Seat Leon 154mph A11
Discussion
agtlaw said:
Whilst there is a Sentencing Council guideline for speeding, the guideline does not include a category range for speeds in excess of 110 mph and even if there were one then there is no duty on the court to impose a sentence within the category range.
In this case, let's say the Mags got medieval on him and imposed a massive ban. As a very rough stab in the dark, in your opinion how long a ban would encroach into realistically appealable territory?page3 said:
My understanding is that this wasn't a Seat Cupra, but a modified mk 2 FR. So yet again we have journalists simply copying each other without any level of professionalism. Actually checking the facts before publishing a story would be refreshing.
That's all I take away from this story.
The journalists are only quoting the police twitter feed.That's all I take away from this story.
https://twitter.com/NSRoadsPolicing/status/7225185...
Not really a fault of the journalists. The only facts they have are the ones given by the police.
The longest ban I've had for a single speeding offence is three months. I've also had penalty points or very short bans (7 days, 14 days, etc) where the speed accepted by D was outside of the highest category range for speeding.
My private prediction was 1-3 months and most likely at the upper end of that range. I also predicted a band C fine. Without knowing his income, it's impossible to tell if £250 is band B or C. I started this thread asking what should he get? A few posters said 6 months - which is the minimum ban for repeat offenders. Although my personal view is that would be too long for a single offence, a crown court judge may not take the same view.
Apparently, he lives at home with his disabled mother. I expect that was a significant factor in the court's decision. He's also a mechanic - so there may be an element of needing a driving licence to do that.
My private prediction was 1-3 months and most likely at the upper end of that range. I also predicted a band C fine. Without knowing his income, it's impossible to tell if £250 is band B or C. I started this thread asking what should he get? A few posters said 6 months - which is the minimum ban for repeat offenders. Although my personal view is that would be too long for a single offence, a crown court judge may not take the same view.
Apparently, he lives at home with his disabled mother. I expect that was a significant factor in the court's decision. He's also a mechanic - so there may be an element of needing a driving licence to do that.
agtlaw said:
Apparently, he lives at home with his disabled mother. I expect that was a significant factor in the court's decision. He's also a mechanic - so there may be an element of needing a driving licence to do that.
IMVHO He should therefore get a longer ban- so it hits him harder, he'll have to buy his Mum more Taxi's and work at the back of a Garage doing Tyres and sweeping.scubadude said:
IMVHO He should therefore get a longer ban- so it hits him harder, he'll have to buy his mum more taxis and work at the back of a garage doing tyres and sweeping.
That would be punishment element covered - so long as he isn't sacked because of a lengthy ban.The general purposes of disqualification were expressed by Lord Justice Treacy in a case in which I appeared; R v Backhouse [2010] EWCA Crim 1111:
"An order of disqualification has the purpose of protecting the public … disqualification is also intended to punish and deter offenders and others. A balance, however, has to be struck and the court should not disqualify for a period that is longer than necessary and should bear in mind the effects of a ban on employment or employment prospects".
Rangeroverover said:
You would think that Suffolk plod would at least speak to a CPS lawyer to discuss options rather than make up their own procedure that doesn't exist.
On another note does this increase or decrease the value of that particular SEAT?
The police? Making things up as they go along? (Otherwise known as lying).On another note does this increase or decrease the value of that particular SEAT?
Perish the thought.
Fr0dders said:
page3 said:
My understanding is that this wasn't a Seat Cupra, but a modified mk 2 FR. So yet again we have journalists simply copying each other without any level of professionalism. Actually checking the facts before publishing a story would be refreshing.
That's all I take away from this story.
The journalists are only quoting the police twitter feed.That's all I take away from this story.
https://twitter.com/NSRoadsPolicing/status/7225185...
Not really a fault of the journalists. The only facts they have are the ones given by the police.
The owner himself confirmed it on Facebook in June when he said he was going to sell the car*
It's a mapped FR 2.0 T-FSI with, according to him, 270bhp & 420nm.
So, 154mph is certainly possible (limiter cuts in at 155 or it may even have been disabled).
* I'm selling because I need a dervv (spelling is not his forte).
Yeah, right. More likely to try and impress the bench. Learned my lesson etc. etc.
StottyEvo said:
How the hell did he get caught with a 154mph head start? Fool must have gone past the speed gun without noticing, then slowed to a normal cruise speed while they caught up with him.
The reports say he was pinged at Icklingham heading southbound.That's the section between the B1106 junction at Elvedon and Barton Mills.
He couldn't have kept going at warp speed due to the Five Ways roundabout.
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:
I still don't understand this type of post.
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
There's mistakes yes, but he's patently quite stupid. It's not just about the speed and location but his overall attitude to the whole thing.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
I'm quite happy for competent drivers to go speeding past me at whatever speed they choose. Not stupid ones though.
zarjaz1991 said:
There's mistakes yes, but he's patently quite stupid. It's not just about the speed and location but his overall attitude to the whole thing.
I'm quite happy for competent drivers to go speeding past me at whatever speed they choose. Not stupid ones though.
Can you publish your chart mapping various IQ ranges against suitable speeds over the limit please?I'm quite happy for competent drivers to go speeding past me at whatever speed they choose. Not stupid ones though.
zarjaz1991 said:
There's mistakes yes, but he's patently quite stupid. It's not just about the speed and location but his overall attitude to the whole thing.
I'm quite happy for competent drivers to go speeding past me at whatever speed they choose. Not stupid ones though.
Excuse me but who are you to decide what constitutes a reasonably competent driver and a 'stupid driver'? Seems to me like you're just sticking another knife in the blokes back... Yes he was incomprehensibly idiotic doing 154mph on the public road but does that necessarily make him incompetent behind the wheel? Also how does 'whatever speed they choose' correlate to a particular drivers skill behind the wheel? Any prat in a 2L derv can do 100mph and overtake you if you're just doing 60-70 thats simple maths. Doesn't make them a competent driver...I'm quite happy for competent drivers to go speeding past me at whatever speed they choose. Not stupid ones though.
And as to the Police Crime Commisioner making a comment about his children boils my blood - another hypothetical situation which has zero relevance to the offence. The likelihood of his child standing in the middle of the road at that time is slim to none - unless they were playing Pokemon GO completely unaware of their surroundings?
On another note do PCC's do any good other than being a waste of tax payers money?
page3 said:
My understanding is that this wasn't a Seat Cupra, but a modified mk 2 FR. So yet again we have journalists simply copying each other without any level of professionalism. Actually checking the facts before publishing a story would be refreshing.
That's all I take away from this story.
I wonder if all his "mods" were declared to the insurance company..? That's all I take away from this story.
The new Cupra 290 has a top speed of 155. So it must have had some bits on it if it were an FR to get to 154.
s3fella said:
page3 said:
My understanding is that this wasn't a Seat Cupra, but a modified mk 2 FR. So yet again we have journalists simply copying each other without any level of professionalism. Actually checking the facts before publishing a story would be refreshing.
That's all I take away from this story.
I wonder if all his "mods" were declared to the insurance company..? That's all I take away from this story.
The new Cupra 290 has a top speed of 155. So it must have had some bits on it if it were an FR to get to 154.
The Cupra 290 is limited to 155 and it's been made clear he had a modified FR with 270bhp; more than enough to get over 150 I would think.
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
k a duck, there's still some proper PH'ers here !9pm.
Dark.
March.
Probably stty weather, might not have been.
Had a licence for 3 years. Probably think he's knows everything about driving, most likely doesn't.
He should've been prosecuted for dangerous / reckless driving. Not speeding.
It wouldn't be the first time people have gotten off lightly though
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1490503/Pol...
Or not
http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/24/biker-caught-speedin...
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/a...
(10k?!)
Dark.
March.
Probably s
tty weather, might not have been.Had a licence for 3 years. Probably think he's knows everything about driving, most likely doesn't.
He should've been prosecuted for dangerous / reckless driving. Not speeding.
It wouldn't be the first time people have gotten off lightly though
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1490503/Pol...
Or not
http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/24/biker-caught-speedin...
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/a...
(10k?!)
Edited by Zombie on Wednesday 3rd August 23:33
The newspaper website states that Inspector Giles has formally lodged a request for a review of the sentence.
How does his conduct in lodging that request for a review about that sentence adhere with the oath he pledged when he took office of Constable?
Aren't the police supposed to just gather the evidence and not be judgemental?
It's the job of the bench and jury to be the judgemental ones?
Inspector Giles could have just left it for the public or BRAKE! to request a formal review of the sentence and not risked seeming biassed or partial.
How does his conduct in lodging that request for a review about that sentence adhere with the oath he pledged when he took office of Constable?
Aren't the police supposed to just gather the evidence and not be judgemental?
It's the job of the bench and jury to be the judgemental ones?
Inspector Giles could have just left it for the public or BRAKE! to request a formal review of the sentence and not risked seeming biassed or partial.
REALIST123 said:
The Cupra 290 is limited to 155 and it's been made clear he had a modified FR with 270bhp; more than enough to get over 150 I would think.
Only, my S3 is 363hp, I am in my 40s and it is expensive and quite difficult to get it all insured ticketty boo. Engineers reports, rolling road prints etc were required when it was first completed 8 years ago.
agtlaw said:
The longest ban I've had for a single speeding offence is three months. I've also had penalty points or very short bans (7 days, 14 days, etc) where the speed accepted by D was outside of the highest category range for speeding.
My private prediction was 1-3 months and most likely at the upper end of that range. I also predicted a band C fine. Without knowing his income, it's impossible to tell if £250 is band B or C. I started this thread asking what should he get? A few posters said 6 months - which is the minimum ban for repeat offenders. Although my personal view is that would be too long for a single offence, a crown court judge may not take the same view.
Apparently, he lives at home with his disabled mother. I expect that was a significant factor in the court's decision. He's also a mechanic - so there may be an element of needing a driving licence to do that.
151 on the M20, single incident, 30 months ban and fine.My private prediction was 1-3 months and most likely at the upper end of that range. I also predicted a band C fine. Without knowing his income, it's impossible to tell if £250 is band B or C. I started this thread asking what should he get? A few posters said 6 months - which is the minimum ban for repeat offenders. Although my personal view is that would be too long for a single offence, a crown court judge may not take the same view.
Apparently, he lives at home with his disabled mother. I expect that was a significant factor in the court's decision. He's also a mechanic - so there may be an element of needing a driving licence to do that.
Alternately I have seen magistrates attempt to avoid banning someone already on 12 points when the chap was found guilty of 135mph on a motorway. I couldn't see that in their guidance. Anyway he was banned for 6 months for totting...eventually.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff