Jailed for 150mph headcam footage...
Discussion
NIgt3 said:
what a retard, but I think Jail is a bit extreme when Rapists, thieves etc walk outta court with a slap on the rist!
You don't even get prosecuted for killing people from behind a wheel you would never have been allowed behind if you had disclosed your medical history. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...trickywoo said:
You don't even get prosecuted for killing people from behind a wheel you would never have been allowed behind if you had disclosed your medical history. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...
That's really not even close. I understand the cps, in the case of the glasgow refuse lorry driver, didn't have enough evidence to convict, hence no prosecution - they would have had to demonstrate that he drove the lorry with criminal intent, or knew there was a risk of blacking out. On the risk of blacking out, all the GP's he had visited over the years determined there insufficient reason to inform the dvla.
fireblade rider clearly knew what he was doing as evidenced by the videos on his memory card. Suspect he would have only been done for one count of dangerous driving (the wheelie alone would do that) had he been prosecuted for what the police actually witnessed.
Still, it's a victimless crime and surely hard to justify a custodial sentence. Maybe the sentencing guidelines need reform.
fireblade rider clearly knew what he was doing as evidenced by the videos on his memory card. Suspect he would have only been done for one count of dangerous driving (the wheelie alone would do that) had he been prosecuted for what the police actually witnessed.
Still, it's a victimless crime and surely hard to justify a custodial sentence. Maybe the sentencing guidelines need reform.
trickywoo said:
You do know the bin lorry driver was knowingly behind the wheel with a medical condition that casuses blackouts and you do you he actually killed people?
Very odd comment Prof.
Leaving aside the point that I do not think you are correct about his reasons for not disclosing in full. It's a bit more complicated than that I think.Very odd comment Prof.
Well in one instance a crime has been clearly committed. All the evidence is provided by the hilariously incompetent biker. He did however cause no obvious harm. So the objection from some is that the sentence is disproportionate compared to other crimes. Malum prohibitum, a crime wrong because it is prohibited where sentences are sometimes difficult to understand in my mind, as opposed to Malum se, evil in itself, like if you stab someone for squeezing toothpaste from the middle of the tube for example, or if you intentional run people over or do so because you are grossly incompetent, which I at least feel are not punished enough.
But with the lorry driver there is no evidence a crime has been committed despite the obvious horror of it. So to me it makes literally no sense to say the punishment for the driver was insufficient, I'm at a loss to see what crime there is to answer for and there certainly was no intent.
If that makes sense. I'm not being intentional obtuse here. I just don't think its the same thing at all. There's lots of examples of people who killed other road users through negligence and got menial sentences. To me these would make far better examples of your point.
Prof Prolapse said:
Leaving aside the point that I do not think you are correct about his reasons for not disclosing in full. It's a bit more complicated than that I think.
Well in one instance a crime has been clearly committed. All the evidence is provided by the hilariously incompetent biker. He did however cause no obvious harm. So the objection from some is that the sentence is disproportionate compared to other crimes. Malum prohibitum, a crime wrong because it is prohibited where sentences are sometimes difficult to understand in my mind, as opposed to Malum se, evil in itself, like if you stab someone for squeezing toothpaste from the middle of the tube for example, or if you intentional run people over or do so because you are grossly incompetent, which I at least feel are not punished enough.
But with the lorry driver there is no evidence a crime has been committed despite the obvious horror of it. So to me it makes literally no sense to say the punishment for the driver was insufficient, I'm at a loss to see what crime there is to answer for and there certainly was no intent.
If that makes sense. I'm not being intentional obtuse here. I just don't think its the same thing at all. There's lots of examples of people who killed other road users through negligence and got menial sentences. To me these would make far better examples of your point.
Fraud by deception. I'd say there is a strong case of lying to get into a position he wouldn't have got in otherwise...anyway OTWell in one instance a crime has been clearly committed. All the evidence is provided by the hilariously incompetent biker. He did however cause no obvious harm. So the objection from some is that the sentence is disproportionate compared to other crimes. Malum prohibitum, a crime wrong because it is prohibited where sentences are sometimes difficult to understand in my mind, as opposed to Malum se, evil in itself, like if you stab someone for squeezing toothpaste from the middle of the tube for example, or if you intentional run people over or do so because you are grossly incompetent, which I at least feel are not punished enough.
But with the lorry driver there is no evidence a crime has been committed despite the obvious horror of it. So to me it makes literally no sense to say the punishment for the driver was insufficient, I'm at a loss to see what crime there is to answer for and there certainly was no intent.
If that makes sense. I'm not being intentional obtuse here. I just don't think its the same thing at all. There's lots of examples of people who killed other road users through negligence and got menial sentences. To me these would make far better examples of your point.
What I said is correct http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/07/gla...
The timing of the reporting of the final outcome of the two incidents leads to comparison. One kills multiple people with no legal punishment the other breaks laws but without any victims and is sent to prison.
Is it correct that because the non-disclosure of a medical condition is not deemed illegal the person in question can get away with killing people because of the same condition, especially given that they would be unlikely to be given employment driving had it been disclosed.
Who was it that said the law is an ass?
The timing of the reporting of the final outcome of the two incidents leads to comparison. One kills multiple people with no legal punishment the other breaks laws but without any victims and is sent to prison.
Is it correct that because the non-disclosure of a medical condition is not deemed illegal the person in question can get away with killing people because of the same condition, especially given that they would be unlikely to be given employment driving had it been disclosed.
Who was it that said the law is an ass?
It's not difficult to find reports of sentences of 30 months for causing death by dangerous driving or 20 months for causing death by careless driving (in a 4-wheeled vehicle, obviously), and that's without bringing up the "70mph police chase in stolen car through town" cases that result in some sort of community service order, or the equally trivial sentences for wounding (usually with a knife).
It's difficult not to think that sentencing is a joke.
It's difficult not to think that sentencing is a joke.
sometimes it seems the law is more interested in controlling the "soft touches" of the world, than dishing out punishment to more difficult people.
Last year whilst riding my motorbike I got pulled over by the police , they thoroughly checked the bike over, including a good search for the homologation mark on my standard exhaust. They were happy and they let me go. I met the same two police later that afternoon in the local town as maybe 50 harleys with ear splitting exhausts turned up. They were not approached by the police. I asked them why this was so, but they just ignored me. Odd.
Last year whilst riding my motorbike I got pulled over by the police , they thoroughly checked the bike over, including a good search for the homologation mark on my standard exhaust. They were happy and they let me go. I met the same two police later that afternoon in the local town as maybe 50 harleys with ear splitting exhausts turned up. They were not approached by the police. I asked them why this was so, but they just ignored me. Odd.
trickywoo said:
What I said is correct http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/07/gla...
The timing of the reporting of the final outcome of the two incidents leads to comparison. One kills multiple people with no legal punishment the other breaks laws but without any victims and is sent to prison.
Is it correct that because the non-disclosure of a medical condition is not deemed illegal the person in question can get away with killing people because of the same condition, especially given that they would be unlikely to be given employment driving had it been disclosed.
Who was it that said the law is an ass?
I'd really like to see the medical notes say to be honest as what the papers are saying is very inconsistent to my mind. I think I actually work with one of the medics who was involved in this, but obviously they'll say fThe timing of the reporting of the final outcome of the two incidents leads to comparison. One kills multiple people with no legal punishment the other breaks laws but without any victims and is sent to prison.
Is it correct that because the non-disclosure of a medical condition is not deemed illegal the person in question can get away with killing people because of the same condition, especially given that they would be unlikely to be given employment driving had it been disclosed.
Who was it that said the law is an ass?
k all... Anyway I'm not saying the guy did nothing wrong, but that isn't the same as committing a crime which is my point. Also, in terms of his potential moral failings, lots of people don't report medical conditions to the DVLA. Elderly, diabetics, those with migraines, those with mental health issues, many illnesses mean you're not fit to drive, and it's pretty clear they're contributory in accidents. This lorry debacle is just an example. The system is f
ked. But the wider community don't seem to have the same vitriol extended to them, I'm not aware that anyone has even bothered their arse to see how big a problem this is.I chose to be a good citizen and to declare medical conditions with the DVLA years ago. Now every few years I get the same incomprehensible gibberish letter whilst they see if I'm still fit to drive. They tell me I could lose my licence, and therefore career, and make all manner of undue threats, and meanwhile my doctor says to me how much he hates filing in the same damn forms to keep someone in a job. I have to declare it every time every time I take out a motor insurance policy despite it having no impact. Then I wait for a few minutes whilst an Irk scurries off to check I don't have to pay more, because no other f
ker declares things but me, so they don't know what buttons to press.That's not me saying that gives people a right to be obscure, but I fail to understand, if this is so immoral, why is it we allow so many others away with it?
Prof Prolapse said:
why is it we allow so many others away with it?
We don't. The self appointed arbiters do. This is getting a bit navel gazing but everyone thinks they are clever, and therfore know better than the next man. Its only arriving in a position of power which actaually allows anyone to exercise that view. How many people achieve such a position is often far removed from 'knowing best'.trickywoo said:
The timing of the reporting of the final outcome of the two incidents leads to comparison. One kills multiple people with no legal punishment the other breaks laws but without any victims and is sent to prison.
As appears to be, ever increasingly, the norm in our legal system, compliance is more important than justice.Rules is rules and all that ...
Just to add to the mix the Telegraph has a report today about a car driver who deliberately swerved across a road to scare a cyclist before swerving back to his side of the road narrowly missing them.
The driver apparently did this to several different cyclists over a period of 10 days. One of the cyclists caught him on his bike camera and he has found guilty of dangerous driving and sentenced to in excess of 2 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
The big thing here which is in common with the original story seems to be the continuous and blatant intent of the individual to act in a manor that is breaking the law and potentially cause harm.
The driver apparently did this to several different cyclists over a period of 10 days. One of the cyclists caught him on his bike camera and he has found guilty of dangerous driving and sentenced to in excess of 2 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
The big thing here which is in common with the original story seems to be the continuous and blatant intent of the individual to act in a manor that is breaking the law and potentially cause harm.
powerstans said:
The big thing here which is in common with the original story seems to be the continuous and blatant intent of the individual to act in a manor that is breaking the law and potentially cause harm.
And harm to themselves.The whole point of the sentence is that they were constantly and evidently driving and riding in a dangerous manner which left other people in danger, or them in danger.
It is supposed to be a warning to others.
I agree that it is harsh, and possibly unjustified against other more aggressive or horrifying crimes.
powerstans said:
Just to add to the mix the Telegraph has a report today about a car driver who deliberately swerved across a road to scare a cyclist before swerving back to his side of the road narrowly missing them.
The driver apparently did this to several different cyclists over a period of 10 days. One of the cyclists caught him on his bike camera and he has found guilty of dangerous driving and sentenced to in excess of 2 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
The big thing here which is in common with the original story seems to be the continuous and blatant intent of the individual to act in a manor that is breaking the law and potentially cause harm.
That is nothing like what this idiot was doing.The driver apparently did this to several different cyclists over a period of 10 days. One of the cyclists caught him on his bike camera and he has found guilty of dangerous driving and sentenced to in excess of 2 years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
The big thing here which is in common with the original story seems to be the continuous and blatant intent of the individual to act in a manor that is breaking the law and potentially cause harm.
In my opinion the only things that were dangerous were the overtakes right by that junctions and the 110mph in the 30-40.
The rest of it, whilst can be frowned upon.. Really wasn't that bad. I wouldn't have done the double white line overtakes, but most of them were perfectly safe.
Any reason why the 150 mph jaunt was dangerous? no risk of the ford focus changing direction, there were no junctions, the rest of the road was clear, visibility good and grip was fine.
Bit of a wheelie.. Big whoop.
Am I a danger to the public?
The rest of it, whilst can be frowned upon.. Really wasn't that bad. I wouldn't have done the double white line overtakes, but most of them were perfectly safe.
Any reason why the 150 mph jaunt was dangerous? no risk of the ford focus changing direction, there were no junctions, the rest of the road was clear, visibility good and grip was fine.
Bit of a wheelie.. Big whoop.
Am I a danger to the public?
With my "cop"head on, most of the overtakes from the Telegraph clips didn't look to me to be dangerous per se, there didn't seem to be be opposing vehicles present to present a conflict. That said, I've only had a quick squizz at the video and I'd need a few views to see what other junctions/traffic/hazards there were. There was at least one clip where he crosses the solid double whites when there's traffic coming the other way. That's not good.
Two years does sound like a lot, but that said, I guess it would depend what his previous was like (if any).
Two years does sound like a lot, but that said, I guess it would depend what his previous was like (if any).
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff