Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
Discussion
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/invernes...
I can't condone what they guy did but somehow this seems a little extreme? Father of four, a f
king stupid one at that, but what is this going to do for anyone exactly? Yes he deserves a roasting but a criminal record for speeding?
I can't condone what they guy did but somehow this seems a little extreme? Father of four, a f
king stupid one at that, but what is this going to do for anyone exactly? Yes he deserves a roasting but a criminal record for speeding? TooMany2cvs said:
He hasn't got a criminal record for "speeding". You cannot be jailed for "exceeding the speed limit", let alone banned for five years and have to do an extended retest. They're all good clues as to the reality...
He was charged with dangerous driving, and he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving. He has "dangerous driving" on his record.
I guess technically you are correct. But the cause is speeding. He was charged with dangerous driving, and he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving. He has "dangerous driving" on his record.
Pete Eroleum said:
Utterly ludicrous in my opinion. Law mixing with politics for the greater bad. But then he probably knew that and did it anyway......
It sometimes appears to me that the punishment for the potential to cause harm is more severe than the punishment for actual harm.
This, exactly this.It sometimes appears to me that the punishment for the potential to cause harm is more severe than the punishment for actual harm.
vonhosen said:
Experience counts for nothing in court. The offence applies one common standard for all from learner to the most experienced.
He is testing a bike that he has concerns about, it being twenty years old, sat in a garage for 8 years with a rusty tank & running problems.
Which is just ridiculous. He is testing a bike that he has concerns about, it being twenty years old, sat in a garage for 8 years with a rusty tank & running problems.
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.
There's no doubt he was thoughtless, the issue is how draconian our legal system is locking up people for something like this. It is obviously not a deterrent and just creates another problem, arguably a bigger one.GroundEffect said:
So we should allow people to gauge their own ability with regards to ignoring the law?
That's surely the job of the court, and I would suggest a law which has something more advanced in its armoury than a custodial sentence. Lke I said, why lock him up when this is obviously not the deterrent it should be? This will get a lot of short term press coverage but then it's gone. As for the guy, there is no defence, nobody is suggesting that there is. But IMO in 2017 when we are considering what to do with someone who probably has a career, family and is actually contributing otherwise to society there could be other options. Like I said it's just making a bad situation worse for everyone.yellowjack said:
Well. Confession time. I haven't read the thread, nor do I intend to.
All I need to know is in the headline of the linked article. "Motocross Champion".
Having seen the state that these knuckle-dragging morons leave my beloved countryside in, life imprisonment would be too soft a sentence. All too often I see the evidence of their tyre-treads illegally using local bridleways to get to even more countryside that they can ruin and put beyond the use of those seeking "quiet enjoyment" for years to come.
Lock 'em all up and sell off their assets to put right the mess they make...
Thank you Judge Jacket All I need to know is in the headline of the linked article. "Motocross Champion".
Having seen the state that these knuckle-dragging morons leave my beloved countryside in, life imprisonment would be too soft a sentence. All too often I see the evidence of their tyre-treads illegally using local bridleways to get to even more countryside that they can ruin and put beyond the use of those seeking "quiet enjoyment" for years to come.
Lock 'em all up and sell off their assets to put right the mess they make...
Toyoda said:
Is the fact he's a motorcross champion jaundicing your view a bit OP? What if it was a fat chav on a 20 year old bike wearing a t shirt and pair of jeans. Can't you see that it's the fact that this guy was more experienced that actually counted against him.
He'll serve nowhere near his 4 months, and it'll be in some low category prison probably mixing with young lads who have breached their ASBO or some public order offence.
I suppose what makes me think is that we all (probably) used to tear around and do daft things. Luckily, things didn't end up the way that they did for this chap. From speeding he will have a criminal record which will impact on what he can contribute. This, and the fact it probably has already cost the system tens of thousands of pounds makes me think that incarceration is just pointless i.e. a totally negative outcome for all.He'll serve nowhere near his 4 months, and it'll be in some low category prison probably mixing with young lads who have breached their ASBO or some public order offence.
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.
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.
What other element was involved other than speed in this case I wonder?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.
CPS said:
A person drives dangerously when:
the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and
it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:
racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs;
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy;
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load;
the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.
I mean, you couldn't really apply a custodial sentence for a lot of those?the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and
it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:
racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs;
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy;
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load;
the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.
s2kjock said:
Just because someone chooses to break the law doesn't mean the deterrent doesn't work - both my car and bike are capable of those speeds, and I know the stretch of road he was done on well.
Have I been tempted to "wind it up" in the right conditions when I drive/ride there? Am I curious as to what my car and bike are like at those speeds? Yes, and yes - but I have so far resisted, partly due to other hazards, but mainly because while a fine I could handle, jail I definitely couldn't.
It looks pretty wide open, save for the traffic that could turn on to it from the dwellings? Have I been tempted to "wind it up" in the right conditions when I drive/ride there? Am I curious as to what my car and bike are like at those speeds? Yes, and yes - but I have so far resisted, partly due to other hazards, but mainly because while a fine I could handle, jail I definitely couldn't.
vonhosen said:
In Scotland they appear to place more relevance to what could potentially have happened with the circumstances as they were (it's after all not a controlled environment, it's an are deer wander & an unsighted one could have jumped out) than the English courts do, (who look at actually what was present, there were no deer actually observed).
Scotland
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2013/34.ht...
England
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...
It's not often I am speechless but that is just nuts!Scotland
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2013/34.ht...
England
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...
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.
R8Steve said:
No, he was cleared of dangerous driving http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559...
That was appealed, he was re-tried and convicted. 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
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.
R8Steve said:
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
albeit a conviction that involved no jail time, no driving ban and no penalty points for a faster speed so it would certainly still appear to be one rule for one...
Not if you actually consider the unique aspects of the matter. R8Steve said:
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
La Liga said:
R8Steve said:
albeit a conviction that involved no jail time, no driving ban and no penalty points for a faster speed so it would certainly still appear to be one rule for one...
Not if you actually consider the unique aspects of the matter. Meanwhile the highland biker is stuck in a cell and banned for driving for 5 years for a lesser speed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff