Clarkson suspended by the BBC, TG taken off air.

[SFTPhotography]

Seems to be a favourite with the Scottish judiciary, do the same in England and it would probably have been a shortish ban, a largish fine and a normal speeding conviction.

Aren't you glad you live in Scotland?

No, but bellyaching well after the event won't change it and the case law is well established with the Selkirk vs Drummond case.

Don't speed and if you do don't really speed and you won't end up like me .

As it were I've got the job I've always had so I've not lost out, just not gained a good opportunity I could have if I hadn't done what I had.

 

[viv1969]

Depends. I've heard of cases of 149mph prosecuted for speeding and not dangerous driving and the being 6 months.

Google 149mph m25

And then there's six months in prison for 140 on the A24.

 

[dejongj]

DD40. It's still an unspent conviction.

I went for employment elsewhere. Rejected for criminal record. I got the dd40 for well, driving on a quiet m74 @ 138mph. Was charged with dangerous driving not speeding.

They will go for the dangerous driving if the speed you're caught at is high enough.

Not an SP50 and a few short months ban and a tidly fine (mine was only a grand) but the long ban and retest make the experience simply not worth repeating.

Damn that is unlucky considering it was a quiet m74. But hey this is the UK, the greens are very supportive of 20mph despite it being worse for the environment, and more of those are popping up. Thanks for sharing.

 

[dejongj]

And then there's six months in prison for 140 on the A24.

It all depends on the circumstances. On the face of it, all sorts could pop up on a A road which you reasonably cannot get on a M road.

It has to be said I don't know either case.

 

[Byker28i]

Major crash on the m4 the other day with a wild boar running on, then Friday evening westbound was shut with the air ambulance parked on it and a few smashed up cars, rubberneckers and secondary accidents causing chaos.you just never know.

 

[Phil V]

... the greens are very supportive of 20mph despite it being worse for the environment, and more of those are popping up...

I bet those kids that get hospitalised by speeding motorists are really pleased that the cars were being more pleasant to the environment than if they'd gone slower and avoided the accident altogether. Every cloud and all that

 

[Comfortably Numb]

The Mirror claims that a senior BBC person has compared JC to Savile!

With regard to the size of the scandal, apparently, not his actions, but even so I think JC might be pursuing that!

 

[Cobra]

but even so I think JC might be pursuing that!

Ooo that could get very messy! I mean expensive

 

[Byker28i]

Yeah but as previously mentioned, clarkson writes for the sun, is a friend of Cameron's, all those things the mirror hates.then clarkson is a marmite character, so the mirror have decided to side with those who hate him, so have always published stories about him, they have a history of it.
It's what sells copy.

Personally I ignore most things that paper writes.

 

[BillN_33]

As stated earlier …. the Mail on Sunday quotes a TOP BBC Boss "Clarkson is like Saville" - "The pressure on the producer is Savilesque"

this is getting totally stupid - there are going to be some writs flying if these quotes have been made

an interesting read from The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cel...Jimmy-Savile-after-establishment-support.html

If he, Clarkson, has behaved as reported it is certainly not acceptable in any sense …… another "celeb" who think he can walk on water ………. Steve Redgrave should have punched him a couple of years ago!!!!!!!

 

[Dave *]

And then there's six months in prison for 140 on the A24.

Police camera footage shows the pair swerving in and out of other vehicles, veering wildly as they switch lanes, keeping their speed at between 130mph to 140mph for three minutes.

They were eventually stopped after a motorcycle police officer, who had filmed them with his helmet camera, was able to pull alongside them and signal for them to stop.

Daniel Carter, 27, who was driving a £36,000 Nissan Skyline and friend Austen Constantinou, 28, in a Nissan Primera saloon, were pulled over on the A24, near Horsham, West Sussex.

Two drivers engaging in a race down the A24 is most definitely an aggravating factor.

At double the speed limit you would have got exactly the same in England

No, there has to be further aggravating factor for it to go to DD in England, while in Scotland it is prosecuted as DD just because of the speed.

For example, the exact same speed as @ST4 (except this guy was in 60 zone).

Six month ban and £1000 fine for 138mph speeder

A motorist caught by a safety camera van travelling at more than double the speed on the A20 at Gorse in Farningham has been banned from driving for six months and fined £1000.

John Morris, 48, from Battle in East Sussex pleaded guilty at Maidstone Magistrates Court on 14 January after being charged with driving his BMW M5 at 138mph in national speed limit zone (maximum limit for cars on this single-carriageway stretch is 60mph) on 28 October last year.

http://www.kmscp.org/News/general-news/six-month-ban-and-1000-fine-for-138mph-speeder.aspx

 

[boyfalldown]

No, there has to be further aggravating factor for it to go to DD in England, while in Scotland it is prosecuted as DD just because of the speed.

For example, the exact same speed as @ST4 (except this guy was in 60 zone).



http://www.kmscp.org/News/general-news/six-month-ban-and-1000-fine-for-138mph-speeder.aspx

That link doesn't say what the charge was(ie dd or otherwise) But I'd be interested to a link as to the DD /sp aggravating factors. Maybe prosecuting or police guidelines

 

[Dave *]

That link doesn't say what the charge was(ie dd or otherwise) But I'd be interested to a link as to the DD /sp aggravating factors. Maybe prosecuting or police guidelines

The charge is shown in the SCP story.

John Morris, 48, from Battle in East Sussex pleaded guilty at Maidstone Magistrates Court on 14 January after being charged with driving his BMW M5 at 138mph in national speed limit zone (maximum limit for cars on this single-carriageway stretch is 60mph) on 28 October last year.

The link to aggravating factors was number 1 hit on Google for "dangerous driving guidance" .

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

• 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'
• greatly excessive speed; racing; competitive driving against another vehicle; 'showing off'
• disregard of warnings from fellow passengers
• a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving
• aggressive driving (such as driving much too close to the vehicle in front, persistent inappropriate attempts to overtake, or cutting in after overtaking)
• driving while the driver's attention is avoidably distracted, for example by reading or by use of a mobile phone (especially if hand-held)
• driving when knowingly suffering from a medical condition that significantly impairs the offender's driving skills
• driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest
• driving a poorly maintained or dangerously loaded vehicle, especially where this has been motivated by commercial concerns

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dangerous_driving/

 

[boyfalldown]

The charge is shown in the SCP story.

So where does it say if he ended with a DD or an SP conviction? Not been awkward but it doesn't It also doesn't go into mitiganting or aggrivating factors.

The link to aggravating factors was number 1 hit on Google for "dangerous driving guidance" .


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dangerous_driving/

thats the sentancing manual, it doesn't say anywhere this offence is prosecuted differently betwwen England and Scotland. In fact this document listys going to fast as a reason to prosecute for DD throughout the UK http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/ . It may well be different police forces each will have their own way of looking at that, but please show me the guidance that shows it different in Scotland then England

 

[dejongj]

I bet those kids that get hospitalised by speeding motorists are really pleased that the cars were being more pleasant to the environment than if they'd gone slower and avoided the accident altogether. Every cloud and all that

Naturally but what about the children, there is always that one. Sorry but the cynic in me thinks this is all about truvelo and nothing to do with safety.

 

[dejongj]

Major crash on the m4 the other day with a wild boar running on, then Friday evening westbound was shut with the air ambulance parked on it and a few smashed up cars, rubberneckers and secondary accidents causing chaos.you just never know.

Yup stuff can happen. Safest thing is to just not go out. Seriously though, so many things can happen and go wrong. It is like with everything a risk assessment.

 

[Cobra]

. Sorry but the cynic in me thinks this is all about truvelo and nothing to do with safety.

They were once labelled as "Speed" camera's they are now labelled as "safety" camera's.
In an effort to make them more " accepted" I guess, but what's in a name?
Of course if they were in plain sight people would see them and slow down, job done.
But of course very few, especially the mobile ones are, and are usually hidden or even un marked vans.
That's only done for one reason and its not to make people slow down is it?

 

[Dave *]

It may well be different police forces each will have their own way of looking at that, but please show me the guidance that shows it different in Scotland then England

Go and read Pepipoo and the Speed, Plod and the Law section at PistonHeads, plenty of info there for you, (including a very long thread all about ST4's transgression).

 

[Byker28i]

Just never put your case details on pepipoo before it goes to court. The scammerships all have full membership and love to match details to cases so they know what your up to.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

I would like to see Guy Martin as the next TP presenter.

 

[Phil V]

Naturally but what about the children, there is always that one. Sorry but the cynic in me thinks this is all about truvelo and nothing to do with safety.

We all have our own prejudices and cynicisms, yours make you quirky but mine make me evil

It's a funny old world...

 

[big soft moose]

Depends. I've heard of cases of 149mph prosecuted for speeding and not dangerous driving and the being 6 months.

Google 149mph m25

Wasnt that a police officer 'testing' a car ? , or am i thinking of something else ?

 

[Steve Smith]

Of course if they were in plain sight people would see them and slow down, job done.
But of course very few, especially the mobile ones are, and are usually hidden or even un marked vans.
That's only done for one reason and its not to make people slow down is it?

I thought they had to be visible and signed.

EDIT:

In 2001 the law was changed so that speed cameras had to be painted yellow to ensure visibility. Many other rules were also brought in regarding speed cameras.

The regulations decree that:

• Speed camera housings must be coloured yellow
• Camera housings cannot be obscured, e.g. by trees, bushes or signs
• Cameras must be visible from 60m away in 40mph or less zones and 100m for all other speed limit zones
• Signs must only be placed in areas where camera housings are located or where mobile cameras are in operation
• In order to make them visible, mobile speed camera operators must be wearing fluorescent clothing, and their vehicles should be marked with reflective strips
• Camera sites are to be reviewed at least every six months in order to ensure that cameras are adequately visible and signed

The presence of speed cameras can also be indicated with road signs, but this is not a legal requirement.

From: https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/personal/speeding

So I was right about the visibility but not the sign.


Steve.

 

[Cobra]

I thought they had to be visible and signed.

Thats an interesting "find",
On my travels I still see plain white vans with the rear to the traffic, but the front of the van "marked" with a speed camera sign.
And not so long ago, a police officer with his back to the low late autumnal sun, semi hiding behind someone's garden hedge, peering over or around it.
Also wearing the usual black uniform not a single piece of reflective on him.

His "transport" was parked well out of sight, down a side road some distance away.
That's not a deterrent, unless of course you get caught, then its a deterrent for the future

 

[Dave *]

Thats an interesting "find",
On my travels I still see plain white vans with the rear to the traffic, but the front of the van "marked" with a speed camera sign.
And not so long ago, a police officer with his back to the low late autumnal sun, semi hiding behind someone's garden hedge, peering over or around it.
Also wearing the usual black uniform not a single piece of reflective on him.

His "transport" was parked well out of sight, down a side road some distance away.
That's not a deterrent, unless of course you get caught, then its a deterrent for the future

They might not be part of the profit revenue sharing scheme so not bound by the guidelines.

From the same link:

All police forces taking part in the netting-off scheme, where the money recouped from speeding fines is put back into setting up more speed cameras in hazardous spots, are bound by the rules above. Non-compliance may result in expulsion from the scheme. If you’re caught by a speed camera which falls short of the rules, however, you will unfortunately not have any defence.

 

[Steve Smith]

On my travels I still see plain white vans with the rear to the traffic, but the front of the van "marked" with a speed camera sign.

With the camera pointing at you sticking out the back? That would make a sign on the front completely useless and irrelevant.

Down here they all comply with the rules in the web page I linked to and areas which are regularly used by mobile cameras have signs.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you think the cameras are there to raise money or for safety reasons. If you get caught by one, it's because you broke the law.

There is one easy and obvious way not to get caught...


Steve.

 

[Cobra]

With the camera pointing at you sticking out the back? That would make a sign on the front completely useless and irrelevant.

Yep that was my point
They are "pretty keen" around these parts (MK)
But thats not the only area's I've seen them in like that.

Also the distance is a bit of a joke too, I was was caught many years ago for doing 70 on a long straight, that was 60.
I knew they sat in a given lay-by, that I was approaching so slowed to 60, at a distance of a mile, from the lay by I still got "caught"
I know it was a mile as I went back and checked as I knew the "marker point" at which I was doing 60.

 

[boyfalldown]

Go and read Pepipoo and the Speed, Plod and the Law section at PistonHeads, plenty of info there for you, (including a very long thread all about ST4's transgression).

Non of which is an actual legal resource. No offence, but can you show a single reference for you assertion? Please. I'd love you to support it

 

[Cobra]

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you think the cameras are there to raise money or for safety reasons. If you get caught by one, it's because you broke the law.

There is one easy and obvious way not to get caught... Steve.

I agree, but at least they should be honest about it.
They cannot be safety camera's if they are hidden.

 

[Cobra]

They might not be part of the profit revenue sharing scheme so not bound by the guidelines.
From the same link:

Of course they will have a "get out" its a no win situation isnt it?

 

[dejongj]

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you think the cameras are there to raise money or for safety reasons. If you get caught by one, it's because you broke the law.

There is one easy and obvious way not to get caught...


Steve.

Don't disagree with that at all. I'm a strong believer in personal responsibility. Just not convinced of 20mph zones on through road. But definitely don't speed and lobby the council to change it.

 

[Dave *]

Non of which is an actual legal resource. No offence, but can you show a single reference for you assertion? Please. I'd love you to support it

Sorry, schools out, plenty of places to go and read up on it starting with the 2 mentioned (if you can make the small amount of personal effort required).

You might find this useful if you are unsure of how to do it.

 

[boyfalldown]

Sorry, schools out, plenty of places to go and read up on it starting with the 2 mentioned (if you can make the small amount of personal effort required).

You might find this useful if you are unsure of how to do it.

Dave,

If you feel the need to come out with the schools out type comment coupled with that sort of childish link, then you've failed to prove your comment and the stupid behaviour just backs up that you're wrong and can't admit it. Incidentally I linked a way back to the cps prosecution guidelines. The law (the RTA) or the way it's enforced don't change each side of the border.

Of course if you want to grow up, stop behaving like a petulant teenager and show me why I'm wrong I'm all open to it

If however you like throwing your toys every time you get challenged on something the good luck with that

 

[Dave *]

@boyfalldown

Hugh, I remember how childishly argumentive you got in the other Scotland thread and I don't really feel like being dragged down to that level (there's a saying about that, I just can't remember exactly how it goes...), so as I said, you want to research it, go ahead. You go find any 130MPH+ speeder in Scotland not charged for DD...

 

[boyfalldown]

@boyfalldown

Hugh, I remember how childishly argumentive you got in the other Scotland thread and I don't really feel like being dragged down to that level (there's a saying about that, I just can't remember exactly how it goes...), so as I said, you want to research it, go ahead. You go find any 130MPH+ speeder in Scotland not charged for DD...

Did I? The point Dave is the RTA is a UK wide statute. You've not managed to show how it's treated differently each side of the border. But have flung quite a lot of silly comments. I have no doubt that 130+ mph drivers are charged with Dd in Scotland. I've also no doubt that every police force, and every case has a different opinion on what's excessive speed regarding dd.

Please, show me up and show me wrong, the guidelines showing a difference as to how the same offence is treated differently between England and Scotland? (I'm sorry you think that's childish, but your posting is that way itself...of course if that's how you respond to every disagreement)

 

[Dave *]

@boyfalldown
You really do love to argue just for the sake of arguing. Go do some research, at least it'll give you something else to do with your time.

 

[boyfalldown]

@boyfalldown
You really do love to argue just for the sake of arguing. Go do some research, at least it'll give you something else to do with your time.

@Dave1 - You seem very good at leveling all sorts of comments at me. But unable to back any of them up. I disagree with you. Deal with it. Or show me wrong. But you can't do that so your way of winning an arguement is to throw all sorts of petulant comments.

BTW I'd love to see this

remember how childishly argumentive you got in the other Scotland thread a.

cause sadly I dont remember. Or is that yet another random toy you've thrown out of your pram?

 

[Byker28i]

Back to the story, I cannot believe a senior bbc manager has compared clarkson to saville. Is this the bbc trying to fight back for public opinion, but missing the point completely again?

 

[viv1969]

@boyfalldown

I don't really feel like being dragged down to that level.................

You might find this useful if you are unsure of how to do it.

Epic fail.