Pensioner dragged through courts for doing 35mph in 30 zone as wife was having epileptic fit
Nuxx Bar
measures, are DISGUSTING.
There have been so many incidents like this since the revenue-raising
cameras and "decriminalised" parking enforcement came in. Yet the
trolls still wholeheartedly support cameras and DPE, despite knowing
about these incidents, and knowing that they are a direct result of
cameras and DPE. The trolls' attitude is "We don't care how unfair it
is, because anyone who dares to drive in the first place deserves
it." What utter, utter twats. They have no shame. 82-year-old women
with Parkinson's "shouldn't be driving". Husbands of pensioners with
epilepsy "shouldn't be driving". The callousness and misanthropy
behind their hatred of cars is unbelievable, yet it's real, and the
evidence is everywhere.
It's DISGUSTING.
Pensioner dragged through courts for doing 35mph in 30 zone as wife
was having epileptic fit
By PAUL SIMS
Last updated at 00:36am on 8th May 2008
A motorist who went 5mph over the speed limit while his disabled wife
was having an epileptic fit is to be prosecuted.
Sydney Duffy was caught by a mobile police unit doing 35mph in a 30mph
zone as he tried to get off the road as quickly as possible to avoid
an accident.
But despite his explanation and a police photograph clearly showing
his wife Rovina in distress, the 63-year-old has been told he is to
face a court.
Sydney Duffy with wife Rovina, who was suffering her third epileptic
fit of the day in the passenger seat when he was photographed breaking
a 30mph speed limit
"I'm staggered that this is happening," he said yesterday. "My first
duty was to my wife.
"I was frightened she would swallow her tongue or bang her head on the
door or window. Worse still, it could have led us to crash into
oncoming traffic.
"My priority was to get parked and get Rovina in a position where she
couldn't harm herself and I wouldn't hesitate to do it again."
Former soldier Mr Duffy, who has never received a speeding ticket in
his 43 years of motoring, was driving his wife home to Penrith in
February when she started to have one of her frequent fits.
After Cumbria Police sent a letter ordering him to pay a £60 fine and
giving him three penalty points, he wrote back explaining why he had
inadvertently strayed over the speed limit. But they said that while
they had "every sympathy" he had still broken the law.
"I tried everything I could to make them see sense,' added Mr Duffy,
who served in Northern Ireland as a sergeant in the Royal Artillery
before becoming his wife's full-time carer in 1986.
"They've now sent the file to the Crown Prosecution Service and told
me that I'll have to go to court.
"I understand that I broke the law but I find it ironic that I was
doing so whilst trying to look after my wife and preventing an
accident from happening on the roads.
"Had I carried on driving whilst she was thrashing around she could
have hit the steering wheel and forced us to swerve across the road
into the path of traffic coming in the other direction.
"I needed to stop and for a few seconds I strayed over the speed limit
in a bid to get us off the road as quickly as possible. I don't see
much wrong with that.
"I just can't believe after telling the police what had happened that
they're still pursuing this - even with the photographic evidence.
"I've been a law-abiding person all of my life and would rather die
than break the law."
Mrs Duffy, 63, developed epilepsy after suffering from meningitis and
has up to seven fits a day. She said: "Sydney has always looked after
me. It's a 24-hour job with lots of stress. This is the last thing we
need."
A spokesman for Cumbria Police said: "We cannot discuss specific
alleged speeding offences while they are sub judice as it may
prejudice future court hearings.
"Anyone caught speeding within the nationally agreed limits has the
option of either accepting the conditional offer of a fixed penalty,
or taking the matter to court where any mitigating circumstances may
be considered by the magistrates."
Rob Oldfield
"Nuxx Bar" <derderd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d94e0777-33b2-4567...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>This, and the callous trolling car-hating cunts who support such
>measures, are DISGUSTING.
<snip usual gibbering>
This is supposed to be an anti-camera rant? When the bloke was pulled by a
car?
Did you miss this bit by the way?
>"Anyone caught speeding within the nationally agreed limits has the
>option of either accepting the conditional offer of a fixed penalty,
>or taking the matter to court where any mitigating circumstances may
>be considered by the magistrates."
Why does nuxxy remind me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEzKqp9x9dM, and
particularly the bloke falling over backwards?
Just zis Guy, you know?
law". Which is, in fact, what happened, stripped of your usual
stupidity.
The only DISGUSTING thing here is that you came back so soon after
you were spanked last time.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
Martin
Nuxx Bar wrote:
Sorry nuxy, this one does not add up, apart from not being a speed
camera as another poster pointed out, the guys story is strange.
> But despite his explanation and a police photograph clearly showing
> his wife Rovina in distress, the 63-year-old has been told he is to
> face a court.
So, not found guilty yet, he will go to court, as he has chosen to do.
> Sydney Duffy with wife Rovina, who was suffering her third epileptic
> fit of the day in the passenger seat when he was photographed breaking
> a 30mph speed limit
>
> "I'm staggered that this is happening," he said yesterday. "My first
> duty was to my wife.
>
> "I was frightened she would swallow her tongue or bang her head on the
> door or window. Worse still, it could have led us to crash into
> oncoming traffic.
>
> "My priority was to get parked and get Rovina in a position where she
> couldn't harm herself and I wouldn't hesitate to do it again."
Good idea. So why did he accelerate from below 30mph to 35mph? If his
wife was fitting, then he should have just stopped where he was. I am
sure the police would have helped.
> "They've now sent the file to the Crown Prosecution Service and told
> me that I'll have to go to court.
Which is what he requested when he wrote back. The court will be able to
give a fair judgement.
> "I understand that I broke the law but I find it ironic that I was
> doing so whilst trying to look after my wife and preventing an
> accident from happening on the roads.
>
> "Had I carried on driving whilst she was thrashing around she could
> have hit the steering wheel and forced us to swerve across the road
> into the path of traffic coming in the other direction.
Again, instead of slowing down, he sped up. His answer does not add up.
If she hit the steering wheel at 35, the chances a crash occurring are
larger than if she hit the steering wheel at 30, or even 25. He should
have been able to slow to 25 easily in the time that he accelerated to 35.
He also carried on driving, which is what he is claiming he was trying
not to do.
> "I needed to stop and for a few seconds I strayed over the speed limit
> in a bid to get us off the road as quickly as possible. I don't see
> much wrong with that.
>
> "I just can't believe after telling the police what had happened that
> they're still pursuing this - even with the photographic evidence.
>
> "I've been a law-abiding person all of my life and would rather die
> than break the law."
>
> Mrs Duffy, 63, developed epilepsy after suffering from meningitis and
> has up to seven fits a day. She said: "Sydney has always looked after
> me. It's a 24-hour job with lots of stress. This is the last thing we
> need."
My sympathies for her.
> "Anyone caught speeding within the nationally agreed limits has the
> option of either accepting the conditional offer of a fixed penalty,
> or taking the matter to court where any mitigating circumstances may
> be considered by the magistrates."
Says it all, he has decided to take it to court.
A.C.P.Crawshaw
paranoid rantings. I'm pleased to see that the police were sufficiently alert to curtail
dangerous driving which put other road users at risk.
Sue White
And put Mrs Pensioner at risk. A panicky speeding driver endangers the
front-seat passenger more than himself.
--
Sue ]:(:)
spindrift
His priority was to park, so he sped at 35mph?
The man's clearly a liar and has involved the Mail, the natural source
of outraged curtain-twitching xenophobic, homophobic middle
Englanders, in his shameless parading of DISABLED WIFE IN A SPAZ
CHARIOT
Martin
Nuxx Bar wrote:
<snip rant>
It seems that the case has been dropped.
JNugent
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> <snip rant>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7407953.stm
That's good news. Offhand, I can't remember the wording, but vehicles in
use as ambulances are not subject to posted speed limits in an
emergency. This was an emergency, and the car was arguably being used as
an ambulance (taking "ambulance" to be any vehicle conveying a person in
need of medical treatment). This discretionary decision of the police
and/or the prosecution authority is pure common sense.
Tom Crispin
A friend of mine is a telecom engineer for Vodafone. He's a qualified
first aider and industrial climber - i.e. he's the one who climbs to
the top of a high mast to fix problems. Running late for a job he had
a call to say that a colleague had gone up a mast without him, had
fallen and was hanging by the safety rope with a broken leg.
He was pulled over by the police doing 90 on the motorway. They
didn't believe his story, but after issuing a ticket followed/escorted
him to the site.
He was taken to court, fined for speeding but not given any points.
Apparently magistrates have no discretion over the minimum fine, but
do have discretion over points.
Sir Jeremy
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
He was unlucky to get stopped for only doing 90
Tom Crispin
<pete...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> A friend of mine is a telecom engineer for Vodafone. He's a qualified
>> first aider and industrial climber - i.e. he's the one who climbs to
>> the top of a high mast to fix problems. Running late for a job he had
>> a call to say that a colleague had gone up a mast without him, had
>> fallen and was hanging by the safety rope with a broken leg.
>>
>> He was pulled over by the police doing 90 on the motorway. They
>> didn't believe his story, but after issuing a ticket followed/escorted
>> him to the site.
>>
>> He was taken to court, fined for speeding but not given any points.
>> Apparently magistrates have no discretion over the minimum fine, but
>> do have discretion over points.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>He was unlucky to get stopped for only doing 90
That's not the way it should be. If you break the law you not be able
to get away with it, though exceptional mitigating circumstances
should be taken into account.
Sir Jeremy
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's the way it is though. The police have bigger fish to fry.
JNugent
The question is whether or not the law is being broken in such
circumstances. It's greyer than some might think.
Tom Crispin
Strange! You didn't seem to think there was any grey areas when we
were discussing cycling on the pavement a while back.
Martin
TBH I would hate to see a zero tolerance system for every little crime.
e.g. the councils fineing residents for overfilling bins is a bit silly.
The police should have discretion about who they do and don't prosecute
for minor offences (within reason).
OTOH it annoys me when you see people saying to the police "Why aren't
you catching real criminals".
JNugent
That has a very easy explanation - cycling on the footway (in the
absence of a specific legal local exemption marked on signs which warn
pedestrians and well as cyclists) is illegal. It isn't a grey area and
it is unlikely that the offence can be committed inadvertently (except
in a "loss of control" which is not the issue).
You appear to be confusing defence with mitigation.
The two are completely different.
"I was too frightened of the big bad cars to cycle on the road so I
cycled along the footway" is mitigation of an admitted offence. The
verdict has to be "guilty". The penalty might be reduced or non-existent
because of the mitigation.
"I was not bound by the speed limit on this occasion because the vehicle
was in use as an ambulance and it was an emergency" is defence. The
verdict might be "not guilty" (or the case might simply be dropped once
the facts are established). There is no automatic need for mitigation.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
Is overfilling a bin a criminal matter or a civil matter?
If a crime is so petty that it's not worth bothering about then why
should it be a crime at all?
I'd be quite happy with the decriminalisation of speeding. Let the
local authorities, or, in the case of motorways, the Highways Agency,
be responsible for speed enforcement through a vastly increased use of
cameras - and I mean about a 1000x increase.
Introduce a new crime for driving at a speed likely to endanger life,
for those who drive at stupid speeds for the conditions. 50 on a
motorway in thick fog would thus be a crime.
Tom Crispin
Bicycles can be used as emergency vehicles too.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/415735452_b246145263.jpg?v=0
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>>>>> Sir Jeremy <pete...@virgin.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> A friend of mine is a telecom engineer for Vodafone. He's a qualified
>>>>>>> first aider and industrial climber - i.e. he's the one who climbs to
>>>>>>> the top of a high mast to fix problems. Running late for a job he had
>>>>>>> a call to say that a colleague had gone up a mast without him, had
>>>>>>> fallen and was hanging by the safety rope with a broken leg.
>>>>>>> He was pulled over by the police doing 90 on the motorway. They
>>>>>>> didn't believe his story, but after issuing a ticket followed/escorted
>>>>>>> him to the site.
>>>>>>> He was taken to court, fined for speeding but not given any points.
>>>>>>> Apparently magistrates have no discretion over the minimum fine, but
>>>>>>> do have discretion over points.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> He was unlucky to get stopped for only doing 90
I don't doubt it (I see that the police now have bikes again) - but the
same considerations are unnecessary because speed limits do not apply to
bicycles.
Tom Crispin
But that's not the point. The point is that emergency vehicles are
allowed onto the pavement, or if not, they openly and wantonly flout
the law.
If that is the case, and emergency vehicles are allowed on the
pavement, following your earlier logic about a private car being used
as an unofficial emergency vehicle being allowed to ignore speed
limits, bicycles being used as emergency vehicles, or in an emergency,
are allowed to be ridden on pavements.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>>>>>> A friend of mine is a telecom engineer for Vodafone. He's a qualified
>>>>>>>>> first aider and industrial climber - i.e. he's the one who climbs to
>>>>>>>>> the top of a high mast to fix problems. Running late for a job he had
>>>>>>>>> a call to say that a colleague had gone up a mast without him, had
>>>>>>>>> fallen and was hanging by the safety rope with a broken leg.
>>>>>>>>> He was pulled over by the police doing 90 on the motorway. They
>>>>>>>>> didn't believe his story, but after issuing a ticket followed/escorted
>>>>>>>>> him to the site.
>>>>>>>>> He was taken to court, fined for speeding but not given any points.
>>>>>>>>> Apparently magistrates have no discretion over the minimum fine, but
>>>>>>>>> do have discretion over points.
>>>>>>> That's not the way it should be. If you break the law you not be able
We must be at cross-purposes here.
What do you mean "emergency vehicles are allowed onto the pavement"?
Since any vehicle is, in certain circumstances, allowed "on" a footway
(see above), I don't see anything very controversial in that. Vehicles
are (or can be) are "allowed onto the pavement", even in non-emergency
situations. Were it not so, I could not get into my driveway and garage,
and my neighbour (a keener cyclist than I) would have to carry his bike
across the footway into his driveway.
But I guess that you are talking of placing of ambulances,
fire-appliances, police vehicles, etc, in whatever position enables
their crews to be of most help to people who need their assistance in an
emergency. I would be shocked if the law were not amenable to emergency
crews doing whatever they need to do in such situations - and quite
right too.
But this is specific to the emergency - it might be alright to draw up
an ambulance on the pavement close to an accident scene, but it would be
a different kettle of fish to do it half a mile away, because there is
no need for it there and normal traffic considerations apply.
Similarly, it might be alright for a vehicle being used as an ambulance
to be driven in excess of the speed limit in an emergency, but once the
emergency is over, it's back to normal. The law specifically disapplies
the limits in certain emergency situations.
> If that is the case, and emergency vehicles are allowed on the
> pavement, following your earlier logic about a private car being used
> as an unofficial emergency vehicle being allowed to ignore speed
> limits, bicycles being used as emergency vehicles, or in an emergency,
> are allowed to be ridden on pavements.
It is hard to envisage a situation where an ambulance would need to be
driven at speed along a footway in an emergency where a road was
available, and the same thing would apply to a bicycle being used as an
emergency vehicle in an emergency.
Of course, the "emergency" would also have to be something that would
commonly be agreed to be an emergency - like transporting a sick or
injured person to urgently-required medical treatment, or carrying a
police-officer to the scene of a crime (the most obvious use for a bike
in an emergency, I guess). Just calling a journey an "emergency" when it
isn't wouldn't work - and even a genuine emergency journey is most
unlikely to require significant distance to be done in or on a vehicle
along a footway, as I'm sure you'll agree.