Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
Discussion
yellowjack said:
Well. Confession time. I haven't read the thread, nor do I intend to.
All I need to know is in the headline of the linked article. "Motocross Champion".
Having seen the state that these knuckle-dragging morons leave my beloved countryside in, life imprisonment would be too soft a sentence. All too often I see the evidence of their tyre-treads illegally using local bridleways to get to even more countryside that they can ruin and put beyond the use of those seeking "quiet enjoyment" for years to come.
Lock 'em all up and sell off their assets to put right the mess they make...
Thank you Judge Jacket All I need to know is in the headline of the linked article. "Motocross Champion".
Having seen the state that these knuckle-dragging morons leave my beloved countryside in, life imprisonment would be too soft a sentence. All too often I see the evidence of their tyre-treads illegally using local bridleways to get to even more countryside that they can ruin and put beyond the use of those seeking "quiet enjoyment" for years to come.
Lock 'em all up and sell off their assets to put right the mess they make...
yonex said:
GroundEffect said:
So we should allow people to gauge their own ability with regards to ignoring the law?
That's surely the job of the court, and I would suggest a law which has something more advanced in its armoury than a custodial sentence. Lke I said, why lock him up when this is obviously not the deterrent it should be? This will get a lot of short term press coverage but then it's gone. As for the guy, there is no defence, nobody is suggesting that there is. But IMO in 2017 when we are considering what to do with someone who probably has a career, family and is actually contributing otherwise to society there could be other options. Like I said it's just making a bad situation worse for everyone.We know dangerous driving carries a potential custodial penalty. He didn't care enough to avoid that potential.
If you choose to gamble when the stakes are high expect to pay a heavy price when you get caught.
He knew he had a job, family etc that were all at risk if he rolled the dice like that, but he still chose that course of action.
The Scottish courts have very publicly taken a hard line previously, he had to know what may happen.
I wouldn't do what he did where he did, even if I believed I safely could, because I'm not prepared to risk what he did.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 7th February 13:07
Toyoda said:
Is the fact he's a motorcross champion jaundicing your view a bit OP? What if it was a fat chav on a 20 year old bike wearing a t shirt and pair of jeans. Can't you see that it's the fact that this guy was more experienced that actually counted against him.
He'll serve nowhere near his 4 months, and it'll be in some low category prison probably mixing with young lads who have breached their ASBO or some public order offence.
I suppose what makes me think is that we all (probably) used to tear around and do daft things. Luckily, things didn't end up the way that they did for this chap. From speeding he will have a criminal record which will impact on what he can contribute. This, and the fact it probably has already cost the system tens of thousands of pounds makes me think that incarceration is just pointless i.e. a totally negative outcome for all.He'll serve nowhere near his 4 months, and it'll be in some low category prison probably mixing with young lads who have breached their ASBO or some public order offence.
yonex said:
Toyoda said:
Is the fact he's a motorcross champion jaundicing your view a bit OP? What if it was a fat chav on a 20 year old bike wearing a t shirt and pair of jeans. Can't you see that it's the fact that this guy was more experienced that actually counted against him.
He'll serve nowhere near his 4 months, and it'll be in some low category prison probably mixing with young lads who have breached their ASBO or some public order offence.
I suppose what makes me think is that we all (probably) used to tear around and do daft things. Luckily, things didn't end up the way that they did for this chap. From speeding he will have a criminal record which will impact on what he can contribute. This, and the fact it probably has already cost the system tens of thousands of pounds makes me think that incarceration is just pointless i.e. a totally negative outcome for all.He'll serve nowhere near his 4 months, and it'll be in some low category prison probably mixing with young lads who have breached their ASBO or some public order offence.
The speed in the full circumstances it was used has been judged to have been dangerous. The posted limit is not really relevant in that.
vonhosen said:
Of his doing.
We know dangerous driving carries a potential custodial penalty. He didn't care enough to avoid that potential.
If you choose to gamble when the stakes are high expect to pay a heavy price when you get caught.
He knew he had a job, family etc that were all at risk is he rolled the dice like that, but he still chose that course of action.
The Scottish courts have very publicly taken a hard line previously, he had to know what may happen.
I wouldn't do what he did where he did, even if I believed I safely could, because I'm not prepared to risk what he did.
I understand all of that, absolutely.We know dangerous driving carries a potential custodial penalty. He didn't care enough to avoid that potential.
If you choose to gamble when the stakes are high expect to pay a heavy price when you get caught.
He knew he had a job, family etc that were all at risk is he rolled the dice like that, but he still chose that course of action.
The Scottish courts have very publicly taken a hard line previously, he had to know what may happen.
I wouldn't do what he did where he did, even if I believed I safely could, because I'm not prepared to risk what he did.
But.
We have locked up an otherwise (decent, we assume) individual for speeding. Reduced his chances of contributing to society and cost the system a fortune in prosecution and jail time, which are crumbling under the load as it is. There has to be a smarter way to deal with this is all I am saying rather than sticking our collective heads in sand and saying 'well, because'.
Why jail him and not automatically all drink drivers? It's disproportionate and badly thought out.
kambites said:
The difference between speeding (at this sort of level I mean, not doing 80 on the motorway) and causing death by dangerous driving is arguably more luck than anything else.
It's only luck if you blip your throttle up to 150 mph at random on every journey. If you have done a risk assessment, dry road, straight, quiet time of day, vehicle in good condition, not tired, etc. then luck only gets to play a small role. People that don't pay attention while driving tend to be very unlucky.yonex said:
Lke I said, why lock him up when this is obviously not the deterrent it should be? This will get a lot of short term press coverage but then it's gone.
Just because someone chooses to break the law doesn't mean the deterrent doesn't work - both my car and bike are capable of those speeds, and I know the stretch of road he was done on well.Have I been tempted to "wind it up" in the right conditions when I drive/ride there? Am I curious as to what my car and bike are like at those speeds? Yes, and yes - but I have so far resisted, partly due to other hazards, but mainly because while a fine I could handle, jail I definitely couldn't.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
J4CKO said:
StottyEvo said:
A burst of acceleration on an empty arrow straight in good conditions with good visibility from an extremely experienced rider warrants 4months in prison... I can only assume there is more to this than the article lets on!
Doesn't matter how experienced he was or what the conditions were, he was doing over 2 and a half times the speed limit, he was just so far outside the limit, at that speed his experience doesnt matter, you are relying then on Doris not turning out, nobody crossing the road on foot, escaped sheep etc.What would be an acceptable speed on your acceptance compass then? You know, you're out testing your Cooper S or 350Z, the road is quiet, good visibility, dry conditions. 65mph? 70?
And I need to update my garage.
Edited by J4CKO on Tuesday 7th February 13:16
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
Of his doing.
We know dangerous driving carries a potential custodial penalty. He didn't care enough to avoid that potential.
If you choose to gamble when the stakes are high expect to pay a heavy price when you get caught.
He knew he had a job, family etc that were all at risk is he rolled the dice like that, but he still chose that course of action.
The Scottish courts have very publicly taken a hard line previously, he had to know what may happen.
I wouldn't do what he did where he did, even if I believed I safely could, because I'm not prepared to risk what he did.
I understand all of that, absolutely.We know dangerous driving carries a potential custodial penalty. He didn't care enough to avoid that potential.
If you choose to gamble when the stakes are high expect to pay a heavy price when you get caught.
He knew he had a job, family etc that were all at risk is he rolled the dice like that, but he still chose that course of action.
The Scottish courts have very publicly taken a hard line previously, he had to know what may happen.
I wouldn't do what he did where he did, even if I believed I safely could, because I'm not prepared to risk what he did.
But.
We have locked up an otherwise (decent, we assume) individual for speeding. Reduced his chances of contributing to society and cost the system a fortune in prosecution and jail time, which are crumbling under the load as it is. There has to be a smarter way to deal with this is all I am saying rather than sticking our collective heads in sand and saying 'well, because'.
Why jail him and not automatically all drink drivers? It's disproportionate and badly thought out.
Act at extremes in cases that carry custodial sentences & you are likely to end up in clink.
His actions put him in a very small percentage of extreme cases & the most extreme cases attract the most extreme sentences.
vonhosen said:
It's not speeding (the offence of exceeding the limit), it's dangerous driving (which he has pleaded guilty to) in which speed is an element.
The speed in the full circumstances it was used has been judged to have been dangerous. The posted limit is not really relevant in that.
What other element was involved other than speed in this case I wonder?The speed in the full circumstances it was used has been judged to have been dangerous. The posted limit is not really relevant in that.
CPS said:
A person drives dangerously when:
the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard 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.
Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:
racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs;
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy;
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load;
the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.
I mean, you couldn't really apply a custodial sentence for a lot of those?the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard 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.
Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:
racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs;
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy;
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load;
the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.
vonhosen said:
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
Of his doing.
We know dangerous driving carries a potential custodial penalty. He didn't care enough to avoid that potential.
If you choose to gamble when the stakes are high expect to pay a heavy price when you get caught.
He knew he had a job, family etc that were all at risk is he rolled the dice like that, but he still chose that course of action.
The Scottish courts have very publicly taken a hard line previously, he had to know what may happen.
I wouldn't do what he did where he did, even if I believed I safely could, because I'm not prepared to risk what he did.
I understand all of that, absolutely.We know dangerous driving carries a potential custodial penalty. He didn't care enough to avoid that potential.
If you choose to gamble when the stakes are high expect to pay a heavy price when you get caught.
He knew he had a job, family etc that were all at risk is he rolled the dice like that, but he still chose that course of action.
The Scottish courts have very publicly taken a hard line previously, he had to know what may happen.
I wouldn't do what he did where he did, even if I believed I safely could, because I'm not prepared to risk what he did.
But.
We have locked up an otherwise (decent, we assume) individual for speeding. Reduced his chances of contributing to society and cost the system a fortune in prosecution and jail time, which are crumbling under the load as it is. There has to be a smarter way to deal with this is all I am saying rather than sticking our collective heads in sand and saying 'well, because'.
Why jail him and not automatically all drink drivers? It's disproportionate and badly thought out.
Act at extremes in cases that carry custodial sentences & you are likely to end up in clink.
His actions put him in a very small percentage of extreme cases & the most extreme cases attract the most extreme sentences.
s2kjock said:
Just because someone chooses to break the law doesn't mean the deterrent doesn't work - both my car and bike are capable of those speeds, and I know the stretch of road he was done on well.
Have I been tempted to "wind it up" in the right conditions when I drive/ride there? Am I curious as to what my car and bike are like at those speeds? Yes, and yes - but I have so far resisted, partly due to other hazards, but mainly because while a fine I could handle, jail I definitely couldn't.
It looks pretty wide open, save for the traffic that could turn on to it from the dwellings? Have I been tempted to "wind it up" in the right conditions when I drive/ride there? Am I curious as to what my car and bike are like at those speeds? Yes, and yes - but I have so far resisted, partly due to other hazards, but mainly because while a fine I could handle, jail I definitely couldn't.
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
It's not speeding (the offence of exceeding the limit), it's dangerous driving (which he has pleaded guilty to) in which speed is an element.
The speed in the full circumstances it was used has been judged to have been dangerous. The posted limit is not really relevant in that.
What other element was involved other than speed in this case I wonder?The speed in the full circumstances it was used has been judged to have been dangerous. The posted limit is not really relevant in that.
CPS said:
A person drives dangerously when:
the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard 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.
Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:
racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs;
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy;
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load;
the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.
I mean, you couldn't really apply a custodial sentence for a lot of those?the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard 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.
Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:
racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs;
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy;
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load;
the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.
Scotland
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2013/34.ht...
England
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...
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, it's an are 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...
It's not often I am speechless but that is just nuts!Scotland
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2013/34.ht...
England
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...
yonex said:
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, it's an are 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...
It's not often I am speechless but that is just nuts!Scotland
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2013/34.ht...
England
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
Experience counts for nothing in court. The offence applies one common standard for all from learner to the most experienced.
Surely pursuit vehicles should be classed as driving dangerously if that was the case though?After all, it's only their experience that separates their driving at speed from ours?
The emergency services can't use their training as a defence to a dangerous driving charge, the case law comes from cases where they tried to.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
Mark Milton decided to test his Police car out to see what it would do.
He was reported by his colleagues, charged by his bosses, prosecuted by the CPS & convicted by the courts.
(Another who tried to use his training as a defence as to why it wasn't dangerous).
yellowjack said:
All I need to know is in the headline of the linked article. "Motocross Champion".
Having seen the state that these knuckle-dragging morons leave my beloved countryside in, life imprisonment would be too soft a sentence. All too often I see the evidence of their tyre-treads illegally using local bridleways to get to even more countryside that they can ruin and put beyond the use of those seeking "quiet enjoyment" for years to come.
Mmm. That isn't actually motocross.Having seen the state that these knuckle-dragging morons leave my beloved countryside in, life imprisonment would be too soft a sentence. All too often I see the evidence of their tyre-treads illegally using local bridleways to get to even more countryside that they can ruin and put beyond the use of those seeking "quiet enjoyment" for years to come.
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
Experience counts for nothing in court. The offence applies one common standard for all from learner to the most experienced.
Surely pursuit vehicles should be classed as driving dangerously if that was the case though?After all, it's only their experience that separates their driving at speed from ours?
The emergency services can't use their training as a defence to a dangerous driving charge, the case law comes from cases where they tried to.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
Mark Milton decided to test his Police car out to see what it would do.
He was reported by his colleagues, charged by his bosses, prosecuted by the CPS & convicted by the courts.
(Another who tried to use his training as a defence as to why it wasn't dangerous).
He didn't, he was convicted of dangerous driving (having claimed his skills meant that it was safe for him to do it) when doing, on the M54 over a distance of just under 5000 metres, average speeds of 148-149 miles per hour; on the A5 over distances of 970 metres and just under 2000 metres, at speeds of 83-114 miles per hour; and in a 30-mile per hour limit he drove over distances of 248 metres and 781 metres at speeds of 61 and -91 miles per hour respectively.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff