- This topic has 23 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
bendertherobot.
-
CreatorTopic
-
August 2, 2016 at 11:34 am #26089
DaveE128
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. 🙁
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
What’s interesting is that
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.
Dan S
Awavey wrote:
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.Awavey
Dan S 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
srchar wrote:
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? 😉
srchar
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.
oldstrath
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?
srchar wrote:
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.
srchar
To play devil’s advocate for
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.
postmandick wrote:
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.
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.
Dnnnnnn
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!
postmandick
comming at this from my
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
FatAndFurious
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.
Nick Forster
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.
It looks to me as though he
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.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.