|
|
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 4> |
| Author | ||
m3tiko 
Really Senior Member II 
Joined: 29-May-2005 Location: Braveheart Country..aka Pai Status: Offline Points: 1483 |
 Topic: My dream judge....Posted: 27-January-2006 at 15:43 |
|
 |
||
 |
||
| Sponsored Links | ||
|
||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 27-January-2006 at 15:57 |
|
|
It's nothing new.
People have been aquitted of dangerous driving, where the only evidence given is the high speed, many many times over the years. I myself have said many times that it isn't speed itself that is dangerous. That doesn't mean I'm saying that he wasn't dangerous, but the Police evidently didn't produce the required evidence. The above speeds he was able to achieve though, without being convicted of dangerous driving, is exactly why we have an absolute offence of breaking speed limits that is relatively easy to prove by comparison, because people do get it badly wrong if allowed to choose for themselves what they think they can do safely & then it's too late. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4650966.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4650458.stm I don't think he will fair so well on the excess speed & no insurance charges at the later trial though. Not all happy ending Edited by livvy |
||
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||
|
||
|
///Mister_G
Really Senior Member I 
Joined: 01-August-2005 Location: Coventry, UK Status: Offline Points: 343 |
Posted: 27-January-2006 at 16:14 |
|
|
Driving his daddy's car... dangerous and immature. No question. The issue of wether he was in contol at that speed or not is irrelevant. I have personally gone very close to that speed (not on the public roads) and although it may have seemed 'easy' for the M3 on a long, wide straight bit of track, a country lane is a different matter all together. I mean, he must have been hammering it to get it up to that speed. The suspension just can't cope with deviations in the road at that speed. I cycle a lot too.... the thought of that just scares the crap out of me. Must have been an amature footballer or somthing.... |
||
|
||
|
m3tiko
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 29-May-2005 Location: Braveheart Country..aka Pai Status: Offline Points: 1483 |
Posted: 27-January-2006 at 19:56 |
|
|
Point taken at the risk involved in a) being uninsured and immature....
The point I'm trying to make that regardless of driving conditions, experience of driver or the camber of the road , the presiding judge made clear that what influenced her decision was not dangerous driving.... Is there therefore a coorelation with dangerous driving and speed???....a loophole that I'm sure N. Freeman has argued in many a case. |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 27-January-2006 at 20:17 |
|
We know excessive speed for the circumstances is dangerous, the problem with that, is that it is a subjective test & the Police have to convince a court of why the speed in that place at that time was actually dangerous. If they don't do that it doesn't matter what the numbers are for the speed you are not going to get a conviction for dangerous driving. Somebody could get a conviction for dangerous driving at 25 in a 30 tomorrow if the circumstances warranted it & the evidence supplied to the court sufficently illustrated why it was dangerous.. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at about Nick Freeman though with this ???? He hasn't got anyone off a speeding conviction where they are shown to be over the limit by arguing that it wasn't dangerous to travel at that speed (if that's what you are getting at). There is no requirement on the part of the prosecution to show any danger what so ever for the offence of speeding. As such the fact that there is no evidence of danger is only mitigation for sentencing, it will not stop the conviction (or some points which are mandatory.) Edited by livvy |
||
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||
|
||
|
Bigian
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 25-May-2005 Location: Stonehaven Status: Offline Points: 2167 |
Posted: 29-January-2006 at 09:26 |
|
|
There are not alot of judges who will stick there neck out like that and it shows there are people who have the balls i know it's a woman
|
||
|
If you can't be good don't get caught
-------------------------- |
||
|
||
|
Doive
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 09-February-2005 Location: Clinging to a turbine, Hexham Status: Offline Points: 1212 |
Posted: 29-January-2006 at 18:06 |
|
|
It's about time a little discretion was applied to cases like this. I don't necessarily agree with the outcome in this case, where the man concerned likely has no experience driving at high speed, being only 21. I believe he should have been charged, because if the circumstances had arisen where he would have needed to take preventative action, would he have been able to? I don't know.
The point is that someone doing 45 in a 30 limit past a school at 3.30 is not only dangerous, it is criminally negligent, and the appropriate sentence should be conferred. However, a man in a powerful sports car doing say 100mph on the M90 at 3 in the morning could never be considered to be the same at all. The current judicial system would throw the book at both offenders, and what I am saying is that a jduge should be given the liberty to use their own discretion in each case. |
||
|
1987 BMW 525e Lux Auto (sadly deceased)
Get Firefox - Ditch Hopeless Inertnet Exploder www.doive.co.uk 
|
||
|
||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 29-January-2006 at 19:36 |
|
Where have you heard of someone being convicted of dangerous driving for doing 100mph on a motorway, based solely on the speed & no other evidence ? The court doesn't have discretion in deciding innocence or guilt, they must apply the law. The discretion lays with the Police & CPS in deciding whether to bring prosecutions. The court have to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is sufficient evidence they must convict, if there is insufficient they must aquit. Where they do have some flexibility is in sentencing following conviction. But even then there are certain offences which carry mandatory penalty points or bans. For speeding if the prosecution can prove the case, the court must convict & they must give you a minimum 3 points. They have a certain amount of discretion over the fine with regard to the case & your circumstances, but they must give at least 3 points & where appropriate they can give more or even a ban. In the case of this young man speeding, the Police didn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he was dangerous at that speed so he is aquitted (whether he was dangerous or not they didn't prove it.) When he appears before the court again at later date in relation to the no insurance & the speeding charges, it is far more likely that a conviction & disqualification will follow, because they are far easier to prove. Edited by livvy |
||
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||
|
||
|
Doive
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 09-February-2005 Location: Clinging to a turbine, Hexham Status: Offline Points: 1212 |
Posted: 29-January-2006 at 22:31 |
|
|
Perhaps my post was a little misleading. What I really should have said is that the discretion to prosecute in the first place should be made by the officers who catch the speeding motorist. The 45 in a 30 bloke outside school should quite rightly have the book thrown at him. However, the bloke doing 100 at 3am should be let off with a stern talking to. Who is he harming? Nobody, except potentially himself. It would save yet another silly case going to court and wasting yet more taxpayers money.
You seem to imply that the British judiciary should apply the law of the land without question. Well in that case, we need to haul every livestock farmer in the country into court, since it is illegal to drive cattle on the public highway between the hours of 10am and 7pm without the prior written consent of the Chief Constable. You see, certain laws need reformed before they become outdated. In 1950, if you had been doing 100mph you would almost certainly die as a result. In today's world of ceramic brake discs and carbon fibre components, 100mph is almost pedestrian, entirely safe at 3am on a deserted motorway. The notion that the driver should be prosecuted for such an infringement is faintly ridiculous, when the only person they put at risk is themselves. |
||
|
1987 BMW 525e Lux Auto (sadly deceased)
Get Firefox - Ditch Hopeless Inertnet Exploder www.doive.co.uk
|
||
|
||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 05:19 |
|
The courts have no choice but to apply the law of the land for any case that is brought before them. Discretion is used already by the Police. Of course the levels to which it is used will never be agreed by everyone. There will be those who think that a harder line should always be taken than now & there will be those who think that a more relaxed view should be applied to our limits than now. That will depend greatly on your own individual experiences & outlook. The judgements of the level of discretion to be used in the initial case lays solely with the Police, but they have to consider what society is asking them to do with it. The CPS will then decide whether it is in the publics interest to proceed. The simple facts are that the laws & our limits haven't been changed despite the topic having been raised many many times. It is not that it hasn't been discussed & forgotten about. The new road safety bill should be with us soon & once again I haven't seen any clauses in that to relax the limits themselves. That alone illustrates that it's society's wish (as a collective) that people do not travel on our roads at 100mph at any time, as does the current enforcement policy. Over 29% of the people killed on our roads were killed between 10pm & 7am last year. People still die in collisions throughout the night, it doesn't stop. There were more people killed on our motorways last year in the hours of darkness than in daylight. Mother & baby killed on M1 Another case of drivers yet again not driving to their vision & not being able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear (with our current limits.) How would raising the limit to 100mph help in avoiding that ? Edited by livvy |
||
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||
|
||
|
Fey!
Bavarian-Board Contributor 
Funs over, Scotty; beam down my clothes! Joined: 28-February-2005 Location: Galway Status: Offline Points: 4161 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 11:14 |
|
|
This may sound harsh to the guy who just lost his family, but the case you linked to was nothing short of negligent. They knew that their car was mechanically deficient before they undertook their journey, yet they brought it onto a MOTORWAY (which, IIRC, is illegal in the UK - if you know that your car will stop on the motorway, you are not to enter said road) and stopped in the middle lane. Nighttime + Motorway + Unlit car in middle lane = Accident. At no time in that report was speed mentioned. Also, they got hit by 3 cars - were they all speeding? Maybe they were only doing 30mph - it probably would have been enough. If I went into the back of a stationary Fiesta at 30mph, chances are anything in the back would get crushed. I feel sorry for the guy who lost his family. (BTW; was he the driver or the passenger?). |
||
|
||
|
||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 11:51 |
|
That doesn't absolve the drivers of the three vehicles that ploughed into a stationary object in the road of their responsibility to be able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear and avoid such things. You must be able to do that at all times. They were driving too fast for their vision & the conditions. Whether they were breaking the speed limit or not is not the point. Their assessment of a safe speed for their vision & the conditions was flawed (as is so many peoples). There is no point in raising limits when people can't judge a safe speed for the circumstances within our current ones, it only adds to the problem. If you park your car on the road, it doesn't matter where it's parked any cars travelling towards it have to be able to stop before hitting it. If you come around a blind bend & there are a herd of cows in the road, you have to be able to stop before you plough into them. It is a basic of sound driving that is non negotiable. I agree he shouldn't have been driving with a defective vehicle, but your response in attacking him is typical of drivers who have collisions when driving too fast for the circumstances. They won't accept that it is their responsibility to be able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear & always seek to blame a stationary vehicle. There will always be times when vehicles break down on our motorways or debris falls in live lanes. You have to be able to stop within your field of vision to avoid them. (He was the driver I believe) Edited by livvy |
||
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||
|
||
|
Fey!
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Funs over, Scotty; beam down my clothes! Joined: 28-February-2005 Location: Galway Status: Offline Points: 4161 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 12:00 |
|
|
Easier said than done - especially when you find something in front of you that shouldn't be there. This was obviously an horrific accident. Same incident, less carnage - have you ever driven into anything yourself? I mean crash/bump/whatever? Because it's essentially the same thing - even if you're only doing 2/3 miles per hour. |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 12:07 |
|
That's not the answer. It wasn't an accident. It was forseeable & avoidable, if the drivers were driving so that they could stop within their field of vision as they should have been able to. The answer is go slower so that you can do that (as you should be doing). You should always be expecting that you are going to have to stop for something in the road. You should always be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. You can't drive on the basis that it was clear last night so it should be tonight. But sadly that is what so many do & because people can't judge the safe speed to do that we have limits, because the faster you go the more critical your awareness of it becomes if you are going to avoid running into stationary objects or things that could potentially pull infront of, or walk infront of you. People want to run before they can walk. So many people can't judge a safe speed now (or take responsibility for the safe handling of that speed around others) but they cry out to be allowed to drive faster. They drive at 100mph+ & because they don't have a collision they think they are safe. All along though they may have been going beyond their abilities or vision & they have avoided a collision simply because they have been lucky with circumstances. When push comes to shove & circumstances are unfavourable, such as something in the road. They blame what's in the road, not themeselves for outdriving their vision & ability.  Others say "there but for the grace of god go I", because they have the same inherent faults in their driving. Edited by livvy |
||
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||
|
||
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard Joined: 02-March-2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1948 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 12:14 |
|
|
I want to be able to drive faster!
|
||
|
Ciao,
Spokey 
|
||
|
||
|
stephenperry
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Joined: 20-April-2004 Location: Elgin Status: Offline Points: 7213 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 13:17 |
|
|
2007 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCI Titanium X Auto 1983 Ford Sierra XR4i 2000 Alpina B10 3.3 #118 1999 BMW 323Ci 1995 BMW 318i SE 1994 Vauxhall Omega 2.0 GLS 1995 Ford Mondeo 1.8 LX 1990 Honda Concerto 1.6 EX 1986 Ford Orion 1.6 GL 1989 Ford Fiesta 1.1 Firefly |
||
|
||
|
m3tiko
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 29-May-2005 Location: Braveheart Country..aka Pai Status: Offline Points: 1483 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 13:27 |
|
|
Livvy...we dont know the exact speeds of the 3 cars involved. If they are travelling at normal m-way speeds then how can you proportion blame on them. Unless, you happen to have the full accident log details?
It was undoubtedly sad to hear that such a young life was taken and I feel total sympathy for the surviving husband. But again only he knows why he stayed stuck in the middle lane...a whole host of reasons. Unlike ourselves, maybe you'll will find out the exact reason(s). My wife and 1yo at that time were involved in a crash on a motorway. She hit a stationary vehicle at about 50-60 mph on the fast lane....police report stated it was "fault of the stopped vehicle". No driver error on her part... the young boy in the stopped cars reason was a puncture.More importantly noone was seriously hurt. So point I'm trying to make it's best to get the facts first before we start criticising drivers. |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 13:30 |
|
Yes where there are loopholes in the evidence & you pay him plenty of money, Nick Freeman will take on your case. Where there aren't loopholes he won't, because he doesn't want to lose cases. There is nothing in your link that says he can get you off a speeding charge (where you are travelling in excess of the limit) on the basis that the speed was safe at that time. (Which is what I said) Your link doesn't say for what reason the case was aquitted. |
||
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||
|
||
|
stephenperry
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Joined: 20-April-2004 Location: Elgin Status: Offline Points: 7213 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 13:34 |
|
|
i agree wholeheartedly - much like the no-win-no-fee claims merchants they are only going to take on cases that are dead certainties of winning i retyped word for word the small snippet of news in the magazine also notice that you wont get him for �4.99 a month... Edited by stephenperry |
||
|
2007 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCI Titanium X Auto 1983 Ford Sierra XR4i 2000 Alpina B10 3.3 #118 1999 BMW 323Ci 1995 BMW 318i SE 1994 Vauxhall Omega 2.0 GLS 1995 Ford Mondeo 1.8 LX 1990 Honda Concerto 1.6 EX 1986 Ford Orion 1.6 GL 1989 Ford Fiesta 1.1 Firefly |
||
|
||
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005 Status: Offline Points: 745 |
Posted: 30-January-2006 at 14:13 |
|
If you hit a stationary vehicle you commit the offence of without due care. It's a fait accompli. You fell below the standard expected of our most basic drivers in that you couldn't stop within the distance you can see to be clear. It's the same as when people drive too quickly in fog & can't stop before hitting the collision that has already happened infront of them. It doesn't matter if their speed was under the limit at the time, they were still travelling to quickly for the circumstances. I had a conversation not long ago on this with a motor cyclist. He came around a bend to be presented with a lorry on it's side blocking the road. He couldn't stop in time to avoid it & went off road knocking himself out & destroying his bike. He was charged with without due care, just like those who run into the back of others in fog are. The new road safety bill is bringing a new imprisonable offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. If you drive into a stationary car in the road kiling the occupants you may well find yourself charged with this new offence in future & spending sometime in ones of HMPs with soap on a rope. It is brought in because people don't take it seriously enough & people commit what they see as only something very minor (when it's not) & somebody loses their life as a result of it. Edited by livvy |
||
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone. |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 4> |
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
My dream judge....
Topic Options
m3tiko wrote: