Discussion
Mel....totally agree with everything you've said...as well as anyone else who pointed out that a jail system does little if anything for crims and in fact hits us (the taxpaying public) hard each time they put someone away. My thoughts were based on the fact that there seemed an increase in views that doing what he did was 'ok cos he hadnt hit anyone'....!
cheers
Night
cheers
Night
quote:
Jason ,what I was referring to was nonegreens assumption that if there was no victim then there was no crime.I was just asking if he felt the same way about drink-driving,after all the same thing applies here,until a drunk has an accident then there is no victim.Does this mean we let drunks drive until the inevitable occurs or do we try to stop it before it happens?
I understand your point and I do agree with it in some ways, however to me Drink Driving is sooo completely different to speeding.
The problem is there are different types of laws, requiring different actions/omissions to become a crime.i.e. Murder and manslaughter are different because there must be Malice Aforethought (i.e. Mens Rea) Many offences do not require a victim at all, and many do not require you to know that you are committing a crime.
As I said I do agree that 165 on a public road was damn stupid and COULD have killed someone else (if he only went past them and they s**t themselves and drove off the road, I know, I've nearly done it when a biker has screamed past me) however I in no way accept that a Years Jail for this misdemeanor is in anyway reasonable when you are looking at more dangerous criminals who go out fully intending to beat people up to steal their property getting suspended jail cause the prisons are too full.
Esselte In short I do not compare DD with speeding in general and this case in particular. THe issue from my view is that no one died and the riders intent was not to harm anyone. In carrying out his act he slowed for non NSL limits he broke no double whites and he caused no significant problems with his actions. In addition he was not pulled for speeding or captured by anything other than his own video. Would a drunk driver be convicted without proof of blood alcohol level but on the basis of a video showing him drinking. Even if this were to happen would he get a 3 year ban and a year in jail, I suspect not. All this guy is really guilty of is poor judgement. This sort of justice is no better than a lynch mob and it is time it was stopped. As I also said in another post I spend a lot of time in Wales and the welsh police spend a huge ammount of time hounding motorcyclists. As far as I can see this is because they have nothing better to do and perhaps they should be transferred to other forces who are experiencing shortages.
Just over a year ago I was sat at a red light in Manchester when I was rammed at 60 mph by a driver who was racing with another car. The other car got away through the lights at red, the guy who hit me wrote both our cars off. Despite my calling the police they were not interested and failed to attend. Bothe these lads were doing alost 100 mph in the city centre. A worse crime in my opinion yet no penalty for either driver and no satisfaction for the victim. In fact the guys father called me the following day to moan about his 10 quid car being wrecked and said "I believe yours were a porsche ha ha". So yes I get a bit p@ssed off when the establishment think they have achieved something by banging a guy up for what ammounts to nothing.
Just over a year ago I was sat at a red light in Manchester when I was rammed at 60 mph by a driver who was racing with another car. The other car got away through the lights at red, the guy who hit me wrote both our cars off. Despite my calling the police they were not interested and failed to attend. Bothe these lads were doing alost 100 mph in the city centre. A worse crime in my opinion yet no penalty for either driver and no satisfaction for the victim. In fact the guys father called me the following day to moan about his 10 quid car being wrecked and said "I believe yours were a porsche ha ha". So yes I get a bit p@ssed off when the establishment think they have achieved something by banging a guy up for what ammounts to nothing.
I know the roads in question well (A470 Merthyr Brecon, A40 etc) and would guess my Porsche would easily do in excess of 160mph quite easily on the exact same road if i had tried it when i was there a couple of weekends ago. (For the record I am a very sensible driver and did not once excede the limit in my 320bhp / 178mph Porsche, truthfully)
What some of you do not realise is that the visibility on these roads is incredible and they are deserted at the right time of day. By this I mean you can travel 3-4 miles at a time without seeing another car, at the same time there are almost no hedges, no buildings etc - giving almost unmatched visibility in my experience way in to the distance. In the bikers defence he is acknowledged to have slowed to 30 in all of the villages.
Fair enough this guy was going quick, but when it is in the middle of nowhere and nobody other than yourself is going to get hurt, then where is the crime??
Still cant work out why the biker let the cop see the video tape??
I think if the government is so concerned then all cars should be speed limited to 91mph (highest euro limit) after all what justification is there for cars which can excede this speed??? Nope dont even try there is not one, what if you loose it on a track day and kill somebody - are you looking at dangerous driving if you are going to fast - what if somebody is seriously hurt / killed as a result??
Smoking and alcohol should be banned as between them they kill thousands each year for any single speed related road death.
Police should go catch muggers, rapists, thiefs, robbers - proper criminals. Shame is they dont simply roll over when they see a blue light and take whats coming. Easy target speeders.
Bennno
What some of you do not realise is that the visibility on these roads is incredible and they are deserted at the right time of day. By this I mean you can travel 3-4 miles at a time without seeing another car, at the same time there are almost no hedges, no buildings etc - giving almost unmatched visibility in my experience way in to the distance. In the bikers defence he is acknowledged to have slowed to 30 in all of the villages.
Fair enough this guy was going quick, but when it is in the middle of nowhere and nobody other than yourself is going to get hurt, then where is the crime??
Still cant work out why the biker let the cop see the video tape??
I think if the government is so concerned then all cars should be speed limited to 91mph (highest euro limit) after all what justification is there for cars which can excede this speed??? Nope dont even try there is not one, what if you loose it on a track day and kill somebody - are you looking at dangerous driving if you are going to fast - what if somebody is seriously hurt / killed as a result??
Smoking and alcohol should be banned as between them they kill thousands each year for any single speed related road death.
Police should go catch muggers, rapists, thiefs, robbers - proper criminals. Shame is they dont simply roll over when they see a blue light and take whats coming. Easy target speeders.
Bennno
1 years jail for speeding?
This guy should have been banned for 3 - 6 months maximum with a good sized fine.
His life is going to be ruined with the added grief for his family, job prospects and financial state.
He's harmed no one nor caused any damage to property, a completely victimless crime. (albeit pretty stupid)
To put this in perspective, look at page 314 of ITV's teletext (10:40pm Mar 11th)...
"a bare knuckle gypsy boxer convicted of the rape of a dying 59 year old mother of two is being released... after one year"
Neither of these is justice.
This guy should have been banned for 3 - 6 months maximum with a good sized fine.
His life is going to be ruined with the added grief for his family, job prospects and financial state.
He's harmed no one nor caused any damage to property, a completely victimless crime. (albeit pretty stupid)
To put this in perspective, look at page 314 of ITV's teletext (10:40pm Mar 11th)...
"a bare knuckle gypsy boxer convicted of the rape of a dying 59 year old mother of two is being released... after one year"
Neither of these is justice.
consider these two cases,
Case 1.
Crime: Biker, 165 mph as indicated by speedo, bike speedos usually overread so more likely 150-155) on public highway but not actually witnessed by police.
Punishment: 12 months in prison, 3 year ban from driving, plus a large fine.
Possible long-term effects: loss of job, home, family,prison stigma with him for ever, even when he's done his time no driving for 2 more years and then extortionate insurance for the next few years.
Case 2.
Crime: Biker, 123 mph (actual measured speed, so likely to have been around 135 on speedo) on public highway.
Punishment: 48 day driving ban and a £300 fine.
Possible long-term effects: No driving for 48 days, increased insurance premiums afterwards (but this guy keeps his well-paid job so he can afford it).
Spot the differences;
Well case 1 was a higher speed than case 2,but realistically there is not that much difference and any accident at either speed would have similar consequences so one would expect "similar" penalties.
Oh and Biker no. 2 Mark Summer is a serving Police officer (CID).
Justice! Fair sentencing!.....My A**e.
Case 1.
Crime: Biker, 165 mph as indicated by speedo, bike speedos usually overread so more likely 150-155) on public highway but not actually witnessed by police.
Punishment: 12 months in prison, 3 year ban from driving, plus a large fine.
Possible long-term effects: loss of job, home, family,prison stigma with him for ever, even when he's done his time no driving for 2 more years and then extortionate insurance for the next few years.
Case 2.
Crime: Biker, 123 mph (actual measured speed, so likely to have been around 135 on speedo) on public highway.
Punishment: 48 day driving ban and a £300 fine.
Possible long-term effects: No driving for 48 days, increased insurance premiums afterwards (but this guy keeps his well-paid job so he can afford it).
Spot the differences;
Well case 1 was a higher speed than case 2,but realistically there is not that much difference and any accident at either speed would have similar consequences so one would expect "similar" penalties.
Oh and Biker no. 2 Mark Summer is a serving Police officer (CID).
Justice! Fair sentencing!.....My A**e.
Well drunk driving and driving at stupid speeds are probably fairly comparable - no real victim until something goes wrong, in which case serious damage, injury and death are possible.
So: shouldn't the fool have been treated similarly to a drunk driver - say 12 months' ban and a big fine?
And in reply to an earlier post about other "victimless" crimes - with prostitution, the victim is often the prostitute, for all sorts of reasons like coercion. Yet she's the one who'd usually end up in jail.
John.
So: shouldn't the fool have been treated similarly to a drunk driver - say 12 months' ban and a big fine?
And in reply to an earlier post about other "victimless" crimes - with prostitution, the victim is often the prostitute, for all sorts of reasons like coercion. Yet she's the one who'd usually end up in jail.
John.
I can just hear Mrs Bluerinse now "it's about time we started locking up you nasty, noisy motorcyclists and showing you that we're just not going to tolerate this kind of behaviour"
Well Mrs Bluerinse, when you're lashed to your bed with duct tape while the crazed junkie going through your jewellery tries to decide if he's got time to rape the s**t out of you before he rushes off to his dealer, you might choose to revise your opinions about crime, punishment and priorities in policing.
Well Mrs Bluerinse, when you're lashed to your bed with duct tape while the crazed junkie going through your jewellery tries to decide if he's got time to rape the s**t out of you before he rushes off to his dealer, you might choose to revise your opinions about crime, punishment and priorities in policing.
I havent read every message here, but some have you may need to note, the guy had several previous convictions for speeding, and his bike had a hydrolic number plate, that lifted it out of view. maybe his prison sentence, although not actually stated in the report, is for driving without plates, therefore not officially insured, speeding, and loosing ALL his points from the previous, and purposefully attaching a camera with the intent of speeding, rather than the more "shock factor headline" of just speeding?
it still seems harsh to me, but I know I DONT have all the FACTS just shock headline news bites and minimal story content. I take newspaper articles with a pinch of salt.
it still seems harsh to me, but I know I DONT have all the FACTS just shock headline news bites and minimal story content. I take newspaper articles with a pinch of salt.
quote:
I havent read every message here, but some have you may need to note, the guy had several previous convictions for speeding, and his bike had a hydrolic number plate, that lifted it out of view. maybe his prison sentence, although not actually stated in the report, is for driving without plates, therefore not officially insured, speeding, and loosing ALL his points from the previous, and purposefully attaching a camera with the intent of speeding, rather than the more "shock factor headline" of just speeding?
That is interesting and indeed not something I have read/heard before. If he is habitually doing this and has been banned repeatedly before then perhaps jail is a rather harsh but Final attempt to get him to obey reasonable speeds.
I honestly think that Drink Driving is far more dangerous than speeding (relatively speaking) because of the lack of awareness and control exhibited by an inebriated soul. This awareness and reaction time can still be better than some school run women and old people though,
which is quite disconcerting.... quote:
JasonF, Nonegreen,
Just out of interest why are DD and speeding so different,both are "victimless" offences until "something goes wrong" Just curious as to your reasoning.
So many reasons, with speeding you can raise and lower the speed according to the conditions, therefore stepping in and out of the danger zone. Not so with alcohol.
Speending is an adrenelin rush which is natural, getting drunk is chemical.
Duty of care disappears when noone else is around to be injured so speed can vary, drunks cant vary drunkeness instantly.
Speed is a judgement issue, drinking is planned irresponsibilty. (would you cut brake pipes then go out on the road?)
The list isalmost endless and the two are not comparable, one is the human condition and the other is criminal negligence.
I'm not sure that there is so much difference between the two.Both are arbitrary limits set for "the good of the many".In both instances there will be people who can perform adequatley above the limits and those who are abysmal well below the limit.In both cases there are no victims unless something goes wrong,and when it does the results are not too dissimilar,both are an "absolute" offence (you're over the limit,thats it,although with speed there's a little more leniency shown,ever known a DD get off with a producer or warning?) there are people who do both regularly (some do both at the same time!)and there are people for whom it is a one-off.I don't think this issue is as clear cut as you appear to.
quote:
I'm not sure that there is so much difference between the two.Both are arbitrary limits set for "the good of the many
I would take issue with that comment for 4 Reasons
1. So many people speed - even the Police do it and accept that almost everyone speeds and they only catch a small %. If so many people regularly speed, and we are in a democracy (I am not sure now we have a President) then what the majority of people find acceptable is what ought to be reasonable in law. Therefore speeding should not be as much of a crime as it is taken to be (See cannibis legality now and with so few people doing it). Nothing to do with xBillion in revenue from speeding fines.
2. If this law is for the Good of the Many, then why are smoking and alchohol permitted ? They kill and injure far more people than driving does, and indeed take up a huge amount of the NHS cash (sit in casualty on a Friday/Saturday night or speak to my friend the Junior Doctor). The same goes for DIY which if you read the stats kills and injures far more than all road accident stats put together. So why is DIY not illegal and fineable ? (sp)
3. The Right to Silence has been revoked for Motoring offences only. - This does not include people who are nicking your car, nicking things from your car, or indeed driving without a license, insurance etc.. Merely for Drink Driving and Speeding it seems. It makes me feel better knowing that if a chap steals my car he'll get two weeks suspended plus a holiday in Africa whilst if I drive at 100mph on the motorway I could be jailed.
4. The environment. We pay 75% tax on petrol purely because it is soooooo harmful to nature right ? Well, cars produce less than 1% of harmful gases so how does this work ? Let me think - Good excuse for revenue ? Nah...
Sorry if I am getting a little bit raving lunatic like about this but it really
me offquote:
This biker guy had a device for flicking over his number plate James Bond style. What part of his sentence (if any) was for this or what would have happened if he wasn't speeding but got done for the plate only?
Tricky one. On one hand he could receive a £30 for failing to display a numberplate. On the other it could be said he is trying to Pervert the course of justice by adapting the plate to be deliberately unreadable when committing an offence. Depends on the circumstances really.
I would imagine this act had an influence on the sentence though. Along with the video camera it would have helped to show what his intent was that day. i.e, to deliberatley go out and speed rather than simply accidentally exceeding the limit as most of us do occasionally
Unless it is flipped up when on the road the device in itself is not illegal. They are marketed as a device that saves you masking your number plate at track days (to stop the insurance company spys often seen on pit walls!) freely avaliable and legal to fit just not use.
the manufacturer advertise in the back of MCN and are called "road 2 track" or something similar.
So by law the fact that he had one should have absolutely no bearing on the sentance at all
the manufacturer advertise in the back of MCN and are called "road 2 track" or something similar.
So by law the fact that he had one should have absolutely no bearing on the sentance at all
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff