Safe Speed Forums

One has to wonder why the prosecution offered no evidence to the 'aggrivated vehicle theft' charge. Perhaps there was a plea bargain?

If there wasn't his defence team were useless (which is clearly a distinct possibility).

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It often surprises me that people seem very willing to plead guilty to dangerous driving charges even when it doesn't (on the face of it) seem clear-cut.

Maybe plea-bargaining often does come in to it - or is there a feeling that juries are so brainwashed by the "speed kills" message that they're unlikely to consider the facts in an objective manner?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I couldn't name any threshold speed that I'd say, if exceeded, will be by definition "dangerous" in any given circumstances. However, if I was on a jury, I'd need a bit of convincing that 172mph on a standard DC doesn't fall the wrong side of the line separating 'dangerous driving' from mere 'speeding'. IMO, driving at that speed on that type of public road simply falls well below what one would expect of a reasonably careful driver. In other words, I'm not sure where the line should be drawn but I do think 172mph is definitely on the wrong side of it.

You out there R1nut? Was he trying to catch you up?

I think we need to see the stretch of road he was on and who else, if anyone, was occupying the road at the time. I wouldn't put it past the press to take a picture of it at rush hour and show us where he was speeding just to 'big it up'. (Not that it needs much bigging-up)

If the road conditions were good and no-one was around, the penalty should be less severe than if there were people around etc.

The same goes for PC Teflon. If they're telling us it's bad then they should lead by example.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

This is true, it is one time where the "think of the children" argument is actually valid. I suspect most pedestrians wouldn't think to look that far down the road (which apparently is mostly SC, not DC as stated in the article) before crossing and all you need is a couple of them in the wrong place and bad things will happen.

I don’t think I can agree with you there. For me the issue is whether that driver could reasonably guarantee that there wouldn’t have been other road users present; simply not seeing others is not good enough. Given the number of T-junctions and bends on the stretch I wouldn’t believe him if he were to make that claim (it would have been different had he have done it on a motorway where he can see that it really was clear).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I agree. Dual carriageway conditions suitable for 172mph would be truly exceptional.



There's no number where the line could be drawn. If you had a driver's view video you could determine after the event if it was dangerous with a good degree of certainty. Which makes the Mark Milton case interesting...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Eeeek. Don't get me wrong, he deserved to be punished and he was stupid for doing it on such a road. I don't countenance his foolishness for a minute. But I do think the circumstances, the car, and the environment should also be taken into account.

What the PC did on the motorway was bad, not to mention illegal, but when you look at the time he did it, the circumstances and his experience etc., I don't think it was as bad as people made out.

What irked me about that was the hypocrisy. If it were me, I would have been hung drawn and quartered.

There are people who get off speeding charges all the time and we all know who they are. (nudge nudge) A civilized society should be a fair and just society for all of us.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

You can check out the road on Google maps - zoom in and switch to satellite view.
I scanned along the length of the road, and I could not see anywhere that would be safe at those speeds unless the road was closed... and that does not allow for any debris on the road!

Of course the camera would be placed where they expected drivers to speed up - so it's possible he only attained that speed at that section, and it might have been just briefly, we just dont know, and should not make judgments on the case which require assumptions on our part.

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

I am around that area but it's not a section I've travelled. Also the bike is still of the road ... and will be for the forseeable

From the news report, it didn't look like the type of road that could be driven at that speed and it was never stated what time the offence took place.

My kids immediately started on the "hang, draw and quarter him" bandwagon until I asked them:
What type of road was he on?
What were the conditions at the time; dry, wet, good or poor visibility?

Ejucashun, ejucashun, ejucashun

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

The A420 is DC for several miles around Kingston Bagpuize, since the village was bypassed a few years ago.

Would be better if that just said "IDIOT" instead of 172.