Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?
Discussion
JNW1 said:
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.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.
That & that I don't personally agree with the way the Scottish courts appear to interpret dangerous relative to the E&W courts.
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.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 said:
JNW1 said:
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.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.
That & that I don't personally agree with the way the Scottish courts appear to interpret dangerous relative to the E&W courts.
They clearly take a very harsh view towards speeding in Scotland and, whilst I've never driven in the Highlands, I'd certainly think twice about giving it the beans on an apparently deserted stretch of road up there. However, being honest I think the same down here in England as for me the thought of a hefty fine and losing my licence is a sufficient deterrent...
singlecoil 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.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.
JNW1 said:
We'll have to agree to differ about the effectiveness of fines and bans; they certainly make me think twice but perhaps there's a lot of people out there who are comfortable with the idea of paying a four-figure fine and not being able to drive for several weeks?
Risk and reward. If I was still indulging in fast driving where I thought I could get away with it (I've had my moments in the past) then I wouldn't be comfortable with the above but I would risk it. Even a single night in a prison, no way would I risk that.singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
We'll have to agree to differ about the effectiveness of fines and bans; they certainly make me think twice but perhaps there's a lot of people out there who are comfortable with the idea of paying a four-figure fine and not being able to drive for several weeks?
Risk and reward. If I was still indulging in fast driving where I thought I could get away with it (I've had my moments in the past) then I wouldn't be comfortable with the above but I would risk it. Even a single night in a prison, no way would I risk that.We are being told continually that prison space is at a premium and because of that the judiciary are being encouraged not to send people to jail where alternatives may produce a better outcome (both for the accused and for society generally); therefore, if prison is the last resort, why would we want to adopt a draconian almost zero-tolerance approach to an offence like excessive speeding? Seems a very strange one to prioritise for a custodial sentence when our prisons are already full to bursting....
JNW1 said:
But I come back to a punishment needing to be proportionate to the crime. I do agree that jail serves as a greater deterrent than a fine or a ban but for an offence of purely excessive speeding it just seems way over the top to me.
We are being told continually that prison space is at a premium and because of that the judiciary are being encouraged not to send people to jail where alternatives may produce a better outcome (both for the accused and for society generally); therefore, if prison is the last resort, why would we want to adopt a draconian almost zero-tolerance approach to an offence like excessive speeding? Seems a very strange one to prioritise for a custodial sentence when our prisons are already full to bursting....
Hard to argue with, given the seemingly accurate nature of the post.We are being told continually that prison space is at a premium and because of that the judiciary are being encouraged not to send people to jail where alternatives may produce a better outcome (both for the accused and for society generally); therefore, if prison is the last resort, why would we want to adopt a draconian almost zero-tolerance approach to an offence like excessive speeding? Seems a very strange one to prioritise for a custodial sentence when our prisons are already full to bursting....
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
We'll have to agree to differ about the effectiveness of fines and bans; they certainly make me think twice but perhaps there's a lot of people out there who are comfortable with the idea of paying a four-figure fine and not being able to drive for several weeks?
Risk and reward. If I was still indulging in fast driving where I thought I could get away with it (I've had my moments in the past) then I wouldn't be comfortable with the above but I would risk it. Even a single night in a prison, no way would I risk that.We are being told continually that prison space is at a premium and because of that the judiciary are being encouraged not to send people to jail where alternatives may produce a better outcome (both for the accused and for society generally); therefore, if prison is the last resort, why would we want to adopt a draconian almost zero-tolerance approach to an offence like excessive speeding? Seems a very strange one to prioritise for a custodial sentence when our prisons are already full to bursting....
I've only laid out what I see as a solution to the problem. As to the 'excessive speeding' description of the offence, well, that's how you see it and I respect that. I see it differently, and I assume at some theoretically possible level of speed, for instance, 230 mph, you would agree with me. That being so, it needs someone to make a decision as to when the line is crossed, having regard for all the circumstances.
