Safe Speed Forums

I was idly looking at the cases heard at the New Forest Magistrates Court as reported in the local paper.

There were 20 cases reported that day. 18 were transport related, 15 about motoring and 3 for not paying train fares. The other 2 were about shoplifting, threatening behaviour, skipping bail and criminal damage and were punished by a £100 fine and a 3 months conditional discharge respectively.

Of the motoring cases, two concerned failing to give information about a driver's identity. The punishment for both of these was a fine of £525 and 6 points.

Most of the rest were about speeding and fines ranged from £60 to £120 with typically 3 or 4 points.

I submit to you that the Government sentencing guidelines are flawed to the point of bringing the law into disrepute.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

The problem with only looking at one day is that you can get a skewed picture. I am in court tomorrow and it will be a motoring court, so anybody observing tomorrow would be left with the impression that all we do is motoring cases. The last time I was in court we did two trials, both for assault. The week before that was all youth offending.


The two s172 cases both got 6 points because that is what the court is obliged to impose. The guideline fine for that offence is 150% of a weeks pay. If no means form is filled in the court are obliged to base thier fine on the national average pay of £350 per week, times the 1.5 and you get £525.


At the present time courts can look at all the circumstances and may depart from the guidelines if there are cogent reasons to do so. The wording being that we must "have regard to" the guideline sentence. The way we do it being the result of precedent. A recent amendment, which will become law in the near future, says that courts "must follow" the guidelines. Yet another assault on judicial freedom and common sense sentencing.

Has anybody ever taken up one of the regular opportunities offered on the sentencing guidelines website and responded to an invitation to comment on draft sentencing guidance?

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I concur, consider the latest farcical bollox that the nanny state is proposing - banning smoking in cars!!!!! Seriously, this is to protect the children. Now should I choose to start smoking again I fail to see how smoking in my car would affect any child (my children are never transported in my car).

So what would we as the british public prefer the authorities spend their resources on, stopping our children carrying knives and killing each other, or needlessly criminalising those who are actually doing nothing wrong?

Contempt of court, quite serious thing to do isn't it? Not viewed well by judges and rightly so.



How many people do shoplifters and vandals injure and kill each year?

Now, wreckless, inconsiderate and aggressive driving?

Smoking in a car whilst driving is doing nothing wrong? Criminal lack of responsibility, and that' not even IMO cos I bet if a copper sees you doing it they'll pull you over right?

I regularly see drivers taking a drag of a cigarette with one hand whilst changing gear with the other, sometimes whilst going round corners (same for mobile phone use).

Interested in your expert legal opinion on exactly why this would constitude contempt of court, care to enlighten us?

As for going round a corner with both hands off the wheel? Some people really are clever dicks eh!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Oh, how did you miss "threatening behaviour"? That never results with any deaths does it
Criminal damage may well kill quite a few (damaging utilities or supports).
The number of shoplifter killers aren't exactly 0 either!


Care to remind us about the factor of exposure weepej?
I couldn't tell you the number of times I've exceeded the limit The number of instances of me shoplifting or vandalising = 0.
I'm guessing that's the same for the great majority of people.

Besides, is 80 on a clear motorway what any reasonable person could call "wreckless, inconsiderate and aggressive"?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Now I know you've absolutely lost the plot!

Furthermore, how can something not be "IMO" if you only "bet ...? " upon it?


So you see them regularly, ok, but do you actually know that there are regular instances of drivers being pulled by police for merely smoking?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

If the court asks you a question you must answer it truthfully right?

Eh?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... -points.do

Not as many as are caused by people recklessly driving their car I imagine.

Always with the motorways....

contains this

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Yes, that's because that's where the biggest concentration of it occurs, even though it is the safest class road (even with the highest limits).

So, getting back to the question: is 80 on a clear motorway what you would call "reckless, inconsiderate and aggressive"?


Indeed, but 'exceeding the limit' (which is what we are talking about, which is not recognised as reckless driving regardless of your opinion on it) compared to ‘shoplifters, those who use threatening behaviour, skip bail and commit criminal damage', especially when you factor the effect of exposure (I did say that before didn't I ) tends to null your own point – yes?


Did you read your own article at all?

Now my question to you was: So you see them regularly, ok, but do you actually know that there are regular instances of drivers being pulled by police for merely smoking?
Can you really not see the Grand Canyon of difference between my question and your response?

<sigh>

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I would say it's not even that.
Exceeding the speed limit is a contributory factor (not a cause) and can be one of a few factors, and that factor can be merely incidental.
For example, the bloke who ripped out a lamppost from the ground (from my side of the pavement on which I was walking), passing me with that post still attached to his car, stopping a full 90 meters up the (dry) road, was very likely speeding, but he was way drunk (3x over, thankfully trafpol were nearby to collect and breathalyse him). What was the root cause of that one?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I suggest that you've been smoking something yourself!!

You missed (deliberatley I suspect) the point. I park in a car park, light a cigarette, there are no children present in my car - how are the proposed laws going to protect children?

And finally, no it is not an offence yet to smoke whilst driving, I have no idea where you got that idea from. The new HC does advise against it for control of vehicle reasons etc.

How is it that you suppose this is relevant?

Let me help you out here, before you make even more of a fool of yourself, as much as witnessing that is somewhat enjoyable. Failing to provide information about the driver of a vehicle is an offence under S172, which requires information to be given to a chief police officer, not the court. Furthermore, unless something has drastically changed, one cannot be held in contempt of court for failure to self-incriminate.

Nice try at bigging up the charges!

Now, do tell us more about these drivers who are going round corners with both hands off the wheel, I am genuinely intrigued to hear how they are managing it! Do they also have their feet up on the dashboard? Do their talking cars have a row of red side-to-side chasing lights at the front?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Oh...I dunno...
If you are driving a work-vehicle it is an offence to smoke inside that vehicle. Which would include while driving.
Unless you are the only person who drives and have no passengers....and is has been an offence to smoke within a public transport vehicle for years now....which includes the drivers....although some disregard that.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

What proposed laws? As far as I know one group of doctors has said smoking should be banned in cars if there are children in there, another group said it should be banned outright. A bit far from your "nanny state" phrase with implicit dog whistle implications its the government that's proposing this.

As for how it could protect children in the first case, it helps them breath in less smoke, in the second case it gets people out of the habit of smoking in the car; toxins remain embedded in the upholstery so kids are exposed even if they're not there at the time, and then there's the cultural shift that could be achieved (I imagine if they just ban it when children are in the car it'd be viewed as optional, but ban it altogether and its a more potent action).

Now I'm not saying I agree with such a ban or not, but you seem a little narrow minded in your appraisal of the situation.



If a policeman decides your are committing an offence it is. They might not be able to explicitly do you for smoking whilst driving (unlike using a mobile phone) but holding a sandwich or a cigarette (especially lighting one) whilst driving can get you into trouble and rightly so.

It's the Evening Standard, it borrows copy from the Daily Mail, not surprising it likes to pretend there's not a problem, much like many SafeSpeed members.

Regardless, let's take that at face value, one in 20 accidents, let's imagine the first 18 were low speed and resulted in slight injuries, the next one a death (say somebody reversed over an old lady) and the 20th a high speed crash which killed four people.

Which behaviour would you concentrate on to modify?