Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?

[anonymous-user]

R8Steve said:

I would have thought that every case of dangerous driving was unique.

Not to the degree this one was with the mix of police exemptions, ambiguous policies on testing cars / training / testing, points of law being clarified, convictions / appeals acquittals / retrials / time time it took etc.

If there's a comparable one which has featured non-police officers I'd be interested to know, as then a 'one rule' comparison may have some semblance of accuracy.

[anonymous-user]

The Surveyor said:

I personally am not too concerned over the sentence. It was extreme speed which is deemed by the law as Dangerous Driving, something that everybody knows carries a potential custodial sentence. He rolled the dice, didn't hurt anybody but got caught, he admitted it and received the potential custodial sentence.

For me, in any extreme case where there is the potential to injure others, there should always be a custodial sentence at the top of the sentencing guidelines both for the deterrent factor, and to protect the wider public. And yes, that should certainly include drink-drivers too.

If the concern is to help the prison service from overcrowding, stop jailing people for non-violent 'financial' crimes and stick to financial penalties for those. I find the concept of jailing an MP for fiddling their expenses, a banker for fraud, or a Postman for steeling cheques more ridiculous when recovery of the money and financial ruin would be a more effective outcome than a few months in prison IMHO.

But theft is surely the foundation of the criminal system? Is there a case to answer that an MP, banker or postman travelling on the A59 at 149MPH is in anyway more serious than fraud? What if that fraud leads to significant inconvenience or death, do we not have to factor that in?

In any case. The world has clearly gone barking mad. We apparently live in a society which some think that 'speeding' is more serious than stealing. It isn't, it never will be and to suggest otherwise shows total contempt for society as a whole.

[anonymous-user]

The Surveyor said:

Sorry to disappoint, but the world has been barking mad for centuries, you only have to try and explain religion to work that one out!

As for your 'daily mail' interpretation of my earlier post, try looking at it this way... Dangerous Driving is where you are putting other road uses at a very real increased risk of actual physical harm, in extreme cases a custodial sentence should be considered, an MP fiddling their expenses should be dealt with by fines, recovery and public shaming not prison. Applying your same interpretation, do you not think that what this guy was doing, on the same roads we all share was not equally 'contempt for society as a whole'.

Maybe so, but I don't understand your logic. You can make the connection between a motorcyclist travelling at 66 metres a second and a 'very real increased rick of actual physical harm' but not fiddling expenses or stealing cheques, the latter which could mean someone vulnerable wouldn't be able to afford to keep the electricity on? Extreme cases, but that is what is being quoted?

And, no. I agree he was made a very silly choice but speed in isolation simply does not kill people. If it did, he would not have survived. In either case I simply cannot compute that 'stealing' is more serious to anybody than 'speeding'. I am correct in that is what you are suggesting here?

[anonymous-user]

The Surveyor said:

No I'm suggesting that 'if' jm doc was using the argument that people should be spared prison for Dangerous Driving (not speeding in your binary interpretation) because the prisons are full, then I disagree. Prison should remain the ultimate punishment for Dangerous Driving IMHO, just like it should be for theft. My suggestion was that if prison overcrowding was a factor, stop jailing people for non-violent financial crimes such as fiddling expenses, banking irregularities, or the like where a financial penalty is more appropriate.

My 'binary interpretation', the one that judges each case on merit, the one that is calling for firmer education not incarceration? My argument is it seems draconian to not try and bring about a positive situation from this fleeting moment of stupidity. One that doesn't cost us tens of thousands of pounds each day as taxpayers? First offence for extreme speeding could be rehab, 5 year ban, community service and large fine. Why not?

Speeding is not violent? Perhaps we should petition the release of Lynden Scourfield, non violent, just left a few lives in ruins?

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

In Scotland they appear to place more relevance to what could potentially have happened with the circumstances as they were (it's after all not a controlled environment, i.e. it's an area deer wander & an unsighted one could have jumped out) than the English courts do, (who look at actually what was present, there were no deer actually observed).

Scotland
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2013/34.ht...

England
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

That's how I understand it to be in Scotland: at very high speeds, speed alone is considered dangerous such that speeding and dangerous driving merge into the same offence. Fortunately I never plan to visit Scotland again...

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

They'll argue it's not speed alone, they'll argue that the circumstances which it is being performed in are not sanitised & as such unacceptable potential for death/injury or serious damage to others exists. Speed alone in a sanitised highly controlled environment doesn't result in a unacceptable potential level, but those sanitised circumstances didn't exist on the public road. So they'll argue it is about speed/circumstances & not just the number.
The Scottish courts just appear to give more credence to potentiality than English courts.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 8th February 23:58

I see that, and don't disagree, but the more one gets into potentiality the more artificial the construct becomes, and the more the reality is that it is just about speed.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

I believe the point being made that you appear to be missing is that there is a greater chance of physical injury/death to others from the actions amounting to dangerous driving than there are from somebody fiddling expenses etc.

Also the offence isn't extreme speeding, it's dangerous driving.
Extreme speeding is exceeding the speed limit by a large amount (no evidence of danger required), dangerous driving amounts to something else whether you (or I ) agree that the actions amounted to dangerous driving or not isn't relevant- they have been judged to or accepted as such where it matters & is of consequence.

I don't think I'm missing the point, I am pointing out the flaws that have led to what I believe is a totally unecessary incarceration. In this case where, apart from the motorists plea, is the dangerous driving element, I need this cleared up as if we are going to jail drivers for 'dangerous driving' specifically that which revolves around 'could, if, maybe and potential' I have a rather large list of common actions committed on an hourly basis that meet those criteria.

Nobody died, nobody was injured and this entire forum wasn't affected by his momentary lapse of judgement. But everybody is now. The total cost may well run into six figures, it sounds like an extraordinarly poor use of time and money to me and is obviously in no way a proper deterrent, as shown by this event.

It appears dangerous driving is just as fantastical monicker to squint through. A catch all big stick with which to summon any sentence to satisfy the crowd. Is this really the best we can do in 2017?

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Heaveho said:

If the guy had actually risked someones else's life, perhaps the sentence given may have been more justified, but, as I understand it, no-one other than himself was put at risk.

The point has already been made that at that speed he didn't know whether he was putting anyone else at risk or not.

The driver's knowledge speaks to whether he was reckless. Either what he does actually endangers other drivers or it doesn't - that's a simple enough enquiry.

The approach in Scotland seems to be to take pure speed and nothing more as amounting to dangerous driving by bringing in potentialities rather than actualities. This means that "dangerous driving" ends up becoming both "driving that is in fact dangerous" and "driving which might have been dangerous in different circumstances but wasn't in fact dangerous".

There is no reason why the latter couldn't be expressly caputured by a definition of dangerous driving. It isn't right now though.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Greg66 said:

singlecoil said:

Heaveho said:

If the guy had actually risked someones else's life, perhaps the sentence given may have been more justified, but, as I understand it, no-one other than himself was put at risk.

The point has already been made that at that speed he didn't know whether he was putting anyone else at risk or not.

The driver's knowledge speaks to whether he was reckless. Either what he does actually endangers other drivers or it doesn't - that's a simple enough enquiry...

The driver's knowledge of what? And it isn't only other drivers who were endangered.

From your post: "of whether he was putting anyone else at risk".

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Greg66 said:

singlecoil said:

Greg66 said:

singlecoil said:

Heaveho said:

If the guy had actually risked someones else's life, perhaps the sentence given may have been more justified, but, as I understand it, no-one other than himself was put at risk.

The point has already been made that at that speed he didn't know whether he was putting anyone else at risk or not.

The driver's knowledge speaks to whether he was reckless. Either what he does actually endangers other drivers or it doesn't - that's a simple enough enquiry...

The driver's knowledge of what? And it isn't only other drivers who were endangered.

From your post: "of whether he was putting anyone else at risk".

Well, that was what I thought you meant, which, as it doesn't make sense, is why I asked.

Well they're your words. I can't make them make sense.

I don't really buy into the idea that as a matter of fact driving fast in a modern car on a straight public road presents a danger to the driver himself. The danger there comes from potentialities (tyre blows, person or animal crosses his path).

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Greg66 said:

Well they're your words. I can't make them make sense.

My words made sense, it's your response to them which doesn't. The 'driver's knowledge' part.

Unless you feel that as the long as the outcome was ok, then no crime was committed?

That's ("the outcome") slightly sloppy language. If the thing done was purely driving very fast in a straight line on an empty but public road, was not dangerous in fact, and the potential for danger was remote, then I don't think that is or should be classified as dangerous driving.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Greg66 said:

singlecoil said:

Greg66 said:

Well they're your words. I can't make them make sense.

My words made sense, it's your response to them which doesn't. The 'driver's knowledge' part.

Unless you feel that as the long as the outcome was ok, then no crime was committed?

That's ("the outcome") slightly sloppy language. If the thing done was purely driving very fast in a straight line on an empty but public road, was not dangerous in fact, and the potential for danger was remote, then I don't think that is or should be classified as dangerous driving.

We obviously have different thoughts on what the word 'dangerous' means in this context. In the case under discussion, so did the authorities.

Quite so. A (by no means the) point is that the Scottish and the English courts appear to have different approaches as well, with the Scottish being more prepared to treat pure speed without more as being dangerous driving by greater reliance on the potentialities point.

[anonymous-user]

Heaveho said:

If you climb a ladder outside your house to fix a gutter, can you guarantee you won't fall and injure someone when you land? There are no guarantees in life, other than the fact that whatever you choose to do, someone will have a negative view on it some point. Given peoples views on cars in general, I'm surprised anyone bothers to buy them anymore, it seems that whatever enjoyment you manage to wring out of owning one these days is quickly snuffed out by the " won't somebody think of the kittens " brigade at the first opportunity.

It's become a deeply joyless forum this, and in a surprisingly short period of time.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

I'm greatly distressed that you are not experiencing the joy on this forum that we all know you are entitled to. I will see if I can think of a solution to the unenviable position you find yourself in.

In the meantime, I feel I should point out that the vast majority of car owners have cars so that they can get from wherever they are to wherever they need or want to be. They shouldn't have to share public roads with people whose idea of enjoying those roads is to drive along them at 149 mph.

If you want to see some really dangerous driving plonk yourself on a bicycle and commute for a week

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Of course there are other things more dangerous, but that's not the issue here.

Which is what generated my original post. It is absolutely the crux of the matter (for me anyway). Real events that do kill people aren't managed in the same way as speeding (aka dangerous driving which has such a broad meaning it could be used for anything obviously).

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

You are equating death with it being dangerous driving & no death as it not being dangerous driving.
The outcome does not determine whether something is dangerous driving or not (it can be an aggravating factor though). The driving act & perceived risks from it determine whether it amounts to dangerous driving or not.
It is entirely possible for there to be a fatality collision where there isn't even a Sec 3 RTA offence by the driver, let alone a Sec 2.
It is also entirely possible for there to be a Sec 2 RTA offence where there is no injury or damage as an outcome.
I don't find that incongruous at all.

Nobody died in this event. And if someone does get killed then 'death by' covers it. Excess speed IMO shouldn't warrant incarceration, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Straight road, not overtaking, no traffic doesn't fit my criteria. If we jailed everyone using the same thought process nobody would be left!

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

What's the bleak outlook?
My work is all about driving, my main hobby is about driving/riding, most of my holidays are about riding.
I enjoy it & don't feel the current regime unduly onerous or threatening to either my licence or liberty.

Here we are discussing incarceration in respect to 'speeding'. How on earth is the regime, which is a great word for it, effective, fair or proportional. Speeding, despite our draconian leadership will and brainwashing tactics does not kil. Only the improper use of speed in any given circumstance. If they, and the legions of drones they employ to enforce this could use a bit of common sense, and not hide behind this blanket 'dangerous driving' strapline maybe, just maybe we could see some punishments that fit the offence. Nobody who really enjoys cars or motoring would really say the sentencing is proportional in this case, or be able to put their hand on their heart and say modern enforcement is going in the right direction. I guess the powers that be we only be happy when boxes are fitted to all cars to limit our freedoms, but hey, safety first.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

I know nobody died, if they had he'd have been charged with death by dangerous.
i.e. The dangerous driving (he was charged with) relates to his actions & are not dependent on any adverse outcome.
If they jailed everybody doing what he did there'd still be plenty of people left out on the roads. His actions are the actions of a small minority.
Excess speed doesn't result in incarceration, it's a separate offence. Dangerous driving can result in incarceration (& speed can be a factor in relation to circumstances that can result in driving being considered dangerous).

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 9th February 18:50

And what was he doing exactly?

He was speeding. What was the result. Incarceration. Where is your argument, apart from 'because'

You seem unable to grasp the difference between how things are and how they could be.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

You don't think he was driving dangerously?

What I know is he was speeding. As someone who now and again been involved in 'enthusiastic driving' I understand that there are risks and what he did was daft. However, we seem to have posters who are happy with the sentencing and also happy to label it 'dangerous driving' rather than what it actually was. Which is speeding. Of course we cannot say 'speeding' in the current environment because that would infer that the system isn't balanced and proportionate to the driving offences committed, which it very obviously is not.

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Is there any speed which you would consider to be dangerous, on that piece of road? How about 200mph? More?

BTW, I am not happy with the sentencing in this case. One month, probably even a fortnight would be quite enough.

I don't make the laws, luckily But call it what it is, not something else. And then be consistent across the board. More importantly consider other options. Removing an otherwise 'sensible' contributing member of society from the collective doesn't seem right, effective or proportional in comparison to various other offences.