3 years ago Aaron Wan-Bissaka was Charged For Illegally Driving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe it is something I'm missing but I don't feel the need to heavily critisize him for this, I mean it is irresponsible and stupid but not something malicious and reckless like driving under influence or over speeding.
A fine and community service, he learns his lesson and we all move on.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
If you have the money to cover your responsibilities in the event of an accident, Including personal injury, and accept that risk so be it. People who drive uninsured and don't have the resources to cover damages are a problem, situations like AWBs are not as bad.
Click to expand...

That's the bit I disagree with. It's against the law regardless of whether someone has the money to cover the damages or not. Whoever does it is morally wrong and also wrong from a law perspective. I don't think we should be saying something is more right or more wrong just because of the fact he can cover costs when it goes through lawyers.
 
Adam-Utd said:
Let's be honest 100mph is nothing in modern cars.

These limits were set in the 70/80's when cars were rolling around with tiny brakes and rubbish tyres. While yes it's the law in England it's hardly a big deal to be doing 100mph in a car built like a Lambo.

What is stupid of him is driving while banned and uninsured, it's selfish.
Click to expand...

Modern car are perfectly capable of going 100mph on modern highways. Modenr highways are perfectly able to support traffi traveling at 100mph. Modern people are not able to react when Doris blinks to overtake the lorry infront of her, having previously gauged the car behind her to be "far enough back".

The issue is never that the cars or the highways limitations stops it from being safe, the issue I have with people who speed is that you're willingly involving other drivers you may pass in your behavior. About 32000 people in the UK are killed (1800~) or seriously injured (remaining figure) in traffic, highways/motorways make up roughly 6-10% of this number, the rest being attributed to rural and urban roads (headon accidents a primary factor).

The speedlimit in Norway is about 70mph on highways. I frequently see people doing speeds of 100+ during the day and they are traveling noticably very fast compared to other traffic. For the vast majority of the time it's not a problem, because I pay attention and I see that a car is approaching fast. But there are so many completely plausible scenarios where someones is being unattentive and you risk creating a scenario where you could crash.

So yeah, cars and highways can handle it. People however can not be trusted to not endanger others, so we have a speedlimit.
 
kthanksbye said:
Maybe it is something I'm missing but I don't feel the need to heavily critisize him for this, I mean it is irresponsible and stupid but not something malicious and reckless like driving under influence or over speeding.
A fine and community service, he learns his lesson and we all move on.
Click to expand...

Jack Grealish got out and did some partying and drunk driving/fleeing the scene after a crash during covid lockdown and everyone were quick to forgive him
 
Balljy said:
That's the bit I disagree with. It's against the law regardless of whether someone has the money to cover the damages or not. Whoever does it is morally wrong and also wrong from a law perspective. I don't think we should be saying something is more right or more wrong just because of the fact he can cover costs when it goes through lawyers.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's smart because the cost of the transfer of risk is minimal versus the potential risk exposure (i.e 2000 dollars a year in premiums versus a million or more in damages) but if someone with the resources to cover that wants to accept that risk I don;t really care. It's the people who don't have the means and drive uninsured, or even those who have insurance but are engaged in an activity that violates their policy leaving the victim with little to no opportunity for compensation are the ones you should direct your ire toward.

Interestingly, I wonder if clubs could form captive insurance companies to provide home and auto coverage for players? @Snowjoe do you know?
 
Tom Cato said:
Jack Grealish got out and did some partying and drunk driving/fleeing the scene after a crash during covid lockdown and everyone were quick to forgive him
Click to expand...
He's the new flavor of the month in England, I'm not even surprised.
 
I, for one, refuse to drive a Lamborghini that's been insured.

If it was God's will and intention they'd come fully equipped with it.
 
Tom Cato said:
Jack Grealish got out and did some partying and drunk driving/fleeing the scene after a crash during covid lockdown and everyone were quick to forgive him
Click to expand...
He really should get more flak for that, he just did a stay at home video hours before and was pictured with two odd shoes on (clearly pissed) before doing a runner..
 
kthanksbye said:
Maybe it is something I'm missing but I don't feel the need to heavily critisize him for this, I mean it is irresponsible and stupid but not something malicious and reckless like driving under influence or over speeding.
A fine and community service, he learns his lesson and we all move on.
Click to expand...

Clearly he doesn't learn, got 6pts last year for speeding, plus another 6 for other offenses, that's probably why he's already been banned.

Yet he still keeps driving. Repeat offenders like him should be banned from driving for 10 years.
 
Alright for Wan Bissaka I suppose but if you were to crash into someone and permanently brain damage them or something they’d need care for the rest of their live which could cost a million odd pounds.
 
Deery said:
Alright for Wan Bissaka I suppose but if you were to crash into someone and permanently brain damage them or something they’d need care for the rest of their live which could cost a million odd pounds.
Click to expand...
I think the money would be the least of AWB's problems in that scenario.
 
simonhch said:
Context is important. I often hit 100mph on a five line freeway here in the states when there aren’t many, or any people about. For high performance vehicles it’s nothing, and if the road is straight and there’s no one around, I don’t see the issue. Driving that speed in high flow traffic is incredibly dangerous, because as you say….reaction times. You can’t control what other drivers will do and if they see you.
Click to expand...

Apart from maybe at about 4am on the M1 I can't think of anywhere in England where driving at 100mph doesn't make you an idiot...and even then I'm not sure why it would ever be necessary. A majority of the roads here a majority of the time, doing anything close to 100mph means you're weaving in and out of lanes and traffic like a bellend.

I've also never understood the male obsession with getting a certain type of car and driving it like a plonker. Driving is proper overrated. It's just a succession of getting annoyed at things that are sort of in your way but not really.
 
No doubt that he is a bellend but honestly this won't go anywhere. He will get a fine which will amount to around 15 minutes wages for him, a longer ban and possibly some community service which due to his celebrity status will probably be some sort of spokesman role in a road safety campaign. His agent needs to hire him a chauffeur yesterday and if its the chauffeurs night off then he can get an uber like a normal person.
 
Oranges038 said:
Clearly he doesn't learn, got 6pts last year for speeding, plus another 6 for other offenses, that's probably why he's already been banned.

Yet he still keeps driving. Repeat offenders like him should be banned from driving for 10 years.
Click to expand...

Yes, I will agree with this about repeated offenders. If you're not able to respect the laws of driving a vehicle, you shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
I'm not saying it's smart because the cost of the transfer of risk is minimal versus the potential risk exposure (i.e 2000 dollars a year in premiums versus a million or more in damages) but if someone with the resources to cover that wants to accept that risk I don;t really care. It's the people who don't have the means and drive uninsured, or even those who have insurance but are engaged in an activity that violates their policy leaving the victim with little to no opportunity for compensation are the ones you should direct your ire toward.

Interestingly, I wonder if clubs could form captive insurance companies to provide home and auto coverage for players? @Snowjoe do you know?
Click to expand...

I don’t see why not if they’re happy to take the risk, in fact in the UK you can actually “self insure” yourself to drive if you deposit a sizeable lump sum of a size that I can’t remember off the top of my head.

Im pretty sure some organisations such as the police force may also do this for their vehicles
 
Tom Cato said:
Modern car are perfectly capable of going 100mph on modern highways. Modenr highways are perfectly able to support traffi traveling at 100mph. Modern people are not able to react when Doris blinks to overtake the lorry infront of her, having previously gauged the car behind her to be "far enough back".

The issue is never that the cars or the highways limitations stops it from being safe, the issue I have with people who speed is that you're willingly involving other drivers you may pass in your behavior. About 32000 people in the UK are killed (1800~) or seriously injured (remaining figure) in traffic, highways/motorways make up roughly 6-10% of this number, the rest being attributed to rural and urban roads (headon accidents a primary factor).

The speedlimit in Norway is about 70mph on highways. I frequently see people doing speeds of 100+ during the day and they are traveling noticably very fast compared to other traffic. For the vast majority of the time it's not a problem, because I pay attention and I see that a car is approaching fast. But there are so many completely plausible scenarios where someones is being unattentive and you risk creating a scenario where you could crash.

So yeah, cars and highways can handle it. People however can not be trusted to not endanger others, so we have a speedlimit.
Click to expand...
Well as you say, unfortunately it's people that perhaps shouldn't be on the motorways that cause most of the incidents.

People in England just don't use the lane format correctly. Left lane should be for cruising, middle lane to overtake the slower drivers, then move back into the left lane once over taking. The right lane should be available for people who want to travel as fast as they like (Autobahn style). This would be a much safer way of doing things as it would stop the impatient under cutters who dance their way through lanes as they feel fit.
 
Snowjoe said:
I don’t see why not if they’re happy to take the risk, in fact in the UK you can actually “self insure” yourself to drive if you deposit a sizeable lump sum of a size that I can’t remember off the top of my head.

Im pretty sure some organisations such as the police force may also do this for their vehicles
Click to expand...

Super interesting mate. Thanks!
 
noodlehair said:
Can't be many insurance companies out there who'll agree to insure a combination of a Lamborghini and an idiot
Click to expand...
On the contrary, I would think that the insurance company work on the principle that a fool and his money are easily parted.
 
noodlehair said:
Can't be many insurance companies out there who'll agree to insure a combination of a Lamborghini and an idiot
Click to expand...

They used actuarial tables to help them determine the likelihood of claims against the driver and price it accordingly. Sometimes a driver is too risky but there will almost always be some company that will take them.
 
El Jefe said:
Rather than seeking a pointless questionnaire on the caf, you could just look at actual statistics.

https://www.insurancefactory.co.uk/news/May-2019/How-many-drivers-are-convicted-in-the-UK-each-year

If you think what AWB did is that uncommon you'd be very wrong. Again I'm not saying what he did was fine, it was very irresponsible but because he has more money in his account doesn't mean he won't make the same mistakes thousands of kids in his age group do.

Like i said, he fecked up and will pay the penalty for it, end of story.
Click to expand...

That's people getting FPNs not people being disqualified. Only 340k offences that led to court action in a year (many of which will still be more minor offences like speeding, not ending in disqualification). Out of 30 million drivers in the UK. And obviously a lot of twats will be multiple offenders, just like AWB, and that concentrates the number down even more. So no. It's a very, very small % of idiots who drive like tossers to the extent they end up losing their licence. And an even more minuscule % of these entitled twats who then continue to drive after being disqualified.

And he's 23, not a kid :lol: If this was some 17 year old footballer who just got their licence and a sponsorship car I'd be more sympathetic.
 
Last edited:
Snowjoe said:
I don’t see why not if they’re happy to take the risk, in fact in the UK you can actually “self insure” yourself to drive if you deposit a sizeable lump sum of a size that I can’t remember off the top of my head.

Im pretty sure some organisations such as the police force may also do this for their vehicles
Click to expand...

You used to be able do that for a "deposit" of £500,000 but you can't do it anymore.

They changed the law a few years ago because injury + property claims from serious car accidents can easily get well above £500,000. I've personally seen claims well over a million.
 
duffer said:
You used to be able do that for a "deposit" of £500,000 but you can't do it anymore.

They changed the law a few years ago because injury + property claims from serious car accidents can easily get well above £500,000. I've personally seen claims well over a million.
Click to expand...

Ahh I see, my reading was done a few years ago on that area!

It makes sense though given how high third party liabilities can be
 
Thanks to uninsured pricks, we all pay an extra £30 per year car insurance.
 
noodlehair said:
Apart from maybe at about 4am on the M1 I can't think of anywhere in England where driving at 100mph doesn't make you an idiot...and even then I'm not sure why it would ever be necessary. A majority of the roads here a majority of the time, doing anything close to 100mph means you're weaving in and out of lanes and traffic like a bellend.

I've also never understood the male obsession with getting a certain type of car and driving it like a plonker. Driving is proper overrated. It's just a succession of getting annoyed at things that are sort of in your way but not really.
Click to expand...

There’s a lot more space here tbf. And after about 10-11pm lots of empty highway. I don’t think driving fast equates to driving like an idiot. Driving like an idiot is driving close to other people, taking corners fast, tailgating etc. In a straight line on a big highway, 90-100pmh can really feel like nothing.

As for cars, I Autocross mine. Which is amazing. That’s where you get the really exhilarating twists and turns. No need to ever do that on the street. Cars are a passion for some people. It’s a hobby like any other. I’ve put maybe $35k in modifications into my car, much of which I fitted myself. It’s a passion project. I’m not talking about being a yobo street racer. I’m talking about having a customised high performance vehicle, doing high performance driving school, and competing in time trials with other experienced drivers. The rest of the time my car serves as a quiet daily driver just fine.

Commuting sucks, but I’m lucky that I don’t have to travel during rush hour often. Because sitting in bumper to bumper traffic is absolutely the worst.

So I stick to my point that context is important.
 
simonhch said:
Commuting sucks, but I’m lucky that I don’t have to travel during rush hour often. Because sitting in bumper to bumper traffic is absolutely the worst.
Click to expand...

Chicago is the only place I've been where the rush hour traffic is worse than Toronto!
 
Oranges038 said:
He was clocked doing 104mph in a 70 zone last year, got a measly £600 fine and 6 penalty points.

You'd have to question what else he did to be get the other 6, as you need 12 to be disqualified from driving for at least 6 months.

This year he gets caught in a car worth 170k whilst disqualified.

Incredibly stupid. He deserves to be insulted.
Click to expand...
I wonder when he passed? It’s only 6pts for the first 2 years I believe. Managed it myself when I was younger, though only 36 and 40 in a 30 zone. Guess I must be stupid too, and deserve insulting - because no human beings ever make mistakes. :rolleyes:
 
Tom Van Persie said:
As @harms pointed out we had players commit driving offences under SAF. None of them were shown the door for it. I'm sure Ole will have a word with AWB and hopefully AWB learns from this.
Click to expand...
I never actually said AWB should be shown the door and not being privy to SAFs thought processes then or now I cannot answer as to what he did or didnt do. AWB broke the law and he should be treated like any other person; if the Club decides to action too thats down to them.
 
Tom Cato said:
Jack Grealish got out and did some partying and drunk driving/fleeing the scene after a crash during covid lockdown and everyone were quick to forgive him
Click to expand...
Ah but he’s the doyen of English football
 
Probably because it's not a big deal or at least not yet to be big deal. It's not like he had car crashed like Grealish.
 
Plant0x84 said:
I wonder when he passed? It’s only 6pts for the first 2 years I believe. Managed it myself when I was younger, though only 36 and 40 in a 30 zone. Guess I must be stupid too, and deserve insulting - because no human beings ever make mistakes. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If you repeatedly do it to a point where you end up getting disqualified, it's not a mistake. It is stupidity.

Especially when you consider he's a well known footballer driving cars that are incredibly powerful and cost over 100k. In his situation. Speeding and driving whilst disqualified is also not just a mistake. It's incredibly stupid.

.
 
Plant0x84 said:
I wonder when he passed? It’s only 6pts for the first 2 years I believe. Managed it myself when I was younger, though only 36 and 40 in a 30 zone. Guess I must be stupid too, and deserve insulting - because no human beings ever make mistakes. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And after you got disqualified for those 2 minor speeding offences, did you then go and jump into your conspicuous-as-all-hell supercar to go out and drive like a twat whilst being disqualified? If so then yes, that would mark you out as exceptionally stupid. Stupid enough to actually pose a serious danger to yourself even just in terms of career and livelihood.

We also know he wasnt disqualified as a new driver with 6 points, because he got 6 points for the speeding last year in lockdown and wasnt disqualified then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.