Apparently...

cabledonuts

...he thinks this was not dangerous driving - 47mph in a 30mph zone, whilst approaching a set of lights which were changing to red (and according to witnesses already had changed to red) while pedestrians were already crossing. Tit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7056525.stm

Bradshawgate in Bolton runs through the middle of the town and there are plenty of people about due to the adjacent offices, bars, shops, taxi ranks with taxis doing U-turns, etc. Some may argue 47mph in a 30mph zone is not necessarily dangerous but considering the surroundings along this stretch of road it most definitely is.

Richrd2205

He said it reached 0-60 in 7.2 seconds which was "just like an average car"

Aye right...
I quite liked him as working class hero, despite hating boxing, but this case degrades any respect I may have had
cabledonuts I salute your take on his character: I think you understate it a wee bit but....

A motorist saw a man being thrown in the air after boxer Amir Khan's car sped past her, a court has heard

A reason to increase testing standards?????
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manc ... 049220.stm )
Matt & Whitley will supply flames soon, I'm sure...

carlstone

Well I must hold my hands up and say that when I was a young lad I drove like a pr1ck a lot of the time (until finally being nicked for speeding). That was in a 1300 fiesta.

What you have here is a young lad in a Porsche/Mercedes/Ferrari (probably).

Whilst in no way condoning his actions, he has held his hands up.

The problem is these days because of t0ssers like Clarkson it is seen as relatively acceptable (akin to getting a parking fine) to get pulled for speeding. What we really need is for speeding to be seen (by the public and criminal justice system) in the same light as drinking and driving. Then incidents like this will reduce.

Eat My Dust

It's a shame that the Mr Hatton wasn't of the "Ricky" variety, that would have been interesting!!

top_bhoy

He should be looking at a custodial sentence for such driving. Its as if they are scared to put such idiots away for fear of overloading prisons, whilst society has to suffer the consequences for face saving Govt policy!!.

Speeding down a high street, jumping red lights, not being aware of road conditions and other road users........and I wonder what he means by

"It was too late to stop," Mr Khan said.
"If I had braked I would have ended up in the middle of the junction.
"I decided to just carry straight on and manoeuvred the car to the left."

What was wrong with ending up in the middle of the junction - I'm sure Mr Hatton would have preferred that option than being mowed down by a BMW. If Khan wasn't jumping a red light at speed, being in the junction surely wouldn't have been a problem, would it?

Eat My Dust

Not guilty.........I bet if it had been the "nasty" Naseem Hamed they would have found him guilty, but not our little hero. My faith in the UK justice system has been restored fully!!

top_bhoy

A fully predictable verdict....just another arrrogant little bastard with the morals of a sewer rat!

formerlyknownasbonj

Eat My Dust wrote:

Not guilty.........I bet if it had been the "nasty" Naseem Hamed they would have found him guilty, but not our little hero. My faith in the UK justice system has been restored fully!!

to be fair Naz's crash did do a LOT more damage to the victim. and his crash was sheer recklessness, i ride down that road regularly and 50 is quite fast, never mind 90 - it's narrow, undulating and the surface isn't great. In a LHD drive car aswell, imho naz should never be allowed to drive again the tosser.

Eat My Dust

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

Not guilty.........I bet if it had been the "nasty" Naseem Hamed they would have found him guilty, but not our little hero. My faith in the UK justice system has been restored fully!!

to be fair Naz's crash did do a LOT more damage to the victim. and his crash was sheer recklessness, i ride down that road regularly and 50 is quite fast, never mind 90 - it's narrow, undulating and the surface isn't great. In a LHD drive car aswell, imho naz should never be allowed to drive again the tosser.

I wasn't comparing it Naz's crash. I was trying to say that Khan is Englands little hero, while Naz (who was certainly the better of the 2 boxers) was hated by the press. I think if it had been Naz in the same position, the outcome would have been different.

formerlyknownasbonj

Eat My Dust wrote:

I wasn't comparing it Naz's crash. I was trying to say that Khan is Englands little hero, while Naz (who was certainly the better of the 2 boxers) was hated by the press. I think if it had been Naz in the same position, the outcome would have been different.

it's fair to say his "little hero"-ness could have had an influence, but that doesn't automatically mean the verdict was wrong.
Most people, dare I say it especially people on cycling forums, are all to quick to forget that the punishment for motoring offences is a function of the actual action that was committed, not the outcome.

formerlyknownasbonj

Top_Bhoy wrote:

A fully predictable verdict....just another arrrogant little bastard with the morals of a sewer rat!

what was he supposed to do then, plead with the judge to send him to prison?:roll:

Eat My Dust

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

I wasn't comparing it Naz's crash. I was trying to say that Khan is Englands little hero, while Naz (who was certainly the better of the 2 boxers) was hated by the press. I think if it had been Naz in the same position, the outcome would have been different.

it's fair to say his "little hero"-ness could have had an influence, but that doesn't automatically mean the verdict was wrong.

You agree with the verdict then?

It's just another example of a weak justice system that doesn't really want to prosecute drivers properly as "most" people drive.

Another thing, shouldn't drivers have to take a variety of driving tests depending on size and power of cars, don't they have to do that for motorbikes?

Eat My Dust

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

A fully predictable verdict....just another arrrogant little bastard with the morals of a sewer rat!

what was he supposed to do then, plead with the judge to send him to prison?:roll:

How about accepting the charge on the chin ( ) instead of hiding behind his lawyers robe!

formerlyknownasbonj

Eat My Dust wrote:

You agree with the verdict then?

I'm not saying I agree with the sentence, but I would have to say I think I agree with the verdict, given how the distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving is currently defined in law. (Described here, but I think the site's down at the minute).
Like I say, it's all to easy to forget or be unwilling to separate the legal definition of dangerous from the emotive/'common sense' definition of dangerous.
Purely the legal definition applies when deciding whether the verdict was correct or not.

Eat My Dust wrote:

It's just another example of a weak justice system that doesn't really want to prosecute drivers properly as "most" people drive.

Give details of what YOU think the verdict and sentence should have been then please, if you had the privilege of being 'judge jury and executioner', so to speak.

Eat My Dust wrote:

Another thing, shouldn't drivers have to take a variety of driving tests depending on size and power of cars, don't they have to do that for motorbikes?

Possibly. I personally don't think there's much point to powerful cars AT ALL on britain's roads. Maybe france and italy in the alps, etc. but in britain? FFS come on. Why does ANYBODY need a bloody V8 to drive through the middle of bolton.

formerlyknownasbonj

Eat My Dust wrote:

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

A fully predictable verdict....just another arrrogant little bastard with the morals of a sewer rat!

what was he supposed to do then, plead with the judge to send him to prison?:roll:

How about accepting the charge on the chin ( ) instead of hiding behind his lawyers robe!

he got banned FFS! what more do you want? Let's not forget that if he got sent to prison then a violent criminal or paedo would have to be let out to make way for him 'cos the prisons are full.

Eat My Dust

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

A fully predictable verdict....just another arrrogant little bastard with the morals of a sewer rat!

what was he supposed to do then, plead with the judge to send him to prison?:roll:

How about accepting the charge on the chin ( ) instead of hiding behind his lawyers robe!

he got banned FFS! what more do you want? Let's not forget that if he got sent to prison then a violent criminal or paedo would have to be let out to make way for him 'cos the prisons are full.

Hmm I never realised he had been banned, the news report I saw yesterday only said he had been found not guilty, it didn't mention the ban, so I suppose it's not all that bad. I still think he was treated differently because of who he is, BTW, when is Pete Townshend's "research project" going to be finished?

formerlyknownasbonj

Eat My Dust wrote:

Hmm I never realised he had been banned, the news report I saw yesterday only said he had been found not guilty, it didn't mention the ban, so I suppose it's not all that bad. I still think he was treated differently because of who he is, BTW, when is Pete Townshend's "research project" going to be finished?

but you're still spouting off without qualifying your opinion. If you think he was treated differently, what sentence/verdict do you think he should have got?! Or, if it makes it any easier for you what sentence/verdict do you think he would have got if he'd been Joe Public?

formerlyknownasbonj

Eat My Dust wrote:

Hmm I never realised he had been banned, the news report I saw yesterday only said he had been found not guilty

yes, of dangerous driving. He was still convicted of careless driving.

Eat My Dust

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

Hmm I never realised he had been banned, the news report I saw yesterday only said he had been found not guilty, it didn't mention the ban, so I suppose it's not all that bad. I still think he was treated differently because of who he is, BTW, when is Pete Townshend's "research project" going to be finished?

but you're still spouting off without qualifying your opinion. If you think he was treated differently, what sentence/verdict do you think he should have got?! Or, if it makes it any easier for you what sentence/verdict do you think he would have got if he'd been Joe Public?

Can't you work that one out!?!?!? If I think he was treated differently, and he was found not guilty, then if he was joe public, he would have been found........wait for it.........guilty.

spen666

Eat My Dust wrote:

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

Eat My Dust wrote:

Hmm I never realised he had been banned, the news report I saw yesterday only said he had been found not guilty, it didn't mention the ban, so I suppose it's not all that bad. I still think he was treated differently because of who he is, BTW, when is Pete Townshend's "research project" going to be finished?

but you're still spouting off without qualifying your opinion. If you think he was treated differently, what sentence/verdict do you think he should have got?! Or, if it makes it any easier for you what sentence/verdict do you think he would have got if he'd been Joe Public?

Can't you work that one out!?!?!? If I think he was treated differently, and he was found not guilty, then if he was joe public, he would have been found........wait for it.........guilty.

He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of careless driving, which he did before the trial on the alternative charge of dangerous driving.

His being found not guilty by a jury of 12 members of the public was not unsuprising. It happens regularly. Thread on here yesterday referredto HGV driver who was fined & not banned after killing cyclist as he drove, whilst looking in his cab for some papers.
Was he treated differently as well?

Treated differently by whom?
Khan was found NG by a jury, not by the police, cps or the judge

Eat My Dust

spen666 wrote:

Treated differently by whom?
Khan was found NG by a jury, not by the police, cps or the judge

I was actually talking about the jury. The police and CPS obviously thought he was guilty of the dangerous driving or the charge wouldn't have stood, would it?

formerlyknownasbonj

Eat My Dust wrote:

Can't you work that one out!?!?!? If I think he was treated differently, and he was found not guilty, then if he was joe public, he would have been found........wait for it.........guilty.

You can't possibly know that.

So you presumably think he should have got found guilty of dangerous driving. What sentence would you have liked to seem him get then?

Eat My Dust

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

So you presumably think he should have got found guilty of dangerous driving. What sentence would you have liked to seem him get then?

Now we are getting somewhere.

With regard to the sentence, somewhere between a 12 month ban and a 2 year custodial sentence, isn't that what a dangerous driving conviction holds?

spen666

Eat My Dust wrote:

formerlyknownasbonj wrote:

So you presumably think he should have got found guilty of dangerous driving. What sentence would you have liked to seem him get then?

Now we are getting somewhere.

With regard to the sentence, somewhere between a 12 month ban and a 2 year custodial sentence, isn't that what a dangerous driving conviction holds?

But as his driving was not dangerous in law, he wouldn't be sentenced for it.

To get a ban for careless driving alone is unusual. He has received a lengthy sentence for the offence he was convicted of.


BTW The CPS would proceed on the case if they think there is a realistic prospect of conviction. This is slightly different from thinking he is guilty.

Eat My Dust

spen666 wrote:

To get a ban for careless driving alone is unusual. He has received a lengthy sentence for the offence he was convicted of.


BTW The CPS would proceed on the case if they think there is a realistic prospect of conviction. This is slightly different from thinking he is guilty.

Does that mean that the judge in his wisdom, possibly though the Khan should have been found guilty of the original charge, thus giving him a "harsh" sentence for the careless driving I wonder?

On the 2nd point, I should have worded that differently, sorry.

spen666

Eat My Dust wrote:

spen666 wrote:

To get a ban for careless driving alone is unusual. He has received a lengthy sentence for the offence he was convicted of.


BTW The CPS would proceed on the case if they think there is a realistic prospect of conviction. This is slightly different from thinking he is guilty.

Does that mean that the judge in his wisdom, possibly though the Khan should have been found guilty of the original charge, thus giving him a "harsh" sentence for the careless driving I wonder?

I wondered that myself. For a single offence of careless driving, the sentence appears harsh in light of other sentences.

I can't possibly comment on what the Judge actually thought- draw your own conclusions

On the 2nd point, I should have worded that differently, sorry.

I was just making clear to people, perhaps it seems pedantic, but the CPS do not just prosecute racing certainties

jedster

I don't understand why this wasn't dangerous driving.

As I understand the principle,

careless driving is when you make an unintentional mistake - e.g., a SMIDSY - you should have looked more carefully but you didn't, you never meant to pull out into the path of a cyclist

But Khan crossed a pedestrian crossing, on the wrong-side of the road, at 47 mph in a 30mph zone. That's not a moment of carelessness, it's a conscious decision to drive far too fast for the conditions. Surely?

IT's one thing to not stop and a ped crossing at 30 mph or even 35 mph ("I didn't see the ped, I didn't realise my speed") but how can you make that argument about what he did. How could you not KNOW that what you were doing was dangerous?

Genuinely confused about how the law is supposed to work here. I did follow Bonj's link but it didn't really help much.

As for the sentence - the ban is too short compare it to 4 speeding tickets for doing 80mph on a clear M25 which would give you a 1 year ban.

J

spen666

jedster wrote:

I don't understand why this wasn't dangerous driving.

As I understand the principle,

careless driving is when you make an unintentional mistake - e.g., a SMIDSY - you should have looked more carefully but you didn't, you never meant to pull out into the path of a cyclist

But Khan crossed a pedestrian crossing, on the wrong-side of the road, at 47 mph in a 30mph zone. That's not a moment of carelessness, it's a conscious decision to drive far too fast for the conditions. Surely?

IT's one thing to not stop and a ped crossing at 30 mph or even 35 mph ("I didn't see the ped, I didn't realise my speed") but how can you make that argument about what he did. How could you not KNOW that what you were doing was dangerous?

Genuinely confused about how the law is supposed to work here. I did follow Bonj's link but it didn't really help much.

...

J

Read what I posted for your understanding.

Dangerous driving is where the standard of driving falls far below the standard of the reasonably competent driver.

Careless driving is where the standard of driving falls below the standard of the reasonably competent driver


Instead of following the link posted by someone who doesn't practice in this field of law- try reading the explanation of someone with 20+ years experience of criminal law work

spen666

jedster wrote:

...As for the sentence - the ban is too short compare it to 4 speeding tickets for doing 80mph on a clear M25 which would give you a 1 year ban.

J

The sentence is far higher than would normally be given for the offence of which he was convicted ie careless driving.

It is rare to get a ban for careless driving alone (as opposed to totting up).

jedster

spen,

thanks but it doesn't help me much

<i>Dangerous driving is where the standard of driving falls far below the standard of the reasonably competent driver. </i>

sure this is "far below". It's certainly far below the standard I would expect of a reasonaably competent driver.

47mph vs 30mph that's bad - either he didnt realise he was doing more than 50% more than the limit in a buildt-up area, which is deeply incompetent. Or he did and didn't give a toss - which questions whether he is emotionally suitable to hold a license.

Overtaking cars stopped at a ped crossing. You what?!!?? It's bad not to see that there is a ped crossing. It's bad to overtake without carefully assessing the risks. Combining the two? Absolutely terrible.

I think what this shows is that we, as a society are far too tolerant of drivers who gamble with other people's lives. More this than anything about they way we treat celebrities.

J

spen666

jedster wrote:

spen,

thanks but it doesn't help me much

Better ask Parliament to change the law then. I am simply reciting what the law is

<i>Dangerous driving is where the standard of driving falls far below the standard of the reasonably competent driver. </i>

sure this is "far below". It's certainly far below the standard I would expect of a reasonaably competent driver.

47mph vs 30mph that's bad - either he didnt realise he was doing more than 50% more than the limit in a buildt-up area, which is deeply incompetent. Or he did and didn't give a toss - which questions whether he is emotionally suitable to hold a license.

Overtaking cars stopped at a ped crossing. You what?!!?? It's bad not to see that there is a ped crossing. It's bad to overtake without carefully assessing the risks. Combining the two? Absolutely terrible.

I think what this shows is that we, as a society are far too tolerant of drivers who gamble with other people's lives. More this than anything about they way we treat celebrities.

J

This is nothing to do with being a celebrity, it is to do with the standards we expect of motorists