2 month ban for 102 in a 50
Discussion
www.fenlandtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1455&ArticleID=1878882
COURT: River road speeder banned
A DRIVER slammed as reckless for driving at over 100 miles an hour along the notorious Forty Foot Road between Chatteris and Ramsey has been banned for 56 days.
Vincent Barrett-McGrath (40), admitted speeding.
His case, at Wisbech magistrates on Wednesday, comes at a time when a multi-agency campaign has been launched to slow down motorists along the Forty Foot, which has seen five deaths in recent months after cars have left the road and entered the river there.
Sentencing Barrett-McGrath, chairman of the bench Peter Waterfield said: "To go 102mph on a road that is limited to 50mph is reckless to say the least.
"This particular road has seen a number of fatal accidents recently and is currently being investigated to determine what further actions are necessary to make it safer.
"You put others at risk by your actions."
Prosecuting, John Nooijen said it was July 15 when police were carrying out speed checks along the Forty Foot and, at around 9.30am, noticed a BMW travelling towards them from Chatteris.
They recorded the vehicle's speed at being 102mph over a distance of 326.7 metres.
Defending, Martin Newton said it had been sunny and bright and, more particularly, there had been no other road users in the vicinity.
However, he then went on to explain that, at the time of the offence, his client had been overtaking and had increased his speed before then intending to reduce it.
Barrett-McGrath had been driving for 23 years, the court heard, and never been stopped before.
In making a plea for him to keep his licence, Mr Newton said his client was the general manager of a children's home at Coveney, and the social activities of children there might have to be curtailed.
He also had an 81-year-old mother in Peterborough who was "totally reliant" on him.
In sentencing Barrett-McGrath, of 9 Main Road, Dyke, Bourne, Mr Waterfield explained the bench was also fining him £400 and that he would have to pay £35 costs.
After the case, Cambs police Superintendent Mick Gipp pointed out extreme speeding takes the lives of nine out of ten people who die on the county's roads.
"You should never think it is safe to drive fast on rural roads," he said, adding: "The faster you go the more unexpected any hazards will seem.
"There is always an element of risk involved in overtaking, but even more so if overtaking on a rural road.
"It is easy to misjudge the speed and distance of approaching traffic. If you are driving at 60mph and the oncoming vehicle is also travelling at 60mph, the gap between you is closing at 120mph, which is about 60 metres every second.
"Never consider an overtake if it means breaking a speed limit. There is no need to break the law to gain a few seconds."
Not too bad a result I would have said. It seems that the courts are beginning to get a bit more lenient.
Fenlandtoday said:
COURT: River road speeder banned
A DRIVER slammed as reckless for driving at over 100 miles an hour along the notorious Forty Foot Road between Chatteris and Ramsey has been banned for 56 days.
Vincent Barrett-McGrath (40), admitted speeding.
His case, at Wisbech magistrates on Wednesday, comes at a time when a multi-agency campaign has been launched to slow down motorists along the Forty Foot, which has seen five deaths in recent months after cars have left the road and entered the river there.
Sentencing Barrett-McGrath, chairman of the bench Peter Waterfield said: "To go 102mph on a road that is limited to 50mph is reckless to say the least.
"This particular road has seen a number of fatal accidents recently and is currently being investigated to determine what further actions are necessary to make it safer.
"You put others at risk by your actions."
Prosecuting, John Nooijen said it was July 15 when police were carrying out speed checks along the Forty Foot and, at around 9.30am, noticed a BMW travelling towards them from Chatteris.
They recorded the vehicle's speed at being 102mph over a distance of 326.7 metres.
Defending, Martin Newton said it had been sunny and bright and, more particularly, there had been no other road users in the vicinity.
However, he then went on to explain that, at the time of the offence, his client had been overtaking and had increased his speed before then intending to reduce it.
Barrett-McGrath had been driving for 23 years, the court heard, and never been stopped before.
In making a plea for him to keep his licence, Mr Newton said his client was the general manager of a children's home at Coveney, and the social activities of children there might have to be curtailed.
He also had an 81-year-old mother in Peterborough who was "totally reliant" on him.
In sentencing Barrett-McGrath, of 9 Main Road, Dyke, Bourne, Mr Waterfield explained the bench was also fining him £400 and that he would have to pay £35 costs.
After the case, Cambs police Superintendent Mick Gipp pointed out extreme speeding takes the lives of nine out of ten people who die on the county's roads.
"You should never think it is safe to drive fast on rural roads," he said, adding: "The faster you go the more unexpected any hazards will seem.
"There is always an element of risk involved in overtaking, but even more so if overtaking on a rural road.
"It is easy to misjudge the speed and distance of approaching traffic. If you are driving at 60mph and the oncoming vehicle is also travelling at 60mph, the gap between you is closing at 120mph, which is about 60 metres every second.
"Never consider an overtake if it means breaking a speed limit. There is no need to break the law to gain a few seconds."
Not too bad a result I would have said. It seems that the courts are beginning to get a bit more lenient.
Edited by gilbertd on Thursday 16th November 10:55
Fenlandtoday said:
After the case, Cambs police Superintendent Mick Gipp pointed out extreme speeding takes the lives of nine out of ten people who die on the county's roads.
WHAT!!!!
Where the hell does he get that from?
It is totally and utterly irresponsible for a senior police officer to make such a grossly inaccurate and misleading claim.
sultanbrown said:
I know this road well.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
Lot of undulating surfaces around those roads though, the effect of which become exaggerated with higher speeds.
Mr2Mike said:
article said:
They recorded the vehicle's speed at being 102mph over a distance of 326.7 metres.
Does that mean the vehicle was 326.7 meters away when they got a speed reading, or that he maintained 102mph for that distance?
Average speed over distance.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 16th November 17:48
vonhosen said:
sultanbrown said:
I know this road well.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
Lot of undulating surfaces around those roads though, the effect of which become exaggerated with higher speeds.
There was. The whole length of the forty foot road has recently been resurfaced and it's currently completely flat. It won't stay that way for long as the tarmac will start to sink into the fen like all the other roads around there.
vonhosen said:
sultanbrown said:
I know this road well.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
Lot of undulating surfaces around those roads though, the effect of which become exaggerated with higher speeds.
Speed simply isn't an issue on that road, otherwise the offender wouldn't have been able to drive down it at 100mph.
How many of the deaths on that road were a direct result of speeding?
sultanbrown said:
vonhosen said:
sultanbrown said:
I know this road well.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
Lot of undulating surfaces around those roads though, the effect of which become exaggerated with higher speeds.
Speed simply isn't an issue on that road, otherwise the offender wouldn't have been able to drive down it at 100mph.
How many of the deaths on that road were a direct result of speeding?
I drive a lot of the fenland roads around there & the undulations on them will affect the vehicles to different degrees depending on the speed. As for how many deaths on those particular roads have been directly attributed to speed I don't know, but whatever the answer does not change the prior statement.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 17th November 06:19
I was talking about that specific stretch of road, some of the surrounding roads are really bad. There is an "undulation" on the road from Chatteris to Somersham that could easily cause an accident.
Mud on those roads is also a problem; I've had many a friend slide gracefully into ditches at 15mph around those parts.
Are you a carrot-crunching yokel, I mean local then Von?
(I DO NOT live on reclaimed fen, and AM NOT related to my girlfriend.
)
Mud on those roads is also a problem; I've had many a friend slide gracefully into ditches at 15mph around those parts.
Are you a carrot-crunching yokel, I mean local then Von?
(I DO NOT live on reclaimed fen, and AM NOT related to my girlfriend.
)Fenlandtoday said:
Defending, Martin Newton said it had been sunny and bright and, more particularly, there had been no other road users in the vicinity.
However, he then went on to explain that, at the time of the offence, his client had been overtaking and had increased his speed before then intending to reduce it.
However, he then went on to explain that, at the time of the offence, his client had been overtaking and had increased his speed before then intending to reduce it.
sultanbrown said:
I know this road well.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
It's perfectly straight, but for some reason the dyke running alongside just seems to mysteriously pull motorists into it.
Apparantly barriers are too expensive, so it will probably get a speed camera.
Maybe it's the tight jogging shorts she wears!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff