Drink Drive Judge P*** Boiler

[rhinochopig]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227201/Dr...

Someone please explain how this is a fair sentence? Actually don't bother it's pretty clear we have a two tier justice system.

He's arrested twice in a short period of time - once 3 TIMES OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT!!!!! His sentence a driving ban.

Contrast this with the chap on the motorbike doing 160mph sober, who received a custodial sentence.

The justice system is utterly screwed.

ETA To correct angry dyslexic fingers.

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 12th November 13:01

[RegMolehusband]

The word is fair - but yes it is and you have to try your best not to get on the wrong side of it as a result.

[FNG]

Unfortunately those who are imprisoned "for speeding" were mistaken enough to admit to dangerous driving, rather than have the prosecution prove it.

DD is hard to prove and excess speed, even 160, isn't automatically evidence of such.

Coughing to DD is very likely to get you a stretch inside.

That this judge should know better, did it twice in succession and was undoubtedly more of a danger to the general public, is a disgrace.

But it's important to understand that the prison sentences aren't actually for speeding.

[rhinochopig]

FNG said:

Unfortunately those who are imprisoned "for speeding" were mistaken enough to admit to dangerous driving, rather than have the prosecution prove it.

DD is hard to prove and excess speed, even 160, isn't automatically evidence of such.

Coughing to DD is very likely to get you a stretch inside.

That this judge should know better, did it twice in succession and was undoubtedly more of a danger to the general public, is a disgrace.

But it's important to understand that the prison sentences aren't actually for speeding.

But surely drink driving is at the very least equal to drunk driving????

[FNG]

rhinochopig said:

But surely drink driving is at the very least equal to drunk driving????

Would you like to try again?

[rhinochopig]

FNG said:

rhinochopig said:

But surely drink driving is at the very least equal to drunk driving????

Would you like to try again?

Oops.

Dangerous driving was what I meant. That'll teach me to try and multi-task.

Ah crap, I'll try again as I've just read that back.

What I meant was, surely drink driving should automatically be considered as dangerous driving if the latter has the harsher sentence.

Edited by rhinochopig on Thursday 12th November 13:09

[bonsai]

rhinochopig said:

FNG said:

rhinochopig said:

But surely drink driving is at the very least equal to drunk driving????

Would you like to try again?

Oops.

Dangerous driving was what I meant. That'll teach me to try and multi-task.

If someone is tugged because the police have a concern about their standard of driving, and it then turns out that they're over the limit, then they should be automatically charged with dangerous driving, IMO!

[odyssey2200]

bonsai said:

rhinochopig said:

FNG said:

rhinochopig said:

But surely drink driving is at the very least equal to drunk driving????

Would you like to try again?

Oops.

Dangerous driving was what I meant. That'll teach me to try and multi-task.

If someone is tugged because the police have a concern about their standard of driving, and it then turns out that they're over the limit, then they should be automatically charged with dangerous driving, IMO!

Not to do so would tend to suggestthat drink driving is not dangerous.

[Deva Link]

Oh, but come on - where would the world be without friends and colleagues to help you out?

A friend of mine in the Police is always astonished when another officer gets done for speeding or drink driving.

[fadeaway]

odyssey2200 said:

bonsai said:

rhinochopig said:

FNG said:

rhinochopig said:

But surely drink driving is at the very least equal to drunk driving????

Would you like to try again?

Oops.

Dangerous driving was what I meant. That'll teach me to try and multi-task.

If someone is tugged because the police have a concern about their standard of driving, and it then turns out that they're over the limit, then they should be automatically charged with dangerous driving, IMO!

Not to do so would tend to suggestthat drink driving is not dangerous.

But it might not be. Playing devils advocate - the drink drive limit is an arbitary level, and doesn't take into account the affect that the amount of alochol is having on the individual. So one person who is just under the limit might be more affected than someone else when they are just over the limit, so the law doesn't define the first driver as safe and the second one as dangerous.

Also, you can prosecute someone for drink driving having stopped them before they've done something dangerous.

It's very easy to prove drink driving. Much hard to prove dangerous driving.

I do totally agree that if dangerous driving can be proven then the person should be done or that instead of, or as well as, drunk driving!

[nonegreen]

If you ask me its all bks the gumming are bent and the justice system is a write off. We just dont need this much nannying.

[rhinochopig]

fadeaway said:

odyssey2200 said:

bonsai said:

rhinochopig said:

FNG said:

rhinochopig said:

But surely drink driving is at the very least equal to drunk driving????

Would you like to try again?

Oops.

Dangerous driving was what I meant. That'll teach me to try and multi-task.

If someone is tugged because the police have a concern about their standard of driving, and it then turns out that they're over the limit, then they should be automatically charged with dangerous driving, IMO!

Not to do so would tend to suggestthat drink driving is not dangerous.

But it might not be. Playing devils advocate - the drink drive limit is an arbitary level, and doesn't take into account the affect that the amount of alochol is having on the individual. So one person who is just under the limit might be more affected than someone else when they are just over the limit, so the law doesn't define the first driver as safe and the second one as dangerous.

Also, you can prosecute someone for drink driving having stopped them before they've done something dangerous.

It's very easy to prove drink driving. Much hard to prove dangerous driving.

I do totally agree that if dangerous driving can be proven then the person should be done or that instead of, or as well as, drunk driving!

The thing is, in this case, the Judge was done twice in a couple of weeks 3 times over the legal limit with a bottle of Vodka on the passenger seat. Without a doubt the risk of hitting another a car when this intoxicated is extremely high. Another case recently put someone away for 15 years because he hit and killed the occupants of another vehicle. Yet, this chap escapes a custodial sentence.

I just cannot see how someone on a bike speeding can be put away, when the pissed judge gets away with a ticking off. Even at that speed, a bike has so much less kinetic energy than a 1.5/2 tonne car doing 80mph, so the risk to the public posed by the biker has to be far less than than that posed by the judge. I just don't see how the legal system can expect to receive any respect from the general public when they continuously demonstrate such flawed and unfair justice.

[collateral]

Deserves to be banged up for owning a Signum imo

[JamesFR]

fadeaway said:

But it might not be. Playing devils advocate - the drink drive limit is an arbitary level, and doesn't take into account the affect that the amount of alochol is having on the individual. So one person who is just under the limit might be more affected than someone else when they are just over the limit, so the law doesn't define the first driver as safe and the second one as dangerous.

Also, you can prosecute someone for drink driving having stopped them before they've done something dangerous.

It's very easy to prove drink driving. Much hard to prove dangerous driving.

I do totally agree that if dangerous driving can be proven then the person should be done or that instead of, or as well as, drunk driving!

As it stands, it's very difficult to have someone charged with even Careless Driving as well as Drink/Drive. Think it's along the lines of "can't charge with both for the same thing, the Drink/Drive is an almost guaranteed conviction, however they've got more wiggle-room with Careless/Dangerous and you'd run the risk of them getting away with it totally.

[handpaper]

rhinochopig said:

Even at that speed, a bike has so much less kinetic energy than a 1.5/2 tonne car doing 80mph, []

The kinetic energies of a bike @ 160 mph and a car @ 80 mph are quite similar - KE is given by 1/2mv^2 (half the mass in Kg multiplied by the square of the velocity in m/s).

Working these out for a 280Kg bike+rider and a 1500Kg car+driver gives :

(280Kg/2)(71m/s)^2 = 705740J for the bike

and (1500Kg/2)(35m/s)^2 = 918750J for the car.

So yes, the car does have more KE, but only by about 25%.

Actually, I'd say the bike is the more dangerous of the two. Its mass is more concentrated and it will crumple much less in an impact.

[rypt]

handpaper said:

rhinochopig said:

Even at that speed, a bike has so much less kinetic energy than a 1.5/2 tonne car doing 80mph, []

The kinetic energies of a bike @ 160 mph and a car @ 80 mph are quite similar - KE is given by 1/2mv^2 (half the mass in Kg multiplied by the square of the velocity in m/s).

Working these out for a 280Kg bike+rider and a 1500Kg car+driver gives :

(280Kg/2)(71m/s)^2 = 705740J for the bike

and (1500Kg/2)(35m/s)^2 = 918750J for the car.

So yes, the car does have more KE, but only by about 25%.

Actually, I'd say the bike is the more dangerous of the two. Its mass is more concentrated and it will crumple much less in an impact.

The rider will be thrown from the bike on impact though, thus reducing the KE as well

[heebeegeetee]

FNG said:

Unfortunately those who are imprisoned "for speeding" were mistaken enough to admit to dangerous driving, rather than have the prosecution prove it.

That's because they are told, in effect, that it will be much worse for them if they don't plead guilty.

[Pat H]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what he did, or indeed how he was sentenced, he was rather a good Judge in his day.

It is very sad to see this happen.

[trivia]He is closely related to Harold Macmillan[/trivia]

[deeps]

Pat H said:

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what he did, or indeed how he was sentenced, he was rather a good Judge in his day.

It is very sad to see this happen.

[trivia]He is closely related to Harold Macmillan[/trivia]

"He was rather a good judge"... Are you sure? He sounds rather two faced to me to say the very least.

Your sentiments are no doubt similar to those who prescribed his sentence.

Once again the old sayings ring true, it's not what you know it's who you know.

There's no excuse at all for driving a vehicle when you're as pissed as a hand cart IMO. What a bloody fool he has been.