of 104 drivers in the Bradford district are still on the road despite having 12 or more points on their driving licence.

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency figures also reveal that one of those motorists has 22 points - and that they live in the BD7 area, which includes Lister Hills, Lidget Green and Little Horton.

One motorist in BD13 - including Thornton, Denholme and Queensbury - has 20 points, one in BD3 - Thornbury and Barkerend - has 19, another in BD4 - East Bowling, Tong and Holme Wood - has 18, while two motorists - one in BD18, which includes Shipley and Wrose, and one in BD3 - have 17 points.

Eight drivers in the district have 16 points, 14 have 15 points, 12 have tallied 14 points, five have 13 points, and 59 motorists have 12 points.

The BD18 postcode has the most motorists - 11 - with 12 points or more, according to the statistics.

West Yorkshire-based road safety charity Brake was appalled at the figures saying it made a "mockery" of the points penalty system.

Its spokesman James McLoughlin said: "It is appalling that risky repeat offenders are being allowed to continue driving with so many points on their licence.

"These irresponsible individuals have shown disregard for the law and the lives of other road users, time after time.

"Allowing these drivers to stay on our roads puts innocent members of the public in danger and makes a mockery of the points system.

"Brake calls on the Government to address this situation urgently and ensure all drivers who reach 12 points get automatic bans. Drivers who clock up 12 points have had ample warning to stop breaking the law and avoid disqualification."

Across the district, there are 26,644 motorists with three points or more on their licence - 20,042 of those have three, 4,769 have between four and six, 1,576 have between seven and nine, and 153 have ten or 11.

Paul Watters, head of roads policy at the AA, said: "The ones that are over 12, it does seem absurd. However, it is for the courts to decide - the cases that go beyond 12 are usually exceptional circumstances."

He added: "I don't think yet there is too much cause for alarm. However we don't want the public to begin to believe there is one rule for them and one for everyone else.

"When it comes to more serious things like drink-driving, I think one might make a different view to someone who is a persistent speeder. Even so, there are no excuses for going beyond 12. But as the figures show, most people get the message at three or six."

David Ward, MP for Bradford East, said: "We have had this before and each time you just cannot understand what the circumstances could be. We know that in the past that someone has pleaded 'I need it for my work'.

"But what is the point of having the penalty as a deterrent if these people think by giving a good excuse they can just get round it?"

He added: "You could maybe understand one or two, but how can you have 104? It is very difficult to understand.

"To be a deterrent you have got to know there is a sanction there."

A DVLA spokesman said: "DVLA's role is to record the information provided by the courts.

"The courts are able to use their discretion to decide whether or not to disqualify a driver."

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:49am Mon 30 Jun 14

Albion. says...

What about the many more who haven't even got a licence?
What about the many more who haven't even got a licence? Albion.
  • Score: 67

6:51am Mon 30 Jun 14

tinytoonster says...

these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time.
be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for?
probably next to nothing.
these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time. be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for? probably next to nothing. tinytoonster
  • Score: -57

6:53am Mon 30 Jun 14

tinytoonster says...

Albion. wrote:
What about the many more who haven't even got a licence?
exactly!
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: What about the many more who haven't even got a licence?[/p][/quote]exactly! tinytoonster
  • Score: 37

7:07am Mon 30 Jun 14

linebacker2 says...

"Brake" are like a stuck record with their message that anyone who goes 1mph over the limit at 2am should be hung, drawn and quartered.

I'd be interested in knowing if anyone at Brake actually drives?
"Brake" are like a stuck record with their message that anyone who goes 1mph over the limit at 2am should be hung, drawn and quartered. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone at Brake actually drives? linebacker2
  • Score: -24

7:22am Mon 30 Jun 14

bd7 helper says...

Just making a fool out of the system
Just making a fool out of the system bd7 helper
  • Score: 32

7:28am Mon 30 Jun 14

Apollo says...

Taxi drivers no doubt?
Taxi drivers no doubt? Apollo
  • Score: 28

8:01am Mon 30 Jun 14

Bone_idle18 says...

tinytoonster wrote:
these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time.
be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for?
probably next to nothing.
Spoken like a true idiot.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time. be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for? probably next to nothing.[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true idiot. Bone_idle18
  • Score: 46

8:06am Mon 30 Jun 14

collos25 says...

Agreed.
Agreed. collos25
  • Score: -4

8:11am Mon 30 Jun 14

izzystillbreathing says...

Albion. wrote:
What about the many more who haven't even got a licence?
Or paid somebody else to sit it for them.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: What about the many more who haven't even got a licence?[/p][/quote]Or paid somebody else to sit it for them. izzystillbreathing
  • Score: 48

8:19am Mon 30 Jun 14

mad matt says...

Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence.
People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW !
Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence. People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW ! mad matt
  • Score: 32

8:21am Mon 30 Jun 14

Grumpygirl says...

linebacker2 wrote:
"Brake" are like a stuck record with their message that anyone who goes 1mph over the limit at 2am should be hung, drawn and quartered.

I'd be interested in knowing if anyone at Brake actually drives?
Brake are almost as bad as you banging on and on and on and on about Nimbys.
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: "Brake" are like a stuck record with their message that anyone who goes 1mph over the limit at 2am should be hung, drawn and quartered. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone at Brake actually drives?[/p][/quote]Brake are almost as bad as you banging on and on and on and on about Nimbys. Grumpygirl
  • Score: 9

8:28am Mon 30 Jun 14

OLDLAD says...

Twelve points and banned, no ifs our buts or excuses. They know the rules lets get the magistrates a pair and start banning them. A few months on the buses,walking or hitching will soon changes peoples view.
Twelve points and banned, no ifs our buts or excuses. They know the rules lets get the magistrates a pair and start banning them. A few months on the buses,walking or hitching will soon changes peoples view. OLDLAD
  • Score: 36

9:06am Mon 30 Jun 14

johnh1 says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time.
be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for?
probably next to nothing.
Spoken like a true idiot.
Well said Bone Idle
He is probably one of the 104 and a lousy driver to boot.
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time. be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for? probably next to nothing.[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true idiot.[/p][/quote]Well said Bone Idle He is probably one of the 104 and a lousy driver to boot. johnh1
  • Score: 28

9:11am Mon 30 Jun 14

blue marlin says...

OLDLAD wrote:
Twelve points and banned, no ifs our buts or excuses. They know the rules lets get the magistrates a pair and start banning them. A few months on the buses,walking or hitching will soon changes peoples view.
Do you think that a ban will stop them driving?
[quote][p][bold]OLDLAD[/bold] wrote: Twelve points and banned, no ifs our buts or excuses. They know the rules lets get the magistrates a pair and start banning them. A few months on the buses,walking or hitching will soon changes peoples view.[/p][/quote]Do you think that a ban will stop them driving? blue marlin
  • Score: 12

9:38am Mon 30 Jun 14

collos25 says...

I really do not know what the fuss is about there is no law and order in Bradford corruption is rife at all levels as long as you remember that you will begin to understand how Bradford works.
I really do not know what the fuss is about there is no law and order in Bradford corruption is rife at all levels as long as you remember that you will begin to understand how Bradford works. collos25
  • Score: 46

10:11am Mon 30 Jun 14

Bikerbeardy says...

mad matt wrote:
Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence.
People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW !
dosent surprise me at all, I was seriously injured 5 years ago by a doctor who crashed into me on my bike on the motorway, he was convicted of dangerous driving and would have been banned, but his solicitor said it would be detrimental to the community as he was a doctor,
[quote][p][bold]mad matt[/bold] wrote: Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence. People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW ![/p][/quote]dosent surprise me at all, I was seriously injured 5 years ago by a doctor who crashed into me on my bike on the motorway, he was convicted of dangerous driving and would have been banned, but his solicitor said it would be detrimental to the community as he was a doctor, Bikerbeardy
  • Score: 20

10:18am Mon 30 Jun 14

alive and awake says...

Welcome to Bradford! Where certain sectors of society, lie, lie, lie and lie again. How on earth can some one amass more than 12 points and still be allowed to drive? Simply no excuses at all. Should be hauled in front of the courts, and if proven to be lying should be locked up for perjury. It is a mockery of our legal system. if any of these so called solicitors can be proven to knowingly submit false defences then they should be locked up.
Don't you realise that these utter scumbags are costing us all £100's in increased insurance premiums. Time to get tough, ZERO tolerance.
Welcome to Bradford! Where certain sectors of society, lie, lie, lie and lie again. How on earth can some one amass more than 12 points and still be allowed to drive? Simply no excuses at all. Should be hauled in front of the courts, and if proven to be lying should be locked up for perjury. It is a mockery of our legal system. if any of these so called solicitors can be proven to knowingly submit false defences then they should be locked up. Don't you realise that these utter scumbags are costing us all £100's in increased insurance premiums. Time to get tough, ZERO tolerance. alive and awake
  • Score: 45

10:47am Mon 30 Jun 14

tyker7745 says...

OLDLAD wrote:
Twelve points and banned, no ifs our buts or excuses. They know the rules lets get the magistrates a pair and start banning them. A few months on the buses,walking or hitching will soon changes peoples view.
fully agree: 12 points and banned irrespective of circumstances
[quote][p][bold]OLDLAD[/bold] wrote: Twelve points and banned, no ifs our buts or excuses. They know the rules lets get the magistrates a pair and start banning them. A few months on the buses,walking or hitching will soon changes peoples view.[/p][/quote]fully agree: 12 points and banned irrespective of circumstances tyker7745
  • Score: 22

11:25am Mon 30 Jun 14

Bikerbeardy says...

tyker7745 wrote:
OLDLAD wrote:
Twelve points and banned, no ifs our buts or excuses. They know the rules lets get the magistrates a pair and start banning them. A few months on the buses,walking or hitching will soon changes peoples view.
fully agree: 12 points and banned irrespective of circumstances
totally agree, soft magistrates, probably from same masonic lodge !
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OLDLAD[/bold] wrote: Twelve points and banned, no ifs our buts or excuses. They know the rules lets get the magistrates a pair and start banning them. A few months on the buses,walking or hitching will soon changes peoples view.[/p][/quote]fully agree: 12 points and banned irrespective of circumstances[/p][/quote]totally agree, soft magistrates, probably from same masonic lodge ! Bikerbeardy
  • Score: 14

11:46am Mon 30 Jun 14

Mr Capp says...

Too much emphasis is placed on catching speeding motorists. It's careless, reckless, dangerous and inconsiderate drivers that should be targeted in this city rather than persecuting the generally law abiding who might slightly stray over the speed limit. Speed doesn't injure or kill, bad driving does!
Perhaps the Magistrates can see the nazis at brake for what they are?
Too much emphasis is placed on catching speeding motorists. It's careless, reckless, dangerous and inconsiderate drivers that should be targeted in this city rather than persecuting the generally law abiding who might slightly stray over the speed limit. Speed doesn't injure or kill, bad driving does! Perhaps the Magistrates can see the nazis at brake for what they are? Mr Capp
  • Score: 6

12:10pm Mon 30 Jun 14

BigFigure says...

Not just in Bradford....report earlier this year revealed 7000 driving in UK with 12+ points, including a bloke in Merseyside with 45 points on his licence....
Not just in Bradford....report earlier this year revealed 7000 driving in UK with 12+ points, including a bloke in Merseyside with 45 points on his licence.... BigFigure
  • Score: 11

12:18pm Mon 30 Jun 14

justjustice says...

"Oh I need my car to ferry my disabled mother around" whilst driving 50 in a 30 zone, and whilst she isnt in the car.

Hell if that is the excuse they use then give those underage carers a driving license to make their lives easier! and I bet they'd be better drivers!
"Oh I need my car to ferry my disabled mother around" whilst driving 50 in a 30 zone, and whilst she isnt in the car. Hell if that is the excuse they use then give those underage carers a driving license to make their lives easier! and I bet they'd be better drivers! justjustice
  • Score: 15

12:46pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Gasmanterry says...

I had 6 points, 2 years old. Went through 2 speed cameras on dual carriageway in Cumbria middle of nowhere 3 o'clock in the morning. Obviously I deserved to get an Immediate ban. I don't want to negate the consequences of my actions that night, but the outcome of a ban would not only meant the loss of my business built up over decades, 2 employees laid off, loss of family home, tenants in my property evicted. Thankfully the magistrates had a concept of the punishment fitting the crime. £1600 fine. Two unemployed non insured drivers same day got fined £240 and no ban and a 17 year old got a community order for a street robbery.
I had 6 points, 2 years old. Went through 2 speed cameras on dual carriageway in Cumbria middle of nowhere 3 o'clock in the morning. Obviously I deserved to get an Immediate ban. I don't want to negate the consequences of my actions that night, but the outcome of a ban would not only meant the loss of my business built up over decades, 2 employees laid off, loss of family home, tenants in my property evicted. Thankfully the magistrates had a concept of the punishment fitting the crime. £1600 fine. Two unemployed non insured drivers same day got fined £240 and no ban and a 17 year old got a community order for a street robbery. Gasmanterry
  • Score: 14

1:22pm Mon 30 Jun 14

henjni says...

Name and shame!!
Name and shame!! henjni
  • Score: 12

4:31pm Mon 30 Jun 14

tinytoonster says...

Gasmanterry wrote:
I had 6 points, 2 years old. Went through 2 speed cameras on dual carriageway in Cumbria middle of nowhere 3 o'clock in the morning. Obviously I deserved to get an Immediate ban. I don't want to negate the consequences of my actions that night, but the outcome of a ban would not only meant the loss of my business built up over decades, 2 employees laid off, loss of family home, tenants in my property evicted. Thankfully the magistrates had a concept of the punishment fitting the crime. £1600 fine. Two unemployed non insured drivers same day got fined £240 and no ban and a 17 year old got a community order for a street robbery.
so it shows that working just means you pay more.
we really are mugs aren't we?
do nothing, pay nothing.
they will pay fines out of benefits so we pay anyway!
[quote][p][bold]Gasmanterry[/bold] wrote: I had 6 points, 2 years old. Went through 2 speed cameras on dual carriageway in Cumbria middle of nowhere 3 o'clock in the morning. Obviously I deserved to get an Immediate ban. I don't want to negate the consequences of my actions that night, but the outcome of a ban would not only meant the loss of my business built up over decades, 2 employees laid off, loss of family home, tenants in my property evicted. Thankfully the magistrates had a concept of the punishment fitting the crime. £1600 fine. Two unemployed non insured drivers same day got fined £240 and no ban and a 17 year old got a community order for a street robbery.[/p][/quote]so it shows that working just means you pay more. we really are mugs aren't we? do nothing, pay nothing. they will pay fines out of benefits so we pay anyway! tinytoonster
  • Score: 13

4:31pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Out of site says...

Didn't know you needed a license to drive a camel.
Didn't know you needed a license to drive a camel. Out of site
  • Score: 2

4:39pm Mon 30 Jun 14

tinytoonster says...

johnh1 wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time.
be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for?
probably next to nothing.
Spoken like a true idiot.
Well said Bone Idle
He is probably one of the 104 and a lousy driver to boot.
both wrong, clean licence and i work as well!
shock! horror!
rare in bradford indeed!
my point is they get big headlines over a minority crime (104) out of possibly 100's of thousands of drivers.
they must have had to spend ages getting the information.meanwhil
e ordinary people go to work and pay their way.
we all know certain solicitors can get you off anything, its advertised on the radio.
did not need an investigation to find that out!
concentrate on real criminal drivers with no insurance, etc.
[quote][p][bold]johnh1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time. be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for? probably next to nothing.[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true idiot.[/p][/quote]Well said Bone Idle He is probably one of the 104 and a lousy driver to boot.[/p][/quote]both wrong, clean licence and i work as well! shock! horror! rare in bradford indeed! my point is they get big headlines over a minority crime (104) out of possibly 100's of thousands of drivers. they must have had to spend ages getting the information.meanwhil e ordinary people go to work and pay their way. we all know certain solicitors can get you off anything, its advertised on the radio. did not need an investigation to find that out! concentrate on real criminal drivers with no insurance, etc. tinytoonster
  • Score: 2

5:32pm Mon 30 Jun 14

pjbull says...

Simple: If they know who they are, permanently confiscate the car. Sell them at auction to pay for the mocosts of catching them in the first place. If someone loses their car, rather than their licence, it will make it a bit trickier to keep driving. Similarly, catch anyone without a licence and remove the car. People will get the message once that happens.
Simple: If they know who they are, permanently confiscate the car. Sell them at auction to pay for the mocosts of catching them in the first place. If someone loses their car, rather than their licence, it will make it a bit trickier to keep driving. Similarly, catch anyone without a licence and remove the car. People will get the message once that happens. pjbull
  • Score: 13

6:35pm Mon 30 Jun 14

alive and awake says...

pjbull wrote:
Simple: If they know who they are, permanently confiscate the car. Sell them at auction to pay for the mocosts of catching them in the first place. If someone loses their car, rather than their licence, it will make it a bit trickier to keep driving. Similarly, catch anyone without a licence and remove the car. People will get the message once that happens.
Most of these scumbags will be driving mobility cars for Grandma or Uncle hence no insurance to pay. This is England and we are talking about Bradford. Zero tolerance!
[quote][p][bold]pjbull[/bold] wrote: Simple: If they know who they are, permanently confiscate the car. Sell them at auction to pay for the mocosts of catching them in the first place. If someone loses their car, rather than their licence, it will make it a bit trickier to keep driving. Similarly, catch anyone without a licence and remove the car. People will get the message once that happens.[/p][/quote]Most of these scumbags will be driving mobility cars for Grandma or Uncle hence no insurance to pay. This is England and we are talking about Bradford. Zero tolerance! alive and awake
  • Score: 13

6:55pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Mp bfd9 says...

It's okay for some av got a ban 12 points should be one rule for all that's never the case tho never mind I
It's okay for some av got a ban 12 points should be one rule for all that's never the case tho never mind I Mp bfd9
  • Score: 6

6:59pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Mp bfd9 says...

It's okay for some am banned driver got 12 points over ten years off driveing banned right know my fault I guess one rule for one another rule for another that's how life is shame and always will be .......hope 104 enjoy it I have to walk struggle December can't wait )
It's okay for some am banned driver got 12 points over ten years off driveing banned right know my fault I guess one rule for one another rule for another that's how life is shame and always will be .......hope 104 enjoy it I have to walk struggle December can't wait ) Mp bfd9
  • Score: 2

7:29pm Mon 30 Jun 14

micela22 says...

How are they still on the road?? I assume with 12 points their insurance is either sky high or they don`t bother with it. If they know who & where these drivers are: why not do something about it instead of criminalising commuting speeders by a few % over the speed limit with no concession to time of day / road conditions. While they`re at it the could check all the other untaxed/ uninsured cars. The Police in Bradford have turned a blind eye for far too long which is now biting the rest of the population who do keep to the rules
How are they still on the road?? I assume with 12 points their insurance is either sky high or they don`t bother with it. If they know who & where these drivers are: why not do something about it instead of criminalising commuting speeders by a few % over the speed limit with no concession to time of day / road conditions. While they`re at it the could check all the other untaxed/ uninsured cars. The Police in Bradford have turned a blind eye for far too long which is now biting the rest of the population who do keep to the rules micela22
  • Score: 12

9:40pm Mon 30 Jun 14

Andrew_ide says...

I could accept the odd one on 15 points based on hitting 12 and pleading there case of loosing job etc, but one case on 22 points how many chances do people need to learn a lesson?
I could accept the odd one on 15 points based on hitting 12 and pleading there case of loosing job etc, but one case on 22 points how many chances do people need to learn a lesson? Andrew_ide
  • Score: 10

10:14pm Mon 30 Jun 14

linebacker2 says...

mad matt wrote:
Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence.
People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW !
Are you inviting us to believe you've not exceeded the speed limit 4 times in the last 3 years?

If like most of us you have, then it's simply the fact you've not been caught is why you're not on a driving ban yourself
[quote][p][bold]mad matt[/bold] wrote: Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence. People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW ![/p][/quote]Are you inviting us to believe you've not exceeded the speed limit 4 times in the last 3 years? If like most of us you have, then it's simply the fact you've not been caught is why you're not on a driving ban yourself linebacker2
  • Score: 6

10:37pm Mon 30 Jun 14

mad matt says...

linebacker2 wrote:
mad matt wrote:
Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence.
People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW !
Are you inviting us to believe you've not exceeded the speed limit 4 times in the last 3 years?

If like most of us you have, then it's simply the fact you've not been caught is why you're not on a driving ban yourself
Sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be one of those annoying drivers who always obeys the speed limit and the rules of the road.
I've been driving for 55 years, all types of vehicles from class 1 HGV, busses and mobile cranes.
I have a clean licence - and it's going to stay clean !
[quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mad matt[/bold] wrote: Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence. People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW ![/p][/quote]Are you inviting us to believe you've not exceeded the speed limit 4 times in the last 3 years? If like most of us you have, then it's simply the fact you've not been caught is why you're not on a driving ban yourself[/p][/quote]Sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be one of those annoying drivers who always obeys the speed limit and the rules of the road. I've been driving for 55 years, all types of vehicles from class 1 HGV, busses and mobile cranes. I have a clean licence - and it's going to stay clean ! mad matt
  • Score: 2

10:48pm Mon 30 Jun 14

linebacker2 says...

mad matt wrote:
linebacker2 wrote:
mad matt wrote:
Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence.
People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW !
Are you inviting us to believe you've not exceeded the speed limit 4 times in the last 3 years?

If like most of us you have, then it's simply the fact you've not been caught is why you're not on a driving ban yourself
Sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be one of those annoying drivers who always obeys the speed limit and the rules of the road.
I've been driving for 55 years, all types of vehicles from class 1 HGV, busses and mobile cranes.
I have a clean licence - and it's going to stay clean !
Well it is internetland and it's very easy for anyone to type just how great a driver they are..

Oh and I forget that I'm an Formula 1 driver
[quote][p][bold]mad matt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]linebacker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mad matt[/bold] wrote: Looks like it's a clear case of "not what you know but WHO you know" as there are legal firms who actually advertise helping drivers keep their licence. People need to remember that being allowed to drive is on the condition that you drive sensibly, safely and WITHIN THE LAW ![/p][/quote]Are you inviting us to believe you've not exceeded the speed limit 4 times in the last 3 years? If like most of us you have, then it's simply the fact you've not been caught is why you're not on a driving ban yourself[/p][/quote]Sorry to disappoint you, but I happen to be one of those annoying drivers who always obeys the speed limit and the rules of the road. I've been driving for 55 years, all types of vehicles from class 1 HGV, busses and mobile cranes. I have a clean licence - and it's going to stay clean ![/p][/quote]Well it is internetland and it's very easy for anyone to type just how great a driver they are.. Oh and I forget that I'm an Formula 1 driver linebacker2
  • Score: 0

12:24am Tue 1 Jul 14

Mr.Cleck says...

"When it comes to more serious things like drink-driving, I think one might make a different view to someone who is a persistent speeder. Even so, there are no excuses for going beyond 12. But as the figures show, most people get the message at three or six." AA foundation

So speeding is more serious than drink driving? At last someone who doesn't buy into that old chestnut about making speeding as socially unacceptable as Drink-driving. Figures can be made to show anything and if this story has appeared in other areas with the same hysterical headlines I detect the dead hand of the safety Nazis. We hear a lot about Brake because they are local and like all squeaky wheels, demand oil. I do not for the life of me see why such a blatantly biased organisation can justify charitable status. if speed was such a problem and cameras so effective why have we seen a huge rise in people with 3 or 6 points and not a similar drop in accidents? We had the safest roads in Europe BERORE we had speed cameras.
"When it comes to more serious things like drink-driving, I think one might make a different view to someone who is a persistent speeder. Even so, there are no excuses for going beyond 12. But as the figures show, most people get the message at three or six." AA foundation So speeding is more serious than drink driving? At last someone who doesn't buy into that old chestnut about making speeding as socially unacceptable as Drink-driving. Figures can be made to show anything and if this story has appeared in other areas with the same hysterical headlines I detect the dead hand of the safety Nazis. We hear a lot about Brake because they are local and like all squeaky wheels, demand oil. I do not for the life of me see why such a blatantly biased organisation can justify charitable status. if speed was such a problem and cameras so effective why have we seen a huge rise in people with 3 or 6 points and not a similar drop in accidents? We had the safest roads in Europe BERORE we had speed cameras. Mr.Cleck
  • Score: 0

9:14am Tue 1 Jul 14

johnh1 says...

tinytoonster wrote:
johnh1 wrote:
Bone_idle18 wrote:
tinytoonster wrote:
these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time.
be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for?
probably next to nothing.
Spoken like a true idiot.
Well said Bone Idle
He is probably one of the 104 and a lousy driver to boot.
both wrong, clean licence and i work as well!
shock! horror!
rare in bradford indeed!
my point is they get big headlines over a minority crime (104) out of possibly 100's of thousands of drivers.
they must have had to spend ages getting the information.meanwhil

e ordinary people go to work and pay their way.
we all know certain solicitors can get you off anything, its advertised on the radio.
did not need an investigation to find that out!
concentrate on real criminal drivers with no insurance, etc.
My point is these people who are banned or should be are poor drivers they cause accidents I don't want to be killed by one of these idiots.
[quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnh1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tinytoonster[/bold] wrote: these people at brake need to get a real job instead of getting on driver's backs all the time. be interesting to know what percentage this 104 accounts for? probably next to nothing.[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true idiot.[/p][/quote]Well said Bone Idle He is probably one of the 104 and a lousy driver to boot.[/p][/quote]both wrong, clean licence and i work as well! shock! horror! rare in bradford indeed! my point is they get big headlines over a minority crime (104) out of possibly 100's of thousands of drivers. they must have had to spend ages getting the information.meanwhil e ordinary people go to work and pay their way. we all know certain solicitors can get you off anything, its advertised on the radio. did not need an investigation to find that out! concentrate on real criminal drivers with no insurance, etc.[/p][/quote]My point is these people who are banned or should be are poor drivers they cause accidents I don't want to be killed by one of these idiots. johnh1
  • Score: 8

3:27pm Tue 1 Jul 14

yezboss says...

As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either.
As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either. yezboss
  • Score: 9

3:38pm Tue 1 Jul 14

yezboss says...

yezboss wrote:
As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either.
I also need to say, when I joined up many roads were 'restricted roads' (30 m.p.h. limit) Then came along an idea to create Road Traffic Regulation Orders and many became say 40 m.ph. Many of those roads have now reverted back to the orignial 30 and guess what, speed cameras are now in evidence. The justification for this is said to be a proliferation of serious road collisons. Many of those collisions are or were nothing to do with speed. In fact only a small percentage of such are down to excess speed or vehicle defects. Indeed as said above speed does not kill, it is the wrong use of it. And also as said above what needs serious attention is the conduct of many bad drivers and that can only be acheived by OVERT roads policing NOT speed cameras. Those are the drivers who need dealing with not those who err slighty over the speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]yezboss[/bold] wrote: As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either.[/p][/quote]I also need to say, when I joined up many roads were 'restricted roads' (30 m.p.h. limit) Then came along an idea to create Road Traffic Regulation Orders and many became say 40 m.ph. Many of those roads have now reverted back to the orignial 30 and guess what, speed cameras are now in evidence. The justification for this is said to be a proliferation of serious road collisons. Many of those collisions are or were nothing to do with speed. In fact only a small percentage of such are down to excess speed or vehicle defects. Indeed as said above speed does not kill, it is the wrong use of it. And also as said above what needs serious attention is the conduct of many bad drivers and that can only be acheived by OVERT roads policing NOT speed cameras. Those are the drivers who need dealing with not those who err slighty over the speed limit. yezboss
  • Score: 9

3:48pm Tue 1 Jul 14

collos25 says...

Mr Capp wrote:
Too much emphasis is placed on catching speeding motorists. It's careless, reckless, dangerous and inconsiderate drivers that should be targeted in this city rather than persecuting the generally law abiding who might slightly stray over the speed limit. Speed doesn't injure or kill, bad driving does!
Perhaps the Magistrates can see the nazis at brake for what they are?
Speeding is careless ,reckless and dangerous you cannot have a law then not abide by it because it does not suit you.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Capp[/bold] wrote: Too much emphasis is placed on catching speeding motorists. It's careless, reckless, dangerous and inconsiderate drivers that should be targeted in this city rather than persecuting the generally law abiding who might slightly stray over the speed limit. Speed doesn't injure or kill, bad driving does! Perhaps the Magistrates can see the nazis at brake for what they are?[/p][/quote]Speeding is careless ,reckless and dangerous you cannot have a law then not abide by it because it does not suit you. collos25
  • Score: -5

3:54pm Tue 1 Jul 14

collos25 says...

yezboss wrote:
As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either.
You are part of the problem there should be no discretion by letting people off you have made the matter worse by assuming yourself to be judge and jury you were there to uphold the law not bend the rules to suit yourself.
[quote][p][bold]yezboss[/bold] wrote: As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either.[/p][/quote]You are part of the problem there should be no discretion by letting people off you have made the matter worse by assuming yourself to be judge and jury you were there to uphold the law not bend the rules to suit yourself. collos25
  • Score: -5

4:08pm Tue 1 Jul 14

Tony Balony says...

yezboss wrote:
yezboss wrote:
As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either.
I also need to say, when I joined up many roads were 'restricted roads' (30 m.p.h. limit) Then came along an idea to create Road Traffic Regulation Orders and many became say 40 m.ph. Many of those roads have now reverted back to the orignial 30 and guess what, speed cameras are now in evidence. The justification for this is said to be a proliferation of serious road collisons. Many of those collisions are or were nothing to do with speed. In fact only a small percentage of such are down to excess speed or vehicle defects. Indeed as said above speed does not kill, it is the wrong use of it. And also as said above what needs serious attention is the conduct of many bad drivers and that can only be acheived by OVERT roads policing NOT speed cameras. Those are the drivers who need dealing with not those who err slighty over the speed limit.
Well said. I am absolutely appalled by the way that traffic lights, give way/stop lines and box junctions are treated as options rather than rules these days!
[quote][p][bold]yezboss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yezboss[/bold] wrote: As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either.[/p][/quote]I also need to say, when I joined up many roads were 'restricted roads' (30 m.p.h. limit) Then came along an idea to create Road Traffic Regulation Orders and many became say 40 m.ph. Many of those roads have now reverted back to the orignial 30 and guess what, speed cameras are now in evidence. The justification for this is said to be a proliferation of serious road collisons. Many of those collisions are or were nothing to do with speed. In fact only a small percentage of such are down to excess speed or vehicle defects. Indeed as said above speed does not kill, it is the wrong use of it. And also as said above what needs serious attention is the conduct of many bad drivers and that can only be acheived by OVERT roads policing NOT speed cameras. Those are the drivers who need dealing with not those who err slighty over the speed limit.[/p][/quote]Well said. I am absolutely appalled by the way that traffic lights, give way/stop lines and box junctions are treated as options rather than rules these days! Tony Balony
  • Score: 5

9:36am Wed 2 Jul 14

yezboss says...

collos25 wrote:
yezboss wrote:
As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either.
You are part of the problem there should be no discretion by letting people off you have made the matter worse by assuming yourself to be judge and jury you were there to uphold the law not bend the rules to suit yourself.
I didn't bend the rules to suit myself, I simply followed orders and directions. Discretion was and is part of policing by consent, you are clearly not aware of that.
[quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yezboss[/bold] wrote: As a retired Officer I cannot condone any offence. However I spent most of my service in Road Traffic and obviously was at times detailed to perform radar speed checks and indeed experienced drivers exceeding the speed limit in other ways. I also came across other offences but only by personal intervention. With regard to comments made mainly about speed cameras I am not surprised so many drivers amass so many points from those. Their proliferation amazes me. We were always taught to use discretion and that was implemented within tolerances not now allowed. E.G. we rarely stopped anyone who was only say 10 mph over the limt, they may have got a 'look of disaproval' that was usually sufficent. Provided the correct response was made that was sufficent. They only got reported if higher than that tolerance and even then may have only got a written caution dependant on their attitude as well as the degree of speed over that tolerance. We always dealt with drivers fairly in my view. You could not satisfy all of course. However the current tolerances in practice of implementation of speed camera detections in my view serves no useful purpose whatsover. Also there is no check on driver and vehicle fitness and legality either.[/p][/quote]You are part of the problem there should be no discretion by letting people off you have made the matter worse by assuming yourself to be judge and jury you were there to uphold the law not bend the rules to suit yourself.[/p][/quote]I didn't bend the rules to suit myself, I simply followed orders and directions. Discretion was and is part of policing by consent, you are clearly not aware of that. yezboss
  • Score: 6

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree