What speed warrants a custodial sentence?

[Nigel_O]

We're getting discussions about "33 in a 30" NIPs, but what about the opposite end of the scale? - what speed to you need to be doing to risk a spell at her Majesty's pleasure?

I'm not talking about 50mph outside the local primary school at 3:30pm - that's just pure stupidity. I'm talking about those rare moments on a straight, dry, deserted DC or motorway where temptation might get the better of us and we have an impromptu 'V-Max' session

few cars are incapable of exceeding the NSL. Most very ordinary cars are capable of way over 100mph. Even mundane diesel repmobiles are capable of around double the NSL given a long enough run.

However, for a few cars, 150+ is quite easily achievable - at what point on the scale does an almost certain ban turn into a highly likely enforced holiday?

I assume that at some point, the potential mitigating factor of "sorry officer, road was clear, straight, good conditions, no junctions etc" becomes an irrelevance and you're nicked regardless?

BTW, for the avoidance of doubt, I haven't been pulled and neither have any "mates" - just curious as to the consequences of stretching a quick car's legs at an inappropriate time

[Sam All]

It all depends.

[Esceptico]

I think there should be a clear distinction between dangerous driving and speeding. I don't think there should be a custodial sentence for the latter.

[tapereel]

Nigel_O said:

We're getting discussions about "33 in a 30" NIPs, ...

Really! Have you found any?

[tapereel]

Esceptico said:

I think there should be a clear distinction between dangerous driving and speeding. I don't think there should be a custodial sentence for the latter.

There is a clear distinction, some speeding constitutes dangerous driving, some careless driving and some does not. See section 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act

[Esceptico]

tapereel said:

There is a clear distinction, some speeding constitutes dangerous driving, some careless driving and some does not. See section 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act

1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

There is a distinction in the legislation but the key question is whether the distinction made in law and practice is fit for purpose. From the definition copied above I can see scope for significant and fundamental differences of opinion. In my view a competent and careful driver would not view someone speeding at 150 as dangerous if they could have stopped within the distance they could see to be clear. I fear that courts would not take that view (but admit I don't know what their position would be).

[Willy Nilly]

There are circumstances where the driver should be given a medal, like the guy keeping pace with a 911 on the M6 a few years back in a Skoda Felica. Yes he was speeding, but doing a damn fine job of it and I liked his work.

[KevinCamaroSS]

Esceptico said:

tapereel said:

There is a clear distinction, some speeding constitutes dangerous driving, some careless driving and some does not. See section 2 and 3 of the Road Traffic Act

1)For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

There is a distinction in the legislation but the key question is whether the distinction made in law and practice is fit for purpose. From the definition copied above I can see scope for significant and fundamental differences of opinion. In my view a competent and careful driver would not view someone speeding at 150 as dangerous if they could have stopped within the distance they could see to be clear. I fear that courts would not take that view (but admit I don't know what their position would be).

I would agree with you on this.

[Esceptico]

KevinCamaroSS said:

I would agree with you on this.

[agtlaw]

Nobody in this country has ever been sent to prison for speeding. There's always something more and the charge is dangerous driving; so a better question would be - when does speeding become dangerous driving?

There isn't an answer. The following case isn't any kind of precedent, but it's moderately interesting.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

[Jasandjules]

In my view there is no speed that warrants a custodial sentence. If however a person is run over or there is a collision with another vehicle in which occupants are injured, then jail time is appropriate.

This is amplified when people who assault others and those who burgle receive non-custodial sentences.

[Nigel_O]

agtlaw said:

Nobody in this country has ever been sent to prison for speeding. There's always something more and the charge is dangerous driving; so a better question would be - when does speeding become dangerous driving?

Fair point (and a pretty obvious one now you mention it) - is there an answer? Is there some kind of guideline where above a certain speed, a prison sentence is an option for the court?

I can easily see how 50 outside school at hometime is dangerous, but I doubt anyone would go to prison as punishment.

However, I could easily see that someone reaching, say 170 on a deserted, straight DC would be given a custodial sentence, simply because 170 HAS to be more dangerous than 50 outside school (at least in the eyes of the morally outraged public and Daily Wail readers)

That said, if either misdemeanour resulted in a fatal accident, I could imagine both would carry a "death by dangerous driving" charge, with fairly inevitable sentencing

[V8RX7]

agtlaw said:

Nobody in this country has ever been sent to prison for speeding. There's always something more and the charge is dangerous driving; so a better question would be - when does speeding become dangerous driving?

There isn't an answer. The following case isn't any kind of precedent, but it's moderately interesting.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

A smidge under 150 on a 60 NSL, uninsured in his Dad's car - so he's not familiar with it.

I'm not sure I could agree that isn't dangerous.

[tapereel]

agtlaw said:

Nobody in this country has ever been sent to prison for speeding. There's always something more and the charge is dangerous driving; so a better question would be - when does speeding become dangerous driving?

There isn't an answer. The following case isn't any kind of precedent, but it's moderately interesting.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

Thsi one went the other way with the DJ saying that driving at 152mph was dangerous. The driver escaped a custodial sentence by the skin of his teeth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224903/Mo...

[anonymous-user]

Willy Nilly said:

There are circumstances where the driver should be given a medal, like the guy keeping pace with a 911 on the M6 a few years back in a Skoda Felica. Yes he was speeding, but doing a damn fine job of it and I liked his work.

hahahaha yess!

[agtlaw]

tapereel said:

agtlaw said:

Nobody in this country has ever been sent to prison for speeding. There's always something more and the charge is dangerous driving; so a better question would be - when does speeding become dangerous driving?

There isn't an answer. The following case isn't any kind of precedent, but it's moderately interesting.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/not-dangerous...

Thsi one went the other way with the DJ saying that driving at 152mph was dangerous. The driver escaped a custodial sentence by the skin of his teeth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224903/Mo...

Avoided custody by a large margin according to your source.

He should have elected. Badly advised.

[cmaguire]

Sign of the times?

In AGTLaw's example from 2006 we have 149 in a 60. Speeding only, dangerous driving dismissed.

Skip forward to 2011 and we have 152 in a 70. Had to be dangerous driving, because of what could have happened......Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[V8RX7]

cmaguire said:

Had to be dangerous driving, because of what could have happened......Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

What other offences are judged on the basis of what could have happened, rather than what did happen ?

[vanordinaire]

As soon as you're over 100mph in Scotland, it's automatically classed as dangerous driving in most cases.

[MrBarry123]

Never.

A better punishment would be to treat extreme* speeders in the same way as drink drivers and ban them for 12+ months.

*my definition of extreme would be 80+ in 20 or 30 zones.