Safe Speed Forums

How's this for dangerous driving? Apologies for the long link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

You didn't think the blind man caught drink driving was worse then?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I am at loss for words about that one! But nevertheless, I wonder if he was flashed by any speed cameras?

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Indeed very irresponsible... any Italian will tell you that he should have used a spoon as well as just the fork to eat the spaghetti properly... mind you, he was Dutch, so there are mitigating circumstances.

Roll on European constitution etc., there will then be a culinary addendum to the Highway Code for all Euro-countries so this type of etiquette-less lorry driver will have no excuse and the helicopter-flying-squad-food-consumption-division will be able to throw the book at this sort of offender. They will also be able to ensure that drivers who have been to the chippy are using the correct fish-knife while tucking into their cod 'n chips on the M4. Oh joy.

[ readers lacking a sense of humour are kindly requested to ignore this post.]

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

I would like to know if anyone really complained about his erratic driving or was it North Wales Police spin machine moving into action.

I guess he was spotted by one of the overbridge enforcement mob at slow slow speed.

Most truck drivers are quite competent to do err all sorts of things while driving

Is this what they are clearing the jails for then ???

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

At risk of going off topic i would be interested in some opinions on this.

Courts are told to reserve custody for "dangerous" offenders. Usually translated by the press as granny bashers, pub fighters etc


Do people here think that any driving offence which causes neither damage or personal injury should be dealt with by way of custody?

Jail should be reserved for people unlikely to respond to normal sentencing or community service.

You and I have to pay for that jail space and lose the tax income from an offender, so we pay twice.

If a person is a repeat offender of drink drive, driving without insurance or twocking, or any two ban worthy offences then they have proved that the do not respond to normal sentencing.

I do not support jailing people for a first offence of perverting the course of justice over speeding tickets. Usually community service is appropriate unless that person was part of the justice system.

_________________
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

I guess this comes down to whether you feel that sentencing is meant to PUNISH or REHABILITATE the offender or PROTECT society from the offender.

Some offences such as certain motoring transgressions merely need to ensure that the driver learns a lesson.
e.g. Driving without due care, where no one was endangered, could involve compulsory training, yet reversing into a pensioner and killing them attracts calls to bring back the death penalty! It's difficult to set fixed standards when the circumstances are so varied - which is where we (society) rely on our magistrates and judges, but dont appreciate their constraints and guidelines under which they work.

Others cases require the public to be protected from further transgressions.
A banned driver who habitually gets back behind the wheel clearly needs to be locked up if he also drives dangerously, and of course without insurance etc..

A case I have quoted before involved a coach driver who was asked to drive a double decker full of school kids because the regular driver was off sick.
He went under a low bridge, slicing off the roof of the bus.
NO CHILDREN WERE INJURED - luckily, but the judge made much of the fact the driver only had one eye.
This was KNOWN to the PSV authorities who adjudged it did not affect his driving abilities, but the judge jailed him for 6 months.

My argument was, that he had been asked to drive a vehicle with which he was unfamiliar, on a route of which he had no prior knowledge and consequently made an error, from which nobody was harmed.
His driving career was clearly under threat as a result, yet as a result of the incident, he was probably the safest driver in the company, and the LEAST likely to repeat the accident as a result of his experience.

NOBODY benefited from jailing him - it did not deter - nobody sets off with the intention of driving under a low bridge but is put off because somebody else was jailed for it!

Finally, in the same week, a man who beat down a woman in the street causing her real physical injuries was jailed for just FOUR months.
Clearly (to me) there was a degree of inequality in the punishments, maybe triggered by the judges view of the eyesight problem - which was not something he should be judging when the licensing authorities already do that job.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I would have to agree with earnest, the bus driver should not have been jailed. I am disgusted that my tax money was wasted in this way when people with MS, parkinson's or macular degeneration are fighting for drugs costing £600 a month to change their lives.

I nearly drove a high top van through Kingsgate Arch in Winchester.
(It is about 1200 years old, so it is time it was replaced) My colleague took a box van into our underground car park (oops) My sister drover her car into a multi-storey with three bikes on the roof. Should we all go to jail?

Does a PSV driver have any more responsibilities than a car or HGV driver?
would a 1-3 month driving ban and a retest shock and punish most drivers?
Would training rehabilitate the driver?
If the answer to those two questions is yes then you have protected the public.

Or are we after self gratification sending people to jail for a long time?
(At the cost of those people with MS, parkinson's or macular degeneration)

_________________
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

Not having a go at anybody in these replies so don't take anything personally. Just trying to open up a discussion which hopefully will be helpful to me.



At the moment custody is reserved for cases which are "so serious" that only jail will do. That sometimes comes about because the offence itself is very serious and sometimes its a combination of the offence and the offenders record of failing to respond to previous sentences.



You are right but, so far at least, we don't decide for or against custody on financial grounds.


So long term deliberate no insurance leaves you free to do it again. Whereas two accidental foget to renew for a day each time gets you jail.



Surely the point is that, in a democracy we either accept the rule of law or challenge specific laws via parliament. So any attempt to pervert the course of justice is "so serious" regardless of the original offence.

usually its all three. plus the deterrent effect on the offender and others who read about it in the local paper.



Only if he drives dangerously?




I don't think its a good idea to use specific cases as a basis for discussion because we don't have all the facts upon which the judge based his sentence. but seeing as you have gone to the trouble of posting it.....

A professional driver, who regularly has responsibility for a very large vehicle carrying a significant number of people either forgot it was a double decker or failed to notice a low bridge. Not acceptable.

The fact that no one was injured was down to luck not judgement and should not mitigate. He should be judged on the seriousness of the offence and it was a piece of very bad driving by a professional driver.




We regularly make judgements of that kind.
A regular occurence would be an elderly driver who has a medical certificate of fitness to drive and a current licence issued by the DVLA. But he keeps driving into things. Do we say that his fitness to drive has been decided by others more qualified than we are or act in the public interest?

Without access to all the evidence we can only guess about the correct sentence. Was it appealed? If not its an indication that the driver's legal advisers thought the sentence appropriate.



Eurpfighters are about £140million EACH. The RAF are contemplating mothballing 90 or so as surplus to requirements. Have a go at your MP see if you can get them to cancel one.



thats some age for a van.


I assume they are not professional drivers, driving in the course of their duties. In which case the sentence would be less than for the bus driver.



Yes. Thats why they take extra training and are allowed to do things ordinary licence holders are not.


You are forgetting the mentally ill, who get at least as bad a deal as the groups you mention.

I'm with Fisherman on this.

Too many people relate the "attempting to pervert the course of justice" to the original offence - it has absolutely no relation to it whatsoever.

Should ATPCOJ be punished more severely if the original charge was murder rather than a speeding ticket? No - any attempt to pervert the rule of law should be severely punished.

You may not like a law - in which case get it changed - but you do not get the right to pick and choose which ones you will obey. Perverting the Course of Justice goes to the very heart of how laws have to be obeyed and allowing or trivialising the offence is a sure path to anarchy.

Fisherman, you are asking our opinions and then telling us what they should be according to the magistraites text book.

We are the public (a very small section) The public often feel that the courts are out of step.




So gary hart should recieve an equal punishment to some one who fell asleep at the wheel and hurt no one then?

stealing £100 would recieve the same sentance as stealing £5,000,000?

_________________
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

I have been very careful NOT to tell anyone what their opinions should be.

I asked for opinions in order to be able to contrast those views with the realities of the situation. I did so in the hope of shedding a little light on some of the sentences that meet with such disapproval here.

I should add that I consider it essential that sentencers are required to act within guidelines and that there are limits on their options.



The public are all too often criticising something they not only don't understand, but have taken no steps to gain any understanding of.


I have not said that.
What I did say was that the current view of parliament is that any offence of perverting the course of justice is so serious that the guideline sentence is custody. The length of sentence will then depend on what was covered up.

Anton,

Can I just clarify your point.

Are you saying that PTOCJ is a less serious offence if done in pursuit of getting off a speeding fine but a greater offence if done to obstruct justice in a £5M fraud?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

A little background may help - or may fan the fires.
Apologies to anyone who knows this stuff already.


Government decide what is, or is not a crime.
Government decide the relative seriousness of various crimes by setting out the maximum sentence available.
In some cases - eg murder - they set a minimum sentence.
In some cases eg DWDC they set out that courts MUST sentence primarily on the level of carelessness, with the consequences of that carelessness being given less emphasis.


The sentencing guidelines council then issue guidelines, which arise in part from views gathered via consultation exercises with the general public. Those guidelines give sentencers some example aggravating and mitigating circumstances with a suggested sentence for an average offence.


The sentencer looks at the individual circumstances of the case before him/her/them and decides what is correct having regard to all the circumstances and within the constraints of the relevant laws and guidance.




Court jargon

All offence are expected to be sentenced with either a discharge or a fine UNLESS the sentencer(s) find that the case
is "serious enough" for a community penalty
"so serious" that only custody will do
"too serious" for a magistrates court, in which case it will go up to the crown court.

The current official view is just exactly that. With the proviso that any perverting the course of justice offence is "so serious" that only custody will do.

PTOCJ is usually a serious offence. I would also look at the effect of the deception on others. If the deception caused a miscarriage of justice or suspicion on innocent people, I would treat very harshly.

How can I take it seriously in the respect of speeding offences?
I have zero respect for the speed camera program and the fudgements going on in the courts at this moment. So I would view it as perverting the course of in-justice we will see on Friday if the EHCR concider that section 172 is justice or in-justice.

_________________
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

No. I can't think of any offence that should be punishable, if it doesn't cause damage or personal injury?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus