Guy jailed for 102mph on the motorway

[macushla]

Willy Nilly said:

vonhosen said:

The Surveyor said:

Is this guy really going to serve 2 months inside for 102mph, or did he get a suspended jail sentence?

If he did it wasn't because it was 102, it's because 102 in the circumstances was regarded as dangerous driving.
You can't get jail for 102, you can for dangerous driving.

So he is going to jail for dangerous driving even though his driving might not have been dangerous, just classed as dangerous because it is over a certain threshold?

And round and round we go.

It’s also in Eire, you know, a different country to the UK.

[vonhosen]

Willy Nilly said:

vonhosen said:

The Surveyor said:

Is this guy really going to serve 2 months inside for 102mph, or did he get a suspended jail sentence?

If he did it wasn't because it was 102, it's because 102 in the circumstances was regarded as dangerous driving.
You can't get jail for 102, you can for dangerous driving.

So he is going to jail for dangerous driving even though his driving might not have been dangerous, just classed as dangerous because it is over a certain threshold?

It's the court's job to determine when the driving has satisfied dangerous driving (other individual's opinion, such as you or I, that it was/wasn't dangerous is of no consequence). In his case the court apparently have made the determination that the driving amounted to dangerous driving. The only view that matters now is appeal courts.

[havoc]

Jag_luvver said:

havoc said:

macushla said:

I’m not saying it’s dangerous as in there is imminent danger to everyone the moment I speed. What I’m saying is that under the definition of dangerous in law, then it’s clear to see how it’s fairly clear that it meets the definition. The definition requires injury or damage to be likely. Walk away from a big smash with no injuries doesn’t matter, as there’s plenty of damage and vice versa.

Utter nonsense.

I've driven on an autobahn at 2x the UK legal limit multiple times. Focuses the mind somewhat, but DOES put into perspective how straightforward 100mph is, even when there's other traffic around. I've exceed the ton more times than I can remember. Usually when there's very few others around, but on occasion there have been, and often I've not been the fastest on the road.

Silly? Possibly. Germans don't think so, and they tend to be the logical ones in Europe.

Dangerous. No. Emphatically not, in and of itself.
IMHO notably less so than driving AT the limit with a phone clamped to your ear (because you'll probably be paying a lot more attention to what's much further in front of you), or AT the limit 6ft from the bumper of the car in front (for equally obvious reasons regarding potential severity of accidents). Neither of those are considered dangerous per se under UK law, interestingly enough...


This is just another step in the pet war that some in power have against the freedom that the private car gives to individuals.

I'm not trying to take the 'speed kills' angle, but I do feel that what is an ostensibly sensible-sounding post from havoc could use a little context, given that there is a potential logical loop of 'it's safe to do 100mph on a motorway because doing 140mph is ok' could escalate to justify doing a car's top speed because it's 'not much more dangerous than a slightly slower safe speed'. That context is:
- doubling speed roughly increases stopping distances by a factor of 4 (for a given vehicle and road conditions);
- slowing from 100 mph to 70 mph requires comparable levels of energy dissipation as slowing from 70 mph to 0 mph;
- speed doesn't kill (the victorians thought that), but rate of change of speed does (i.e. sudden changes in speed from hitting something that's moving slower than you).

One implication of the second point is that rear-ending another vehicle on the motorway at 100mph (assuming they're doing 70mph) involves dissipating an equivalent amount of energy to crashing into that same vehicle when it's stationary and you're doing 70 mph.

Provided everyone's happy bumbling along at a similar speed, all's good.

Fair points.

...although I have to wholly disagree with the "implication" paragraph near the end - if you're doing 100 and they're doing 70 then the delta-v is still only 30mph so the energy dissipation is the same as hitting a parked car at 30mph. Which is to say it's little different to you doing e.g. 85mph on a M-way (many do) and some bimbler pulling out in front of you at 60mph without checking their mirrors.


Last sentence is the critical one - I try and avoid any 'overtake' on an M-way where the delta-v is more than c.30mph (as far as I can judge the speed of the other vehicle) unless there's a clear lane between us, because of the potential for a big accident. Which by default usually restricts you to below 100 on a UK M-way...
(Maths grad here...sorry to be a pedant)