the law is an ass...

[Lynton]

situation 1.

Driver gets stopped on a weekend morning doing 25 in a 20 (not near a school) and breathalysed - failed on "the morning after the night before." Slightly over. £500 fine and a year off driving.


situation 2.

Driver gets caught through a speed camera at 133mph in a 40mph residential area. (In a BMW 730D - before anyone mentions means testing) £100 fine and 42 day "holiday".

 

[munch]

Sorry Lynton, what is your point?

You are not comparing like for like.

 

[bobtee]

situation 1.

Driver gets stopped on a weekend morning doing 25 in a 20 (not near a school) and breathalysed - failed on "the morning after the night before." Slightly over. £500 fine and a year off driving.


situation 2.

Driver gets caught through a speed camera at 133mph in a 40mph residential area. (In a BMW 730D - before anyone mentions means testing) £100 fine and 42 day "holiday".

Yes your right Lynton both drivers ought to be shot

 

[srichards]

How? Both seem reasonable punishment for the crime committed. Being over the drink drive limit affects your judgement which exceeding a speed limit does not. Therefore the former is more serious and treated as such.

 

[cambsno]

While I am anti drink driving, I do find it harsh that someone can be done the morning after without knowing. Not many people know when you are safe the morning after and guessing is not that accurate. Willing to bet that most of us have probably driven the morning after not 100% sure we are legal.

 

[pablo_paul]

While I am anti drink driving, I do find it harsh that someone can be done the morning after without knowing. Not many people know when you are safe the morning after and guessing is not that accurate. Willing to bet that most of us have probably driven the morning after not 100% sure we are legal.

True well all probably have still not a valid defence.

 

[srichards]

While I am anti drink driving, I do find it harsh that someone can be done the morning after without knowing. Not many people know when you are safe the morning after and guessing is not that accurate. Willing to bet that most of us have probably driven the morning after not 100% sure we are legal.

Then you don't drive!

It's very simple. Each unit of alcohol takes about an hour to leave your system after consumption. If you know you need to drive the following day then you don't drink more than a couple the night before and make sure you finish drinking a long time before you intend using a car.

If you can't work it out then either don't drink the night before or don't drive the next day.

 

[antihero]

situation 3: driver gets stopped and is found to have no tax, insurance or mot. Gets a £250 fine.

wtf?

 

[Yv]

I am guessing Lyntons point is which of these two is more likely to cause the scattering of corpses should an accident have occured.....

 

[H2O]

How? Both seem reasonable punishment for the crime committed. Being over the drink drive limit affects your judgement which exceeding a speed limit does not.

133 in a 40 proves you don't have good enough judgement to be allowed to drive. Drunk or not that's just crazy dangerous.

The punishment mentioned doesn't seem even remotely reasonable to me. It should be much harsher.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

How? Both seem reasonable punishment for the crime committed. Being over the drink drive limit affects your judgement which exceeding a speed limit does not. Therefore the former is more serious and treated as such.

Being over the speed limit may not affect your judgement, however the very act of travelling at such a speed suggests a distinct lack of it, given the huge difference in braking distance and the very real chance of encountering another road user who isn't (naturally) expecting one to be travelling so much in excess of the limit....

 

[srichards]

It depends on the layout of the road too. If it were a dual carriageway then that speed isn't anywhere near as dangerous as it sounds if the section in question is completely straight and there are no other vehicles around. Perfectly legal to do that speed in Germany on unrestricted autobahns.

Driver was still a thoughtless arse though, I agree.

 

[viv1969]

It doesn't depend on the layout of the road.
Speed limit broken?....offence and punishment....speed limit not broken? no offense no punishment. Quite simple.
Driving under the influence is another thing and in this day and age everyone knows the danger of still being over the limit thenext day, and if they don;t then should have a drivers licence in the first place.

 

[Lynton]

ok here is the road in question (taken from google maps)

the gatso is ringed in red.

now tell me if you think 133 in a 40 is unreasonable.

 

[Lynton]

Sorry Lynton, what is your point?

You are not comparing like for like.

no. correct. I am comparing the severity of the offence against the fine imposed.

and as Yv says.. the damage caused should it all go "wrong"

 

[neil_g]

another factor would be time of day.

if it was 3am then not so bad. in the middle of the school run then another story.

 

[srichards]

It thus proves how pointless speed cameras are as perpetrators aren't stopped at the time of the offence and just get a letter up to 14 days later!

If you're unable to drop down to the speed limit at a bright orange box by default you're going too fast or are an unobservant knob head. I'd imagine both apply to the bmw driver...

 

[Lynton]

another factor would be time of day.

if it was 3am then not so bad. in the middle of the school run then another story.

Obviously.

However, I fail to see how 133 in a 40 in a residential area (single carriageway with pavements bordering the road) would be acceptable at any time of day or night... 60 yeah I could see... but nearly 3.5x the speed limit

 

[srichards]

Obviously.

However, I fail to see how 133 in a 40 in a residential area (single carriageway with pavements bordering the road) would be acceptable at any time of day or night... 60 yeah I could see... but nearly 3.5x the speed limit

It isn't. Not with that road layout.

