Safe Speed Forums

This caught my interest as I grew up around the area

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... ticle.html

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Some interesting and some stupid comments in the "have your say" below the story.

I must say that:

- the years jail seem disproportionately severe
- the comments made about the policeman who was doing the same speed but trying to operate the video equipment at the same time are relevant.

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

I can't see how a jail sentence can be in the slightest bit appropriate? Nobody, absolutely nobody, will benefit from this decision

Yes ban the guy, but even four years seems a little harsh for an admitted 100mph speed.

It sounds like the jury was "leant on"!

mb
p.s. I agree with malcolmw - some very interesting comments.

I particularly liked this comment



So I put a comment about it on the article.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I'm not sure if the oncoming drivers would reliably be able to judge the actions of such small objects doing 120/130mph, they could well assume an oncoming speed of 60/70 - which could be a problem if they decide to perform an overtake

12 months is a bit excessive (especially where 2 dependents are involved), even with the racing and 'modified number plate'. Does he have previous form?

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

Well that explains the 12 months; however, instead of making an example of him, the judge could actually have made an ass of the law.

Imagine someone stupid enough to be doing 130mph on public SC roads: given the "example" of this sentence, would our silly rider now be so willing to stop for trafpol and accept the inevitable serious jail-time, the loss of income and family breakup, or would they instead be much more willing to risk life and limb (of other road users as well as themselves) by booting it to try and evade and get away with it?
That's why sentences have to be proportionate

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

If the judge has actually made an example of him by going outside the guidelines, he will appeal and get the sentence reduced or even overturned. It is much more likely that the judge has sentenced within the guidelines and gone a bit over the top in his sentencing remarks.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

IMO, the words "make an example of" should not be in a judge's vocabulary. The punishment should be about the offence not making a point to the public about a specific offender.

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

I am truely shocked by the brutal punishment of this poor man. Let's sum this up:

*A years prison

*4 years driving ban

*Extended retest

The maximum I would expect would be 1. A large fine 2. A maximum ban of a year without having to take a retest

If other people were endangered then I could understand maybe a short suspended sentence and a retest ordered after a ban of a year.

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

It can be useful to make a few comments as part of sentencing remarks, but you do have to be careful not to overdo it.

Just recently I sentenced a group of young men for some late night, alcohol fuelled, town centre violence. They were sentenced in accordance with the guidelines which are quite severe for that kind of offence. My remarks included words to the effect that people who do this sort of thing must expect a serious punishment. I didn't use the word thugs, neither did I use the word example. That ended up in the local paper as magistrate makes an example of thugs. Which had exactly the opposite effect to the one I had intended. I wanted it to be clear that everybody convicted of that sort of offence can expect significant punishment, the headlines suggested that the sentence was unusual.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

He did in excess of 60 in a 30 limit in a village. He exceeded 100 MPH on a relatively narrow road. He overtook on the crest of a hill. How bad would it have to be before something more than a fine was appropriate?

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Doing 60 into a village with pedestrians around near the limit sign as opposed to slowing in the zone which had no footpaths and was clear of pedestrians or traffic. Though I did think the officer went in a bit too hot when I watched the video.

The roads in that area often have wide verges which help with visibility and that particular road is not as narrow as it looks, you can see tractors over the hedges for instance. They also tend to be somewhat bumpy and are surfaced with grit and tar, 70-80mph is fine and 100mph plus is not really unsafe in the right places, the officer hitting 139mph was probably pushing it though. Having said that I had a late eighties sports bike when I last had a ride out there and maybe the officers bike had better handling, you will notice the officer went through the bend at over 100mph which he must have thought was reasonable.

It is not really clear on the video if he went onto the opposite side of the road before he had a sightline over the crest, it is hard to tell if he went onto the other side of the road at all actually.

I would not do that kind of speed towards oncoming vehicles (not that I would do that kind of speed at all anymore), that of course applies to the police rider as well, there were a pair of cars close enough together on the straight for a potential overtake to happen and cars doing 60mph or less on those roads tend to get passed.

There are some very good driving/riding roads in the area with very low volumes of traffic which attract people that may go rather too fast at times, it appears Mr saxby is being punished for all of the riders that the police cannot catch as well as his own offence. So a speeding fine and a ban would be expected an even mandatory training and an advanced test, however given there was no sign of any near misses or anyone in immanent danger the DD seems rather excessive.

Out of interest since the officer did not actually manage to close on Mr Saxby and get a speed reading at a matched space could he have actually been prosecuted for speeding? Why was Mr King cleared when he was riding at the same speeds? Were the charges of careless and dangerous the only ones that could be applied?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

The penalty seams higher than dangerous driving cases where death has occured. His speeds were lower/similar to pc Mark Miltons

_________________
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

Question (for fisherman?):

He was being done for dangerous driving rather than speeding. Now I'm not condoning what he did, but there's no mention of anything other than the speeds attained.

On the assumption that this DD charge was purely because of the very high speeds involved, at what point does speeding automatically become DD? Is there an official threshhold for each limit?

Until recently sentencing for DWDC and dangerous driving were based largely on how far from the required standard the driver was. As an example 60 MPH down a pedestrian only road with no injury caused would have got a much bigger penalty than a moments inattention which resulted in a death. That still applies for cases where no death occurs. Recent changes in law have led to a very different situation where a death occurs. Take the (admittedly unlikely) example of two low speed rear end shunts, identical other than the fact that 1 car has a very elderly frail passenger who dies. In one case the police would refuse to attend and it would be settled through insurance. In the other case the driver would almost certainly go to jail.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

IMO, assuming this was a first offence (which it seems to be): a retest could be in order (perhaps even an advanced one), a significant fine, community service, and maybe even a short sharp stint in jail (1-2 weeks, which can be covered by annual or unpaid leave) as opposed to 12 month which means automatic loss of job and income for his family (why should his 2 children have to suffer so much?)

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

There was quite lot mentioned other than the speed. Including overtaking at the crest of a hill. There is no official speed at which a charge of dangerous driving becomes automatic. There needs to be something in the driving to fit the definition of dangerous driving ie Driving which falls far below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver AND which would be seen as dangerous by a careful and competent driver who observed it.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

If you are serious about these changes, I find it very concerning as it means that the punishment is dependent on the unforeseen outcome of an incident and not on the actual misdeed itself. How does the person (for example a mother distracted for a moment by her two small children in the back of the car) who runs into the back of another car know about the state of health of the occupant. She should, of course go to jail for a long time - not.

Pretty soon, we will get a case where someone swerves into a telegraph pole to avoid a pedestrian. The phone lines being down, the Prime Minister cannot stop nuclear missiles being launched upon Iran. The pedestrian is charged with genocide. (Yes, I know it's daft but the principle is the same.)

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

I think that's fundamentally wrong. Personally I think the severity of the sentence should be based on the severity of the intent, not the outcome.



Sorry, my bad. Perhaps "the article spends a lot of the time talking about his speed" would be more accurate.

I couldn't be more serious. http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk ... update.pdf pages 118 and 118A.

You might also like to look at page 119, in particular the last phrase of paragraph (a)

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.