Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

So you're sticking with the hypocritical line. You've dropped below the level of a person that is worth arguing with.

If you are seeking to be offended there's not much I can do about that, but the fact of the matter is 'we' are debating the merits of jailing someone for speeding, whilst partaking in the very same activity ourselves.

Have you never exceeded the speed limit. A simple yes or no, if you can recover from being outraged for a brief time

[RobinOakapple]

yonex said:

singlecoil said:

So you're sticking with the hypocritical line. You've dropped below the level of a person that is worth arguing with.

If you are seeking to be offended there's not much I can do about that, but the fact of the matter is 'we' are debating the merits of jailing someone for speeding, whilst partaking in the very same activity ourselves.

Have you never exceeded the speed limit. A simple yes or no, if you can recover from being outraged for a brief time

TBH I can see his point, calling someone a hypocrite is going a bit far. You come across as one of those people who thinks that anyone who disagrees with you must have something wrong with them. Have a look in the mirror.

[The Surveyor]

yonex said:

If you are seeking to be offended there's not much I can do about that, but the fact of the matter is 'we' are debating the merits of jailing someone for speeding, whilst partaking in the very same activity ourselves.

Have you never exceeded the speed limit. A simple yes or no, if you can recover from being outraged for a brief time

I think the massive point you are missing here is that people are NOT jailed for the normal speeding which goes on everyday around us. The sort of minor transgression we all own up to doing. There is a gulf between that, and doing 149mph on a public road which the Scottish courts have deemed not only Dangerous, but sufficiently dangerous to justify a prison sentence.

[singlecoil]

The Surveyor said:

I think the massive point you are missing here is that people are NOT jailed for the normal speeding which goes on everyday around us. The sort of minor transgression we all own up to doing. There is a gulf between that, and doing 149mph on a public road which the Scottish courts have deemed not only Dangerous, but sufficiently dangerous to justify a prison sentence.

Good point well made.

[Heaveho]

The Surveyor said:

I think the massive point you are missing here is that people are NOT jailed for the normal speeding which goes on everyday around us. The sort of minor transgression we all own up to doing. There is a gulf between that, and doing 149mph on a public road which the Scottish courts have deemed not only Dangerous, but sufficiently dangerous to justify a prison sentence.

That's one comparison you could make, and it's not necessarily an unfair one, however, the comparison of jailing someone for this, whilst people aren't getting jailed for non-motoring offences that most of us would deem more serious is also a fair comparison. Especially from those of us who have actually been on the receiving end of more serious crimes where the offender didn't receive a jail term. The fact that a court in Scotland now deems speeding as dangerous driving is just embroidering the facts in order to help secure a heavier conviction, it's not representative of the actual events.

Even some of the more intelligent posters on here, who appear to represent the police, are guardedly agreeing that this sentence isn't right. Given the fact that that outlook is based on more knowledge of police procedure than most of us have access to, surely that speaks volumes?

[singlecoil]

Heaveho said:

That's one comparison you could make, and it's not necessarily an unfair one, however, the comparison of jailing someone for this, whilst people aren't getting jailed for non-motoring offences that most of us would deem more serious is also a fair comparison. Especially from those of us who have actually been on the receiving end of more serious crimes where the offender didn't receive a jail term. The fact that a court in Scotland now deems speeding as dangerous driving is just embroidering the facts in order to help secure a heavier conviction, it's not representative of the actual events.

Even some of the more intelligent posters on here, who appear to represent the police, are guardedly agreeing that this sentence isn't right. Given the fact that that outlook is based on more knowledge of police procedure than most of us have access to, surely that speaks volumes?

I don't think that anyone here is saying that the sentence is one that they would have passed were they the judge in this case. But then, none of were so although we may all agree that the sentence was too severe I think we would also agree that the Scottish stance on extreme speeding is well known and that the person now in prison almost certainly knew it. In other words, he took a chance against a known risk.

[Marty Funkhouser]

Does anyone know if this chap has appealed? As with most of the posters here it does seem ludicrous that this chap gets 4 months when you consider what some drunk drivers etc are given. Reading the original article it seems the judge's main issue was the fact that he said he was unaware he was doing 149mph. To be honest if I was doing that speed on any motorbike, let along one 20 years old, I think I'd be concentrating on the road ahead rather than trying to gauge whether I'm doing 148 or 149. The guys an idiot and deserves a lengthy ban and fine but thats it. Add in the fact that our prisons are heavily overcrowded and its this sort of idiotic sentencing thats making things worse. Why do judges choose cases like this to go heavy handed on?? Why not try this approach with more serious crime???

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

singlecoil said:

So you're sticking with the hypocritical line. You've dropped below the level of a person that is worth arguing with.

If you are seeking to be offended there's not much I can do about that, but the fact of the matter is 'we' are debating the merits of jailing someone for speeding, whilst partaking in the very same activity ourselves.

Have you never exceeded the speed limit. A simple yes or no, if you can recover from being outraged for a brief time

We're not, we are talking about someone being jailed for dangerous driving.

[vonhosen]

Marty Funkhouser said:

Does anyone know if this chap has appealed? As with most of the posters here it does seem ludicrous that this chap gets 4 months when you consider what some drunk drivers etc are given. Reading the original article it seems the judge's main issue was the fact that he said he was unaware he was doing 149mph. To be honest if I was doing that speed on any motorbike, let along one 20 years old, I think I'd be concentrating on the road ahead rather than trying to gauge whether I'm doing 148 or 149. The guys an idiot and deserves a lengthy ban and fine but thats it. Add in the fact that our prisons are heavily overcrowded and its this sort of idiotic sentencing thats making things worse. Why do judges choose cases like this to go heavy handed on?? Why not try this approach with more serious crime???

What would be the basis of the appeal?
Against conviction? He pleaded.
Against sentence? Is it outside the guidelines?
That a drunk driver didn't get jailed isn't gong to get through the door for it.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

We're not, we are talking about someone being jailed for dangerous driving.

As I have said previously, what is the actual reason? I believe the facts are it is speeding. No one was in danger, apart from himself.

He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and the only connection between that, and the charge are some arbitrary standards. There is no line in the sand.

[anonymous-user]

The Surveyor said:

I think the massive point you are missing here is that people are NOT jailed for the normal speeding which goes on everyday around us. The sort of minor transgression we all own up to doing. There is a gulf between that, and doing 149mph on a public road which the Scottish courts have deemed not only Dangerous, but sufficiently dangerous to justify a prison sentence.

I fully understand there is a difference. But when people start talking down to others and suggesting that only their opinion counts, whilst never actually answering the original point, a point which I made, it is somewhat irritating.

Where is the line between this arbitrary set of rules for 'dangerous driving' and 'speeding'

Is 99.9 mph acceptable in this instance, 75 mph?

[The Surveyor]

Heaveho said:

That's one comparison you could make, and it's not necessarily an unfair one, however, the comparison of jailing someone for this, whilst people aren't getting jailed for non-motoring offences that most of us would deem more serious is also a fair comparison. Especially from those of us who have actually been on the receiving end of more serious crimes where the offender didn't receive a jail term. The fact that a court in Scotland now deems speeding as dangerous driving is just embroidering the facts in order to help secure a heavier conviction, it's not representative of the actual events.

But any comparison between the seriousness of individual crimes, the reasonableness of any sentence, and the impact on the individuals involved means that it's only natural to desire a harsher punishment for those crimes that impact on us direct. I've never been robbed or burgled (thankfully) and if I had I'm sure I would share your view even though I do full understand it. There will be others who have been involved in a serious accident where speed was a factor and they will have a polar opposite view on the seriousness of speeding. You just can't compare one type of crime against another, but you can rank the sentence handed out for a crime based upon it's seriousness. That's why speeding at 10% over the limit carries a lower sentence than being 150% over.

Heaveho said:

Even some of the more intelligent posters on here, who appear to represent the police, are guardedly agreeing that this sentence isn't right. Given the fact that that outlook is based on more knowledge of police procedure than most of us have access to, surely that speaks volumes?

This is a motoring forum so it's natural for there to be a sympathy for this individuals sentence. There for the grace of God etc.. But that sympathy does need to be tempered with the indication that he knowingly rode his 'bike at 149mph without checking for Police in a country that has a robust approach to speed enforcement, and which classes such speed as Dangerous Driving, and which could result in a prison sentence.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

We're not, we are talking about someone being jailed for dangerous driving.

As I have said previously, what is the actual reason? I believe the facts are it is speeding. No one was in danger, apart from himself.

He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and the only connection between that, and the charge are some arbitrary standards. There is no line in the sand.

He pleaded presumably because he believed he would be convicted. He would be convicted if the court was satisfied that the offence was proved.
It's therefore not speeding (which is an offence of simply exceeding the limit), it's dangerous driving which is driving that fell far below that expected of a competent & careful driver, would/should have been obvious to a competent & careful driver that it did & was dangerous (danger of injury or serious damage).

You may not agree with how they interpret parts of Sec 2 RTA (I don't agree with them) but to keep say it is for speeding is simply not true.
For dangerous driving an assessment of danger in the circumstances is made, which isn't necessary for speeding & the conclusion through his plea is that he agrees it was dangerous in the circumstances with how that is applied in Scotland.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

The Surveyor said:

I think the massive point you are missing here is that people are NOT jailed for the normal speeding which goes on everyday around us. The sort of minor transgression we all own up to doing. There is a gulf between that, and doing 149mph on a public road which the Scottish courts have deemed not only Dangerous, but sufficiently dangerous to justify a prison sentence.

I fully understand there is a difference. But when people start talking down to others and suggesting that only their opinion counts, whilst never actually answering the original point, a point which I made, it is somewhat irritating.

Where is the line between this arbitrary set of rules for 'dangerous driving' and 'speeding'

Is 99.9 mph acceptable in this instance, 75 mph?

None of our opinions count, they are just that, opinions of a load of randoms who carry no weight in these proceedings.
What counts is how the defendant, his counsel & the court view it.

The answer to your last question is that it'll depend on the circumstances, because dangerous driving can occur at speeds below the speed limit.

[The Surveyor]

yonex said:

...
Where is the line between this arbitrary set of rules for 'dangerous driving' and 'speeding'

Is 99.9 mph acceptable in this instance, 75 mph?

Why does there have to be a line?

There are too many factors to consider for such a simplistic approach. Just the same as their is no set speed where you rigidly go from a big fine and points, to a ban.

[speedking31]

Marty Funkhouser said:

Reading the original article it seems the judge's main issue was the fact that he said he was unaware he was doing 149mph.

Odd isn't it. Even without a speedometer you should be able to judge whether your actions are dangerous or not. Whether you're exceeding the speed limit is irrelevant. Whether you're aware of what actual mph you're doing is also irrelevant.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

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?

Apologies, been out and about and just catching-up with this.

Contrary to the impression I've obviously given, I wasn't seeking to turn this thread into a long debate about the use of hands-free mobile phones. However, as you and Surveyor have asked for some evidence, a quick look on Google produced the article below and within it there are a couple of links to different bits of research; unfortunately the one to the Transport Research Laboratory no longer appears to be working but I believe it was the result of that study which prompted First Group to ban the use of all mobile phones for its employees when driving on company business (whether hands-free or not).

Now you can obviously dismiss or disagree with the evidence if you want but if you do perhaps you can provide some evidence of your own to demonstrate that the use of a hands-free mobile has no significant effect on concentration when driving? In a previous post you were all in favour of coming down harder on hands-held mobile use but if the evidence is that hands-free is almost as bad why would you be happy to ignore that - just because it's more difficult to police and enforce? Personally I find the evidence entirely plausible based on experience with hands-free mobile use (mine and others) and therefore I find it surprising that the authorities seemingly have no interest in tackling the problem if they're really interested in road safety.

Finally, let's just return to our biker for a moment. Guilty of excessive speeding certainly and, for reasons best known to himself and his legal representatives, he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving; however, he inconvenienced nobody, injured nobody and killed nobody - yes he might have done, but the fact is he didn't. Nevertheless, the outcome is he gets 4 months in prison and is banned from driving for 5 years.

Now contrast that with the case of the lady in the article I've linked below; distracted talking on her hands-free mobile she goes through traffic lights on amber whilst also speeding. She then has an accident with another car (albeit to be fair the accident was actually more the fault of the other vehicle) and as a result she mounts the pavement and tragically two children are killed. Her punishment? In the end she's convicted of careless driving and is fined £3,000 and banned for 18 months.

Now if you can tell me that there's a logic between those sentences I'd love to hear it; a fine and a ban for killing two people (albeit accidentally), a jail term and a far longer ban for just (in effect) going quickly. Difficult to avoid the conclusion that many people - and perhaps our legal system - have become obsessed and fixated with speed to the point they can no longer see the wood for the trees. That same tunnel vision may perhaps explain why there's no desire to tackle things like the hands-free use of mobiles; far better to whip-up a frenzy about people doing high speeds than tackle issues which are far more prevalent - and have a real effect on road safety - but are difficult to police.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/goodlife/11670579/Pleas...

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

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.

The speed trap wouldn't have been there if resources hadn't been committed to it (and in Scotland I don't think it was there courtesy of any self-funding model as I don't think they run SAC's up there?).

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

Stuff which can be read just above

I'm not going to disagree with or dismiss the evidence such as it is, but I will point out that it is weak and insubstantial, and in any case there is the point raised earlier about passengers in the car and the practical difficulties with such a law.

In the case of the biker, once again you point out that he didn't kill or injure anybody, and once again I point out that that is not the point.

Nobody apart from those that would like to drive faster is obsessed with speed and speed limits. Speed limit enforcement in inexpensive in comparison to other prosecuting other offences and every sort of accident that might occur is less severe if it happens at a lower speed. The fact that people get caught speeding vividly proves that many would like to drive faster than the limits and if there was no enforcement at all simple logic suggests they would drive faster still. I know I would wherever I thought it safe to do so. And that's the point, leaving up to the driver is fine if they are skilled and sensible. Most drivers are neither, but believe they are.

I agree that other offences such as hand held phone use should be tackled much more vigorously, but that doesn't have any bearing on the case in our discussion.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

I'm not going to disagree with or dismiss the evidence such as it is, but I will point out that it is weak and insubstantial, and in any case there is the point raised earlier about passengers in the car and the practical difficulties with such a law.

In your opinion it may be weak and insubstantial but the TRL evidence was strong enough to make a relatively large company take action! And where is your evidence to counter that provided and demonstrate hands-free use has no detrimental effect on concentration whilst driving?

singlecoil said:

In the case of the biker, once again you point out that he didn't kill or injure anybody, and once again I point out that that is not the point.

I raised that again purely to contrast the way the individual concerned was treated compared with someone who was actually involved in an accident - as a consequence in part of being distracted by using a hands-free mobile - and killed two people as a result. How can a custodial sentence be appropriate for him when someone who's been negligent behind the wheel and killed two people can walk free with a fine and a ban?

Now I'm not saying this lady's sentence was necessarily wrong - I'm sure she was mortified by what she'd done and I doubt a prison sentence would have achieved anything other than, to use your argument, send out a message to others that causing death by being distracted using a hands-free phone will be punished severely. However, surely you can see that for what these two people actually did the punishments seem inequitable?

singlecoil said:

Nobody apart from those that would like to drive faster is obsessed with speed and speed limits.

Really? The authorities seem very keen to extend the use of cameras and, as our biker found out, the courts seem very keen to dish out punishments which to some of us at least seem wholly disproportionate to the crime. Could just be me being paranoid but personally I think speeding has assumed a priority with the authorities which is not really merited (at least not from a safety point of view).

singlecoil said:

Speed limit enforcement in inexpensive in comparison to other prosecuting other offences and every sort of accident that might occur is less severe if it happens at a lower speed.

Just because speed enforcement is relatively low cost doesn't mean it's the best place to focus your efforts if safety is the objective.