Three jailed for dangerous driving
Discussion
Hungrymc said:
At least there is a defined limit on drink driving. The fact that Dangerous Driving is so subjective seems crazy.
The dangerous driving offence was so misused by the police (no cps) in the 70's due to it's subjectivity it was withdrawn in 1977 Nov.The police who did all their own prosecutions were prosecuting moped riders for leaning over the handlebars in a racing type position. Also speeding offences in buit up areas where prosecuted as speeding and dangerous driving. The police would site as to the amount of side roads,pedestrian crossings involved in built up areas mainting that danger was being caused.
The offence was replaced by reckless driving which could be tried at a crown court as apposed to the previous dangerous which was magistrates only.
Dangerous was then brought back and made either way mags or crown with a specific wording to clarify what dangerous driving was.
With the advent of the cps it is now used in a more proper manner than previously.
Hungrymc said:
kestral said:
With the advent of the cps it is now used in a more proper manner than previously.
I’ve no idea if it’s better or worse than 50 years ago. still seems fundamentally dodgy to have the decision for a motoring offense to be custodial to be so subjective. vonhosen said:
Hungrymc said:
kestral said:
With the advent of the cps it is now used in a more proper manner than previously.
I’ve no idea if it’s better or worse than 50 years ago. still seems fundamentally dodgy to have the decision for a motoring offense to be custodial to be so subjective. If you accept that I’m taking issue with the subjective nature of it. Why do you think I’d want to make the judgment on which is right and wrong based on subjective nonsense. Some of the driving of stolen cars and bikes I’ve seen that didn’t result in dangerous driving and custodial sentence is equally bonkers.
Why do you think it’s such a bad idea to clarify and detail what would qualify ? It’s as if there is some agenda to defend it being vague and ambiguous..... utterly ridiculous.
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.
Hungrymc said:
vonhosen said:
Hungrymc said:
kestral said:
With the advent of the cps it is now used in a more proper manner than previously.
I’ve no idea if it’s better or worse than 50 years ago. still seems fundamentally dodgy to have the decision for a motoring offense to be custodial to be so subjective. If you accept that I’m taking issue with the subjective nature of it. Why do you think I’d want to make the judgment on which is right and wrong based on subjective nonsense. Some of the driving of stolen cars and bikes I’ve seen that didn’t result in dangerous driving and custodial sentence is equally bonkers.
Why do you think it’s such a bad idea to clarify and detail what would qualify ? It’s as if there is some agenda to defend it being vague and ambiguous..... utterly ridiculous.
yonex said:
Yes, hard to believe assault, serious drink and drug driving are not deemed as serious as dangerous driving.
I read Vonhosen's posts with an element of sadness. I read what he says, and he is usually factually correct, but he genuinely doesn't see the absurdity in many cases of what he is saying, again even if that is correct. And this is a genuine problem with our law enforcement system. It is CLEARLY absurd in a case like this, that some guys pratting about and riding like dicks, which no one would ever condone receive a sentence such as they have, and what most would deem to be for worse offences receive metaphorical slap on the wrists. Any sane person would have such an opinion, particularly as some of those cases mentioned above in the same area are clear repeat offences.
But because the likes of Vonhosen's jobs are to follow the letter of the law, and where there are clear deficiencies in the sentencing guidelines for whatever reason, it seems they're unable to see how absurd it all can be.
The way I see it, the sentencing guidelines between some offences seem to be at odds with each other, and that isn't alright. I also know that police officers' jobs do not include setting any such guidelines, nor enforcing them, just the law itself. And that is the nub. It is like some of them that seem to defend absurd sentencing like this (in comparison to other cases I mean, not that these guys should not be in prison necessarily, just that it seems impossible to justify compared to some other sentences), and it is like they just cannot see the absurdity that the rest of us can! Maybe it is because to do their jobs , they have to just tune out the apparent ridiculousness of things like sentencing guidelines, or maybe because they see more of it, they've just given up worrying about it years ago!! But of course neither make it right.
Whichever way you look at it, any sane person should be concerned if things like assault, drug driving, drink driving, end up with significantly lower sentences that the perpetrators of the offence that is the subject of this thread. One sentence seems on the harsh side, the others seems very much on the more lenient side, but seemingly all are as per the guidelines.
Something just isn't right, it's a bit sad really, because what is the answer?
poo at Paul's said:
yonex said:
Yes, hard to believe assault, serious drink and drug driving are not deemed as serious as dangerous driving.
I read Vonhosen's posts with an element of sadness. I read what he says, and he is usually factually correct, but he genuinely doesn't see the absurdity in many cases of what he is saying, again even if that is correct. And this is a genuine problem with our law enforcement system. It is CLEARLY absurd in a case like this, that some guys pratting about and riding like dicks, which no one would ever condone receive a sentence such as they have, and what most would deem to be for worse offences receive metaphorical slap on the wrists. Any sane person would have such an opinion, particularly as some of those cases mentioned above in the same area are clear repeat offences.
But because the likes of Vonhosen's jobs are to follow the letter of the law, and where there are clear deficiencies in the sentencing guidelines for whatever reason, it seems they're unable to see how absurd it all can be.
The way I see it, the sentencing guidelines between some offences seem to be at odds with each other, and that isn't alright. I also know that police officers' jobs do not include setting any such guidelines, nor enforcing them, just the law itself. And that is the nub. It is like some of them that seem to defend absurd sentencing like this (in comparison to other cases I mean, not that these guys should not be in prison necessarily, just that it seems impossible to justify compared to some other sentences), and it is like they just cannot see the absurdity that the rest of us can! Maybe it is because to do their jobs , they have to just tune out the apparent ridiculousness of things like sentencing guidelines, or maybe because they see more of it, they've just given up worrying about it years ago!! But of course neither make it right.
Whichever way you look at it, any sane person should be concerned if things like assault, drug driving, drink driving, end up with significantly lower sentences that the perpetrators of the offence that is the subject of this thread. One sentence seems on the harsh side, the others seems very much on the more lenient side, but seemingly all are as per the guidelines.
Something just isn't right, it's a bit sad really, because what is the answer?
I can however state that in my personal opinion imprisonment should be an option for dangerous driving. That doesn't mean that all dangerous drivers should be imprisoned (which of course they aren't), just that it should be an option in severe suitable cases.
I can also state, that in my personal opinion, just because somebody is guilty of a more serious offence than dangerous driving (that is an offence that may potentially attract a stiffer sentence than dangerous driving) it doesn't follow that they should be imprisoned.
It's the full circumstances that should dictate which offender(s) should go to prison in each individual case.
eg
Dangerous driving maximum penalty 2 years imprisonment.
Theft maximum penalty 7 years imprisonment.
In the case of a driver who has failed to stop for Police, travels at grossly excessive speeds through residential areas, then goes through a pedestrian only area where pedestrians can be seen scattering from their path & has multiple convictions for the same offence showing no remorse, would be more deserving of prison than somebody down on their luck with no previous convictions who stole a chicken from the supermarket to try and give their kids something approaching a Christmas dinner & shows remorse.
In those circumstances you may in my opinion quite correctly see somebody imprisoned for the (so called) lesser offence whilst someone committing the (so called) more serious offence is not.
You could write it up as motorist imprisoned & thief let go & say that's insane, but with the full facts of both cases take the view that the motorist being imprisoned & the thief not being quite correct.
The full details of the case need to be known to make a determination.
vonhosen said:
How would you define & judge whether the driving is dangerous then?
Do you mean you agree the law is poorly constructed and you’re asking if I can improve it?Would be very disappointing to think you have to look outside the profession to fix the broken bits, but I think you are probably right based on what I’ve read.
Hungrymc said:
vonhosen said:
How would you define & judge whether the driving is dangerous then?
Do you mean you agree the law is poorly constructed and you’re asking if I can improve it?Would be very disappointing to think you have to look outside the profession to fix the broken bits, but I think you are probably right based on what I’ve read.
I'm asking how you would define dangerous driving & how you think it should then be assessed/judged in a court of law.
It's a constructive question that if you believe it can be better than it currently is, as to how you think it should be.
vonhosen said:
I'm not in the profession of writing the law either.
I'm asking how you would define dangerous driving & how you think it should then be assessed/judged in a court of law.
It's a constructive question that if you believe it can be better than it currently is, as to how you think it should be.
Von, you talk in riddles. Pretty much everyone is saying custodial sentences are daft for dangerous driving. You scoff at all alternatives and then retreat to ‘it’s the law, never going to change’I'm asking how you would define dangerous driving & how you think it should then be assessed/judged in a court of law.
It's a constructive question that if you believe it can be better than it currently is, as to how you think it should be.
Why do you even bother to ask, when you don’t like the answers?
yonex said:
vonhosen said:
I'm not in the profession of writing the law either.
I'm asking how you would define dangerous driving & how you think it should then be assessed/judged in a court of law.
It's a constructive question that if you believe it can be better than it currently is, as to how you think it should be.
Von, you talk in riddles. Pretty much everyone is saying custodial sentences are daft for dangerous driving. You scoff at all alternatives and then retreat to ‘it’s the law, never going to change’I'm asking how you would define dangerous driving & how you think it should then be assessed/judged in a court of law.
It's a constructive question that if you believe it can be better than it currently is, as to how you think it should be.
Why do you even bother to ask, when you don’t like the answers?
You and some others are stating it should not be imprisonable under any circumstances.
Fine we disagree on that, park that to one side for a minute.
We have an offence of dangerous driving in law & we have a judicial system that has to apply that law as is.
Some are saying they are not happy with the definition of dangerous driving or how that definition is assessed within the judicial system.
I am asking as to what definition they would prefer for dangerous driving & how they propose that the definition should be assessed within the judicial system.
That's no riddle, it's quite straight forward.
You don't like the current way it's defined & judged, how would you like to see it defined & judged?
Having watched the video the riding is clearly terrible, the wheelies worse than the speed for me as you aren’t in control if you need to stop quickly. Yes, I ride a motorbike.
As for custodial sentence: seems very harsh considering the amount you hear about Jim Bobs 100th offence for burglary and only getting minor sentencing. Would have thought a driving ban and suspended sentence would have done the trick (unlikely to trigger the suspended part if banned anyway). Unsure where the public interest is in straight to custodial unless they are repeat offenders.
As for custodial sentence: seems very harsh considering the amount you hear about Jim Bobs 100th offence for burglary and only getting minor sentencing. Would have thought a driving ban and suspended sentence would have done the trick (unlikely to trigger the suspended part if banned anyway). Unsure where the public interest is in straight to custodial unless they are repeat offenders.
matt2810 said:
Having watched the video the riding is clearly terrible, the wheelies worse than the speed for me as you aren’t in control if you need to stop quickly. Yes, I ride a motorbike.
As for custodial sentence: seems very harsh considering the amount you hear about Jim Bobs 100th offence for burglary and only getting minor sentencing. Would have thought a driving ban and suspended sentence would have done the trick (unlikely to trigger the suspended part if banned anyway). Unsure where the public interest is in straight to custodial unless they are repeat offenders.
None of us (who support imprisonment in serious or extreme circumstances) can be sure if we haven't seen all the evidence on which any decision was based, but that's the same for any offence/outcome.As for custodial sentence: seems very harsh considering the amount you hear about Jim Bobs 100th offence for burglary and only getting minor sentencing. Would have thought a driving ban and suspended sentence would have done the trick (unlikely to trigger the suspended part if banned anyway). Unsure where the public interest is in straight to custodial unless they are repeat offenders.
Those who don't support imprisonment for dangerous driving under any circumstances can be sure (at least for them in their opinion) that it's unwarranted.
vonhosen said:
matt2810 said:
Having watched the video the riding is clearly terrible, the wheelies worse than the speed for me as you aren’t in control if you need to stop quickly. Yes, I ride a motorbike.
As for custodial sentence: seems very harsh considering the amount you hear about Jim Bobs 100th offence for burglary and only getting minor sentencing. Would have thought a driving ban and suspended sentence would have done the trick (unlikely to trigger the suspended part if banned anyway). Unsure where the public interest is in straight to custodial unless they are repeat offenders.
None of us (who support imprisonment in serious or extreme circumstances) can be sure if we haven't seen all the evidence on which any decision was based, but that's the same for any offence/outcome.As for custodial sentence: seems very harsh considering the amount you hear about Jim Bobs 100th offence for burglary and only getting minor sentencing. Would have thought a driving ban and suspended sentence would have done the trick (unlikely to trigger the suspended part if banned anyway). Unsure where the public interest is in straight to custodial unless they are repeat offenders.
Those who don't support imprisonment for dangerous driving under any circumstances can be sure (at least for them in their opinion) that it's unwarranted.
matt2810 said:
I struggle to believe anyone genuinely believes there should never be a custodial sentence in any circumstance. That’s just naive beyond words. It’s a public road not a personal race track after all.
On the basis that the purpose of prison is to protect the public and deter re offendingI'd suggest a ban does both of those
For me I'd struggle to think of circumstances where I'd support a prison sentence due to the dangerous driving itself.
A different matter if someone got killed etc
What’s the purpose of prison?
Is it a deterrent, or a place to incarcerate dangerous people, keeping everyone else safe?
These guys are all going to be knackered when they leave. It’ll teach them a lesson, but cost all of us for social welfare, not to mention a prison spot for a burglar.
The answer is education. Not locking motorists up for this BS
Is it a deterrent, or a place to incarcerate dangerous people, keeping everyone else safe?
These guys are all going to be knackered when they leave. It’ll teach them a lesson, but cost all of us for social welfare, not to mention a prison spot for a burglar.
The answer is education. Not locking motorists up for this BS
vonhosen said:
It's the full circumstances that should dictate which offender(s) should go to prison in each individual case.
eg
Dangerous driving maximum penalty 2 years imprisonment.
Theft maximum penalty 7 years imprisonment.
In the case of a driver who has failed to stop for Police, travels at grossly excessive speeds through residential areas, then goes through a pedestrian only area where pedestrians can be seen scattering from their path & has multiple convictions for the same offence showing no remorse, would be more deserving of prison than somebody down on their luck with no previous convictions who stole a chicken from the supermarket to try and give their kids something approaching a Christmas dinner & shows remorse.
In those circumstances you may in my opinion quite correctly see somebody imprisoned for the (so called) lesser offence whilst someone committing the (so called) more serious offence is not.
You could write it up as motorist imprisoned & thief let go & say that's insane, but with the full facts of both cases take the view that the motorist being imprisoned & the thief not being quite correct.
The full details of the case need to be known to make a determination.
On the face of it I don’t agree with prison for a case like the original post although I do agree with the post above.eg
Dangerous driving maximum penalty 2 years imprisonment.
Theft maximum penalty 7 years imprisonment.
In the case of a driver who has failed to stop for Police, travels at grossly excessive speeds through residential areas, then goes through a pedestrian only area where pedestrians can be seen scattering from their path & has multiple convictions for the same offence showing no remorse, would be more deserving of prison than somebody down on their luck with no previous convictions who stole a chicken from the supermarket to try and give their kids something approaching a Christmas dinner & shows remorse.
In those circumstances you may in my opinion quite correctly see somebody imprisoned for the (so called) lesser offence whilst someone committing the (so called) more serious offence is not.
You could write it up as motorist imprisoned & thief let go & say that's insane, but with the full facts of both cases take the view that the motorist being imprisoned & the thief not being quite correct.
The full details of the case need to be known to make a determination.
A driving ban is never going to stop little scrotes from tearing around the street with total disregard for anyone else, they should be locked up. It’s just a shame that whenever I see anything like that on those police chase TV shows, they get off very lightly.
Some road users will always be dangerous idiots. It's about getting the punishment right.
There has been a lot of bad feeling towards a car driver near my daughter's home over an incident in Hampstead a month or so back where a motorcyclist and a car collided and the driver used the much maligned 'i didn't see him' reply.
Except on this occasion i have a lot of sympathy for the young man. It's (precictably) a 30 mph limit and involves a rise in the major road hampered by a bend. 5 witnesses said the bike was doing a minimum or 50 mph and 2 said probably a lot more. The car driver has been roundly condemned by the biker's family but isn't it on these occasions that we have to accept that there are far too many people on 2 wheels going too fast in the wrong places? When that guy pulled out the road was clear to him, then the bike appears over the crest of the hill and boom! One badly hurt biker, a damaged car and a lot of unpleasantness and even threats flying all over social media and in the pubs.
It happens with 2 and 4 wheel pilots. An outlet car park local to my daughter is used as a handbrake turn / drag strip / circuit racing fiasco at night and locals fed up to the back teeth with it have taken extreme measures which i won't list here. Suffice to say there has been a lot of flat tyres lately and some extra work for the local paint sprayers...
There has been a lot of bad feeling towards a car driver near my daughter's home over an incident in Hampstead a month or so back where a motorcyclist and a car collided and the driver used the much maligned 'i didn't see him' reply.
Except on this occasion i have a lot of sympathy for the young man. It's (precictably) a 30 mph limit and involves a rise in the major road hampered by a bend. 5 witnesses said the bike was doing a minimum or 50 mph and 2 said probably a lot more. The car driver has been roundly condemned by the biker's family but isn't it on these occasions that we have to accept that there are far too many people on 2 wheels going too fast in the wrong places? When that guy pulled out the road was clear to him, then the bike appears over the crest of the hill and boom! One badly hurt biker, a damaged car and a lot of unpleasantness and even threats flying all over social media and in the pubs.
It happens with 2 and 4 wheel pilots. An outlet car park local to my daughter is used as a handbrake turn / drag strip / circuit racing fiasco at night and locals fed up to the back teeth with it have taken extreme measures which i won't list here. Suffice to say there has been a lot of flat tyres lately and some extra work for the local paint sprayers...
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff