Three jailed for dangerous driving
Discussion
Grindle said:
Some road users will always be dangerous idiots. It's about getting the punishment right.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that (IMHO) is better served by professionals deciding within a system that has a well defined appeals process & where they have the full facts of the case before them, than by people on the internet with very limited details before them where those details will (undoubtedly) be flavoured by the author's particular persuasions.To have a significant "accident", its quite likely that someone was doing something dangerous. Plenty of the time where there isn't a significant accident people will be driving dangerously. Recently, an elderly relative of mine mounted a footpath and wiped out a (fortunately empty) bus stop. Luckily no one hurt, and questionably, no charge at all.
I completely agree that a custodial sentence is appropriate for the extreme cases. But clearly the driving being "dangerous" isn't in itself the key factor in if a motorist is charged with dangerous driving. That's what bewilders me, far too much "judgment" is exercised with such significant consequences.
Overtaking on double white lines, past a junction, with no visibility (one incident in the OP) ...… It's an offence in its own right. But its certainly dangerous, what dictates a charge or not? What dictates custodial or not? I'm sure the consequences will have a bearing (significant accident) ? Far too much judgment to my mind when these things can be made specific...…..
Overtaking on double white lines - points,
Aggravating circumstances such as other driver having to avoid - ban,
Accident - dangerous driving and long ban,
Even more serious - potential custodial..... sort of thing.
I completely agree that a custodial sentence is appropriate for the extreme cases. But clearly the driving being "dangerous" isn't in itself the key factor in if a motorist is charged with dangerous driving. That's what bewilders me, far too much "judgment" is exercised with such significant consequences.
Overtaking on double white lines, past a junction, with no visibility (one incident in the OP) ...… It's an offence in its own right. But its certainly dangerous, what dictates a charge or not? What dictates custodial or not? I'm sure the consequences will have a bearing (significant accident) ? Far too much judgment to my mind when these things can be made specific...…..
Overtaking on double white lines - points,
Aggravating circumstances such as other driver having to avoid - ban,
Accident - dangerous driving and long ban,
Even more serious - potential custodial..... sort of thing.
Hungrymc said:
To have a significant "accident", its quite likely that someone was doing something dangerous. Plenty of the time where there isn't a significant accident people will be driving dangerously. Recently, an elderly relative of mine mounted a footpath and wiped out a (fortunately empty) bus stop. Luckily no one hurt, and questionably, no charge at all.
I completely agree that a custodial sentence is appropriate for the extreme cases. But clearly the driving being "dangerous" isn't in itself the key factor in if a motorist is charged with dangerous driving. That's what bewilders me, far too much "judgment" is exercised with such significant consequences.
Overtaking on double white lines, past a junction, with no visibility (one incident in the OP) ...… It's an offence in its own right. But its certainly dangerous, what dictates a charge or not? What dictates custodial or not? I'm sure the consequences will have a bearing (significant accident) ? Far too much judgment to my mind when these things can be made specific...…..
Overtaking on double white lines - points,
Aggravating circumstances such as other driver having to avoid - ban,
Accident - dangerous driving and long ban,
Even more serious - potential custodial..... sort of thing.
Dangerous doesn't tend to get used for isolated incidents.I completely agree that a custodial sentence is appropriate for the extreme cases. But clearly the driving being "dangerous" isn't in itself the key factor in if a motorist is charged with dangerous driving. That's what bewilders me, far too much "judgment" is exercised with such significant consequences.
Overtaking on double white lines, past a junction, with no visibility (one incident in the OP) ...… It's an offence in its own right. But its certainly dangerous, what dictates a charge or not? What dictates custodial or not? I'm sure the consequences will have a bearing (significant accident) ? Far too much judgment to my mind when these things can be made specific...…..
Overtaking on double white lines - points,
Aggravating circumstances such as other driver having to avoid - ban,
Accident - dangerous driving and long ban,
Even more serious - potential custodial..... sort of thing.
You could say that somebody pulling out in front of somebody is dangerous. Well yes there is risk & often a collision may occur, but even if a collision does occur it's not likely to attract a dangerous charge, it'll be a careless driving. Careless tends to result from isolated errors of judgement or mistakes (driving that fell below the standard expected). Dangerous on the other tends to be saved for extreme cases in the first place. People who commit to high risk actions, followed by high risk actions, followed by high risk actions (& fell far below the standards expected). They also tend to be actions committed over a considerable time period. These are not errors of judgement or isolated mistakes. They require a concerted effort to reach those levels of
.Also Dangerous is an either way offence which means potentially the expense of Crown Court, whilst careless is summary only so will only be heard at Magistrates. With that in mind CPS will tend to take the easy option of Careless unless the driving really does warrant a dangerous trial.
I think most of that could be defined to remove some of the judgment / opinion. Examples of high risk actions, a timescale or no of incidents that would qualify it. I do understand that its impossible to foresee every circumstance, but it could certainly be defined to a far higher level than today.
I do puzzle over decisions such as the mobile phone law, I'd genuinely think it could be captured in carless / dangerous dangerous etc and therefore no new law is needed. Just odd that in some areas the law is totally specific and then in a area that switches the penalty to custodial its very subjective (even if it likes to say its intended to be objective). Anyway, it is what it is.
I struggle to track these types of incidents through to sentencing, but after our three dangerous bikers, I'd expect this bloke to be in some very, very serious trouble..... If anyone knows how to track the case, I'd be interested to follow it.
I do puzzle over decisions such as the mobile phone law, I'd genuinely think it could be captured in carless / dangerous dangerous etc and therefore no new law is needed. Just odd that in some areas the law is totally specific and then in a area that switches the penalty to custodial its very subjective (even if it likes to say its intended to be objective). Anyway, it is what it is.
I struggle to track these types of incidents through to sentencing, but after our three dangerous bikers, I'd expect this bloke to be in some very, very serious trouble..... If anyone knows how to track the case, I'd be interested to follow it.
Robbery is a more serious offence than dangerous driving, with a higher potential penalty (it results in a far higher percentage of those convicted being imprisoned than driving offences do) . In the car jacking that's the primary offence they'd be going after not the dangerous driving, which would be sidelined.
Of course speeding, phone use etc could amount to careless or dangerous driving (depending on the circumstances), but as careless & dangerous aren't strict liability offences in the same way speeding or phone use are (worded), they would be far more likely to end up in a costly trial endlessly pouring over & debating the circumstances. That's why speeding, phone use & a whole host of other summary driving offences are written in the binary way they are. There is then no need to prove that those offences resulted from a lack of care or were dangerous, there's no debate in court over that, it's black/white. Careless & dangerous can't be defined in that same way.
Of course speeding, phone use etc could amount to careless or dangerous driving (depending on the circumstances), but as careless & dangerous aren't strict liability offences in the same way speeding or phone use are (worded), they would be far more likely to end up in a costly trial endlessly pouring over & debating the circumstances. That's why speeding, phone use & a whole host of other summary driving offences are written in the binary way they are. There is then no need to prove that those offences resulted from a lack of care or were dangerous, there's no debate in court over that, it's black/white. Careless & dangerous can't be defined in that same way.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 18th December 13:58
vonhosen said:
Robbery is a more serious offence than dangerous driving, with a higher potential penalty (it results in a far higher percentage of those convicted being imprisoned than driving offences do) . In the car jacking that's the primary offence they'd be going after not the dangerous driving, which would be sidelined.
Of course speeding, phone use etc could amount to careless or dangerous driving (depending on the circumstances), but as careless & dangerous aren't strict liability offences in the same way speeding or phone use are (worded), they would be far more likely to end up in a costly trial endlessly pouring over & debating the circumstances. That's why speeding, phone use & a whole host of other summary driving offences are written in the binary way they are. Careless & dangerous can't be defined in that same way.
I find it hard to accept (that dangerous driving can't be defined). Maybe there could simply be an escalator on the number of binary offenses committed (crossing white lines, speeding etc) and their magnitude, which is what triggers dangerous driving.... I accept its more challenging, but I don't accept its impossible.Of course speeding, phone use etc could amount to careless or dangerous driving (depending on the circumstances), but as careless & dangerous aren't strict liability offences in the same way speeding or phone use are (worded), they would be far more likely to end up in a costly trial endlessly pouring over & debating the circumstances. That's why speeding, phone use & a whole host of other summary driving offences are written in the binary way they are. Careless & dangerous can't be defined in that same way.
On the incident I posted. Its interesting that dangerous driving is a function of cumulating offences. but then in this incident we "sideline" offenses and prioritize the most serious one.... I understand that you will be able to explain why this is the case in law, and you'll have to understand that this is at least questionable logic.
But taking your point, its hard to imagine more aggravating circumstances for a robbery, planned violence, failing to stop, dangerous driving, significant collision and injury..... It all sounds like it should be magnitudes beyond the three idiots from the OP. What are the sentencing guidelines for a violent robbery (assume the aggravating circumstances drive it to the top end) ?
Thank you, had found that through google and was trying to determine how a hammer be considered and how much damage you have to do in order to move through the classifications. Maybe the injury from the crash should be considered a direct consequence?
Is there any simple way to keep tabs on the case ?
Is there any simple way to keep tabs on the case ?
vonhosen said:
Robbery is a more serious offence than dangerous driving, with a higher potential penalty (it results in a far higher percentage of those convicted being imprisoned than driving offences do) . In the car jacking that's the primary offence they'd be going after not the dangerous driving, which would be sidelined.
Of course speeding, phone use etc could amount to careless or dangerous driving (depending on the circumstances), but as careless & dangerous aren't strict liability offences in the same way speeding or phone use are (worded), they would be far more likely to end up in a costly trial endlessly pouring over & debating the circumstances. That's why speeding, phone use & a whole host of other summary driving offences are written in the binary way they are. There is then no need to prove that those offences resulted from a lack of care or were dangerous, there's no debate in court over that, it's black/white. Careless & dangerous can't be defined in that same way.
Of course not. Then reams of pedants, funded by the taxpayers can debate the things to death, usefully burning up the excess time and money created by the ‘binary laws’. It all just proves what a crock of sOf course speeding, phone use etc could amount to careless or dangerous driving (depending on the circumstances), but as careless & dangerous aren't strict liability offences in the same way speeding or phone use are (worded), they would be far more likely to end up in a costly trial endlessly pouring over & debating the circumstances. That's why speeding, phone use & a whole host of other summary driving offences are written in the binary way they are. There is then no need to prove that those offences resulted from a lack of care or were dangerous, there's no debate in court over that, it's black/white. Careless & dangerous can't be defined in that same way.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 18th December 13:58
t the entire system is. The three locked up have likely contributed more to society themselves than these clown courts. 16 months for causing such an accident...... still a bloke driving his own car and not part of a violent car jacking or something.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
JulianHJ said:
This popped up on a local news site (I've linked direct to the source to spare you all the ads):
https://www.sussex.police.uk/news/sussex/news/cour...
It got me thinking about a few things that crop up on PH - the risks involved in filming yourself if you like to push your limits, policing response to this type of riding, and sentencing at court.
I think in this case the response and sentencing were proportionate, but I can see that others might argue that as no physical harm was caused, they disagree.
What's the consensus? Prison spaces and police investigations should be focused elsewhere, the guys got what they deserved, or somewhere in between?
Thats crazyhttps://www.sussex.police.uk/news/sussex/news/cour...
It got me thinking about a few things that crop up on PH - the risks involved in filming yourself if you like to push your limits, policing response to this type of riding, and sentencing at court.
I think in this case the response and sentencing were proportionate, but I can see that others might argue that as no physical harm was caused, they disagree.
What's the consensus? Prison spaces and police investigations should be focused elsewhere, the guys got what they deserved, or somewhere in between?
9 months..... suspended !
Admitted dangerous driving, had an accident, abandoned the car and fled the scene......
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Can’t be right can it?
Admitted dangerous driving, had an accident, abandoned the car and fled the scene......
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Can’t be right can it?
Fairly typical PH thread.
Someone (VH) posting some views that are unpopular on here and gets faced with childish responses and personal abuse.
Outside the PH bubble I expect the majority of the public support more severe not more lenient sentences for dangerous driving/riding and most would view the antics of these riders as dangerous and wholly unacceptable.
Comments like “it’s ridiculous” only highlights how ridiculously out of step some posters are with public opinion.
Someone (VH) posting some views that are unpopular on here and gets faced with childish responses and personal abuse.
Outside the PH bubble I expect the majority of the public support more severe not more lenient sentences for dangerous driving/riding and most would view the antics of these riders as dangerous and wholly unacceptable.
Comments like “it’s ridiculous” only highlights how ridiculously out of step some posters are with public opinion.
Esceptico said:
Fairly typical PH thread.
Someone (VH) posting some views that are unpopular on here and gets faced with childish responses and personal abuse.
Outside the PH bubble I expect the majority of the public support more severe not more lenient sentences for dangerous driving/riding and most would view the antics of these riders as dangerous and wholly unacceptable.
Comments like “it’s ridiculous” only highlights how ridiculously out of step some posters are with public opinion.
The discussion is about appropriateness and consistency of sentencing. Someone (VH) posting some views that are unpopular on here and gets faced with childish responses and personal abuse.
Outside the PH bubble I expect the majority of the public support more severe not more lenient sentences for dangerous driving/riding and most would view the antics of these riders as dangerous and wholly unacceptable.
Comments like “it’s ridiculous” only highlights how ridiculously out of step some posters are with public opinion.
I’d suggest that is an issue that everyone is entitled to an opinion on - and it’s not childish because it’s not aligned with someone else’s?
It’s risky to assume to know what the public want. I’m not sure the public want to pay to jail dangerous drivers, and are happy to allow many burglars (and some dangerous drivers that flee the scene of their own accident etc) to go free?
You may not like it, but it’s a reasonable topic to discuss.
yonex said:
You do reside in the UK i take it, as people like VH are very much in the (Police) minority.
Nobody condones riding like a bell, but the facts are the punishment simply doesn’t fit the crime.
I think you are mixing “facts” with your personal opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to hold).Nobody condones riding like a bell, but the facts are the punishment simply doesn’t fit the crime.
As far as I can tell, the actual “facts” are
- there is a crime of dangerous driving
- under current legislation the three were found guilty of dangerous driving
- under current sentencing guidelines custodial sentences can be given for dangerous driving
- no one on here knows what prior convictions the three have or the full evidence out before the court which the judge would have taken into account when passing the sentences
It is a fact that you disagree but the reality is that your opinion doesn’t count because it has no impact on the legislation, policing or sentencing.
It is a fact that some people (not surprising those on a car and bike forum) agree with you. However there will be many (I suspect many more) who don’t. As an acid test, trying show the clip to some family or friends with no interest in cars and bikes and see what they think.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff