56 days inside for 'changing' speed limit
Discussion
Especially when another youth, drugged up and possessing, drives a van with no lights hits 2 girls, kills one of them and leaves scene of the crime dumps van and goes home and only gets community service...the law is an joke!!
Just goes to show that try to defraud £60 off the scamera dept is considered more henious than killing a human being..
Just goes to show that try to defraud £60 off the scamera dept is considered more henious than killing a human being..
Edited by Mark in Ireland on Tuesday 4th July 14:09
Mark in Ireland said:
Especially when another youth, drugged up and possessing, drives a van with no lights hits 2 girls, kills one of them and leaves scene of the crime dumps van and goes home and only gets community service...the law is an joke!!
Just goes to show that try to defraud £60 off the scamera dept is considered more henious than killing a human being..
Just goes to show that try to defraud £60 off the scamera dept is considered more henious than killing a human being..
Edited by Mark in Ireland on Tuesday 4th July 14:09
Yes, apparently despite driving on the pavement at night with no lights and failing to see 2 girls, there was no evidence that he was driving dangerously.
[quote]
Yes, apparently despite driving on the pavement at night with no lights and failing to see 2 girls, there was no evidence that he was driving dangerously.[/quote]
It's obviously because he wasn't SPEEDING whilst on the pavement, at night, wearing a blindfold, juggling knives, in his underpants driving a stolen van...
Apprantly speed kills, don't you know!
Yes, apparently despite driving on the pavement at night with no lights and failing to see 2 girls, there was no evidence that he was driving dangerously.[/quote]
It's obviously because he wasn't SPEEDING whilst on the pavement, at night, wearing a blindfold, juggling knives, in his underpants driving a stolen van...
Apprantly speed kills, don't you know!
7db said:
smeggy said:
7db said:
That's a good sentencing method...
Doesn't make up for the fact that the measures leading up to that are poo
Which measures would that be, then?
This is the Safe Speed PR on the subject, which I think answers your point:
PR330: John Hopwood - making criminals for nothing
news: for immediate release
John Hopwood, who moved a road sign in a misguided attempt to escape from a
speeding fine, has been given a 56 day jail sentence.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "Although this is at the extreme end of the scale
motorists are being pushed into extreme positions by a hopelessly ineffective
and misguided road safety policy."
"This case is one more reason why we need road safety policies that work and
that the public can believe in. In the last decade road deaths haven't fallen
as expected and figures revealed by the British Medical Journal 10 days ago
indicate no fall in hospital admissions for road crash victims.
"With no improvement in safety, millions being fined and serious damage to the
police / public relationship, speed camera policy has failed spectacularly. It
only remains for Department for Transport (DfT) to own up to their deadly
mistake and scrap the damn cameras."
"Presently Department for Transport are in denial about the abject failure of
their policies."
<ends>
jasandjules said:
Sad isn't it, when the protection of tax collecting is valued more highly than the death of a young person.
That's what it's all about really, the fear that there could be a mass rebellion against the authorities - they'll do whatever it takes to scare people into compliance.
Mark in Ireland said:
Especially when another youth, drugged up and possessing, drives a van with no lights hits 2 girls, kills one of them and leaves scene of the crime dumps van and goes home and only gets community service...the law is an joke!!
Just goes to show that try to defraud £60 off the scamera dept is considered more henious than killing a human being..
Just goes to show that try to defraud £60 off the scamera dept is considered more henious than killing a human being..
Edited by Mark in Ireland on Tuesday 4th July 14:09
I AM NOT DISAGREEING
However the facts of that case are slightly different. The road was unlit, not the van. In the morning the 27 yr old (youth?) tested positive for drugs, some ten hours after the incident.
I can understannd how a decent brief argued that he was not under the influence at the time of the incident. At Chelmsford Crown Court he admitted failing to stop and report an accident, dangerous driving and possessing drugs.
That is what he got Community Service and a ban for, not sure why he wasn't charged with Death by Dangerous as he admitted the Dangerous bit, its likely that we don't know the whole story. I hope for the sake of the British Public he didn't manage to plea bargain his way out of it!!
I REPEAT, I AM NOT DISAGREEING OR CONDONING HIS ACTIONS
"Pushed"?
In what way was this chap pushed into doing this? God knows the signage is bad enough without people vandalising the signs as well.
This person made a calculated attempt to dishonestly get out of a small offence and committed a bigger one. Stupid. And the sort of thing that the courts take a very dim view of -- it's one thing to do something wrong, quite another to be dishonest in dealing with the legal process.
In what way was this chap pushed into doing this? God knows the signage is bad enough without people vandalising the signs as well.
This person made a calculated attempt to dishonestly get out of a small offence and committed a bigger one. Stupid. And the sort of thing that the courts take a very dim view of -- it's one thing to do something wrong, quite another to be dishonest in dealing with the legal process.
7db said:
"Pushed"?
In what way was this chap pushed into doing this?
In what way was this chap pushed into doing this?
Speeding penalties threaten career and lifestyle. People react to such threats. This chap reacted idiotically, but the fact remains that without the daft misapplication of the law he would not have reacted.
7db said:
God knows the signage is bad enough without people vandalising the signs as well.
This person made a calculated attempt to dishonestly get out of a small offence and committed a bigger one. Stupid. And the sort of thing that the courts take a very dim view of -- it's one thing to do something wrong, quite another to be dishonest in dealing with the legal process.
This person made a calculated attempt to dishonestly get out of a small offence and committed a bigger one. Stupid. And the sort of thing that the courts take a very dim view of -- it's one thing to do something wrong, quite another to be dishonest in dealing with the legal process.
I quite agree. But the state should not risk pushing people into such acts unless the benefits to society are clear and substantial. This case illustrates (amongst other things) the damage to respect for the law.
What nonsense. People shouldn't break the law. The State's legal actions don't saction law-breaking.
The State taxes me. Is it "pushing" me to commit crimes to get my money back? Perhaps if I do just a little bit of robbery to get back some tax, you'd think that was ok?
I don't think so.
Perhaps it's "pushing" people to commit dangerous driving by building roads and allowing people to drive on them.
Or perhaps it's about personal responsibility. I'd prefer that to the nanny state you are demanding.
The State taxes me. Is it "pushing" me to commit crimes to get my money back? Perhaps if I do just a little bit of robbery to get back some tax, you'd think that was ok?
I don't think so.
Perhaps it's "pushing" people to commit dangerous driving by building roads and allowing people to drive on them.
Or perhaps it's about personal responsibility. I'd prefer that to the nanny state you are demanding.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff