97 in a 70 - citation mentions dangerous!??
Discussion
cmaguire said:
I rarely agree with your views although I usually accept that you represent a viewpoint that may be validly held by others contrary to my own.
However, occasionally you come out with something so daft I have to wonder where it came from. This is one of those occasions.
Not unlike the time 30 odd years ago when two coppers pulled me for riding from a 60 into a 30 at 50 or so off the throttle towards a village and one of them asked "What might happen if your front wheel came off?"
How exactly do the actions of an otherwise unseen deer or rabbit factor in the decisions of a driver as regards where and when they might result in a dangerous driving charge?
Would a fox, cat or Fido take the role of the deer in an urban environment?
Unfortunately I think Roads Policing I mean whats left of those in some forces are left having justify war on motorist. I fully appreciate that they are the ones that have to pick up the pieces when it all goes wrong and people are fatally killed whilst driving. This is not a pleasant job and so they must get frustrated by people who drive very dangerously. However, occasionally you come out with something so daft I have to wonder where it came from. This is one of those occasions.
Not unlike the time 30 odd years ago when two coppers pulled me for riding from a 60 into a 30 at 50 or so off the throttle towards a village and one of them asked "What might happen if your front wheel came off?"
How exactly do the actions of an otherwise unseen deer or rabbit factor in the decisions of a driver as regards where and when they might result in a dangerous driving charge?
Would a fox, cat or Fido take the role of the deer in an urban environment?
However I have heard some right utter turd uttered about 84 and 89 in 70 being some sort of act a shear lunacy. The 89 on a fine day on the M5 I was told I was a terrible father for such risky driving and they if I had, had a blow out I would of certainly left the motorway and hit a tree. A tree is a very solid object (not that I could see many around jct 27 of m5) and that my children would of been killed.
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).Do f
k off. 
Short update: court dates.
Intermediate diet: June
Trial diet: July
Odd flight times and days in court means 5 days of annual leave down the tubes. (I know, boohoo etc etc)
Brief plead not guilty on my behalf, waiting for evidence to come through before anything else is said.
I'll keep the thread updated, however vaguely - until it's all said and done, may be of use to someone.
Intermediate diet: June
Trial diet: July
Odd flight times and days in court means 5 days of annual leave down the tubes. (I know, boohoo etc etc)
Brief plead not guilty on my behalf, waiting for evidence to come through before anything else is said.
I'll keep the thread updated, however vaguely - until it's all said and done, may be of use to someone.
This seems a bit strange - I've heard of very high speeds being prosecuted as dangerous driving in Scotland before but thought the bar was generally set well above 100 mph.
I got caught during a rather enthusiastic overtake on a single carriageway A-road not too far from Inverness at 92 a couple of years back. Even though I was overtaking 4 campervans at once and driving an old diesel Land Cruiser the police at the scene seemed fairly relaxed about it. Had to go to the court in Dingwall and after contritely apologising for wasting the courts valuable time etc. the judge handed out a £200 fine and 4 points. He seemed relieved to have to deal with someone who was properly dressed for court and didn't swear at him!
I got caught during a rather enthusiastic overtake on a single carriageway A-road not too far from Inverness at 92 a couple of years back. Even though I was overtaking 4 campervans at once and driving an old diesel Land Cruiser the police at the scene seemed fairly relaxed about it. Had to go to the court in Dingwall and after contritely apologising for wasting the courts valuable time etc. the judge handed out a £200 fine and 4 points. He seemed relieved to have to deal with someone who was properly dressed for court and didn't swear at him!
vonhosen said:
It's not speed on it's own, it's that speed (relative to a legal speed) with what else could happen (i.e. if a deer ran out in front of you & what happened/consequences of any collision because of the higher speed when you tried to avoid such a deer)
As I said, in Scotland they appear to give a little more weight to what potentially could happen than the English courts, in that even if there is no evidence presented of a deer being actually being present at the material time, they accept that that the potential exists that there could have been one & that could have run out & due to your higher illegal speed it would potentially have resulted in injury &/or serious damage (more so than a legal speed).
Rather ironic that in Scotland you can get jail time for speed alone (as per a very recent case) with no crash. But you can crash and kill someone through careless driving and get a fine and points or a fine and ban. That is messed up. As I said, in Scotland they appear to give a little more weight to what potentially could happen than the English courts, in that even if there is no evidence presented of a deer being actually being present at the material time, they accept that that the potential exists that there could have been one & that could have run out & due to your higher illegal speed it would potentially have resulted in injury &/or serious damage (more so than a legal speed).
creampuff said:
vonhosen said:
It's not speed on it's own, it's that speed (relative to a legal speed) with what else could happen (i.e. if a deer ran out in front of you & what happened/consequences of any collision because of the higher speed when you tried to avoid such a deer)
As I said, in Scotland they appear to give a little more weight to what potentially could happen than the English courts, in that even if there is no evidence presented of a deer being actually being present at the material time, they accept that that the potential exists that there could have been one & that could have run out & due to your higher illegal speed it would potentially have resulted in injury &/or serious damage (more so than a legal speed).
Rather ironic that in Scotland you can get jail time for speed alone (as per a very recent case) with no crash. But you can crash and kill someone through careless driving and get a fine and points or a fine and ban. That is messed up. As I said, in Scotland they appear to give a little more weight to what potentially could happen than the English courts, in that even if there is no evidence presented of a deer being actually being present at the material time, they accept that that the potential exists that there could have been one & that could have run out & due to your higher illegal speed it would potentially have resulted in injury &/or serious damage (more so than a legal speed).
Where you look at criminal acts it's the actions that matter principally, the outcome is an aggravating factor, but the offence stems from & relates to the actions.
If you do no wrong but somebody dies because you hit them that doesn't alter the fact that you aren't guilty.
Where you do wrong & nobody dies because you didn't hit somebody, then your actions were still wrong.
Should you have done wrong & somebody dies then the death is an aggravating factor to the wrong doing (unless it's a point to prove in the offence, because some offences exist in both forms - i.e. careless driving & death by careless driving).
snowandrocks said:
This seems a bit strange - I've heard of very high speeds being prosecuted as dangerous driving in Scotland before but thought the bar was generally set well above 100 mph.
I got caught during a rather enthusiastic overtake on a single carriageway A-road not too far from Inverness at 92 a couple of years back. Even though I was overtaking 4 campervans at once and driving an old diesel Land Cruiser the police at the scene seemed fairly relaxed about it. Had to go to the court in Dingwall and after contritely apologising for wasting the courts valuable time etc. the judge handed out a £200 fine and 4 points. He seemed relieved to have to deal with someone who was properly dressed for court and didn't swear at him!
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2013/34.htmlI got caught during a rather enthusiastic overtake on a single carriageway A-road not too far from Inverness at 92 a couple of years back. Even though I was overtaking 4 campervans at once and driving an old diesel Land Cruiser the police at the scene seemed fairly relaxed about it. Had to go to the court in Dingwall and after contritely apologising for wasting the courts valuable time etc. the judge handed out a £200 fine and 4 points. He seemed relieved to have to deal with someone who was properly dressed for court and didn't swear at him!
vonhosen said:
No it's not.
Where you look at criminal acts it's the actions that matter principally, the outcome is an aggravating factor, but the offence stems from & relates to the actions.
If you do no wrong but somebody dies because you hit them that doesn't alter the fact that you aren't guilty.
Where you do wrong & nobody dies because you didn't hit somebody, then your actions were still wrong.
Should you have done wrong & somebody dies then the death is an aggravating factor to the wrong doing (unless it's a point to prove in the offence, because some offences exist in both forms - i.e. careless driving & death by careless driving).
However the 'wrong' is Scottish law is interpreting someone in full control of their vehicle, on an open road, in good conditions but 30mph over the NSL as dangerous. This apparently falls well below the standard. But generally driving like a clueless chump, not really making enough observations which results in failing to observe a hazard or just losing concentration and killing someone is worse, in the eyes of Scottish courts. Where you look at criminal acts it's the actions that matter principally, the outcome is an aggravating factor, but the offence stems from & relates to the actions.
If you do no wrong but somebody dies because you hit them that doesn't alter the fact that you aren't guilty.
Where you do wrong & nobody dies because you didn't hit somebody, then your actions were still wrong.
Should you have done wrong & somebody dies then the death is an aggravating factor to the wrong doing (unless it's a point to prove in the offence, because some offences exist in both forms - i.e. careless driving & death by careless driving).
creampuff said:
vonhosen said:
No it's not.
Where you look at criminal acts it's the actions that matter principally, the outcome is an aggravating factor, but the offence stems from & relates to the actions.
If you do no wrong but somebody dies because you hit them that doesn't alter the fact that you aren't guilty.
Where you do wrong & nobody dies because you didn't hit somebody, then your actions were still wrong.
Should you have done wrong & somebody dies then the death is an aggravating factor to the wrong doing (unless it's a point to prove in the offence, because some offences exist in both forms - i.e. careless driving & death by careless driving).
However the 'wrong' is Scottish law is interpreting someone in full control of their vehicle, on an open road, in good conditions but 30mph over the NSL as dangerous. This apparently falls well below the standard. But generally driving like a clueless chump, not really making enough observations which results in failing to observe a hazard or just losing concentration and killing someone is worse, in the eyes of Scottish courts. Where you look at criminal acts it's the actions that matter principally, the outcome is an aggravating factor, but the offence stems from & relates to the actions.
If you do no wrong but somebody dies because you hit them that doesn't alter the fact that you aren't guilty.
Where you do wrong & nobody dies because you didn't hit somebody, then your actions were still wrong.
Should you have done wrong & somebody dies then the death is an aggravating factor to the wrong doing (unless it's a point to prove in the offence, because some offences exist in both forms - i.e. careless driving & death by careless driving).
I've already said elsewhere I don't share the Scottish court's interpretation of 'dangerous' within the definition of dangerous driving, I find it too specious. That however won't concern them or change it, but it will shape my behavioural choices when driving in Scotland.
leighz said:
Even in scotland I refuse to believe someone could be convicted of dangerous driving doing 97 in a 70 unless there were other factors, junctions, poor road conditions/visibility, naughty under/overtaking whatever involved.
Refusing to believe in gravity won't let you flap your arms and fly like a bird. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff