147mph on motorway
Discussion
HantsRat said:
This thread is ridiculous now. Can someone just start a new thread to debate dangerous driving?
This is about someone doing 147 and getting convicted of SPEEDING.
I'm not sure I understand your point.This is about someone doing 147 and getting convicted of SPEEDING.
Do you think this conviction was correct or should the conviction have been for something else in your opinion ?
Vonhosen - I understand what you are saying.
The way the law is applied in reality is something else.
Can you provide an example of someone not being charged with (or convicted of) Causing Death by Dangerous Driving if they killed someone whilst travelling in excess of 146 MPH ?
Lucky for him he wasn’t in Australia.
Speed dangerous is a category that probably would have applied to him.
Speed dangerous is a category that probably would have applied to him.
a web summary said:
“The offence of driving in a manner or speed dangerous is a criminal offence and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment. There is also an automatic disqualification from driving of 3 years.
The question as to whether someone was driving in a manner dangerous focuses on the potential danger, rather than whether the actual danger was realised or not. R v Hain (1966) 85 WN (Pt 1) (NSW). This means that there is no need for the prosecution to show actual injury or harm. The way in which the driving was conducted, if it caused the potential of danger to the public, is sufficient.
PENALTIES
The maximum penalty is a fine of $2,200 and /or imprisonment for 9 months.
If the offence is a second or subsequent offence, the maximum penalties increase to a fine of $3,300 and / or imprisonment for 12 months.”
Sounds reasonable but a potential can of worms on the definition of “dangerous” given the level of disagreement we experience in many situations on here on the spectrum between saints and sinners.The question as to whether someone was driving in a manner dangerous focuses on the potential danger, rather than whether the actual danger was realised or not. R v Hain (1966) 85 WN (Pt 1) (NSW). This means that there is no need for the prosecution to show actual injury or harm. The way in which the driving was conducted, if it caused the potential of danger to the public, is sufficient.
PENALTIES
The maximum penalty is a fine of $2,200 and /or imprisonment for 9 months.
If the offence is a second or subsequent offence, the maximum penalties increase to a fine of $3,300 and / or imprisonment for 12 months.”
cmaguire said:
There is just no excuse for not looking properly though, at any speed.
As somebody else has pointed out, a closing speed of 120mph can easily exist on a single carriageway road with traffic travelling in opposite directions, and therefore overtaking in those circumstances requires appropriate observation.
Or, the A1 springs to mind, dual carriageway 70s where side junctions exist and stationary vehicles look to enter a road with vehicles moving in excess of 70mph.
The speed differential argument is a distraction unless Malcolm Campbell is involved.
I’m sitting with some traffic cops right now and discussed your point, such as it is.As somebody else has pointed out, a closing speed of 120mph can easily exist on a single carriageway road with traffic travelling in opposite directions, and therefore overtaking in those circumstances requires appropriate observation.
Or, the A1 springs to mind, dual carriageway 70s where side junctions exist and stationary vehicles look to enter a road with vehicles moving in excess of 70mph.
The speed differential argument is a distraction unless Malcolm Campbell is involved.
They all say you are a complete cock and I agree with their esteemed opinion.
Red 4 said:
HantsRat said:
This thread is ridiculous now. Can someone just start a new thread to debate dangerous driving?
This is about someone doing 147 and getting convicted of SPEEDING.
I'm not sure I understand your point.This is about someone doing 147 and getting convicted of SPEEDING.
Do you think this conviction was correct or should the conviction have been for something else in your opinion ?
Vonhosen - I understand what you are saying.
The way the law is applied in reality is something else.
Can you provide an example of someone not being charged with (or convicted of) Causing Death by Dangerous Driving if they killed someone whilst travelling in excess of 146 MPH ?
No, you'll have to show me somebody who killed somebody in a collision whilst they were doing speeds in excess of 146mph, where 146mph was safe for the conditions/circumstances at the time (that is they could deal with all that could reasonably be expected to happen in the circumstances), yet they were still charged with death by dangerous.
You'll have to show me evidence of this inconsistency that you assert.
We have to look at the legal principles.
The rules & guidance that are set for the court when considering dangerous driving without collision/death have to be the same for the dangerous driving element where there is a collision/death. The dangerous driving element considerations have to remain consistent across the board.
I've already shown you the same driver in 2 different cases, both far in excess of the limit, one resulting in a collision whilst the other not & the collision having no relative negative effect on the offence outcome. It was the speed relative to what could be reasonably expected that did influence things. Hence collision case went aquittal & the no collision case went guilty.
The simple issue is one of does high speed in itself, over and about the speed limit automatically mean dangerous.
Personally I would say not, speed in itself is not likely to cause problems unless other factors actually come into play.
Then we are into a double helping of whataboutery and whatifery.
A simple case of speeding and no other factors such as tailgating, a near miss, weaving about, or the like then no danger is involved.
However in this day an age society in general and the authorities equates to speed, in itself, to danger.
The Speed kills mantra has been chanted long and loud enough for it to have been accepted.
Wingo.
Personally I would say not, speed in itself is not likely to cause problems unless other factors actually come into play.
Then we are into a double helping of whataboutery and whatifery.
A simple case of speeding and no other factors such as tailgating, a near miss, weaving about, or the like then no danger is involved.
However in this day an age society in general and the authorities equates to speed, in itself, to danger.
The Speed kills mantra has been chanted long and loud enough for it to have been accepted.
Wingo.
Wingo said:
The simple issue is one of does high speed in itself, over and about the speed limit automatically mean dangerous.
Personally I would say not, speed in itself is not likely to cause problems unless other factors actually come into play.
Then we are into a double helping of whataboutery and whatifery.
A simple case of speeding and no other factors such as tailgating, a near miss, weaving about, or the like then no danger is involved.
However in this day an age society in general and the authorities equates to speed, in itself, to danger.
The Speed kills mantra has been chanted long and loud enough for it to have been accepted.
Wingo.
Yet the evidence suggest not, the courts do not make a simplistic link between higher speeds and danger, they look at the full circumstances.Personally I would say not, speed in itself is not likely to cause problems unless other factors actually come into play.
Then we are into a double helping of whataboutery and whatifery.
A simple case of speeding and no other factors such as tailgating, a near miss, weaving about, or the like then no danger is involved.
However in this day an age society in general and the authorities equates to speed, in itself, to danger.
The Speed kills mantra has been chanted long and loud enough for it to have been accepted.
Wingo.
The driver in the OP doing 147mph on a motorway with other vehicles around was not convicted of dangerous driving (there is nothing to suggest he was even charged).
The young lad driving his dad's Porsche at 150mph on a single carriageway road without insurance was not convicted of dangerous driving (after being charged with dangerous driving. (I provided link earlier).
The Police officer doing 108mph in a 40mph who crashed into an island was not convicted of dangerous driving (link provided earlier).
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 24th January 14:11
cmaguire said:
So what kind of person does change lanes without looking properly?
We're always being told that a car is like a loaded gun. They would be revoking certificates hand over fist if gun owners had the same sloppy attitude as so many drivers do.
The absolute cocksocket in a small BMW who just bimbled* out of a garage on the A303 yesterday asi was closing at 70mph, with a car on my offiside in overtaking position.We're always being told that a car is like a loaded gun. They would be revoking certificates hand over fist if gun owners had the same sloppy attitude as so many drivers do.
- was on theslip road with,if they had looked in the rvm,, a good view of me and the other chap coming down on them..slow and drop in behind??? Nooooooo just straight f
king out. Having had my fill of these tts i was ready for them
Gave him a thumbs up out of the window and as he zipped past he pointed back shaking his head
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
You want me to prove a negative?
No.
Because you can't.No.
You are talking b
ks in your massively long posts with no clue about what happens on the ground.You have to prove the positive assertion.
If what you are saying happens on the ground, show us then.
Show us safe high speeds for the circumstances resulting in a collision/death & that resulting in a death by dangerous driving charge/conviction.
You won't because you can't, they don't exist.
Whilst I've already shown you examples that show your 'high speed collision automatically equals dangerous driving theorem', as frankly complete bunkum.
I've also shown you a theoretical example of a high speed collision/death that is never going to see the driver convicted of death by dangerous, that you repeatedly conveniently (for you) ignore.
@ vonhosen,
Loads.
Use google. The circs are often less potentially serious than this guy.
A fatality changes a prosecutor's willingness to listen/ the effort put into gathering and securing evidence/ a court's perception of the offence, etc. etc.
You sitting there spouting chapter and verse doesn't alter what actually happens in the world outside of a classroom/ driving school.
Reality. Real life. Not sanitised. Or dissected from behind a keyboard.
Loads.
Use google. The circs are often less potentially serious than this guy.
A fatality changes a prosecutor's willingness to listen/ the effort put into gathering and securing evidence/ a court's perception of the offence, etc. etc.
You sitting there spouting chapter and verse doesn't alter what actually happens in the world outside of a classroom/ driving school.
Reality. Real life. Not sanitised. Or dissected from behind a keyboard.
Red 4 said:
@ vonhosen,
Loads.
Use google. The circs are often less potentially serious than this guy.
A fatality changes a prosecutor's willingness to listen/ the effort put into gathering and securing evidence/ a court's perception of the offence, etc. etc.
You sitting there spouting chapter and verse doesn't alter what actually happens in the world outside of a classroom/ driving school.
Reality. Real life. Not sanitised. Or dissected from behind a keyboard.
The court have to keep to the outlined test for dangerous driving or it's open to appeal.Loads.
Use google. The circs are often less potentially serious than this guy.
A fatality changes a prosecutor's willingness to listen/ the effort put into gathering and securing evidence/ a court's perception of the offence, etc. etc.
You sitting there spouting chapter and verse doesn't alter what actually happens in the world outside of a classroom/ driving school.
Reality. Real life. Not sanitised. Or dissected from behind a keyboard.
Provide a link to one that you are asserting shows what I asked for.
Using high speeds, where the court consider the speed is safe for the conditions, ie where he can deal with everything that can be reasonably expected to happen, yet it still results in a collision, someone dies as a result & he is convicted of death by dangerous driving.
I can't find any on google satisfying that.
Just one link from the real world, real life, where that applies. If you've got them (as there are loads according to you) let's have a look at them please.
I've given you real life real world examples with links which have shown
High speed, no collision, driving dangerous for circumstances = conviction.
High speed, collision, driving not dangerous for circumstances = aquittal.
vonhosen said:
Yet the evidence suggest not, the courts do not make a simplistic link between higher speeds and danger, they look at the full circumstances.
The driver in the OP doing 147mph on a motorway with other vehicles around was not convicted of dangerous driving (there is nothing to suggest he was even charged).
The young lad driving his dad's Porsche at 150mph on a single carriageway road without insurance was not convicted of dangerous driving (after being charged with dangerous driving. (I provided link earlier).
The Police officer doing 108mph in a 40mph who crashed into an island was not convicted of dangerous driving (link provided earlier).
This suggests that courts do make the link between speed and dangerous driving, No mention of other factors, except maybe use of phone, non hands free while driving. The driver in the OP doing 147mph on a motorway with other vehicles around was not convicted of dangerous driving (there is nothing to suggest he was even charged).
The young lad driving his dad's Porsche at 150mph on a single carriageway road without insurance was not convicted of dangerous driving (after being charged with dangerous driving. (I provided link earlier).
The Police officer doing 108mph in a 40mph who crashed into an island was not convicted of dangerous driving (link provided earlier).
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 24th January 14:11
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonsh...
There was talk years ago of a new offence of "excessive speeding" maybe with harsher penalties but not sure if that has been progressed.
This is an interesting link
http://www.roadlawbarristers.co.uk/2015/11/serious...
Wingo.
Edited by Wingo on Wednesday 24th January 15:15
Wingo said:
vonhosen said:
Yet the evidence suggest not, the courts do not make a simplistic link between higher speeds and danger, they look at the full circumstances.
The driver in the OP doing 147mph on a motorway with other vehicles around was not convicted of dangerous driving (there is nothing to suggest he was even charged).
The young lad driving his dad's Porsche at 150mph on a single carriageway road without insurance was not convicted of dangerous driving (after being charged with dangerous driving. (I provided link earlier).
The Police officer doing 108mph in a 40mph who crashed into an island was not convicted of dangerous driving (link provided earlier).
This suggests that courts do make the link between speed and dangerous driving, No mention of other factors, except maybe use of phone, non hands free while driving. The driver in the OP doing 147mph on a motorway with other vehicles around was not convicted of dangerous driving (there is nothing to suggest he was even charged).
The young lad driving his dad's Porsche at 150mph on a single carriageway road without insurance was not convicted of dangerous driving (after being charged with dangerous driving. (I provided link earlier).
The Police officer doing 108mph in a 40mph who crashed into an island was not convicted of dangerous driving (link provided earlier).
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 24th January 14:11
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonsh...
There was talk years ago of a new offence of "excessive speeding" maybe with harsher penalties but not sure if that has been progressed.
article said:
........no regard for the safety of other motorists, pedestrians or himself
Clearly not driving for the conditions/circumstances.It is possible to attain high speeds & show regard for other motorists, pedestrians etc.
ie altering the speed when necessary & you encounter them so that you can deal with what they can be reasonably expected to do in the circumstances before returning to the higher speeds. How much speed needs to be lost in order to do that will vary on the circumstances.
He clearly can't have as reported.
It's not altering the speed relative to the circumstances that results in dangerous driving rather than just top speeds attained.
Using high speed relative to the circumstances (& altering as required) doesn't result in dangerous driving charges (as evidenced by the links I provided & the countless emergency response drives that happen on a daily basis).
The second link seems to chime with what VH has been saying. Red 4 may be right in that a DD charge might be brought, but it is a court that decides on whether any particular instance is deemed dangerous. AFAIK in the UK each case is decided on its specific facts: unlike many other jurisdictions, we don't have a codified system.
vonhosen said:
Clearly not driving for the conditions/circumstances.
It is possible to attain high speeds & show regard for other motorists, pedestrians etc.
ie altering the speed when necessary & you encounter them so that you can deal with what they can be reasonably expected to do in the circumstances before returning to the higher speeds. How much speed needs to be lost in order to do that will vary on the circumstances.
He clearly can't have as reported.
It's not altering the speed relative to the circumstances that results in dangerous driving rather than just top speeds attained.
Using high speed relative to the circumstances (& altering as required) doesn't result in dangerous driving charges (as evidenced by the links I provided & the countless emergency response drives that happen on a daily basis).
9 out 10 times you find Audi RS/S models are piloted by the worst drivers.It is possible to attain high speeds & show regard for other motorists, pedestrians etc.
ie altering the speed when necessary & you encounter them so that you can deal with what they can be reasonably expected to do in the circumstances before returning to the higher speeds. How much speed needs to be lost in order to do that will vary on the circumstances.
He clearly can't have as reported.
It's not altering the speed relative to the circumstances that results in dangerous driving rather than just top speeds attained.
Using high speed relative to the circumstances (& altering as required) doesn't result in dangerous driving charges (as evidenced by the links I provided & the countless emergency response drives that happen on a daily basis).
surveyor_101 said:
9 out 10 times you find Audi RS/S models are piloted by the worst drivers.
I would say it is Hondas, 4x4s and people carriers that usually provide the most erratic/unpredictable results, followed by all super-mini style vehicles.I don't and never have had an Audi/BMW
cmaguire said:
I would say it is Hondas, 4x4s and people carriers that usually provide the most erratic/unpredictable results, followed by all super-mini style vehicles.
I don't and never have had an Audi/BMW
I would agree like minor things, don't normally get people doing high speed crazy things in any of your aforementioned cars.I don't and never have had an Audi/BMW
I have to say spend some time in a people carrier and you would see the other side that some people change their behaviour when they are confronted with a people carrier. Amount of times I have overtaking people who are driving slower than the traffic or speed limit and they decide that they aren't being passed by a people carrier. Why I am ditching the zafira we have despite the fact that for moving 4 kids or must loads its pretty cheap hobby!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff