Tempting TOG - last chance to experience the joys of 350 Morini ownership before Chilling out

1) my understanding is that magistrates wouldn't touch it with a
bargepole anyway. they'd hear the initial plea and then send it straight
up for trial or sentencing (depending on the plea).

2) it doesn't matter whether it'd automatically go up, the defendant
would always have the right to request trial by jury for an either-way
offence such as dangerous driving.

 

Lets remember the context of this discussion, though I know it's
wandered a bit: a JOG-LE run. I suspect massive wheelies won't be
relevant and filtering would be enthusiastic but not downright
dangerous.

And you're listing aggravating factors - the list I gave above wasn't
exhaustive, thus the 'etc'.

I've yet to see any example of someone being found guilty, at trial, of
dangerous driving for speeding alone. Period.

Quite. There's a world of difference between careless and dangerous, as
far as sentencing goes. The latter is potentially custodial and carries
a mandatory ban with extended retest. Yet every time we have an armchair
lawyer session like this about big speeding, people start chucking
potential dangerous charges around like confetti. It's daft.

 

Indeed, context is everything. Grey Leader on such a mission would be
concentrating on achieving the goal, not showboating.

Good point, fairly made, such a useful word etc.

Long may it remain so. I see they still have a "speed dangerous to the
public" offence in the Antipodes.

Indeed. The "without due care and attention" can be very widely
interpreted, but at least disqualification isn't mandatory.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

To a certain extent, maybe.

What's made this dangerous I wonder? Because it *had* rained?

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/2170377.jury_finds_115mph_dad_guilty_of_dangerous_driving/


And then there's always stories like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/303005.stm
"145mph not dangerous driving - court"

 

Possibly, but the 135mph blokey with the years ban had a not guilty plea
to dangerous accepted in the same sheriff's court.
Hmmm, wonder if that was down to an implicit plea bargain or if the PF
had brought the dangerous charges without any useful evidence to support
them..

My mate that got the jail for dangerous driving had his case shunted up
from Paisley Sheriff's Court to the High Court in Edinburgh, which would
support the contention that, unless you're pleading guilty, a serious[1]
prosecution for dangerous will see a jury.

Bob

[1] as opposed to one that is merely a hopeful extra charge

 

Poor visibility? Wet road, lots of spray, fading light. Spurious though,
it's the first case I've seen of a jury convicting of dangerous for what
was basically a straight speeding offence.

Note that all he got was a ban and a fine though. No prison time.

 

I've been charged for Dangerous Driving for speeding alone in Scotland, the
circumstances being there were two vehicles and we were in a convoy of 2.
They claimed Dangerous and Racing on the Public highway.
I didn't know the other driver and were were just cruising along, not
playing games. Speed was clocked at 118-128 variable.

The Trial was shelved for reasons I've alluded to here before, but if it had
and 2 Hossifers had testified, my Brief warned it was a shoe in with 6
months plus. Hence I waited it out abroad.

 

@news.eternal-september.org:

They pushed for dangerous but knew that unless he coughed to it there

the scope for plea bargaining can only increase, the way they are closing
courts around here. The CPS are going to be begging defendants not to take
cases to trial. Plus, with fewer traffic cops on the road, the quality of
evidence will be reduced as witnesses will be giving opinion from CCTV or
"after the fact" accident reports.

 

I regularly used M4 and M25 (although mostly the bit from M4 to T5).

Not had any problems. And regularly did indicated speeds in excess of
120. So Not questioning whether Champ's time can be beaten. I am
questioning the use of speed cameras on Motorways.

I don't recall every hearing of anyone getting done by them.

 

I know someone who got done by them on the M4 over Newport way.

 

won't happen on a bike now - gatsos replaced with forward facing average
speed jobs. PITA in a car, mind.

They've erected M25 style gantries[1] for variable speed limits.
Hopefully that will mean the current 50mph limit will be ditched except
for peak flow once it is all switched on.

[1] complete with speed camera signs & dotted marks in the road but no
hardware in the gantry, cheeky fuckers

 

A work colleague got nabbed by the gantry ones on the M25, 58 IIRC
when the 50 was in force.

 

writes

Not in this part of the UK

 

But you don't have magistrates, do you? Therefore it's perfectly
reasonable to suggest that where a magistrate is involved, pert of
his/her job is as described.

<aside>

Bloody furriners.

 

Off-road tracks? Is that what the M25 and M4 are called nowadays?