Locked up for 133mph?
Discussion
I heard David Blunkett on R4 yesterday saying that in some areas of the country "74% of low level traffic law offenders go to prison" 
Apparently, so he said, it's as low as 28% in other areas. FFS to PRISON, for "Low Level" offences? It was the disparity he was highlighting, not the actuality.
Apparently, so he said, it's as low as 28% in other areas. FFS to PRISON, for "Low Level" offences? It was the disparity he was highlighting, not the actuality.
mungo said:Not read the story yet but from a previous thread, on car thefts by stealing the keys from the house, I remember that the CPS cannot prosecute for two related offences.
I believe it but I don't understand why the speeding charge was dropped if that constituted the dangerous driving in the first place
In the other thread an offender could possibly have been charged with, burglary, theft, TWOC and a couple of other offences but the BiB abd CPS actually have to choose which is the most likely to get a conviction. They cannot try for all of them even though they were all commited in the one event.
mungo said:
I believe it but I don't understand why the speeding charge was dropped if that constituted the dangerous driving in the first place
because there no point fineing him 60 quid , as there unlikely to get if hes doing bird.
fif its true he got very bad legal advice
and should never have pleaded guilty.
should have asked for tril buy jurt as i belive it triable ether way.
and they would have most likely droped it to due care.
pluss the shit about the stoping distence is total crap any way there years out of date.
the car would have stoped much quicker.
he should have denied being in the car
a fail to supply is much better than the bird.
lets this be a warning whe mr plod knocks at your door.
KEEP YOUR GOB FERMLY SHUT.
once you open your mouth, a solisitor cant help much.
>> Edited by Roadrage on Wednesday 7th January 17:49
icamm said:
I'm Kermit the Frog.
Hi Kermit, can I have an autograph....
But seriously - naw dont believe it. There was an outcry (and it make national news for a week) about the biker who got locked up for 156MPH.... and that was supposed to be the first case of a prison sentence for such a crime (?!?!).
In the case of the biker, he was video'ed overtaking a truck on a blind corner at massive speeds and then hitting the maximum on a section of A and dual-A roads. All very dangerous and likely to kill himself - but to get locked up for 133 - doesnt ring true I am afraid....
icamm said:
Just read the story - if you believe the bit about exploding the tyres then I'm Kermit the Frog. That would have been easy to dispute as I'm sure the tyre manufacturers would want to protect their reputations vigorously.
The rest of it is fairly believeable I reckon but the tyres bit I agree is silly. Having been in a car thats gone from almost 200 to 70 odd (Cheers Daz
) and the wheels were perfectly fine...Perhaps its time to break these guys out of jail. 
If this story is true we need to start targetting the convicting magistrates and bombarding them with mail. In addition it might be useful to publish a list rating places on scale of 1 to 10 for how stupid their interpretation of the law is. Hopefully this will lead to a reduction in economic activity and house prices in those areas will fall then they will be ripe for political takeover at a local level. This could then lead to insistance that daft anti car measures are removed and local police focus on criminals not motorists. IMO its only a matter of time.
If this story is true we need to start targetting the convicting magistrates and bombarding them with mail. In addition it might be useful to publish a list rating places on scale of 1 to 10 for how stupid their interpretation of the law is. Hopefully this will lead to a reduction in economic activity and house prices in those areas will fall then they will be ripe for political takeover at a local level. This could then lead to insistance that daft anti car measures are removed and local police focus on criminals not motorists. IMO its only a matter of time.
Muncher said:
Surely the stopping distance will be far, far shorter than the highway code says anyway?
To get the figures mentioned (273m braking from 133mph and 329m overall) you need to have a reaction time of 0.95 seconds and an average braking effort of 0.66g.
A better reaction time for an alert driver is probably 0.75 seconds, and with the benefit of aerodynamic braking at the top end, 0.95g average braking could probably be achieved. These figures would lead to 190m braking and 234m overall stopping distance.
At 133mph the safe braking zone (for emergency braking at 0.95g) is 3.94 seconds.
If we assume that a vehicle joining from the slip road would take (much) more than 4 seconds to obstruct L2 (assuming a dual carrigeway) no danger is caused by the slip road as long as L2 is available.
See www.safespeed.org.uk/braking.html
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Tony_996hasgone said:
I believe it but I think it's ridiculous.
DAZ
Daz,as I'm sure you don't speed on public roads, you've got nothing to worry about, and at the end of the day, he was breaking the law
Yes.....he should have been exectuted with a rusty knife...............
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff