Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
Discussion
jith said:
...once again there is absolutely no evidence whatever of dangerous driving.
None needed in this case, of course - he pleaded guilty. He stuck his hand up, and said "Yep, I was indeed driving dangerously. You're absolutely right.".But the legal definition is...
The law said:
2A Meaning of dangerous driving.
(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...(1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Not terribly hard for the PF (CPS down here in Englandwalescestershire) to produce evidence that they say proves that that speed on that road fits that. So it's down to the sheriff/magistrate to agree or disagree.
Is doing damn-near 2.5x the limit far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver? Yes/no
Would it be obvious to a competent and careful driver that doing 2.5x the limit would be dangerous? Yes/no
What do you reckon, Jith? I think you'd be hard pushed to answer "no" to either of those really, hand on heart, wouldn't you? I would.
jith said:
The term in this case is inaccurate; you don't drive a bike, you ride it.
If your defence is resting on that, I think you're probably pushing your luck more than a little bit...jith said:
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.
Well, there's a simple way to get it to do that... Get yourself nicked in similar circumstances, get found guilty, then take it to appeal as far up as needed to set a precedent. Good luck, and keep us posted.I've done 150mph+ in a car. If it happened now, could/should I report him for dangerous driving?
I have given authority to drivers to go with all speed to an incident. They drove through a speed trap which gave their speed as in excess of 145mph. Where the drivers guilty of dangerous driving?
It is probable that the offender pleaded guilty under advice, almost certainly to mitigate the sentence. That worked it seems. It does not necessarily, nor probably, mean that he believed his driving to be dangerous.
I have given authority to drivers to go with all speed to an incident. They drove through a speed trap which gave their speed as in excess of 145mph. Where the drivers guilty of dangerous driving?
It is probable that the offender pleaded guilty under advice, almost certainly to mitigate the sentence. That worked it seems. It does not necessarily, nor probably, mean that he believed his driving to be dangerous.
k!!? eldar 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.
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.
Derek Smith said:
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.
I haven't said I agree with the way Scottish Court's interpret the legislation, as it happens I don't (but that'll make no difference).
At the same time we know what it is & if you decide to gamble with that to the extent he did you are putting your own pudding out for treacle so I don't have a great deal of sympathy.
vonhosen said:
I've driven at very high speeds on public roads. I wouldn't do what he did on my bike in Scotland. His sentence acts as a deterrent to me.
Yep me too. But perhaps that gives the impression to some that this headline-punishment is aimed at the wrong people.Sure everyone understands the snowball effect, but I still can't see the justice in it.
Derek Smith said:
I've done 150mph+ in a car. If it happened now, could/should I report him for dangerous driving?
I have given authority to drivers to go with all speed to an incident. They drove through a speed trap which gave their speed as in excess of 145mph. Where the drivers guilty of dangerous driving?
It is probable that the offender pleaded guilty under advice, almost certainly to mitigate the sentence. That worked it seems. It does not necessarily, nor probably, mean that he believed his driving to be dangerous.
It does suggest the advice he received (presumably from somebody who had seen all the evidence) was there was a very good chance he would be convicted if he pleaded not guilty.I have given authority to drivers to go with all speed to an incident. They drove through a speed trap which gave their speed as in excess of 145mph. Where the drivers guilty of dangerous driving?
It is probable that the offender pleaded guilty under advice, almost certainly to mitigate the sentence. That worked it seems. It does not necessarily, nor probably, mean that he believed his driving to be dangerous.
vonhosen said:
I've driven at very high speeds on public roads. I wouldn't do what he did on my bike in Scotland. His sentence acts as a deterrent to me.
I haven't said I agree with the way Scottish Court's interpret the legislation, as it happens I don't (but that'll make no difference).
At the same time we know what it is & if you decide to gamble with that to the extent he did you are putting your own pudding out for treacle so I don't have a great deal of sympathy.
I'm not suggesting one should feel sympathy for the offender. I feel for his family, not only for the immediate effects but the probably long-term fallout. I haven't said I agree with the way Scottish Court's interpret the legislation, as it happens I don't (but that'll make no difference).
At the same time we know what it is & if you decide to gamble with that to the extent he did you are putting your own pudding out for treacle so I don't have a great deal of sympathy.
You might commit series offences where there is little chance of being found out but that is far from the norm. There is ample research to show that what deters potential is the likelihood of being caught deters.
Punishment must not be out of proportion to the act. Police officers can travel at speed. I've driven in excess of 130mph. I've been driven in excess of 150mph. Yet in both these cases there was no suggestion of increased danger despite there being other vehicles travelling along the road. I'm not suggesting that that gives an excuse but to suggest that the offence, which is based on the speed of the vehicle, merits a custodial is wrong, which is the point I'm trying to support.
If the deterrent effect is all but useless, which all the evidence supports despite your anecdote, then it is unreasonable. There are lots of other forms of punishment, each as much of a deterrent as prison, but without the fall out. This will have a life-long effect on the chap. Is it reasonable for an offence based on mere speeding?
Derek Smith said:
vonhosen said:
I've driven at very high speeds on public roads. I wouldn't do what he did on my bike in Scotland. His sentence acts as a deterrent to me.
I haven't said I agree with the way Scottish Court's interpret the legislation, as it happens I don't (but that'll make no difference).
At the same time we know what it is & if you decide to gamble with that to the extent he did you are putting your own pudding out for treacle so I don't have a great deal of sympathy.
I'm not suggesting one should feel sympathy for the offender. I feel for his family, not only for the immediate effects but the probably long-term fallout. I haven't said I agree with the way Scottish Court's interpret the legislation, as it happens I don't (but that'll make no difference).
At the same time we know what it is & if you decide to gamble with that to the extent he did you are putting your own pudding out for treacle so I don't have a great deal of sympathy.
You might commit series offences where there is little chance of being found out but that is far from the norm. There is ample research to show that what deters potential is the likelihood of being caught deters.
Punishment must not be out of proportion to the act. Police officers can travel at speed. I've driven in excess of 130mph. I've been driven in excess of 150mph. Yet in both these cases there was no suggestion of increased danger despite there being other vehicles travelling along the road. I'm not suggesting that that gives an excuse but to suggest that the offence, which is based on the speed of the vehicle, merits a custodial is wrong, which is the point I'm trying to support.
If the deterrent effect is all but useless, which all the evidence supports despite your anecdote, then it is unreasonable. There are lots of other forms of punishment, each as much of a deterrent as prison, but without the fall out. This will have a life-long effect on the chap. Is it reasonable for an offence based on mere speeding?
Just because a fairly small number will do such speeds on such roads is not evidence that the deterrent is ineffective, rather the contrary because it's only a relatively small number that will be prepared to.
The fact you've been driven in excess of 150mph in England is neither here nor there, when it comes to how Scottish courts interpret Sec 2 RTA.
Also the fact Police officers drive at speed doesn't mean that what he (or they) were doing wouldn't be considered dangerous driving in court, it just means that they (the Police drivers) don't often get to court with it because of the public interest test.
If a member of the public fitted & used blue lights (illegally) to make their way through traffic, it is likely they'd be charged with Sec2/3 RTA & not just the lighting offence, yet the emergency vehicle driver wouldn't get charged with Sec2/3RTA for the exact same driving.
If a member of the public chased somebody else they'd likely get charged with Sec2/3 RTA, yet Police don't (ordinarily) whilst chasing somebody. Despite in both cases there being no exemption in law from Sec 2/3 RTA for Police & them being subject to the same competent & careful driver test in law in relation to their driving that a member of the public would.
What's becoming a dilemma for Police drivers is that they are getting more likely to be placed before the courts.
http://www.polfed.org/campaigning/trained_drivers....
http://www.lancashirepolfed.org.uk/pursuit2.pdf
https://beds.polfed.org/bedfed-flipbook/june-2016/...
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 7th February 22:55
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.
OldGermanHeaps said:
One guaranteed outcome of this is I'm sure a few people now when they see those blue lights after travelling at a similar speed will seriously consider doing a runner. After all if there is little difference in the penalty but a chance of getting away scot free why not?
Perhaps other outcomes include a few people seriously considering beforehand whether to do it.I've no idea whether this guy moaned about it privately but that would be as unreasonable as the moaning in this thread.
jm doc said:
The contempt is entirely on the part of the judicial system and the laws which support it. Another dark day in the decline in rationality in this country.
This is exactly how I view it. It's a two or even three tier system, including the Scottish principals. Utterly ludicrous that;- A drunk driver (even repeat) would get a lighter sentence
- That spending tens of thousands is deemed appropriate in an open and shut case
- That the law in this country is so one dimensional regarding excess speed
You'd have to be made out of wood, and a huge hypocrite if you didn't in anyway see this as harsh IMO. There are obvious solutions which avoid pointless incarceration in a penal system which is absolutely bursting at the seams.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 8th February 07:45
La Liga said:
s3fella said:
If he was a plod he'd have just got away with it, so long as he claimed he was evaluating the performance of the vehicle.
One rule for one.....
As per earlier posts in the thread, the case you're alluding to resulted in a conviction... One rule for one.....
vonhosen said:
I disagree that the deterrent is all but useless. Very few will do such speeds out of choice because of that potential outcome . . .
The research is against you. The biggest deterrent is being found out. Everything else pales into insignificance. The research supports my experience but is counter intuitive. Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 7th February 22:55
The question from the OP is whether jail is the smart solution for speeding. My belief is that it is not for a variety or reasons, most of which I have quoted. Others have pointed out that the far more dangerous offence of drink/drug driving/riding will only result in a custodial following multiple repeat offences. So gaol is out of proportion and for the law to gain respect its responses muse be fair and that includes proportional.
Derek Smith said:
The research is against you. The biggest deterrent is being found out. Everything else pales into insignificance. The research supports my experience but is counter intuitive.
The question from the OP is whether jail is the smart solution for speeding. My belief is that it is not for a variety or reasons, most of which I have quoted. Others have pointed out that the far more dangerous offence of drink/drug driving/riding will only result in a custodial following multiple repeat offences. So gaol is out of proportion and for the law to gain respect its responses muse be fair and that includes proportional.
The authorities pretty much admit the same, offering SAC for lesser offences. If this was used along with some kind of community service and an appropriate fine for the first time people were caught IMO it would be a much more useful deterrent. It would also save a fortune financially and not remove people from contributing to society.The question from the OP is whether jail is the smart solution for speeding. My belief is that it is not for a variety or reasons, most of which I have quoted. Others have pointed out that the far more dangerous offence of drink/drug driving/riding will only result in a custodial following multiple repeat offences. So gaol is out of proportion and for the law to gain respect its responses muse be fair and that includes proportional.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff