nas80
Part of things
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 363
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 16:00:25 GMT
|
he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, therefore he was subjected to the minimum punishment which i think is exactly what he got. Had he pleaded not guilty and then said that the only failure was for tyres then he might have just got 3 points and then let off the rest with a defect order.
in the article he says that he is an enthusiast - i would disagree.
in my opinion a true enthusiast makes sure the car is tip top enough to be on the road even if you happy for it to look like a shed.
|
|
|
|
|
nas80
Part of things
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 363
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 16:06:50 GMT
|
more i think of it the more I'm convincing myself that matey was given the wrong charge. he should have been done for driving a dangerous vehicle* and not dangerous driving.
also the title of this thread makes out that because he was driving a MODDED (hate that bloody word) CAR that is the reason he was banned... That's not really correct and almost as sensationalist as the bloody daily fail plagiarism,
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2015 16:08:20 GMT by nas80
|
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 16:15:25 GMT
|
he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, therefore he was subjected to the minimum punishment which i think is exactly what he got. Had he pleaded not guilty and then said that the only failure was for tyres then he might have just got 3 points and then let off the rest with a defect order. in the article he says that he is an enthusiast - i would disagree. in my opinion a true enthusiast makes sure the car is tip top enough to be on the road even if you happy for it to look like a shed. Whether you like it or not he is an enthusiast: "a person who is very interested in a particular activity or subject" Do him for bald tyres yes, the rest of it? crazy unfair IMO.
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,749
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
Modded car - driver banned !Dez
@dez
Club Retro Rides Member 34
|
Mar 10, 2015 16:32:39 GMT
|
1. His car is major cop bait. If he can't manage to at least keep tyres legal (as its always the first thing they look at on a tug), he's gunna find himself in trouble. It's almost too easy for them if you drive with tyres like that. But, he held his hands up to that, so fair enough. There's no way he was going home with less than 9 points though.
2 . What he should NOT have done, is admitted to dangerous driving. He basically convicted himself by doing so. With no evidence he'd have got off with that easily with appropriate legal representation. As noted the charge would be 'found Incharge of a defective motor vehicle' or similar, a much lesser charge.
3. His lawyer must have been pretty curse word.
4. Daily mail readers hate everyone and everything ( except princess Diana, cos she was an angel and all that), so the tone of the article is hardly surprising.
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2015 16:34:12 GMT by Dez
|
|
Ryannn
Posted a lot
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 2,421
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 16:33:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
nas80
Part of things
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 363
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 16:40:51 GMT
|
OH?!
if he's that enthusiastic then for him partake in the activity to drive it on the road he must also ensure its legally allowed to be on the actual road yeh? therefore not an enthusiast but id say this guy is an utter fool.
Why are you crying about it being unfair?
did you know that he PLEADED GUILTY TO DANGEROUS DRIVING -
Do you know what that charge means in terms of a penalty? hit with a book cos that's what it means matey.
Even if - the court some reason wanted to give him a lesser sentencing they couldn't because he had PLEADED GUILTY TO DANGEROUS DRIVING lol.
that's why the guys clearly an idiot. ill put it in a list
1. eye catching car 2. driving a vehicle that's got no tread whatsoever 3. pleading guilty without reading up on the consequences of that charge and making sure its the correct one. 4. he isn't being made an example of, unfortunately the general public will see him making an example of everyone else in this community - probably.
irony of it all that hes been asked to drive that as part of a funeral prosession, had there been a spot of rain, could have easily lost control and there could be another funeral shortly after!
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2015 16:45:29 GMT by nas80
|
|
THE_Liam
Yorkshire and The Humber
If at first you don't succeed... HAMMERS.
Posts: 1,363
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 16:57:18 GMT
|
So, this is from the CPS website:
Dangerous Driving The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the RTA 1988 is committed when a persons standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Dangerous driving is an either way offence carrying a level 5 fine and/or 6 months custody in the magistrates court.
In the CROWN Court, the maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
Wherever the case is dealt with, the court must disqualify the driver from driving for at least a year and order an extended retest (section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). Where "special reasons" are found for not disqualifying the court must endorse the drivers licence with 3-11 penalty points unless there are, again, "special reasons" for not doing so.
Prosecutors should note the following relevant factors:
Both parts of the definition must be satisfied for the driving to be "dangerous" within the meaning of the Act - Section 2A(1) of the RTA 1988. There is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but "dangerous" must refer to danger of personal injury or of serious damage to property - Section 2A(3) of the RTA 1988. Section 2A(2) of the RTA 1988 provides that a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous. Skill (or indeed lack of skill) of a driver is an irrelevant circumstance when considering whether the driving is dangerous. R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571
I'm no legal expert but I think the key sentence here is:
"Section 2A(2) of the RTA 1988 provides that a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous."
I reckon that's what they've got him on, because to a competent and careful driver 3 bald tyres is obviously dangerous. The rest of the curse word that the daily fail are sensationalising as usual is completely irrelevant.
It seems harsh, but to be fair 3 bald, as in not just a bit worn but fully bald tyres, is pretty bloody lethal, and I'm not surprised he pled guilty to that.
Lesson is, make sure your car is at least visibly legal, because they are going to start cracking down on this stuff to drive us off the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 17:00:04 GMT
|
OH?! if he's that enthusiastic then for him partake in the activity to drive it on the road he must also ensure its legally allowed to be on the actual road yeh? therefore not an enthusiast but id say this guy is an utter fool. Why are you crying about it being unfair? did you know that he PLEADED GUILTY TO DANGEROUS DRIVING - Do you know what that charge means in terms of a penalty? hit with a book cos that's what it means matey. Even if - the court some reason wanted to give him a lesser sentencing they couldn't because he had PLEADED GUILTY TO DANGEROUS DRIVING lol. that's why the guys clearly an idiot. ill put it in a list 1. eye catching car 2. driving a vehicle that's got no tread whatsoever 3. pleading guilty without reading up on the consequences of that charge and making sure its the correct one. 4. he isn't being made an example of, unfortunately the general public will see him making an example of everyone else in this community - probably. irony of it all that hes been asked to drive that as part of a funeral prosession, had there been a spot of rain, could have easily lost control and there could be another funeral shortly after! Who says I'm crying about anything? Just picking you up on the meaning of entusiast... you don't like it so spit your dummy out and go all keyboard warrior with some spittle flecked rant... 3/10 for rantage, more CAPS LOcK next time please..and more !!!!!!!111111, cheers. oh and your point '4' was the point i made on page one..... end of a bell....
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2015 17:01:42 GMT by classof82: stuff
|
|
nas80
Part of things
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 363
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 17:02:12 GMT
|
i aint man, I'm telling you that your being a bit selective about your opinion hence the caps, i wasn't shouting just trying to be clear that DANGEROUS DRIVING is serious - crazy unfair?! no way i think they were about right.
he would have known he had dodgy tyres, and driving with a pregnant lady (if its true) - is stupid as.
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2015 17:05:37 GMT by nas80
|
|
mk14dr
Yorkshire and The Humber
Posts: 4,472
Club RR Member Number: 85
|
Modded car - driver banned !mk14dr
@mk14dr
Club Retro Rides Member 85
|
Mar 10, 2015 17:26:39 GMT
|
Well this is beginning descend into name calling so I'd say we're done here. ![](http://www.spacetimestudios.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10435&d=1336404611)
|
|
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2015 17:27:09 GMT by mk14dr
|
|
|
THE_Liam
Yorkshire and The Humber
If at first you don't succeed... HAMMERS.
Posts: 1,363
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 17:29:19 GMT
|
Can we PLEASE not have a thread locked because a minority can't keep it civil? Why not just remove the daft posts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 17:33:50 GMT
|
And thought the ford lot were childish.
|
|
|
|
mk14dr
Yorkshire and The Humber
Posts: 4,472
Club RR Member Number: 85
|
Modded car - driver banned !mk14dr
@mk14dr
Club Retro Rides Member 85
|
Mar 10, 2015 17:35:09 GMT
|
I agree, this could be a civil discussion over this case and perhaps a broader discussion about what constitutes legal when you flirt with the letter of the law with our modified cars.
However, there has been examples of name calling already and as tempers fray and ego's get bruised is usually ends up with vitriol and nastiness being the name of the game. As such, the MO says the situation requires cats, so that is what I provided.
|
|
|
|
THE_Liam
Yorkshire and The Humber
If at first you don't succeed... HAMMERS.
Posts: 1,363
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 17:41:29 GMT
|
Well let's be fair here, there aren't many internet-based situations where cat memes are a bad idea...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 17:47:01 GMT
|
Not really much left to add to this discussion as the car had 3 bald tyres & guy admitted to dangerous driving due to this fact, resulting in a ban. curse word "news"paper did curse word pointy finger article. So have an Apt Cat Meme: ![](http://treasure.diylol.com/uploads/post/image/471757/resized_i-should-buy-a-boat-cat-meme-generator-i-should-get-a-drift-car-8fa438.jpg) *Yes but, make sure your legal if you drive it on the road...
|
|
|
|
dw1603
Part of things
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 591
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 18:55:02 GMT
|
I shouldn't think there is a person on here who thinks he didn't deserve a nicking,that is beyond doubt. Given that he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving, the info supplied by THE Liam suggests that the court treated him fairly, so no bias there then. What concerns me is why the Police chose to charge him with dangerous driving in the first place, that seems malicious. I know we are talking North Wales here, but did he get the same treatment that a respectable Daily Mail reader in four year old Mondeo would have received in similar cicumstnces? I suspect not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 19:14:45 GMT
|
I have no sympathy with him for the bald tyres, the rest, i don't know enough to comment. However i will say, if you drive something that is 'different' and 'stands out' then you should expect the attention you get from admirers, detracters and the police.
I hope his insurance were notified of his 'modifications' .......
Any mods i did on my motors,were always run past the insurance company first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 19:18:30 GMT
|
Dangerous driving ffs where do they get off, he should have had points for the tyres and a defect notice on the rest of the stuff, oh my how the daily mail have inflated the story they may as well of made the headline "young dangerous driver eats babies and bought ebola to Wales killing nuns and kittens" to give the story a bigger impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 19:20:53 GMT
|
So, this is from the CPS website: I'm no legal expert but I think the key sentence here is: "Section 2A(2) of the RTA 1988 provides that a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous." I think this is the reason for the dangerous driving charge tbh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 10, 2015 19:37:35 GMT
|
To be honest, it doesn't look like an enthusiasts car. It looks like a car that is being run into the ground before being scrapped.
Having owned numerous BMW's, I'm still confused at the "common fault" they have with the handbrake?
An MOT two months previous to being pulled, would have highlighted all of his issues.
His tyres, being that he "drifts and does burnouts", should have been one of his top priorities.
Having said that, he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving. He got the punishment for this. Had he not been driving dangerously, he shouldn't have entered this plea, simples!
|
|
|
|
|