Drifter convicted of dangerous driving

Drifter convicted of dangerous driving

Author
Discussion

tapereel

Original Poster:

1,860 posts

117 months

Friday 10th July 2015
quotequote all
A victim of his own video posted on the Internet it would seem.

Driver banned from the road after film of him driving SIDEWAYS around hairpin in Fast and Furious-style stunt is posted on Facebook

A dangerous driver has been banned from the road after footage of his performing a Fast and Furious-style stunt at a notorious accident black spot was posted online.

Vladimir Lohin drove his modified Nissan 200 SX sideways around a hairpin bend as part of a video blog of his daredevil motoring.

The 25-year-old was filmed performing the potentially lethal 'drifting' manoeuvre at 5am on a section of the Hartside Pass near Penrith, Cumbria which is 1,904 feet high at its summit.

But the avid track driver, who even had a roll cage fitted to his car, was caught out after police saw footage of the illegal stunt on Facebook and arrested him.

Today at Carlisle Crown Court, Lohin pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and was handed a 12-month ban from the roads. He was also ordered to complete 150 hours of unpaid work.

Insp Richard Quinn said: 'Driving is an important responsibility, and if it is not treated seriously it can have potentially tragic consequences - both for those in the car, and other road users.

'I hope the sentence acts as a deterrent to other potential offenders. What may seem like harmless fun at the time can have long lasting consequences.'

Lohin, originally from Latvia, had carried out the dangerous stunt on the 'Renwick hairpin' of the Hartside Pass, which has has steep slopes beside the road, and is bordered only by stock fencing and stone walls.

The university graduate said he visited the spot in the early hours on August 23 to avoid other cars and had even employed spotters to look out for other traffic on the A686 Penrith to Alston Road for the stunt.

He removed the front registration plate from his modified Nissan 200 SX car and onlookers then filmed as he took at least two sharp bends at high speed, with a passenger sat alongside him.

The stunt is similar to that performed in the successful Fast and the Furious action films which centre on illegal street racing, drifting cars and heists.

Lohin, who is due to graduate from Northumbria University with a masters degree in engineering, told police he had decided to use the A686 that day because there were no slots available to him on private circuits.
THE SPORT OF DRIFTING

Drifting is a driving technique where the driver intentionally oversteers while manoeuvring from turn to turn.

Drivers show off their skills by the length of the drift round a corner.

A car is technically 'drifting' when the rear slip angle is greater than the front slip angle - often so the front wheels are pointing in the opposite direction to the turn.

Professional drifting competitions are now held around the world.

They are judged on speed, angle, showmanship and line taken through a corner.

He said he was an experienced driver whose vehicle was fitted with a cage which protected both the driver and front-seat passenger.

Lohin had visited Cumbria early in the morning in a bid to negotiate the A686 when it was quiet.

His counsel Mr Lee Fish said in mitigation: 'He does acknowledge this was a very foolish thing to do. His enthusiasm for driving got the better of him.'

Lohin of Hunter Street, Houghton-le-Spring, County Durham will have to sit an extended re-test. He was also fined £1500 and ordered to pay £310 in costs and surcharges.

Passing sentence Judge Paul Batty QC told Lohin he was obviously an intelligent man with a passion for 'track drifting.'

But the judge added: 'You do not do your hobby over the Hartside Pass, which is a notorious piece of road in this county where there have been countless fatalities over the years. The road is there for people to drive on and not for people to show off in their fast and expensive cars, showing what good drivers they are to their mates.'

The A686 Hartside Pass, between Penrith and Alston, is popular with bikers for its stunning views, hills, sharp bends, and the cafe at its 1,904ft summit.




Seems he isn't happy though

Yesterday at 5:39pm · Edited ·
Well, here is a video that got me banned for 12 month plus a ridicules fine and unpaid work. Right from the start of this case my solicitor and barrister said the police wanted a deterrent case (make an example off someone) for the Cumbria area. So they got one. Named and shamed blah blah blah. All because my mate shared this video on his page without naming me or me having any link to it. You can't see my plates in this. So doesn't take a genius to realise that a very pathetic person with nothing to do, reported this and all my details to the police. Now this was done at 4 - 5 in the morning with multiple spotters on the road and anyone with sense knows this road will be deserted at this time. But no, you had to ruin the fun because you are so bored of your stty life and can't stand other make something from themselves. Well, hope you have to watch this video every day. Oh and before you girls and boys do streeto and share the video on any public domain, make sure you haven't got a snitch in your circle. Nobody likes a snitch.
Maybe if I leave this link to a my post here it will get a bit more attention....




tapereel

Original Poster:

1,860 posts

117 months

Monday 13th July 2015
quotequote all
AA999 said:
La Liga said:
re you suggesting we shouldn't consider "what ifs" and risks?
I do think in a lot of circumstances that the "what ifs" and risks are tailored to suit a particular view point. Going OTT to create an argument against a case.

I see many a situation on COPS or INTERCEPTORS on TV/youtube etc. that hand out much less of a punishment to people of organised crime who have created victims through their own planned actions.
For this guy who acted in the early morning with spotters to minimise risks, I think the only danger posed was to himself in reality.

But that's just my take on it.


I think I know the road in question having ventured up in to those parts on occasion. There is a cafe at the top if I remember correctly and I also remember one summer passing a crashed biker who had nicely planted himself in to a stone wall. (His bike was a mess but he was ok).
The circumstances and "what if's" are tailored to a particular viewpoint. That viewpoint is from a "competent and careful driver".

Significantly it is not from the viewpoint of a police officer, solicitor or expert and keen motorist...just an ordinary careful and competent driver.

There is no need for danger to be caused to another road user as the law clearly says in (3) that a danger of risk of injury to "any" person is sufficient and that includes the person committing the act. Indeed no person need be in danger as a danger of damage to property is sufficient too.

Danger means that something bad may happen not that it has happened so the common falicy that nobody was hurt and no property was damaged as a defence is facile.

It would seem that the decisions to charge careless rather than dangerous may be more to do with the likely penalties of dangerous driving rather than what could be considered as dangerous driving because an accident, injury or damage have not occured. This shows that the decision makers in the charging are perhaps applying their expertise in driving offences rather than applying the "careful and competent driver" test.

The relevant section of the Act is shown below.

Road Traffic Act 1988
2A Meaning of dangerous driving.

(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—

(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

(2)A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.

(3)In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

tapereel

Original Poster:

1,860 posts

117 months

Monday 13th July 2015
quotequote all
La Liga said:
the convicted drifter said:
Well, here is a video that got me banned for 12 month plus a ridicules fine and unpaid work. Right from the start of this case my solicitor and barrister said the police wanted a deterrent case (make an example off someone) for the Cumbria area.
Yes, blame others to feel better.

Eclassy said:
Could he have been prosecuted if he claimed the video was produced with a video editing software?
The prosecution would have it assessed by an expert who'd conclude it were not.

ging84 said:
what if there was a nun carrying a basket full of kittens.
what if there was a monkey riding a bike smoking a cigar.
what if his shoes caught fire and he couldn't use the pedals.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't consider "what ifs" and risks?
Fixed the quote for you.

tapereel

Original Poster:

1,860 posts

117 months

Monday 13th July 2015
quotequote all
Toltec said:
La Liga said:
The considered risks have to be realistic. A lot of criminal law is based around 'prevention being better than the cure'. Even if he's just a risk to himself the consequences of him seriously injuring himself / killing himself mean the road has to be closed and lots of time spent by the emergency services.
So he has been prosecuted for dangerous driving because he may have cost the state some money and inconvenienced other road users? Accepted that he admitted to that charge, just wondering why that was the charge raised.

If in addition to spotters he had arranged for medical and recovery support to be on hand would this have made a difference?

Not trying to find excuses, I think what he did was foolish even if not dangerous. That the judge gave him community service rather than time makes me wonder if that was their thoughts too.


Edited by Toltec on Monday 13th July 15:42
The police, the CPS and then the court all considered it dangerous, that is what counts.

The need to close the road, deploy spotters and perhaps have medical and recovery support all point to some form of danger being perceived by the driver who organised all of this so that preparation only confirms there was a danger inherent in his actions. If there was little or no danger why take these 'sensible' precautions?

tapereel

Original Poster:

1,860 posts

117 months

Thursday 16th July 2015
quotequote all
This one has been sentenced today too:

Chester man filmed himself driving at breakneck speeds

Published date: 16 July 2015 |
Published by: Staff reporter

A 49-year-old man from Chester admitted dangerous driving after filming himself driving at breakneck speeds around Cheshire and North Wales with a terrified passenger.

Frederick Randles, 49, from Heath Bank in Chester was sentenced to nine months in prison suspended for two years at Chester Crown Court on 16 July 2015. He was also ordered to carry out 250 hours of unpaid work, was disqualified from driving for 18 months and has to take an extended test. He was also ordered to pay £2,000 costs.

He pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving and one count of careless driving, but pleaded not guilty to three further counts of dangerous driving which the prosecution have agreed to lie on file.

In January 2014 North Wales Police, were alerted to numerous items of footage with different passengers which had been uploaded onto Youtube.

The footage showed an Ariel Atom car being driven dangerously along B5130 between Saighton, Holt and Farndon areas of Chester and Lake Brenig and Nant Y Garth in North Wales.

http://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/150384/chest...


tapereel

Original Poster:

1,860 posts

117 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
spikeyhead said:
tapereel said:
This one has been sentenced today too:

Chester man filmed himself driving at breakneck speeds

Published date: 16 July 2015 |
Published by: Staff reporter

A 49-year-old man from Chester admitted dangerous driving after filming himself driving at breakneck speeds around Cheshire and North Wales with a terrified passenger.

Frederick Randles, 49, from Heath Bank in Chester was sentenced to nine months in prison suspended for two years at Chester Crown Court on 16 July 2015. He was also ordered to carry out 250 hours of unpaid work, was disqualified from driving for 18 months and has to take an extended test. He was also ordered to pay £2,000 costs.

He pleaded guilty to two counts of dangerous driving and one count of careless driving, but pleaded not guilty to three further counts of dangerous driving which the prosecution have agreed to lie on file.

In January 2014 North Wales Police, were alerted to numerous items of footage with different passengers which had been uploaded onto Youtube.

The footage showed an Ariel Atom car being driven dangerously along B5130 between Saighton, Holt and Farndon areas of Chester and Lake Brenig and Nant Y Garth in North Wales.

http://www.chesterstandard.co.uk/news/150384/chest...
Having watched the video, it looks quite slow for what an Atom can do.
Well it may well do as 112 does look slower than 170...but 112 in a 60 is not "quite slow" as the passenger willingly attested.

tapereel

Original Poster:

1,860 posts

117 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
carinaman said:
Breadvan72 said:
Graduate, I thought, not student.
Article says he has a Masters in Engineering.
If he has a Masters in Engineering then he is a graduate.
Twice