Three jailed for dangerous driving
Discussion
Hungrymc said:
Isn’t ‘dangerous driving’ a subjective assessment?
If my understanding is correct (judgment of a reasonably competent driver etc)
It would be quite difficult to argue 150mph as not being at risk of being judged dangerous driving.
Very inconsistent sentencing here
It's said to be an objective assessment, as in it is something that will speak for itself. It's obvious to a competent & careful driver.If my understanding is correct (judgment of a reasonably competent driver etc)
It would be quite difficult to argue 150mph as not being at risk of being judged dangerous driving.
Very inconsistent sentencing here
The court in the case of the 150mph Porsche driving 21 year old with no insurance set out part of that test in relation to use of speed.
Court said:
But Recorder Caroline Lister threw the case out, saying: "He went fast for a short time only on a straight road with excellent visibility.
"I have to rule whether speed alone can be the basis of a dangerous driving case. I reach the conclusion that it cannot."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging"I have to rule whether speed alone can be the basis of a dangerous driving case. I reach the conclusion that it cannot."
yonex said:
Again, Mr Von, you appear to be making assumptions that when you ride at excess speed it’s not dangerous in the eyes of plod, I’d say give that a try, perhaps Scotland, see how it goes for you?
I have done, my driving/riding is regularly reviewed.yonex said:
Do you think you’re a better rider at speed than most people, is this where the arrogance comes from? Have you ever been on a track day, held a race license etc, police training at what level? Oh, and answer the direct question, you travel at 100-150mph for a bit of fun now and again, or, as you should be given your tone, strictly 10% over?
As has been said, none of us are angels when given a clear road and excess of grunt. I think you’re desperate to say ‘the law’s an ass’, but are so caught up in trying to justify your own actions, that this would make you look very daft.
I'm not interested in where I stand in the pecking order of abilities, it's not relevant or important to me. I'm not going to be the best or the worst. I do review & make judgements on the behavioural choices I adopt & those that I see others make.As has been said, none of us are angels when given a clear road and excess of grunt. I think you’re desperate to say ‘the law’s an ass’, but are so caught up in trying to justify your own actions, that this would make you look very daft.
When I ride/drive I make my own choices & that involves considerations in protecting my licence from censure.
I've said I would be happy to drive consistently much faster than I do most of the time on the roads (whilst always keeping it outside of what constitutes dangerous driving). I don't simply because of the threat of censure for exceeding the speed limits. The choices I make are made relative the limits & prosecution thresholds.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 5th December 10:07
Jailed for ‘short burst’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/biker-...
Give it a try, you could link them to the clip of the Porsche, for mitigating circumstantial evidence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/biker-...
Give it a try, you could link them to the clip of the Porsche, for mitigating circumstantial evidence.
vonhosen said:
I'm not interested in where I stand in the pecking order of abilities, it's not relevant or important to me. I'm not going to be the best or the worst. I do review & make judgements on the behavioural choices I adopt & those that I see others make.
When I ride/drive I make my own choices & that involves considerations in protecting my licence from censure.
So no comment, do you say, not as you do, and what you do isn’t the same ‘because’. When I ride/drive I make my own choices & that involves considerations in protecting my licence from censure.
Well, I’m convinced
And you wonder why there’s a disconnect between the law and the motorist. You really are a major part of the problem.
yonex said:
Jailed for ‘short burst’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/biker-...
Give it a try, you could link them to the clip of the Porsche, for mitigating circumstantial evidence.
They pled guilty to dangerous driving (no doubt after legal advice). They admitted their riding was dangerous.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/biker-...
Give it a try, you could link them to the clip of the Porsche, for mitigating circumstantial evidence.
The bench stated they used "excessive speed on our roads at great risk to others"
Each case rests on it's own facts. The full circumstances, that were available to the defendants, their lawyers & the court, are not available for us to help make determinations.
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
I'm not interested in where I stand in the pecking order of abilities, it's not relevant or important to me. I'm not going to be the best or the worst. I do review & make judgements on the behavioural choices I adopt & those that I see others make.
When I ride/drive I make my own choices & that involves considerations in protecting my licence from censure.
So no comment, do you say, not as you do, and what you do isn’t the same ‘because’. When I ride/drive I make my own choices & that involves considerations in protecting my licence from censure.
Well, I’m convinced
And you wonder why there’s a disconnect between the law and the motorist. You really are a major part of the problem.
I'm responsible for the choices I make & the outcome of those choices, just as others are/should be.
It's really not much more complicated than that.
I've said I don't & wouldn't do what they do in the video. I'd urge others not to do what they do either for obvious reasons.
I think ‘it’s said to be objective’ is an example of the law trying to justify itself. It’s said to be, but then requires the subjective assessment of a competent driver.
I still say the sentencing is very inconsistent. We’re all exasperated by the issues around car and bike crime. Violence leading to none custodial sentences.
The riding was too much, very poor. But a long ban is far more appropriate than jail. It screams that there is some agenda.
I still say the sentencing is very inconsistent. We’re all exasperated by the issues around car and bike crime. Violence leading to none custodial sentences.
The riding was too much, very poor. But a long ban is far more appropriate than jail. It screams that there is some agenda.
Hungrymc said:
I think ‘it’s said to be objective’ is an example of the law trying to justify itself. It’s said to be, but then requires the subjective assessment of a competent driver.
I still say the sentencing is very inconsistent. We’re all exasperated by the issues around car and bike crime. Violence leading to none custodial sentences.
The riding was too much, very poor. But a long ban is far more appropriate than jail. It screams that there is some agenda.
Do you think the potential should exist for imprisonment in relation to the offence of dangerous driving?I still say the sentencing is very inconsistent. We’re all exasperated by the issues around car and bike crime. Violence leading to none custodial sentences.
The riding was too much, very poor. But a long ban is far more appropriate than jail. It screams that there is some agenda.
Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
vonhosen said:
Do you think the potential should exist for imprisonment in relation to the offence of dangerous driving?
Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
Well, I'd definitely like stiff sentences, including the option of imprisonment, for DD. I just feel there should be some level of consistency in punishments vs the crimes. E.g. DD in a lorry should be punished far more severely than DD on a bike.Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
As for breaking the law, doing high speeds on the motorway is similar for me to jumping red lights on a bicycle. If you do it, there should be nobody around to see you do it, as that generally makes it reasonably safe. Obviously, anything can happen on public roads, but motorways are the closest thing to a controlled environment - if you're mindful of slip roads, then your sight lines can be good enough for hitting such speeds. Sure, an animal may run out, but that's primarily a danger to yourself.
Solocle said:
vonhosen said:
Do you think the potential should exist for imprisonment in relation to the offence of dangerous driving?
Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
Well, I'd definitely like stiff sentences, including the option of imprisonment, for DD. I just feel there should be some level of consistency in punishments vs the crimes. E.g. DD in a lorry should be punished far more severely than DD on a bike.Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
As for breaking the law, doing high speeds on the motorway is similar for me to jumping red lights on a bicycle. If you do it, there should be nobody around to see you do it, as that generally makes it reasonably safe. Obviously, anything can happen on public roads, but motorways are the closest thing to a controlled environment - if you're mindful of slip roads, then your sight lines can be good enough for hitting such speeds. Sure, an animal may run out, but that's primarily a danger to yourself.
Each offence will have it's own potential sentencing options & then guidelines of sentencing within those options.
IIRC 70% of robbery offenders convicted before a court are imprisoned, whilst 1% of motoring offenders convicted before a court are (most motoring offences get nowhere near a court, only the more serious cases & then only 1% of those result in prison). 50% of those imprisoned have more than 15 previous convictions.
If anyone thinks this sort of driving is 'no big deal' or 'not as bad as theiving' then read 10 pence short's thread about his accident and subsequent time in prision.
we've all done daft things on the road, myself included, but read that and if youre not struck with a sense of 'there for the grace of god go I'....then i'm an eskimo.
we've all done daft things on the road, myself included, but read that and if youre not struck with a sense of 'there for the grace of god go I'....then i'm an eskimo.
zeb said:
If anyone thinks this sort of driving is 'no big deal' or 'not as bad as theiving' then read 10 pence short's thread about his accident and subsequent time in prision.
we've all done daft things on the road, myself included, but read that and if youre not struck with a sense of 'there for the grace of god go I'....then i'm an eskimo.
The riding was stupid, but it is not as bad as burglary in this case IMO. If you have never been the victim of theft, it's swe've all done daft things on the road, myself included, but read that and if youre not struck with a sense of 'there for the grace of god go I'....then i'm an eskimo.
t. A thief goes out with the sole intention of taking someone elses property. These guys were 'just' speeding/riding like tits, and didn't cause anything to happen. You shouldn't prosecute on 'risk' or to make a statement, but when you have serving Police types justifying why they can speed as they see fit, yet castigate others, then obviously, there is little hope of a rational process when it comes to prosecution. I read that thread, qute sobering. But I can't quite call for someone's head for having a rush of blood sometimes.
Consistency, as has been said is totally lacking. That pair in Aylesbury, first offence and jailed, it's a joke. These guys, as I said, tits, but custodial sentences, nope, never for me.
My conscience said:
But Yonex, why are you such a liberal when it comes to speeding, supporting these hardened criminals, surely a moral dilemma for you?
...hold my beer a minute 
So. Let's scrap short term sentencing, for various things? A stunning idea, and great use of money to debate?
Rory Stewart said:
“ending sentences below six months would help respectable people to hold onto their jobs and reputations
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/25/scrapping-six-month-prison-sentences-will-unleash-30000-repeat/Even worse...
Freedom of Information Act said:
In the Thames Valley area, 15 of the 10 to 17-year-olds convicted of crimes in 2016 had already been found guilty of 10 or more offences. Of these, 11 were given non-custodial sentences.
Elsewhere in the South East, an offender with 58 previous convictions for violent crimes and 246 previous convictions in total walked away from court with a non-custodial sentence following another violent crime.
A sexual offender who had been convicted of similar crimes five times before also walked free from jail, as did a criminal who took indecent pictures of children with two previous convictions for the crime.
The motorist is the only mordern day target and metric for the Police to go after. They cannot deal with burglary, knife crime is out of control and similarly drugs, which all fuel the root cause. But, but, it's the motorist time and time again who is used as a scapegoat for BS custodial terms, why, because it's all too easy, the actual villains in stolen cars just feck off anyway, so it's Mr Average with a house and half decent job that is likely to be in nick, for a load of nonsence. But we can actually debate scrapping STS for theft, assualt and the like......are you kidding me?
It's a joke.
vonhosen said:
Do you think the potential should exist for imprisonment in relation to the offence of dangerous driving?
Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
Personally. No.Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
Death by dangerous driving/riding should always be a custodial but dangerous driving alone should not be. A huge fine and a long ban plus the knowledge to the convicted if they are caught riding or driving in anyway whilst banned. It's straight to jail.
That's my own opinion.
vonhosen said:
Do you think the potential should exist for imprisonment in relation to the offence of dangerous driving?
Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
I think it’s insane to imprison someone based on a subjective assessment of driving. Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
An objective measure would for example be causing injury when driving outside of the law (speed limit time X%)
But once again. The riding of the guys in the OP is very poor. In my reasonable judgment, they deserve a heavy penalty of ban / fine.
So many examples of terrible driving, in stolen cars, with aggravating circumstances such as failing to stop seem to result in mild sentences.
I’d suggest what people are looking for is some balance and equity. It does the law no favours to try and justify what appears to be inconsistent sentencing on the basis ‘it has to be available’.
Hungrymc said:
vonhosen said:
Do you think the potential should exist for imprisonment in relation to the offence of dangerous driving?
Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
I think it’s insane to imprison someone based on a subjective assessment of driving. Should it be available as a sentencing option to the court for the offence?
An objective measure would for example be causing injury when driving outside of the law (speed limit time X%)
But once again. The riding of the guys in the OP is very poor. In my reasonable judgment, they deserve a heavy penalty of ban / fine.
So many examples of terrible driving, in stolen cars, with aggravating circumstances such as failing to stop seem to result in mild sentences.
I’d suggest what people are looking for is some balance and equity. It does the law no favours to try and justify what appears to be inconsistent sentencing on the basis ‘it has to be available’.
The driving, which is what is being the judged in the dangerous driving offence, is the same whether injury happens or not. It is not somehow considered lesser because no collision or injury happened. All injury does is act as an aggravating factor post dangerous driving actions. Dangerous driving is primarily about the behavioural choices/actions, not the outcomes.
Sentencing will always appear inconsistent to us viewing from outside, because we aren't privy to all the information on which the sentencing decisions were based.
Where sentencing is out of kilter with the sentencing guidelines there are grounds for appeal. As such although we see very different outcomes between cases, the outcome (based on the full information available rather than just reported snippets) tends to be in line with the guidelines as set out for the individual circumstances that the case represented.
Let's not even bother going down the route of correct punishment shall we? I know of 2 men from the same part of Yorkshire, 1 got 3 years suspended, aka let off and free to roam. The other got 5 years inside. One groomed and then had sex with 2 girls 14 years old, the other was not paying his taxes for quite a while. Guess which was seen as the more serious crime, the one who claimed that his religious upbringing clouded his knowledge of our laws or the one doing what i and most people i know do, avoid tax?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff