IMORTAL_Indian
Well-known member
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-36953439
If he was on a motorbike, the book would have been thrown at him !!
If he was on a motorbike, the book would have been thrown at him !!
Need to track down this solicitor (Get out of Jail Card)
- Thread starter IMORTAL_Indian
- Start date
Help Support S1000RR FORUM:
Marzy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2015
- Messages
- 793
- Reaction score
- 0
These bikers went to jail for speeding on a road near me. MCN did an article on it, seams they lost everything job, car, family as well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3068731.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/3068731.stm
All the bikers who were jailed were done for dangerous driving, not speeding - although the speed was a major factor. You cannot be sent to prison for the offence of speeding.
In England and Wales, speed is not normally sufficient on its own for a charge of dangerous driving, there needs to be something dangerous either in the manner of the driving, or that the driving was dangerous in the circumstances that existed at the time.
For a modern sportsbike to do 150+ mph takes relatively little effort and relatively little traffic free road. For a car to do the same speeds, usually requires long stretches of virtually empty roads. A car doing those sorts of speeds is less likely to be doing so in anything other than very light traffic, and presumably less likely to be considered dangerous.
A 56 day ban is the longest listed in the magistrates' sentencing guidelines, although they only apply for speeds of up to 100 mph, and would usually be largely disregarded for speeds twice as far over the limit. The defence probably made much of the effect that a ban would have on the driver's disabled mother - the law tries to avoid unduly indirectly punishing innocent parties who are reliant on the offender.
That said, there does appear to be a great deal of inconsistency - not least between riders jailed for dangerous driving due mainly to the speed, and police refusing to do anything about dangerous drivers who almost wipe out bikers as the offences of dangerous driving and careless driving apparently require a collision.
In England and Wales, speed is not normally sufficient on its own for a charge of dangerous driving, there needs to be something dangerous either in the manner of the driving, or that the driving was dangerous in the circumstances that existed at the time.
For a modern sportsbike to do 150+ mph takes relatively little effort and relatively little traffic free road. For a car to do the same speeds, usually requires long stretches of virtually empty roads. A car doing those sorts of speeds is less likely to be doing so in anything other than very light traffic, and presumably less likely to be considered dangerous.
A 56 day ban is the longest listed in the magistrates' sentencing guidelines, although they only apply for speeds of up to 100 mph, and would usually be largely disregarded for speeds twice as far over the limit. The defence probably made much of the effect that a ban would have on the driver's disabled mother - the law tries to avoid unduly indirectly punishing innocent parties who are reliant on the offender.
That said, there does appear to be a great deal of inconsistency - not least between riders jailed for dangerous driving due mainly to the speed, and police refusing to do anything about dangerous drivers who almost wipe out bikers as the offences of dangerous driving and careless driving apparently require a collision.
baz
Well-known member
Funny old world-I got banned(in a car) for 56 days and fined ?260 for 123mph on the A11,27 years ago!
jamesd
Active member
All I can say huuummmmmmm....one rule for one and not the other....
Balallan
Well-known member
Must be well connected to have got off that lightly.
stuartb
Well-known member
What car was that Baz
stuarts phone
stuarts phone
Mick753
Well-known member
I remember this case particularly well as I had actually been down the same stretch of road myself the day this happened and had seen the Police with the camera in their normal advertised place, I remember they charged him with dangerous driving purely on the basis of how fast he was going because the stretch of road in question is practically a couple of miles of completely straight road with only 1 junction to a farm house along it and with completely unrestricted views all the way from one end to the other and at that time of day there is very little traffic on it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-caught-doing-166mph-on-motorbike-jailed.html
Big jump from 56 days to 9 months for what was deemed to be dangerous rather than just speeding.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-caught-doing-166mph-on-motorbike-jailed.html
Big jump from 56 days to 9 months for what was deemed to be dangerous rather than just speeding.
What gets me is that you can get off with less for actually doing someone else harm.
- Sent from Mobile
- Sent from Mobile
jamesd
Active member
There are many inconsistency in law, as in many areas of law the test for dangerous driving is an objective test set out below.
"if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state (for the purpose of the determination of which regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it, and to the manner in which it is attached or carried) would be dangerous"
So in a nutshell its how that objective test as been applied in past and to some degree what results have been achieved in what location. When the Police wanted a crack down on Bikers in Wales (a few ago, there was a campaign in MCN to stop it) the Welsh Magistrates could easily apply Dangerous Driving to Speeding. (Dangerous Driving is a triable either way I so it could be a high court judge after a jury verdict as well)
There does not need to be a contact for a charge of dangerous driving. However, as I hope you can see, with how opened ended the test is, how it can be easily applied to speeding and made to apply to an who host of driving/riding.
Sorry - the "apparently require a collision" is a facetious comment on the apparent policy of some police forces, as discussed elsewhere.
Minor point - if you are talking about appeals (after a jury verdict), but an appeal of a case tried on indictment is to the Court of Appeal, not the High Court.
Minor point - if you are talking about appeals (after a jury verdict), but an appeal of a case tried on indictment is to the Court of Appeal, not the High Court.
jamesd
Active member
Sorry andyf, yes your right it should say Crown Court not high court....
Its 10 years since I finished my masters at law......
Its 10 years since I finished my masters at law......
baz
Well-known member
4x4 ford sierra with janspeed turbo.Probably didn't help when my solicitor said,much to my surprise, "isn't everyone curious to know how quick their car will go"!!
stuartb
Well-known member
Haha janspeed turbo..
KC Daylighters... koni shocks...bob heath visors mind them !
stuarts phone
KC Daylighters... koni shocks...bob heath visors mind them !
stuarts phone
baz
Well-known member
Things have moved on slightly!
That was when men were men!
That was when men were men!
baz
Well-known member
A bit older,Phil!
Still,only as old as you feel.Now,where's the zimmer frame?.Have I got one?-I can't remember.
Still,only as old as you feel.Now,where's the zimmer frame?.Have I got one?-I can't remember.
Similar threads