 

[Bernie174]

I agree it does seem inequitable.
Speeding driver should have enjoyed a far longer holiday, and to be fair, along that road, he shouldn't have been summonsed for excess speed. reckless driving would have been a better charge.
That said, we have no idea what his reasons where, given he must have appeared in court, a district judge has gone down the lenient side, so he must have had some very good mitigation.
The drink driver, tough poo. To be over the limit the following morning, you have to go some. Responsible drinking, a couple of pints and stop at 11, and you'd be clear of alcohol by 3-5am. It is just as reckless and stupid to have not thought that one though, but the BMW drivers punishment, on the face of it should have been similar.

 

[Lynton]

It isn't. Not with that road layout.

totally agree, so who is more "dangerous?" situation 1 or situation 2? Would you say the fines / penalties fit the "crime?"

 

[srichards]

totally agree, so who is more "dangerous?" situation 1 or situation 2? Would you say the fines / penalties fit the "crime?"

The DD driver could have had a lapse and ploughed into a bus queue or the speeder could have flattened a pedestrian or killed an entire family. It's not mentioned whether either were involved in any kind of accident or incident. The DD driver might have had an atrocious driving record.

We don't know why the bmw driver was doing that speed or whether they had an impeccable driving record up to that moment.

Only the judge would have known all the facts to decide and would have sentenced accordingly but they're not infallible.

It's impossible to say either way. Both sentences seem reasonable assuming standard sentencing were applied. DD is invariably a ban unless you can show serious hardship. 30mph+ over any limit is a potential ban and that far over is usually a ban. 7 to 56 days are the general ones for speeding but you're allowed up to 120 days.

 

[munch]

Again I fail to see how you can say who is the most dangerous, just because driver 1 was caught doing 25MPH who's to say how he had been driving before he was stopped. He may have been doing 160MPH we don't know.

 

[Lynton]

Again I fail to see how you can say who is the most dangerous, just because driver 1 was caught doing 25MPH who's to say how he had been driving before he was stopped. He may have been doing 160MPH we don't know.

no we don't.

I am just asking a question.... whether driver 1 was doing 160 is irrelevant though because at the time of the offence, they were doing 25 in a 20 and flagged down by plod on the side of the road.

TO date, no one in the UK has been recorded doing 160...I think the most was 157 by a plod in an unmarked car on a "training run"

 

[munch]

Again just because nobody has been stopped doing 160MPH does not mean nobody has ever done it. (it was only used as an example in any case)

I suspect there is a bit more to this than just a comparison between driver 1 & 2. Do you happen to know driver 1?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

It depends on the layout of the road too. If it were a dual carriageway then that speed isn't anywhere near as dangerous as it sounds.

Err, if every other road user is expecting to encounter others travelling at no more than 40 mph and then some idiot appears travelling at more than three times that then it's a recipe for disaster.

Have you ever seen the aftermath of a crash where one of the drivers was doing three times the limit? I have, and it's not a pretty sight...

 

[MWHCVT]

Then you don't drive!

It's very simple. Each unit of alcohol takes about an hour to leave your system after consumption. If you know you need to drive the following day then you don't drink more than a couple the night before and make sure you finish drinking a long time before you intend using a car.

If you can't work it out then either don't drink the night before or don't drive the next day.

Sorry but what a load of rubbish, the rate that alcohol leaves the body can be totally different from one person to another, the very point that you say about and hour so is that 45 or 75 minutes so that based on 10 units could be 7.5 hours or 12.5 hours a difference of 5 hours

 

[gramps]

Were both offences committed in the same jurisdictional area?

 

[onomatopoeia]

Drink driving = a year off for the first offence, everyone knows that - it's been that way since I've been driving which is 25 years. "morning after" is no excuse or even any mitigation.

90mph over the limit I would expect a lot longer than 7 weeks off and possibly into reckless (or even dangerous) driving territory. Can those charges be bought based soley on GATSO evidence though?

 

[srichards]

Sorry but what a load of rubbish, the rate that alcohol leaves the body can be totally different from one person to another, the very point that you say about and hour so is that 45 or 75 minutes so that based on 10 units could be 7.5 hours or 12.5 hours a difference of 5 hours

Then you don't drink more than a couple of units if you need to drive the next day.

The one hour per unit is a reasonable guide for an average person. It all depends on what you've eaten, how fast you've drunk and your general metabolism. That's 3% beer or 8% wine too so if they're stronger and the wine isn't in a 125ml glass then you have to add on more time.

There is more precise guide and calculator at http://www.ru****ed.com/

There are personal breathalyser kits available now. There is less and less excuse for not knowing.

 

[Bloodrunner]

Again just because nobody has been stopped doing 160MPH does not mean nobody has ever done it. (it was only used as an example in any case)

I suspect there is a bit more to this than just a comparison between driver 1 & 2. Do you happen to know driver 1?

mmmm do you think ????

 

[srichards]

Drink driving = a year off for the first offence, everyone knows that - it's been that way since I've been driving which is 25 years. "morning after" is no excuse or even any mitigation.

90mph over the limit I would expect a lot longer than 7 weeks off and possibly into reckless (or even dangerous) driving territory. Can those charges be bought based soley on GATSO evidence though?

For speeding you need two lots of evidence. With gatsos you have the radar reading (often wrong with certain vehicle types) and the photographs (can be wrong if the flash interval is wrong). They need to agree to make it a safe conviction. The gatsos have to be checked and maintained to certain standards. Maybe it wasn't which is why they didn't go after anything more.

 

[On the Huh]

With driver #1 i wasn't just the speed he was doing in that zone, it is the fact he was over the limit.
I do agree though #2 should get more of a penalty than has been given.

 

[BarryDawsib]

How? Both seem reasonable punishment for the crime committed. Being over the drink drive limit affects your judgement which exceeding a speed limit does not. Therefore the former is more serious and treated as such.

INCORRECT!

And I am shocked by such a statement from any body with a driving license.

Both cases show clear irresponsibility and driving fast seriously affect a drivers ability to judge anything in any safe amount of time particularly on a public road...

Want clarification? ask and RAF pilot what they are trained to do when doing 100's of miles per hour.

Oh one more thing, anything 100mph and over is an instant full ban from driving unless you have a smart arse legal aid to argue your defence in court like some celebrity's have :bang:

 

[srichards]

INCORRECT!

And I am shocked by such a statement from any body with a driving license.

Both cases show clear irresponsibility and driving fast seriously affect a drivers ability to judge anything in any safe amount of time particularly on a public road...

Want clarification? ask and RAF pilot what they are trained to do when doing 100's of miles per hour.

Oh one more thing, anything 100mph and over is an instant full ban from driving unless you have a smart arse legal aid to argue your defence in court like some celebrity's have :bang:

He got a ban. What's the issue?

We don't know from the information who or what this driver is. He could have been a class 1 police trained driver that are trained to do 100mph+ on public roads.

BMW Driver was still being an arse all things considered, like I said before

 

[Dave *]

situation 2.

Driver gets caught through a speed camera at 133mph in a 40mph residential area. (In a BMW 730D - before anyone mentions means testing) £100 fine and 42 day "holiday".

You do realise at Court all fines are means tested?

The above sentence falls within the sentence guidelines (and the driver either earns around £100 pw or convinced the court he does).

(Calculator courtesy of Pepipoo)

 

[cambsno]

Then you don't drink more than a couple of units if you need to drive the next day.

The one hour per unit is a reasonable guide for an average person. It all depends on what you've eaten, how fast you've drunk and your general metabolism. That's 3% beer or 8% wine too so if they're stronger and the wine isn't in a 125ml glass then you have to add on more time.

There is more precise guide and calculator at http://www.ru****ed.com/

There are personal breathalyser kits available now. There is less and less excuse for not knowing.

Who the hell drinks 3% beer and can u get 8% wine?

 

[odd jim]

situation 1.

Driver gets stopped on a weekend morning doing 25 in a 20 (not near a school) and breathalysed - failed on "the morning after the night before." Slightly over. £500 fine and a year off driving.

situation 2.

Driver gets caught through a speed camera at 133mph in a 40mph residential area. (In a BMW 730D - before anyone mentions means testing) £100 fine and 42 day "holiday".

Whats the source info for these cases?

133 in a 40 would certainly lead to a charge of dangerous driving, and jail time? And how much over the limit was driver 1?

UK's fastest recorded "speeder" was a chap in an Audi RS5 at 180mph. He outran the force chopper. And he earns (earned) a living as a getaway driver.

 

[Bernie174]

For speeding you need two lots of evidence. With gatsos you have the radar reading (often wrong with certain vehicle types) and the photographs (can be wrong if the flash interval is wrong). They need to agree to make it a safe conviction. The gatsos have to be checked and maintained to certain standards. Maybe it wasn't which is why they didn't go after anything more.

If what you are claiming was correct, you'd have very few convictions from gatso's. The reality is there are almost no acquittals from them.
As for offence 1 being more dangerous than offence 2, you're presupposing a lot of things. The condition of the vehicle, and the skill of the driver. Most drivers aren't capable of doing 30 safely, let alone a great deal faster.

If a fault was found with the Gatso there'd be no prosecution for speed, so the idea that it being defective would negate any other offences being charged isn't correct.

Someone else asked of you can prosecute for dangerous or reckless driving simply on the evidence of a Gatso. Yes, you can. The speed in the given conditions, is evidence of driving to a standard that falls below that expected of a reasonably competent driver. On the road shown in the photos early on in this, over 100 is reckless and dangerous.

 

[srichards]

Who the hell drinks 3% beer and can u get 8% wine?

I don't know but there is simplified mental arithmetic:

Multiply the volume of the drink (in millilitres) by its percentage ABV, and divide by 1000. Multiplying by 568 is a quite a task...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_alcohol

Best taking a calculator when out. If you can no longer operate it then it's probably time to stop drinking