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
We'll have to agree to differ about the effectiveness of fines and bans; they certainly make me think twice but perhaps there's a lot of people out there who are comfortable with the idea of paying a four-figure fine and not being able to drive for several weeks?
Risk and reward. If I was still indulging in fast driving where I thought I could get away with it (I've had my moments in the past) then I wouldn't be comfortable with the above but I would risk it. Even a single night in a prison, no way would I risk that.We are being told continually that prison space is at a premium and because of that the judiciary are being encouraged not to send people to jail where alternatives may produce a better outcome (both for the accused and for society generally); therefore, if prison is the last resort, why would we want to adopt a draconian almost zero-tolerance approach to an offence like excessive speeding? Seems a very strange one to prioritise for a custodial sentence when our prisons are already full to bursting....
Excessive speeding is a large amount over the limit with no evidence of danger - results in a speeding charge.
Dangerous driving can result, from amongst other things, from a grossly inappropriate speed for the conditions irrespective of the posted limit.
Heaveho said:
It would be perhaps more palatable if it was a forgone conclusion that serious crimes were dealt with appropriately, and consistently. While this appears not to be the case, the authorities leave themselves open to criticism for the cases with an outcome such as our biker.
The authorities are always open to criticism, and there will always be many to criticise them whatever they do. In the end, if more than half the citizens are ok with what they do, that's all they can hope for.singlecoil said:
That being so, it needs someone to make a decision as to when the line is crossed, having regard for all the circumstances.
But this is precisely the point. In England and Wales you can still argue that the speed, while above the limit was safe in the circumstances. in Scotland they say that even if it was perfectly safe, the fact that such a speed WOULD have been dangerous in OTHER circumstances makes it dangerous driving. 'Your honour, I could see the road was clear for a mile ahead and there was nowhere for a Sheep or Deer to run out of cover within half a mile of the road.'
'Ah, but if it had been a wood rather than open moorland so Deer could run out it would have been dangerous'
'But in those circumstances I'd have been going a lot slower, certainly well within the speed limit.'
'You have no business making decisions like that, send him down.'
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
That being so, it needs someone to make a decision as to when the line is crossed, having regard for all the circumstances.
But this is precisely the point. In England and Wales you can still argue that the speed, while above the limit was safe in the circumstances. in Scotland they say that even if it was perfectly safe, the fact that such a speed WOULD have been dangerous in OTHER circumstances makes it dangerous driving. And secondly, to make myself clearer, it's not whether a speed is 'safe' as you put it that matters (at least to me) it's the fact that the driver is making that decision that worries me. And that's because he will be operating on imperfect information, and may well be an idiot anyway.
Dr Jekyll said:
singlecoil said:
That being so, it needs someone to make a decision as to when the line is crossed, having regard for all the circumstances.
But this is precisely the point. In England and Wales you can still argue that the speed, while above the limit was safe in the circumstances. in Scotland they say that even if it was perfectly safe, the fact that such a speed WOULD have been dangerous in OTHER circumstances makes it dangerous driving. 'Your honour, I could see the road was clear for a mile ahead and there was nowhere for a Sheep or Deer to run out of cover within half a mile of the road.'
'Ah, but if it had been a wood rather than open moorland so Deer could run out it would have been dangerous'
'But in those circumstances I'd have been going a lot slower, certainly well within the speed limit.'
'You have no business making decisions like that, send him down.'
I'd argue that it's never perfectly safe at any speed, so for me there'd need to be a demonstrative error of judgement by the driver i.e. citing exactly what hazards were present & their speed was inappropriate for at the time that elevated the risks far beyond what is normally acceptable events that may occur.
I can see a validity in both arguments although I favour one & it would appear the courts of Scotland V E&W have favoured different routes, as is their prerogative.
It's up to the respective governments to address the issue if they disagree.
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
We'll have to agree to differ about the effectiveness of fines and bans; they certainly make me think twice but perhaps there's a lot of people out there who are comfortable with the idea of paying a four-figure fine and not being able to drive for several weeks?
Risk and reward. If I was still indulging in fast driving where I thought I could get away with it (I've had my moments in the past) then I wouldn't be comfortable with the above but I would risk it. Even a single night in a prison, no way would I risk that.We are being told continually that prison space is at a premium and because of that the judiciary are being encouraged not to send people to jail where alternatives may produce a better outcome (both for the accused and for society generally); therefore, if prison is the last resort, why would we want to adopt a draconian almost zero-tolerance approach to an offence like excessive speeding? Seems a very strange one to prioritise for a custodial sentence when our prisons are already full to bursting....
I've only laid out what I see as a solution to the problem. As to the 'excessive speeding' description of the offence, well, that's how you see it and I respect that. I see it differently, and I assume at some theoretically possible level of speed, for instance, 230 mph, you would agree with me. That being so, it needs someone to make a decision as to when the line is crossed, having regard for all the circumstances.
As I've said, I'm not against someone convicted for dangerous driving being given a custodial sentence but for me that should only apply in extreme cases and, yes, I think the consequences of the actions - and what happened leading up to it - should be taken into account when determining the sentence. A sports bike will go from 60mph to 150mph very quickly so should someone who opened the taps and briefly touched 150mph be automatically charged with dangerous driving and face a custodial sentence? Appears that's the case in Scotland but I'd argue whether the act was actually dangerous depends on the circumstances (traffic, weather, etc) and, whilst the offence could indeed be dangerous driving, it doesn't have to be; therefore, all I'm saying is each offence should be considered on its merits.
To some extent I do understand why people see a headline speed of 150mph and think "that's dangerous on a public road" but it doesn't have to be and therefore an automatic link between excess speed and dangerous driving (as they appear to have North of the Border) isn't correct in my view. Having said that, to use your example of 230mph, to reach that speed requires a prolonged period of very excessive speeding and it's unlikely you could do that in the UK without encountering other traffic; you'd also have to have a mindset of keeping your foot down for an extended period of time and together those things would make me think that's probably dangerous driving. Would I send the driver to prison if convicted? Maybe but again it would depend on the full nature of the circumstances.
JNW1 said:
I may have criticised you for some things but I'm not blaming you for the state of our prisons!
As I've said, I'm not against someone convicted for dangerous driving being given a custodial sentence but for me that should only apply in extreme cases and, yes, I think the consequences of the actions - and what happened leading up to it - should be taken into account when determining the sentence. A sports bike will go from 60mph to 150mph very quickly so should someone who opened the taps and briefly touched 150mph be automatically charged with dangerous driving and face a custodial sentence? Appears that's the case in Scotland but I'd argue whether the act was actually dangerous depends on the circumstances (traffic, weather, etc) and, whilst the offence could indeed be dangerous driving, it doesn't have to be; therefore, all I'm saying is each offence should be considered on its merits.
To some extent I do understand why people see a headline speed of 150mph and think "that's dangerous on a public road" but it doesn't have to be and therefore an automatic link between excess speed and dangerous driving (as they appear to have North of the Border) isn't correct in my view. Having said that, to use your example of 230mph, to reach that speed requires a prolonged period of very excessive speeding and it's unlikely you could do that in the UK without encountering other traffic; you'd also have to have a mindset of keeping your foot down for an extended period of time and together those things would make me think that's probably dangerous driving. Would I send the driver to prison if convicted? Maybe but again it would depend on the full nature of the circumstances.
We seem to be going over the same ground now. Although it's been an interesting discussion views seem very entrenched and it doesn't look as if we are going to make any progress. One could say the same for virtually all the threads on PH apart from the technical stuff.As I've said, I'm not against someone convicted for dangerous driving being given a custodial sentence but for me that should only apply in extreme cases and, yes, I think the consequences of the actions - and what happened leading up to it - should be taken into account when determining the sentence. A sports bike will go from 60mph to 150mph very quickly so should someone who opened the taps and briefly touched 150mph be automatically charged with dangerous driving and face a custodial sentence? Appears that's the case in Scotland but I'd argue whether the act was actually dangerous depends on the circumstances (traffic, weather, etc) and, whilst the offence could indeed be dangerous driving, it doesn't have to be; therefore, all I'm saying is each offence should be considered on its merits.
To some extent I do understand why people see a headline speed of 150mph and think "that's dangerous on a public road" but it doesn't have to be and therefore an automatic link between excess speed and dangerous driving (as they appear to have North of the Border) isn't correct in my view. Having said that, to use your example of 230mph, to reach that speed requires a prolonged period of very excessive speeding and it's unlikely you could do that in the UK without encountering other traffic; you'd also have to have a mindset of keeping your foot down for an extended period of time and together those things would make me think that's probably dangerous driving. Would I send the driver to prison if convicted? Maybe but again it would depend on the full nature of the circumstances.
vonhosen said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
We'll have to agree to differ about the effectiveness of fines and bans; they certainly make me think twice but perhaps there's a lot of people out there who are comfortable with the idea of paying a four-figure fine and not being able to drive for several weeks?
Risk and reward. If I was still indulging in fast driving where I thought I could get away with it (I've had my moments in the past) then I wouldn't be comfortable with the above but I would risk it. Even a single night in a prison, no way would I risk that.We are being told continually that prison space is at a premium and because of that the judiciary are being encouraged not to send people to jail where alternatives may produce a better outcome (both for the accused and for society generally); therefore, if prison is the last resort, why would we want to adopt a draconian almost zero-tolerance approach to an offence like excessive speeding? Seems a very strange one to prioritise for a custodial sentence when our prisons are already full to bursting....
Excessive speeding is a large amount over the limit with no evidence of danger - results in a speeding charge.
Dangerous driving can result, from amongst other things, from a grossly inappropriate speed for the conditions irrespective of the posted limit.
JNW1 said:
vonhosen said:
JNW1 said:
singlecoil said:
JNW1 said:
We'll have to agree to differ about the effectiveness of fines and bans; they certainly make me think twice but perhaps there's a lot of people out there who are comfortable with the idea of paying a four-figure fine and not being able to drive for several weeks?
Risk and reward. If I was still indulging in fast driving where I thought I could get away with it (I've had my moments in the past) then I wouldn't be comfortable with the above but I would risk it. Even a single night in a prison, no way would I risk that.We are being told continually that prison space is at a premium and because of that the judiciary are being encouraged not to send people to jail where alternatives may produce a better outcome (both for the accused and for society generally); therefore, if prison is the last resort, why would we want to adopt a draconian almost zero-tolerance approach to an offence like excessive speeding? Seems a very strange one to prioritise for a custodial sentence when our prisons are already full to bursting....
Excessive speeding is a large amount over the limit with no evidence of danger - results in a speeding charge.
Dangerous driving can result, from amongst other things, from a grossly inappropriate speed for the conditions irrespective of the posted limit.
That results in very high speeds almost certainly amounting to dangerous by their interpretation as they take a more specious view of danger. That is they appear to consider that the rider at such speeds can't possibly exert sufficient control over a non sanitised environment in respect of the potential risks that it's reasonable to expect in such an environment.
I agree it amounts to very high speeds always likely to amount to dangerous driving, but it's not as simple as saying excessive speeds = dangerous driving, because that suggests no assessment of danger. They do assess the danger, it's just that the way they do it is pretty much going to result in very high speeds always amounting to dangerous. It's not a way of assessing it that I agree with but it is what is & I can see their point even if I don't agree with it.
Speeding is an absolute offence. Exceed the number on the stick and you're guilty. Dangerous driving should be a subjective test against the careful and competent driver's actions. The same action in different circumstances may or may not be deemed dangerous. By conflating the 2, dangerous driving becomes an absolute offence, exceed 100 mph = dangerous. That is where the application of the law is wrong IMO.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff