120mph - 18 month ban.... almost kill someone ????
Discussion
Just found both these articles in a local newspaper.
ARTICLE 1
SPEEDER WAS ROAD-TESTING HIS FIXED CAR AT 120MPH
A Vehicle technician was road-testing his car when police caught him doing 120mph on an Aberdeenshire road, a court heard yesterday.
William Bremner, 21, of 6 Whiteness Cottages, Hightown, Collieston, was banned from driving for 18 months and fined £500 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court after he admitted driving dangerously on the A90 Aberdeen to Ellon road, near Balmedie, on February 26 this year.
Depute fiscal Fiona Murray said the road was a stretch of dual carriageway with a 70mph limit and two junctions, one leading into Balmedie and the other to domestic houses.
The court was told that it was just before 11pm when a police officers using a hand-held radar device clocked Bremner doing 120mph.
The fiscal said Bremner stopped after spotting the police car, was shown the device and admitted that his speedometer had been showing a similar reading.
"When he was asked if there was any reason for driving at 120mph, he replied that there wasn't," she said.
The court heard that had his brakes been in good working order, it would have taken Bremner roughly the length of 2 football pitches to stop at that speed.
Defence agent Gail Goodfellow said the accused had just completed a four-year apprenticeship and was driving home after working an evening shift.
She said her client would not normally have driven at such excessive speed, but he had taken advantage of the good road conditions to road-test his car, which had been off the road for six weeks undergoing essential repairs.
"It was dual carriageway, it was late at night, the road was dry, there were no pedestrians around and that stretch is lit by streetlights," she said.
"It is in no way an excuse, but he only went a short distance at that speed and was actually going below the speed limit when he was approached by the police."
Mrs Goodfellow said her client was required to test vehicles on a daily basis as part of his job, but said his employers intended to keep him on if he was given the minimum period of disqualification.
Sheriff Kenneth Stewart said he could not accept Mrs Goodfellow's request to limit the ban to a year, saying it had been "absolutely irresponsible to drive at this kind of speed".
He said he had taken into account that Bremner was last month convicted of travelling at 79mph in a 60mph zone.
ARTICLE 2
INVERURIE TEENAGER FINED AFTER CRASH LEFT DRIVER CRITICAL
A Teenage driver has been fined £700 after he caused a head-on car crash which left another driver critically injured.
Paul Louttit, 19, of 3f Victoria Street, Inverurie, appeared at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for sentencing yesterday after previously admitting to driving dangerously.
The accident happened on the B9170 Oldmeldrum to Inverurie road, near Portstown Farm, on April 7 last year.
Fiscal depute Laura Sharp said the incident took place at around 9pm, just as it was beginning to get dark.
Louttit, an apprentice stonemason, had begun to overtake the vehicle in front of him while negotiating a left-hand bend, just before a dip in the road, the court was told.
"A collision was inevitable," said the fiscal.
"The other driver realised what was happening and braked sharply, but it was too late to avoid a crash."
Emergency services arrived at the scene and found Louttit, his 13-year-old female passenger and Steven Coleman, the driver of the second car, all trapped in their vehicles.
Mr Coleman, whose car had been pushed into a field by the impact of the crash, suffered critical injuries including a brain haemorrhage, a fractured jaw and fractures to both knees, along with other fractures. He also required skin grafts.
He underwent surgery at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and spent several days in intensive care.
The teenage girl suffered fractures to her collar bone and both ankles, and suffered cuts and bruises.
Louttit sustained facial injuries, was knocked unconscious during the collision and was kept in hospital for four days.
The road was closed for six hours as Grampian Police accident investigators examined the scene.
Defence agent Shaun George said Louttit had been on his way to Inverurie to drop off the 13-year-old girl.
"He has no recollection of the accident, but accepts responsibility for it and deeply regrets the injuries suffered by the two other people involved," said Mr George.
Louttit admitted causing the accident by overtaking when it was not safe to do so.
Sentencing, Sheriff Alexander Jessop said the accused had displayed what was "obviously a piece of very bad driving".
In addition to the fine, he disqualified Louttit from driving for a year and ordered him to resit an extended driving test.
Sorry for the length but I can't beleive that a guy who almost killed one guy and could've killed 2 others received a one year ban where the guy in the first article although speeding by quite a margin (and quite rightly lost his licence) was given such a hefty ban.
Any comments???
ARTICLE 1
SPEEDER WAS ROAD-TESTING HIS FIXED CAR AT 120MPH
A Vehicle technician was road-testing his car when police caught him doing 120mph on an Aberdeenshire road, a court heard yesterday.
William Bremner, 21, of 6 Whiteness Cottages, Hightown, Collieston, was banned from driving for 18 months and fined £500 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court after he admitted driving dangerously on the A90 Aberdeen to Ellon road, near Balmedie, on February 26 this year.
Depute fiscal Fiona Murray said the road was a stretch of dual carriageway with a 70mph limit and two junctions, one leading into Balmedie and the other to domestic houses.
The court was told that it was just before 11pm when a police officers using a hand-held radar device clocked Bremner doing 120mph.
The fiscal said Bremner stopped after spotting the police car, was shown the device and admitted that his speedometer had been showing a similar reading.
"When he was asked if there was any reason for driving at 120mph, he replied that there wasn't," she said.
The court heard that had his brakes been in good working order, it would have taken Bremner roughly the length of 2 football pitches to stop at that speed.
Defence agent Gail Goodfellow said the accused had just completed a four-year apprenticeship and was driving home after working an evening shift.
She said her client would not normally have driven at such excessive speed, but he had taken advantage of the good road conditions to road-test his car, which had been off the road for six weeks undergoing essential repairs.
"It was dual carriageway, it was late at night, the road was dry, there were no pedestrians around and that stretch is lit by streetlights," she said.
"It is in no way an excuse, but he only went a short distance at that speed and was actually going below the speed limit when he was approached by the police."
Mrs Goodfellow said her client was required to test vehicles on a daily basis as part of his job, but said his employers intended to keep him on if he was given the minimum period of disqualification.
Sheriff Kenneth Stewart said he could not accept Mrs Goodfellow's request to limit the ban to a year, saying it had been "absolutely irresponsible to drive at this kind of speed".
He said he had taken into account that Bremner was last month convicted of travelling at 79mph in a 60mph zone.
ARTICLE 2
INVERURIE TEENAGER FINED AFTER CRASH LEFT DRIVER CRITICAL
A Teenage driver has been fined £700 after he caused a head-on car crash which left another driver critically injured.
Paul Louttit, 19, of 3f Victoria Street, Inverurie, appeared at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for sentencing yesterday after previously admitting to driving dangerously.
The accident happened on the B9170 Oldmeldrum to Inverurie road, near Portstown Farm, on April 7 last year.
Fiscal depute Laura Sharp said the incident took place at around 9pm, just as it was beginning to get dark.
Louttit, an apprentice stonemason, had begun to overtake the vehicle in front of him while negotiating a left-hand bend, just before a dip in the road, the court was told.
"A collision was inevitable," said the fiscal.
"The other driver realised what was happening and braked sharply, but it was too late to avoid a crash."
Emergency services arrived at the scene and found Louttit, his 13-year-old female passenger and Steven Coleman, the driver of the second car, all trapped in their vehicles.
Mr Coleman, whose car had been pushed into a field by the impact of the crash, suffered critical injuries including a brain haemorrhage, a fractured jaw and fractures to both knees, along with other fractures. He also required skin grafts.
He underwent surgery at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and spent several days in intensive care.
The teenage girl suffered fractures to her collar bone and both ankles, and suffered cuts and bruises.
Louttit sustained facial injuries, was knocked unconscious during the collision and was kept in hospital for four days.
The road was closed for six hours as Grampian Police accident investigators examined the scene.
Defence agent Shaun George said Louttit had been on his way to Inverurie to drop off the 13-year-old girl.
"He has no recollection of the accident, but accepts responsibility for it and deeply regrets the injuries suffered by the two other people involved," said Mr George.
Louttit admitted causing the accident by overtaking when it was not safe to do so.
Sentencing, Sheriff Alexander Jessop said the accused had displayed what was "obviously a piece of very bad driving".
In addition to the fine, he disqualified Louttit from driving for a year and ordered him to resit an extended driving test.
Sorry for the length but I can't beleive that a guy who almost killed one guy and could've killed 2 others received a one year ban where the guy in the first article although speeding by quite a margin (and quite rightly lost his licence) was given such a hefty ban.
Any comments???
It is incredibly rare, in Britain 2003, to find circumstances that allow the sort of spirited moments of driving bliss, of which gooseberries the length and breadth would otherwise oppose with vehement disapprobation.
I'm sorry but if you are faced with an entirely barren landscape, NO other road users, people per se or even small crowds of timid water vole, dry tarmac and several hundred horsepower, then it is your duty to bask in the radiation that only such pleasant, safe acceleration can provide.
If, during such moments, criminals are born, then truly, the law - and any application thereto - is utterly, contemptably wrong.
Another blow for freedom; another triumph for the bottom inspectors.
I'm sorry but if you are faced with an entirely barren landscape, NO other road users, people per se or even small crowds of timid water vole, dry tarmac and several hundred horsepower, then it is your duty to bask in the radiation that only such pleasant, safe acceleration can provide.
If, during such moments, criminals are born, then truly, the law - and any application thereto - is utterly, contemptably wrong.
Another blow for freedom; another triumph for the bottom inspectors.
Apache said:
sorry, but you did say "quite rightly" to him having his licence removed, why?
I knew someone would mention that...... I know this stretch of road very well and have driven at similar speeds in the past. I would however expect a ban but something like 2-3 months would be more realistic.
Thinking about it though you are right in querying my comment, I suppose it's since I have started to drive 70mph has been the max and people get brain washed (possibly including myself) into thinking anything above that is asking for trouble due to antiquated speed limits, set when cars had drum brakes all round.
>> Edited by rmurray73 on Thursday 14th August 13:52
rmurray73 said:
the guy in the first article although speeding by quite a margin (and quite rightly lost his licence)
Any comments???
Yes, I resent that highlighted bit.
I also am young and have grown up with GATSOs everywhere, but I'd still say 120 on a deserted road in a suitable car is not a problem at all.
maybe the car wasn't suitable tho, he was after roadtesting it after "extensive repairs"...
He rightly lost his licence and the punishment was fair, however the roles should have been reversed (i.e. speeder getting 1yr, almost murderer getting 18months or even longer).
Just because a road is empty doesn't mean you can break the law (even if it's wrong, too slow...), if a shop was empty would you steal something?
Stefan
He rightly lost his licence and the punishment was fair, however the roles should have been reversed (i.e. speeder getting 1yr, almost murderer getting 18months or even longer).
Just because a road is empty doesn't mean you can break the law (even if it's wrong, too slow...), if a shop was empty would you steal something?
Stefan
_Al_ said:
the guy in the first article although speeding by quite a margin (and quite rightly lost his licence)
Any comments???
Yes, I resent that highlighted bit.
I also am young and have grown up with GATSOs everywhere, but I'd still say 120 on a deserted road in a suitable car is not a problem at all.
If the road were to remain completely empty and with no possibility of a member of the public joining it then fine - but unfortunately we cant guarantee these things and as a result you cannot say that there it is 100% safe to do that type of speed.... all it takes is one numpty to drift onto the dual carriageway without looking and its one hell of a smash....
Would love to agree with you, but if you need to test a car at high speed like 120MPH then the best way is on a track or private road.... the public road is no place for this and he deserved to get a ban - though a month or two would be appropriate, not 18 months (I think!). Proportionate response is fair...
pbrettle said:
Would love to agree with you, but if you need to test a car at high speed like 120MPH then the best way is on a track or private road.... the public road is no place for this and he deserved to get a ban - though a month or two would be appropriate, not 18 months (I think!). Proportionate response is fair...
With great respect, Paul and forgive me if this seems a little harsh but your expression here is for me, too absolute: whilst extremely rare, I'll grant you, there most certainly are conditions on public roads, in Britain, where 120 mph or frankly, a lot more, is to all intents and purposes, as safe as 70.
The punishing of a man driving at 120 mph along the arrow straight valley of Glencoe is a world away from the same thing on a typical weekday horn locking session across the M62.
My position on this is unlikely to change because I believe that the law, whatever the NSL happens to be, needs executing variably, rather than absolutely, when it comes to speeding, based upon fundamental conditions. Let the BiB make the call, on the highway...we just don't need the mechanical tax machines.
This will never be a perfect solution but it will loosen from around the motorists' collective neck, the noose of indeterminate and often grossly unfair, bogus criminalisation courtesy of the mindless scamera plague.
When I derestrict, I do so with generally few, or in more extreme cases, no other living souls about.
The chances of some errant rapper wandering across Mrs. Baxter's finest highland prairie with an MP3 thrust up his ignoble behind, to be ceremoniously polaxed by yours truly in thundering staff chariot or you in the requisite Chimpora, is effectively zero.
So let's move the debate on: accept that innappropriate speed in the busy, urban zones, especially when it is actually busy, should be sufficient for some kind of penalty.
But that where the wind blows wild and the haggis roams free, speed limits are simply fairy fodder.
Cheers
Agreed, manys the time I've shown utter contempt for the NSL, but only on empty roads / motorways. In this instance, what I choose to do is entirely at my own risk.
Anyone who speeds during rush hours is either utterly and irresponsibly stupid, or owns a ghost car.
Bit of common sense eh?
Anyone who speeds during rush hours is either utterly and irresponsibly stupid, or owns a ghost car.
Bit of common sense eh?
pbrettle said:
rmurray73 said:
the guy in the first article although speeding by quite a margin (and quite rightly lost his licence)
Any comments???
Yes, I resent that highlighted bit.
I also am young and have grown up with GATSOs everywhere, but I'd still say 120 on a deserted road in a suitable car is not a problem at all.
If the road were to remain completely empty and with no possibility of a member of the public joining it then fine -
Someting like an empty motorway with 10 miles between Junctions then.. ?
Matt.
the A90 is not the road to take a car for a spirited "spin". there are a few in that area where you can, check your maps.... where you can give it a good blasting on roads that see little or no traffic and visibility is good. you can form your own opinions.
the sentences are again beyond reason...an injury or a death is still an injury or a death caused by someone's action and deserves the appropriate punishment. the high speed "spin" had a "risk" attached but there was no occurance associated with the high speed and in this case the risk was probably "minimal".
the local "rag", i guess it was the P&J always like to sensationalise these cases. they have few other news stories to report on...
the sentences are again beyond reason...an injury or a death is still an injury or a death caused by someone's action and deserves the appropriate punishment. the high speed "spin" had a "risk" attached but there was no occurance associated with the high speed and in this case the risk was probably "minimal".
the local "rag", i guess it was the P&J always like to sensationalise these cases. they have few other news stories to report on...
GregE240 said:
Anyone who speeds during rush hours is either utterly and irresponsibly stupid, or owns a ghost car.
Nonsense.. I'm frequenly part of a long stream of traffic happily chattering along at 100mph on my daily commute.
Just because it doesn't happen up there in Bandit country doesn't make it so for all of England, old boy...
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Thursday 14th August 14:50
ian d said:
the local "rag", ... always like to sensationalise these cases.
Definately.
"It would have taken the length of 2 football pitches to stop" - indeed. Probably assuming highway code braking distances (Discovery, anyone?
). They don't mention how much clear road he had ahead of him... 3 football pitches, maybe?Given that madcop reckons stopping distance at 100mph is 600ft, I'd say that 2 football pitches is a conservative estimate for 120mph... in terms of highway code stopping distances anyway...
Depends entirely on what's being driven then, doesn't it.
Of course, if one has a proper sense of speed/distance, one only does >100mph when one can see that there is adequate distance to stop. Which there may well have been - we are only talking about less than an eighth of a mile to stop after all - the distance between the III and the I marker approaching an MWay exit.
Depends entirely on what's being driven then, doesn't it.
Of course, if one has a proper sense of speed/distance, one only does >100mph when one can see that there is adequate distance to stop. Which there may well have been - we are only talking about less than an eighth of a mile to stop after all - the distance between the III and the I marker approaching an MWay exit.
CarZee said:
Anyone who speeds during rush hours is either utterly and irresponsibly stupid, or owns a ghost car.
Nonsense.. I'm frequenly part of a long stream of traffic happily chattering along at 100mph on my daily commute.
Just because it doesn't happen up there in Bandit country doesn't make it so for all of England, old boy...
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Thursday 14th August 14:50
You know what I meant CarZ. I meant driving like a bloody joyrider weaving in and out like you're some sort of stuntman. Should have been clearer.
I agree, if the general pace of traffic is above NSL one should keep up with it, otherwise you yourself are causing a hazard. The M40 is very prone to this, I've found. Not so the M1...wonder why?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff