Caught doing 146mph
Discussion
Not me, this guy:
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/15362328.B...
A fairly soft sentence I think. 22 month ban and roughly £800 fine for the speed and being over the drink drive limit
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/15362328.B...
A fairly soft sentence I think. 22 month ban and roughly £800 fine for the speed and being over the drink drive limit
Leicester Loyal said:
Was he actually over the drink drive limit? Or had he had a beer but was under the limit? The penalty seems ridicously soft.
Says he was charged with drink driving. He would have been over the limit for that.Does seem very low considering its double the speed limit, plus drink driving.
A 22 month ban suggests that this was for the drink driving charge. The Magistrates Sentencing Guidelines for speeding only give guidelines up to 101mph where it is a band C fine and up to 6 points or a ban of up to 56 days. A speed "grossly in excess" will get a ban of more than 56 days but I wouldn't expect it to be 22 months.
A 22 month ban suggests that he blew about double the limit on the breathalyser.
Fines are income related. A Band C fine is 1.5 times weekly income so a fine of £692 just means that he earns about £460 per week.
A 22 month ban suggests that he blew about double the limit on the breathalyser.
Fines are income related. A Band C fine is 1.5 times weekly income so a fine of £692 just means that he earns about £460 per week.
Edited by douglasb on Wednesday 21st June 23:05
But if he had been drunk outside of his car, beating seven shades of s*** out of some poor innocent bystander, he could claim diminshed responsibility through being drunk and got off with a finger wagg whilst his victim eats through a straw for a year.
Never understood why drinking when you know it doesn't agree with you is a defence in law.
It would be like claiming Type 2 diabetes as a defence to not understanding maths, or an afro hairstyle as a defence against being a terrorist sympathiser.
ETA I'm not saying drink driving should be a diminished responsibility situation, i am saying all punishments should be escalated when it's clear you took substances that increased the possibility/severity of the crime. Not just driving.
Never understood why drinking when you know it doesn't agree with you is a defence in law.
It would be like claiming Type 2 diabetes as a defence to not understanding maths, or an afro hairstyle as a defence against being a terrorist sympathiser.
ETA I'm not saying drink driving should be a diminished responsibility situation, i am saying all punishments should be escalated when it's clear you took substances that increased the possibility/severity of the crime. Not just driving.
Edited by donkmeister on Thursday 22 June 00:31
konark said:
What would you like him to have been ; hung, drawn and quartered?
actually now you mention it he was driving a Beemer....
Interesting point - what is appropriate for this?actually now you mention it he was driving a Beemer....
Banned for 5 years? Bigger fine?
I've thought before that they should have to go and work for free in a hospital to see first hand the results of bad driving. But then I don't suppose the hospital staff would necessarily have the time, desire or patience to have these people helping out.
Difficult to think of how to have a suitable punishment that fits the crime. I suppose removal of rights to drive for a period of time is the most appropriate?
Another observation is that I've met four or five people that have been banned through drink driving and all of them have been a
holes...one young guy was basically very chavvy, the rest have all been tradesmen/white van guys and several seemed to see it as an occupational hazard, something of a badge of honour and a bit of a laugh.My uncle owned a large building firm and regularly (at least once a year) fired people for being caught drink driving and losing licences. I've worked in professional services/consulting and never met a single person who's been banned. Maybe it's something around poor decision making skills?
Just to add a girl in my class at college (that's 30 years ago) was killed on a roundabout by a drunk driver - his fifth offence. She basically drowned on her own blood as her ribs and lungs were smashed up. He got a year in prison as I recall...
jdw100 said:
konark said:
What would you like him to have been ; hung, drawn and quartered?
actually now you mention it he was driving a Beemer....
Interesting point - what is appropriate for this?actually now you mention it he was driving a Beemer....
Banned for 5 years? Bigger fine?
I've thought before that they should have to go and work for free in a hospital to see first hand the results of bad driving. But then I don't suppose the hospital staff would necessarily have the time, desire or patience to have these people helping out.
Difficult to think of how to have a suitable punishment that fits the crime. I suppose removal of rights to drive for a period of time is the most appropriate?
Another observation is that I've met four or five people that have been banned through drink driving and all of them have been a
holes...one young guy was basically very chavvy, the rest have all been tradesmen/white van guys and several seemed to see it as an occupational hazard, something of a badge of honour and a bit of a laugh.My uncle owned a large building firm and regularly (at least once a year) fired people for being caught drink driving and losing licences. I've worked in professional services/consulting and never met a single person who's been banned. Maybe it's something around poor decision making skills?
Just to add a girl in my class at college (that's 30 years ago) was killed on a roundabout by a drunk driver - his fifth offence. She basically drowned on her own blood as her ribs and lungs were smashed up. He got a year in prison as I recall...
Surely in these instances a custodial sentence is an appropriate punishment, and would also serve to protect the public. And as much as I hate to say it as I don't want to sound like some wet faced liberal, persistent offenders need some sort of rehab scheme which helps them to get on the road legally, even if it involves some sort of government backed subsidy so they can get their license/tax/insurance? Controversial and unfair on most law abiding motorists, but the only other alternative is to permanently lock them up or capital punishment (which I am not totally against
)Grunt Futtock said:
Where's his banjo??Edited by Denis O on Friday 23 June 05:34
donkmeister said:
But if he had been drunk outside of his car, beating seven shades of s*** out of some poor innocent bystander, he could claim diminshed responsibility through being drunk and got off with a finger wagg whilst his victim eats through a straw for a year.
Never understood why drinking when you know it doesn't agree with you is a defence in law.
It would be like claiming Type 2 diabetes as a defence to not understanding maths, or an afro hairstyle as a defence against being a terrorist sympathiser.
ETA I'm not saying drink driving should be a diminished responsibility situation, i am saying all punishments should be escalated when it's clear you took substances that increased the possibility/severity of the crime. Not just driving.
I have no idea where you're getting this from. Drinking is an *aggravating factor* in sentencing guidelines, not a defence. Have a look at assault, it's right there in black and whiteNever understood why drinking when you know it doesn't agree with you is a defence in law.
It would be like claiming Type 2 diabetes as a defence to not understanding maths, or an afro hairstyle as a defence against being a terrorist sympathiser.
ETA I'm not saying drink driving should be a diminished responsibility situation, i am saying all punishments should be escalated when it's clear you took substances that increased the possibility/severity of the crime. Not just driving.
Edited by donkmeister on Thursday 22 June 00:31
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/up...
In the case you'd describe, there'd have to be a shedload of mitigating circumstances to avoid jail.
Grunt Futtock said:
C class Merc, the chav chariot of choice.berlintaxi said:
C class Merc, the chav chariot of choice.
I never knew that! My C Class 200CDi estate will be well chuffed. Of course, none of us here have ever seen the magic ton, now have we? My fastest is a mere 166 mph, but on an aerodrome I hasten to add. On the road, well, a gentleman never tells. And here at Le Mans, it is the Brits who are the biggest culprits whether it be bike or car racing.TwistingMyMelon said:
sc0tt said:
Leicester Loyal said:
I'd like them to send him inside for 3-6 months to give him an actual punishment.
What on earth for?Have you never sped?
And yeah, from his picture on the news website, he looks a proper dick.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff