Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
Discussion
TooMany2cvs said:
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.
...the content of the some ten million (and counting) frothy-mouthed anti-cycling threads tells me as much!
yonex said:
It looks pretty wide open, save for the traffic that could turn on to it from the dwellings?
There aren't any dwellings directly onto it, but there is a junction in the middle of the long straight, the side road leading up to which is, from memory, not fully visible (at least not in my car - might be from the bike).Given that there is a tight bind with (very bad) blind junction at the north end of the straight, and a crest and local access at the south end it doesn't leave as much space as you would think to nail it either side of the junction.
vonhosen said:
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.
In any case he definitely didn't see the inside of a jail cell despite both offences a lot worse than the highland biker.
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.
R8Steve said:
No, he was cleared of dangerous driving http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559...
That was appealed, he was re-tried and convicted. R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
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.
In any case he definitely didn't see the inside of a jail cell despite both offences a lot worse than the highland biker.
He didn't go to jail, having had it go to appeal so many times with his career on hold for such a long time (nearly 3 years), the court decided against that.
The other thing is, if you plead not-guilty you risk getting a far worse punishment.
So you either cop to a known-outcome or risk it all and end up getting screwed over worse.
The problem is speeding =/= dangerous driving, as we've already discussed.
But Scotland =/= Logic.
So there you go, personally I would not be speeding in Scotland at all.
So you either cop to a known-outcome or risk it all and end up getting screwed over worse.
The problem is speeding =/= dangerous driving, as we've already discussed.
But Scotland =/= Logic.
So there you go, personally I would not be speeding in Scotland at all.
yellowjack said:
TooMany2cvs said:
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.
...the content of the some ten million (and counting) frothy-mouthed anti-cycling threads tells me as much!
KevinCamaroSS said:
yellowjack said:
TooMany2cvs said:
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.
...the content of the some ten million (and counting) frothy-mouthed anti-cycling threads tells me as much!
creampuff said:
xjay1337 said:
So there you go, personally I would not be speeding in Scotland at all.
I'm in Scotland now. Personally, I'd give the advice "I would not go to Scotland at all". If you do go to Scotland, then don't speed. They don't even do speed awareness courses. I'd say there is much more chance of getting caught speeding down south than in Scotland, if you do get caught in Scotland the penalties are more severe though.
Moral of the story, don't get caught.
KevinCamaroSS said:
I see you conveniently ignore the fact that 2CV is correct then? Motocross is an organized event based activity, totally the opposite of your claim.
OK. Organised Motocross races have ruined areas local to me with permission of the landowner. The areas are no less ruined, even many years after the event took place. These events, and the ruined areas they leave behind, then encourage the local chimpanchavs to ride their poxy, stupid, unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured pieces of s
t around the area, thereby damaging even more of what little is left of "The Countryside". These hoodied, but unhelmeted morons ruin the area FOR EVERYONE, risk their own safety, and the safety of legitimate countryside users in pursuit of their illicit, irresponsible "pleasure".The EFFECT of the second group is therefore, imho, CAUSED by the presence of the first. Hence why I am more than happy to "conveniently ignore" the legitimacy of organised motorcross events.
And seeing as how my initial comment in this thread was meant to be a vaguely humorous aside to the serious business of second-guessing the decisions of Scottish judges, I am disinclined to participate further in this thread-derailing debate about monkeys on motorbikes. Good day to you, Sir.
ETA: See TooMany2cvs' comment above...
and elsewhere on PistonHeads yellowjack very recently said:
...I can't be bothered with arguing on the internet. Except when it's getting a reaction out of someone who's clearly a bit stupid. Then it can be a lot of fun. It may be the case that I have far too much time on my hands. Certainly far more time to spend on PistonHeads than is healthy for me...
Edited by yellowjack on Tuesday 7th February 14:32
vonhosen said:
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.
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
vonhosen said:
This isn't a precedent, it's happened plenty of times before.
vonhosen said:
There are enough cases that have been through the Scottish courts for him to know a likely sentence for his actions. he went ahead regardless (effectively sticking a couple of fingers up to the courts). He can't be surprised by his current predicament.
I agree with what you say. You have shown, I think, that deterrence, the suggested point of the harsh sentence, doesn't work in these cases. I can't think of any instances when harsh punishment has. It is a blinkered attitude.Everyone knows what can happen is you drive at speed in reduced visibility. Indeed, you can, as some have been, burned alive, yet it slows few.
Prisons should be kept for the most serious of offenders. He isn't one, not at the moment.
It is clear that, in England Wales at least, that prison sentences tend to encourage recidivism in first time prisoners. It is expensive, it doesn't stop reoffending. There are many alternatives, and those which do not harm the family.
In a case where the only evidence is speed, it seems to be the wrong message. A drink driver is much more dangerous, but would not have received a custodial.
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.
At what speed, in Scotland, does the charge change from speeding to dangerous driving?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.
yellowjack said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
I see you conveniently ignore the fact that 2CV is correct then? Motocross is an organized event based activity, totally the opposite of your claim.
OK. Organised Motocross races have ruined areas local to me with permission of the landowner. The areas are no less ruined, even many years after the event took place. These events, and the ruined areas they leave behind, then encourage the local chimpanchavs to ride their poxy, stupid, unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured pieces of st around the area, thereby damaging even more of what little is left of "The Countryside". These hoodied, but unhelmeted morons ruin the area FOR EVERYONE, risk their own safety, and the safety of legitimate countryside users in pursuit of their illicit, irresponsible "pleasure".The EFFECT of the second group is therefore, imho, CAUSED by the presence of the first. Hence why I am more than happy to "conveniently ignore" the legitimacy of organised motorcross events.
And seeing as how my initial comment in this thread was meant to be a vaguely humorous aside to the serious business of second-guessing the decisions of Scottish judges, I am disinclined to participate further in this thread-derailing debate about monkeys on motorbikes. Good day to you, Sir.
ETA: See TooMany2cvs' comment above...
and elsewhere on PistonHeads yellowjack very recently said:
...I can't be bothered with arguing on the internet. Except when it's getting a reaction out of someone who's clearly a bit stupid. Then it can be a lot of fun. It may be the case that I have far too much time on my hands. Certainly far more time to spend on PistonHeads than is healthy for me...
Edited by yellowjack on Tuesday 7th February 14:32
See this BBC article for an example!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-3888339...
TooMany2cvs said:
yellowjack said:
Organised Motocross races have ruined areas local to me with permission of the landowner.
How dare the despicable bd "ruin" his own land...Both of these organisations then go on to expend time, effort, and money trying to keep out illicit motorcyclists, and prevent them from ruining 'their' land. It seems rather foolhardy to me to encourage one group to use the land in exchange for a fee, then to be surprised that some of the participants in the official events will come back "out of hours" and bring friends along too, further damaging the area they used, and then spreading the damage onto previously unspoiled bits of forestry.
The MOD especially are waging a bit of a war on dog walkers and mountain bike riders (I'm one of this group, damned hypocrite that I am) on the quiet. They claim that we "interrupt military training" and "damage the training areas". Well maybe we do, and maybe we don't, but I can say with absolute confidence that it is not dog walkers, ramblers, or cyclists that are responsible for the impassable four feet deep muddy ruts and puddles on the land you want us to stay off. It is motorcyclists.
And don't get me started on the chavvy w
kers on their illegal bikes using footpaths and bridleways. What I really, really want to do with those is lie in wait and ambush them with a crossbow bolt to the face. But I won't, because a) I don't own a crossbow; and b) two wrongs don't make a right. I'm done now. Too far off the topic of the OP, and I'm genuinely too annoyed with these idiots to be able to separate my emotional response from properly debated thread contributions. Motorcrossers? A pox on them all, as far as I'm concerned.
yellowjack said:
TooMany2cvs said:
yellowjack said:
Organised Motocross races have ruined areas local to me with permission of the landowner.
How dare the despicable bd "ruin" his own land...yellowjack said:
These two organisations have a "presumption of public access" to their land, along with a set of bylaws that specifically prohibit the use of motor vehicles on 'their' land.
Not sure why the quotes on "'their' land". It IS their land.yellowjack said:
Both of these organisations then go on to expend time, effort, and money trying to keep out illicit motorcyclists, and prevent them from ruining 'their' land. It seems rather foolhardy to me to encourage one group to use the land in exchange for a fee
Except that it means that the landowner can set the rules, can set the location, can set the amount of use - and whatever other restrictions - to suit their management of the land. And can reject the use when it isn't appropriate... Forestry and military vehicles aren't renowned for "treading lightly".yellowjack said:
then to be surprised that some of the participants in the official events will come back "out of hours" and bring friends along too, further damaging the area they used, and then spreading the damage onto previously unspoiled bits of forestry.
Isn't that rather akin to breaking into a pub after-hours for a DIY lock-in...?TooMany2cvs said:
yonex said:
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/invernes...
I can't condone what they guy did but somehow this seems a little extreme? Father of four, a fking stupid one at that, but what is this going to do for anyone exactly? Yes he deserves a roasting but a criminal record for speeding?
He hasn't got a criminal record for "speeding". You cannot be jailed for "exceeding the speed limit", let alone banned for five years and have to do an extended retest. They're all good clues as to the reality...I can't condone what they guy did but somehow this seems a little extreme? Father of four, a f
king stupid one at that, but what is this going to do for anyone exactly? Yes he deserves a roasting but a criminal record for speeding? He was charged with dangerous driving, and he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving. He has "dangerous driving" on his record.
The charge of DD is assumed, I repeat assumed, simply due to the speed. I would be willing to bet a pension on the fact that the Fiscal, all the Deputes involved in bringing the prosecution and the judge have never even sat on a bike, let alone have proper understanding of the capabilities. I would also place the same bet on the fact that none of them have any advanced driver training or understanding. It looks like there was no video evidence to support the charge of DD as the speed was detected with a gun.
This man who was jailed has 23 years riding experience and competes at chamionship level in motocross. You have to be at the top of the game to do that; i.e. have ability that is way above average, yet all of this seems to have been totally ignored in the thirst for political correctness.
I think sentencing someone to jail with no criminal record of any kind for an assumed offence with no evidence is absolutely unjustifiable and abhorrent, and the court service needs to take a long, hard look at itself in Scotland.
J
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff