[Travel] Sentencing for 110mph wankpanzer driver. (Sorry can't find original thread)

[Stat Brother]

Well, there may be some different circumstances involved: https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/wimbledon-school-crash-driver-seizure-bit-tongue/


(This is from The Sun's "a source", so may need to be taken with salt)

Yep - either they've never had one before and this was an appalling coincidence or they're prone to seizures begging the question why drive a 'car' capable of mounting the curb, powering through a fence, over a group of children, only to be stopped by a building.
Still I'm sure the very expensive lawyers will see justice is done.


Don't get me wrong, I can't even comprehend what horrors the driver is currently going through. (I'd imagine even they are finding it hard to think 'there's a cyclist being antisocial')

I couldn't live with myself, I'd like to think they are too and will be forever.
Then of course there's prison - pretty sure I couldn't make it there, probably not even to first playtime.

But just because everything is so horrible to comprehend it doesn't mean the end result should be so lenient - as said I think this one will be.
Much like last year's exact copy incident from which the woman is free and still able to drive just because she was lucky enough not to kill any of the school children she ran over.

 

[GoingUp]

If the risk of speeding was losing your license for x months then maybe people would stop speeding?

Just because that is the way today doesn’t mean that is how it needs to be.

If you commit murder you either are or are not guilty, why with speeding are you guilty but it’s ok as it’s on the motorway and you are on your way home?

I had to commute to Kent all last week, pure grim motorway journey the whole way with a few 'variable speed limit cameras'.

I have 0 points on my licence (i hope it stays that way) and made sure I that I tried my best to stick to the limit of 70mph, for fear of getting done as I don't know the route very well but it's impossible to stick at 70mph and dangerous to go too far below it.

For instance when you've got big foreign artic lorries next to you, the safest thing to do is get passed them, to do that you need to put you foot down for a couple seconds.

Anyway for most of the journey cars were passing me at 80mph+ even couple oldbill cars overtook me! The reason I didn't was because I didn't know the route and want to risk getting points.

Comparing driving safely on the motorway at 70mph-80mph to murder is crazy. I've done the IAM with the police, sometimes it's not safe to not put your foot down.

If you crash into someone at 90mph-100mph it's a completely different conversation, I'm not taking about that. I'm talking about you saying people should lose their licence for a period of time for doing 78mph-80mph on a daily commute, it's ridiculous.

 

[wellquickwoody]

They would if that was all that was available.

There is a nationwide view that a car 'accident' is an accident, even if laws were broken, which is why we have the sentencing we have. There is no national outcry, equivalent of Just Stop Oil, or let's get Brixit done (FFS), over ****s killing people in cars. That is a fact. We, ranting on this thread, are a minority. Sadly.

Whilst not wanting to see anyone injured on the roads, it should be remembered that life has risks from a myriad of sources. Let’s try to minimise those risks to a level acceptable to the majority of the population.

As you point out, those ranting on this thread are a minority.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Yep - either they've never had one before and this was an appalling coincidence or they're prone to seizures begging the question why drive a 'car' capable of mounting the curb, powering through a fence, over a group of children, only to be stopped by a building.
Still I'm sure the very expensive lawyers will see justice is done.


Don't get me wrong, I can't even comprehend what horrors the driver is currently going through. (I'd imagine even they are finding it hard to think 'there's a cyclist being antisocial')

I couldn't live with myself, I'd like to think they are too and will be forever.
Then of course there's prison - pretty sure I couldn't make it there, probably not even to first playtime.

But just because everything is so horrible to comprehend it doesn't mean the end result should be so lenient - as said I think this one will be.
Much like last year's exact copy incident from which the woman is free and still able to drive just because she was lucky enough not to kill any of the school children she ran over.

The law used to be, and so far as I know still is, that if you have had a daytime seizure anytime in the last 2 years, you aren't allowed to drive. Epilepsy sufferers would have good reason to know the details.

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

I was on that night and when my Oppo took the call from the Park Royal supervisor that a car was on the tracks. We were incredulous for a moment, as the track is a long way from the road and it didn't seem possible, as the car would've had to have cleared the station roof to get there. We brought up the cctv and there was just this big black lump sitting there, didn't even look like a Range Rover. After doing the job for 21 years I was pretty sure that the Railway couldn't chuck anything my way, that I hadn't dealt with before, oh how wrong I was. Two nights later some idiot trying to do a tiktok style challenge nearly decapitated themselves on a signal gantry trying to train surf in the pitch black. Those seven night shifts that week were some of the worst I've had in my time on the Underground.

Have to say though that it was a credit to everyone who was on that night in getting the quick response we did.

Ah, I have a friend who works on the underground doing the retrieval etc after people go under amongst other things, some of things he has told me, make me shudder. You may know him as he is a union leader Mr P Boyle.

As for the driver, it only takes a moment to be an idiot and yes he should have got longer and it does not seem fair to the family that have lost someone.

 

[Stat Brother]

Whilst not wanting to see anyone injured on the roads, it should be remembered that life has risks from a myriad of sources. Let’s try to minimise those risks to a level acceptable to the majority of the population.

As you point out, those ranting on this thread are a minority.

2.5 tonnes of metal travelling at 125mph, crammed full of in car protection but more likely to kill anyone else, doesn't seem like the way to minimise those risks.

It's amazing just how blindly we've all accepted this shite.
Car manufacturers took a nod from the 1950's cigarette industry and said 'watch this'.

I dare say nobody even misses a beat when 'top speed of 125mph' is mentioned for a new car.
The new car I currently like has a top speed of 117mph (the 6th line in his comparison chart), if that said '75mph', I'll probably be the only person to say 'ok', but I bet I'd be easily swayed by it's more powerful competition - madness.

 

[dsr-burnley]

2.5 tonnes of metal travelling at 125mph, crammed full of in car protection but more likely to kill anyone else, doesn't seem like the way to minimise those risks.

It's amazing just how blindly we've all accepted this shite.
Car manufacturers took a nod from the 1950's cigarette industry and said 'watch this'.

I dare say nobody even misses a beat when 'top speed of 125mph' is mentioned for a new car.
The new car I currently like has a top speed of 117mph (the 6th line in his comparison chart), if that said '75mph', I'll probably be the only person to say 'ok', but I bet I'd be easily swayed by it's more powerful competition - madness.

Mind you, are car with top speed of 117 mph is safer at 70 than a car with top speed of 75. My Corsa can do 107 mph in theory, but if I reach 80 (which is seldom) you're already into grip-the-wheel-hard territory.

 

[HeaviestTed]

I had to commute to Kent all last week, pure grim motorway journey the whole way with a few 'variable speed limit cameras'.

I have 0 points on my licence (i hope it stays that way) and made sure I that I tried my best to stick to the limit of 70mph, for fear of getting done as I don't know the route very well but it's impossible to stick at 70mph and dangerous to go too far below it.

For instance when you've got big foreign artic lorries next to you, the safest thing to do is get passed them, to do that you need to put you foot down for a couple seconds.

Anyway for most of the journey cars were passing me at 80mph+ even couple oldbill cars overtook me! The reason I didn't was because I didn't know the route and want to risk getting points.

Comparing driving safely on the motorway at 70mph-80mph to murder is crazy. I've done the IAM with the police, sometimes it's not safe to not put your foot down.

If you crash into someone at 90mph-100mph it's a completely different conversation, I'm not taking about that. I'm talking about you saying people should lose their licence for a period of time for doing 78mph-80mph on a daily commute, it's ridiculous.

The limit is a limit, if it isn’t the right limit it should be changed.

What shouldn’t happen is people ignore it because of whatever their excuse happens to be.

If you happen to crash into someone and are maimed for life, would you accept the persons excuse ‘I was scared of a foreign artic lorry so sped to get past them’?

 

[dsr-burnley]

The limit is a limit, if it isn’t the right limit it should be changed.

What shouldn’t happen is people ignore it because of whatever their excuse happens to be.

If you happen to crash into someone and are maimed for life, would you accept the persons excuse ‘I was scared of a foreign artic lorry so sped to get past them’?

If you're maimed for life, then you probably wouldn't be interested in excuses. In the same way if the driver hadn't speeded and caused an accident because he followed the law rather than the safer, illegal course, it wouldn't be much of an excuse that "I followed the law".

There is little merit in driving along in an artic's blind spot with the attitude "I'm not afraid of you". Getting out of the way of an artic can be seen as prudence, rather than cowardice.

 

[HeaviestTed]

If you're maimed for life, then you probably wouldn't be interested in excuses. In the same way if the driver hadn't speeded and caused an accident because he followed the law rather than the safer, illegal course, it wouldn't be much of an excuse that "I followed the law".

There is little merit in driving along in an artic's blind spot with the attitude "I'm not afraid of you". Getting out of the way of an artic can be seen as prudence, rather than cowardice.

No one is forcing you to overtake it, wait until it is safe to do so without speeding.

 

[GoingUp]

The limit is a limit, if it isn’t the right limit it should be changed.

What shouldn’t happen is people ignore it because of whatever their excuse happens to be.

If you happen to crash into someone and are maimed for life, would you accept the persons excuse ‘I was scared of a foreign artic lorry so sped to get past them’?

So you never, ever exceed 70mph on a motorway?

They won't change the limit because people will see this as an excuse to drive faster. My guess is if they did make the laws today, with newer, safer, faster cars it probably would be 80mph. As 70mph in an old 70s/80s Fiesta feels a lot more faster and unsafe than 70mph in a new 2020's Focus or SUV, where 70mph feels very smooth and more like 40mph on a motorway.

You're not going to 'speed' passed an artic when it's not safe too. When it is safe too, you go pass them because it's not safe to sit beside them in a blind spot, you will also find other cars driving like d!cks to get passed you and the artic if you don't...... never mind the artic, probably a LHD, crushing into you if you don't move.

Im not advocating speeding, Im advocating driving sensibly........ Driving at 90mph or 100mph and generally driving like a kn@b isn't sensible. People dont' only get into accidents by people speeding or driving irresponsibly either.

They should change the laws that anyone on their phones get 9points or an instant ban though, when I see people on their phones at traffic lights it infuriates me, especially as a motorcyclist.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I’ve recently done a speed awareness course (first offence in over 20 years) - was carelessness on my part, driving home late on a quiet (empty apart from me at the time) road where there was a camera on the edge of a village. Would argue going to jail for it (36mph in a 30mph limit) would be somewhat harsh.

Yeah, maybe. I'm open to negotiation. 40%? Higher?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think that's excessive. If you get caught in one of those traps, eg. in Liverpool, where the dual carriageway is 40 mph and it's raining and you don't know the road and you're watching the traffic, and then you come to the single block that looks like all the others and you miss the sign that says 30 mph and you get caught by the carefully placed speed trap - is that worth jail?

One problem with speed cameras now is that their intention is mostly to catch the person speeding by mistake, while letting those who speed on purpose and have the equipment to do it, go free. Sending people to jail for harmless mistakes is excessive.

Yeah, maybe. See post above.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Driving along Worthing seafront yesterday, doing 30mph, an electric bike ( obviously unregulated ) was going faster than us along the prom. If one child had the audacity to change direction when walking, he's dead if hit by this cyclist. Cyclists can be wankers too, @Stat Brother, but you carry on mate with your crusade that car drivers are all tossers. Oh, today near West Worthing Station, an area you know well, a cyclist came down Downview Road ( one way street ) the wrong way, and then zig zagged through the down coming train crossing barriers. Gotta love those law abiding cyclists.

Electric cyclist.

I think @Stat Brother's point (perpetual point) is that in a one-to-one contest between a car and a bike there is only going to be one winner, and whatabout pedestrians versus cyclists is another conversation entirely.

And the fact that people defend dangerous drivers on the grounds that some cyclists are dicks proves his point.

 

[wellquickwoody]

2.5 tonnes of metal travelling at 125mph, crammed full of in car protection but more likely to kill anyone else, doesn't seem like the way to minimise those risks.

It's amazing just how blindly we've all accepted this shite.
Car manufacturers took a nod from the 1950's cigarette industry and said 'watch this'.

I dare say nobody even misses a beat when 'top speed of 125mph' is mentioned for a new car.
The new car I currently like has a top speed of 117mph (the 6th line in his comparison chart), if that said '75mph', I'll probably be the only person to say 'ok', but I bet I'd be easily swayed by it's more powerful competition - madness.

So your car has a top speed of 117, mine has a top speed of 155, but in reality has slowed me down. I like cruising around AT the speed limit when safe to do so, I also really like that when pushed I can overtake the person in front of me that is travelling at a speed lower than I believe is safe, I like being able to get a manoeuvre done quickly and safely.

Does your car car have cruise control and do you use it?

 

[HeaviestTed]

So you never, ever exceed 70mph on a motorway?

They won't change the limit because people will see this as an excuse to drive faster. My guess is if they did make the laws today, with newer, safer, faster cars it probably would be 80mph. As 70mph in an old 70s/80s Fiesta feels a lot more faster and unsafe than 70mph in a new 2020's Focus or SUV, where 70mph feels very smooth and more like 40mph on a motorway.

You're not going to 'speed' passed an artic when it's not safe too. When it is safe too, you go pass them because it's not safe to sit beside them in a blind spot, you will also find other cars driving like d!cks to get passed you and the artic if you don't...... never mind the artic, probably a LHD, crushing into you if you don't move.

Im not advocating speeding, Im advocating driving sensibly........ Driving at 90mph or 100mph and generally driving like a kn@b isn't sensible. People dont' only get into accidents by people speeding or driving irresponsibly either.

They should change the laws that anyone on their phones get 9points or an instant ban though, when I see people on their phones at traffic lights it infuriates me, especially as a motorcyclist.

No I don’t go over the speed limit anymore, I used to speed but I’ve grown up and now drive within the limit - you know the really stupid thing? I don’t get anywhere later than I used to.

 

[Grizz]

Ah, I have a friend who works on the underground doing the retrieval etc after people go under amongst other things, some of things he has told me, make me shudder. You may know him as he is a union leader Mr P Boyle.

As for the driver, it only takes a moment to be an idiot and yes he should have got longer and it does not seem fair to the family that have lost someone.

The Emergency Response Unit are a special breed and I doff my cap to them, I certainly wouldn't want to do that job. In my job we have minimal interaction with them, unless they're responding to an incident where we need their expertise, so the name isn't familiar to me.

 

[Wardy's twin]

I’ve an inkling that the middle class/middle age upwards, would be treated more tolerantly by a judge at sentencing.

A side issue, I could be wrong.

you are probably right but that makes the judge wrong not the rule...

 

[Stat Brother]

So your car has a top speed of 117, mine has a top speed of 155, but in reality has slowed me down. I like cruising around AT the speed limit when safe to do so, I also really like that when pushed I can overtake the person in front of me that is travelling at a speed lower than I believe is safe, I like being able to get a manoeuvre done quickly and safely.

Does your car car have cruise control and do you use it?

Oh lordy no - my car can't do anything like that, the new car I like can though, and that's perfectly normal and acceptable advert.
I bet in doing so it feels like it's going 60mph - all from a 1.2ltr engine.
It's full of sensors, air bags a 9 inch touch screen, connectivity, Spotify, Waze, and all the other standard things that mean I wouldn't have to pay any attention when travelling at 90mph.

Imagine the same car had the the industry spent all its time, effort and profits developing vehicles that keep everyone as safe as possible and fit for the purposes needed.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Oh lordy no - my car can't do anything like that, the new car I like can though, and that's perfectly normal and acceptable advert.
I bet in doing so it feels like it's going 60mph - all from a 1.2ltr engine.
It's full of sensors, air bags a 9 inch touch screen, connectivity, Spotify, Waze, and all the other standard things that mean I wouldn't have to pay any attention when travelling at 90mph.

Imagine the same car had the the industry spent all its time, effort and profits developing vehicles that keep everyone as safe as possible and fit for the purposes needed.

It’s all about choice isn’t it? You chose not to buy a car that can limit your speed.