Hypothetical question to settle an argument.

[shadytree]

A person has a clean license, and no previous convictions or endorsments.

What would suffer the worse punishment ?

1. Getting cought doing over 170mph ?

2. Getting cought drink driving ?(at any speed)

What would you estimate the fines and bans to be, in each instance ?
Any help from PH bib's on this would be appreciated.

I would just like to add these are both hypothetical and DON'T in anyway apply to me.

[dazren]

In today's climate getting caught doing 170 would involve a holiday at HM's pleasure.

Drink driving within the speed limits etc would result in a 12/18 months ban. Driving well above the speed limit while well above the DD would see you taking some time away from the office as above.

DAZ

>> Edited by dazren on Wednesday 1st September 17:02

[Neil_H]

There's more variables than that. How much over the drink drive limit, were you driving dangerously at the time etc etc? Depends where and when you were doing 170, middle of the night on a deserted motorway or down a dual carriageway in a town at 5pm?

So the answer is maybe, maybe not, but in many cases I think you would be worse off if you were caught doing 170.

[zcacogp]

... even though at 170 you could be completely safe and in control of the vehicle - no danger posed to anyone, whereas DD you would, almost by definition, not be in control of your vehicle?

(Contrast with the fatherland. 170 in the right place - autobahn - DeutschBiB won't bat an eyelid, DD and you would be in alot of deep, deep schitte.)

Great world we live in, chaps.


Oli.

[shadytree]

Neil_H said:

There's more variables than that.

Ok , lets say 170 on a deserted motorway at 5.00am.
Caught drink driving 50mph in a 30 at 12.30am ?

I personally think that given no previouses, that the DD is the greater danger and therefore, the said offence deserves the greater punishment.
But I guess anyone caught at 170 would be made a lesson of, so there are two sides to this argument.

[JamieBeeston]

The question is who WOULD end up worst off, as opposed to who should, which, ironically, I would expect to be the opposite.

170 mph WOULD, imho, result in a much harsher treatment than DD.

[lanciachris]

my hugely important opinion

The speeding... 12 month ban and a fecking huge fine in proportion with income - if you own a car that does 170, I think you can pay it

Drink Driving... 5 year ban, 1000 hours community service. To be served over no more than 18 months.

[Richard C]

why don't you simply insist on roadside public execution for both lanciachris ?

[simpo two]

lanciachris said:

if you own a car that does 170, I think you can pay it

So if you're rich the crime is worse? No - it's a socialist idea called soaking the rich (assuming this bod hasn't spent all his money on the car). Mind you, why am I bothered? I have a Griffith 500 but currently earn only a few 100 a month.

Generally I think that DD is the worse offence because judgement is impaired.

[kevinday]

Should do 174 mph then one-legged Gatso man won't catch you

[Hardcore2000]

no doubt about it that the DD would prob get a longer ban but the financial penalty for speeding would be greater and there would be a much greater chance of prison for the speeding. its a sick world!