Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
Discussion
speedking31 said:
Speeding is an absolute offence. Exceed the number on the stick and you're guilty. Dangerous driving should be a subjective test against the careful and competent driver's actions. The same action in different circumstances may or may not be deemed dangerous. By conflating the 2, dangerous driving becomes an absolute offence, exceed 100 mph = dangerous. That is where the application of the law is wrong IMO.
They haven't said there is a speed where it will always be dangerous as far as I'm aware.If you can provide a link to where the Scottish courts have clearly drawn such a line in the sand so that we can view it.
vonhosen said:
JNW1 said:
vonhosen said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
We'll have to agree to differ about the effectiveness of fines and bans; they certainly make me think twice but perhaps there's a lot of people out there who are comfortable with the idea of paying a four-figure fine and not being able to drive for several weeks?
Risk and reward. If I was still indulging in fast driving where I thought I could get away with it (I've had my moments in the past) then I wouldn't be comfortable with the above but I would risk it. Even a single night in a prison, no way would I risk that.We are being told continually that prison space is at a premium and because of that the judiciary are being encouraged not to send people to jail where alternatives may produce a better outcome (both for the accused and for society generally); therefore, if prison is the last resort, why would we want to adopt a draconian almost zero-tolerance approach to an offence like excessive speeding? Seems a very strange one to prioritise for a custodial sentence when our prisons are already full to bursting....
Excessive speeding is a large amount over the limit with no evidence of danger - results in a speeding charge.
Dangerous driving can result, from amongst other things, from a grossly inappropriate speed for the conditions irrespective of the posted limit.
That results in very high speeds almost certainly amounting to dangerous by their interpretation as they take a more specious view of danger. That is they appear to consider that the rider at such speeds can't possibly exert sufficient control over a non sanitised environment in respect of the potential risks that it's reasonable to expect in such an environment.
I agree it amounts to very high speeds always likely to amount to dangerous driving, but it's not as simple as saying excessive speeds = dangerous driving, because that suggests no assessment of danger. They do assess the danger, it's just that the way they do it is pretty much going to result in very high speeds always amounting to dangerous. It's not a way of assessing it that I agree with but it is what is & I can see their point even if I don't agree with it.
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
Problem is, we somehow seem to have arrived at a definition of dangerous driving which says it is and that's where the problem is. If our biker could have been charged only with speeding - which in reality was all he did - I think I'm right in saying he wouldn't have been looking at a custodial sentence; however, because someone has decided to equate excessive speed with dangerous driving he was. So perhaps the real issue here is with how dangerous driving is defined? I agree entirely excessive speed can be dangerous but as per my example above I disagree that that's always the case; problem is the law appears to say always....
My opinion is that one of the aims of the courts is to send messages to people who might be inclined to have a bit of a blast themselves. Now if they restricted prison (which is currently the only available option other than fines and bans) to cases where it was clear to everyone that the speed was dangerous, then the enthusiast driver might think 'well, the road is straight, clear and empty, so let's open it up and see what it will do, because this is not a dangerous situation'. But supposing he is wrong, and that there is something abaout the situation that is dangerous, something he hasn't seen.It works in the same way as speed cameras on safe bits of road. The message there is 'don't just stop speeding in places you can see it's unsafe, stop speeding everywhere. The message in the above case is 'don't drive at these speeds anywhere, any time, any circumstances'.
It's a good message. I don't want my loved ones put at risk by people who only think it's safe, when it isn't. I want that decision taken away from them.
JNW1... I think you're being conservative, 175 ?? 200 ??
singlecoil said:
In your opinion.
In my opinion it will have a positive effect on safety. Other people will hear about it and modify their choices accordingly.
Doubtful, it's not the first time that 'speeding' has led to a jail term in Scotland. Your opinions is totally hipocritical really as you speed, we all do.In my opinion it will have a positive effect on safety. Other people will hear about it and modify their choices accordingly.
Back OT, the smart solution to incarceration is education. Making by an example of, or 'lynching' as it should be called is something that should be left at secondary school.
yonex said:
singlecoil said:
In your opinion.
In my opinion it will have a positive effect on safety. Other people will hear about it and modify their choices accordingly.
Doubtful, it's not the first time that 'speeding' has led to a jail term in Scotland. Your opinions is totally hipocritical really as you speed, we all do.In my opinion it will have a positive effect on safety. Other people will hear about it and modify their choices accordingly.
Back OT, the smart solution to incarceration is education. Making by an example of, or 'lynching' as it should be called is something that should be left at secondary school.
Two points in reply, the first is that even if I do speed, I haven't driven at 149 mph on a single carriageway public road, the second, that if you are going to call someone's post, and therefore the poster himself, hypocritical then you should first decide whether that's a fair and reasonable thing to do, and secondly you should learn how to spell it.
Heaveho said:
It makes you wonder what they would have thrown at him if he hadn't pleaded guilty, given what happened to him when he did!
Given the case law precedent in Scotland I think a guilty of dangerous driving verdict was almost inevitable so I can only assume he was advised to plead guilty by his legal representatives on the basis that would be most likely to give him a favourable outcome in terms of a punishment? Given the sentence he received it makes you wonder how much worse it could have been if he'd pleaded not guilty but perhaps there were other factors that affected his punishment that we're not aware of? Having said that you'd have thought the Sheriff would have made reference to any such factors when he passed sentence and as far as I can see he didn't mention any; therefore, the punishment looks to have been given based purely on his excessive speed which still seems disproportionate to me...singlecoil said:
Your post is unpleasant and aggressive, which is a shame because recently this discussion has been carried out in a gentlemanly manner.
Two points in reply, the first is that even if I do speed, I haven't driven at 149 mph on a single carriageway public road, the second, that if you are going to call someone's post, and therefore the poster himself, hypocritical then you should first decide whether that's a fair and reasonable thing to do, and secondly you should learn how to spell it.
But we all speed, that's a fact of life, and in every limit I'd wager. Even the judge that sentenced this guy. How fast have you travelled on a single carriageway, enough for a slap on the wrists maybe? Two points in reply, the first is that even if I do speed, I haven't driven at 149 mph on a single carriageway public road, the second, that if you are going to call someone's post, and therefore the poster himself, hypocritical then you should first decide whether that's a fair and reasonable thing to do, and secondly you should learn how to spell it.
Given that surelya couple of things need to happen. One, the laws need to change somewhat in the way that speeding is prosecuted and two, the public need a better education as to what is responsible. This headline ticket isn't the real killer on our roads?
yonex said:
But we all speed, that's a fact of life, and in every limit I'd wager. Even the judge that sentenced this guy. How fast have you travelled on a single carriageway, enough for a slap on the wrists maybe?
Given that surelya couple of things need to happen. One, the laws need to change somewhat in the way that speeding is prosecuted and two, the public need a better education as to what is responsible. This headline ticket isn't the real killer on our roads?
Yes, I also think attention is (understandably) drawn to the headline speed in cases like this. However, I think in reality a far greater risk to general road safety is posed by people exceeding speed limits around town and in some cases doing things which are actually perfectly legal even though they've been shown to be a major distraction when driving (talking hands-free on a mobile for example). There are far more people committing offences or acts of that nature and they do so in areas where their actions are exposed to far more other road users; in contrast, there are very few bikers doing 149mph and if they do they're probably doing it in a place where it's very unlikely to affect other road users. Given that surelya couple of things need to happen. One, the laws need to change somewhat in the way that speeding is prosecuted and two, the public need a better education as to what is responsible. This headline ticket isn't the real killer on our roads?
So for me making an example of someone like our biker in Scotland doesn't really make much of a contribution to improving overall road safety. The punishment perhaps serves to deter the (small?) number of people for whom a ban wouldn't be enough but let's be honest, we're targeting a tiny group of people here. Meanwhile, every day thousands of others are legally yakking away on the their hands-free mobiles when they should be concentrating on driving their car; however, despite the evidence the authorities seem to have no appetite to even address that. Phrases such as "fiddling while Rome burns" spring to mind....
yonex said:
singlecoil said:
Your post is unpleasant and aggressive, which is a shame because recently this discussion has been carried out in a gentlemanly manner.
Two points in reply, the first is that even if I do speed, I haven't driven at 149 mph on a single carriageway public road, the second, that if you are going to call someone's post, and therefore the poster himself, hypocritical then you should first decide whether that's a fair and reasonable thing to do, and secondly you should learn how to spell it.
But we all speed, that's a fact of life, and in every limit I'd wager. Even the judge that sentenced this guy. How fast have you travelled on a single carriageway, enough for a slap on the wrists maybe? Two points in reply, the first is that even if I do speed, I haven't driven at 149 mph on a single carriageway public road, the second, that if you are going to call someone's post, and therefore the poster himself, hypocritical then you should first decide whether that's a fair and reasonable thing to do, and secondly you should learn how to spell it.
JNW1] said:
Yes, I also think attention is (understandably) drawn to the headline speed in cases like this...
Purpose served then.As for the other offences you mention, they continue to be illegal and are prosecuted from time to time. I agree those prosecutions should happen much more often and the punishments should be much more severe, especially for hand-held phone use.
singlecoil said:
JNW1] said:
Yes, I also think attention is (understandably) drawn to the headline speed in cases like this...
Purpose served then.As for the other offences you mention, they continue to be illegal and are prosecuted from time to time. I agree those prosecutions should happen much more often and the punishments should be much more severe, especially for hand-held phone use.
I know we deviated onto the issue of mobile phone use earlier in the thread but my issue there is hands-free use continues to be legal despite the very strong evidence to suggest it's every bit as distracting as talking on a hand-held device and has as much effect on concentration as drink driving. I've no idea of the exact numbers but I'd venture to suggest that, on the UK's roads, more people talk on a hands-free mobile in a single day than those who travel at over 140mph in a year; even if that's not right you get the point, there are far more people taking on hands-free mobiles than there are driving at very high speed. Therefore, if the authorities are committed to safety, how - given the evidence - are they allowing that situation to continue?
In my everyday driving I have to say I worry far more about people not paying attention at relatively low speeds than I do about someone flying along at 140mph; clearly one's easy to target while the other is more difficult but expediency doesn't necessarily make for improving road safety (assuming of course that's the true objective).
Edited by JNW1 on Friday 17th February 08:43
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1] said:
Yes, I also think attention is (understandably) drawn to the headline speed in cases like this...
Purpose served then.As for the other offences you mention, they continue to be illegal and are prosecuted from time to time. I agree those prosecutions should happen much more often and the punishments should be much more severe, especially for hand-held phone use.
I know we deviated onto the issue of mobile phone use earlier in the thread but my issue there is hands-free use continues to be legal despite the very strong evidence to suggest it's every bit as distracting as talking on a hand-held device and has as much effect on concentration as drink driving. I've no idea of the exact numbers but I'd venture to suggest that, on the UK's roads, more people talk on a hands-free mobile in a single day than those who travel at over 140mph in a year; even if that's not right you get the point, there are far more people taking on hands-free mobiles than there driving at very high speed. Therefore, if the authorities are committed to safety, how - given the evidence - are they allowing that situation to continue?
In my everyday driving I have to say I worry far more about people not paying attention at relatively low speeds than I do about someone flying along at 140mph; clearly one's easy to target while the other is more difficult but expediency doesn't necessarily make for improving road safety (assuming of course that's the true objective).
The 149mph was judged to be driving dangerously & the way the Scottish courts view it is likely to always be. Evidence of individual actions against risk in circumstances.
We can't drive with 100% concentration on driving all the time. It's a nice concept, but it's not practical at all.
You'd need to produce evidence that each driver using a hands free phone is acting carelessly or dangerously in respect of risk because of that conversation.
Just as it's possible for a driver's driving to be both demonstrably acceptably safe at speeds either side of the speed limit, it's just a line in the sand. It's also possible for a driver's driving to be demonstrably acceptably safe whilst having a handsfree conversation.
It's also of course entirely possible for it to be unsafe either side of the limit as well as on/not on the phone.
The hand held use ban is just another blunt risk control measure, it requires no evidence of danger, just like the speed offence.
JNW1 said:
I don't know about purpose served, my point was that, while attention is understandably drawn to the high speed, it's not necessarily the correct thing to focus on and target if improving general road safety is the goal. In fact, you could argue it's distracting attention from things that have more of an impact on safety and is therefore actually doing us all a disservice.
I know we deviated onto the issue of mobile phone use earlier in the thread but my issue there is hands-free use continues to be legal despite the very strong evidence to suggest it's every bit as distracting as talking on a hand-held device and has as much effect on concentration as drink driving. I've no idea of the exact numbers but I'd venture to suggest that, on the UK's roads, more people talk on a hands-free mobile in a single day than those who travel at over 140mph in a year; even if that's not right you get the point, there are far more people taking on hands-free mobiles than there driving at very high speed. Therefore, if the authorities are committed to safety, how - given the evidence - are they allowing that situation to continue?
In my everyday driving I have to say I worry far more about people not paying attention at relatively low speeds than I do about someone flying along at 140mph; clearly one's easy to target while the other is more difficult but expediency doesn't necessarily make for improving road safety (assuming of course that's the true objective).
I know you are personally very concerned over the use of hands-free mobile phone use, but as has been discussed before, it is almost impossible to police, the equipment to facilitate is installed in nearly every new car sold, and there just isn't the statistical evidence to support your view, that's why using a hands-free phone remains perfectly legal.I know we deviated onto the issue of mobile phone use earlier in the thread but my issue there is hands-free use continues to be legal despite the very strong evidence to suggest it's every bit as distracting as talking on a hand-held device and has as much effect on concentration as drink driving. I've no idea of the exact numbers but I'd venture to suggest that, on the UK's roads, more people talk on a hands-free mobile in a single day than those who travel at over 140mph in a year; even if that's not right you get the point, there are far more people taking on hands-free mobiles than there driving at very high speed. Therefore, if the authorities are committed to safety, how - given the evidence - are they allowing that situation to continue?
In my everyday driving I have to say I worry far more about people not paying attention at relatively low speeds than I do about someone flying along at 140mph; clearly one's easy to target while the other is more difficult but expediency doesn't necessarily make for improving road safety (assuming of course that's the true objective).
I would much prefer to be sharing a road with somebody chatting hands-free, than I would by somebody 'flying along at 140mph'. The authorities also agree with that.
Back on to imprisoning speeders and your comment about safety being the objective, I started a thread yesterday about the harder line being taken by Scotland against drink driving and speed enforcement when compared to the rest of the UK. Basic statistics indicated that England is safer than Scotland, but Wales is worse (2015 figures). If updated 2016 and 2017 figures showed that the harder line taken by Scotland brought them back up to the same level as England, would their approach be worth it? Would putting a few excessive speeders in prison be shown to work as a headline grabbing deterrent?
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1] said:
Yes, I also think attention is (understandably) drawn to the headline speed in cases like this...
Purpose served then.As for the other offences you mention, they continue to be illegal and are prosecuted from time to time. I agree those prosecutions should happen much more often and the punishments should be much more severe, especially for hand-held phone use.
I know we deviated onto the issue of mobile phone use earlier in the thread but my issue there is hands-free use continues to be legal despite the very strong evidence to suggest it's every bit as distracting as talking on a hand-held device and has as much effect on concentration as drink driving. I've no idea of the exact numbers but I'd venture to suggest that, on the UK's roads, more people talk on a hands-free mobile in a single day than those who travel at over 140mph in a year; even if that's not right you get the point, there are far more people taking on hands-free mobiles than there are driving at very high speed. Therefore, if the authorities are committed to safety, how - given the evidence - are they allowing that situation to continue?
In my everyday driving I have to say I worry far more about people not paying attention at relatively low speeds than I do about someone flying along at 140mph; clearly one's easy to target while the other is more difficult but expediency doesn't necessarily make for improving road safety (assuming of course that's the true objective).
Now let's move on to your complaint about the concentration on the high speed. A recurrent theme. If you could show that that concentration was leading to less effort being put into reducing other causes of accidents then you would have a point. Can you show that?
vonhosen said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1] said:
Yes, I also think attention is (understandably) drawn to the headline speed in cases like this...
Purpose served then.As for the other offences you mention, they continue to be illegal and are prosecuted from time to time. I agree those prosecutions should happen much more often and the punishments should be much more severe, especially for hand-held phone use.
I know we deviated onto the issue of mobile phone use earlier in the thread but my issue there is hands-free use continues to be legal despite the very strong evidence to suggest it's every bit as distracting as talking on a hand-held device and has as much effect on concentration as drink driving. I've no idea of the exact numbers but I'd venture to suggest that, on the UK's roads, more people talk on a hands-free mobile in a single day than those who travel at over 140mph in a year; even if that's not right you get the point, there are far more people taking on hands-free mobiles than there driving at very high speed. Therefore, if the authorities are committed to safety, how - given the evidence - are they allowing that situation to continue?
In my everyday driving I have to say I worry far more about people not paying attention at relatively low speeds than I do about someone flying along at 140mph; clearly one's easy to target while the other is more difficult but expediency doesn't necessarily make for improving road safety (assuming of course that's the true objective).
The 149mph was judged to be driving dangerously & the way the Scottish courts view it is likely to always be. Evidence of individual actions against risk in circumstances.
We can't drive with 100% concentration on driving all the time. It's a nice concept, but it's not practical at all.
You'd need to produce evidence that each driver using a hands free phone is acting carelessly or dangerously in respect of risk because of that conversation.
Just as it's possible for a driver's driving to be both demonstrably acceptably safe at speeds either side of the speed limit, it's just a line in the sand. It's also possible for a driver's driving to be demonstrably acceptably safe whilst having a handsfree conversation.
It's also of course entirely possible for it to be unsafe either side of the limit as well as on/not on the phone.
The hand held use ban is just another blunt risk control measure, it requires no evidence of danger, just like the speed offence.
JNW1 said:
I appreciate it's a different topic, I was merely illustrating that focus on something which happens relatively rarely (excessive speeding) isn't necessarily a sensible priority when at the same time we allow other activities to continue to happen regularly and often (and remain legal) even when the evidence suggests they're very distracting. I'm not suggesting use of a hands-free mobile should be deemed dangerous driving (although in some circumstances it certainly could be), I'm questioning why - if safety is their priority - the authorities seem to have no desire to even recognise it's a problem.
They don't focus resources on it. The deal with it when somebody throws themselves in front of them.JNW1 said:
...I'm not suggesting use of a hands-free mobile should be deemed dangerous driving (although in some circumstances it certainly could be), I'm questioning why - if safety is their priority - the authorities seem to have no desire to even recognise it's a problem.
You keep saying about evidence, the usual thing is to link to an authoritative source if you have one. But even if there was such evidence, you then need to address the issue of practicality. What about passengers in the car, would it become illegal to speak to them, especially if they are in the back seat? Children can be pretty distracting too. Where are you going to draw the line?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff