47mph in a 30 zone, "Not Dangerous"

[bonj2]

Soon enough, if people were put in the jail for hitting nearly 50 in 30mph zones, the incidence of people doing it would go right down.

Sure it would. And I'd be more inclined to be in agreement with it in principle for that very reason. But we unfortunately don't have the prison space to do it. So, with regard to this particular case in this particular world that we happen to live in, dare I say it, it could have been viewed as irresponsible of the judge to take up a prison space for Khan when that scarce prison space could be used for a violent mugger or sex offender.
In the ideal world, though, jailing people for doing nearly 50 in a 30 zone would be much more responsible.

 

[piedwagtail91]

maybe thay should have crushed his (and all others doing the same) car and given it back to him as a cube, that way he'd have a reminder not to speed.

 

[bonj2]

maybe thay should have crushed his (and all others doing the same) car and given it back to him as a cube, that way he'd have a reminder not to speed.

economically no different to a fine.

 

[spindrift]

maybe thay should have crushed his (and all others doing the same) car

A hefty on the spot fine, as in France. Can't pay? Hand over the keys, sir.

Same for any of the million uninsured drivers in the UK, they forfeit their car, no matter it's someone elses. Look how many people casually lie when caught:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/mostpopu...eeding_driver_who_lied_is_freed_from_jail.php

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/mo...ed.speed_camera_lies_had_crippling_effect.php

The second driver pops up in comments.

 

[piedwagtail91]

economically no different to a fine.

yes but if it's his "pride and joy" it will hurt him and the others more especially if they have to witness it

 

[bonj2]

yes but if it's his "pride and joy" it will hurt him and the others more especially if they have to witness it

he's a bit sad if he's that good at a sport and his car is his pride and joy.
It's a new, stock, bmw. It's not like it's a rare customised classic that he's done a lot of work on and toiled for hours modifying himself. But maybe he is a bit sad I don't know.

 

[piedwagtail91]

looks like he makes a habit of ignoring speed limits.he been threatened with arrest next week if he doesn't turn up in court this time, concerning his 140 mph drive on the M62.

 

[Mr Celine]

You can see the CCTV footage of the incident at this site.

Dangerous? I can't see how any 'careful and competent' driver could think otherwise.

 

[spen666]

this tells you all you need to know.
in particular
"The current system is still looking at the state of mind of the driver, simply because it makes no sense not to. If the decision to charge, and the level of penalty, were to be decided simply on the 'dangerousness' of the driving, then every driver who pulled out of a side road and either failed to see the oncoming car, or misjudged its speed, would be charged with Dangerous Driving - because there is no doubt that such an act poses a danger to other road users. In fact, these drivers are almost always charged with Careless Driving, because it is recognised that they did not intentionally take the risk, but failed to take sufficient care."

I have no idea where this extract comes from- it seems on a very quick first reading to be completely at odds with the law.

Dangerous Driving comes from the Road Traffic Act 1991 and is defined there as: -

2A Meaning of dangerous driving (1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
( it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.


There is nothing in the act to say it needs to be intentional. The researcher seems to be wrong on the face of it with the section you have quoted

 

[spen666]

maybe, but the sentence is more important than the wording. Better as it is than if he'd got convicted of dangerous driving but only got a £200 fine and no ban.

Dangerous driving carries a MANDATORY ban

 

[bonj2]

I have no idea where this extract comes from- it seems on a very quick first reading to be completely at odds with the law.

Dangerous Driving comes from the Road Traffic Act 1991 and is defined there as: -

2A Meaning of dangerous driving (1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
( it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.


There is nothing in the act to say it needs to be intentional. The researcher seems to be wrong on the face of it with the section you have quoted

Well, that IS the law. .gov.uk stands for government. It's not an article by a journalist, it's a government publication. Maybe you ought to tell the government that they've got their own laws wrong then if you think you know better.

 

[bonj2]

Dangerous driving carries a MANDATORY ban

hypothetically though. I'm illustrating that the sentence matters more than what the conviction is called.

 

[bonj2]

There is nothing in the act to say it needs to be intentional. The researcher seems to be wrong on the face of it with the section you have quoted

On second reading of what you've posted, I think the article I linked to isn't a contradiction of the law, it's drilling down into it, i.e. going deeper into how you define what's 'dangerous'. But, like I say, if you think the government are wrong, tell them, not me.

 

[spen666]

hypothetically though. I'm illustrating that the sentence matters more than what the conviction is called.

Hypothetical?

no, its compulsory and is a matter of law. The court MUST ban anyone convicted of dangerous driving

 

[spen666]

On second reading of what you've posted, I think the article I linked to isn't a contradiction of the law, it's drilling down into it, i.e. going deeper into how you define what's 'dangerous'. But, like I say, if you think the government are wrong, tell them, not me.

The law doesn't require any intention

The article you linked to says there has to be intention on the part of the driver

seems like there is a contradiction there