# 47mph in a 30 zone, "Not Dangerous"



## spindrift (23 Oct 2007)

The absurdity of the current law on what constitutes "dangerous driving".




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7058736.stm

Despite the judge's encouraging remarks, a driver didn't see a pedestrian change direction, in a panic to save their life.


----------



## bonj2 (23 Oct 2007)

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."


----------



## piedwagtail91 (23 Oct 2007)

no doubt that the verdict would have been the same if the driver had been a penniless student in a clapped out old lada?
obviously the same because british justice is the best in the world.
a world famous bolton boxer and a bolton jury, pretty much the same as ken dodd verses the taxman with a liverpool jury.
if 47 mph in a busy towncentre going through a red light isn't dangerous then what the hell is.
apparently he does a lot of good work in his spare time (as if that is relevent to a jury) well acording to the local news anyway.


----------



## spindrift (23 Oct 2007)

It was a pelican, actually. So a driver is doing a speed that's lethal, above the limit, and doesn't even notice a pedestrian where it is blindingly obvious a pedestrian may be.

And it's not dangerous, oh no.

You're right piedwagtail, it's bought justice.


----------



## Elmer Fudd (23 Oct 2007)

piedwagtail91 said:


> apparently he does a lot of good work in his spare time (as if that is relevent to a jury) well acording to the local news anyway.



Must have lots of spare time though, if he drives at those speeds.


----------



## piedwagtail91 (23 Oct 2007)

the bloke whose leg he smashed is still hobbling around with a walking stick.


----------



## Cab (24 Oct 2007)

Beggars belief. So far over the limit, went straight over a crossing... I dunno, if that isn't dangerous driving then our legal definitions are totally screwed up.


----------



## bonj2 (24 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Beggars belief. So far over the limit, went straight over a crossing... I dunno, if that isn't dangerous driving then our legal definitions are totally screwed up.


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.


----------



## piedwagtail91 (24 Oct 2007)

after reading the report in the bolton newspaper i couldn't help feeling that the judge had infleunced the jury by almost blaming the victim for panicking and getting knocked down when faced with some moron doing the best part of 50 mph coming straight for him.
it was only after that that he blamed khan, but then started arse licking by saying what a good bloke he was as he did a lot of good work and that he was young and young drivers tend to do that sort of thing.
what planet are these idiots from?


----------



## bonj2 (24 Oct 2007)

That may be what the bolton newspaper wanted you to feel. Newspapers do like to whip up hysteria, you know.


----------



## spindrift (24 Oct 2007)

The fine is no punishment, and he'll just pay a driver.


----------



## bonj2 (24 Oct 2007)

spindrift said:


> The fine is no punishment, and he'll just pay a driver.



agreed, and probably true. But what can you do, short of a custodial? If they'd put him in prison, there would have been cries he'd "unfairly been made an example of". You may say that's fair enough, but there's lots of people who wouldn't.


----------



## Cab (24 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> But what can you do, short of a custodial?



Doing nearly 50 in a 30 zone? Why stop short of custodial?


----------



## bonj2 (24 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> Doing nearly 50 in a 30 zone? Why stop short of custodial?



Because for it to be fair, you'd have to then imprison everyone who did that. And contrary to what you might like to think, it isn't rare enough for doing that not to represent a serious strain on the already overcrowding prison population.

Or did you mean why stop AT custodial?


----------



## Cab (24 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Because for it to be fair, you'd have to then imprison everyone who did that. And contrary to what you might like to think, it isn't rare enough for doing that not to represent a serious strain on the already overcrowding prison population.
> 
> Or did you mean why stop AT custodial?



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.


----------



## bonj2 (24 Oct 2007)

Cab said:


> 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 (24 Oct 2007)

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 (24 Oct 2007)

piedwagtail91 said:


> 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 (25 Oct 2007)

_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 (25 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> 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 (25 Oct 2007)

piedwagtail91 said:


> 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 (27 Oct 2007)

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 (28 Oct 2007)

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 (29 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> 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 (29 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> 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 (29 Oct 2007)

spen666 said:


> 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: -
> 
> ...



Well, that IS the law. *.gov*.uk stands for *gov*ernment. 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 (29 Oct 2007)

spen666 said:


> Dangerous driving carries a MANDATORY ban



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


----------



## bonj2 (29 Oct 2007)

spen666 said:


> 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 (29 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> 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 (29 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> 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


----------



## spen666 (29 Oct 2007)

bonj said:


> Well, that IS the law. *.gov*.uk stands for *gov*ernment. 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.




I'm simply quoting the law- an article on a website hosted by a government website doesn't make the law.

It wouldn't be the first time a government has got the law wrong would it?


----------



## bonj2 (29 Oct 2007)

spen666 said:


> I'm simply quoting the law- an article on a website hosted by a government website doesn't make the law.
> 
> It wouldn't be the first time a government has got the law wrong would it?



The way I read it, I thought it meant the driver had deliberately driven _generally_ recklessly, and it was that recklessness that had caused the accident, rather than that they'd intentional caused the _specific_ risk that gave rise to the incident.
But all the law you've quoted does is qualify them as two different levels - i.e. "falls somewhat short" and "falls way short". It doesn't say qualitatively how far short is 'way' short.


----------

