Seat Leon 154mph A11
Discussion
Gargamel said:
zarjaz1991 said:
He's just a stupid boy anyway.
If he has any sense he'll just hand in his licence for good. Not really much point anyone like that carrying in driving...he hasn't got the intelligence.
I still don't understand this type of post. If he has any sense he'll just hand in his licence for good. Not really much point anyone like that carrying in driving...he hasn't got the intelligence.
Yep it was quick, but it wasn't an accident and no one got hurt this time.
He was caught, convicted and punished - given his age and the car, it might or might not of been the only time he tok it to the limit.
Does PH not recognise the ability to make a mistake, learn and move on, hopefully he will keep it down to 120 in the future
Gargamel said:
Yep it was quick, but it wasn't an accident and no one got hurt this time.
It was quick, most likely dangerously so. Danger means that something bad may occur not that it will or has occured. Once the danger is realised the danger is over. The use of this sort of speed on a public road adds to the danger and once realised the outcome is most likely to be catastrophic for either this driver or someone being unfortunate enough to come accross him in a way that would not avoid a collision. Someone driving perfectly reasonably and who is not expecting a vehicle approaching at a closing speed of 70mph+ on a road will not expect a vehicle, seen 275m away from a junction say, to be upon them turning across the road only 4 seconds later. Someone pulling out from a junction from a stand-still may well take 4 seconds to move and be across the road and out of the way of an approaching vehicle. Howlett would be unlikely to make any significant braking effort in that time in that situation either. If it was someone who was 60 years old or more that driver probably wouldn't even see the car at that distance.Was Mr Howlett looking 300m in front of his vehicle and perceiving hazards that he would have little or no chance of avoiding when he came across them at over 150mph? I think not.
So there was no accident this time, you are right. The problem is that Mr Howlett had no control over whether there would be an accident or not even when someone was just driving absolutely normally 300m in front of him.
Gargamel said:
Does PH not recognise the ability to make a mistake, learn and move on, hopefully he will keep it down to 120 in the future
I figure PH members do recogise this. Unfortunately you finished your contribution with why some members are not involved in road safety, setting speed limits and deciding on what penalties are handed down for those who "make a mistake". Thankfully this lad's mistake cost no lives on this occasion and that was down to luck but the attitude that suggests "hopefully he will keep it down to 120 in the future " does and will continue to cost lives as long as some think it a bit funny.Was the penalty sufficient and did the magistrates hand down what was appropriate? I personally think the magistrates considered their maximum penalty to be limited to the maximum set in the guidance and perhaps didn't see that the guidance and the law allows them to set a penalty that was more severe than that. Of course that is just my opinion but I do think that is the likely scenario. Hopefully they may be better informed now for future events.
So equally, I still don't understand your type of post...or perhaps I do.
Overall, a lucky combo of weak prosecutor, clerk and bench.
If I were on the bench then he'd be disqualified for at least 56 days and subject to a re-test; a massively underused discretionary power.
Contrary to silly comments in the press, there isn't going to be an appeal. There's also a misguided campaign by an East Anglia newspaper - to increase the maximum disqualification period. Presumably to something in excess of one lifetime.
If I were on the bench then he'd be disqualified for at least 56 days and subject to a re-test; a massively underused discretionary power.
Contrary to silly comments in the press, there isn't going to be an appeal. There's also a misguided campaign by an East Anglia newspaper - to increase the maximum disqualification period. Presumably to something in excess of one lifetime.
tapereel said:
The problem is that Mr Howlett had no control over whether there would be an accident or not even when someone was just driving absolutely normally 300m in front of him.
This is just Hooey, and obviously so. You ARE in control of all of the inputs for the vehicle to attain that speed, and your observation and judgement.
You CANNOT mitigate all situations, and thus law has settled on 70mph as a compromise of risk/progress.
That this guy went well over the legal limit does NOT automatically mean bad things, his judgement, observation and inputs may all have been excellent. Plenty of Plod attain those speeds, as do drivers in other countries.
To boil your (well reasoned) argument down to that simplistic level of dogma does you a disservice
I wrote what I wrote, because the level of sanctimonious claptrap on here these days is staggering. When I was his age I'd VMAX every car I got into....I grew out of it, as do the VAST majority of people, without accident or legal intervention.
This guy learned the hard way, but least step back and let him learn, without the stoning eh ?
Bottom line, driving at that speed is selfish and unjustifiable., 56 days is lient and no doubt will be reviewed due to the crap its stirred up. Its not a shade over the limit its more than double. If drove past your house at 84mph or even 84mph over the posted limit your not going to say yea, well speed limits are a bit low round here anyhow. Driver probably knows what he.she is doing and has good reactions.
He was very lucky, but as I find people in the motortrade and taxi drivers always seem to get off lightly on ban scenario in my experience.
Driver A 18 year old student- does 122mph in a 60 gets £800 fine and 4 month ban.
Driver B Middle aged taxi driver whilst working with passenger does 107mph and get caught in the same place. Gets £150 fine and 7 day ban.
He was very lucky, but as I find people in the motortrade and taxi drivers always seem to get off lightly on ban scenario in my experience.
Driver A 18 year old student- does 122mph in a 60 gets £800 fine and 4 month ban.
Driver B Middle aged taxi driver whilst working with passenger does 107mph and get caught in the same place. Gets £150 fine and 7 day ban.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 4th August 13:33
La Liga said:
He's been sentenced, it's done. If the police felt it was that bad they could have looked at driving standard offences.
People struggle to differentiate risk and outcome. Most road traffic legislation is designed to punish risk and prevent a bad outcome.
I saw the PCC is so upset he has asked the sentacing council to review.People struggle to differentiate risk and outcome. Most road traffic legislation is designed to punish risk and prevent a bad outcome.
Its mechanics like that who go out a rag customers cars, bit if he had done it in a punters car the rank & file on here would be up in arms.
How can a they ban nigel mansell for 6 months for 92mph then, he must be pretty safe at that speed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/49787.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/49787.stm
surveyor_101 said:
La Liga said:
He's been sentenced, it's done. If the police felt it was that bad they could have looked at driving standard offences.
People struggle to differentiate risk and outcome. Most road traffic legislation is designed to punish risk and prevent a bad outcome.
I saw the PCC is so upset he has asked the sentacing council to review.People struggle to differentiate risk and outcome. Most road traffic legislation is designed to punish risk and prevent a bad outcome.
Its mechanics like that who go out a rag customers cars, bit if he had done it in a punters car the rank & file on here would be up in arms.
agtlaw said:
Whatever an uninformed PCC might say, the SC has absolutely no power to change the outcome. The law permits a lifetime ban, so no point in a newspaper campaign. There is no prosecution right of appeal. Their efforts might be better directed at an internal review of the charging decision.
I think they probably thought falsely the the JPs might take that sort of speed on an A road seriously.Dangerous driving could see him go to prison, which I don't want to see but a 6-12 ban would of been good.
Looking at the sentcing guidelines he was treated as if he was going 101-110.
Wonder what the sentcing guidelines were is in 1999 for driver a to get 4 month ban for 122 in 60. 800 fine was not weekly income. Driver worked part time for retailer while at college and had £2k in savings. The solicitor said they could take the whole 2k and ban for 6 months.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Thursday 4th August 14:28
Gargamel said:
tapereel said:
The problem is that Mr Howlett had no control over whether there would be an accident or not even when someone was just driving absolutely normally 300m in front of him.
This is just Hooey, and obviously so. You ARE in control of all of the inputs for the vehicle to attain that speed, and your observation and judgement.
You CANNOT mitigate all situations, and thus law has settled on 70mph as a compromise of risk/progress.
That this guy went well over the legal limit does NOT automatically mean bad things, his judgement, observation and inputs may all have been excellent. Plenty of Plod attain those speeds, as do drivers in other countries.
To boil your (well reasoned) argument down to that simplistic level of dogma does you a disservice
I wrote what I wrote, because the level of sanctimonious claptrap on here these days is staggering. When I was his age I'd VMAX every car I got into....I grew out of it, as do the VAST majority of people, without accident or legal intervention.
This guy learned the hard way, but least step back and let him learn, without the stoning eh ?
I have no intent on "stoning" the guy at all. I am however of the opinion that 154mph on a public road is unacceptable and that penalties handed out when that speed is evidenced are suitable to deter it in the "young-guy/VMAX brigade". A 54 day ban doesn't do it in my opinion.
It is also my opinion that anyone driving at double the speed limit is demonstrating a type of driving that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. Because of that I think that a more suitable charge would have been dangerous driving.
If you think that isn't right because Mr Howlett is a driving god then you are quite wrong as driving skill doesn't warrant or form mitigation for a charge of dangerous driving.
Glasgowrob said:
Quick question for the PH masses
if he had refused to identify the driver would he have been limited to 6 points?
No. He would have been prosecuted for failing to identify the driver AND prosecuted for the speeding offence. The courts may infer a keeper is the driver if that keeper fails to identify the driver.if he had refused to identify the driver would he have been limited to 6 points?
That doesn't arise when you are stopped and identified...unless you get a really, really smart lawyer.
tapereel said:
It isn't "hooey" at all.
I have no intent on "stoning" the guy at all. I am however of the opinion that 154mph on a public road is unacceptable and that penalties handed out when that speed is evidenced are suitable to deter it in the "young-guy/VMAX brigade". A 54 day ban doesn't do it in my opinion.
It is also my opinion that anyone driving at double the speed limit is demonstrating a type of driving that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. Because of that I think that a more suitable charge would have been dangerous driving.
If you think that isn't right because Mr Howlett is a driving god then you are quite wrong as driving skill doesn't warrant or form mitigation for a charge of dangerous driving.
So essential rather than a speeder you wanted him dealt with a criminal and do prison time?I have no intent on "stoning" the guy at all. I am however of the opinion that 154mph on a public road is unacceptable and that penalties handed out when that speed is evidenced are suitable to deter it in the "young-guy/VMAX brigade". A 54 day ban doesn't do it in my opinion.
It is also my opinion that anyone driving at double the speed limit is demonstrating a type of driving that falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. Because of that I think that a more suitable charge would have been dangerous driving.
If you think that isn't right because Mr Howlett is a driving god then you are quite wrong as driving skill doesn't warrant or form mitigation for a charge of dangerous driving.
tapereel said:
No. He would have been prosecuted for failing to identify the driver AND prosecuted for the speeding offence. The courts may infer a keeper is the driver if that keeper fails to identify the driver.
That doesn't arise when you are stopped and identified...unless you get a really, really smart lawyer.
A difficult defence made even more difficult since Bates v CPS (2015) EWHC 2346.That doesn't arise when you are stopped and identified...unless you get a really, really smart lawyer.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff