speed camera rant!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

For an offence of dangerous driving to succeed there has to be more agravating circumstances than just the speed. The CPS in Merseyside rejected a charge of dangerous driving against a driver doing 92mph, yes 92 in a 30mph limit. Now if only one of his lights had been out.............

 

Not quite what has been discussed previously.

 

What I highlighted is causing death by dangerous driving and the sole reason for it was excessive speed.

 

If somebody is unable to recognise that that incident of speeding is not a serious criminal offence, a death of a little girl remember, then they should be ashamed.

 

The CPS : Sentencing Manual - Road traffic offences - Death by dangerous driving

 

Excerpt from the link-

 

 

Sentencing Manual

 

Road traffic offences

 

Death by dangerous driving

 

Aggravating factors

 

1. Highly culpable standard of driving at the time of the offence


1. the consumption of drugs (including legal medication known to cause drowsiness) or of alcohol, ranging from a couple of drinks to a 'motorised pub crawl'
   
2. greatly excessive speed; racing; competitive driving against another vehicle; 'showing off'
   

[Rob S]

No but the family did and I believe an inquest's findings are freely available which is why the press accurately reported the facts.

 

 

I suggest you look at the highlighted part above, because I am having difficulty in comprehending the use of "the press" and "accurately reported" in the same sentence. They are not renowned for that after all:rolleyes:

[Rob S]

Not quite what has been discussed previously.

 

What I highlighted is causing death by dangerous driving and the sole reason for it was excessive speed.

 

So it was a charge of causing death by dangerous driving and not speeding then, as I suspected.

 

If somebody is unable to recognise that that incident of speeding is not a serious criminal offence, a death of a little girl remember, then they should be ashamed.

 

 

It wasn't an incident of speeding, it was causing death by dangerous driving. You just said so yourself. The driver was convicted of that specific offence.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

All I have seen about this alleged incident is a post by another member stating it happened. I prefer to see somethign substantial such as evidence, rather than emotive posts from people who have their own agenda within this thread.

 

That's not being stubborn and narrow minded, that's being objective and wanting to see all the facts to allow me to judge properly. And I'm not prepared to do that without having seen teh facts.

 

In that case I will post something up once I locate it.

 

In the meantime why don't you just google something like 'speeding, child killed'...I'm sure there are many other cases where this has happened!

 

I have no agenda. This is a public forum and we all debate and contribute to it.

 

Your opposition to the effects of what speeding can have on people's lives is quite staggering. Shame on you.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

So it was a charge of causing death by dangerous driving and not speeding then, as I suspected.

 

 

 

It wasn't an incident of speeding, it was causing death by dangerous driving. You just said so yourself. The driver was convicted of that specific offence.

 

My God, are you really so stupid or are you having a laugh?

 

We both posted earlier where we argued this point.

 

Again, the sole factor for the dangerous driving was speed!!

 

What on earth is wrong with you?

[Tom87]

Your opposition to the effects of what speeding can have on people's lives is quite staggering. Shame on you.

 

I couldn't have put it better and more succinctly myself if I'd tried all day!

 

---

 

Speeding - dangerous driving - whatever you want to call it - this doesn't matter! You are trying to duck away from the facts: the fact is that driving over the speed limit is illegal and can be extremely dangerous - this is all that matters and what me, Al and other law-abiding motorists have been saying all along. How it is defined does not concern me - what concerns me is anyone who thinks that the speed limit is there to be broken or that it doesn't apply to them.

 

I too am absolutely staggered at the way you seem to think there is nothing wrong with going over the speed limit, and then that speed is not the cause of such accidents; and when you hear one of the uncountably many stories of someone being killed, instead of acknowledging that this is caused by speed, you try and defend the indefensible on a technicality over the definition. Shame on anyone with this distressing, self-centered and boy-racer attitude - I hope I never encounter someone like this driving on a road because I would fear for my safety.

 

Personally I do equate death by speeding/dangerous driving etc. with crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnap etc. Although the actual collision with the pedestrian or other car was not premeditated, the fact is that the driver speeding clearly has absolutely no respect or regard for human life. This is obvious by the attitude that they have to their driving and the belief that they can speed excessively with no consequences. Therefore, they deserve to be locked up for a long time, and most certainly banned from driving for life with no exceptions.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Tom87

[toadsRmylife]

If the concern is over the use of it to make money here is a suggestion...

 

How about instead of a fine you get an automatic 2 week ban on the first offence, a month on the second and a year on the 3rd? Then there could be no question of it being used to raise money as a stealth tax.

 

ha ha ha, reality check! i would gladly accept a short ban - (a much more effective penalty) but guess what IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. mark my words, soon they will up the fine and reduce the amount of points so that they can get more money before they have to ban you. when that happens you will know that i was right all along.

 

to clarify, i do not routinely speed, i do not teach my pupils to speed, i have never had a speeding ticket.

i know that there is a certain type of motorcyclist that has a very very bad attitude to use of speed on her majesty's highway, those riders don't tend to be riding for very long

[patdavies]

My God, are you really so stupid or are you having a laugh? I see that you have descended to your usual position of personal insults

 

We both posted earlier where we argued this point.

 

Again, the sole factor for the dangerous driving was speed!!

 

What on earth is wrong with you? Again an insult, your default position if anybody has the temerity not to agree with you.

 

 

The speed alone was not the sole factor to bring a charge of dangerous driving. The charge was brought because a child was killed. not solely for the speed at which the vehicle was being driven.

Edited May 17, 2008 by patdavies

[lamma]

dangerous driving happens UNDER the speed limit as well.

 

Suggest people check out the test for a prosecution for dangerous driving and see what it says.

[Tom87]

The simple and unarguable fact in this example is that if the girl had not been hit by a motorist driving at an excessive speed, she would not have been killed. Therefore, the motorist and his speed killed her.

 

What a disgrace to be trying to niggle out of this hard fact by quoting legal jargon. This is someone's life we're talking about, how would you like it if it happened to a relative of yours? Would you appreciate members of the public coming out and defending the motorist using technicalities and definitions to try to condone their disgraceful and illegal driving?

 

Once again - it's mind-numbingly simple - don't exceed the speed limits! They are there for the safety of both motorists and pedestrians. They are also the law and breaking the speed limit is breaking the law. Some people just seem too damn dumb to understand this - either that or they think they're superior to the law. If you are that dumb or have a deluded superiority complex, I don't think you should be on the road as you are clearly a danger.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Tom87

[patdavies]

I couldn't have put it better and more succinctly myself if I'd tried all day!

 

---

 

Speeding - dangerous driving - whatever you want to call it - this doesn't matter! You are trying to duck away from the facts: the fact is that driving over the speed limit is illegal and can be extremely dangerous - this is all that matters and what me, Al and other law-abiding motorists have been saying all along. How it is defined does not concern me - what concerns me is anyone who thinks that the speed limit is there to be broken or that it doesn't apply to them.

 

I too am absolutely staggered at the way you seem to think there is nothing wrong with going over the speed limit, and then that speed is not the cause of such accidents; and when you hear one of the uncountably many stories of someone being killed, instead of acknowledging that this is caused by speed, you try and defend the indefensible on a technicality over the definition. Shame on anyone with this distressing, self-centered and boy-racer attitude - I hope I never encounter someone like this driving on a road because I would fear for my safety.

 

Personally I do equate death by speeding/dangerous driving etc. with crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnap etc. You need to separate simple speeding and the offence of dangerous driving; that are not the same thing.Although the actual collision with the pedestrian or other car was not premeditated, the fact is that the driver speeding clearly has absolutely no respect or regard for human life. This is obvious by the attitude that they have to their driving and the belief that they can speed excessively with no consequences. Therefore, they deserve to be locked up for a long time, and most certainly banned from driving for life with no exceptions.

 

I fail to see that driving 2 or 3 mph above an arbitrary 'limit' can be - in itself - extremely dangerous. Unlike the Victorians, we have moved on and no longer believe that death is near instantaneous if we exceed the posted limit. Yes, it is illegal - but it is not a serious offence. The truth is that the difference between 30 and 33 mph is a modern car is so insignificant as to be almost irrelevant. That can simply be evidenced by the fact that it is a summary only offence - it cannot go beyond a Magistrates' Court without one party appealing the Magistrates' decision. Do you really believe that simply exceeding a limit by a few mph was so serious, that the law would allow in to be dealt with by fixed penalty.

 

The Government's own research shows that speeding is only a factor in approximately 3% of all road traffic deaths. Where 'excessive speed' is recorded, it is perfectly possible that the vehicle was travelling below the posted .limit - the phrase actually means excessive speed for the prevailing conditions. 30 mph along a busy High Street on a Saturday morning is clearly dangerous driving - but it isn't speeding

[patdavies]

Once again - it's mind-numbinglly simple - don't exceed the speed limits! They are there for the safety of both motorists and pedestrians.

 

This used to be the case; now it seems that limits are increasingly being applied for political reasons rather than road safety reasons. There was a 40 mph limit near here that was lowered to 30 mph due to a vociferous councillor who happened to live on the road. The Police made it very clear - publicly - they they would not be enforcing on that particular stretch of road as they saw no road safety reason for the lowering.

They are also the law and breaking the speed limit is breaking the law.

 

Accepted; but many things are minor transgression of the law.

 

Answer me this though. On an otherwise deserted, dry, sunny motorway in the early hours of the morning, why is 120 mph dangerous? Why is 70 mph automatically safe?

 

 

Some people just seem too damn dumb to understand this - if you don't understand this I don't think you should be on the road as you are clearly a danger.

 

Resorting to insults is usually a sign of the paucity of your argument.

[toadsRmylife]

patdavies - i agree with your motorway analogy 120 is illegal, but in that situation may not be dangerous. no one else around? it is not the job of the government or the police to protect me from myself and this is major point, regarding the civil liberties that we don't fight for and are losing.

[Rob S]

My God, are you really so stupid or are you having a laugh?

 

We both posted earlier where we argued this point.

 

Again, the sole factor for the dangerous driving was speed!!

 

What on earth is wrong with you?

 

It doesn't say much for your argument when you have to resort to insults to try and put your disjointed point across.

[Rob S]

Your opposition to the effects of what speeding can have on people's lives is quite staggering. Shame on you.

 

You reallly have swallowed all the propoganda hook line and sinker, haven't you:rolleyes:

[Rob S]

I couldn't have put it better and more succinctly myself if I'd tried all day!

 

---

 

Speeding - dangerous driving - whatever you want to call it - this doesn't matter! You are trying to duck away from the facts: the fact is that driving over the speed limit is illegal and can be extremely dangerous

 

 

Ah, you belong to the school of thought that if you shout it long enough it will actually become true:rolleyes:

 

 

Personally I do equate death by speeding/dangerous driving etc. with crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnap etc.

 

But earlier you said that speeding was dangerous! But at least you are coming round to the idea that it is dangerous driving that is serious and not mere speeding on its own.

 

Although the actual collision with the pedestrian or other car was not premeditated, the fact is that the driver speeding clearly has absolutely no respect or regard for human life.

 

So what you are saying is that every collision between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian is always the fault of the driver of the vehicle and pedestrians are never at fault?

 

 

 

This is obvious by the attitude that they have to their driving and the belief that they can speed excessively with no consequences. Therefore, they deserve to be locked up for a long time, and most certainly banned from driving for life with no exceptions.

 

For those that do have such an attitude I agree, but the vast majority of drivers don't. And to hear you and your ill informed rants and the "Speeding is dangerous" mantra you try to ram down our throats continually is absurd. As I said before, why is the Government concentrating on speeding so much when it has been proven it is a contributary factor in only 7% of all accidents? That means the factors behind 93% of accidents is being ignored. Now that is shameful.

 

PS Still waiting for you to point to the driving instructor who said it was ok to do 70 in a 30mph limit

[morteee]

you gotta love councils and their speed camera's

 

now let me tell you about my village

 

on a stretch of road through the village thats less than half a mile (there are only 2 through roads in the village btw) there are 2 speed camera's, 3 chicanes and 2 road narrowing measures (there are only houses on one side of the road and one pub)

 

on the OTHER road in the village there is ONE speed hump in front of the primary school

 

both roads are equally busy

 

now we have asked time and time again for some extra traffic calming measures on the road the school is on (especially as the car park for the school is over the other side of the road) and they wont even put a pedestrian crossing in stating that the school does not generate enough pedestrian footfall to warrant it

 

I have lived in this area for 12 years and there has NEVER been an accident on the road that the camera's etc are on to my knowedge

 

so you have to ask yourself why that road was given priority?

 

Let me give you a clue

 

the Councillor that one of the new culdesacs is named after lived on that road

 

co-incidence?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

The speed alone was not the sole factor to bring a charge of dangerous driving. The charge was brought because a child was killed. not solely for the speed at which the vehicle was being driven.

 

Oh here we go! I just knew you would put your, often misguided, two penny worth in!

 

Try and understand this, ok?-

 

1 The motorist caused death by dangerous driving.

 

2 Why was the conclusion dangerous driving? He wasn't drunk, on drugs, using a mobile etc etc

 

3 The single aggravating factor was excessive speed!

 

The CPS : Sentencing Manual - Road traffic offences - Death by dangerous driving

 

4 The 'dangerous driving' element has to be defined, in this case excessive speed. Why do people like you choose to ignore this element just because it is speeding?

 

5 If an individual were to strangle to death another then they would be guilty of murder.

 

Do you think a trial would just define the accused of murder? Or would the facts of the murder have been investigated thus proving the cause?

 

I am asking 'what is wrong with you?' because if you cannot recognise these basic facts then why are you contributing to a subject you have no knowledge about?

 

You are so sensitive and belligerent that you only wish to constantly discredit me by increasingly bizarre outbursts.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

you gotta love councils and their speed camera's

 

now let me tell you about my village

 

I have lived in this area for 12 years and there has NEVER been an accident on the road that the camera's etc are on to my knowedge

 

 

Has it ever crossed your mind that it's possibly because there is a speed camera sited?

 

Just a thought.

[morteee]

Has it ever crossed your mind that it's possibly because there is a speed camera sited?

 

Just a thought.

 

the camera's have only been there for 4 of those 12 years so yes I have thanks

[Weird Al Yankovic]

the camera's have only been there for 4 of those 12 years so yes I have thanks

 

In that case I don't believe your original post.

[morteee]

ahhh I accidentally prodded a forum troll!

 

and tbvfh I dont give 2 hoots if you dont believe me, I know its true sweetie as I live there, you dont

[Weird Al Yankovic]

It doesn't say much for your argument when you have to resort to insults to try and put your disjointed point across.

 

And how does asking a question become an insult? I asked if you were stupid which, incidentally, you failed to answer.

 

Now if you go back to post #68 I have again had to explain what you and others are unable to grasp. This I did originally in #51.

 

If you cannot understand the law, as printed in black and white, then I have to conclude there is no point in you contributing further as it would be pointless.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

ahhh I accidentally prodded a forum troll!

 

and tbvfh I dont give 2 hoots if you dont believe me, I know its true sweetie as I live there, you dont

 

If you feel it is appropriate to contribute to a thread that has a detailed discussion on a speeding driver killing a 4 year old girl in this manner then I'd say that says more about you then I ever could as a troll.

 

What a nice person you are.

[Rob S]

You are so sensitive and belligerent that you only wish to constantly discredit me by increasingly bizarre outbursts.

 

There are two people in this thread who have been guilty of bizarre outbursts, and Pat Davies is not one of them. His posts have been up to his usual (informative and useful) standard, but yours have been ladled with emotion, not to mention your outbursts and insults against posters who don't conform to your viewpoint.

 

But if that's how you want to do it, you just carry on. I'll sit back and watch and enjoy the spectacle.