154mph on a public road....

Do you think the length of ban is

  • Total voters
    47
Lynton

Lynton

awkward customer
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,606
Name
Lynton (yes really!)
Edit My Images
No
EDP link here

As the title says and in my opinion a rether lenient outcome for the driver.


Any thoughts?
 
Too short a ban.
Too small a fine.
No retest, which is not mandatory, but clearly the fool needs some educating.

After a 2 yr ban, a larger fine and an extended retest, I'd also limit him, for a further three years, to driving nothing more powerful than a naturally aspirated 1L car.
 
I saw that story too. I thought it was very lenient even for a first offence.

I realise every case is unique but I would have though that speed alone would have resulted in a long ban and a much higher fine. Combine the speed with it being on an A road about an hour after sunset and to me this appears as a very light sentence.

About 10 years ago a mate was caught doing 95mph on the M74 in the middle of the day and he got a £300 fine and a six month ban.

I see the police have lodged a request for a review of the sentence.

Dave
 
Agree, what the police officer is calling for in that article sounds like a more appropriate punishment, they're appealing the verdict so hopefully will get it increased.
 
273K said:
Agree, what the police officer is calling for in that article sounds like a more appropriate punishment, they're appealing the verdict so hopefully will get it increased.
Click to expand...

The sentence, not the verdict. :-)
 
I noticed the story mentioned he was living at home with his disabled mother.

Personally, I'd ban him for longer, but I wonder if this was taken into account?
He also works as a mechanic and so would probably require his licence.
The sentence is not to deprive him of his livelihood, but to discourage him from doing this again.
What did the judge say in his summing up? Was the driver warned about a repeat offence and consequences?

Would a tougher sentence accomplish this?
I suspect the judge is more aware than us of the full circumstances.
 
kendo1 said:
I noticed the story mentioned he was living at home with his disabled mother.

Personally, I'd ban him for longer, but I wonder if this was taken into account?
He also works as a mechanic and so would probably require his licence.
The sentence is not to deprive him of his livelihood, but to discourage him from doing this again.
What did the judge say in his summing up? Was the driver warned about a repeat offence and consequences?

Would a tougher sentence accomplish this?
I suspect the judge is more aware than us of the full circumstances.
Click to expand...


I see your point, however, 154mph in the dark is a tad excessive.... effectively driving blind as circa 70 metres per second (or near enough 3/4 the length of a football pitch)... unlit road.. how far do the headlights beam project.... say 100m - not much time to react

Basically I see it as a young tw*t in a fast car activing like a total nob with no regard to his or anyones safety....

Yes we've pretty much all done silly things in our lives, many behind a wheel, however maxing a car then is lunacy.
 
I totally agree, Lynton, but as usual with a reported story we don't get all the other facts that the judge has to take into account.

It seems clear cut at first glance, but why such a lenient sentence?
 
viv1969 said:
Too short a ban.
Too small a fine.
No retest, which is not mandatory, but clearly the fool needs some educating.

After a 2 yr ban, a larger fine and an extended retest, I'd also limit him, for a further three years, to driving nothing more powerful than a naturally aspirated 1L car.
Click to expand...


Or a naturally aspirated bicycle:)
 
viv1969 said:
Too short a ban.
Too small a fine.
No retest, which is not mandatory, but clearly the fool needs some educating.

After a 2 yr ban, a larger fine and an extended retest, I'd also limit him, for a further three years, to driving nothing more powerful than a naturally aspirated 1L car.
Click to expand...
Probably still capable of 100mph, all you will limit is how quick he can get there.
 
kendo1 said:
I noticed the story mentioned he was living at home with his disabled mother.

Personally, I'd ban him for longer, but I wonder if this was taken into account?
He also works as a mechanic and so would probably require his licence.
The sentence is not to deprive him of his livelihood, but to discourage him from doing this again.
What did the judge say in his summing up? Was the driver warned about a repeat offence and consequences?

Would a tougher sentence accomplish this?
I suspect the judge is more aware than us of the full circumstances.
Click to expand...


I have a mate who used these exact b******t tactics to avoid prison time and again. He split from his wife and his son lived with him and their daughters with his ex. He was caught dealing drugs, caught driving whilst banned time and time again and avoided prison because his son lived with him. Rather than keeping him out in the streets causing chaos I firmly believe a prison sentence would have knocked this out of him sharpish. His son would have lived with his mum even though he would have had to go into care if you believed his solicitor. Nonsense.

If this guy is willing to carry out such an act knowing he's putting his mums care in jeopardy or that he may lose his job then hell mend the idiot.
 
nilagin said:
Probably still capable of 100mph, all you will limit is how quick he can get there.
Click to expand...

It'd still be considered a further sanction by the speed obsessed tossrod.
 
Come the 27th September the locals of Suffolk will find out for sure if he really has learnt his lesson.
Personally i think not and he will be happily speeding again.....and by speeding i mean 100mph plus.

Its interesting that in June he was trying to sell his Seat Leon Cupra R on a facebook page but when you do a reg check it shows up as being SORN.
What are the chances of him having kept it so he can hoon about in 55 days time like nothing happened????
 
Here's hoping, given his age and conviction, his insurance goes through the roof.
 
viv1969 said:
, I'd also limit him, for a further three years, to driving nothing more powerful than a naturally aspirated 1L car.
Click to expand...
I have a naturally aspirated 998cc car that will get to 60mph in five seconds and has a top speed of 113mph, which is gearing limited by reaching 9500rpm in 5th gear.. While I use 9500 as a rev limit, the engine (out of a Hillman Imp) will probably turn more revs safely for a short while, but the valves bounce at 10200rpm so it won't go very much faster.
 
onomatopoeia said:
I have a naturally aspirated 998cc car that will get to 60mph in five seconds and has a top speed of 113mph, which is gearing limited by reaching 9500rpm in 5th gear.. While I use 9500 as a rev limit, the engine (out of a Hillman Imp) will probably turn more revs safely for a short while, but the valves bounce at 10200rpm so it won't go very much faster.
Click to expand...

Yes
I think most people got my drift.
 
I don't know why some folk are surprised at the punishment given to the driver as it seems the norm for todays justice system to apply kid gloves. When a ISIS fanatic tries to cut someones throat in a tube station or even worse tries to behead them then gets sentenced to LIFE but be eligible for parole in 8 years (what happened to 15 yrs) then it shows the law is a ass, I could describe it worse. I think a lot of the judges/magistrates etc in this country should be put out to grass as they clearly live on another planet.
 
frank said:
I don't know why some folk are surprised at the punishment given to the driver as it seems the norm for todays justice system to apply kid gloves. When a ISIS fanatic tries to cut someones throat in a tube station or even worse tries to behead them then gets sentenced to LIFE but be eligible for parole in 8 years (what happened to 15 yrs) then it shows the law is a ass, I could describe it worse. I think a lot of the judges/magistrates etc in this country should be put out to grass as they clearly live on another planet.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the judge handed down the maximum penalty available to him.
Mire will be eligible to apply for parole in 8 1/2 years, but that in no way means it will be granted.
But yes, some sentences do seem frustrating.
 
Is this cluedo?
Was it PC Mark Milton, in an unmarked new Police Vectra, on the M54 (159mph) or 84mph in a residential 30mph zone?

The officer who explained he was 'testing' the new car, without authorisation?
 
Christ it's Laudrup's brother.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
What is your problem with small things like that?! The guy didn't kill or even harm anyone at all. Focus on jihadists, terrorists, globalists, Hillary et all.
Click to expand...


Et al. (not Et all)

;-)
 
kendo1 said:
I noticed the story mentioned he was living at home with his disabled mother.

Personally, I'd ban him for longer, but I wonder if this was taken into account?
He also works as a mechanic and so would probably require his licence.
The sentence is not to deprive him of his livelihood, but to discourage him from doing this again.
What did the judge say in his summing up? Was the driver warned about a repeat offence and consequences?

Would a tougher sentence accomplish this?
I suspect the judge is more aware than us of the full circumstances.
Click to expand...


If he's got a brain, he might well have taken those facts as a way to avoid a lengthy ban if he got caught and I expect his brief got him to shed a tear as he asked for leniency in the sentence. IMO the sentence shouldn't take personal circumstances into account. Hopefully insurers will keep making him pay but I suspect he'll either lie to them or use shady insurers like other low lifes have done in the past.
 
He must have been f*****g mad!


As I use that stretch of the A11 a few times a week, and it normally has at least one mobile talivan, plus as per the article, there are quite a few different breeds of un marked
police cars patrolling the area, ( I see someone pulled at the side of the road on a weekly basis, with an un marked this or that, with the front and rear blue lights.)

The bloke is a t***t no doubt about it, he should have gone somewhere else to test out his top speed.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
What is your problem with small things like that?! The guy didn't kill or even harm anyone at all. Focus on jihadists, terrorists, globalists, Hillary et all.
Click to expand...

Please, enlighten us.
What crimes do you believe should now be forgiven in the face of your fear of brown people and female presidential candidates?
Clearly, speeding.
Shoplifting?
Fraud?
Non violent robbery?
 
viv1969 said:
What crimes do you believe should now be forgiven
Click to expand...
The guy broke the 11th Commandment, plain and simple
(Thou shalt not get caught :D )
 
Not to mention driving like a complete c-unit.
 
What a non story.

He broke an arbitrary speed limit, nobody was hurt, nobody else was in danger (as far as I can see from the article) so why has everybody got their pitchforks out ?
 
mrgubby said:
What a non story.

He broke an arbitrary speed limit, nobody was hurt, nobody else was in danger (as far as I can see from the article) so why has everybody got their pitchforks out ?
Click to expand...

Because he got off far too lightly.
 
mrgubby said:
What a non story.

He broke an arbitrary speed limit, nobody was hurt, nobody else was in danger (as far as I can see from the article) so why has everybody got their pitchforks out ?
Click to expand...

No one's in danger when many crimes are committed, are they OK too?
 
mrgubby said:
What a daft question Ruth, it's almost like you're trying to provoke a reaction ;)
Click to expand...

Oh really? And your nonchalant opinion isn't at all contrived. :rolleyes:
 
viv1969 said:
Please, enlighten us.
What crimes do you believe should now be forgiven in the face of your fear of brown people and female presidential candidates?
Clearly, speeding.
Shoplifting?
Fraud?
Non violent robbery?
Click to expand...


The guy got what he deserved according to the judges, and I'd leave it at that instead of frothing all over TP about such non-news. The world is going towards major crisis or even self-destruction but that is OK, because it is liberal to ignore what doesn't suit your narrative.

You clearly have a very dark soul because you label people by tags you can't prove. I'm not going to fall for your baseless conspiracy theories and pure libel and I hope everyone else is clever enough to see through this hypocrisy.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
The guy got what he deserved according to the judges, and I'd leave it at that instead of frothing all over TP about such non-news. The world is going towards major crisis or even self-destruction but that is OK, because it is liberal to ignore what doesn't suit your narrative.

You clearly have a very dark soul because you label people by tags you can't prove. I'm not going to fall for your baseless conspiracy theories and pure libel and I hope everyone else is clever enough to see through this hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Please point out to me the point at which I committed libel.
 
viv1969 said:
Please point out to me the point at which I committed libel.
Click to expand...

my fear of brown people and females?! I am not going to roll over just because you typed up a few buzzwords. Your turn to apologise.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
my fear of brown people and females?! I am not going to roll over just because you typed up a few buzzwords. Your turn to apologise.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath.
I have seen nothing to suggest those things aren't true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top