Dyslexia, phonecalls, sneezes and bees - the bizarre excuses given to Sussex Police for speeding (From The Argus) - The Argus.co.uk

Dyslexia, phonecalls, sneezes and bees - the bizarre excuses given to Sussex Police for speeding (From The Argus) - The Argus.co.uk

Dyslexia, phonecalls, sneezes and bees - the bizarre excuses given to Sussex Police for speeding

11:01am Wednesday 6th June 2012 in News By Neil Vowles

A driver told police officers he did not know he was speeding – because he was too busy on his mobile phone.

Another motorist said he was speeding because he desperately needed to go to the toilet and was in danger of wetting himself.

And a third told officers he was travelling at more than 100mph because he was dyslexic and could not read his speedometer.

The excuses are included in a list of terrible defences used by drivers in Sussex to try to get out of paying fines and being hit with points on their licence.

Motorists also claimed they were speeding because they had a bee in their car or because their speedometers didn’t work properly.

Road safety officers and campaigners said yesterday there were no excuses for breaking the law and exceeding the speed limit.

A list of some of the worst excuses give has been compiled by Sussex Police scenes of crime officer Chris Gee, who previously worked for six months in the force’s speed camera department.

Among the most extraordinary reasons given to Sussex Police officers was a motorist who told officers: “I wasn’t looking at my speed as I was on the phone.”

Other excuses include drivers claiming they have been affected by sneezing fits as they drove past speed cameras with others claiming they accidentally hit the accelerator when they meant to hit the brake.

One motorist told officers the reason why he was weaving in and out of traffic at 103mph along the A27 between Falmer and Hollingbury was because he was dyslexic.

A Hove Crown Court judge was “sceptical” about Matthew Cook’s explanation and banned him from driving for three years.

Last year, 76,674 cars were caught out by fixed and mobile speeding cameras in the county in a 45% increase on the previous year.

On average 210 speeding tickets were issued each day.

Road safety campaigners said that speed was a major factor in road deaths and serious injuries.

Last year, 61 people died on the county’s roads with a further 847 seriously injured.

Superintendent Tony Blaker, the head of Sussex Police’s roads policing unit, said: “The most common excuse used is that people are going to hospital or someone is poorly.

“If there is a genuine and plausible explanation then we can use our discretion.

“But even in a medical emergency people don’t need to break the speed limit. That’s what our emergency vehicles are there for and what our drivers are trained to do.

“The majority of people don’t contest speeding tickets.

“It is scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths and serious injuries on roads so if people want safer roads they need to stick to the speed limits.”

Julie Townsend, the deputy chief executive of Brake, said: “These excuses are reflection that unfortunately many drivers don’t take speed limits seriously. It’s really important that people realise that breaking the speed limit is not an insignificant thing, it’s a really serious infringement of the law.

“Driving is a very serious responsibility and motorists need to take on board every time they get behind the wheel they are putting other people’s lives in their hands. There is no excuse for speeding, the lawis the law, and it’s high time that all drivers appreciated the fact that speed limits are there to protect lives.”

Comments(19)

Goldenwight says...
1:09pm Wed 6 Jun 12

Even if the bloke HAD been talking on his mobile, I somehow don't see that as a particularly sensible excuse. It is right up there with "I was so drunk that I couldn't read the speedo." Still, you have to give credit for trying though. Goldenwight

charlie smirke says...
2:26pm Wed 6 Jun 12

A bee hi-jacked my car recently. The first thing I wanted to do was stop and get out, not speed up with it in there! PS the bee gave me back the car, eventually. charlie smirke

mimseycal says...
3:21pm Wed 6 Jun 12

Maybe the force could publish all these excuses in a little book ... the funds raised could go towards Victim Support or something like that. mimseycal

Nathan_Adler says...
3:32pm Wed 6 Jun 12

Scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths?? Absolutely balderdash. Speeding + a poor driver OR speeding + poor conditions OR speeding + being in a dangerous area OR speeding + a poor car may equal deaths but speeding on its own never killed anybody. Nathan_Adler

voiceofthescoombe says...
3:48pm Wed 6 Jun 12

Yes but police can't really decide who's fit to drive at 100mph and who really shouldnt be driving at any speed. voiceofthescoombe

Ashles says...
4:19pm Wed 6 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Nathan_Adler[/bold] wrote: Scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths?? Absolutely balderdash. Speeding + a poor driver OR speeding + poor conditions OR speeding + being in a dangerous area OR speeding + a poor car may equal deaths but speeding on its own never killed anybody.[/p][/quote]Don't understand this comment. Someone might be the best driver in the world, but if they are going too fast then they simply can't stop as quickly as someone going slower, and you never know what is going to suddenly happen on the road. So far from being 'balderdash' it's basically simple physics. Ashles

Goldenwight says...
4:26pm Wed 6 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nathan_Adler[/bold] wrote: Scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths?? Absolutely balderdash. Speeding + a poor driver OR speeding + poor conditions OR speeding + being in a dangerous area OR speeding + a poor car may equal deaths but speeding on its own never killed anybody.[/p][/quote]Don't understand this comment. Someone might be the best driver in the world, but if they are going too fast then they simply can't stop as quickly as someone going slower, and you never know what is going to suddenly happen on the road. So far from being 'balderdash' it's basically simple physics.[/p][/quote]I think you are perhaps missing the point a little here. Like Nathan said, speed by itself is not dangerous- otherwise our motorways would be veritable death traps- but it is a serious contributory factor when something else is added to the equation. Goldenwight

Ashles says...
4:40pm Wed 6 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nathan_Adler[/bold] wrote: Scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths?? Absolutely balderdash. Speeding + a poor driver OR speeding + poor conditions OR speeding + being in a dangerous area OR speeding + a poor car may equal deaths but speeding on its own never killed anybody.[/p][/quote]Don't understand this comment. Someone might be the best driver in the world, but if they are going too fast then they simply can't stop as quickly as someone going slower, and you never know what is going to suddenly happen on the road. So far from being 'balderdash' it's basically simple physics.[/p][/quote]I think you are perhaps missing the point a little here. Like Nathan said, speed by itself is not dangerous- otherwise our motorways would be veritable death traps- but it is a serious contributory factor when something else is added to the equation.[/p][/quote]Which was exactly my point. We don't know when something else might be added to the equation, but we can control speeds so that if something unexpected does happen it increases everyone's chances of survival. And why we have different speed limits on different road types. You can't have signs saying "This road is 70mph if you're a poor driver, but 120mph if you're a really good driver". Everyone thinks they're a great driver. Until they have an accident. Ashles

Wendywoodlandh says...
4:40pm Wed 6 Jun 12

2 things very wrong 1 should not have been on phone ,2 how did he pass his test if that bad with dyslexilics problem????.can be a death trap once behind the wheel ,do hope he been given ,joss to do which he really will not like doing ,but will have to do + driving license away for may be 2 yr,s. Wendywoodlandh

Ashles says...
4:45pm Wed 6 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Wendywoodlandh[/bold] wrote: 2 things very wrong 1 should not have been on phone ,2 how did he pass his test if that bad with dyslexilics problem????.can be a death trap once behind the wheel ,do hope he been given ,joss to do which he really will not like doing ,but will have to do + driving license away for may be 2 yr,s.[/p][/quote]Do you drive Wendy? Ashles

monkeymoo says...
5:04pm Wed 6 Jun 12

Legally....Sneezing is the only excuse you can give and "get away" with it if you take it to court.... ...As you are deemed temporally not in control of your actions, through no fault of your own. monkeymoo

monkeymoo says...
5:05pm Wed 6 Jun 12

Forgot to say....This only counts with going through speed traps (camera / gun). NOT for driving for 10 miles at 70mph in a 30mph zone!!! monkeymoo

HJarrs says...
8:37pm Wed 6 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nathan_Adler[/bold] wrote: Scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths?? Absolutely balderdash. Speeding + a poor driver OR speeding + poor conditions OR speeding + being in a dangerous area OR speeding + a poor car may equal deaths but speeding on its own never killed anybody.[/p][/quote]Don't understand this comment. Someone might be the best driver in the world, but if they are going too fast then they simply can't stop as quickly as someone going slower, and you never know what is going to suddenly happen on the road. So far from being 'balderdash' it's basically simple physics.[/p][/quote]I think you are perhaps missing the point a little here. Like Nathan said, speed by itself is not dangerous- otherwise our motorways would be veritable death traps- but it is a serious contributory factor when something else is added to the equation.[/p][/quote]Which was exactly my point. We don't know when something else might be added to the equation, but we can control speeds so that if something unexpected does happen it increases everyone's chances of survival. And why we have different speed limits on different road types. You can't have signs saying "This road is 70mph if you're a poor driver, but 120mph if you're a really good driver". Everyone thinks they're a great driver. Until they have an accident.[/p][/quote]Small child walks out from behind parked cars. BANG!!! So does speed have a part to paly in the outcome? HJarrs

chris elmes says...
9:15pm Wed 6 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nathan_Adler[/bold] wrote: Scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths?? Absolutely balderdash. Speeding + a poor driver OR speeding + poor conditions OR speeding + being in a dangerous area OR speeding + a poor car may equal deaths but speeding on its own never killed anybody.[/p][/quote]Don't understand this comment. Someone might be the best driver in the world, but if they are going too fast then they simply can't stop as quickly as someone going slower, and you never know what is going to suddenly happen on the road. So far from being 'balderdash' it's basically simple physics.[/p][/quote]I think you are perhaps missing the point a little here. Like Nathan said, speed by itself is not dangerous- otherwise our motorways would be veritable death traps- but it is a serious contributory factor when something else is added to the equation.[/p][/quote]Which was exactly my point. We don't know when something else might be added to the equation, but we can control speeds so that if something unexpected does happen it increases everyone's chances of survival. And why we have different speed limits on different road types. You can't have signs saying "This road is 70mph if you're a poor driver, but 120mph if you're a really good driver". Everyone thinks they're a great driver. Until they have an accident.[/p][/quote]Small child walks out from behind parked cars. BANG!!! So does speed have a part to paly in the outcome?[/p][/quote]HJarrs with regard to your post I suggest that stupidity is the real issue with your scenario. For example sunny day with dry tarmac and a duel carriageway and minimal traffic !00mph has a minimal risk, whereas 15 mph in a 30 mph limit with lots of parked cars and children could under some circumstances be dangerously negligent. The real issue is driving with regard to the conditions of the road ie: traffic/pedestrians and proper hazard awareness. chris elmes

HJarrs says...
9:52pm Wed 6 Jun 12

chris elmes wrote:

HJarrs wrote:

Ashles wrote:

Goldenwight wrote:

Ashles wrote:

Nathan_Adler wrote: Scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths?? Absolutely balderdash. Speeding + a poor driver OR speeding + poor conditions OR speeding + being in a dangerous area OR speeding + a poor car may equal deaths but speeding on its own never killed anybody.

Don't understand this comment. Someone might be the best driver in the world, but if they are going too fast then they simply can't stop as quickly as someone going slower, and you never know what is going to suddenly happen on the road. So far from being 'balderdash' it's basically simple physics.

I think you are perhaps missing the point a little here. Like Nathan said, speed by itself is not dangerous- otherwise our motorways would be veritable death traps- but it is a serious contributory factor when something else is added to the equation.

Which was exactly my point. We don't know when something else might be added to the equation, but we can control speeds so that if something unexpected does happen it increases everyone's chances of survival.
And why we have different speed limits on different road types.
You can't have signs saying "This road is 70mph if you're a poor driver, but 120mph if you're a really good driver".
Everyone thinks they're a great driver. Until they have an accident.

Small child walks out from behind parked cars. BANG!!! So does speed have a part to paly in the outcome?

HJarrs with regard to your post I suggest that stupidity is the real issue with your scenario. For example sunny day with dry tarmac and a duel carriageway and minimal traffic !00mph has a minimal risk, whereas 15 mph in a 30 mph limit with lots of parked cars and children could under some circumstances be dangerously negligent. The real issue is driving with regard to the conditions of the road ie: traffic/pedestrians and proper hazard awareness.

I agree. Children are dangerously negligent. We should ban them! Speed not an issue.

The point is that in certain circumstances the driver may not be "at fault" but the consequence of speeding has a dramatic effect. Children will be children, people will be preoccupied whilst walking, we all cross thousands of roads a year. One mistake...

Dry tarmac, dual carriageway, no traffic, tyre fails....

[quote][p][bold]chris elmes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nathan_Adler[/bold] wrote: Scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths?? Absolutely balderdash. Speeding + a poor driver OR speeding + poor conditions OR speeding + being in a dangerous area OR speeding + a poor car may equal deaths but speeding on its own never killed anybody.[/p][/quote]Don't understand this comment. Someone might be the best driver in the world, but if they are going too fast then they simply can't stop as quickly as someone going slower, and you never know what is going to suddenly happen on the road. So far from being 'balderdash' it's basically simple physics.[/p][/quote]I think you are perhaps missing the point a little here. Like Nathan said, speed by itself is not dangerous- otherwise our motorways would be veritable death traps- but it is a serious contributory factor when something else is added to the equation.[/p][/quote]Which was exactly my point. We don't know when something else might be added to the equation, but we can control speeds so that if something unexpected does happen it increases everyone's chances of survival. And why we have different speed limits on different road types. You can't have signs saying "This road is 70mph if you're a poor driver, but 120mph if you're a really good driver". Everyone thinks they're a great driver. Until they have an accident.[/p][/quote]Small child walks out from behind parked cars. BANG!!! So does speed have a part to paly in the outcome?[/p][/quote]HJarrs with regard to your post I suggest that stupidity is the real issue with your scenario. For example sunny day with dry tarmac and a duel carriageway and minimal traffic !00mph has a minimal risk, whereas 15 mph in a 30 mph limit with lots of parked cars and children could under some circumstances be dangerously negligent. The real issue is driving with regard to the conditions of the road ie: traffic/pedestrians and proper hazard awareness.[/p][/quote]I agree. Children are dangerously negligent. We should ban them! Speed not an issue. The point is that in certain circumstances the driver may not be "at fault" but the consequence of speeding has a dramatic effect. Children will be children, people will be preoccupied whilst walking, we all cross thousands of roads a year. One mistake... Dry tarmac, dual carriageway, no traffic, tyre fails.... HJarrs

fatso says...
6:12am Thu 7 Jun 12

Driving at 30mph in a 30mph limit and a child walks out from behind a car - bang. Driving at 40mph in a 30mph limit you have already passed when the child walks out - no problem fatso

NAMVAP says...
9:35am Thu 7 Jun 12

Speed + skill = Formula One Grand Prix and rarely deaths or injuries. Any road + lack of skill = unfortunately a great number of drivers and all the mayhem that ensues. NAMVAP

monkeymoo says...
10:32am Thu 7 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]NAMVAP[/bold] wrote: Speed + skill = Formula One Grand Prix and rarely deaths or injuries. Any road + lack of skill = unfortunately a great number of drivers and all the mayhem that ensues.[/p][/quote]Rarely deaths or injury. BUT LOTS OF CRASHES!! The lack of injury is down to the safety of THE CAR. Also..the last Grand Prix i watched didn't have parked cars, lampposts, trees dogs, 2-way traffic, people randomly stopping, humans "stepping out" in front of them, cyclists..etc... maybe i missed the one you watched that did!? monkeymoo

Ashles says...
11:57am Thu 7 Jun 12

[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ashles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nathan_Adler[/bold] wrote: Scientifically proven that speeding leads to deaths?? Absolutely balderdash. Speeding + a poor driver OR speeding + poor conditions OR speeding + being in a dangerous area OR speeding + a poor car may equal deaths but speeding on its own never killed anybody.[/p][/quote]Don't understand this comment. Someone might be the best driver in the world, but if they are going too fast then they simply can't stop as quickly as someone going slower, and you never know what is going to suddenly happen on the road. So far from being 'balderdash' it's basically simple physics.[/p][/quote]I think you are perhaps missing the point a little here. Like Nathan said, speed by itself is not dangerous- otherwise our motorways would be veritable death traps- but it is a serious contributory factor when something else is added to the equation.[/p][/quote]Which was exactly my point. We don't know when something else might be added to the equation, but we can control speeds so that if something unexpected does happen it increases everyone's chances of survival. And why we have different speed limits on different road types. You can't have signs saying "This road is 70mph if you're a poor driver, but 120mph if you're a really good driver". Everyone thinks they're a great driver. Until they have an accident.[/p][/quote]Small child walks out from behind parked cars. BANG!!! So does speed have a part to paly in the outcome?[/p][/quote]Yes, if you were going slower you have more chance of stopping in time. Ashles

Comment now! Register or sign in below.

Or

Source: www.theargus.co.uk

Penryn Asda decorates childrens' ward for Jubilee - falmouthpacket.co.uk

Penryn Asda decorates childrens' ward for Jubilee

6:30pm Thursday 7th June 2012 in News

ASDA staff handed over a stack of Union Jack bunting and red, white and blue balloons to help children in the Royal Cornwall Hospital celebrate the Diamond Jubilee.

Speaking before the jubilee celebrations, senior play specialist Gill Caddy said: “There will be lots of parties and fun going on throughout the local communities and we like to try and include our patients in that.

“It’s also nice for the staff who work during these events as well. The bunting will certainly help us to set the scene and will add a bright and colourful look to the wards.”

As well as the bunting donation, ASDA also brought bunting for youngsters on the wards to colour in.

Bernadette Snow, from Penryn ASDA, said: “We are always eager to help where we can and are delighted we were able to help the children celebrate the Jubilee. We thought the children on the wards might like to join in with our bunting competition.”

The winning designer will receive a £50 gift card from ASDA.”

Comment now! Register or sign in below.

Or

Source: www.falmouthpacket.co.uk

Andy Murray says he needs to get fitter before Wimbledon - BBC News

Andy Murray says he needs to work on his fitness levels before Wimbledon after finding it hard to keep up with David Ferrer on Wednesday.

The world number four was beaten 6-4 6-7 (3-7) 6-3 6-2 by the Spaniard in the French Open quarter-finals.

His attention now turns to grass and the events at Queen's and Wimbledon.

"I need to get some good physical work in between now and Wimbledon. I need to make sure I am in slightly better shape," said Murray.

"I think that is going to be important for me. I was a little bit out of breath after some of the longer rallies today."

"The French Open is a continuing puzzle for Murray. There are simply more players who can beat him on the surface and, if he's honest, when he saw Ferrer and Rafael Nadal in his half of the draw, he suspected a title challenge was unlikely to be in 2012. He's not a member of the top five on clay and is he even in the top seven?

• Read the rest of Jonathan's blog

Murray, 25, announced in April that he would play at Queen's Club for another five years, until 2016.

His participation in this year's event, which starts on Monday, has been in question because of an ongoing back problem that caused problems in his early-round victories at Roland Garros.

"I haven't even discussed the possibilities [of not playing] with any of the guys who I work with so the plan is to play Queens as it always has been," he insisted.

"It's my preparation for Wimbledon and it's worked well for me but I will sit down with the guys and discuss what I am going to do over the next two weeks before the tournament starts."

Despite Murray failing to match his last-four appearance of 2011 the Scot was still pleased with his overall performance in Paris.

"I think it was a good tournament for me," he said.

"I probably wasn't feeling as good as I did coming in last year. I lost to a better clay-court player than me."

Murray had not beaten the world number six in their previous three meetings on clay, and he did not help his chances of halting that run by making 59 unforced errors during the match.

"I'll need to work on some things in my clay-court game for next year," continued Murray. "But it's not the first time he's won against me on clay. It was going to be a tough match for me, and it proved that way.

"I thought I played some good tennis. I just didn't convert."

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Sussex v Surrey at Horsham: Play abandoned - wscountytimes.co.uk

Published on Thursday 7 June 2012 14:13

Sussex have struggled to 90-6 on a rain affected second day of their County Championship match against Surrey at Horsham.

Resuming on 81-2, having dismissed the away side for 124 yesterday, Sussex were soon in trouble when Mike Yardy fell to the first ball of the day, fending a short Stuart Meaker ball into the hands of Mark Ramprakash at gully.

Joe Gatting soon followed, clean bowled by Meaker in his second over of the day, the Surrey paceman uprooting Gatting’s off-stump for two. That was the final action before a 40 minute rain-break, and upon the resumption Luke Wright last five balls before he feather a catch behind to Steve Davies off Murali Kartik. Surrey wicketkeeper Davies had been called into the England squad, but rushed back to Horsham this morning after Matt Prior was passed fit to play in the Third Test against the West Indies at Edgbaston.

The last action of the day saw Ben Brown (1) trapped LBW by the lively Meaker, before the rain arrived to force the teams off before lunch. With the Cricketfield Road outfield now sodden, play has now been abandoned until tomorrow morning

• Email to a friend
• Print this page

Source: www.wscountytimes.co.uk

Facebook to release ID of users who abused woman online - BBC News

7 June 2012 Last updated at 11:37 ET

A woman who was abused on the internet has won court backing in her bid to gain the identities of those who targeted her.

Nicola Brookes, from Brighton, was falsely portrayed as a paedophile and drug dealer by internet trolls.

She has been granted a High Court order asking Facebook to reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

Facebook has said there is no place for harassment on the site.

Ms Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a supportive message about X Factor contestant Frankie Cocozza.

She said she suffered a barrage of abuse and one online bully created a fake profile in her name, which was used to send explicit messages to girls.

According to her solicitor, Rupinder Bains, trolls published her address and followed her on to other forums, including a recipe forum, to continue the abuse.

"Nicola is housebound so she uses social networking very frequently," she said.

"It's always there - it doesn't matter what she does, they are everywhere she is."

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

It's always there - it's doesn't matter what she does, they are everywhere she is”

End Quote Rupinder Bains Solicitor

Ms Bains said Facebook did not contest the order.

The website would have been in breach of data protection laws if it had handed over IP details without a court order.

Ms Bains said: "In order to obtain it there's quite a high threshold that we have to meet.

"Basically we need to show it's in the interests of justice... we need to prove the third party, namely Facebook, isn't just a mere witness but is in fact involved in the wrongdoing, albeit innocently, but they are involved.

"We were able to meet that criteria and hence the order was granted."

'Legal obligations'

Facebook confirmed it would hand over the IP addresses and basic subscriber information requested in the order.

As the subscriber information might not be correct, it would up to Ms Brookes to obtain a further court order to compel internet service provides to reveal which people the IP addresses are connected to.

She would then be able to launch legal action.

A spokesman for Facebook said: "There is no place for harassment on Facebook, but unfortunately a small minority of malicious individuals exist online, just as they do offline.

"We respect our legal obligations and work with law enforcement to ensure that such people are brought to justice."

Source: www.bbc.co.uk