6 Points & £300 for 115mph!!
6 Points & £300 for 115mph!!
Author
Discussion

jshell

Original Poster:

12,106 posts

236 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all

TripleS

4,294 posts

273 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
jshell said:
That wouldn't be my view.

Perhaps the offender was unwise to rush up to 115 mph in a car that was fairly new to him, but I've not much time for the Sherrif's comments about speeding causing tragedies. There's plenty of other ways of having serious shunts, but as usual the court has made a big fuss about speed.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Mr2Mike

20,143 posts

286 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
TripleS said:
I've not much time for the Sherrif's comments about speeding causing tragedies. There's plenty of other ways of having serious shunts, but as usual the court has made a big fuss about speed.
He did get off lightly with no ban, but I agree with your comments. Driving at 115mph does not mean an accident is inevitable, or even likely given appropriate conditions.

That said, clearly 115mph wasn't appropriate at the time, since there was a copper (or was it a camera?) nearby.

Heebeegeetee

30,219 posts

279 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
Wow, thats a really light sentence for 115 and not on an m'way. He did well.

oldsoak

5,618 posts

233 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
TripleS said:
jshell said:
That wouldn't be my view.

Perhaps the offender was unwise to rush up to 115 mph in a car that was fairly new to him, but I've not much time for the Sherrif's comments about speeding causing tragedies. There's plenty of other ways of having serious shunts, but as usual the court has made a big fuss about speed.

Best wishes all,
Dave.
[pedant mode]
The Sheriff actually said..."Speeding can cause all sorts of tragedies." (my bold)
CAN not DOES....[/pedant mode]
winksmile

imbecile

2,032 posts

255 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
oldsoak said:
TripleS said:
jshell said:
That wouldn't be my view.

Perhaps the offender was unwise to rush up to 115 mph in a car that was fairly new to him, but I've not much time for the Sherrif's comments about speeding causing tragedies. There's plenty of other ways of having serious shunts, but as usual the court has made a big fuss about speed.

Best wishes all,
Dave.
[pedant mode]
The Sheriff actually said..."Speeding can cause all sorts of tragedies." (my bold)
CAN not DOES....[/pedant mode]
winksmile
Only in the same sense, that, say, being Chinese does, when you are attacked by people who hate the Chinese.

mrmr96

13,736 posts

235 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
Anyone know what the car was?

fluffnik

20,156 posts

258 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
jshell said:
No.

ALL penalties purely for speeding are excessive and oppressive.

EDLT

15,421 posts

237 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
How did the courts know that the driver was capable of controlling a car at 115mph?

deadslow

8,795 posts

254 months

Friday 10th August 2007
quotequote all
fluffnik said:
jshell said:
No.

ALL penalties purely for speeding are excessive and oppressive.
No wrong.

fluffnik

20,156 posts

258 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
deadslow said:
fluffnik said:
No.

ALL penalties purely for speeding are excessive and oppressive.
No wrong.
Punishing people for doing nothing more than exceeding a number on a stick is indeed wrong.

supermono

7,464 posts

279 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
EDLT said:
How did the courts know that the driver was capable of controlling a car at 115mph?
Because it's so simple? lol. I think you're confusing 115mph with 215mph aren't you?

SM

supermono

7,464 posts

279 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
esteemed judge said:
You are perhaps fortunate nothing happened on this occasion.
Or indeed on the other hundreds of millions of occasions people waft harmlessly about at those sorts of speeds.

Anyway something did happen -- he was stiffed 300 quid and half a licence. Hardly "nothing" I'd have said.

The solution is to raise the speed limit to something more sensible, then these "crimes" will be far less serious. 115mph in a 110mph limit, for example would become a minor transgression rather than exceeding the limit by 45mph. Imagine the paperwork it'd save everyone?

SM

vonhosen

40,597 posts

248 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
supermono said:
EDLT said:
How did the courts know that the driver was capable of controlling a car at 115mph?
Because it's so simple? lol.
Yet many many people make mistakes that lead to collisions (& even more to near misses) at much lower speeds, whilst doing something that is essentially so simple.

supermono

7,464 posts

279 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
supermono said:
EDLT said:
How did the courts know that the driver was capable of controlling a car at 115mph?
Because it's so simple? lol.
Yet many many people make mistakes that lead to collisions (& even more to near misses) at much lower speeds, whilst doing something that is essentially so simple.
Yes it's daft isn't it? Much better to focus on the causes of accidents instead of what number is on the speedo.

SM

vonhosen

40,597 posts

248 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
supermono said:
vonhosen said:
supermono said:
EDLT said:
How did the courts know that the driver was capable of controlling a car at 115mph?
Because it's so simple? lol.
Yet many many people make mistakes that lead to collisions (& even more to near misses) at much lower speeds, whilst doing something that is essentially so simple.
Yes it's daft isn't it? Much better to focus on the causes of accidents instead of what number is on the speedo.

SM
But because they are so prone to mistakes I prefer that we try to limit the potential & severity of outcome by imposing restrictions on the terminal velocity they can legally achieve. After all what you need to recover from mistakes successfully is time & space to do so, speed plays a large part in adversely affecting that.

imbecile

2,032 posts

255 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
supermono said:
vonhosen said:
supermono said:
EDLT said:
How did the courts know that the driver was capable of controlling a car at 115mph?
Because it's so simple? lol.
Yet many many people make mistakes that lead to collisions (& even more to near misses) at much lower speeds, whilst doing something that is essentially so simple.
Yes it's daft isn't it? Much better to focus on the causes of accidents instead of what number is on the speedo.

SM
But because they are so prone to mistakes I prefer that we try to limit the potential & severity of outcome by imposing restrictions on the terminal velocity they can legally achieve. After all what you need to recover from mistakes successfully is time & space to do so, speed plays a large part in adversely affecting that.
Oh boocks. Even if drivers were much worse, we average about ten people killed on the roads every day. This is a tiny number and frankly not worth worrying about.

supermono

7,464 posts

279 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
supermono said:
vonhosen said:
supermono said:
EDLT said:
How did the courts know that the driver was capable of controlling a car at 115mph?
Because it's so simple? lol.
Yet many many people make mistakes that lead to collisions (& even more to near misses) at much lower speeds, whilst doing something that is essentially so simple.
Yes it's daft isn't it? Much better to focus on the causes of accidents instead of what number is on the speedo.

SM
But because they are so prone to mistakes I prefer that we try to limit the potential & severity of outcome by imposing restrictions on the terminal velocity they can legally achieve. After all what you need to recover from mistakes successfully is time & space to do so, speed plays a large part in adversely affecting that.
scratchchin so we'll let poorly trained monkeys out in cars to crash, but legislate against the severity of those crashes? I definitely prefer the German model where people are taught how to drive safely and are trusted to drive safely. In their model speed is often left up to the trained operative.

SM

supermono

7,464 posts

279 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
imbecile said:
Oh boocks. Even if drivers were much worse, we average about ten people killed on the roads every day. This is a tiny number and frankly not worth worrying about.
Refreshing to hear a statistical approach. I do wish this view was taken with regard to the vanishingly small threat of terrorism so we'd all be able to fly easily, not look at great concrete slabs springing up in our once beautiful capital and all kinds of other freedoms Great Britain used to be so proud of.

SM

vonhosen

40,597 posts

248 months

Saturday 11th August 2007
quotequote all
supermono said:
vonhosen said:
supermono said:
vonhosen said:
supermono said:
EDLT said:
How did the courts know that the driver was capable of controlling a car at 115mph?
Because it's so simple? lol.
Yet many many people make mistakes that lead to collisions (& even more to near misses) at much lower speeds, whilst doing something that is essentially so simple.
Yes it's daft isn't it? Much better to focus on the causes of accidents instead of what number is on the speedo.

SM
But because they are so prone to mistakes I prefer that we try to limit the potential & severity of outcome by imposing restrictions on the terminal velocity they can legally achieve. After all what you need to recover from mistakes successfully is time & space to do so, speed plays a large part in adversely affecting that.
scratchchin so we'll let poorly trained monkeys out in cars to crash, but legislate against the severity of those crashes? I definitely prefer the German model where people are taught how to drive safely and are trusted to drive safely. In their model speed is often left up to the trained operative.

SM
Yet our driving test is one of the more difficult in the world scratchchin

Why don't the Germans trust their highly trained operatives to judge speed for themselves on 'all' their roads at 'all' times, instead of just a proportion of one type of road ?
Surely if they judge speed well & have the necessary skills they wouldn't need an artificially imposed limit anywhere, just warnings of the more unusual hazards at those particualr sites ?
Or is it they merely don't have speed limits in certain places for political expediency (which would certainly appear more likely to me if they don't really trust the drivers skill levels) ?


Still your point about poorly trained monkeys is apt to a certain degree, because it does appear that pretty much every country prefers to have a system that makes it relatively easy for everyone to be able to drive a car & impose restrictions on the speeds they can achieve in it legally.

That's why I am of the opinion that the masses out there would rather we have a driving test as it is & lower limits, instead of a much stiffer & regular test with higher limits. A government will cater firstly for it's masses because it's that which puts it in power & I honestly believe much harder tests & retests suddenly being introduced, would be a bigger vote loser than speed limits or cameras. Proportionally there aren't that many PHers in the population.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 11th August 09:38