Discussion
follow the link to the chap jailed for speeding
www.htvwales.com/news/
www.htvwales.com/news/
Hmm.. it's a bit scary really..
I don't quite know how to feel about it - I don't know the roads he was on - there are plenty of roads where those sort of speeds are practically suicidal, but there are others... well you see what I mean.. nevertheless, the punishment just cannot possibly be seen as in proportion to the crime.
What strikes me is that with what's been discussed in another thread today with the policemens' contribution www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7290&f=10&h=0 it's perverse that they can find room for a motorcyclist who actually hasn't harmed anyone to be locked up for 12 months (probably 6 in the outcome). What about all the community service, suspended sentences, tagging and all the other crap they could have given him. Why do they have to wreck his life to make a point?
Some might say I'm overstating the case, but most of us are happiest on the right side of the law and the idea of going to prison scares the crap out of me personally - I'm sure we can look at some of the things other people have done which earned them 12 months.. theft, burglary, drug dealing, whatever...
This man might be a complete twat, or he equally might be a decent bloke who got a bit wild and unlucky - but either way, this is an uncomfortable state of affairs.
Interesting to note that in the thread mentioned above, it's said that for motoring offences you're not entitled to any legal aid - yet you can be sent to prison for motoring offenses.. or have I missed something here?
I don't quite know how to feel about it - I don't know the roads he was on - there are plenty of roads where those sort of speeds are practically suicidal, but there are others... well you see what I mean.. nevertheless, the punishment just cannot possibly be seen as in proportion to the crime.
What strikes me is that with what's been discussed in another thread today with the policemens' contribution www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7290&f=10&h=0 it's perverse that they can find room for a motorcyclist who actually hasn't harmed anyone to be locked up for 12 months (probably 6 in the outcome). What about all the community service, suspended sentences, tagging and all the other crap they could have given him. Why do they have to wreck his life to make a point?
Some might say I'm overstating the case, but most of us are happiest on the right side of the law and the idea of going to prison scares the crap out of me personally - I'm sure we can look at some of the things other people have done which earned them 12 months.. theft, burglary, drug dealing, whatever...
This man might be a complete twat, or he equally might be a decent bloke who got a bit wild and unlucky - but either way, this is an uncomfortable state of affairs.
Interesting to note that in the thread mentioned above, it's said that for motoring offences you're not entitled to any legal aid - yet you can be sent to prison for motoring offenses.. or have I missed something here?
The definition of "dangerous driving" is:
(a) where the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
"Dangerous" means danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property.
The offence of Careless Driving (section 3 of the 1988 Act, as substituted by the 1991 Act) is committed where a person drives a vehicle without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for others.
Any person of sound mind would agree that driving at 165mph on public roads is 'dangerous' - it is insane.
The 12 months jail he got is , I agree 'disproprtionate' - on top of that, he should also have had his byke confiscated and been refrred to a psychiatrist.
Xylophone
(a) where the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
"Dangerous" means danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property.
The offence of Careless Driving (section 3 of the 1988 Act, as substituted by the 1991 Act) is committed where a person drives a vehicle without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for others.
Any person of sound mind would agree that driving at 165mph on public roads is 'dangerous' - it is insane.
The 12 months jail he got is , I agree 'disproprtionate' - on top of that, he should also have had his byke confiscated and been refrred to a psychiatrist.
Xylophone
so did he crash
no
its always what they mite to never what they have done
so he broke the speed limet
big deal
did he crash no
did he hurt anyone no
>> Edited by outlaw on Saturday 9th March 00:46
>> Edited by outlaw on Saturday 9th March 00:52
no
its always what they mite to never what they have done
so he broke the speed limet
big deal
did he crash no
did he hurt anyone no
quote:
The definition of "dangerous driving" is:
(a) where the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and (b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
"Dangerous" means danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property.
The offence of Careless Driving (section 3 of the 1988 Act, as substituted by the 1991 Act) is committed where a person drives a vehicle without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for others.
Any person of sound mind would agree that driving at 165mph on public roads is 'dangerous' - it is insane.
The 12 months jail he got is , I agree 'disproprtionate' - on top of that, he should also have had his byke confiscated and been refrred to a psychiatrist.
Xylophone
>> Edited by outlaw on Saturday 9th March 00:46
>> Edited by outlaw on Saturday 9th March 00:52
prison scares the crap out of me personally
dont be Iv been a few time and for longer than that
they want you to be scared.
Dont be
its cheaper than the fine. :-)
dont be Iv been a few time and for longer than that
they want you to be scared.
Dont be
its cheaper than the fine. :-)
quote:
Hmm.. it's a bit scary really..
I don't quite know how to feel about it - I don't know the roads he was on - there are plenty of roads where those sort of speeds are practically suicidal, but there are others... well you see what I mean.. nevertheless, the punishment just cannot possibly be seen as in proportion to the crime.
What strikes me is that with what's been discussed in another thread today with the policemens' contribution www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=7290&f=10&h=0 it's perverse that they can find room for a motorcyclist who actually hasn't harmed anyone to be locked up for 12 months (probably 6 in the outcome). What about all the community service, suspended sentences, tagging and all the other crap they could have given him. Why do they have to wreck his life to make a point?
Some might say I'm overstating the case, but most of us are happiest on the right side of the law and the idea of going to prison scares the crap out of me personally - I'm sure we can look at some of the things other people have done which earned them 12 months.. theft, burglary, drug dealing, whatever...
This man might be a complete twat, or he equally might be a decent bloke who got a bit wild and unlucky - but either way, this is an uncomfortable state of affairs.
Interesting to note that in the thread mentioned above, it's said that for motoring offences you're not entitled to any legal aid - yet you can be sent to prison for motoring offenses.. or have I missed something here?
Listening to some late night net radio station and the presenter said its less dangerous to do 165 on a motorbike than a car! His reasoning was that bikes are smaller so people can jump out of the way of bikes easiely and bikes dont take up a whole side of the road so evasive manouvers(sp?) are easier! Who said the Blairite phanny messages get accross to everyone?
"this is an uncomfortable state of affairs."
How on earth can anyone sympathise with this cretin!!!
In the Telegraph today, it says his on-board camera showed he was doing 165; 130 on a dual carriageway, weaving in and out of ordinary traffic; 100 on blind bends on a country lane; other speeds between 130 amnd 165.
The judge said it would be "ridiculous" not to send the guy to prison.
Xylophone
How on earth can anyone sympathise with this cretin!!!
In the Telegraph today, it says his on-board camera showed he was doing 165; 130 on a dual carriageway, weaving in and out of ordinary traffic; 100 on blind bends on a country lane; other speeds between 130 amnd 165.
The judge said it would be "ridiculous" not to send the guy to prison.
Xylophone
Judges say a lot of things incl - To a 13 yr old rape victim- You were asking for it. Judges do not live in the real world. Please bear that in mind. If you do not believe me, study law and see what they pass..
What concerns me is that a Rapist, Child Molestor or Mugger or burgler can get 100 hours community service for ruining someones life, scaring them outta there homes or putting someone in Hospital.
This guy gets more for 'dangerous' driving.. The most likely person to be killed by his actions was him.
What concerns me is that a Rapist, Child Molestor or Mugger or burgler can get 100 hours community service for ruining someones life, scaring them outta there homes or putting someone in Hospital.
This guy gets more for 'dangerous' driving.. The most likely person to be killed by his actions was him.
C'mon guys. This guy was an idiot. Doing 160mph - fine - wouldn't personally but...Clear road. 2 miles visibility. 5:00am. Absolutely no other traffic for at least that 2 miles. Possibly - although on a public road I doubt it.
This guy was NOT in that situation. There was traffic about. The road was not straight as an arrow (I know the A470 well - lovely road) providing guaranteed visibility.
Knowing the road he could not possibly have been keeping to the all important rule - "Be Able To STOP in the distance you can SEE to be CLEAR".
So - not only was he an idiot driver - he was also an idiot. He FILMED himself - deliberately providing EVIDENCE....doh...DOH!
xylophone - you and I don't see to eye to eye on some things but in this case....yup..what a cretin.
This guy was NOT in that situation. There was traffic about. The road was not straight as an arrow (I know the A470 well - lovely road) providing guaranteed visibility.
Knowing the road he could not possibly have been keeping to the all important rule - "Be Able To STOP in the distance you can SEE to be CLEAR".
So - not only was he an idiot driver - he was also an idiot. He FILMED himself - deliberately providing EVIDENCE....doh...DOH!
xylophone - you and I don't see to eye to eye on some things but in this case....yup..what a cretin.
If I were the judge then how about a hefty fine, say £1000 - £2000 for such stupid speeds, and then a suspended jail sentence. Maybe even make the suspended sentence 1 to 2 years. Therefore if he offends again (speeding) then straight to jail to serve your time....
That would certainly be a more appropriate solution to this - but jail for a year? Seems a little too harsh if you ask me. Convince them of the errors of their ways, thats what it is about - not creating a criminal underclass that then resort to uninsured driving.....
Cheers,
Paul
That would certainly be a more appropriate solution to this - but jail for a year? Seems a little too harsh if you ask me. Convince them of the errors of their ways, thats what it is about - not creating a criminal underclass that then resort to uninsured driving.....
Cheers,
Paul
The standard = far below the standard of driving expected of the competent and careful driver and [which] occurred either in the face of obvious and material danger which were or should have been observed, appreciated and guarded against, or in circumstances which showed a complete disregard for any potential dangers which might result from the way in which the vehicle was being driven.
This is driving which represents a real and present danger to the public, be they pedestrians, other drivers, passengers. Danger is of physical injury (however minor) or serious damage to property. The prosecution do not have to prove that anyone was actually injured, or that damage actually took place or felt in danger. The driving is judged from an objective point of view: what was going on in the drivers mind is not relevant.
In the Crown Court, the maximum punishment is up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. In both the Magistartes and Crown Courts, the driver must be banned from driving for at least a year unless there are special reasons not to do so. Special reasons are tightly defined and are unlikely to be applicable. The driver must also undergo an extended driving re-test to get back a driving licence. The driver's licence must be endorsed unless special reasons exist not to do so.
This is driving which represents a real and present danger to the public, be they pedestrians, other drivers, passengers. Danger is of physical injury (however minor) or serious damage to property. The prosecution do not have to prove that anyone was actually injured, or that damage actually took place or felt in danger. The driving is judged from an objective point of view: what was going on in the drivers mind is not relevant.
In the Crown Court, the maximum punishment is up to two years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. In both the Magistartes and Crown Courts, the driver must be banned from driving for at least a year unless there are special reasons not to do so. Special reasons are tightly defined and are unlikely to be applicable. The driver must also undergo an extended driving re-test to get back a driving licence. The driver's licence must be endorsed unless special reasons exist not to do so.
12 months in jail is OTT for a victimless offence, the murderers who set the Omagh bomb are free (the police know who they are) paedophiles are released to kill kids, many criminals who steal and injure do not go to prison, we are told prisons are overcrowded.
I saw an interview on tv recently about prison sentences where it was said that the point of prison is to protect the public and rehabilitate offenders, well this guy got a 3 year ban which would stop him speeding for 3 years and prison does not rehabilitate anyone. This sentence is retribution and an example setter it is absolute b****cks and does not at all fit the crime. As I understand he was travelling at an "indicated" (bike speedos are notoriously optimistic!)165 on dual carriageway and 100 on single carriageway, well as an example 165 is legal on German M'ways many of which are only 2 lanes. Yes he broke the law but he is hardly public enemy no. 1
Oh and by the way the "celebrities" seem to get away with anything; witness Michael Barrymore, supplying and use of drugs, possible homosexual rape and a guy dies in his pool and the "man" gets rewarded with a new TV show what sort of justice is that?
>> Edited by cazzo on Sunday 10th March 11:58
I saw an interview on tv recently about prison sentences where it was said that the point of prison is to protect the public and rehabilitate offenders, well this guy got a 3 year ban which would stop him speeding for 3 years and prison does not rehabilitate anyone. This sentence is retribution and an example setter it is absolute b****cks and does not at all fit the crime. As I understand he was travelling at an "indicated" (bike speedos are notoriously optimistic!)165 on dual carriageway and 100 on single carriageway, well as an example 165 is legal on German M'ways many of which are only 2 lanes. Yes he broke the law but he is hardly public enemy no. 1
Oh and by the way the "celebrities" seem to get away with anything; witness Michael Barrymore, supplying and use of drugs, possible homosexual rape and a guy dies in his pool and the "man" gets rewarded with a new TV show what sort of justice is that?
>> Edited by cazzo on Sunday 10th March 11:58
quote:
Jason, I am a solicitor! This judge most certainly lives in the real world - do you??
No. I live in a world where if someone breaks into my house and I shoot him to defend my property and my life possibly then I'm off to jail.
I live in a world where to drive at 120mph is considered more dangerous than Manslaughter, Robbery, Burglary - i.e. the Right to Silence which as you know has been fundamental in our legal history since about the time that Torture was noted to be slightly unfair to the alleged criminal, has been removed purely and simply to generate more f*****ng revenue for a left wing pansy nanny state.
I live in a world where to steal someones mobile phone will cost you 5 years jail even if it is your first offence and you didn't harm that person however if you break into someones house, beat them up and steal their cars, tv, video etc 3 times in a year you'll get a holiday on a canal and a new pair of trainers.
I just wished I was in a fantasy world, however this seems all too real.
The guy was an idiot no doubt about it. However lets look at the real cost to society.
Some laywer got £100 - £180 an hour to represent him probably on legal aid.
All involved got a nice slice of glory, police, courts and the media.
Now we have to foot the bill for his keep for 12 months at i belive it is £600 per week.
His business will go pop. so we now have to keep his family as well.
Whilst inside no doubt he will appeal the sentence. See point one.
Also he will now be scared for life, no one will emloy him,his wife will leave him, and he will end up being unemployed and on medication whilst being supported by an army of social workers for the rest of his life.
If the punishment is said to fit the crime so be it. But in return lock up all the real criminals for longer,make them uncomfortable whilst inside, and protect the rest of us with equal vigour.Until such time then take away the power of judges to use descretion, life means life, if its 5 years than that is it. By being hard on idiots and soft on criminals you send the wrong message to the genral public.
Some laywer got £100 - £180 an hour to represent him probably on legal aid.
All involved got a nice slice of glory, police, courts and the media.
Now we have to foot the bill for his keep for 12 months at i belive it is £600 per week.
His business will go pop. so we now have to keep his family as well.
Whilst inside no doubt he will appeal the sentence. See point one.
Also he will now be scared for life, no one will emloy him,his wife will leave him, and he will end up being unemployed and on medication whilst being supported by an army of social workers for the rest of his life.
If the punishment is said to fit the crime so be it. But in return lock up all the real criminals for longer,make them uncomfortable whilst inside, and protect the rest of us with equal vigour.Until such time then take away the power of judges to use descretion, life means life, if its 5 years than that is it. By being hard on idiots and soft on criminals you send the wrong message to the genral public.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff