Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Most people who stack it without any other vehicle involved don't get sent to court, it's the exception rather than the rule.
Each case that then gets to court is dealt with on it's own individual facts.

All this guff doesn't change the fact that sending someone to jail for 4 months for doing 149mph with no demonstrable risk to others is unjustifiable when considered against sentences handed out for other offences.

That will depend on the full individual facts of the case, to which I am not party.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Most people who stack it without any other vehicle involved don't get sent to court, it's the exception rather than the rule.
Each case that then gets to court is dealt with on it's own individual facts.

All this guff doesn't change the fact that sending someone to jail for 4 months for doing 149mph with no demonstrable risk to others is unjustifiable when considered against sentences handed out for other offences.

That will depend on the full individual facts of the case, to which I am not party.

Indeed and none of us are party to the full facts of this particular case. However, the comments made at the time of sentencing didn't appear to make reference to any other aggravating circumstances and the punishment seemed to relate only to the high speed involved; that being the case it did seem disproportionate to the crime.

Having said that I suppose it's up to the Scots to interpret and apply the law in a way they see fit in their own country; I think this sentence was incredibly harsh but it was consistent with previous convictions in Scotland for similar offences and, as the rider belonged that area, he knew the risk he was taking. I still don't think that makes his custodial sentence right but to a large extent he did lead with his chin!

[Crackie]

I had a quick look at the stretch of road, on Google maps, that the biker chose to do 149mph. There appears to be several side roads; where other road users would not be expecting a bike closing at approx. 150mph. For that reason I think what the biker did was 'potentially' extremely dangerous.

If the biker knew he would encounter no other traffic or pedestrians whilst at high speed then what he did could not be considered a danger to others. He could not know what potential hazards he might have encountered and there was a reasonable possibility that he might meet other road users.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...

I'm sure we all have some form of assumed hierarchy of a crime's seriousness and related punishment; bearing in mind the non custodial sentencing I've seen, for what I deem to be far more serious offences, I still cannot understand how the drivers actions warranted a custodial sentence though.

The list of examples of inconsiderate driving is interesting but I cannot recall any prosecutions arising from any of these. With the exception of the in-dipped headlights I think the other four examples, when the action is prolonged, can be the catalyst to more serious and possibly dangerous actions by others.

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 21st February 07:52

[p1esk]

vonhosen said:

s3fella said:

vonhosen said:

As Re the later crash, a crash doesn't mean you are guilty, the evidence of your actions do & the court came to the conclusion that he wasn't guilty of dangerous driving (further evidencing that dangerous driving isn't just about the numbers on the speedo & stick).

.......and yet doing it AND stacking it into a roundabout generally means an MOP would be convicted, usually.

Most people who stack it without any other vehicle involved don't get sent to court, it's the exception rather than the rule.
Each case that then gets to court is dealt with on it's own individual facts.

Sorry von, that may be how it is, but I still can not see it as being reasonable. Even if no other vehicle is involved, if I have a crash and cause damage to somebody's property - garden wall etc. - I would feel that I'd made a bad mistake and failed to produce acceptable driving, in which case I'd not be aggrieved to find myself in court.

I know you have previously pointed out that speed limits are a risk control measure; even so, some of the penalties meted out for transgressions are seriously excessive, when no harm was done, and there was no likelihood of any harm being done.

Edited by p1esk on Tuesday 21st February 08:26

[TooMany2cvs]

Crackie said:

If the biker knew he would encounter no other traffic or pedestrians whilst at high speed then what he did could not be considered a danger to others. He could not know what potential hazards he might have encountered and there was a reasonable possibility that he might meet other road users.

We know for a fact that he encountered hazards he was not aware of...

[p1esk]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Most people who stack it without any other vehicle involved don't get sent to court, it's the exception rather than the rule.
Each case that then gets to court is dealt with on it's own individual facts.

All this guff doesn't change the fact that sending someone to jail for 4 months for doing 149mph with no demonstrable risk to others is unjustifiable when considered against sentences handed out for other offences.

Indeed. In my view the penalties meted out for motoring offences in general are quite inappropriate relative to the penalties imposed on those who wilfully carry out non-motoring crimes.

I imagine most motoring offences arise through nothing more that a temporary lapse of attention, or a misjudgement, or the failure to comply with some technical rule, like a speed limit. Failure to abide by a speed limit may indicate a general unwillingness to respect that particular law, or again it could simply be due to an occasional failure to note what our speedometer is showing us.

On the other hand we hear cases where criminals knowingly and wilfully carry our crimes which they know will harm others, especially if it is a burglary involving violence, for example; and yet they go ahead and perpetrate these crimes, sometimes repeatedly. Even then, the courts often seem to deal surprisingly leniently with these offenders, and there appears to be little inclination to take a firmer line with them.

There is serious imbalance in the system, and some readjustment is long overdue.

[JNW1]

Crackie said:

I had a quick look at the stretch of road, on Google maps, that the biker chose to do 149mph. There appears to be several side roads; where other road users would not be expecting a bike closing at approx. 150mph. For that reason I think what the biker did was 'potentially' extremely dangerous.

If the biker knew he would encounter no other traffic or pedestrians whilst at high speed then what he did could not be considered a danger to others. He could not know what potential hazards he might have encountered and there was a reasonable possibility that he might meet other road users.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_of...

I'm sure we all have some form of assumed hierarchy of a crime's seriousness and related punishment; bearing in mind the non custodial sentencing I've seen, for what I deem to be far more serious offences, I still cannot understand how the drivers actions warranted a custodial sentence though.

Edited by Crackie on Tuesday 21st February 07:40

In terms of the danger aspect the only thing I'd say is bikes accelerate far quicker than cars and, because they sit higher up, a rider has a better line of sight than someone sat lower in a car; therefore, what might look seriously dangerous to a car driver might seem less so to someone on a high performance bike. Having said that I accept from the image on Google maps that the stretch of road isn't as side-road free as it might have been and there's no doubt he was chancing his arm a bit; his actions therefore certainly merited punishment (and IMO rather more than 3 points and the standard fine!).

However, while in some respects he was irresponsible, I don't think for one minute there was any intention to injure or kill either himself of anyone else and he'd also had a clean licence for over 20 years (so not as if he was a serial offender who was refusing to learn from his mistakes and needed to be taught a sharp lesson). Therefore, the question is whether prison was an appropriate and proportionate response for someone like that? Personally I think not, especially when our legal system can and does allow criminals to walk away with suspended sentences even though they have acted with malice aforethought and affected others by their actions. I come back to prison really being a last resort and for this bloke personally I think there were other options which could and should have been used first.

[JNW1]

TooMany2cvs said:

We know for a fact that he encountered hazards he was not aware of...

He obviously failed to spot the police speed trap (presumably deliberately hidden from view) but what other hazards did he encounter which he wasn't aware of?

[The Surveyor]

JNW1 said:

.....
In terms of your final sentence, it would be interesting to hear someone from the authorities articulate their reasons as to why hands-held is illegal and hands-free isn't. Perhaps they do indeed have good evidence to show there's a significantly different level of distraction between the two methods of use but if they have I can only reiterate I've never seen it or been able to find it. My suspicion is that the difference is due largely to expediency but if true is that really a good basis for formulating traffic laws which are meant to promote safety?

Maybe it is because there already is an offence linked to care and attention and it just doesn't merit any further legislation.

[The Surveyor]

JNW1 said:

In terms of the danger aspect the only thing I'd say is bikes accelerate far quicker than cars and, because they sit higher up, a rider has a better line of sight than someone sat lower in a car; therefore, what might look seriously dangerous to a car driver might seem less so to someone on a high performance bike. Having said .....

He also failed to see the police. To be fair, if you are going to wind a car or 'bike upto those speeds, one of your first observations would be to check for either SCP or traffic Police.

[JNW1]

The Surveyor said:

JNW1 said:

.....
In terms of your final sentence, it would be interesting to hear someone from the authorities articulate their reasons as to why hands-held is illegal and hands-free isn't. Perhaps they do indeed have good evidence to show there's a significantly different level of distraction between the two methods of use but if they have I can only reiterate I've never seen it or been able to find it. My suspicion is that the difference is due largely to expediency but if true is that really a good basis for formulating traffic laws which are meant to promote safety?

Maybe it is because there already is an offence linked to care and attention and it just doesn't merit any further legislation.

Perhaps but unless they have evidence to show that hands-held represents a much greater risk why not deal with that in the same way under the same legislation? They may have evidence that the risks are significantly different but if they have I've not seen it; I have however seen research and evidence which suggests there's no significant difference between the two methods of use.

[JNW1]

The Surveyor said:

JNW1 said:

In terms of the danger aspect the only thing I'd say is bikes accelerate far quicker than cars and, because they sit higher up, a rider has a better line of sight than someone sat lower in a car; therefore, what might look seriously dangerous to a car driver might seem less so to someone on a high performance bike. Having said .....

He also failed to see the police. To be fair, if you are going to wind a car or 'bike upto those speeds, one of your first observations would be to check for either SCP or traffic Police.

In a subsequent post I did acknowledge he'd missed the speed trap but I suspect it may have been concealed from view and by the time he saw it he'd probably been pinged and it was too late to react; however, if it was in full view at the roadside and he missed it that's certainly another black mark against him. Regardless, though, I still don't think his offence merited a custodial sentence for the reasons I've outlined earlier.

[cmaguire]

The Surveyor said:

He also failed to see the police. To be fair, if you are going to wind a car or 'bike upto those speeds, one of your first observations would be to check for either SCP or traffic Police.

At higher speed the priority will be what is occuring within your surroundings that have a direct effect on actions or decisions you are about to make. Keeping an 'eye out' for vans that could be builders parked up the best part of a mile away is detrimental to safety as it is a distraction and would in normal circumstances be very low priority.

[The Surveyor]

cmaguire said:

The Surveyor said:

He also failed to see the police. To be fair, if you are going to wind a car or 'bike upto those speeds, one of your first observations would be to check for either SCP or traffic Police.

At higher speed the priority will be what is occuring within your surroundings that have a direct effect on actions or decisions you are about to make. Keeping an 'eye out' for vans that could be builders parked up the best part of a mile away is detrimental to safety as it is a distraction and would in normal circumstances be very low priority.

Or conversely, don't drive or ride faster than you can observe, be that hazards that could kill you, hazards that you could kill, or hazards that will land you in prison for 4 months.

[cmaguire]

The Surveyor said:

Or conversely, don't drive or ride faster than you can observe, be that hazards that could kill you, hazards that you could kill, or hazards that will land you in prison for 4 months.

A van parked up a mile away is only a hazard in some warped manufactured scenario that would not exist in any sane person's mind. Can you think of any other hazard that would require consideration at that distance, yet might not in fact be a hazard at all, and you won't actually know until at least half a mile later, and in any event it will not be impacting on your safety anyway?

[The Surveyor]

cmaguire said:

A van parked up a mile away is only a hazard in some warped manufactured scenario that would not exist in any sane person's mind. Can you think of any other hazard that would require consideration at that distance, yet might not in fact be a hazard at all, and you won't actually know until at least half a mile later, and in any event it will not be impacting on your safety anyway?

I was looking at from a common sense perspective, simply if you're going to break the law check that there aren't any police about.

No matter how good you claim your hazard perception is, if you're riding at nearly 150mph on a public road and you're not looking out for Police as well as all the other hazards on the road then you're at risk of getting nicked. Regardless of your view on speed enforcement (because that won't matter to the magistrate, PF) if you get caught doing nearly 150mph they really are going to make an example of you, so either don't go that fast or don't get caught.

[Kawasicki]

I witnessed a driver paying so little attention on a straight dual carriageway near Crewe that he drove straight over roundabout without even braking. I spoke to the shocked driver and his wife, waiting for the police to turn up. The policeman asked me for a statement, he mentioned something about it happening regularly.


Does 1 Year in prison sound reasonable?

[The Surveyor]

Kawasicki said:

I witnessed a driver paying so little attention on a straight dual carriageway near Crewe that he drove straight over roundabout without even braking. I spoke to the shocked driver and his wife, waiting for the police to turn up. The policeman asked me for a statement, he mentioned something about it happening regularly.


Does 1 Year in prison sound reasonable?

Lol... yes, of course if they are doing it regularly, lock 'em up

[cmaguire]

Kawasicki said:

I witnessed a driver paying so little attention on a straight dual carriageway near Crewe that he drove straight over roundabout without even braking. I spoke to the shocked driver and his wife, waiting for the police to turn up. The policeman asked me for a statement, he mentioned something about it happening regularly.


Does 1 Year in prison sound reasonable?

He's obviously far more of a danger on the road than the guy doing 149 as he managed to crash going nowhere near that speed. Even if we ignore the fact he actually did crash, applying the same logic to him as Mr 149 they will no doubt take into consideration the brass band that could have been playing some tunes on the roundabout but thankfully weren't so haven't all died.
Oh hang on, it's Cheshire so they won't.

Going back to Mr 149, I wonder what impact that daft sentence might have on Visas for foreign travel etc .