97 in a 70 - citation mentions dangerous!??
Discussion
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
The elected politicians make the rules, the Police/CPS interpret & enforce them, then the Courts interpret & rule on them.
The courts have interpreted the issue of speed in relation to Sec 2 RTA in that way in Scotland. If it's exhausted in the courts the way it can be changed is through the politicians.
Where the intention of politicians has been usurped by the interpretation of the courts, the politicians need to amend the current or introduce new legislation to make their intent clearer.
How about keeping it simple, along with several others?The courts have interpreted the issue of speed in relation to Sec 2 RTA in that way in Scotland. If it's exhausted in the courts the way it can be changed is through the politicians.
Where the intention of politicians has been usurped by the interpretation of the courts, the politicians need to amend the current or introduce new legislation to make their intent clearer.
What I am asking is how exactly excess speed can be classed as dangerous driving based on speed alone?
And not be ridiculed for that. It's ludicrous.
Or explain what I am missing here, where there appears to be a difference in Scotland as opposed to anywhere else.
As I said, in Scotland they appear to give a little more weight to what potentially could happen than the English courts, in that even if there is no evidence presented of a deer being actually being present at the material time, they accept that that the potential exists that there could have been one & that could have run out & due to your higher illegal speed it would potentially have resulted in injury &/or serious damage (more so than a legal speed).
vonhosen said:
It's not speed on it's own, it's that speed (relative to a legal speed) with what else could happen (i.e. if a deer ran out in front of you & what happened/consequences of any collision because of the higher speed when you tried to avoid it)
As I said, in Scotland they appear to give a little more weight to what potentially could happen than the English courts, in that even if there is no evidence presented of a deer being actually being present at the material time, they accept that that the potential exists that there could have been one & that could have run out.
I rarely agree with your views although I usually accept that you represent a viewpoint that may be validly held by others contrary to my own.As I said, in Scotland they appear to give a little more weight to what potentially could happen than the English courts, in that even if there is no evidence presented of a deer being actually being present at the material time, they accept that that the potential exists that there could have been one & that could have run out.
However, occasionally you come out with something so daft I have to wonder where it came from. This is one of those occasions.
Not unlike the time 30 odd years ago when two coppers pulled me for riding from a 60 into a 30 at 50 or so off the throttle towards a village and one of them asked "What might happen if your front wheel came off?"
How exactly do the actions of an otherwise unseen deer or rabbit factor in the decisions of a driver as regards where and when they might result in a dangerous driving charge?
Would a fox, cat or Fido take the role of the deer in an urban environment?
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
It's not speed on it's own, it's that speed (relative to a legal speed) with what else could happen (i.e. if a deer ran out in front of you & what happened/consequences of any collision because of the higher speed when you tried to avoid it)
As I said, in Scotland they appear to give a little more weight to what potentially could happen than the English courts, in that even if there is no evidence presented of a deer being actually being present at the material time, they accept that that the potential exists that there could have been one & that could have run out.
I rarely agree with your views although I usually accept that you represent a viewpoint that may be validly held by others contrary to my own.As I said, in Scotland they appear to give a little more weight to what potentially could happen than the English courts, in that even if there is no evidence presented of a deer being actually being present at the material time, they accept that that the potential exists that there could have been one & that could have run out.
However, occasionally you come out with something so daft I have to wonder where it came from. This is one of those occasions.
Not unlike the time 30 odd years ago when two coppers pulled me for riding from a 60 into a 30 at 50 or so off the throttle towards a village and one of them asked "What might happen if your front wheel came off?"
How exactly do the actions of an otherwise unseen deer or rabbit factor in the decisions of a driver as regards where and when they might result in a dangerous driving charge?
Would a fox, cat or Fido take the role of the deer in an urban environment?
I'm saying look at Scottish/English rulings for a difference in how it's interpreted.
The Scottish court seem to look at the potential & believe the driver should also have considered what could be present & what they've potentially missed seeing & how their higher speed would then have made matters worse. They seem to view such an amount over the limit as not caring about or considering that.
Scotland
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/scot...
England
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...
cmaguire said:
TooMany2cvs said:
cmaguire said:
What I am asking is how exactly excess speed can be classed as dangerous driving based on speed alone?
Because they have. The legal definition is whether The law said:
(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.
...and the Scottish courts have a precedent for interpreting speeds way above the limit as being that.(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
cmaguire said:
It's ludicrous.
IYHO. Their HO differs. They are the judiciary of Scotland, you are not, so their HO is the one that counts. If you don't like it, then...
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/sheriff-a...
cmaguire said:
...and most Germans and Manx are dangerous drivers
If they were caught doing it in Scotland...cmaguire said:
that are sanctioned by the State.
I think the German ambassador tends to have a chauffeur, tbh.cmaguire said:
So why has no-one contested the idiocy of this in court?
They have. Some have won, but - perhaps more to the point - quite a few have lost. A lot were only charged with exceeding the speed limit in the first place.cmaguire said:
Should be a slam-dunk shouldn't it?
Goferit.Taz1383 said:
With rubbish speed limits I find, if I stick to them, I just end up with idiots in my rear view mirror. I'd rather go a little over to be comfortable!
An interesting option. What if said idiot then continues to be glued to your bumper as you exceed the limit?A speed limit may be 'rubbish' in your opinion & may well be so but it does not change the fact that the limit exists & that you cannot change or challenge it.
Those that insist on sitting on my tail when I'm at or near the limit find I slow down as soon as an overtaking opportunity for them appears. This irrespective of whether it's a motorway, dual carriageway or single lane road. Works every time & has done for years.
Ok folks, thanks for all the responses - the whole issue seems to have sparked an interesting conversation.
A quick update:
Sought legal advice today from a good few solicitors who specialise in motoring law, namely, Scottish motoring law given its differences.
I mentioned the two options (?) stated on my complaint from the court, the first one was dangerous driving, the 'alternative' was just simple speeding. I'm told that the primary allegation is dangerous driving - the alternative is a back up for them to fall on if they can't pin dangerous.
I read the summary of evidence to all the people I spoke to today, and not one of them can fathom why they have tried to go for dangerous over just speeding.
I have been told, however that Dumfries and Inverness dislike speeding. It's not unheard of for some to have a dangerous charge bolted on by the fiscal upon processing.
So I'm fighting dangerous driving for 97 in a 70, on a fine night, on an empty road, with a nearly new car. No swerving around, no silly talk used against me as evidence.
I've been strongly advised not to plead guilty, and I'm now going to have to endure around 7 months of waiting and letters and ultimately a visit home to Inverness to face court.
People I've spoken to say that it's a really harsh allegation considering the evidence, which I'll get to see in full during the course of events.
So, what I thought was simple speeding suddenly has me fighting for my career/livelihood.
I'll keep the thread updated as I did search before creating this and found nothing, so it may prove as a useful reference to someone who may end up in the same position.
Fingers crossed folks!
A quick update:
Sought legal advice today from a good few solicitors who specialise in motoring law, namely, Scottish motoring law given its differences.
I mentioned the two options (?) stated on my complaint from the court, the first one was dangerous driving, the 'alternative' was just simple speeding. I'm told that the primary allegation is dangerous driving - the alternative is a back up for them to fall on if they can't pin dangerous.
I read the summary of evidence to all the people I spoke to today, and not one of them can fathom why they have tried to go for dangerous over just speeding.
I have been told, however that Dumfries and Inverness dislike speeding. It's not unheard of for some to have a dangerous charge bolted on by the fiscal upon processing.
So I'm fighting dangerous driving for 97 in a 70, on a fine night, on an empty road, with a nearly new car. No swerving around, no silly talk used against me as evidence.
I've been strongly advised not to plead guilty, and I'm now going to have to endure around 7 months of waiting and letters and ultimately a visit home to Inverness to face court.
People I've spoken to say that it's a really harsh allegation considering the evidence, which I'll get to see in full during the course of events.
So, what I thought was simple speeding suddenly has me fighting for my career/livelihood.
I'll keep the thread updated as I did search before creating this and found nothing, so it may prove as a useful reference to someone who may end up in the same position.
Fingers crossed folks!
WaspsNest said:
I have been told, however that Dumfries and Inverness dislike speeding. It's not unheard of for some to have a dangerous charge bolted on by the fiscal upon processing.
So I'm fighting dangerous driving for 97 in a 70, on a fine night, on an empty road, with a nearly new car. No swerving around, no silly talk used against me as evidence.
So I'm fighting dangerous driving for 97 in a 70, on a fine night, on an empty road, with a nearly new car. No swerving around, no silly talk used against me as evidence.
.surveyor said:
Speeding in Scotland is a dodgy game nowadays. I try to avoid it.
I do know someone who got the dangerous driving charge for over 130 on a motorway.
He was banned for 2.5 years and a four figure fine plus an extended retest. For him prison was a real risk.
If true, and I'm not disputing it, just how disproportionate to the 'crime' is that punishment when viewed against the pathetic punishments out of work wasters get for all manner of anti-social behaviour?I do know someone who got the dangerous driving charge for over 130 on a motorway.
He was banned for 2.5 years and a four figure fine plus an extended retest. For him prison was a real risk.
surveyor said:
Speeding in Scotland is a dodgy game nowadays. I try to avoid it.
I do know someone who got the dangerous driving charge for over 130 on a motorway.
He was banned for 2.5 years and a four figure fine plus an extended retest. For him prison was a real risk.
Man that can pilot a vehicle to 130 should be giving the tests! I do know someone who got the dangerous driving charge for over 130 on a motorway.
He was banned for 2.5 years and a four figure fine plus an extended retest. For him prison was a real risk.
WJNB said:
Taz1383 said:
With rubbish speed limits I find, if I stick to them, I just end up with idiots in my rear view mirror. I'd rather go a little over to be comfortable!
An interesting option. What if said idiot then continues to be glued to your bumper as you exceed the limit?A speed limit may be 'rubbish' in your opinion & may well be so but it does not change the fact that the limit exists & that you cannot change or challenge it.
Those that insist on sitting on my tail when I'm at or near the limit find I slow down as soon as an overtaking opportunity for them appears. This irrespective of whether it's a motorway, dual carriageway or single lane road. Works every time & has done for years.
Its thick with ice this morning. I watched an idiot in a mini sit behind another driver- poised for an overtake. The lead driver was doing around 40-45 perfect for the road and conditions. Yet this bell end in a boggo mini thinks he's a racing driver and that's too slow.
yet mini driver sits, hanging off the lead cars bumper, almost on the white line, for 3 miles. Utterly pointless. This on a road which will have a few cyclists/runners on it, it bi sects a golf course- so you get golf morons and buggies crossing and on top of that, a lot of horsey types out crossing the road and moorland for their early morning training.
so what we can all do 60 mph on the road- it doesn't mean its safe to do so, especially when yr a driving god in a mini
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff