97 in a 70 - citation mentions dangerous!??
Discussion
Jim1556 said:
Like you've never violated the highway code? 
97mph on some A roads isn't dangerous, let alone a motorway/dual carriageway (conditions and car dependant)...
Always makes me laugh, that one. Some stretches of road around here have gone from NSL to 60, then 50, then 40 and some even 30. Do people really seriously believe that driving down that very same road at 'more than twice the speed limit' (30/70) is dangerous driving now, but it somehow wasn't for the half century millions of drivers did so quite legally day in, day out without incident? Was the whole country driving dangerously before the 70 limit was introduced? Barmy. I realise there's an argument for the expectations of other road users who are obeying the limit, but since we're talking about empty motorways and motorway-like A roads that doesn't really hold water.97mph on some A roads isn't dangerous, let alone a motorway/dual carriageway (conditions and car dependant)...
Recently I was reading a cracking book I managed to buy a first edition of, called Advanced and Performance Driving for You (Tom Wisdom, 1967). In one chapter he relates how he (a multiple world champion driver) was having a blast out in his Aston around Cambridge, before coming up behind some 'blithering idiot' dithering along at 95mph to his 130mph. How times change.
Good luck OP.
Edited by rainmakerraw on Friday 20th January 23:33
rainmakerraw said:
Always makes me laugh, that one. Some stretches of road around here have gone from NSL to 60, then 50, then 40 and some even 30. Do people really seriously believe that driving down that very same road at 'more than twice the speed limit' (30/70) is dangerous driving now, but it somehow wasn't for the half century millions of drivers did so quite legally day in, day out without incident? Was the whole country driving dangerously before the 70 limit was introduced? Barmy. I realise there's an argument for the expectations of other road users who are obeying the limit, but since we're talking about empty motorways and motorway-like A roads that doesn't really hold water.
Recently I was reading a cracking book I managed to buy a first edition of, called Advanced and Performance Driving for You (Tom Wisdom, 1967). In one chapter he relates how he (a multiple world champion driver) was having a blast out in his Aston around Cambridge, before coming up behind some 'blithering idiot' dithering along at 95mph to his 130mph. How times change.
Good luck OP.
With rubbish speed limits I find, if I stick to them, I just end up with idiots in my rear view mirror. I'd rather go a little over to be comfortable!Recently I was reading a cracking book I managed to buy a first edition of, called Advanced and Performance Driving for You (Tom Wisdom, 1967). In one chapter he relates how he (a multiple world champion driver) was having a blast out in his Aston around Cambridge, before coming up behind some 'blithering idiot' dithering along at 95mph to his 130mph. How times change.
Good luck OP.
Edited by rainmakerraw on Friday 20th January 23:33
OP- don't waste time in here. Go and speak to a specialist lawyer who understands motoring law in Scotland. If you're being 'charged' with Dangerous Driving, the minimum penalty in ordinary circumstances is a 12 month break from driving and an extended retest.
The courts in Scotland apply the law differently to those in England and Wales when considering speed and s2.
The courts in Scotland apply the law differently to those in England and Wales when considering speed and s2.
rainmakerraw said:
Always makes me laugh, that one. Some stretches of road around here have gone from NSL to 60, then 50, then 40 and some even 30. Do people really seriously believe that driving down that very same road at 'more than twice the speed limit' (30/70) is dangerous driving now, but it somehow wasn't for the half century millions of drivers did so quite legally day in, day out without incident? Was the whole country driving dangerously before the 70 limit was introduced? Barmy. I realise there's an argument for the expectations of other road users who are obeying the limit, but since we're talking about empty motorways and motorway-like A roads that doesn't really hold water.
Agree completely with that.Edited by rainmakerraw on Friday 20th January 23:33
What I can't understand is how we are letting them get away with it.
janesmith1950 said:
OP- don't waste time in here. Go and speak to a specialist lawyer who understands motoring law in Scotland. If you're being 'charged' with Dangerous Driving, the minimum penalty in ordinary circumstances is a 12 month break from driving and an extended retest.
The courts in Scotland apply the law differently to those in England and Wales when considering speed and s2.
Has nobody taken those responsible for categorizing excess speed offences of a certain level as dangerous to court yet to argue the validity of this action?The courts in Scotland apply the law differently to those in England and Wales when considering speed and s2.
If not, why not?
cmaguire said:
janesmith1950 said:
OP- don't waste time in here. Go and speak to a specialist lawyer who understands motoring law in Scotland. If you're being 'charged' with Dangerous Driving, the minimum penalty in ordinary circumstances is a 12 month break from driving and an extended retest.
The courts in Scotland apply the law differently to those in England and Wales when considering speed and s2.
Has nobody taken those responsible for categorizing excess speed offences of a certain level as dangerous to court yet to argue the validity of this action?The courts in Scotland apply the law differently to those in England and Wales when considering speed and s2.
If not, why not?
herewego said:
Presumably you can reply to both charges stating not guilty of dangerous driving due to the circumstances, single occurrence, no other traffic, clear dry conditions, etc. but guilty of exceeding the speed limit.
The Scottish interpretation appears to apply more weight on circumstances that potentially could develop (if such had been there), as opposed to hinging heavily on what the current circumstances were (what was there at the time).vonhosen said:
How do you propose they do that?
So they get to make the rules up as they go along and we just accept it?Sounds great.
The idea that what they are doing here is not open to legal scrutiny isn't credible.
If the inclination exists.
Get a decent lawyer to tell me there is no means to contest. And why.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
How do you propose they do that?
So they get to make the rules up as they go along and we just accept it?cmaguire said:
The idea that what they are doing here is not open to legal scrutiny isn't credible.
You're right, it isn't credible - because it isn't true.The charge is laid before a court, and decided by a member of the judiciary. If you disagree with the verdict, you can appeal it - all the way to the very highest level, if you so wish. In Scotland, it'd be laid by the Procurator Fiscal, and decided in a Sheriff's court, and you can take it all the way to the Scottish Supreme Courts. In England and Wales, it'd be by the Crown Prosecution Service, and decided by a magistrate, and you could take it all the way to the Supreme Court. How much more "legal scrutiny" would you like?
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
How do you propose they do that?
So they get to make the rules up as they go along and we just accept it?Sounds great.
The idea that what they are doing here is not open to legal scrutiny isn't credible.
If the inclination exists.
Get a decent lawyer to tell me there is no means to contest. And why.
vonhosen said:
herewego said:
Presumably you can reply to both charges stating not guilty of dangerous driving due to the circumstances, single occurrence, no other traffic, clear dry conditions, etc. but guilty of exceeding the speed limit.
The Scottish interpretation appears to apply more weight on circumstances that potentially could develop (if such had been there), as opposed to hinging heavily on what the current circumstances were (what was there at the time).cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
How do you propose they do that?
So they get to make the rules up as they go along and we just accept it?Sounds great.
The idea that what they are doing here is not open to legal scrutiny isn't credible.
If the inclination exists.
Get a decent lawyer to tell me there is no means to contest. And why.
The courts have interpreted the issue of speed in relation to Sec 2 RTA in that way in Scotland. If it's exhausted in the courts the way it can be changed is through the politicians.
Where the intention of politicians has been usurped by the interpretation of the courts, the politicians need to amend the current or introduce new legislation to make their intent clearer.
vonhosen said:
The elected politicians make the rules, the Police/CPS interpret & enforce them, then the Courts interpret & rule on them.
The courts have interpreted the issue of speed in relation to Sec 2 RTA in that way in Scotland. If it's exhausted in the courts the way it can be changed is through the politicians.
Where the intention of politicians has been usurped by the interpretation of the courts, the politicians need to amend the current or introduce new legislation to make their intent clearer.
How about keeping it simple, along with several others?The courts have interpreted the issue of speed in relation to Sec 2 RTA in that way in Scotland. If it's exhausted in the courts the way it can be changed is through the politicians.
Where the intention of politicians has been usurped by the interpretation of the courts, the politicians need to amend the current or introduce new legislation to make their intent clearer.
What I am asking is how exactly excess speed can be classed as dangerous driving based on speed alone?
And not be ridiculed for that. It's ludicrous.
Or explain what I am missing here, where there appears to be a difference in Scotland as opposed to anywhere else.
cmaguire said:
What I am asking is how exactly excess speed can be classed as dangerous driving based on speed alone?
Because they have. The legal definition is whether The law said:
(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.
...and the Scottish courts have a precedent for interpreting speeds way above the limit as being that.(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
cmaguire said:
It's ludicrous.
IYHO. Their HO differs. They are the judiciary of Scotland, you are not, so their HO is the one that counts. If you don't like it, then...
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/sheriff-a...
TooMany2cvs said:
cmaguire said:
What I am asking is how exactly excess speed can be classed as dangerous driving based on speed alone?
Because they have. The legal definition is whether The law said:
(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.
...and the Scottish courts have a precedent for interpreting speeds way above the limit as being that.(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
cmaguire said:
It's ludicrous.
IYHO. Their HO differs. They are the judiciary of Scotland, you are not, so their HO is the one that counts. If you don't like it, then...
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/the-courts/sheriff-a...
So why has no-one contested the idiocy of this in court? Should be a slam-dunk shouldn't it?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff