ADUK Archive

I can't imagine there's going to be one after the prosecution

The other Bugatti owners will have to pay extra premiums - because their cars are now even rarer!

£800K for a car and he can't afford a copy of Roadcraft?

Luckily the pregnant woman and the bloke in the Astra weren't hurt. That is going to be one hell of a repair job... anybody got some superglue?

Bah, bit of T-Cut, it'll polish out.

This was round the corner form me. The guu ws doing over 100mph in a 40mph zone and reported for DWDCA. He rented it of a rental company for £20k a day. The car cost the rental company £925'000 to buy...

At least no serious injuries.

Unllike the McLaren on the A120 a few years ago (showing off, went off the road, burst into flames, 2 or 3 fatalities)

James wrote:The guu ws doing over 100mph in a 40mph zone and reported for DWDCA.

I'm surprised he wasn't reported for dangerous driving...what's the criteria?

Depends on witnesses and evidence available. Speed is not necessarily dangerous in itself, it is when it is grossly inappropriate for the circumstances, so there would need to be other circumstances for it to be dangerous driving.

James wrote:Depends on witnesses and evidence available. Speed is not necessarily dangerous in itself, it is when it is grossly inappropriate for the circumstances, so there would need to be other circumstances for it to be dangerous driving.

Eeek sorry everyone I didn't mean to open up this can of worms...again...again...

Of course I quite agree that speed doesn't equal danger but I always thought that anything more than double the speed limit was an automatic Dangerous Driving charge.

So with being charged by the police and presumably being sued by the rental company for the damage he's feeling a bit of a charlie...and a poorer one at that.

That would mean 140mph on the motorway was dangerous, absolute. Better bring restrictions in on police driving / training then... (hee hee, go on, lets start it up again )

I can think of many 40 roads where 80 is safe, 50 roads where 100 is safe... but not many 30's where 60 is safe I must say!

James wrote:That would mean 140mph on the motorway was dangerous, absolute. Better bring restrictions in on police driving / training then... (hee hee, go on, lets start it up again )

I can think of many 40 roads where 80 is safe, 50 roads where 100 is safe... but not many 30's where 60 is safe I must say!

But knowing this road as you do...do you believe it wasn't dangerous to drive at 100mph? (I don't know the road concerned - it's a genuine question). In any case I was surprised the police weren't recommending charging the driver with Dangerous Driving - it's for the jury to decide if it sticks or not.

Note to moderator (that's you James isn't it!): I suggest you lock this thread now before we have a rerun of the the others!

James wrote:Depends on witnesses and evidence available. Speed is not necessarily dangerous in itself, it is when it is grossly inappropriate for the circumstances, so there would need to be other circumstances for it to be dangerous driving.

I can think of a 30 where 100 can be reached safely at times. Depends on the circumstances.

Oh I have no doubt they exist, I just can't think of any!

Martine I don't actually know the road personally, but it happened in Chertsey which is 10 mins from me.

vonhosen wrote:

James wrote:Depends on witnesses and evidence available. Speed is not necessarily dangerous in itself, it is when it is grossly inappropriate for the circumstances, so there would need to be other circumstances for it to be dangerous driving.

I can think of a 30 where 100 can be reached safely at times. Depends on the circumstances.

In heavy rain? As in the case above according to the report.




(If anyone is interested CPS charging standards can be seen here)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html#14