130mph Porsche driver avoids jail
Discussion
Dont' think this is a repost... apologies if it is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gl
Now I don't have all the facts here but interesting mitigation - being tailgated by an unmarked police car. For three juntions. Given that he received an 18 month ban and 150 hours of community service and narrowly avoided jail (!) I take it the charge must have been dangerous driving. I was under the impression that dangerous driving charges were notoriously difficult to stick? He was speeding and he undertook a vehicle. Surely there must be more than this for DD?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gl
Now I don't have all the facts here but interesting mitigation - being tailgated by an unmarked police car. For three juntions. Given that he received an 18 month ban and 150 hours of community service and narrowly avoided jail (!) I take it the charge must have been dangerous driving. I was under the impression that dangerous driving charges were notoriously difficult to stick? He was speeding and he undertook a vehicle. Surely there must be more than this for DD?
NCC1701 said:
Interesting post but that mitigation is the worst load of bull I have heard in ages.
If the BiBs really were tailgating surely he should have been able to see two BiBs sat in the car. More like mines bigger than yours and I am gonna give it some beans.
If the BiBs really were tailgating surely he should have been able to see two BiBs sat in the car. More like mines bigger than yours and I am gonna give it some beans.
Not really - I drive a low sportscar (probably lower than a Porker), and I would struggle to pic out two cops in an unmarked car) unless they had hats on....
Bing o said:
NCC1701 said:
Interesting post but that mitigation is the worst load of bull I have heard in ages.
If the BiBs really were tailgating surely he should have been able to see two BiBs sat in the car. More like mines bigger than yours and I am gonna give it some beans.
If the BiBs really were tailgating surely he should have been able to see two BiBs sat in the car. More like mines bigger than yours and I am gonna give it some beans.
Not really - I drive a low sportscar (probably lower than a Porker), and I would struggle to pic out two cops in an unmarked car) unless they had hats on....
Fair point, something you forget driving a nice big saloon. Although, I would imagine the rear visibility in a porsche would be pretty good and if you can't see what's behind you would have to be nuts to giving it that much.
I just don't buy the tailgater as justification for speeding, just pull over, speeding up doesn't help. His speed was not the end of the world and it was his decision to go that fast, I just wish people would take responsibility for their own actions rather than trying to blame someone else. Don't wish to re-ignite speeding debate.
Edited by NCC1701 on Thursday 17th May 10:57
Yet more evidence of the desperate need to train magistrates / judges better in their understanding of modern automobiles.
Why on earth are we handing out fixed penalties and three points to people driving with a bald tyre and talking about jail time for people exceeding a speed limit?
No wonder deaths are up.
SM
Why on earth are we handing out fixed penalties and three points to people driving with a bald tyre and talking about jail time for people exceeding a speed limit?
No wonder deaths are up.
SM
NCC1701 said:
Don't wish to re-ignite speeding debate.
Why not? The alternative is to allow this ludicrous situation of over-reaction and over-punishment to continue.
If we want road deaths down we need to deter people from doing dangerous things. Focusing on MPH is a major distraction from this.
SM
supermono said:
Yet more evidence of the desperate need to train magistrates / judges better in their understanding of modern automobiles.
Why on earth are we handing out fixed penalties and three points to people driving with a bald tyre and talking about jail time for people exceeding a speed limit?
No wonder deaths are up.
SM
Why on earth are we handing out fixed penalties and three points to people driving with a bald tyre and talking about jail time for people exceeding a speed limit?
No wonder deaths are up.
SM
Magistrates don't need training on modern vehicles, their capabilities are irrelevant. The speed limit is clear, he broke it by some margin and can expect the punishment. Whether you agree with the speed limit or not.
I agree with you about penalties for bald tyres etc should be stiffer.
NCC1701 said:
Fair point, something you forget driving a nice big saloon. Although, I would imagine the rear visibility in a porsche would be pretty good and if you can't see what's behind you would have to be nuts to giving it that much.
It didn't say what sort of Porsche - if it was a GT3 he'd be peering through a rollcage...
I'm not saying that you can't see, I'm just saying that the two epaulettes on plods shoulders are not always obvious to everyone, though he was obviously aware of the vehicle's presence.
NCC1701 said:
Magistrates don't need training on modern vehicles, their capabilities are irrelevant. The speed limit is clear, he broke it by some margin and can expect the punishment. Whether you agree with the speed limit or not.
This isn't to do with agreeing with the speed limit or not. It's to do with educating magistrates and judges. Because someone who judges that doing 130mph requires jail time doesn't understand the subject well enough.
Supposing someone was up on a charge of polluting a water course with bleach, and they'd poured one litre into a large river. Sure they broke the law but if the judge talked sternly to them and advised they'd narrowly avoided jail then handed them a 1000 pound fine, they'd be demonstrating their poor knowledge in the field of hazmats and be given extra training.
This case seems no different to me.
SM
NCC1701 said:
Interesting post but that mitigation is the worst load of bull I have heard in ages.
If the BiBs really were tailgating surely he should have been able to see two BiBs sat in the car. More like mines bigger than yours and I am gonna give it some beans.
If the BiBs really were tailgating surely he should have been able to see two BiBs sat in the car. More like mines bigger than yours and I am gonna give it some beans.
I can't see how you can jump to that conclusion. Even if it was a "mines bigger than yours" reaction, the provocation for it was caused by the police tailgating. What possible excuse can there be for tailgating a driver for three junctions? If the police officer was intentionally provoking the other driver, it would be tantamount to entrapment. If the driver was provoked into dangerous driving, then the police officer is responsible in part for creating a danger to the public.
I am not one to slag off the police at the drop of a hat, but I have seen this kind of provocative driving myself so I am inclined to give this bloke the benefit of the doubt.
Bing o said:
It didn't say what sort of Porsche - if it was a GT3 he'd be peering through a rollcage...
Only if it was a GT3 with a rollcage, lol.
I was followed by an unmarked plod over 10 miles of the A14/A11 last year who was waiting patiently for me to give it the big one and he was quite clear to me in the mirror of my turbo even with the spoiler up.
Besides I'm guessing an boxster since he only did 130.
SM
Edited by supermono on Thursday 17th May 11:32
[/quote]
What possible excuse can there be for tailgating a driver for three junctions? If the police officer was intentionally provoking the other driver, it would be tantamount to entrapment. If the driver was provoked into dangerous driving, then the police officer is responsible in part for creating a danger to the public.
I am not one to slag off the police at the drop of a hat, but I have seen this kind of provocative driving myself so I am inclined to give this bloke the benefit of the doubt.[/quote]
Exactly and that's the irony here. Presumanly the dangerous driving charge was bolstered by this happending over 3 junctions, i.e. a long time, BUT if it was so "dangerous" why was the driver allowed to continue driving in this manner? Surely he should have been pulled over earlier?
What possible excuse can there be for tailgating a driver for three junctions? If the police officer was intentionally provoking the other driver, it would be tantamount to entrapment. If the driver was provoked into dangerous driving, then the police officer is responsible in part for creating a danger to the public.
I am not one to slag off the police at the drop of a hat, but I have seen this kind of provocative driving myself so I am inclined to give this bloke the benefit of the doubt.[/quote]
Exactly and that's the irony here. Presumanly the dangerous driving charge was bolstered by this happending over 3 junctions, i.e. a long time, BUT if it was so "dangerous" why was the driver allowed to continue driving in this manner? Surely he should have been pulled over earlier?
NCC1701 said:
supermono said:
Yet more evidence of the desperate need to train magistrates / judges better in their understanding of modern automobiles.
Why on earth are we handing out fixed penalties and three points to people driving with a bald tyre and talking about jail time for people exceeding a speed limit?
No wonder deaths are up.
SM
Why on earth are we handing out fixed penalties and three points to people driving with a bald tyre and talking about jail time for people exceeding a speed limit?
No wonder deaths are up.
SM
Magistrates don't need training on modern vehicles, their capabilities are irrelevant. The speed limit is clear, he broke it by some margin and can expect the punishment. Whether you agree with the speed limit or not.
I agree with you about penalties for bald tyres etc should be stiffer.
You couldn't be more off the mark than this.
I have spent hours in court sometimes attempting to explain the simplest of technical principles about either a vehicle or the concepts of VASCAR and have been met with a vacant stare.
If they don't have at least basic technical knowledge they shouldn#t be on the bench
supermono said:
Only if it was a GT3 with a rollcage, lol.
I was followed by an unmarked plod over 10 miles of the A14/A11 last year who was waiting patiently for me to give it the big one and he was quite clear to me in the mirror of my turbo even with the spoiler up.
Besides I'm guessing an boxster since he only did 130.
SM
Edited by supermono on Thursday 17th May 11:32
SM - I take it you didn't get pulled cos you floored it and they couldn't catch you
Christ, incoming 
Supermono,
He didn’t get jail time though so I guess the Mags in this case don’t needed educating. You can’t be jailed for speeding alone, would have to be a charge of dangerous driving I would guess.
Jith,
My point was the capabilities of his Porsche are irrelevant. The speed limit is the same for all cars.
ATG,
Admittedly, it’s all speculation because we don’t know the full facts. I just don’t think being tailgated is an excuse for speeding, it just doesn’t make sense. Pull over.
Bing-o
Whatever Porsche he was driving, if you can’t see two BiBs sat in the vehicle behind you then you really are gambling with your licence driving at that speed.
Supermono,
He didn’t get jail time though so I guess the Mags in this case don’t needed educating. You can’t be jailed for speeding alone, would have to be a charge of dangerous driving I would guess.
Jith,
My point was the capabilities of his Porsche are irrelevant. The speed limit is the same for all cars.
ATG,
Admittedly, it’s all speculation because we don’t know the full facts. I just don’t think being tailgated is an excuse for speeding, it just doesn’t make sense. Pull over.
Bing-o
Whatever Porsche he was driving, if you can’t see two BiBs sat in the vehicle behind you then you really are gambling with your licence driving at that speed.
Edited by NCC1701 on Thursday 17th May 11:50
Edited by NCC1701 on Thursday 17th May 11:56
Carlos79 said:
SM - I take it you didn't get pulled cos you floored it and they couldn't catch you
Hardly
I'd gone by in excess of the speed limit but noticed as I passed that it was an unmarked so eased back to 80-85. Finally after 10+ miles waiting for me to "make his day" he decided to give up and pull me for 96. Quite where he got 96 from I don't know, but cleverly it was just high enough for me not to risk an increased penalty in court* and instead took the 3 points/60 quid offer. SM
*listening to someone confusing 100mph with 200mph
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff