Three jailed for dangerous driving
Discussion
vonhosen said:
kestral said:
The conviction is correct. The sentence is wrong.
Wrong as in the sentencing guidelines were not followed, or wrong because dangerous driving shouldn't be an imprisonable offence?yonex said:
vonhosen said:
Wrong as in the sentencing guidelines were not followed, or wrong because dangerous driving shouldn't be an imprisonable offence?
The latter, fairly obviously. That won't change until people successfully campaign for that change.
vonhosen said:
The public don't want their loved ones hurt before the government acts to discourage dangerous driving.That's reactive not proactive. They scream why wait until they are hurt before dealing with dangerous drivers.
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.
The public don’t want their houses burgled, cars stolen, terrorist released to murder..... We’re always told about costs and resources being a n issue. 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.
I’m glad you said the driving judgment again. It is a subjective judgment which I honestly find astonishing.
Talking of aggravating circumstances. What would be the upper limit of the guideline? Let’s say they were on Stolen, un insured bikes and not licensed etc? How much longer would they be sentenced ?
vonhosen said:
Which would mean, fairly obviously, that it was correct within the current legal framework within which the courts have to operate.
That won't change until people successfully campaign for that change.
Always lots of words, but you don't say anything? When I said you do not actually have an opinion, the above very much encapsulates it, ever thought about politics?That won't change until people successfully campaign for that change.
May as well talk to a book end.
A quick review suggests 90% of replies on here back the 'it's ridiculous' viewpoint when considering if this punishment is suitable, let alone worthwhile for society.
Hungrymc said:
vonhosen said:
The public don't want their loved ones hurt before the government acts to discourage dangerous driving.That's reactive not proactive. They scream why wait until they are hurt before dealing with dangerous drivers.
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.
The public don’t want their houses burgled, cars stolen, terrorist released to murder..... We’re always told about costs and resources being a n issue. 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.
You similarly lock up a proportion of the serious cases of dangerous driving.
You don't fill the prison with all murderers, then all rapists, then all robbers because you end up with no room for burglars, fraudsters, arsonists, thieves etc etc.
You'll find the more serious cases of all the offences that imprisonable inside & you'll find a larger percentage of murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, fraudsters, arsonists, thieves etc with only a very small number of the most dangerous drivers.
Hungrymc said:
I’m glad you said the driving judgment again. It is a subjective judgment which I honestly find astonishing.
Talking of aggravating circumstances. What would be the upper limit of the guideline? Let’s say they were on Stolen, un insured bikes and not licensed etc? How much longer would they be sentenced ?
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/Talking of aggravating circumstances. What would be the upper limit of the guideline? Let’s say they were on Stolen, un insured bikes and not licensed etc? How much longer would they be sentenced ?
A quick look down this list shows just how daft this is.
https://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/crime/magi...
Same court as the 3 in the original clip.
https://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/crime/magi...
Same court as the 3 in the original clip.
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
BR, 45, of Powdermill Lane, Battle, pleaded guilty to driving a Land Rover on Mount Pleasant Road, Battle, on May 4, with cocaine in his blood stream. He was fined £150 and banned from driving for one year.
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
CC, 48, of Charles Road West, St Leonards, pleaded guilty to driving a Renault Megane on the A21 at Johns Cross, on July 17, while twice over the drink drive limit. He gave a blood alcohol reading of 167 milligrammes. The legal limit is 80 milligrammes. The court made a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement and banned him from driving for three years.
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
KM, 32, of Duke Road, St Leonards, pleaded guilty to two charges of assault by beating. The offences took place at Hastings on February 17. He also admitted being in breach of a conditional discharge, made by an earlier court for an offence of criminal damage. The court made a community order with a requirement of 80 hours of unpaid work. He was also fined £100 and ordered to pay £200 in prosecution costs.
It's very hard not to say there's an agenda.....yonex said:
vonhosen said:
Which would mean, fairly obviously, that it was correct within the current legal framework within which the courts have to operate.
That won't change until people successfully campaign for that change.
Always lots of words, but you don't say anything? When I said you do not actually have an opinion, the above very much encapsulates it, ever thought about politics?That won't change until people successfully campaign for that change.
May as well talk to a book end.
A quick review suggests 90% of replies on here back the 'it's ridiculous' viewpoint when considering if this punishment is suitable, let alone worthwhile for society.
Meanwhile on other websites it would no doubt be 90% the other way.
If you want change on how dangerous drivers are dealt with you'll need to garner support on a much wider platform than a motoring website with the tag line 'speed matters'.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 5th December 19:23
yonex said:
A quick look down this list shows just how daft this is.
https://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/crime/magi...
Same court as the 3 in the original clip.
Was it the same court?https://www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/crime/magi...
Same court as the 3 in the original clip.
The riders were indicted to the Crown Court, not dealt with at the Magistrates Court.
yonex said:
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
BR, 45, of Powdermill Lane, Battle, pleaded guilty to driving a Land Rover on Mount Pleasant Road, Battle, on May 4, with cocaine in his blood stream. He was fined £150 and banned from driving for one year.
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
CC, 48, of Charles Road West, St Leonards, pleaded guilty to driving a Renault Megane on the A21 at Johns Cross, on July 17, while twice over the drink drive limit. He gave a blood alcohol reading of 167 milligrammes. The legal limit is 80 milligrammes. The court made a community order with an alcohol treatment requirement and banned him from driving for three years.
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk said:
KM, 32, of Duke Road, St Leonards, pleaded guilty to two charges of assault by beating. The offences took place at Hastings on February 17. He also admitted being in breach of a conditional discharge, made by an earlier court for an offence of criminal damage. The court made a community order with a requirement of 80 hours of unpaid work. He was also fined £100 and ordered to pay £200 in prosecution costs.
It's very hard not to say there's an agenda.....That's before we get onto the headlines tell us very little about the full circumstances that had to be considered during sentencing. Each case rests on it's own facts.
yonex said:
Yes, hard to believe assault, serious drink and drug driving are not deemed as serious as dangerous driving.
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
yonex said:
Hmm. So no danger of poor driving whilst your nose is full of coke, or being twice over the limit.
There is a risk of it, but if you are not actually driving dangerously you are not driving dangerously, so you are only committing the lesser offence. In exactly the same way that if you are exceeding the speed limit (rather than say the drink drive limit) you are only guilty of driving dangerously if you are actually driving dangerously. If you aren't it's the lesser offence of exceeding the speed limit.vonhosen said:
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.
Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
Careful there: drink driving limits aren't an arbitary "line drawn in the sand", it's a statistically proven level beyond which driving is impaired, reactions are slower and coordination is more clumsy coupled with a false feeling of confidence.Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
hiccy18 said:
vonhosen said:
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.
Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
Careful there: drink driving limits aren't an arbitary "line drawn in the sand", it's a statistically proven level beyond which driving is impaired, reactions are slower and coordination is more clumsy coupled with a false feeling of confidence.Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
The reason the offence was introduced was so that you can bring prosecutions without having to show that, just as with exceeding the speed limit there is no need to show evidence that it was to the detriment of safety or anything else.
vonhosen said:
There is a risk of it, but if you are not actually driving dangerously you are not driving dangerously, so you are only committing the lesser offence. In exactly the same way that if you are exceeding the speed limit (rather than say the drink drive limit) you are only guilty of driving dangerously if you are actually driving dangerously. If you aren't it's the lesser offence of exceeding the speed limit.
vonhosen said:
hiccy18 said:
vonhosen said:
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.
Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
Careful there: drink driving limits aren't an arbitary "line drawn in the sand", it's a statistically proven level beyond which driving is impaired, reactions are slower and coordination is more clumsy coupled with a false feeling of confidence.Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
The reason the offence was introduced was so that you can bring prosecutions without having to show that, just as with exceeding the speed limit there is no need to show evidence that it was to the detriment of safety or anything else.
vonhosen said:
But not for all people, you'll see people who are over the prescribed limit who show no visible signs of impairment in their driving. It's done on averages but not all people react in the same way.
The reason the offence was introduced was so that you can bring prosecutions without having to show that, just as with exceeding the speed limit there is no need to show evidence that it was to the detriment of safety or anything else.
So if one of the guys in the clip was a WSB rider we could safely say that there was actually no risk? The reason the offence was introduced was so that you can bring prosecutions without having to show that, just as with exceeding the speed limit there is no need to show evidence that it was to the detriment of safety or anything else.
vonhosen said:
But not for all people, you'll see people who are over the prescribed limit who show no visible signs of impairment in their driving.
I think we’ve found the measure of vonhosen.It’s ok to be pissed or drugged off your nut on the road, if you look ‘normal’, but pop a wheelie in full control and it’s off to jail with you.
Idiot. Everyone should just ignore him until he goes away.
hiccy18 said:
vonhosen said:
hiccy18 said:
vonhosen said:
Some assaults are more serious, some less serious, each case rests etc etc, so some have/result in higher sentencing & some in lower.
Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
Careful there: drink driving limits aren't an arbitary "line drawn in the sand", it's a statistically proven level beyond which driving is impaired, reactions are slower and coordination is more clumsy coupled with a false feeling of confidence.Drink & drug driving is generally regarded as less serious than dangerous driving . There is no requirement for there to be any evidence of impairment/danger, so they can be driving perfectly well just happen to be over a line drawn in the sand). If they drove dangerously whilst drunk then you have your dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving on the other hand does require danger of injury/serious damage, as well as the driving falling far below the standards expected.
The reason the offence was introduced was so that you can bring prosecutions without having to show that, just as with exceeding the speed limit there is no need to show evidence that it was to the detriment of safety or anything else.
The thing is, we all know what the alcohol limit is, but hardcore drinkers will argue that they're "perfectly safe" even when they're over the limit, and the Police are picking on them unfairly, it's not as if they've killed anybody, why aren't the cops concentrating on real criminals......
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff