tinyurl.com/2udrtp2
Mitigating circumstances.
20 year old can afford a hot car but the fine etc seems a little light ?
"Edmondson was fined £300 and ordered to pay £80 costs and a £15 surcharge, and had six points endorsed on his licence. "
|
A newspaper reporter who can't spell, or use a spell checker. Basic skill of the job?
Sorry, nothing to do with the thread, just a pet hate; spelling, poor grammar, stories that don't answer obvious questions etc when it's your trade.
JH
|
|
I dont think the reporter put it up on the web page.
|
|
It would be copy and pasted from the original document she wrote.
|
Did he have any training, qualifications or demonstrable understanding of high speed driving skills? If not, then the punishment was fairly light.
If he had the skills to handle the speed (and not just the ability to press his right foot into the carpet), and the circumstances that lead to him choosing to drive at that speed were fairly sound then the punishment would be fair or maybe even excessive depending on his income.
We don't get to hear the full story though, as it was presented in the court :-/
The vacuous comments from the numpty politicians at the bottom (if they're accurate but i've no reason to suspect they're not) ironically show little regard for justice.
|
I think he should have been banned for driving his Focus ST at twice the legal limit.
Whether he was in the REME and bound for Afghanistan or not.
The sentence was far too lenient (IMO).
|
>> It would be copy and pasted from the original document she wrote.
not always, it could have been dictated by phone.
|
|
everyone has to have a blast now and again :)
|
...everyone has to have a blast now and again...
'Blast' is a rather unfortunate term if there's any truth in the stuff about where he's going.
|
>>
>> 'Blast' is a rather unfortunate term if there's any truth in the stuff about where
>> he's going.
maybe he sees driving at those speeds a bit trifling considering his job?
|
...I dont think the reporter put it up on the web page...
Almost certainly did, which is why it's a bot ropey.
A lot of local newspapers have reporters entering copy directly onto their websites in the interests of speed.
|
...bot?...
As I said, direct entry leads to typos and literals.
Isn't a bot also some computer-related virus thing?
|
>> A lot of local newspapers have reporters entering copy directly onto their websites in the
>> interests of speed.
Err not quite, web publishing is not quite like that, security for one gets in the way, as does linking to other parts of the site. They may be given a template to use tho
|
...Err not quite...may be given a template to use...
Zero,
Reporter sits at computer, types in copy which appears - as typed - on the website.
It's direct entry, simple as that.
|
So driving at 143mph is 'as lethal as a speeding bullet'.
What about the Impreza that followed the ST. Was that as lethal as a speeding bullet as well?
..or are there varying degrees of danger, depending on circumstance, skill, road and weather conditions, maintenance of the vehicle, etc...the court must have thought so, because he was done for speeding not dangerous driving.
I've long thought automatic charges for dangerous driving when high speed is concerned is wrong....because emergency service drivers manage it quite well (usually), so it can't be automatically dangerous driving, can it?
Not that I condone 143mph on a public road and I agree there is noticably increased degrees of danger at that speed.
|
I condone it. Assuming there wasn't too much traffic, what's wrong with this F1 driver-aged nipper stretching his Focus to its absolute maximum in company with another nipper from the old bill?
No one in their right mind could possibly object, unless something dangerous was done. And there are no allegations of that sort.
Can't tell you how happy I am to hear of the outrage caused to safety wonks and squalid bum-licking politicos. I hope lots of them died of heart attacks.
Yee-HAAAH! Damn rapid these modern repmobiles, innit?
|
So ... lets all dis-regard the law then shall we, lets all take our cars up to the max whenever we feel like,
Sod the other people hey!
The Focus ST is capable doing 150 so lets burn some rubber, kick some ass - just for the hell of it ... yippie.
Anna Kissed!
|
Let him get away with it footballers do actors do and illegal imigrants do why can't a man defending his country have the same.
Good for you kid but next time if you caught taking the michael out of the law throw the book at you.!
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 28 Apr 10 at 10:16
|
>> I condone it. Assuming there wasn't too much traffic what's wrong with this F1 driver-aged
>> nipper stretching his Focus to its absolute maximum in company with another nipper from the
and there is the problem, He is a nipper but not of the F1 variety and probably hasnt got the skills or experience to handle it.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 28 Apr 10 at 10:00
|
Has any of you actually read the judge's words?
Judge Coates told Edmondson: “You richly deserve to be disqualified because of this appalling behaviour on the motorway, which is what I was going to do.
“But taking you off the road for 56 days means you would not be trained to do a job not many people want to do.
“It is a matter of balancing two different public interests, and the saving of lives must be the more important.
"I must allow you to remain in the role you do, which is essential for our armed forces.”
Shame the ban cannot be deferred until his return from the east.
|
>> Has any of you actually read the judge's words?
>>
>> Judge Coates told Edmondson: “You richly deserve to be disqualified because of this appalling behaviour
>> on the motorway which is what I was going to do.
>>
>> “But taking you off the road for 56 days means you would not be trained
>> to do a job not many people want to do.
>>
>> “It is a matter of balancing two different public interests and the saving of lives
>> must be the more important.
I think the judge was saying "Its better you get slaughtered in the duty of your country"
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 28 Apr 10 at 10:14
|
"probably hasnt got the skills or experience"
Probably learned all he needed on an XBox. After all, how hard can it be? Look straight ahead, hold wheel, press gas.
|
I just love the posters on here who want to give this guy a slap on the back and say 'well done mate, how cool are you'.
Would you still want to clasp this mans hands in sickly admiration if your wife/girlfriend/son/daughter (insert family member of your choice) gets clouted by this idiot or takes evasive action which results in them getting seriously injured or killed?
He may be a hero when it comes to donning fatigues and firing a rifle at a tea-towel wearing terrorist but doing twice the legal limit on the public highway is just morally and legally wrong and there's certainly nothing clever about it which warrants any form of praise.
|
I agree with Dog.
How about anyone that has a life saving job or works in the services just tears around double the motorway limit, knowing we can wriggle out of it. No excuses, should have been banned.
|
Not a question of congratulating the guy or approving. More a matter of giving the finger to ridiculous superstitious safety wonks and their political accomplices.
Including the ones who post here. Big raspberry to them (they know who they are).
|
does he need a driving licence to defuse IED,s then?
good luck to the bloke anyway, hope he comes back in one peice
that goes for all of them over there...zoo
|
|
he's not even defusing IEDs, he's repairing cars that have been damaged by them...
|
Speed limits aren't chosen by a process of scientific rigour. They are, to all intents and purposes, largely arbitrary.
If you disagree with that, then why is the speed limit on my street not 18mph, which would be the perfect balance of expedience vs. safety for the corners and line of sight? Instead it's 30mph. It's 30mph because arbitrarily, we choose 30 as a common speed limit for all built up areas, even though you'd have to be criminally insane to attempt 30mph in my street and your car would have to be pretty special to even manage it.
When you drive above the recommended limit on an autobahn in germany, are you and your car magically and immediately gifted with years of experience of high speed driving, and perfect obsessive maintainance history?
Of course not. You're the same driver you were on britains roads and you're driving the same car which gets a 30 minute glance over, once a year, by an overworked, under trained and under paid fitter at the dealership.
Where is your logic?
So while 70mph probably shouldn't be exceeded without a good reason, and it shouldn't be reached never mind exceeded by people without training and experience (uk driving lessons are probably sufficent for that speed on a well maintained road in predictable traffic).
There's no case, in my mind, for this crazy assumption that 70mph should in no circumstance be exceed. Well, unless you're driving, because that's different.
There's a reason why we don't have parents of murdered children setting appropriate punishments for murderers in general. (extreme example chosen to clearly show the extreme short circuit of all logic in the original argument).
|
>> There's no case in my mind for this crazy assumption that 70mph should in no
>> circumstance be exceed.
Agreed
But exceeding the notional speed limit by DOUBLE and by someone who does not have the experience is not acceptable. The fact he got caught is testament to his observation skills. Skills much needed at 140 mph
|
At that speed, to coin a phrase, he's only a passenger.
He's taking a hell of a risk, which is fine, it's his life.
But if I'm on the road at the same time, he is drawing me into the scenario.
That is what I object to.
Last edited by: ifithelps on Wed 28 Apr 10 at 19:41
|
>> At that speed to coin a phrase he's only a passenger.
>>
First I do not condone breaking speedlimits, but the above is a very English attitude.
I live in Germany, so driving close to 150mph on the autobahn is not that unusual (120 when traffic is slightly heavier). OK you need to keep your wits about you, and I would not like to have a blow out but I am not a passenger. I've had a few "fast stops" when some foreign driver does not check his mirrors, but other than that.
Joe
|
I completely agree with what you're saying Zero.
My response was to the (ill conceived) idea that if you break a speed limit by a large amount then you should automatically have the book thrown at you.
I'm not saying you *shouldn't* have the book thrown at you but at the same time i'm not saying you should automatically have the top penalty either.
All i'm saying is that whatever the course of action, it shouldn't be automatic.
For me, 1 miscarriage of justice is (ideally) 1 too many. I'd rather the burglar who stole all my possessions and destroyed what was left , go free, than an innocent but decidedly shady looking character who "no doubt has done something bad at some time" take the rap.
|
"Skills much needed at 140 mph"
I'm feeling a lot of man love for you AE, but have to disagree. I've driven at close to 130 in Germany for short periods, can't say that it took much skill (fortunately for me).
I think car-guys like to think that driving requires skill and that they do it well because they are talented and skilled drivers. But driving is easy, we can all do it, it requires no more skill than what it takes to walk down Oxford Street eating a sandwich; common sense, co-ordination, spacial awareness, anticipation, reflexes... not much else.
|
hugs to you Dave
But you misread my point. He got caught, so clearly didnt see the police or whatever nabbed him. That makes him a dangerous speeder. There is no skill in speeding, there is skill in making it as safe as possible.
Let me put it another way.
If I had the machinery would I let it loose at 140mph? Where its not legal? of course I would. Modern machinery is very capable at that speed.
Would I do it with other traffic on the road? where its not legal? probably not because I couldnt be sure that any of them were cops. That automatically makes me a better driver because I have made a risk assesment of sorts.
The fact he didnt makes him stupid, and reckless. NOt a good combination at 140mph.
|
|
Yes I agree, the fact that he did it at all defines him as a bit of a twerp. Must have taken some cajones though, which he might need in the near future.
|
My objection to this is that his occupation was used as an excuse not to give him the required punishment. What he does for a living is irrelevant. What he should be judged on is the standard of his driving at the time and in the conditions that were prevailing. Nothing else. He is 20 and in a souped up shopping trolley.
There isn't really any proper research on the *actual* risks of high speed ie autobahn speed driving either. I think some simulator studies need to be done with driving at various speeds and find out where the 'breaking point' is as to where speed and hazard density breaks down particularly when something unexpected happens.
|
>> excuse
Not sure the JP would agree with you there! They're not in the habit of making excuses for criminals DESPITE what the local tabloid would have you to believe (visit a court one day, you'll be blown away if your pre-conceptions are all based on tabloid tatty drivel and popular belief).
>> There isn't really any proper research on the *actual* risks of high speed ie autobahn speed driving
Yes there is, and it's been going on every year for the past 40+ years. The figures aren't in favour of the misguided (but normally well meaning) safety campaigners so they're not broadcast from the roof tops, but they are published every single year without fail.
They're even thoroughly analysed every year, by respected field experts too. The analysis is published too.
There's not much between them since 1970. Recently, there's a phase towards the end of the 90's where we overtook the germans, then it went back to them being marginally safer in 2003 (deaths per billion km travelled).
They score evenly with us despite all the countless unskilled foreign drivers (don't have far superior german driving instruction) who visit Germany every year for the sole purpose of a blast on the autobahns.
Just as i think justice is not cut and dried, not a yes or no button, the above stats aren't cut and dried. The germans can drive, generally, where the british can't drive for toffee (in comparison). The germans have effective highway police, we have cameras, the germans have well considered tyre regulations, we have exploding polish trailer tyres and dubious quality controlled chinese tyres, "we're british, we'll have whatever's cheapest please!" etc. etc.
|
|
Where is this research?? Point me to it!
|
Google for the "Bundesanstalt fur Strassenwesen".
Or go directly here for the crux of the matter: www.bast.de/cln_005/nn_76770/EN/e-Statistik/e-Unfalldaten/downloads/e-strassenverkehrsunfaelle,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/e-strassenverkehrsunfaelle.pdf
Being British, our stats aren't as neatly laid out, however you can find the numbers via the Government's TRL website www.trl.co.uk
|
|
If I had an unmarked car following me in a manner which indicated that it was deliberately following me and was not just coincidentally doing the same speed behind me, I would be inclined to think that its driver was up to no good and that it would be prudent for me to increase my speed to whatever was necessary for me to leave him behind. That being the case, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Blackburn soldier.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Thu 29 Apr 10 at 14:40
|
If I had an unmarked car following me in a manner which indicated that it
was deliberately following me and was not just coincidentally doing the same speed behind me
I would be inclined to think that its driver was a policeman and that it would be prudent for me to decrease my speed to whatever was necessary for me to find out. Clearly that is the most logical and obvious conculsion. That being the case the Blackburn soldier is a burke.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 29 Apr 10 at 14:47
|
>> I would be inclined to think that its driver was a policeman and that it
>> would be prudent for me to decrease my speed to whatever was necessary for me
>> to find out.
All police cars that are trailing another car should be clearly marked. I have no intention of confronting a stranger who might be younger, bigger, stronger, fitter, and more aggressive than me and who might be carrying an offensive weapon.
|
your chances of being tailed by a younger bigger stronger fitter and more aggresive person than you carrying an offensive weapon in excess of 140mph out to do you harm is pretty remote. The chances of you being chased at 140 by a younger bigger stronger fitter copper is much higher.
besides your car wont do 140 mph.
and anyway, your "mitigating circumstances" of fear, wont hold up in court. Insufficient cause.
|
>> I would be inclined to think that its driver was up to no good and
>> that it would be prudent for me to increase my speed to whatever was necessary
>> for me to leave him behind.
...or until you felt you were going too fast for the current conditions, presumably?
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 29 Apr 10 at 14:49
|
|
Purely an excuse. Lets face it he was showing off or racing the "apparent" other car.
|
Good Lord..there's the beginnings of some common sense come into this thread..and a slight drift away from the 'Speed Kills' propaganda and all speeding is wrong...whatever next?
....maybe some comment about 'speed for the circumstances' and encouraging people to 'drive to the conditions'..and 'constantly re-assess the hazards, so the speed could go up (or down)'...and the lowish limits we have in this country are set for a lowest common denominator risk assessment, not necessarily for realistic road conditions
..oh and I agree the Squaddy in the ST was driving too fast
|
When I used to drive from South London to Cornwall in the 80's I would always keep the needle between 90 - 95.
I never got done for speeding until I moved to Cornwall in the mate 90's,
they got me on the A30 near the Jamaica Inn doing 98.
I drove my Supra at about 140 on the A20 near Brands Hatch - I knew I was breaking the law (and some)
if I was caught I would have excepted the outcome.
|
|
L'escargot - what's the difference between 'deliberately following me' and 'doing the same speed behind me'? Pull over, slow down, and you'd find out.....
|
>> L'escargot - what's the difference between 'deliberately following me' and 'doing the same speed behind
>> me'? Pull over slow down and you'd find out.....
>>
That's the situation under which I would "...... have no intention of confronting a stranger who might be younger, bigger, stronger, fitter, and more aggressive than me and who might be carrying an offensive weapon." If someone is deliberately following me in an unmarked car, then I'm certainly not going to stop and ask what they want. As I said before, all police cars that are trailing another vehicle should be clearly marked. It's unreasonable for them to do it in an unmarked car.
|
>> If someone is deliberately following me in an unmarked car
>> then I'm certainly not going to stop and ask what they want.
If you just keep going at your chosen speed, what is it that you are worried might happen?
|
>> As I said before all police cars that are trailing another vehicle should be
>> clearly marked. It's unreasonable for them to do it in an unmarked car.
I don't see how that is workable until all of the criminals start driving around in black and white striped cars, all the speeders paint on go-faster stripes, and the drink drivers have their cars sponsored by Jack Daniels.
|
>> >> As I said before all police cars that are trailing another vehicle should be
>>
>> >> clearly marked. It's unreasonable for them to do it in an unmarked car.
>>
>> I don't see how that is workable ...........
A visible police presence (in a marked car) would reduce the number of cars speeding, and that would be better than catching speeding cars with an unmarked police car.
|
>> A visible police presence (in a marked car) would reduce the number of cars speeding
>> and that would be better than catching speeding cars with an unmarked police car.
Which is exactly why you need unmarked cars; no marked car = floor it!!!
|
>> A visible police presence (in a marked car) would reduce the number of cars speeding
>> and that would be better than catching speeding cars with an unmarked police car.
It would reduce the number of cars speeding, when the police car was present, but not when it wasn't.
If you want to reduce the number of people doing something, those people have to have a constant fear that they might get caught, which can only happen if they don't know when they are and aren't being observed.
You can see that from marked speed cameras, people just brake for them and then speed up.
I don't see the problem with unmarked cars, seem sensible to me.
|
Most police officers have to be omni-competent, particularly so nowadays...so traffic police out in an unmarked car can also cover crime work.
To the observant they are not hard to spot either.
|
>> Most police officers have to be omni-competent particularly so nowadays...so traffic police out in an
>> unmarked car can also cover crime work.
>>
>> To the observant they are not hard to spot either.
Makes me remember the time, a few years back in Central London, when I was waiting at the corner to cross the road. The lights had turned red ages back, but there was no traffic coming from the left or right, so a guy decided to proceed across the stop line and over the junction anyway. Not surprisingly the very clearly marked police car directly behind him switched on his blue lights and gave a blast on the siren.
What surprised me more, when I crossed to the other side of the road to the point at which the miscreant had pulled over, was to hear, in response to the officer pointing out the offence, the driver loudly claiming that he had definitely not passed a red light...maybe he honestly thought he hadn't, which says even less for his observation skills. :)
|
...To the observant they are not hard to spot either...
The only silver three series BMW with a driver using his indicators?
|
I'm ex-REME and was also a vehicle mechanic, admittedly back in the days when Centurion was a rank not a tank!. Didn't stop the magistrates banning me when I was stupid enough to be caught driving my mate's Beetle without insurance; he told me I was covered and I believed him.
Bad judgement by the beak IMO; he should at least have been given a nominal ban.
Tempted to wonder, perhaps with a touch of cynicism, if he'd have received similar leniency had he been on a motorbike?
Last edited by: Harleyman on Sun 2 May 10 at 21:43
|
>> Tempted to wonder perhaps with a touch of cynicism if he'd have received similar leniency had he been on a motorbike?
>>
I think you're right Harleyman. For some u/k reason there's still a fair chunk of society that think bikers are related to Satan in this country...yet when you travel through France or Spain people bother to wave and smile at you, people of all ages.
|
Blackburn soldier driving at 143mph escapes ban - Tooslow
