Home

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-36953439

Is that a reasonable punishment for willfully endangering other people's lives?

Our "justice" system is so broken.  2

23 comments

Avatar
brooksby [3291 posts] 1 year ago
2 likes

£365=~4.5 cyclists 

Avatar
tritecommentbot [2266 posts] 1 year ago
1 like

Nothing reasonable about the current legislation. Long overdue an overhaul. 

Avatar
notfastenough [3730 posts] 1 year ago
1 like

What would the stopping distance be I wonder?

Avatar
TheLonelyOne [374 posts] 1 year ago
3 likes
notfastenough wrote:

What would the stopping distance be I wonder?

A basic calculation is "speed + (speed squared)/20" feet which works for the UK driving test. 

154mph gives 1340 feet or 408m no

This random google find agrees pretty well: http://www.random-science-tools.com/physics/stopping-distance.htm

 

You're welcome.

 

Avatar
tourdelound [170 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

In today's local paper, the EDP, you can find this - http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/police_launch_appeal_against_sentence_...

Maybe something will come out of the appeal, but I wouldn't hold your breath.

Avatar
Stumps [3493 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Its not the Police who appeal its the CPS but whether the CPS can be arsed is another matter, but like above i wont hold my breath.

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet [2048 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Do the same on a motorbike and you will probably be jailed. 

Actually I'm just guessing from stuff I seem to remember but a friend of a friend got done for doing 155 on a B-road a couple of years ago and was banned for dangerous for 12 months with a re-test.

When I was riding a motorbike though, it did seem that the punishment for the same crime would always be more severe than if you did it in a car. I remember we got pulled for nothing really one day and it was like Parc Ferme, with the copper inspecting the bikes trying to find some technical infringement to get us on as we'd sussed he was a bike copper a while back (usually fat, Sam Brown belt, Honda Blackbird with shit Macadam touring tyres on and a very upright riding style) and were obeying the laws of the land. That used to happen a fair bit around Sherburn in Elmett but I was never pulled for anything back in my hot hatch days.

Avatar
Windydog [67 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

Right first off, he can go to jail and not pass go for all I care.   Is he a danger to cyclists or just everyone?   Anything over 100mph is bend over and pick up the soap I assumed.

However,  stopping distance.  Can we be a little more scientific?  Highway code is not a fair assessment tool when dealing with a Leon Cupra (Assume R to get to 154mph) as braking performance taken from a modern car is perhaps a little less 1970s.  Approx co-effiecient used is 1.58 for Leon against 1970s standard car (can show working comparing brake test results).

Therefore at 154mph Thinking distance (same as HC) = 46m + 228m Actual calculated distance (adjusted) = 274meters for this loon. 

I reckon (for purposes of justice and re-offending) he ought to stand 229m meters away from a stop line and someone driving at him at 154mph in his own car, see how confident he is then.

 

  

Avatar
Dan S [198 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

It looks to me as though he was charged with speeding.  That seems to be a pretty monumental cock-up in itself.  I cannot see why it wouldn't be dangerous driving, which would attract a much longer sentence.  Whether it was a police charging decision or the CPS refused to charge dangerous, we cannot tell.

Avatar
Nick Forster [14 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Dan S wrote:

It looks to me as though he was charged with speeding.  That seems to be a pretty monumental cock-up in itself.  I cannot see why it wouldn't be dangerous driving, which would attract a much longer sentence.  Whether it was a police charging decision or the CPS refused to charge dangerous, we cannot tell.

Over the 100mph mark generally results in a charge of dangerous driving - does seem odd that this one didn't.

Avatar
TheLonelyOne [374 posts] 1 year ago
2 likes
Windydog wrote:

Therefore at 154mph Thinking distance (same as HC) = 46m + 228m Actual calculated distance (adjusted) = 274meters for this loon. 

Agree on the effect of better braking, but I've just realised what the biggest problem of the whole calculation is:

  • "Thinking" time.

This loon clearly doesn't.

Avatar
postmandick [27 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

comming at this from my profesional position (beak) anything over 100 MPH is imprisonable and at least a 3-6 Mth ban (with extended re-test) 

 

but to get 'only' a 56 day ban also stinks ....... a 56 day ban is usually left for 'tecnical' offences 

 

If I was sentencing it would be along the lines of 6 weeks imprisonment suspended for 12 Mths 

3 Mths driving ban and confiscation order for the car and fine + cost's 

 

very stupid thing to do especially on an A road 

Avatar
Duncann [1349 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
postmandick wrote:

comming at this from my profesional position (beak) anything over 100 MPH is imprisonable and at least a 3-6 Mth ban (with extended re-test) 

 

but to get 'only' a 56 day ban also stinks ....... a 56 day ban is usually left for 'tecnical' offences 

 

If I was sentencing it would be along the lines of 6 weeks imprisonment suspended for 12 Mths 

3 Mths driving ban and confiscation order for the car and fine + cost's 

 

very stupid thing to do especially on an A road 

That seems more like it!

Avatar
bendertherobot [1520 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Dan S wrote:

It looks to me as though he was charged with speeding.  That seems to be a pretty monumental cock-up in itself.  I cannot see why it wouldn't be dangerous driving, which would attract a much longer sentence.  Whether it was a police charging decision or the CPS refused to charge dangerous, we cannot tell.

 

This. It's baffling. The speeding charge sentencing guidelines only go up to 110. So this is a max ban, it seems, based on a speeding charge. Given how many bikers have been imprisoned for similar offences this one's a bit baffling.

Avatar
Dan S [198 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
postmandick wrote:

comming at this from my profesional position (beak) anything over 100 MPH is imprisonable and at least a 3-6 Mth ban (with extended re-test) 

 

If I was sentencing it would be along the lines of 6 weeks imprisonment suspended for 12 Mths 

3 Mths driving ban and confiscation order for the car and fine + cost's 

Could I ask you to save us some time in the appellate courts and take legal advice before imposing that?

Imprisonment for speeding is unlawful. So is imprisonment for careless driving. If it's charged as dangerous driving then the disqualification has to be at least 12 months. So one way or the other, the sentence would be unlawful.

Avatar
srchar [861 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I've driven at that sort of speed, and faster, on German autobahns. It requires total focus but the speed in itself is not inherently dangerous if the conditions allow it. The stretch of road where the offence took place is a brand new dual carriageway, in excellent condition and mostly straight. It may well be that the driver endangered nobody, therefore a charge of Dangerous Driving was not pursued.

I'm not condoning driving at more than 200% of the speed limit, just pointing out that it might not actually have been as dangerous as it first sounds. By the way, you can probably more than halve the stopping distance calculated above for a modern car capable of doing that speed.

Avatar
Dan S [198 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
srchar wrote:

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I've driven at that sort of speed, and faster, on German autobahns. It requires total focus but the speed in itself is not inherently dangerous if the conditions allow it. The stretch of road where the offence took place is a brand new dual carriageway, in excellent condition and mostly straight. It may well be that the driver endangered nobody, therefore a charge of Dangerous Driving was not pursued.

I'm not condoning driving at more than 200% of the speed limit, just pointing out that it might not actually have been as dangerous as it first sounds. By the way, you can probably more than halve the stopping distance calculated above for a modern car capable of doing that speed.

That is certainly a possibility. Mildly unlikely but a possibility. I think most prosecutors would lay at least a careless driving.

Avatar
oldstrath [970 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
srchar wrote:

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I've driven at that sort of speed, and faster, on German autobahns. It requires total focus but the speed in itself is not inherently dangerous if the conditions allow it. The stretch of road where the offence took place is a brand new dual carriageway, in excellent condition and mostly straight. It may well be that the driver endangered nobody, therefore a charge of Dangerous Driving was not pursued.

I'm not condoning driving at more than 200% of the speed limit, just pointing out that it might not actually have been as dangerous as it first sounds. By the way, you can probably more than halve the stopping distance calculated above for a modern car capable of doing that speed.

Nobody, that is, except for the small child who ran out in front of the car.

 

OK, not this time, but the sheer bloody thoughtlessness and arrogance astounds me. But why else drive?

Avatar
srchar [861 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
oldstrath wrote:

Nobody, that is, except for the small child who ran out in front of the car.

A small child who runs out into a dual carriageway is dead whether drivers stick to the limit or not. Like I said, I wasn't condoning his behaviour, just speculating as to why a charge of Dangerous Driving was not brought.

Avatar
DaveE128 [996 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
srchar wrote:

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I've driven at that sort of speed, and faster, on German autobahns. It requires total focus but the speed in itself is not inherently dangerous if the conditions allow it. The stretch of road where the offence took place is a brand new dual carriageway, in excellent condition and mostly straight. It may well be that the driver endangered nobody, therefore a charge of Dangerous Driving was not pursued.

I'm not condoning driving at more than 200% of the speed limit, just pointing out that it might not actually have been as dangerous as it first sounds. By the way, you can probably more than halve the stopping distance calculated above for a modern car capable of doing that speed.

Driving at that speed on that road if it were closed to other traffic might not be that likely to cause injury or death, but with other road users potentially on it, it's insane. The chances of someone pulling into your lane because they under estimated your ludicrous speed would be significant. A brief glimpse at Google streetview also seems to show a blind crest on this road. Go figure.

PS Drive an Audi?  3

Avatar
Awavey [410 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Dan S wrote:

It looks to me as though he was charged with speeding.  That seems to be a pretty monumental cock-up in itself.  I cannot see why it wouldn't be dangerous driving, which would attract a much longer sentence.  Whether it was a police charging decision or the CPS refused to charge dangerous, we cannot tell.

well a Seat Cupras limited max top speed is 155mph,although Im sure I read a report the car had been modified/chipped to go faster,but perhaps they had concern the speed wasnt measured correctly and a stronger charge might lead towards a defence argument they couldnt counter. I dont know,but theres obviously a reason for it

Avatar
Dan S [198 posts] 1 year ago
0 likes
Awavey wrote:
Dan S wrote:

It looks to me as though he was charged with speeding.  That seems to be a pretty monumental cock-up in itself.  I cannot see why it wouldn't be dangerous driving, which would attract a much longer sentence.  Whether it was a police charging decision or the CPS refused to charge dangerous, we cannot tell.

well a Seat Cupras limited max top speed is 155mph,although Im sure I read a report the car had been modified/chipped to go faster,but perhaps they had concern the speed wasnt measured correctly and a stronger charge might lead towards a defence argument they couldnt counter. I dont know,but theres obviously a reason for it

I very much doubt that that was the reason. I'd be very surprised indeed if they looked up the maximum speed of the car. And if there's doubt over the exact speed then that makes dangerous driving more likely than speeding: for speeding you have to specify a speed. Dangerous you can just say that it was way too fast and give an estimate.

Avatar
bendertherobot [1520 posts] 1 year ago
1 like

What's interesting is that the sentencing guidlelines "run out" at 110 mph. They weren't designed for this. Hence the other charges. 

I can't fathom how, on the evidence, it cannot ojectively be said to fall well below the standard of a competent and careful driver.