The thing is that very high speed on a public road is being treated as worse than crimes that do considerably more damage. When, of course, very high speed on public roads does not do any damage at all unless the speeder hits someone or something. So, had Tex O'Reilly actually been convicted of doing 173mph he would have got two years in prison, at the taxpayers expense.
Where's the sense in that?
The sense is that this would have helped perpetuate the false premise that 'speed kills', which is the justification for fining two million motorists a year £60 for doing 35 in a 30.
The alternative to a £60 fine and points is sometimes a 'speed awareness course', costing the miscreant anything from £60 to £120 (but no points) in which drivers are fed the notion that a car travelling at 35mph will still be doing 21mph at the point where a car doing 30mph would have stopped.
I'd like to see that put to the test, and I know exactly the place to do it: Mercedes Benz World, Brooklands, which has a brake testing facility.
So come on. Me against the Backroom police officers. I will prove that even my tiddly FIAT 500 will be doing a lot less than 21mph braking from 35 than it would at the point it had stopped completely from 30. And I invite you guys to prove otherwise.
If I'm wrong, I'll attempt to eat one of my hats, just as long as you pre-agree, if you are proved wrong, that you will attempt to eat one of yours.
HJ
Edited by Honestjohn on 24/03/2009 at 06:37
|
So, had Tex O'Brian actually been convicted of doing 173mph he would have got two years in prison, at the taxpayers expense.
What's the sense in that?
To teach him a lesson and deter others. Thats the point of a custodial sentence. To lock away those that pose a threat and break the rules to such an extent. Because believe me, he wont be deterred by this outcome, in my opinion.
Remember. It probably wasn't the first time he did this, it was the first time he was caught.
Edited by Honestjohn on 24/03/2009 at 06:37
|
|
|
|
The argument that very high speeds do no damage is an absurdity from the motoring loony right, that avoids the underlying issue. Excess speed reduces the capability of the driver to take alternative measures. It is risible to suggest that the police should act only after an injury. Part of their job is to prevent accidents and speed plays a significant part.
|
|
|
