Motoring journalist banned for speeding
Discussion
Kozy said:
Very strange that he plead guilty to dangerous driving.
We had a driver caught doing something like 160mph on the Isle of Wight (yes, it's actually possible to go that fast here) who was recorded on fillm by a following police car.
The court actually found him not guilty of dangerous driving despite the utterly insane speed on a single carriageway A road, because he was deemed to be in control of the car from the footage.
Bladders could be heard simmering all over the island when that was announced!
Driver was obviously still banned given he was 100mph+ over the speed limit, but it was interesting to see that they detached excessive speed from dangerous driving.
I think the police driver, Mark Milton, had his dangerous driving conviction ( 159mph late at night )We had a driver caught doing something like 160mph on the Isle of Wight (yes, it's actually possible to go that fast here) who was recorded on fillm by a following police car.
The court actually found him not guilty of dangerous driving despite the utterly insane speed on a single carriageway A road, because he was deemed to be in control of the car from the footage.
Bladders could be heard simmering all over the island when that was announced!
Driver was obviously still banned given he was 100mph+ over the speed limit, but it was interesting to see that they detached excessive speed from dangerous driving.
Overturned in the end.
He crashed a couple of years back when he lost his BMW at around a ton in a 40 zone but escaped a dangerous driving conviction as he said he was dazzled by a light
Kozy said:
...but it was interesting to see that they detached excessive speed from dangerous driving.
Logically of course the two are detached from each other, but I gather (and somebody has already said in the thread) that in Scotland the two are not detached. I've no idea how the law in Scotland has managed that. Does Scotland use the same definition of dangerous driving?A person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if and 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.
It could be argued that the law would regard driving at 127 in a 60 as falling far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver regardless of how safe it is because the law expects drivers to obey speed limits. But it's difficult to see how (b) can be satisfied looking at speed alone without considering the circumstances.
Kozy said:
Very strange that he plead guilty to dangerous driving.
We had a driver caught doing something like 160mph on the Isle of Wight (yes, it's actually possible to go that fast here) who was recorded on fillm by a following police car.
The court actually found him not guilty of dangerous driving despite the utterly insane speed on a single carriageway A road, because he was deemed to be in control of the car from the footage.
Bladders could be heard simmering all over the island when that was announced!
Driver was obviously still banned given he was 100mph+ over the speed limit, but it was interesting to see that they detached excessive speed from dangerous driving.
Interesting, and good, to see. All too often we hear of speeds well over the limit being described as dangerous, when it does not automatically follow that it is.We had a driver caught doing something like 160mph on the Isle of Wight (yes, it's actually possible to go that fast here) who was recorded on fillm by a following police car.
The court actually found him not guilty of dangerous driving despite the utterly insane speed on a single carriageway A road, because he was deemed to be in control of the car from the footage.
Bladders could be heard simmering all over the island when that was announced!
Driver was obviously still banned given he was 100mph+ over the speed limit, but it was interesting to see that they detached excessive speed from dangerous driving.
I wonder why he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, rather than just speeding. That seems an odd thing to do.
I've sometimes wondered how journos get away with speeding when testing; it's no doubt been debated here before but I couldn't find anything. Fast open roads in remote parts of Wales or Scotland often feature in articles in Evo, Car etc and I can't believe that they stay within the limit all the time 
Maybe they drive the section of road first at legal speeds to check it's clear of the BiB, or perhaps they have colleagues parked up at either end of a particular section with walkie-talkies? Anyone on here have any experience of what these guys do to avoid a ticket?
Maybe they drive the section of road first at legal speeds to check it's clear of the BiB, or perhaps they have colleagues parked up at either end of a particular section with walkie-talkies? Anyone on here have any experience of what these guys do to avoid a ticket?
Escort3500 said:
Maybe they drive the section of road first at legal speeds to check it's clear of the BiB, or perhaps they have colleagues parked up at either end of a particular section with walkie-talkies? Anyone on here have any experience of what these guys do to avoid a ticket?
Drive it slowly and carefully and make a lot of it up to avoid being caught speeding, or crashing and paying a whopping insurance excess I'd imagine.Too bad, but as said - it doesn't matter what is fair or 'logical' we all know the risks & rules.
Great island the IOW, good fun.
Kozy said:
Very strange that he plead guilty to dangerous driving.
We had a driver caught doing something like 160mph on the Isle of Wight (yes, it's actually possible to go that fast here) who was recorded on fillm by a following police car.
The court actually found him not guilty of dangerous driving despite the utterly insane speed on a single carriageway A road, because he was deemed to be in control of the car from the footage.
Bladders could be heard simmering all over the island when that was announced!
Driver was obviously still banned given he was 100mph+ over the speed limit, but it was interesting to see that they detached excessive speed from dangerous driving.
Wow, I just visited the Isle of Wight last weekend for the first time, drove the whole way around, 160mph at any point on those roads would have had me pretty terrified! I did at points think it would be great to take my sports car over there for a blast, but we probably had more fun in the SUV going a little off piste here and there.We had a driver caught doing something like 160mph on the Isle of Wight (yes, it's actually possible to go that fast here) who was recorded on fillm by a following police car.
The court actually found him not guilty of dangerous driving despite the utterly insane speed on a single carriageway A road, because he was deemed to be in control of the car from the footage.
Bladders could be heard simmering all over the island when that was announced!
Driver was obviously still banned given he was 100mph+ over the speed limit, but it was interesting to see that they detached excessive speed from dangerous driving.
Great island the IOW, good fun.
RobM77 said:
mon the fish said:
More to the point - why the hell was there a speed trap at 00:45!? Were they expecting him? Normally a quiet road at that time
I get the impression that speed traps are placed where there's a high chance of catching someone over the limit, i.e. where it's safe to speed, rather than in an effort to improve road safety. Where it's dangerous to speed, you'll never see one, for example outside a school or hospital.From reading the facts above, I would say that an experienced driver doing 127mph on an empty straight road in a modern high performance car is perfectly safe. Far safer than driving I see everyday - 70mph in thick fog for example, or tailgating etc. Naturally, the police aren't interested in that because it's harder to enforce than sitting in a nice warm van catching people speeding on empty roads.
It all adds to a pretty negative view of law enforcement from anyone who uses logic to reason the above, which is a shame. The law should be there to protect people, not gain revenue.
ETA: I've just clocked the name... he's a superb driver! Truly idiotic. He was probably safer doing that speed in that situation in that car than half the drivers on the road every second of the day.
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 28th November 10:39
Guybrush said:
RobM77 said:
mon the fish said:
More to the point - why the hell was there a speed trap at 00:45!? Were they expecting him? Normally a quiet road at that time
I get the impression that speed traps are placed where there's a high chance of catching someone over the limit, i.e. where it's safe to speed, rather than in an effort to improve road safety. Where it's dangerous to speed, you'll never see one, for example outside a school or hospital.From reading the facts above, I would say that an experienced driver doing 127mph on an empty straight road in a modern high performance car is perfectly safe. Far safer than driving I see everyday - 70mph in thick fog for example, or tailgating etc. Naturally, the police aren't interested in that because it's harder to enforce than sitting in a nice warm van catching people speeding on empty roads.
It all adds to a pretty negative view of law enforcement from anyone who uses logic to reason the above, which is a shame. The law should be there to protect people, not gain revenue.
ETA: I've just clocked the name... he's a superb driver! Truly idiotic. He was probably safer doing that speed in that situation in that car than half the drivers on the road every second of the day.
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 28th November 10:39
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff