What's the point of this punishment?

[Aretnap]

55palfers said:

...but woe betide any of us who are sober and have VED, insurance and a proper driving licence if we stray into a bus lane for 50 yards.

I got a ticket for being in a bus lane once. I can't say I was especially pleased about it, but on balance I think the £60 fine was a better option than a driving ban and a suspended jail sentence.

[TooMany2cvs]

B'stard Child said:

There's no place for common sense Posts like that on PH 2M2CV's

<hangs head> Sorry.

[Pixelpeep7r]

B'stard Child said:

There's no place for common sense Posts like that on PH 2M2CV's

Exactly, got in the way of a good rant

[gareth_r]

TooMany2cvs said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

Why why fkING why do the courts insist on doing this?

Because there's this inconvenient thing called the "law" that prevents them from just making up sentences as they go along.

So...

A list of offences that includes the following is careless driving that warrants a suspended sentence and a ban:
driving without a licence
driving without insurance
refusing to stop
"shutting the car window on a cop's thumb"
a 90mph police chase (on urban roads?)
driving on the wrong side of the road
running three red lights
crashing into a brick wall
failing to provide a specimen.


Whereas 122mph on a bike "for about a quarter to half a mile on a 60mph dual carriageway", without any of the entertaining additions, is dangerous driving that warrants a 6 month gaol sentence, a ban for 18 months, and an extended test.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7865197.s...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7918212.s...


Doesn't seem very consistent.

[TooMany2cvs]

gareth_r said:

So...

A list of offences that includes the following is careless driving that warrants a suspended sentence and a ban:
driving without a licence
driving without insurance
refusing to stop
"shutting the car window on a cop's thumb"
a 90mph police chase (on urban roads?)
driving on the wrong side of the road
running three red lights
crashing into a brick wall
failing to provide a specimen.

Some of those will have fallen under "careless driving", some won't and will be under different charges. Also remember this whole terribly inconvenient "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" mullarkey. They swapped seats - who was driving? Prove it.

gareth_r said:

Whereas 122mph on a bike "for about a quarter to half a mile on a 60mph dual carriageway", without any of the entertaining additions, is dangerous driving

The biker in question clearly agreed that it was, since he pleaded guilty.

Oh, and don't forget that his son was on the back, and his excuse for winding it so hard was "it was raining"...

Then go and have a look at the range of available sentences and the sentencing guidelines for each charge.

[carreauchompeur]

To be fair, doing double the speed limit with a 14 year old on the back with no protective gear does carry a significant danger to at least the 14yo...

[gareth_r]

carreauchompeur said:

To be fair, doing double the speed limit with a 14 year old on the back with no protective gear does carry a significant danger to at least the 14yo...

There is no legal requirement to wear any "protective gear" other than a helmet.

Is danger to the accused's car passengers ever considered to be a factor in a dangerous driving charge? (genuine question)

Edited by gareth_r on Wednesday 22 October 15:34

[TooMany2cvs]

gareth_r said:

Is danger to the accused's car passengers ever considered to be a factor in a dangerous driving charge? (genuine question)

The law said:

A person is guilty of dangerous driving if:

- the way he drives 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

No mention of to whom.

[Aretnap]

TooMany2cvs said:

gareth_r said:

Is danger to the accused's car passengers ever considered to be a factor in a dangerous driving charge? (genuine question)

The law said:

A person is guilty of dangerous driving if:

- the way he drives 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

No mention of to whom.

In fact it goes on to say

The law said:

“dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property;

[TooMany2cvs]

My bad. It DOES say to whom, and that would definitely include the kid on the back.