172 mph driver jailed

[Flat.tyres]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=477535&in_page_id=1770

10 weeks in clink for speeding when nobody was hurt seems harsh but recently another driver got 5 months for 150 mph.

If a driver causes a crash, then bang them up but when the jails are full and we release car thieves who go onto kill, then something seems wrong.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=m4-death-crash-probes-open&method=full&objectid=19822627&siteid=50082-name_page.html

Isn't there better ways to deal with speeders instead of jailing them when criminals are being let out?

[Mark]

I don't think 172mph can ever be justified tho. It's not like it's only a few mph over the limit.

I think the simple formula of
< 70 mph, ok
70-80mph, ok ish
> 80mph, points
> 100mph, ban
> 150mph, jail.

[Flat.tyres]

I don't think 172mph can ever be justified tho. It's not like it's only a few mph over the limit.

I think the simple formula of
< 70 mph, ok
70-80mph, ok ish
> 80mph, points
> 100mph, ban
> 150mph, jail.

I cannot justify what he did, just question if this is the best way of dealing with this crime.

Lets look at the consequenses of his actions. Did he hurt anyone? Did he damage any property?

IF he had of crashed then OK but he didn't and yet an otherwise good character with an addiction for speed is in Jail.

Below we have an example of a thug that was armed with sticks with nails and caused actual bodily harm. He escapes jail on a suspended sentence and still abuses the system afterwards, yep, you've guessed, he still doesn't get sent down.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1665041.mostviewed.thug_escapes_ja il_over_sentence_breach.php

How the hell a suspended sentence for a perpetual thug that beats someone with lethal weapons is justified and yet they don't think that an otherwise good citizen could learn his lesson with a suspended sentence?

One is a habitual criminal that wontenly inflicts injury and another someone that makes a mistake where nobody is injured.

I just cannot see the benefit of locking this idiot up.

[Mark]

I think that particular idiot should be locked up. But that's doesn't change the punishment for the car driver.

[Caroline]

It seems that he may have taken the car without full permission. But really, I have no sympathy for him. He broke the law and got caught driving at stupid speeds.

The prison system is another matter and it frustrates me when someone commits a crime and appears to get off lightly, but we can't stop punishing lesser crimes as well.

[BDunnell]

Given that he's only been jailed for 10 weeks, it's hardly as if he'll be clogging up the jail system for ages.

[Flat.tyres]

It seems that he may have taken the car without full permission. But really, I have no sympathy for him. He broke the law and got caught driving at stupid speeds.

The prison system is another matter and it frustrates me when someone commits a crime and appears to get off lightly, but we can't stop punishing lesser crimes as well.

OK, which is more dangerous. Someone that goes out, has 5 pints and heads up the road at 70 or someone in a sports car who is sober doing 170.

Probably both if you ask me.

One will get a 1 year ban and £500 fine while the other is locked up for 2 1/2 months and god knows what.

After all, drink driving is condemned around the globe where doing 170 on a Motorway is legal a few hundred miles from here.

I would prefer that criminals that go around assaulting people, robbing people, raping people and murdering people get banged up and punished bt jail where someone like this twit needs to be punished a different way. Afterall, what would benefit the community more? Banging him up for 10 weeks at our expense or giving him a 10 week suspended sentence for 24 months along with 200 hours community service where he loses his weekends benefitting the community for the next 3 months?

[Henry Cutts]

I cannot justify what he did, just question if this is the best way of dealing with this crime.

Lets look at the consequenses of his actions. Did he hurt anyone? Did he damage any property?

IF he had of crashed then OK but he didn't and yet an otherwise good character with an addiction for speed is in Jail.

Below we have an example of a thug that was armed with sticks with nails and caused actual bodily harm. He escapes jail on a suspended sentence and still abuses the system afterwards, yep, you've guessed, he still doesn't get sent down.

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1665041.mostviewed.thug_escapes_ja il_over_sentence_breach.php

How the hell a suspended sentence for a perpetual thug that beats someone with lethal weapons is justified and yet they don't think that an otherwise good citizen could learn his lesson with a suspended sentence?

One is a habitual criminal that wontenly inflicts injury and another someone that makes a mistake where nobody is injured.

I just cannot see the benefit of locking this idiot up.

Just because he didn't hurt anyone does not make it OK. And driving at that speed he could VERY easily have killed a few people! So should people get let off for attempted murder because they didn’t actually kill anyone?

[CarlMetro]

Personally I think he should have been banged up for a lot longer, and banned from driving for life. Anyone who shows that level of stupidity on a busy public road doesn't deserve the right to be able to drive anymore.

Yes, there are many offenders who get off far too lightly but you have to blame the justice system for that. However there is no point in saying that just because someone has commited a worse crime, in some people's eyes, and got away with it that someone else who has commited a lesser crime, in some people's eyes, should be let off too.

[Mark]

He got off lightly IMO. What does anger me is that a police officier was caught doing similar speeds and he got a commendation from the judge!

[Flat.tyres]

He got off lightly IMO. What does anger me is that a police officier was caught doing similar speeds and he got a commendation from the judge!

I remember that case. Shocking double standards.

Well, it seems that I'm the only one here that would rather rehabilitate these idiots in the community rather than bang them up even though, if it's a police officer or in Germany, he would not have been penalised.

[Hazell B]

Anyone who shows that level of stupidity on a busy public road doesn't deserve the right to be able to drive anymore.




Totally agree, he should have no ability to drive for at least ten years. Besides that one incident, he's shown no really bad character traits, so removing the one thing he obviously enjoys would be the best punishment.

Remember the boxer Naseem Hamed? Little toad hit another person, seriously injuring him, then claimed somebody else was driving. He got 5 months and served 16 weeks. Now, that's just plain wrongness. Far too light.

My best mate's son was hit and killed by a drunk driver, speeding with serveral female passengers he was showing off to, and he got two years and two years without a licence. Nearer the mark, I feel.

Yet today I read about somebody killing his passenger through simple speeding without enough talent, and he's got ten years in jail. No drink, just speed on a road I guess most people would speed on. Ten years seems so unlike any of the other cases listed here - where's the sense in the system with vast differences like that?

I don't disagree with long terms in jail, but I'm not so sure they are either evenly dealt out countrywide, nor fully served anyway.

[BDunnell]

Well, it seems that I'm the only one here that would rather rehabilitate these idiots in the community rather than bang them up even though, if it's a police officer or in Germany, he would not have been penalised.

Forgive me for asking, but do you also believe in rehabilitation in the community as being a better option than jail for all offences?

[Daniel]

I remember that case. Shocking double standards.

Well, it seems that I'm the only one here that would rather rehabilitate these idiots in the community rather than bang them up even though, if it's a police officer or in Germany, he would not have been penalised.
That's the law here though. I usually speed during the course of the day. If I got caught and given a penalty I'd grin and bear it rather than saying but if I was in... ummm.... eerrrr Abysinia this would have been legal.

[BeansBeansBeans]

He deserves a life ban and a spell in prison.

He exceeded the speed limit by 102mph for goodness sake.

[Flat.tyres]

Forgive me for asking, but do you also believe in rehabilitation in the community as being a better option than jail for all offences?

No I do not.

This was a crime where the bloke was a total idiot but at the end of the day, nobody was actually hurt or any damage done. Now, if he had of crashed, then the seriousness of the offence and the ramifications are different and jail is appropiate. If he killed someone then a charge of manslaughter would need to be brought.

Lets take a kid carrying a penknife in the street and a kid carrying a 12" knife. Daniels arguement on speeding is that the penknife should be given a lesser sentence and the 12" knife a custodial as it's on a greater magnitude. Neither offence equated to any residual damage but thats what we have in this speeding case.

I would rather see both offences dealt with by a non-custodial punishment with some community rehabilitation and education in the first instance with a more severe sentence for people that don't adjust their behaviour after this course of action.

Now, if the Kid with the penknife happens to have stabbed or killed someone then I believe the seriousness and effect of that crime would merit a custodial solution in the first instance if necessary.

So, lets relate this back to speeding. Daniel in his car is doing 35 in a 30 for example (I dont know where you speed Daniel but this is an example) and runs over a child. We all know that there is a great increase in the likelyhood of greater injury and death at 35 then say 25 but he was only speeding a little bit. What should be the sentence in this case and should it be less than for someone doing 90 on the Motorway that doesn't have an accident. What about 100, 110, 120, 130. When does a no effect speeding crime outweigh a speeding crime that kills someone?

[Daniel]

You're trying to make the justice system "fair" and we all know that it can't be 100% fair.
The "but it didn't hurt anyone" excuse is rubbish..... I could walk down the high street firing off an AK-47 but as long as I don't hurt anyone it's OK? We live in a society with rules and laws to keep us all safe. Just because this man didn't hurt anyone doesn't mean what he did wasn't dangerous....... The message sent out should be clear and loud. If you're going to speed stupidly you're going to get a nice big penalty.

[Flat.tyres]

You're trying to make the justice system "fair" and we all know that it can't be 100% fair.
The "but it didn't hurt anyone" excuse is rubbish..... I could walk down the high street firing off an AK-47 but as long as I don't hurt anyone it's OK? We live in a society with rules and laws to keep us all safe. Just because this man didn't hurt anyone doesn't mean what he did wasn't dangerous....... The message sent out should be clear and loud. If you're going to speed stupidly you're going to get a nice big penalty.

So, why not answer the questions posed instead of ignoring them. Hopefully you will but I will answer the points you made :rolleyes:

A justice system cannot be 100% fair is correct. We can debate better ways of handleing people that commit crimes and that is what we are doing here. I asked what would warrent a custodial sentence in my last post and you ignored the question. Can you not see the difference between committing a criminal act and committing a criminal act that has profound effects on other people?

I would expect someone fireing a AK47 in the street to be dealt with severely because it is illegal to have the gun in the first place. I don't think it's illegal to own a porsche yet but give the Labour government time ;)

So, perhaps we can go back to something more relevant. I'm doing 35 in a 30 and kill a kid where you do 150 and get nicked for speeding. Which should be penalised more?

[Daniel]

Depends if speed is a factor in the incident with the child. If a child runs out in front of my car and I don't have time to brake and I'm only doing 20mph it'll still probably kill them anyway. I could kill a child through no fault of my own. Should I then go to jail for that? ;)

Your point about the AK is silly. Surely if I'm not hurting anyone it shouldn't be a problem! ;)

[Flat.tyres]

Depends if speed is a factor in the incident with the child. If a child runs out in front of my car and I don't have time to brake and I'm only doing 20mph it'll still probably kill them anyway. I could kill a child through no fault of my own. Should I then go to jail for that? ;)

Your point about the AK is silly. Surely if I'm not hurting anyone it shouldn't be a problem! ;)

But, the example was that a car doing 35 in a 30 kills a child and the driver is breaking the Law. Regardless of blame, the excess speed will be a significant factor in the death as we know that there is a increased chance of death over the speed limit. Go back to the example again and answer it or just carry on ignoring it but stop changing the goalposts.

As for the silly point about the AK, I agree. It was silly to bring it up as it's irrelevant in this case but you did so I answered it :D

[Daniel]

But you can't not punish people who put others in danger just because no one gets hurt.

[BDunnell]

Although it's not possible to measure the seriousness of every crime against another one, I can't help but feel that some of the views I've read in relation to this sentence saying that it was too harsh are influenced by the fact that this is a motoring offence.

[Dave B]

There's an over-riding belief in the UK that driving a car is a right. Kind of "I've paid my road tax, I'll drive however I like". I'd be interested to hear if that attitude is commonplace in other countries.

[Donney]

I have the feeling that in Spain the feeling is "I have a car and therefore I'm the best driver ever so I can drive however I like" being also very common "The authorities only want to **** with us, accidents won't happen to me because (refer to feeling number 1)"

[BDunnell]

There's an over-riding belief in the UK that driving a car is a right. Kind of "I've paid my road tax, I'll drive however I like". I'd be interested to hear if that attitude is commonplace in other countries.

From what I know of Germany, there certainly isn't the widespread 'motorist as victim' view that exists in the UK. I think this is a significant contributory factor to the belief that you describe in Britain.

[BeansBeansBeans]

A friend once said to me "I hate pedestrians". To which I replied "How did you transport yourself from the car park to the office?"

I hear it all the time “I hate bus drivers / taxi drivers / lorry drivers / cyclists / pedestrians….etc”. What these people really mean is that they hate anything, absolutely anything, which prevents them from exercising their god given right to treat the road as their own.

[Daniel]

A friend once said to me "I hate pedestrians". To which I replied "How did you transport yourself from the car park to the office?"

I hear it all the time “I hate bus drivers / taxi drivers / lorry drivers / cyclists / pedestrians….etc”. What these people really mean is that they hate anything, absolutely anything, which prevents them from exercising their god given right to treat the road as their own.
I prefer the term "<insert name here> irritates me"

Because sometimes cyclists really get on my nerves by riding two abreast on the road and also in places where there are cycle paths merely because they're cycling enthusiasts who feel that they somehow have a right to inconvenience motorists and even more importantly they don't seem to mind endangering their own lives :mark:

[Dave B]

I have the feeling that in Spain the feeling is "I have a car and therefore I'm the best driver ever so I can drive however I like" being also very common "The authorities only want to **** with us, accidents won't happen to me because (refer to feeling number 1)"
Which could explain Fernano :p

[BDunnell]

I prefer the term "<insert name here> irritates me"

Because sometimes cyclists really get on my nerves by riding two abreast on the road and also in places where there are cycle paths merely because they're cycling enthusiasts who feel that they somehow have a right to inconvenience motorists and even more importantly they don't seem to mind endangering their own lives :mark:

I'm a cyclist, and I don't like the way some cyclists behave on the road, ignoring red lights and suchlike. But this doesn't justify the hatred heaped on them from some quarters.

[BDunnell]

A friend once said to me "I hate pedestrians". To which I replied "How did you transport yourself from the car park to the office?"

I hear it all the time “I hate bus drivers / taxi drivers / lorry drivers / cyclists / pedestrians….etc”. What these people really mean is that they hate anything, absolutely anything, which prevents them from exercising their god given right to treat the road as their own.

I genuinely think that Jeremy Clarkson's attitude, which gets an awful lot of currency through his three newspaper columns and TV appearances, has a lot to answer for in this respect.

[Daniel]

I'm a cyclist, and I don't like the way some cyclists behave on the road, ignoring red lights and suchlike. But this doesn't justify the hatred heaped on them from some quarters.
Definitely. No need for blanket dislike because of the actions of a few :mark:

[Dave B]

.

[Daniel]

Haha Brockman :p I read the forum notification :p

[BDunnell]

Yeah, come on Dave, spit it out!

[donKey jote]

doing 170 on a Motorway is legal a few hundred miles from here.


Some stretches of the Autobahn only have a "recommended" speed of 130kmh, many more have a 120kmh limit.
Doing 170mph when the speed limit is 70mph is not legal anywhere, and is particularly stupid when the roads and signposting aren´t even designed for such high speeds in the first place :dozey: