Quote:
Originally Posted by i4n
But it isn't speeding though, is it? It's dangerous driving and that's where the sentence and ban come from. Come on, just think about it for a moment - in the case quoted from the BBC he was doing 106MPH over the speed limit.
In Lee's friends case it's even worse - >140MPH in a 30MPH zone, >110MPH over the limit. Think about it for a moment - that's AT LEAST 40MPH over the speed limit FOR A MOTORWAY in this country.
IMO, it's fully justified. If you're reckless and dangerous enough to do things like that then I'm afraid it's a time in chokey for you, simple. I know I posted the link earlier about the Solicitor but I truly believe the guy (or gal!) should get whatever the court decides they deserve.
You may not agree with the limits that are set (especially on the motorway) but they have to abided by, or face the consequences. I do a lot of miles with my job (mainly dual carriageways and motorways) and I stick to the limits, but it amazes me the amount of people that don't.
BTW - this is me speaking as someone who has hit a child in a 30MPH zone when they ran out into the road in front of me from between two parked cars (I was doing just under 30MPH as I was accelerating away from a roundabout). The child survived with relatively minor injuries but I felt like crap for ages after, even though it wasn't my fault. Now imagine the same scenario if I was doing 60MPH, let alone 140MPH. How would you like it if it was your child that was hit?
|
ah but if you had have been doing 60 or 140, you would have been long gone before he ran out.
there for speed would have resulted in no accident!!!