Safe Speed Forums

As the law stands there are guidelines for obtaining a conviction of Death by dangerous driving. Here follows the description of those guidelines and it must be stressed that only ONE of these factors has to be met to make a conviction. In addition it is important to appreciate that the significance of the factors can differ. There can be cases with three or more aggravating factors, which are not as serious as a case providing a bad example of one factor. They are as follows:
(a) The consumption of drugs (including legal medication known to cause drowsiness) or of alcohol, ranging from a couple of drinks to a motorised pub crawl?
(b) Greatly excessive speed; racing; competitive driving against another vehicle; showing off?
(c) disregard of warnings from fellow passengers
(d) a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving
(e) aggressive driving (such as driving much too close to the vehicle in front, persistent inappropriate attempts to overtake, or cutting in after overtaking)
(f) driving while the driver’s attention is avoidably distracted, e.g. by reading or by use of a mobile phone (especially if hand-held)
(g) driving when knowingly suffering from a medical condition which significantly impairs the offender’s driving skills
(h) driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest
(i) driving a poorly maintained or dangerously loaded vehicle, especially where this has been motivated by commercial concerns
(j) other offences committed at the same time, such as driving without ever having held a licence; driving while disqualified; driving without insurance; driving while a learner without supervision; taking a vehicle without consent; driving a stolen vehicle
(k) previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly offences which involve bad driving or the consumption of excessive alcohol before driving

Man jailed over double road death
A 21-year-old man has been sentenced to five years in prison after he admitted causing the deaths of two teenagers in a car race on a Staffordshire road.
Stephen Jackson, of Newcastle, was seen by eyewitnesses racing a car on the A500 near Talke on 18 August 2004, Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard.

Leon Hughes, 18, of Burslem, and John Hancock, 17, of Brown Edge, Stoke, died when the car they were in hit a tree.

Jackson, of Heathcote Road, was told he must serve at least half his sentence

A RACE TO THE DEATH
SENTINEL REPORTER

12:00 - 05 July 2005
A 21-year-old who caused the deaths of two teenagers by racing them at speeds of around 100mph along the A500 has been jailed for five years. Stephen Jackson had been racing 18-year-old Leon Hughes when the Burslem teenager lost control of his Ford Fiesta, hit a tree and died from head and neck injuries.

His 17-year-old front-seat passenger John Hancock, of Marshall Avenue, Brown Edge, also died in the smash in the early hours of August 18 - just two days after Jackson had been convicted of speeding.

Another passenger, Lee Scarlett, survived the crash.

Yesterday, Jackson, of Heathcote Road, Miles Green, near Newcastle, was jailed after admitting causing death by dangerous driving.

Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard how Jackson had been driving a new Nissan sports car capable of going from 0 to 60mph in six-and-a-half seconds, reaching a maximum of 140mph at the time of the accident.

Peter Carr, prosecuting, told the court that Jackson had picked up his brother Christopher and his brother's fiancee Louise at 3pm and driven to Festival Park. Between 12.25am and 12.45am, the Nissan and Fiesta were seen on CCTV driving around Festival Park together, and left for the A500 at 1.20am.

A taxi driver who saw part of the race told police they had been travelling at around 100mph.

Mr Carr said Mr Hughes's vehicle had a severely under-inflated rear tyre which, combined with the high speed race, contributed to his loss of control.

As his car started to spin, he is thought to have overcompensated when steering against it, and ended up hitting a tree.

A toxicology report showed neither Jackson nor Mr Hughes, of Wilson Street, Burslem, had been drinking or taking drugs beforehand.

Richard Gray, defending, said: "What we have here between two young and probably immature men is a moment of madness and certainly an equal degree of culpability in the race down the A500.

"The defendant at no time tried to overtake, but he accepts by his plea that he encouraged an excess of speed between the two."

Mr Gray added that Jackson had shown "maturity, compassion and presence of mind" to stop at the scene and encourage his brother to phone for an ambulance.

He said Jackson apologised "unreservedly" to the families of the dead teenagers.

Jailing Jackson and imposing a three-year driving ban, Judge Paul Glenn told him: "It was wet at the time and you knew the danger of this stretch of road, but despite this you raced against a smaller, less powerful car, encouraging Mr Hughes to drive faster when he had an under-inflated tyre.

"The plain and simple fact is that, had you not chosen to race him, he would not have driven as he did. I'm afraid that racing is a feature of high culpability in this case.

"The aftermath is that two men tragically lost their lives and no sentence a court can impose can compensate for that loss of life."

After the hearing, Mr Hughes's parents John and Mandy Hughes, spoke of their devastation.

Mrs Hughes, aged 42, said: "It's been a tragic loss of two lives and I wish somebody would learn from it. I'm devastated, it's a life sentence for both sets of families. We've been left with a void and we can only hope other young drivers will learn."

Sergeant Steve Kent, of Staffordshire Police, said young drivers should take more responsibility for their actions.

He said: "For five minutes of fun it is not worth it. The consequences of your driving can affect people for the rest of their lives."

Mr Scarlett, of Fairfield Avenue, Brown Edge, declined to comment about the accident which killed his friends.

Sorry but I think there's more than meets the eye with regards to this chappy. Why see a barrister just prior to the case, one presumes he would have had a hearing at a magistrates beforehand and known well in advance that he was up for death by dangerous driving.

In all honesty, if you knew that you hadn't done something, how many of us would have just swallowed the line, plead guilty' for a lighter sentence?

Sometimes these people only launch appeals because they are surprised to have been sentenced to a prison term. That said, who knows with the legal 'profession' nowadays, the whole system's in a fine mess thanks in part to the wicked witch, the human rights act and Princess Blair.

Lots and lots of mock-German...

However, I do not believe that is the intent of the writer, I believe they want to convey that the car is capable of 140mph, not that he was doing 140mph. And in any case, of what relevance is the capability of his car, if anything shouldn't it be a mitigating factor that his car is capable of high speeds in safety, not evidence in itself of misconduct as they seem to want to portray it?

WildCat, you post some bloody good stuff and often raise excellent points, but is there any chance of you posting in English, and not this nasty English/German mix you seem to be intent on using? I've skipped over 5 or 6 of your posts today after reading the first two or three lines after deciding I couldn't be doing with the headache of translating it into a proper language.

It's a shame, 'cos you really put some excellent points across, but your posts are a complete nightmare to read (for me, at the very least).

This sentence is so misleading:
"Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard how Jackson had been driving a new Nissan sports car capable of going from 0 to 60mph in six-and-a-half seconds, reaching a maximum of 140mph at the time of the accident."

With that punctuation, it is saying that he was driving at 140mph at the time of the accident. However, I do not believe that is the intent of the writer, I believe they want to convey that the car is capable of 140mph, not that he was doing 140mph. And in any case, of what relevance is the capability of his car, if anything shouldn't it be a mitigating factor that his car is capable of high speeds in safety, not evidence in itself of misconduct as they seem to want to portray it? If his car were capable of 200mph, would his driving have been considered even more outrageous?

You should try living with her mate.!

Have placed in large letters in fronto her PC in her "lair"

IS not ist

AND not und

WITH not mit

You'll never change her. They try in PH.... I try.. our kids try...

And the old favourite...yes officer, I parked my car in a road called "Einbahnstrasse" and now I can't find it......

but despite this you raced against a smaller, less powerful car, encouraging Mr Hughes to drive faster when he had an under-inflated tyre.

"The plain and simple fact is that, had you not chosen to race him, he would not have driven as he did. I'm afraid that racing is a feature of high culpability in this case.

It is important to note that the drivers of 2 of the 3 vehicles gave witness statements and stopped at the scene of the accident. Both witnesses stated that although both vehicles passed them at high speed there was a 2 to 3 second gap between them and that the red car was at all times followed by the white car.

Now am I alone in thinking two to three seconds, at 90 mph+ is a slightly onesided race, with the superior vehicle lagging WELL BEHIND? If somebody would do the maths, I think it would show a substantial DISTANCE.

90mph is 132 feet per second.

2 seconds = 264 feet = about 18 car lengths
3 seconds = 396 feet = about 26 car lengths