Three jailed for dangerous driving
Discussion
yonex said:
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:
Nope, the standard applied is one standard for all drivers/riders irrespective of experience, skill level.
Nope, not with dangerous driving, purely down to discretion. Drink driving yes, but you’re ok with that....and a bit of coke eh? Amazing really, a super talented rider would be safer at speed than an old duffer riding ‘not like a saint’. But there’s no actual line, no defined limit. trickywoo said:
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.
You can be so drunk that your driving is dangerous, but equally you can be over the prescribed limit but your driving does not satisfy the test for dangerous driving (which is why the prescribed limit offence exists, other wise they'd be able to do nothing if your driving didn't satisfy dangerous driving).
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 5th December 21:50
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
Nope, the standard applied is one standard for all drivers/riders irrespective of experience, skill level.
Nope, not with dangerous driving, purely down to discretion.yonex said:
Drink driving yes, but you’re ok with that....and a bit of coke eh? Amazing really, a super talented rider would be safer at speed than an old duffer riding ‘not like a saint’. But there’s no actual line, no defined limit.
I don't see how you get I'm OK with drink/drug driving. There are offences to deal with it.The super talented & the old duffer can both be guilty of dangerous driving where their driving fall short of the standard.
vonhosen said:
I don't see how you get I'm OK with drink/drug driving. There are offences to deal with it.
The super talented & the old duffer can both be guilty of dangerous driving where their driving fall short of the standard.
'Offences to deal with it', what?The super talented & the old duffer can both be guilty of dangerous driving where their driving fall short of the standard.
You're a joke, you just quote chapter and verse. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but i'd laugh my socks off if, and when you get nicked. I am sure you'd be far more humble than your online persona in court.
There is no measure of dangerous, it's a point of view. There is a limit for alcohol, and drugs.
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
I don't see how you get I'm OK with drink/drug driving. There are offences to deal with it.
The super talented & the old duffer can both be guilty of dangerous driving where their driving fall short of the standard.
'Offences to deal with it', what?The super talented & the old duffer can both be guilty of dangerous driving where their driving fall short of the standard.
yonex said:
You're a joke, you just quote chapter and verse. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but i'd laugh my socks off if, and when you get nicked. I am sure you'd be far more humble than your online persona in court.
There is no measure of dangerous, it's a point of view. There is a limit for alcohol, and drugs.
I'm explaining matters that you appear to have trouble comprehending.There is no measure of dangerous, it's a point of view. There is a limit for alcohol, and drugs.
Where do you want to move your goal posts to next?
vonhosen said:
I'm explaining matters that you appear to have trouble comprehending.
Where do you want to move your goal posts to next?
I have trouble comprehending how a jumped up condescending old man would have a need to post on a website which he openly derides? Where do you want to move your goal posts to next?
You ignore everything, weight of opinion, crimes listed in comparison, your absolute hypocrisy stating you flout the law yourself, and then you ask about moving goalposts? Are you really this obtuse, or does your arrogance have no limits?
vonhosen said:
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
Nope, the standard applied is one standard for all drivers/riders irrespective of experience, skill level.
Nope, not with dangerous driving, purely down to discretion.yonex said:
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.
k me.....vonhosen said:
You can't lock all of them up, you can lock up a proportion of (the more serious) cases.
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.
I’d certainly lock up all the murderers and rapists..... You’re talking as if reserving space for dangerous driving that didn’t hurt anyone is a factor in early release or lighter sentences for those other offenses.... Let’s lock up the more serious murderers and the more serious dangerous drivers that didn’t hurt anyone..... Christ.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.
It’s an absurd approach.
I do acknowledge that there is some involvement from the “serious collisions unit” or something similar. That suggests a bad outcome, but I’m pretty sure if anyone had been hurt it would have been used to further explain the sentence. Maybe there was something. Looks unlikely.
yonex said:
Wikipedia....….
please stop...…..
I started with wiki yesterday and went from there to section 2A of the 1988 road traffic act (or whatever). That’s where it claims that it’s intended as an “objective assessment”..... which is then described as totally subjective opinion. Unbelievably misleading / dishonest of the authorities, who’d have thought it? please stop...…..Countdown said:
I think you're both agreeing with each other. People who may have drunk the same amount of alcohol will probably not suffer the same level of impairment, some may be seriously impaired, others hardly at all.
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......
I'm not saying that, the exact opposite. For clarity: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......
By the time a person has exceeded the legal limit for driving their driving is impaired, regardless of how someone seems or feels.
hiccy18 said:
Countdown said:
I think you're both agreeing with each other. People who may have drunk the same amount of alcohol will probably not suffer the same level of impairment, some may be seriously impaired, others hardly at all.
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......
I'm not saying that, the exact opposite. For clarity: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......
By the time a person has exceeded the legal limit for driving their driving is impaired, regardless of how someone seems or feels.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff