147mph on motorway

[vonhosen]

Red 4 said:

Von - Anyone causing death whilst travelling at 140 + MPH anywhere on UK roads would likely be charged with Death by Dangerous.

You're just struggling a bit because you've spent the last 13 pages saying 140 + MPH is not dangerous.

The guy was convicted of speeding.
If he'd caused a collision it would have been a different charge.
Simple.

I'm not struggling with this, you are.

He was only charged with speeding because 140 in the circumstances didn't support dangerous driving.
If he'd have had a collision then the circumstances would have had to have been materially different to those which led to the speeding charge.

ie
He didn't do anything to not demonstrably manage the reasonably foreseeable risks in doing 140 in those circumstances hence no dangerous driving.

If it had resulted in a collision (a different set of circumstances) he may well have demonstrated driving where he was not managing the reasonably foreseeable risks to an acceptable level, but we haven't seen that set of circs so we can't make a judgement on them & whether they amount to dangerous driving.

That would depend on the full individual circumstances & is not tied to a simple
no collision = not dangerous
OR
collision = dangerous assessment.

To illustrate the point.

Considerably over limit & no crash = dangerous driving.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527274/159mph-but...

Same driver considerably over the limit & crash = not dangerous driving.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-22...



Ergo proof that collisions don't dictate whether high speed is dangerous or not, the full circumstances do.

[Red 4]

vonhosen said:

He was only charged with speeding because 140 in the circumstances didn't support dangerous driving.
If he'd have had a collision then the circumstances would have had to have been materially different to those which led to the speeding charge.

Er. Yes. Obviously.

My point is that speed is often a determining factor in a Death by Dangerous charge, which seems to be lost on you.

Ergo the speed is then dangerous.

I understand the rest of your post.

There was no point in reeling all that off.

Thanks anyway. (smiley not working, don't know why, cba fixing it).

Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 23 January 17:26

[oyster]

cmaguire said:

And still cars in the middle lane that should not be.
Why do they feel the need for all the melodrama? 150 there is a piece of cake going by that video yet we're always told it is only by luck that armageddon was avoided

Your first sentence shows exactly why your 2nd sentence applies. And then makes you look immature with your 3rd sentence.

It's beyond belief that anyone can defend this driver. I guess maturity plays a part too.

[vonhosen]

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

He was only charged with speeding because 140 in the circumstances didn't support dangerous driving.
If he'd have had a collision then the circumstances would have had to have been materially different to those which led to the speeding charge.

Er. Yes. Obviously.

My point is that speed is often a determining factor in a Death by Dangerous charge.

Ergo the speed is then dangerous.

I understand the rest of your post.

There was no point in reeling all that off.

Thanks anyway. (smiley not working, don't know why, cba fixing it).

It's speed & circumstances relevant to whether they amount to dangerous, not just speed & outcome.
The circumstances leading to the outcome have to be considered & are a determining factor.

ie
Car speeding down road, plane crash lands on car & pilot is killed whilst the car driver survives.
Doesn't mean death by dangerous for car driver (if his driving otherwise wouldn't have amounted to dangerous prior to that crash).

[Red 4]

vonhosen said:

Speed & circumstances relevant to whether dangerous, not just speed & outcome.
The circumstances leading to the outcome have to be considered.

Yeah, but the circs were 147 MPH.

My earlier question was, if there was a collision, do you consider that speed dangerous ?

[vonhosen]

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

Speed & circumstances relevant to whether dangerous, not just speed & outcome.
The circumstances leading to the outcome have to be considered.

Yeah, but the circs were 147 MPH.

My earlier question was, if there was a collision, do you consider that speed dangerous ?

That depends on the circumstances & circumstances are more than just the speed.
The example above with the plane is equally valid for 100mph or 150mph.

[wc98]

good discussion by police/ex police here. certainly shows how the result of a tug can vary from one officer to another . i would like to think anyone hitting those speeds in daylight on a uk motorway has the ability to deal with everything that comes with that speed. like scrubbing off what looked to be a 60 mph plus speed differential with the mid lane hoggers.

i have my doubts about that given his lack of observation skills meant he did not appear to clock the unmarked car. personally in those circumstances i would not be going that fast in a car(never have been comfortable with big speeds in cars on anything other than empty roads, usually with someone more capable driving),no trouble on the bike though likely bigger penalty if caught.

[Red 4]

vonhosen said:

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

Speed & circumstances relevant to whether dangerous, not just speed & outcome.
The circumstances leading to the outcome have to be considered.

Yeah, but the circs were 147 MPH.

My earlier question was, if there was a collision, do you consider that speed dangerous ?

That depends on the circumstances & circumstances are more than just the speed.
The example above with the plane is equally valid for 100mph or 150mph.

Well, lets take this clip as an example.

Motorway. Weather conditions are good. Traffic is light.
Let's say a vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is overtaking a slower vehicle.
Moves from Lane 2 to Lane 3 in plenty of time.

Vehicle travelling at 147 MPH in Lane 3.
Cannot slow in time due to speed differential.

Ends up being a fatal.
Death by Dangerous in your opinion ?

wc98 - thanks for your earlier message.
It's appreciated.

[vonhosen]

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

Speed & circumstances relevant to whether dangerous, not just speed & outcome.
The circumstances leading to the outcome have to be considered.

Yeah, but the circs were 147 MPH.

My earlier question was, if there was a collision, do you consider that speed dangerous ?

That depends on the circumstances & circumstances are more than just the speed.
The example above with the plane is equally valid for 100mph or 150mph.

Well, lets take this clip as an example.

Motorway. Weather conditions are good. Traffic is light.
Let's say a vehicle travelling at 70 MPH is overtaking a slower vehicle.
Moves from Lane 2 to Lane 3 in plenty of time.

Vehicle travelling at 147 MPH in Lane 3.
Cannot slow in time due to speed differential.

Ends up being a fatal.
Death by Dangerous in your opinion ?

wc98 - thanks for your earlier message.
It's appreciated.

If it's reasonably foreseeable that the lane changer is likely to pull into his path & he hasn't mitigated that risk adequately in his approach then he potentially could be guilty of dangerous driving, whether that results in near miss, collision or fatality.
(The CPS would ideally like more than an isolated incident to go with dangerous rather than careless).
Which of those three is the outcome doesn't determine whether it's dangerous driving, the driving in relation to circumstances does.
The same would also be true if the approach speed was 100 rather than 147. It could still be dangerous driving where he hasn't mitigated the risks adequately.

It's not the number in isolation or the outcome.
It's the full circumstances considered.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 23 January 18:31

[vonhosen]

wc98 said:

good discussion by police/ex police here. certainly shows how the result of a tug can vary from one officer to another . i would like to think anyone hitting those speeds in daylight on a uk motorway has the ability to deal with everything that comes with that speed. like scrubbing off what looked to be a 60 mph plus speed differential with the mid lane hoggers.

i have my doubts about that given his lack of observation skills meant he did not appear to clock the unmarked car. personally in those circumstances i would not be going that fast in a car(never have been comfortable with big speeds in cars on anything other than empty roads, usually with someone more capable driving),no trouble on the bike though likely bigger penalty if caught.

He may have seen the car, we don't know he didn't.
He may have thought it was a fellow PHer.

[cmaguire]

oyster said:

cmaguire said:

And still cars in the middle lane that should not be.
Why do they feel the need for all the melodrama? 150 there is a piece of cake going by that video yet we're always told it is only by luck that armageddon was avoided

Your first sentence shows exactly why your 2nd sentence applies. And then makes you look immature with your 3rd sentence.

It's beyond belief that anyone can defend this driver. I guess maturity plays a part too.

It may be beyond belief in the world you inhabit but apparently there are people that don't suffer as you do.
The whole thing was a non-event, somebody broke the Law and was caught, end of story.
Whilst I would prefer an empty lane next to me if doing 155, the fact vehicles are there doesn't automatically mean they will behave like headless chickens.

And as to the people saying the fact that the driver of the Audi didn't see the unmarked car behind in some way indicates his lack of competence, I wonder how many of those have ever been near 150mph. He may well have seen the unmarked car, but ultimately the unmarked was another vehicle travelling quickly perhaps 500m+ behind and his attention was likely focussed in the direction he was travelling. Someone travelling at the speed of the Audi is only realistically going to slow down for a vehicle behind if they know or believe it to be (possibly) Police. Blue lights on earlier and I suspect he would have slowed down earlier.

[Red 4]

Thanks von - but that wasn't my question.

It ends up being a fatal.

It's a straightforward example - no fault on the part of any other drivers.
Speed is the main factor.
147 MPH.

Charge with Death by DD or something else ?

[anonymous-user]

It may or may not happen.

I think a strong example would be a police officer who is travelling at excess speed and ends up in a fatal collision may well not be charged with the driving standard offences (because the circumstances do not dictate) and the speeding exemption is present and being used correctly.

[cmaguire]

Red 4 said:

Thanks von - but that wasn't my question.

It ends up being a fatal.

It's a straightforward example - no fault on the part of any other drivers.
Speed is the main factor.
147 MPH.

Charge with Death by DD or something else ?

In your previous example there was fault on the part of the driver overtaking at 70mph that pulled into the path of the driver doing the 147mph.
If we assume this occurred on a straight section of road then I (no surprise to you I expect) I would place most of the blame on the overtaking driver for not looking properly before changing lane (I always look twice in fairly quick succession or once for a longer period when changing lanes in order to see if there is a vehicle behind but also to judge its speed).
The 147mph driver is obviously also culpable.

[Red 4]

cmaguire said:

In your previous example there was fault on the part of the driver overtaking at 70mph that pulled into the path of the driver doing the 147mph.
If we assume this occurred on a straight section of road then I (no surprise to you I expect) I would place most of the blame on the overtaking driver for not looking properly before changing lane (I always look twice in fairly quick succession or once for a longer period when changing lanes in order to see if there is a vehicle behind but also to judge its speed).
The 147mph driver is obviously also culpable.

Do you think it's reasonable for a driver travelling at 70 MPH, moving from L2 to L3 to overtake a slower vehicle, to anticipate a vehicle approaching at 147 MPH ?

[cmaguire]

Red 4 said:

Do you think it's reasonable for a driver travelling at 70 MPH, moving from L2 to L3 to overtake a slower vehicle, to anticipate a vehicle approaching at 147 MPH ?

I think it is reasonable for a driver changing lanes to make suitable checks to ensure it is safe to do so.
So although they are unlikely to anticipate there being a vehicle approaching at 147mph, they should make sure there isn't before they move.

[anonymous-user]

Red 4 said:

Thanks von - but that wasn't my question.

It ends up being a fatal.

It's a straightforward example - no fault on the part of any other drivers.
Speed is the main factor.
147 MPH.

Charge with Death by DD or something else ?

At the risk of sticking my unwelcome nose in... I think von answered your question perfectly clearly.

Go back to one of your earlier posts:

Red 4 said:

My point is that speed is often a determining factor in a Death by Dangerous charge, which seems to be lost on you.

Ergo the speed is then dangerous.

Leave aside for the time being an outcome - fatal or otherwise - and just focus on the speedster in L3.

It seems to me obvious that there is a difference between
(a) doing 147 whilst hammering past a procession of vehicles all doing 70-80;
(b) doing 147 in L3 whilst closing on a pair in L2, where the L2 leader is being caught rapidly by the L2 follower (and the L3 driver maintains his speed regardless);
(c) doing 147 in L3 as a driver in L2 decides to pull into L3 because there is a car in L2 half a mile up the road on which he is marginally closing, but he likes to get out in the overtaking lane nice and early; and
(d) doing 147 in L3 with nothing in sight in L1 or L2.

The driver in L3 in each situation is doing the same thing. But whether that is dangerous driving legally may very well depend on what is around him, and the answer to question "is this dangerous driving legally?" may vary in those four examples, despite the fact that the L3 driver is doing the same speed in each (or, for that matter, any speed faster than the vehicles to his left).

If you overlay a fatality onto (a), (b) or (c), you don't leapfrog the question of whether the driving was dangerous in the first place by looking at the consequences (at least, AIUI); you move onto the question of whether the dangerous driving was the cause of the death.

[vonhosen]

Red 4 said:

Thanks von - but that wasn't my question.

It ends up being a fatal.

It's a straightforward example - no fault on the part of any other drivers.
Speed is the main factor.
147 MPH.

Charge with Death by DD or something else ?

Speed is a factor, but only relative to circumstances.
Whatever the speed was would be a factor relative to the circumstances (even speeds within the speed limit).

I'm saying all other things being equal the decision as to whether it amounts to dangerous driving isn't dependent on whether it is a near miss/collision/fatality.

ie
If it amounted to death by dangerous driving in your case.
It would have amounted to dangerous driving without a collision in your case.

The actions or inaction in the circumstances determines whether it's dangerous not the outcome.

[vsonix]

Red 4 said:

cmaguire said:

In your previous example there was fault on the part of the driver overtaking at 70mph that pulled into the path of the driver doing the 147mph.
If we assume this occurred on a straight section of road then I (no surprise to you I expect) I would place most of the blame on the overtaking driver for not looking properly before changing lane (I always look twice in fairly quick succession or once for a longer period when changing lanes in order to see if there is a vehicle behind but also to judge its speed).
The 147mph driver is obviously also culpable.

Do you think it's reasonable for a driver travelling at 70 MPH, moving from L2 to L3 to overtake a slower vehicle, to anticipate a vehicle approaching at 147 MPH ?

Absolutely. Could be emergency services, could be a cortege of diplomats being rushed from A to B or could just be an angry rep in an Audi in a hurry to get home to wifey. Not checking, double checking then a shoulder check for good measure before you pull out to overtake is how serious accidents happen.

[vonhosen]

Greg66 said:

Red 4 said:

Thanks von - but that wasn't my question.

It ends up being a fatal.

It's a straightforward example - no fault on the part of any other drivers.
Speed is the main factor.
147 MPH.

Charge with Death by DD or something else ?

At the risk of sticking my unwelcome nose in... I think von answered your question perfectly clearly.

Go back to one of your earlier posts:

Red 4 said:

My point is that speed is often a determining factor in a Death by Dangerous charge, which seems to be lost on you.

Ergo the speed is then dangerous.

Leave aside for the time being an outcome - fatal or otherwise - and just focus on the speedster in L3.

It seems to me obvious that there is a difference between
(a) doing 147 whilst hammering past a procession of vehicles all doing 70-80;
(b) doing 147 in L3 whilst closing on a pair in L2, where the L2 leader is being caught rapidly by the L2 follower (and the L3 driver maintains his speed regardless);
(c) doing 147 in L3 as a driver in L2 decides to pull into L3 because there is a car in L2 half a mile up the road on which he is marginally closing, but he likes to get out in the overtaking lane nice and early; and
(d) doing 147 in L3 with nothing in sight in L1 or L2.

The driver in L3 in each situation is doing the same thing. But whether that is dangerous driving legally may very well depend on what is around him, and the answer to question "is this dangerous driving legally?" may vary in those four examples, despite the fact that the L3 driver is doing the same speed in each (or, for that matter, any speed faster than the vehicles to his left).

If you overlay a fatality onto (a), (b) or (c), you don't leapfrog the question of whether the driving was dangerous in the first place by looking at the consequences (at least, AIUI); you move onto the question of whether the dangerous driving was the cause of the death.

The driving doesn't even have to be the sole, principal or even a substantial cause of the death. It does need to be more than a trifling link.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic...