Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 09, 2020 02:44

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 15:02 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
link

Quote:
Driver escapes ban despite doing 135mphMar 31 2008




By Steve Jones


A SPEED demon who drove at more than 135 mph has escaped a ban after his police worker dad gave a character reference to magistrates.

Reckless Adam Stammers, 23, of Drakes Broughton, Worcestershire, received just eight penalty points and a £200 fine after admitting a charge of driving without due care and attention.

Despite doing almost double the speed limit he is still free to drive after magistrates heard tributes from his father and other members of his family who work for West Mercia Police.

Traffic cops in an unmarked car had to race at 145 mph to catch up with the speeding youngster and watched as he risked life and limb by undertaking other cars on the M5 at breakneck speed.

The court's punishment takes Stammers to 11 points, one short of a ban, as he already had one endorsement on his driving licence.



Last night a spokeswoman for safety campaign group Brake called for Stammers to have his licence taken away and said she was baffled by the leniency shown to him.


"The question is, should he have been charged with careless driving?" she said.


"Surely going at 135 mph is much more serious. If that's not dangerous driving then what is?


"He was clearly putting lives at risk and you have to ask why he was being given a lower charge.


"Nothing can detract from the fact that he was doing nearly twice the speed limit. This is not a momentary blip where you take your eye off the road, he has wilfully broken the law. The law has to act as a deterrent, and the fact that he has previously been given points hasn't had any affect, so is it really going to stop him this time?"


Ludlow Magistrates' Court heard earlier this week that the 23 year-old had passed an unmarked police car between junctions five and six of the M5 at about 9.30pm on November 6 last year.


Mike Phillips, prosecuting, said cops had struggled to keep up with Stammers' speeding vehicle. "At one point the officer checked his own speed and was travelling at 145mph," he told the court.


"They eventually managed to match his speed and over a distance of about three miles he was travelling at speeds of 130mph-135mph."


Mr Phillips said Stammers had also undertaken two cars in the middle lane of the motorway before leaving the motorway at junction five and being stopped by the police.


Stammers' profile on social networking website Facebook reveals that he is obsessed with motors and danger.


Under 'Interests' he wrote: "Snowboarding, Cars, taking the p*** out of my mates and going out. Cars/ bikes, drinking, snow-boarding and basketball, social-ising and anything that will get my adrenaline rushing."


In another section entitled About Me he says: "I love getting a rush from dangerous sports and I'm a property developer in the south of France."


Acting for Stammers in court Amer Hussain handed the bench a number of character references and told magistrates Stammers' father and various members of his family worked for West Mercia Constabulary.


Mr Hussain said his client had only travelled a short distance on the motorway and could provide no reasonable excuse. "This was a one-off piece of stupidity on his part," he said.


Mr Hussain said he was sorry for his actions and had learnt his lesson. Stammers already had three penalty points on his licence and with the additional points, he was on the verge of disqualification.


Last night a spokeswoman for campaign group SafeSpeed said: "It's a very unusual case.


"In light of recent numbers of police doing over 100 mph, maybe they were feeling a little more lenient towards the public.


"Whilst we don't condone breaking the law we do appreciate that sometimes people who are speeding can be doing something perfectly safe."



West Mercia Police declined to comment last night.


_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 16:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
OK if that's how the system works, I must learn from it.

I'm now busily cultivating a considerable number of friends and acquaintances, in case I need a bundle of glowing tributes for when I get caught treating the NSL with the respect it deserves - which is none whatsoever. :lol:

Best wishes all,
Dave.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 01:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
There's obviously something we are not being told.

Why was he "only" charged with driving without due care and attention?

I'm sure if the charge was speeding or dangerous driving then he would have been banned, letter from daddy or not.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 09:01 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Homer wrote:
There's obviously something we are not being told.

Why was he "only" charged with driving without due care and attention?

I'm sure if the charge was speeding or dangerous driving then he would have been banned, letter from daddy or not.


For all we know they might have used this case to make us all feel happier and show that it’s not just one rule for them and one for us. The only thing is they’ve used the wrong case IMO, and still doesn’t wash with me.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 21:41 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
anton wrote:
"Whilst we don't condone breaking the law we do appreciate that sometimes people who are speeding can be doing something perfectly safe."[/b]


What, like undertaking cars at 135mph?

I don't understand why this organisation exists if you don't "condone breaking the law"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 00:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 01:51
Posts: 329
The stopping distances are about 4 times as much for travelling at 135mph compared to 70mph. How can this ever be safe if there are other vehicles on the road? I wouldn't even expect the Police to do this speed unless the risk of losing the other driver is greater than the risk of colliding with another driver.

The railway in this country won't let trains go above 125mph unless in-cab systems exist such that the drivers can drive without even looking out the window until their speed is reduced, and all they'd need to do is identify the colour of whichever signal was for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 00:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
mpaton2004 wrote:
anton wrote:
"Whilst we don't condone breaking the law we do appreciate that sometimes people who are speeding can be doing something perfectly safe."[/b]


What, like undertaking cars at 135mph?

I don't understand why this organisation exists if you don't "condone breaking the law"?


It doesn't need to condone breaking the law to think the law is flawed and campaign to change it.

I agree that the comments on this particular story seem a little odd. It is possible for someone to travel at speeds above the limit and remain perfectly safe, however 135mph at just 9pm (hardly dead hours as far as traffic goes) certainly would not usually be appropriate in the slightest. The chap was undertaking and being chased by the police... not exactly a guy you want to seem to back up in terms of public perception of SafeSpeed.

Regarding undertaking at 135mph, it actually says
Quote:
"undertaking other cars on the M5 at breakneck speed"
and
Quote:
"Mr Phillips said Stammers had also undertaken two cars in the middle lane of the motorway before leaving the motorway at junction five and being stopped by the police."
- He may well have been travelling at a more suitable pace when undertaking other drivers.

In relation to Brakes comments though, SafeSpeeds are perfectly sensible.

Quote:
Surely going at 135 mph is much more serious. If that's not dangerous driving then what is?


This is just proof that it is an organisation of narrow minded ill informed do-gooders. The fact they can't see that there are things far more dangerous than people travelling at speeds above the limit then I really wish the press would stop quoting them, as they are obviously dangerous themselves in misleading people, ministers and others in the real issues on our roads.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:09 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
firstly... it wasnt my quote.

second... I was not happy with that qoute

third... I/we want the law changed so that the majority of people are prosicuted for driving unsafely rather than driving at a numerical speed on a stick

Fourth.. I am not covinced he was driving at a safespeed It is significanltky higher than I would choose to do

fifth... It really bugs me that I get prosicuted for 43mph on empty duel carriageway and he dosent

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 11:18 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
mpaton2004 wrote:
I don't understand why this organisation exists if you don't "condone breaking the law"?


Perhaps you should adjust your view of the world to 'greyscale'. Simply because one is uncomfortable with the strength of condemnation levelled at a particular offence, does not mean one condones it.

If I am against chopping off a thief's hands, does that mean I condone burglary?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9270
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Quote:
Brake wrote "Nothing can detract from the fact that he was doing nearly twice the speed limit. This is not a momentary blip where you take your eye off the road, he has wilfully broken the law"


Have Brake woken up ?

Last thing I saw by them any exceedance of the limit ,blip ,dash for safety ,whatever was sufficient for them to expect the driver to be almost hung drawn and quartered .Or perhaps this is the other part of the choir ,singing from the other hymnsheet :o

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 19:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
RobinXe wrote:
Perhaps you should adjust your view of the world to 'greyscale'. Simply because one is uncomfortable with the strength of condemnation levelled at a particular offence, does not mean one condones it.


Yeah, but that's bollocks. The quote by SS in the article above implied that 135mph was/is safe and acceptable behaviour, and then goes on to say they don't condone breaking the law. You can't have it both ways.

The law on speeding is black and white. Do you mean to tell me that SafeSpeed condemms anyone travelling at 31mph in a 30mph limit?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 20:28 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 15:00
Posts: 1109
Location: Can't see.
mpaton2004 wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Perhaps you should adjust your view of the world to 'greyscale'. Simply because one is uncomfortable with the strength of condemnation levelled at a particular offence, does not mean one condones it.


Yeah, but that's bollocks. The quote by SS in the article above implied that 135mph was/is safe and acceptable behaviour, and then goes on to say they don't condone breaking the law. You can't have it both ways.

The law on speeding is black and white. Do you mean to tell me that SafeSpeed condemms anyone travelling at 31mph in a 30mph limit?


do not condone <--------grey area--------> condemn

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 23:31 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
mpaton2004 wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Perhaps you should adjust your view of the world to 'greyscale'. Simply because one is uncomfortable with the strength of condemnation levelled at a particular offence, does not mean one condones it.


Yeah, but that's bollocks. The quote by SS in the article above implied that 135mph was/is safe and acceptable behaviour, and then goes on to say they don't condone breaking the law. You can't have it both ways.

The law on speeding is black and white. Do you mean to tell me that SafeSpeed condemms anyone travelling at 31mph in a 30mph limit?


I'm pretty sure this isn't you posting buddy, as I know you're more intelligent than this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 13:12 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:11
Posts: 194
Location: Kent
mpaton2004 wrote:
anton wrote:
"Whilst we don't condone breaking the law we do appreciate that sometimes people who are speeding can be doing something perfectly safe."[/b]


What, like undertaking cars at 135mph?

I don't understand why this organisation exists if you don't "condone breaking the law"?


FIrstly, I have no idea what you mean by this comment:

Quote:
What, like undertaking cars at 135mph?


Are you saying you think SafeSpeed condones this? If so I can't see the conversation going far with you.

nicycle wrote:
The stopping distances are about 4 times as much for travelling at 135mph compared to 70mph. How can this ever be safe if there are other vehicles on the road? I wouldn't even expect the Police to do this speed unless the risk of losing the other driver is greater than the risk of colliding with another driver.

The railway in this country won't let trains go above 125mph unless in-cab systems exist such that the drivers can drive without even looking out the window until their speed is reduced, and all they'd need to do is identify the colour of whichever signal was for them.


Clearly this guy was not concerned with safety. The problem with his speed is more than likely because it was too fast for the road/traffic conditions. No one in their right mind would think with even a few other cars on the road with current motorway rules such a speed was safe.

mpaton2004 wrote:
Yeah, but that's bollocks. The quote by SS in the article above implied that 135mph was/is safe and acceptable behaviour, and then goes on to say they don't condone breaking the law. You can't have it both ways.

The law on speeding is black and white. Do you mean to tell me that SafeSpeed condemms anyone travelling at 31mph in a 30mph limit?


No, they said speeding was not necessarily dangerous. Obviously you should go at an appropiate speed for the conditions which the guy was clearly not doing. You saw the guy's profile in his Myface thing, he said he likes anything that gets his adrenaline going. He was not concerned about the safety of his actions. The public highway is not a place to get one's adrenaline going, but it seems to me he was trying to do just that.

You say the law on speeding is black and white. This is correct however lots of their limits are unreasonable, and some shouldn't be there at all like for example on the motorway. If someone is going at an inappropiate speed for the conditions as in this case then fair enough, that is dangerous.

_________________
Currently undergoing training with the I.A.M.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 20:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
Flynn wrote:
Quote:
What, like undertaking cars at 135mph?

Are you saying you think SafeSpeed condones this? If so I can't see the conversation going far with you.


Sometimes I wonder. Seriously.

I have a feeling if there was nothing in L1, then SafeSpeed would possibly put the notion forward that it was "safe" behaviour. Similarly travelling at 190mph on an empty motorway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 21:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
mpaton2004 wrote:
Flynn wrote:
Quote:
What, like undertaking cars at 135mph?

Are you saying you think SafeSpeed condones this? If so I can't see the conversation going far with you.


Sometimes I wonder. Seriously.

I have a feeling if there was nothing in L1, then SafeSpeed would possibly put the notion forward that it was "safe" behaviour. Similarly travelling at 190mph on an empty motorway.


Non sequitur and stawman all in one.

Come on, if you're going to post, at least register your own account, its not hard.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 22:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7359
Location: Highlands
Well when you give a paper a quote, they will pick what they like, within what you have said. I had no knowledge of this incident before their call. I had no idea about the undertaking - that knowledge came later, to the journalist and to me ... Plus there was also no knowledge about the face book info ...

I try really hard to cut a good balance in these statements to show, that we are less concerned about a specific number on a dial, but more about the circumstances and the overall safety that the driver has, or has not, allowed for. We never advise that people brake the law. But we do think that the Law is wrong, regarding speeding enforcement, and that the government is clearly concerned about the wrong things.
This does not mean that a court, in these circumstances was not allowing for someone who was driving 'safely' but extremely quickly, only they have ALL the facts and all the info ...
A clear motorway might be a very safe place for such speeds, in the right circumstances.
The policeman 'glanced' at his speedo, he was not obsessed with it, for 'safety' just as a tiny part, of his ability to drive quickly and safely. We still do not know ALL the issues surrounding this case - we probably never will.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 01:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 01:51
Posts: 329
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Well when you give a paper a quote, they will pick what they like, within what you have said. I had no knowledge of this incident before their call. I had no idea about the undertaking - that knowledge came later, to the journalist and to me ... Plus there was also no knowledge about the face book info ...


Is there any chance, you could resume the old practice of releasing press releases to help out journalists after you know the full story? If lack of time was a problem I'm sure many people on this forum would help out with the working.

Keep up the good work anyway!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.792s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]