I'm furious reading this. What's wrong with the world? This is part of the problem.

[Rekka]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwywjjv4xz5o.amp

What kind message is this sending to the offenders for speeding? Does it have to take an accident to be "deliberate speeding"?

That he got a large fine (£650) and 5 penalty points? I think that's a deterrent.

I'm presuming the judge meant he wasn't racing.

But you don't go at 100mph accidentally.
When we lived in Germany, that was "normal" on the Autobahn and took quite a lot of effort and concentration (I normally stuck to around 80-85!)

No one is going to stand up in court and say they were doing 100mph for the thrill? Anyone can come up with a reason and picking your mother up from the airport is pretty weak. She would have been perfectly safe waiting for him outside the airport. I don't know the penalty guidelines for speeding but thought over 100mph was a ban so think he got off lightly there.

So he wasn't deliberately speeding' but there was a 'reason' for the excessive speed... 'something weighing on his mind...'

If it wasn't deliberate, then I'd have thought doing 100 on a 60mph A road should be 'driving without due care and attention' not just speeding. Or even dangerous driving. Is that a dual carriageway? (I don't know if the photo they used is misleading)

The article doesn't make sense.

The judge says in normal circumstances he'd have given him a £65 fine and 3 points but because he wasn't speeding deliberately he gave him a £650 fine and 5 points?

I don't get it.

Not sure it's big deal - the judge still imposed the correct penalty for the offence committed.

I think it was only covered because of his name. Moron! You couldn't make it up!

I think the lower penalty is for 'normal' speeding, it's more for 100mph!

Too much to expect the BBC to actually bother to explain that I suppose.

I'm surprised the BBC have even written am article about this tbh.

Isn’t the fine based on his earnings, not reflective of what he’d actually done?

I think it’s ridiculous but I’m not surprised.

I think he means he can't give the £65 as in normal circumstances, as he has a record (I assume speeding record)

This, so the fine was 10 times the amount and he was given 2 extra points??

Nope, Judge says he has a clear record.

"You have a clear record and there was a reason why you were rushing. It’s not an excuse but at least there was a reason behind what you were doing," he said.

He could have gave a disqualification (likely if it was a racing incident tho I would argue that would be safer) or points he went with points as he had a clean record and it was deliberate.

I'd we interested in what he was driving 2-3l BMW yeah you could get to 100 without the car screaming little corse no chance he didn't know what he was doing.

Because if you mean to do it, you are in full control.
If you don't mean it then you are distracted and not paying attention so more dangerous
Perhaps ????

My tiny car Peugot 108 is so smooth to drive I have to watch the speedometer like a hawk, I can easily hit 90 and not realise as it doesn't feel fast. I hate anything fast, won't go on fairground rides but still have to watch this car. Previous cars if I went over 50 it felt like a rocket.

Not sure why you're saying "Nope" I literally said he got more find because he had a record.

??

But he doesn't have a record!

I kind of think if you are someone who does 100 mph on an A road, you are just going to do it and hope you get away with it regardless of other people's punishments. I think 5 points is a derrerant for him.

I think the word clear is a bit ambiguous. I think clean record is more usual. It could be interpreted as it’s clear you have a record.

I know that’s not what it says but I can see why you might think that.

Interesting. Maybe when referring to points it makes sense to say clear and not clean because clean implies no infraction ever, which might not be the case with points on a license.

As points have expiry dates, are past points taken into consideration in such matters? I think not.

Ge should be banned. We will never got rid of speeding and reduce car ownership in general while go on accepting

Regardless of the smoothness of the car, I can't imagine anyone driving safely if their perception of speed was so poor they couldn't tell the difference between 100 and 60. (I'm sure you never put that to the test!). In this case we're talking about over 50% above the limit not an odd 10%.

The judge says in normal circumstances he'd have given him a £65 fine and 3 points but because he wasn't speeding deliberately he gave him a £650 fine and 5 points?

Then the judge is a prick if in normal circumstances he'd give a £65 fine.

I was done in a 30 (doing 36) and got a £100 fine and 3 points.