Justice ?

[TripleS]

Given that I have now been shut out of PistonHeads (for no good reason) for the past few weeks, and therefore am not able to post anything, please would somebody register my disgust at the punishment meted out to the guy who was caught driving at 104 mph on a deserted motorway at 3.00 a.m.

The court result (as reported by the 'culprit') was this:

"Well I got hammered yesterday.

2k fine, 42 days ban, 50 quid costs and 15 quid victim surcharge.

I think it was a bit overboard considering the circumstances, no motoring offences for 20 years and an empty motorway at 3am."

He did indeed get hammered, and I think it was more than a bit overboard. To my mind that sort of punishment was grossly excessive for the trifling matter of exceeding a speed limit in those circumstances. It merely serves to reinforce my view that the law is an ass, which is why I, and probably many other people, are becoming less and less interested in complying with it.

Best wishes all,
Dave - alias TripleS.

[vonhosen]

Can you get less interested than not interested to start with ?

(You had said you paid no attention to it prior to this).

[TripleS]

Can you get less interested than not interested to start with ?

(You had said you paid no attention to it prior to this).

Hello, Von.

I have said numerous times that I have never had any respect for the NSL; that is true, and always has been. What has changed is that I now have even less respect for the law in general - especially that appertaining to our use of motor vehicles, so there is a difference.

I hope that clarifies matters, but I don't suppose it helps you in any way.

Anyhow, I'd still like somebody - if they would be so kind - to bung my comment in to PH. In particular, please give my best regards to "flemke."

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[ROG]

LEGAL
Was it too harsh - I was under the impression that going over 100mph usually means a 12 month ban but perhaps I am misinformed???

SAFE
If it was on a totally empty motorway then I would like to know if the driver had been deemed capable at that sort of speed ??

[vonhosen]

LEGAL
Was it too harsh - I was under the impression that going over 100mph usually means a 12 month ban but perhaps I am misinformed???

For one offence (not totting) it'll be a short term ban, not a 12 month.

SAFE
If it was on a totally empty motorway then I would like to know if the driver had been deemed capable at that sort of speed ??

It wasn't totally empty because there was at least a patrol vehicle there too, How capable the driver is I don't know, as for the vehicle he states he was driving a 1 year old Porsche (whether that works in his favour or against him though).

[Angus]

This poses one of the things I have often wondered.

Most of us here have undertaken additional driver training. It has been said elsewhere that most speed limits are aimed at the lowest common denominator - ie the driver who [just] passed their test and who hasn't improved since.

But we are better drivers. We have better observation, better skills, probably better maintained cars. We are able to drive "properly".

So why can't we use this as a defence in a situation like Dave has reported? Although I suspect that if we said in court that we were a member of IAM (or RoSPA or HPC etc) then the penalty would be harsher.

[jont]

But we are better drivers. We have better observation, better skills, probably better maintained cars. We are able to drive "properly".

So why can't we use this as a defence in a situation like Dave has reported? Although I suspect that if we said in court that we were a member of IAM (or RoSPA or HPC etc) then the penalty would be harsher.

Because part of being a "better" driver would be the expectation that we're very familiar with the law and should equally be more aware of our own speed, so there's a more conscious decision to show contempt of the law by breaking the limit. The "right" approach would be to petition our MPs to change the law where we think it's inappropriate.

[TripleS]

But we are better drivers. We have better observation, better skills, probably better maintained cars. We are able to drive "properly".

So why can't we use this as a defence in a situation like Dave has reported? Although I suspect that if we said in court that we were a member of IAM (or RoSPA or HPC etc) then the penalty would be harsher.

Because part of being a "better" driver would be the expectation that we're very familiar with the law and should equally be more aware of our own speed, so there's a more conscious decision to show contempt of the law by breaking the limit. The "right" approach would be to petition our MPs to change the law where we think it's inappropriate.

Yes that would be the right approach, Jon; but in the meantime I honestly feel that the law, and indeed the justice system as a whole invites contempt. I'm sorry to have to say that, but in my view that's how it is.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[hir]

The "right" approach would be to petition our MPs to change the law where we think it's inappropriate.

I know exactly where you are coming from but, unfortunately, this is a misconception, as parliament doesn't necessarily have the power to enforce its will.

Way back in the late eighties Margaret Thatcher was in favour of increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 mph; indeed I would say she was keen to do so. Who put a stop to it? It was ACPO; who told her that if parliament increased the motorway speed limit to 80 mph then they would instruct their officers not to enforce it, because they didn't want to see police traffic cops put at increased risk and possibly killed chasing errant drivers at the higher speeds.

So much for democracy and the will of parliament.

Why are British traffic cops at more risk than their German counterparts where unrestricted speeds are allowed on some of their motorways?

[vonhosen]

The "right" approach would be to petition our MPs to change the law where we think it's inappropriate.

I know exactly where you are coming from but, unfortunately, this is a misconception, as parliament doesn't necessarily have the power to enforce its will.

Way back in the late eighties Margaret Thatcher was in favour of increasing the motorway speed limit to 80 mph; indeed I would say she was keen to do so. Who put a stop to it? It was ACPO; who told her that if parliament increased the motorway speed limit to 80 mph then they would instruct their officers not to enforce it, because they didn't want to see police traffic cops put at increased risk and possibly killed chasing errant drivers at the higher speeds.

So much for democracy and the will of parliament.

Why are British traffic cops at more risk than their German counterparts where unrestricted speeds are allowed on some of their motorways?

What difference would that make ?

Driver with a 70 limit fails to stop & attempts to escape as does a driver with an 80 limit. What difference does the speed limit make to the fleeing drivers choice of speed or the decision of the officer to pursue ?

Speed limits don't exist on the basis of what those who'll make off do.

[7db]

I'm sorry to have to say that, but in my view that's how it is.

A shame for you, then, that the State has a monopoly on violence.

[TripleS]

I'm sorry to have to say that, but in my view that's how it is.

A shame for you, then, that the State has a monopoly on violence.

In fact it doesn't, not that I'm bothered either way. I simply do what I feel is appropriate, as do most people. The main difference is they don't admit that that's what they do.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Kevin]

Is it not a bit immature of the Porsche driver to be whining about the penalty imposed upon him by the courts? I would have thought that if he can’t stand the ‘time’ perhaps he should have considered more carefully whether to do the crime. It’s widely known that exceeding 100mph on a motorway is likely to attract a heavy penalty.

When he appeared in court I wonder if he was apologetic and humble or did he stamp his little feet (metaphorically) in protest about how unfairly he was being treated and how he wasn’t doing anything significantly wrong.

Why not just stay within the law? Is this not the best approach? Perhaps it’s time to fit cars with speed limiters, such as are fitted to large goods vehicles.

Regards,

Kev

[TripleS]

Good grief, are you a spokesperson from Brake?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Kevin]

Nice one SSS! No, I'm certainly not and never will be a spokesperson from Brake.

Kev