accessory Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Leicester Murky Leicester City striker Steve Howard has had a driving ban cut by more than four months because without his car he cannot get to see his children often enough.The 35-year-old striker, who is believed to earn about £10,000 a week, was banned from driving for six months earlier this month after pleading guilty to speeding at 79mph in a 50mph zone on the M62, in Liverpool, on April 18. The ban was reduced on appeal at Liverpool Crown Court to 49 days yesterday after a judge heard Howard had problems getting to see his two young children in Tynemouth, near Newcastle. John Oultram, for Howard, who was in court, said his client would normally see his children – aged four and seven – three times a week but had only managed to see them once since the ban. Road safety campaigners criticised the reduction in the ban. Ellen Booth, senior campaigns officer at Brake, said: "It is outrageous that this ban has been reduced on these grounds." Howard got an automatic six-month disqualification at Liverpool Magistrates' Court on November 4 because he had reached 12 points on his licence. Magistrates imposed six penalty points and an £800 fine. Ms Booth said: "Anyone who tops up points has had repeated opportunities to avoid a ban. "Moreover, anyone who reaches 12 points and receives a ban has shown flagrant disregard for the safety of other road users. "They have had ample chance to change their behaviour to keep their licence. "In this case, there are lots of other options, such as public transport, open to Mr Howard to get to see his children. "The ban is supposed to be a punishment so if it makes it harder for him to see his children then that is part of that punishment." At Liverpool Crown Court yesterday, Mr Oultram said: "He was causing no danger to others. However, there are signs indicating it is 50mph. "Mr Howard does not argue the conviction and he is very sorry for driving at such a speed." Part of a letter written by Howard's wife to the court was read out by Judge Stephen Clarke. Mrs Howard said: "We have just bought a house in the North East and he has been trying his best to preserve the family unit by travelling home three times a week. "Since his ban, he has only seen the kids once in 14 days. If he is banned, the kids won't be able to see him as often." Judge Clarke, said the situation was one of exceptional hardship for Howard's children. He said: "As innocent parties, his children are suffering from only seeing their father once in the past 14 days. "Though we do accept the circumstances are exceptional, Mr Howard is still subject to the totting-up procedure. "For that reason, the ban will be reduced to 49 days." Howard will be able to get back behind the wheel on Christmas Eve. The striker joined Leicester City in 2008. He was not available for comment. The judge has a strange definition of "exceptional hardship". What was stopping Howard from hiring a chauffeur? He can easily afford one. And why is the family based in the north-east anyway?
Callabinho Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 He's got a Bentley, It would be rude not to reach those speeds.
Jimothy Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Leicester Murky The judge has a strange definition of "exceptional hardship". What was stopping Howard from hiring a chauffeur? He can easily afford one. And why is the family based in the north-east anyway? The article says they've just bought a house up there, so I would imagine they are planning to start living up in Newcastle once he retires, which at 35, probably won't be too long. Couldn't he just get a flight up there anyway? The guy earns £10,000 a week, I'm sure he can afford it. And if he was so desperate to keep seeing his kids he should have kept them down here until he'd retired.
rico Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Hes probably only seen his kids once in 14 days cos he was travelling with these guys...
samlcfc1 Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Absolute disgrace can't this guy afford taxis at 10 grand a week or even the train
Jace Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Absolute disgrace can't this guy afford taxis at 10 grand a week or even the train Did you know the usual speed limit on the M62 motorway is 70mph and usually the police allow 10% margin of error so Steves been banned for doing 79mph on a road you would expect to do 78mph or more to get a ticket on
Leicester_Loyal Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Did you know the usual speed limit on the M62 motorway is 70mph and usually the police allow 10% margin of error so Steves been banned for doing 79mph on a road you would expect to do 78mph or more to get a ticket on He was doing 79mph in a 50mph zone.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Absolute disgrace can't this guy afford taxis at 10 grand a week or even the train This. It's supposed to be a punishment as a deterrent. The annoying thing is that someone who was earning £300 a week or less probably wouldn't get this kind of break (on account of not affording the lawyer.) He may be a City player, but I don't care.
Jace Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 He was doing 79mph in a 50mph zone. I know read what I wrote again but more carefully
Basingstoke Fox Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Why is there a 50mph zone on a motorway? Thats just silly. Also, even if anything did go wrong. If there is nobody else in the area, who cares how fast he goes? If anything goes wrong, he only hurts/kills himself. It would be worse if there were other road users in the area.
Jace Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Why is there a 50mph zone on a motorway? Thats just silly. Also, even if anything did go wrong. If there is nobody else in the area, who cares how fast he goes? If anything goes wrong, he only hurts/kills himself. It would be worse if there were other road users in the area. Exactly he might not of realised it had been limited could of been just before road works were about to start he was driving through the same as he does most days and nothing was any different on the road
davieG Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Surely the question here is not whether the original punishment fitted the crime but how having money enables you to get it reduced, the legal profession just like about everything else favours the rich. I'm biased of course because MrsG got her first ever speeding ticket, £60 fine and 3 points after 40+ years of driving (you ask my family how surprised they were that she was speeding) for doing 36 in 30 limit which existed after dropping from 70 to 40 to 30, the 40 limit lasting for about 300 yards, this at 7.30am on a Sunday and we'd not seen another vehicle for at least 5 miles. You could say the camera was sited to get some easy pickings. Yes she was wrong but was there a chance we could get it reduced or altered - no!
davieG Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Exactly he might not of realised it had been limited could of been just before road works were about to start he was driving through the same as he does most days and nothing was any different on the road Since when has ignorance been a justifiable defence?
wellyfox Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Did you know the usual speed limit on the M62 motorway is 70mph and usually the police allow 10% margin of error so Steves been banned for doing 79mph on a road you would expect to do 78mph or more to get a ticket on And if he was in road works wich unless he was stopped he would have been. Some area's apply zero tollerance for safety reasons and is out of police control. End of the day he broke the law so fvck him his ban should stand like mine would.
davieG Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Why is there a 50mph zone on a motorway? Thats just silly. Also, even if anything did go wrong. If there is nobody else in the area, who cares how fast he goes? If anything goes wrong, he only hurts/kills himself. It would be worse if there were other road users in the area. Well I should imagine there were roadworks which might also suggest their could easily have been people around.
Charl91 Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Did you know the usual speed limit on the M62 motorway is 70mph and usually the police allow 10% margin of error so Steves been banned for doing 79mph on a road you would expect to do 78mph or more to get a ticket on Police usually allow 10% (they don't have to) because of the accuracy of the speedometer (I think car mar makers are allowed to be up to 10% accurate in over-reading speeds, but are now allowed any lee-way on under-reading, so tend to err on the side of caution) and the difficulty in accurately judging them, as some are only measured every 5mph. But he's almost 10MPH over, there's no way he can justify that by saying he read his speedometer wrong or his speedometer is that inaccurate. Plus he was clocked at 79mph, which means thats the minimum his top speed could have been. For all we know, he could have been going faster then that at some points. The fact he was in a 50mph zone isn't even relevant, because if it was the standard speed limit, he still should have been banned.
Bryn Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 They police the 50mph roadwork zones hard, there's a lot of them on the M62 at the moment. It's because the usable area of road is very narrow and there is a high probability of there being workmen on foot in the area. I don't think you'd get 6 pts and a massive fine for 79 on a regular stretch of motorway, you'd just get the regular fine and 3 pts.
Jace Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Well I should imagine there were roadworks which might also suggest their could easily have been people around. We don't know that though none of us know the full story. What our point is there could be more to this story than what we know. Yes Howard might of been recklessly driving through a road of workers 29mph over the speed limit but he could of also been driving along a motorway that he drives along every day that was exactly the same as the day before doing 2mph over the penalty limit. Just wanted people to see the other side of story before condemning the guy we don't have all the facts
Bryn Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 We don't know that though none of us know the full story. What our point is there could be more to this story than what we know. Yes Howard might of been recklessly driving through a road of workers 29mph over the speed limit but he could of also been driving along a motorway that he drives along every day that was exactly the same as the day before doing 2mph over the penalty limit. Just wanted people to see the other side of story before condemning the guy we don't have all the facts The only reason there would be a 50 zone is for road works. And as a regular user of the M62 I am 99% certain it would be a roadwork area.
Jace Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 The only reason there would be a 50 zone is for road works. And as a regular user of the M62 I am 99% certain it would be a roadwork area. Exactly we have all driven through these works on motorways before where no work has been going on yet the limits restricted before its due to begin or just finished something as simple as this might of been why he did it and didn't realise
Bryn Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 Exactly we have all driven through these works on motorways before where no work has been going on yet the limits restricted before its due to begin or just finished something as simple as this might of been why he did it and didn't realise This seems unlikely given he fully acknowledged the conviction.
Jace Posted 20 November 2011 Posted 20 November 2011 This seems unlikely given he fully acknowledged the conviction. He's not going to plea not guilty because hes broken the speed limit regardless just saying there could be more to the story like he thought he was doing 9mph over the speed limit instead of 29mph
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.