Personally speaking. I think he should have been banned - 100MPH is 30 over the limit.
Its like the drink drive limit, if you're just over, ya get banned, if you're just under ya don't.
... I was caught doing 98 on the same dual carriage way, another 2 MPH and I would have been speeding :)
|
|
for me a ban should be given if there was danger involved....and speeding doesn't automatically mean it was dangerous, although some like to claim so
|
>>>for me a ban should be given if there was danger involved<<<
Who is to judge what is dangerous and what is not? - what was the weather like I wonder?
Is driving at 100MPH on a dual carriageway not a danger to other road users?
|
Who is to judge what is dangerous and what is not?
The judge :-) Perhaps (s)he took into account the weather/number of other road users etc.
|
((The judge :-) Perhaps (s)he took into account the weather/number of other road users etc.))
----------------------------> :-D
|
It was magistrates.
Who knows what they took into account?
|
It was magistrates. Who knows what they took into account?
The usual things, I presume.
Accent, elocution, manners, and dress of the accused. The polished middle class man is much more likely to get a sympathetic hearing than the chav from a council estate.
|
>The usual things, I presume.
>Accent, elocution, manners, and dress of the accused. The polished middle class man is much
>more likely to get a sympathetic hearing than the chav from a council estate.
For Glubs sake NW.
Maybe magistrates are pleased to see at least one offender who isn't a "chav from a council estate".
See?
kevin...
|
|
|
|
Is driving at 100MPH on a dual carriageway not a danger to other road users?
It cannot possibly be automatically so..... otherwise emergency service personnel wouldn't be allowed to do it, would they?....inc on their training courses, when they are not yet qualified.
Do the Germans permit dangerous driving when they allow people to use the unrestricted parts of their Autobahns?
Edited by Westpig on 05/09/2009 at 20:24
|
>> >> Is driving at 100MPH on a dual carriageway not a danger to other road users? It cannot possibly be automatically so..... otherwise emergency service personnel wouldn't be allowed to do it would they?....inc on their training courses when they are not yet qualified.
If course it can be automatically so. Emergency services get powers to do all sorts of dangerous things which would otherwise be illegal, because those actions may in an emergency be the lesser of two evils. (e.g. if someone is on a shooting spree, it's less risky to speed getting to the scene than to leave the gunman a free run for another few minutes). So, for example, emergency services can go through a red light, even though that's a near-absolute offence for a civilian.
I thought you were a police officer, Westpig, so I'd have expected you to have a better understanding of the reasons why you get powers to go with your warrant card.
|
If course it can be automatically so. Emergency services get powers to do all sorts of dangerous things which would otherwise be illegal because those actions may in an emergency be the lesser of two evils. (e.g. if someone is on a shooting spree it's less risky to speed getting to the scene than to leave the gunman a free run for another few minutes). So for example emergency services can go through a red light even though that's a near-absolute offence for a civilian.
I think you are mixing up 'an element of danger' with something being 'dangerous'.
I'm not splitting hairs, but there is a difference.
If anyone drove through a red light at an empty junction at 0500 on a bright summers morning, it would be illegal of course, it would have a potential element of danger, but it might well not be dangerous.
Same with speeding.
if it were inherently dangerous on all occasions to drive at high speed, i really cannot imagine emergency service driving schools would allow their students to participate... and there would be severe restrictions for the qualified drivers to do so
Edited by Westpig on 05/09/2009 at 20:59
|
if it were inherently dangerous on all occasions to drive at high speed i really cannot imagine emergency service driving schools would allow their students to participate... and there would be severe restrictions for the qualified drivers to do so
Driving at 100mph is always dangerous -- at that speed, an impact with a stationary object will usually be fatal to the driver. Of course it's more dangerous in some circumstances than others (pretty lethal in the rain on a busy day over the Snake Pass, much less risky on an completely empty motorway in clear conditions), which is why emergency services are supposed to make a risk assessment before driving like that.
The point of the training is to make sure that drivers empowered to travel at those speeds have high skills, both in handling the vehicle at those speeds and in assessing the risks involved.
|
I can imagine many scenarios where doing an illegal 100 mph on a quiet dual carriageway is far less risky than doing a perfectly legal 30mph in an urban setting.
Driving to fixed speed limits removes drivers' ability to perform the rolling risk assessment which really we should all be doing all the time we're behind the wheel.
|
|
|
driving at any speed at all has its' dangers, inc at 10 mph......and i'd agree that the faster you go, the higher those dangers would be....trouble is, it's a subjective viewpoint as to what 'danger' is.
'Danger' as in dangerous driving, cannot be the view of the authorities, otherwise as i've already said there would be more kerbs on emergency service drivers....and people like Ross Brawn would get automatic bans
|
|
|
>>Driving at 100mph is always dangerous
By this logic, driving at just about any speed is dangerous - this is the kind of soggy thinking that underpins the nanny state.
emergency services are supposed to make a risk assessment before driving like that.
Isn't risk assessment just a fancy way of saying acting with reasonable care?
NW, have you ever actually driven at 100mph? If so, why, if you consider it dangerous per se? There's nothing remarkable about it, save that it happens to be the wrong side of an arbitrary "limit".
I'd be amazed if there was anything remotely dangerous in Brawn's driving. An experienced and competent driver in a Mercedes 320 will find plenty of opportunities to exceed 100mph without endangering life and limb.
Not that I am advocating law-breaking, but that is not the point being debated.
|
I am getting quite puzzled! There is a thread elswhere in "Discussion" where a lady has been been fined/penalised £60 for parking for 2 minutes with 2 wheels on a pavement to deal with her child who had loosened or undone its safety harness. She is getting lots of pompous drivel about it is against he law, she doesn't pay road tax to be on the pavement ( neither do cyclists but there are lts of them on it!). Here we have the other side of the coin basically suggesting that is OK for Brawn to break the speed limit by 30 mph 'cos he is a good driver in a really nice car and nobody was at risk etc.
I am somewhere in the middle ground on these. I think the lady has been treated very harshly, on the basis of her side of the story, and I think Brawn is very lucky not to have been treated anywhere near as harshly as the law allows.
|
HJ, sorry to sound stoopid but where's the video?
i keep getting a page load error with the link near the bottom of the page, the bit with
'2006 Mazda 3 facelift model test at'
|
I think the lady has been treated very harshly, on the basis of her side of the story,
She hasn't been treated harshly yet - presumably the issuing authority cannot have known the reason she stopped.
I agree that Brawn was fortunate. I just don't think it follows that he was causing any danger.
|
|
HJ, cheers. i'll go hunting for the updates. not a problem with email, i use yahoo.
|
He swore he posted off his bit of the V5C and can provide a date he did this. He has a scruffy piece of paper providing a receipt for the money paid for the car but that's all.
The DVLA seem pretty at losing change of ownership notifications at the moment!
I sent my V5C off months ago, followed by 3 letters, many phone calls, and an e-mail, with which I received an automated reply stating I would be contacted within 10 days.
Over 10 days has passed, and I have heard knowt.
Im at the end of my tether right now - what DO I need to do so my names taken off the darn car?
|
The well-dressed, well-spoken middle class may get better treatment in court but in this case according to the report:
"Brawn was not in court for the hearing and was represented by his lawyer Denis Brennan."
Maybe Brennan was well-dressed and well-spoken on Brawn's behalf. I accept all the arguments about speed not necessarily being dangerous but this level of speeding generally attracts a ban.
|
With my way of thinking, its not what happened - but what could have happened ... and its more likely to happen at 100MPH than 70MPH, with far worse consequences - especially on an A road.
I have the same mindset Re: drink driving, the consequences of which we've all read about too often.
A driving ban quite rightly follows a drink/drive conviction, and so a driving ban should automatically follow a conviction for speeding when it is in 'greatly in excess' of the speed limit - in this case 30MPH for no other reason than he was late.
I would like to add that I have driven on an A road (A20) at speeds in excess of 120MPH, and I have also driven a car whilst drunk, but I never got caught or luckily - injured anyone whilst doing so, but it could have sooooooooo easily been a different story!
|
|
|
|
|
|
