Guy jailed for 102mph on the motorway

[Graveworm]

ging84 said:

I think the opposite , someone sets a maximum penalty for a particular crime, that should be the maximum penalty someone should ever be able to receive for that crime.
If the people do not support the maximum sentence for speeding to include jail, then it should happen.
I don't think they should be passing a law that allows speed alone to be considered a different crime to speeding, but atleast if they pass a law it has been through government so has had the support of the people.
The situation in Scotland is that this situation has been slipped in by the back door, you won't find any international news articles reporting the proposal, because there wasn't one, it was cooked up by a bunch of unelected people and rolled out with no public awareness what so ever.

They are a sovereign nation so can do what they want. However, from what has been said it also effects a UK licence and the Scottish mess already does.
Some drivers in the UK and Ireland can legally drive far in excess of those speeds. In terms of Dangerous, as it stands, they are held to the same standards so I struggle to see how too fast is automatically dangerous. Not to mention elsewhere in Europe and the British Isles again people travel legally and in relative safety far in excess of those speeds. In the latter case on roads that are inherently less safe than motorways.

[Black_S3]

ging84 said:

I think the opposite , someone sets a maximum penalty for a particular crime, that should be the maximum penalty someone should ever be able to receive for that crime.
If the people do not support the maximum sentence for speeding to include jail, then it should happen.
I don't think they should be passing a law that allows speed alone to be considered a different crime to speeding, but atleast if they pass a law it has been through government so has had the support of the people.
The situation in Scotland is that this situation has been slipped in by the back door, you won't find any international news articles reporting the proposal, because there wasn't one, it was cooked up by a bunch of unelected people and rolled out with no public awareness what so ever.

I get your point and agree in many ways however I’m sure everyone would agree that there is a point where grossly excessive speed becomes dangerous but people will disagree on where that point is and where the line is drawn. However clarifying Police guidelines so that x amount over posted limit amounts to an automatic dangerous driving charge is potentially perfectly reasonable and dare I say it if the chosen speed is a guideline from the top of the police force every court will accept it is the view of someone careful and competent so will uphold it.

[Black_S3]

Graveworm said:

I struggle to see how too fast is automatically dangerous.

A fairly extreme scenario but on a dry, straight and empty 30mph public road would 200mph be dangerous? There is a point it’s automatically dangerous just difficult to get agreement on where that point is.

My opinion is anything over 50mph above the posted limit and you shouldn’t be too surprised if someone else thinks it’s dangerous.

[Exige77]

WJNB said:

3 children & the sole driver in the household - what a wonderful & responsible example he is setting, a REAL role model.

Is this PH ? Or did I stumble on another site by mistake

[Graveworm]

Black_S3 said:

A fairly extreme scenario but on a dry, straight and empty 30mph public road would 200mph be dangerous? There is a point it’s automatically dangerous just difficult to get agreement on where that point is.

My opinion is anything over 50mph above the posted limit and you shouldn’t be too surprised if someone else thinks it’s dangerous.

Yet I and thousands of others have done this many times lawfully and in relative safety (I am of course referring to the +50mph not the 200mph)

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 20th January 10:34

[Black_S3]

Graveworm said:

Yet I and thousands of others have done this many times lawfully and in relative safety (I am of course referring to the +50mph not the 200mph)

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 20th January 10:34

What’s the context you have lawfully exceeded the posted limit by 50mph? Trained with blue lights and siren? Not really the same as average Joe...

[Graveworm]

Black_S3 said:

What’s the context you have lawfully exceeded the posted limit by 50mph? Trained with blue lights and siren? Not really the same as average Joe...

I agree my speed exemption came initially as a result of my job (It didn't use to require training) and latterly from training and the job, which was a good idea. But currently the law makes no allowance for training or the individual driver in respect to what is or is not dangerous, DWDCA etc. So if at X mph a speed becomes deemed dangerous it is dangerous for all including law enforcement etc.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 20th January 11:00

[macushla]

Not sure this discussion is clear on how dangerous is defined. It’s not about whether people were in danger, it’s not about whether anyone was injured or killed in any way it’s whether the driving fell below the expected level of a careful and competent driver.as such it’s fairly easy to argue that 30 mph over the speed limit could be argued as that.

A careful and competent wouldn’t do 100 mph on the motorway if we’re being honest. Irrespective of the road conditions and so on, the speed limit is something we all know and to break it that far is beyond being careful. Add in that it’s unlikely that they were only doing 100 at that precise moment that they were caught and have never done it before, or since is pretty tenuous.

In any event Ireland is a different country to us and everyone loves to hold up Germany amd their autobahns as something we should adopt, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that another country goes the other way in their application is speed laws.

[vonhosen]

ging84 said:

Black_S3 said:

Can't see why it would need to be written in law that a specified amount over the speed limit can be accepted as dangerous driving given the current definition?

I think the opposite , someone sets a maximum penalty for a particular crime, that should be the maximum penalty someone should ever be able to receive for that crime.
If the people do not support the maximum sentence for speeding to include jail, then it should happen.
I don't think they should be passing a law that allows speed alone to be considered a different crime to speeding, but atleast if they pass a law it has been through government so has had the support of the people.
The situation in Scotland is that this situation has been slipped in by the back door, you won't find any international news articles reporting the proposal, because there wasn't one, it was cooked up by a bunch of unelected people and rolled out with no public awareness what so ever.

The maximum penalty for speeding hasn't been changed in Scotland.
They use a different offence in Scotland, dangerous driving (as they are at liberty to do in England & Wales too if they wish) & they do this where they consider your driving has become dangerous through whatever cause. It's just the Scottish courts appear to interpret when speed satisfies the dangerous legislation differently to the English & Welsh courts. Scottish judges doing exactly what they were employed to do, interpret the law as legislated by elected members of parliament. If parliament don't like it it's up to them to change the law.

[Black_S3]

Graveworm said:

I agree my speed exemption came initially as a result of my job (It didn't use to require training) and latterly from training and the job, which was a good idea. But currently the law makes no allowance for training or the individual driver in respect to what is or is not dangerous, DWDCA etc. So if at X mph a speed becomes deemed dangerous it is dangerous for all including law enforcement etc.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 20th January 11:00

Again it’s just my opinion but a driver trained to look for risks while in a vehicle with bright blue flashing lights that can be heard from a mile away is less likely to surprise someone else by the speed they are doing.... which is the biggest part of the risk.

[vonhosen]

Graveworm said:

Black_S3 said:

What’s the context you have lawfully exceeded the posted limit by 50mph? Trained with blue lights and siren? Not really the same as average Joe...

I agree my speed exemption came initially as a result of my job (It didn't use to require training) and latterly from training and the job, which was a good idea. But currently the law makes no allowance for training or the individual driver in respect to what is or is not dangerous, DWDCA etc. So if at X mph a speed becomes deemed dangerous it is dangerous for all including law enforcement etc.

Although there can be subtle differences in the mix.
I do agree the current situation leaves emergency vehicle drivers in a vulnerable situation.

[vonhosen]

macushla said:

Not sure this discussion is clear on how dangerous is defined. It’s not about whether people were in danger, it’s not about whether anyone was injured or killed in any way it’s whether the driving fell below the expected level of a careful and competent driver.as such it’s fairly easy to argue that 30 mph over the speed limit could be argued as that.

A careful and competent wouldn’t do 100 mph on the motorway if we’re being honest. Irrespective of the road conditions and so on, the speed limit is something we all know and to break it that far is beyond being careful. Add in that it’s unlikely that they were only doing 100 at that precise moment that they were caught and have never done it before, or since is pretty tenuous.

That's not correct.

The driving must fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

There is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but "dangerous" must refer to danger of personal injury or of serious damage to property - Section 2A(3) of the RTA 1988.

[Graveworm]

vonhosen said:

Although there can be subtle differences in the mix.
I do agree the current situation leaves emergency vehicle drivers in a vulnerable situation.

I agree especially in terms of mitigation and public interest, and other categories of driver have had it much harder for ages.

The CPS published guidelines include a presumption that they will not prosecute unless there is a collision which is of course a huge help, but it's a fudge it doesn't solve the problem that those who are expected to uphold the law are often technically breaking it. Collisions can happen where the "Objective" RTA offences played no part in it and that can also cause confusion.

Edited by Graveworm on Sunday 20th January 11:52

[Black_S3]

vonhosen said:

Although there can be subtle differences in the mix.
I do agree the current situation leaves emergency vehicle drivers in a vulnerable situation.

As a learner driver I was lucky enough to have an instructor who had spent one hell of a long time in the traffic police. The running commentary he could give amazed me, his brain could identify hazards and turn them into words while driving quicker than I could even pick identify them as a passenger while playing the game of shout the hazard before he’s said it. He could also make unbelievable progress without even coming close to pushing the level of grip the tyres provided to their limits. This experience leaves me thinking that maybe persuits excluded and talking about response calls where the goal is to get to the destination there’s a fair balance that ensures emergency drivers remain responsible by ensuring they still hold a level of responsibility for their actions?

You’re an insider and I’m sure you’d acknowledge you’ve had colleagues who cross the line into being reckless...

[Graveworm]

Black_S3 said:

Again it’s just my opinion but a driver trained to look for risks while in a vehicle with bright blue flashing lights that can be heard from a mile away is less likely to surprise someone else by the speed they are doing.... which is the biggest part of the risk.

The training and looking for risks should definitely make a difference but it plays no part in the way the legislation was worded and has been, IMO correctly but unfortunately, interpreted. Blue lights and sirens can help but they are not always used and are definitely not needed to still be relatively safe at significantly above the speed limit. For example, except where the training is specifically about driving with PWE, most of the driver training is in unmarked cars without any use of PWE but still involves similar speeds.

[Black_S3]

Graveworm said:

The training and looking for risks should definitely make a difference but it plays no part in the way the legislation was worded and has been, IMO correctly but unfortunately, interpreted. Blue lights and sirens can help but they are not always used and are definitely not needed to still be relatively safe at significantly above the speed limit. For example, except where the training is specifically about driving with PWE, most of the driver training is in unmarked cars without any use of PWE but still involves similar speeds.

Agree with you on that & that it is potentially safe to drive significantly above the speed limit. I think are agreeing that there is a point where speed alone is enough to cross the line into a dangerous driving charge? For the general public it would not be unreasonable to have police guidelines defined. There’s been common sense applied at the lower end with the 10%+ 2mph stuff so I’d be all in favour of the ACPO lot coming out and saying something like 80% over and expect the charge to no longer be speeding regardless of circumstances.

ETA a slight side track but around East Kilbride up here it’s not uncommon to see them driving like complete asshats in unmarked cars with just a little red sign in the back window. Taking a large roundabout the wrong way at speed during nearly peak times is the worst story I’ve heard.

Edited by Black_S3 on Sunday 20th January 12:34

[macushla]

vonhosen said:

That's not correct.

The driving must fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

There is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but "dangerous" must refer to danger of personal injury or of serious damage to property - Section 2A(3) of the RTA 1988.

Nearly 50% over the maximumspeed limit available is getting close to far below and the risk of damage / injury is pretty obvious if you crash.

[vonhosen]

macushla said:

vonhosen said:

That's not correct.

The driving must fall far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

There is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but "dangerous" must refer to danger of personal injury or of serious damage to property - Section 2A(3) of the RTA 1988.

Nearly 50% over the maximumspeed limit available is getting close to far below and the risk of damage / injury is pretty obvious if you crash.

I wasn't proferring where the limit between below & far below is, or indeed damage v serious damage.

When you said

macushla said:

Not sure this discussion is clear on how dangerous is defined.

&

macushla said:

It’s not about whether people were in danger, it’s not about whether anyone was injured or killed in any way it’s whether the driving fell below the expected level of a careful and competent driver.as such it’s fairly easy to argue that 30 mph over the speed limit could be argued as that.

I was pointing out that what you said was incorrect. What you were describing as necessary to amount to the offence was more akin to what was required for careless driving rather than dangerous driving. That's what I was clearing up.

[wc98]

WJNB said:

3 children & the sole driver in the household - what a wonderful & responsible example he is setting, a REAL role model.

who ? the judge ?

[Kizmiaz]

Glad I saw this. Touring Ireland on the motorbikes for honeymoon in the spring (am I ever marrying the right woman!)
That could put a damper on things.