Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?

[anonymous-user]

How were you loved ones at risk with this random biker in Scotland?

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

My opinion is that one of the aims of the courts is to send messages to people who might be inclined to have a bit of a blast themselves. Now if they restricted prison (which is currently the only available option other than fines and bans) to cases where it was clear to everyone that the speed was dangerous, then the enthusiast driver might think 'well, the road is straight, clear and empty, so let's open it up and see what it will do, because this is not a dangerous situation'. But supposing he is wrong, and that there is something abaout the situation that is dangerous, something he hasn't seen.

It works in the same way as speed cameras on safe bits of road. The message there is 'don't just stop speeding in places you can see it's unsafe, stop speeding everywhere. The message in the above case is 'don't drive at these speeds anywhere, any time, any circumstances'.

It's a good message. I don't want my loved ones put at risk by people who only think it's safe, when it isn't. I want that decision taken away from them.

So you support someone being convicted of dangerous driving on the grounds that the speed would have been dangerous in a different situation, even if it isn't in the circumstances at the time.
And how do you propose to deal with people who think it's safe to drive at nearly the speed limit?

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

Heaveho said:

I came up with it, you chose to enter in to it. In the world I inhabit, it's fair enough to wonder why premeditated crime that has the likely possibility of descending into a violence orientated outcome is judged less harshly than a man travelling faster than a " line drawn in the sand ".

We ( well, you ) appear to have taken my starting position of the thief who goes out armed with the intention of initiating violence towards anyone who challenges him, versus the biker who has no intention of harming anyone ( and indeed, in the case we're talking about, hasn't ), and moved it beyond the sightlines of what could be called comparable, by changing it to a desperate , once in a lifetime, intends no harm to others refugee mother, versus a desperado clinging to freedom by trying to outrun the police. Which our guy did not. You're now doing what I asked someone earlier not to do, and seemingly deliberately misinterpreting what I've said to exaggerate your own argument, even though my meaning was obvious.

I've deleted the last sentence of my post, because I genuinely have had some respect for you and the reasons you have for the position you take on this, but I'm having to reign it in a bit now. In fact, I've just deleted another, having read it back, because I'm hoping your next reply is more in keeping with what I've come to expect from you. You've surprised me with your recent posts. No offence intended.

I just took what Von was doing as trying to challenge the notion you'd never jail a dangerous driver unless they hurt someone but would always jail a burglar. That isn't quite what I said but my position remains that a crime like burglary is worse than excessive speeding with no other aggravating circumstances and if it's an either/or for going to jail then for me it would be the burglar every time given that choice.

What I said was indeed a direct lift from one of your posts to illustrate that point.

I said I wouldn't jail someone for dangerous driving unless there were other consequences (and I gave examples of an accident, an injury or fatality); I should have perhaps added "or other aggravating circumstances" which would have covered your example of the criminal fleeing the police. However, my comments were of course in a context of excessive speeding which, with no other consequences or aggravating factors, has been deemed dangerous driving - but then you knew that didn't you?!

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

How were you loved ones at risk with this random biker in Scotland?

I may be wrong, but it read like his point was sentencing this biker to imprisonment will have a wider effect that will make others, who might put single coil's loved ones at risk, alter their behavioural choice.

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

Heaveho said:

I came up with it, you chose to enter in to it. In the world I inhabit, it's fair enough to wonder why premeditated crime that has the likely possibility of descending into a violence orientated outcome is judged less harshly than a man travelling faster than a " line drawn in the sand ".

We ( well, you ) appear to have taken my starting position of the thief who goes out armed with the intention of initiating violence towards anyone who challenges him, versus the biker who has no intention of harming anyone ( and indeed, in the case we're talking about, hasn't ), and moved it beyond the sightlines of what could be called comparable, by changing it to a desperate , once in a lifetime, intends no harm to others refugee mother, versus a desperado clinging to freedom by trying to outrun the police. Which our guy did not. You're now doing what I asked someone earlier not to do, and seemingly deliberately misinterpreting what I've said to exaggerate your own argument, even though my meaning was obvious.

I've deleted the last sentence of my post, because I genuinely have had some respect for you and the reasons you have for the position you take on this, but I'm having to reign it in a bit now. In fact, I've just deleted another, having read it back, because I'm hoping your next reply is more in keeping with what I've come to expect from you. You've surprised me with your recent posts. No offence intended.

I just took what Von was doing as trying to challenge the notion you'd never jail a dangerous driver unless they hurt someone but would always jail a burglar. That isn't quite what I said but my position remains that a crime like burglary is worse than excessive speeding with no other aggravating circumstances and if it's an either/or for going to jail then for me it would be the burglar every time given that choice.

What I said was indeed a direct lift from one of your posts to illustrate that point.

I said I wouldn't jail someone for dangerous driving unless there were other consequences (and I gave examples of an accident, an injury or fatality); I should have perhaps added "or other aggravating circumstances" which would have covered your example of the criminal fleeing the police. However, my comments were of course in a context of excessive speeding which, with no other consequences or aggravating factors, has been deemed dangerous driving - but then you knew that didn't you?!

No, I took you to your word with consequence (by definition an unwelcome outcome from the dangerous driving - especially as you only mentioned adverse outcomes), if you said aggravating circumstance then that point wouldn't have been made because they are very different things., but you have persistently talked of those examples. The failing to stop isn't an outcome from the dangerous driving, it happens before the dangerous driving. The dangerous driving being the far more serious offence than the separate offence of failing to stop. The dangerous driving though is solely about the speed/manner of driving in the surroundings it was done, not the failing to stop.
The failing to stop is secondary fluff offence compared to it.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 16th February 08:49

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

My opinion is that one of the aims of the courts is to send messages to people who might be inclined to have a bit of a blast themselves. Now if they restricted prison (which is currently the only available option other than fines and bans) to cases where it was clear to everyone that the speed was dangerous, then the enthusiast driver might think 'well, the road is straight, clear and empty, so let's open it up and see what it will do, because this is not a dangerous situation'. But supposing he is wrong, and that there is something abaout the situation that is dangerous, something he hasn't seen.

It works in the same way as speed cameras on safe bits of road. The message there is 'don't just stop speeding in places you can see it's unsafe, stop speeding everywhere. The message in the above case is 'don't drive at these speeds anywhere, any time, any circumstances'.

It's a good message. I don't want my loved ones put at risk by people who only think it's safe, when it isn't. I want that decision taken away from them.

So you support someone being convicted of dangerous driving on the grounds that the speed would have been dangerous in a different situation, even if it isn't in the circumstances at the time.
And how do you propose to deal with people who think it's safe to drive at nearly the speed limit?

Far be it from me to put words into his mouth, but it reads to me that he is talking about sentencing, the guilt therefore already been determined in court. The guy in question entered a guilty plea.

[singlecoil]

yonex said:

How were you loved ones at risk with this random biker in Scotland?

Your question shows you have missed the point of my post, which was not about that particular incident.

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

My opinion is that one of the aims of the courts is to send messages to people who might be inclined to have a bit of a blast themselves. Now if they restricted prison (which is currently the only available option other than fines and bans) to cases where it was clear to everyone that the speed was dangerous, then the enthusiast driver might think 'well, the road is straight, clear and empty, so let's open it up and see what it will do, because this is not a dangerous situation'. But supposing he is wrong, and that there is something abaout the situation that is dangerous, something he hasn't seen.

It works in the same way as speed cameras on safe bits of road. The message there is 'don't just stop speeding in places you can see it's unsafe, stop speeding everywhere. The message in the above case is 'don't drive at these speeds anywhere, any time, any circumstances'.

It's a good message. I don't want my loved ones put at risk by people who only think it's safe, when it isn't. I want that decision taken away from them.

So you support someone being convicted of dangerous driving on the grounds that the speed would have been dangerous in a different situation, even if it isn't in the circumstances at the time.

I support the message sent, as I outlined above.

Dr Jekyll said:

And how do you propose to deal with people who think it's safe to drive at nearly the speed limit?

If they are driving dangerously then they should be dealt with appropriately.

[Dr Jekyll]

singlecoil said:

yonex said:

How were you loved ones at risk with this random biker in Scotland?

Your question shows you have missed the point of my post, which was not about that particular incident.

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

My opinion is that one of the aims of the courts is to send messages to people who might be inclined to have a bit of a blast themselves. Now if they restricted prison (which is currently the only available option other than fines and bans) to cases where it was clear to everyone that the speed was dangerous, then the enthusiast driver might think 'well, the road is straight, clear and empty, so let's open it up and see what it will do, because this is not a dangerous situation'. But supposing he is wrong, and that there is something abaout the situation that is dangerous, something he hasn't seen.

It works in the same way as speed cameras on safe bits of road. The message there is 'don't just stop speeding in places you can see it's unsafe, stop speeding everywhere. The message in the above case is 'don't drive at these speeds anywhere, any time, any circumstances'.

It's a good message. I don't want my loved ones put at risk by people who only think it's safe, when it isn't. I want that decision taken away from them.

So you support someone being convicted of dangerous driving on the grounds that the speed would have been dangerous in a different situation, even if it isn't in the circumstances at the time.

I support the message sent, as I outlined above.

Dr Jekyll said:

And how do you propose to deal with people who think it's safe to drive at nearly the speed limit?

If they are driving dangerously then they should be dealt with appropriately.

But they have still made a decision that it isn't a dangerous thing to do in that situation, the same decision you want the person who exceeded the limit punished for, the decision you want taken away. What's the difference between saying 'in my opinion 65 MPH is a safe speed in these particular circumstances' in a 60 limit, and making the same decision on the same stretch of road a week earlier when the limit was still 70?

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

But they have still made a decision that it isn't a dangerous thing to do in that situation, the same decision you want the person who exceeded the limit punished for, the decision you want taken away. What's the difference between saying 'in my opinion 65 MPH is a safe speed in these particular circumstances' in a 60 limit, and making the same decision on the same stretch of road a week earlier when the limit was still 70?

We all make driving decisions everyday in respect of what's safe. Where others consider we misjudged it then the court is the appointed ultimate arbiter.

[Dr Jekyll]

[

singlecoil said:

My opinion is that one of the aims of the courts is to send messages to people who might be inclined to have a bit of a blast themselves. Now if they restricted prison (which is currently the only available option other than fines and bans) to cases where it was clear to everyone that the speed was dangerous, then the enthusiast driver might think 'well, the road is straight, clear and empty, so let's open it up and see what it will do, because this is not a dangerous situation'. But supposing he is wrong, and that there is something abaout the situation that is dangerous, something he hasn't seen.

It works in the same way as speed cameras on safe bits of road. The message there is 'don't just stop speeding in places you can see it's unsafe, stop speeding everywhere. The message in the above case is 'don't drive at these speeds anywhere, any time, any circumstances'.

It's a good message. I don't want my loved ones put at risk by people who only think it's safe, when it isn't. I want that decision taken away from them.

[singlecoil]

Dr Jekyll said:

But they have still made a decision that it isn't a dangerous thing to do in that situation, the same decision you want the person who exceeded the limit punished for, the decision you want taken away. What's the difference between saying 'in my opinion 65 MPH is a safe speed in these particular circumstances' in a 60 limit, and making the same decision on the same stretch of road a week earlier when the limit was still 70?

I'm not entirely sure how your point relates to mine, but I think the main thing here is a matter of degree. The speeds you mention would not attract a severe punishment, maybe not even a conviction. Also, there really isn't such a thing as a safe speed. There are degrees of safety, it's not binary.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

singlecoil said:

My opinion is that one of the aims of the courts is to send messages to people who might be inclined to have a bit of a blast themselves. Now if they restricted prison (which is currently the only available option other than fines and bans) to cases where it was clear to everyone that the speed was dangerous, then the enthusiast driver might think 'well, the road is straight, clear and empty, so let's open it up and see what it will do, because this is not a dangerous situation'. But supposing he is wrong, and that there is something abaout the situation that is dangerous, something he hasn't seen.

It works in the same way as speed cameras on safe bits of road. The message there is 'don't just stop speeding in places you can see it's unsafe, stop speeding everywhere. The message in the above case is 'don't drive at these speeds anywhere, any time, any circumstances'.

It's a good message. I don't want my loved ones put at risk by people who only think it's safe, when it isn't. I want that decision taken away from them.

Well not everybody will consider it is dangerous (a lot here don't for the 149mph biker), but the courts view with a conviction is that a competent & careful driver would/should have.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

Heaveho said:

I came up with it, you chose to enter in to it. In the world I inhabit, it's fair enough to wonder why premeditated crime that has the likely possibility of descending into a violence orientated outcome is judged less harshly than a man travelling faster than a " line drawn in the sand ".

We ( well, you ) appear to have taken my starting position of the thief who goes out armed with the intention of initiating violence towards anyone who challenges him, versus the biker who has no intention of harming anyone ( and indeed, in the case we're talking about, hasn't ), and moved it beyond the sightlines of what could be called comparable, by changing it to a desperate , once in a lifetime, intends no harm to others refugee mother, versus a desperado clinging to freedom by trying to outrun the police. Which our guy did not. You're now doing what I asked someone earlier not to do, and seemingly deliberately misinterpreting what I've said to exaggerate your own argument, even though my meaning was obvious.

I've deleted the last sentence of my post, because I genuinely have had some respect for you and the reasons you have for the position you take on this, but I'm having to reign it in a bit now. In fact, I've just deleted another, having read it back, because I'm hoping your next reply is more in keeping with what I've come to expect from you. You've surprised me with your recent posts. No offence intended.

I just took what Von was doing as trying to challenge the notion you'd never jail a dangerous driver unless they hurt someone but would always jail a burglar. That isn't quite what I said but my position remains that a crime like burglary is worse than excessive speeding with no other aggravating circumstances and if it's an either/or for going to jail then for me it would be the burglar every time given that choice.

What I said was indeed a direct lift from one of your posts to illustrate that point.

I said I wouldn't jail someone for dangerous driving unless there were other consequences (and I gave examples of an accident, an injury or fatality); I should have perhaps added "or other aggravating circumstances" which would have covered your example of the criminal fleeing the police. However, my comments were of course in a context of excessive speeding which, with no other consequences or aggravating factors, has been deemed dangerous driving - but then you knew that didn't you?!

No, I took you to your word with consequence (by definition an unwelcome outcome from the dangerous driving - especially as you only mentioned adverse outcomes), if you said aggravating circumstance then that point wouldn't have been made because they are very different things., but you have persistently talked of those examples. The failing to stop isn't an outcome from the dangerous driving, it happens before the dangerous driving. The dangerous driving being the far more serious offence than the separate offence of failing to stop. The dangerous driving though is solely about the speed/manner of driving in the surroundings it was done, not the failing to stop.
The failing to stop is secondary fluff offence compared to it.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 16th February 08:49

I'm not looking to make a big deal of failing to stop, that was something you introduced as part of your hypothetical example! What I'm saying is that in considering a punishment for dangerous driving I would personally take into account both the consequences of the person's actions and also any aggravating circumstances which contributed to them doing what they did.

Therefore, someone doing 80mph through a residential area is guilty of excessive speeding; the fact it's a residential area means there's a very high probability of being exposed to other vehicles and/or pedestrians and the fact they're fleeing the police almost certainly means they're prepared to take risks with their safety and those of others. So in that situation I wouldn't rule out a custodial sentence for dangerous driving even though nobody was killed or injured; interestingly, though, you regularly see examples of this sort of driving on the "Speed, Camera, Action" type programmes and the leniency of the sentences the culprits receive often surprises me.

Contrast that with our biker - who in my eyes at least has committed a far lesser crime - and the difference in treatment is very stark (and unfair IMO).

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

Contrast that with our biker - who in my eyes at least has committed a far lesser crime - and the difference in treatment is very stark (and unfair IMO).

Well, IMO the courts are right to look beyond the circumstances of this one case. They need to consider the deterrent aspect.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

I may be wrong, but it read like his point was sentencing this biker to imprisonment will have a wider effect that will make others, who might put single coil's loved ones at risk, alter their behavioural choice.

He was trying to link this action of speeding to danger, there was zero in the context he provided. It's no better than the judgement which cites 'potential risk'.

Jailing this guy will have no effect on anyone's safety. Perhaps we can all stick to reality?

[singlecoil]

yonex said:

Jailing this guy will have no effect on anyone's safety. Perhaps we can all stick to reality?

In your opinion.

In my opinion it will have a positive effect on safety. Other people will hear about it and modify their choices accordingly.

[vonhosen]

yonex said:

vonhosen said:

I may be wrong, but it read like his point was sentencing this biker to imprisonment will have a wider effect that will make others, who might put single coil's loved ones at risk, alter their behavioural choice.

He was trying to link this action of speeding to danger, there was zero in the context he provided. It's no better than the judgement which cites 'potential risk'.

Jailing this guy will have no effect on anyone's safety. Perhaps we can all stick to reality?

The guy & court linked his actions of his chosen high speed to danger (his plea, their acceptance of it & like rulings)
These cases will influence my choices in Scotland, if that was their intent it works.
I accept at higher speeds I pose a greater risk, even if I ultimately believe I'm doing it to an acceptably (for me) safe manner. If I choose to not drive/ride at higher speeds because of these sentences then the risk I pose is reduced.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

Contrast that with our biker - who in my eyes at least has committed a far lesser crime - and the difference in treatment is very stark (and unfair IMO).

Well, IMO the courts are right to look beyond the circumstances of this one case. They need to consider the deterrent aspect.

I agree that one of the functions of a punishment is to act as a deterrent to others; however, I also think a punishment needs to be proportionate to the offence that's been committed and a custodial sentence for our biker fails that test IMO. I know you disagree but personally I think a hefty fine and a lengthy ban would be a very significant deterrent to most drivers and bikers.

For me prison should be seen as a last resort with the finite space available being reserved for those who really need to be there; based on what I've read of his case our biker doesn't appear to fit that criteria.

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

Contrast that with our biker - who in my eyes at least has committed a far lesser crime - and the difference in treatment is very stark (and unfair IMO).

Well, IMO the courts are right to look beyond the circumstances of this one case. They need to consider the deterrent aspect.

I agree that one of the functions of a punishment is to act as a deterrent to others; however, I also think a punishment needs to be proportionate to the offence that's been committed and a custodial sentence for our biker fails that test IMO. I know you disagree but personally I think a hefty fine and a lengthy ban would be a very significant deterrent to most drivers and bikers.

For me prison should be seen as a last resort with the finite space available being reserved for those who really need to be there; based on what I've read of his case our biker doesn't appear to fit that criteria.

Personally I'm in no position to make a judgement on whether he should go to prison or not (I don't have all the necessary information to make a valued judgement & it would only be my personal opinion anyway). I'm not sure that anyone else here has that information either. My argument has been that I believe that Sec 2 RTA is rightly a custodial offence & that a negative outcome from the driving (in the form of injury or loss to others) shouldn't be a pre-requisite for custody.
That & that I don't personally agree with the way the Scottish courts appear to interpret dangerous relative to the E&W courts.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

Contrast that with our biker - who in my eyes at least has committed a far lesser crime - and the difference in treatment is very stark (and unfair IMO).

Well, IMO the courts are right to look beyond the circumstances of this one case. They need to consider the deterrent aspect.

I agree that one of the functions of a punishment is to act as a deterrent to others; however, I also think a punishment needs to be proportionate to the offence that's been committed and a custodial sentence for our biker fails that test IMO. I know you disagree but personally I think a hefty fine and a lengthy ban would be a very significant deterrent to most drivers and bikers.

For me prison should be seen as a last resort with the finite space available being reserved for those who really need to be there; based on what I've read of his case our biker doesn't appear to fit that criteria.

Personally I'm in no position to make a judgement on whether he should go to prison or not (I don't have all the necessary information to make a valued judgement & it would only be my personal opinion anyway). I'm not sure that anyone else here has that information either. My argument has been that I believe that Sec 2 RTA is rightly a custodial offence & that a negative outcome from the driving (in the form of injury or loss to others) shouldn't be a pre-requisite for custody.
That & that I don't personally agree with the way the Scottish courts appear to interpret dangerous relative to the E&W courts.

I agree none of us are in possession of the full facts, we can only go on what's been reported. However, based on those reports it appears the individual concerned was guilty of nothing more than opening-up his bike and briefly reaching a very high speed; I've not seen any suggestion that he did anything beyond that. Therefore, if that was indeed the full extent of his crime a custodial sentence was not an appropriate punishment in my view.