Grenfell speeder

Breaking the law is rarely a black and white thing, there are almost always various mitigating circumstances and so on which is why we have the judicial system and a network of magistrates and judges who make decisions on a case by case basis taking into account the circumstances.

That's what's happened here, and that's their decision. They make thousands of similar decisions every year. This is basically a non story.
 
people are talking blithely about speeding, and stats and how people might be far higher trained than joe public. great. whatever. you all seem to be overlooking the other factor that was supposed to be a caveat, the fact that he was massively under stress - how do you think that afffects his performace at high speed; reaction times and the like if he's as stressed and distracted as they claim? and what about his previous convictions? seems he's learned nothing from them, "taken away" nothing from those.
and mention of "depriving the NHS". get a grip. he's a driver, not a one-in-the-country brain surgeon or something.
 
He triaged most of the victims of the Westminster attack. That means he examined each one and decided priority of care.

Basically he decides if you should be sent to the brain surgeon in the first place...

Taking him off the road hinders, it doesn't help.
 
Dis86 said:
Does that mean I can do whatever the heck I want as I'm of huge benefit to society? Laws should apply equally to all.
Click to expand...

OTOH is it unreasonable for the Law to recognise that, sometimes, the standard punishment for an offense might end up costing society far more than the original crime. and that something more imaginative might be required.


Incidentally, this is why I actually favour corporal punishment for minor offenses


Rich or poor, a Cat scratch hurts the same, it is a powerful deterrent (If you got three cat scratches for speeding rather than three points, would you ever do it again??) It doesn't harm dependents (As do bans, fines and incarceration), it doesn't harm wider society, it doesn't disrupt the life of the offender (Punishment delivered on Friday, back to work on Monday) it is cheap, and it is easy to compensate for if there is a miscarriage of justice (Because apart from a bit of pain and suffering, which a nice cheque can compensate for very easily, the unjustly convicted hasn't really lost anything). And because there are no revenue implications (Fines go to the treasury as revenue) there is no motive for the government to introduce and/or enforce dumb laws for the purpose of raising revenue so public trust in the rule of Law would actually be substantially improved.

Cant really see a downside. :p
 
VincentHanna said:
He triaged most of the victims of the Westminster attack. That means he examined each one and decided priority of care.

Basically he decides if you should be sent to the brain surgeon in the first place...

Taking him off the road hinders, it doesn't help.
Click to expand...
i wonder how he managed to do that accurately/well if he was so stressed etc etc etc.

and also, so what? like the NHS hasn't got anyone else that could do that, or train them to? He's a driver, he's not irreplaceable FFS
 
I really don't think he should get any special dispensation just because of the job he does. Then again, I don't see the issue with driving over 100mph (in the right conditions) anyway.

I went out with a nurse for 4 years and I'm sick to the back teeth of NHS workers thinking they deserve some special recognition because "they save lives"....No, it's your job, you chose to do it. Just because you work in the NHS doesn't mean you aren't a **** anyway, I met plenty who were.
 
VincentHanna said:
You keep saying "he's a driver"

He's a medically trained paramedic.

They don't just drive to an emergency and sit in a car.
Click to expand...

So again, are you suggesting laws do not apply to some?
Is there perhaps a sliding scale?
If I worked as a salesman am I allowed to steal the odd thing from work because at the end of the day I sell more than I'm stealing so nobodies really losing out are they?

If I'm an oncologist can I kill the odd person because I'm saving many more from cancer?

Or one applicable to me, can I be grossly negligent and sign off on a design which is unsafe once or twice because the rest of the time the ones I sign off on are safe? There are few people in the country that do the job I do with my level of knowledge. Infact I'd hazard that I know all of them and can count them on my two hands with a few fingers to spare.

Police officers, fireman and many other people save lives on a daily basis. They are not exempt from the laws of our society. We see this where often when a police officer breaks a law their punishment will be more severe than yours or mine would be as a reflection on their position of responsibility. This idiot should have known better.
 
I just Googled his name, nothing apart from his court appearances. I then Googled Christian Barnard...

I think both this forum and his brief have rather exaggerated this man's contributions to medicine and humanity ;) (Couldn't really give a darn about his speeding, in the grand scheme of UK criminality he's down at the trivial end IMHO). I did see someone say the A55 is a road where a kid is unlikely to get run over by a speeding driver, but my wife's brother ended up in the Countess of Chester hospital's intensive care ward for a week on life support after being hit by a car whilst crossing the A55. It was night, he was drunk, and he's not the brightest spark, but it is possible :)
 
All the debating about his profession is besides the point really, he's got off the ban because of 'oh I'll lose my job'.

As of June 2017 there were over 10,000 motorists in the UK with 12 or more points who should be banned through totting up but aren't, his treatment is nothing that thousands of others before him haven't been given. I'd wager they're not all being let off for being super beneficial to society at large.
 
Dis86 said:
So again, are you suggesting laws do not apply to some?
Is there perhaps a sliding scale?
If I worked as a salesman am I allowed to steal the odd thing from work because at the end of the day I sell more than I'm stealing so nobodies really losing out are they?

If I'm an oncologist can I kill the odd person because I'm saving many more from cancer?

Or one applicable to me, can I be grossly negligent and sign off on a design which is unsafe once or twice because the rest of the time the ones I sign off on are safe? There are few people in the country that do the job I do with my level of knowledge. Infact I'd hazard that I know all of them and can count them on my two hands with a few fingers to spare.

Police officers, fireman and many other people save lives on a daily basis. They are not exempt from the laws of our society. We see this where often when a police officer breaks a law their punishment will be more severe than yours or mine would be as a reflection on their position of responsibility. This idiot should have known better.
Click to expand...

Whilst I don't condone his speed whilst not on duty, it's not quite as simple as you seem to suggest. On duty, the fact is that the same laws don't apply to emergency services drivers, and there is currently a bill in parliament to further strengthen exemptions in cases of dangerous driving. For example Police pursuit drivers using tactical contacts to end pursuits. You also need to take account of the fact that the training for many of these people is extensive. A standard response course in the Police where I am is 3.5 weeks 9-5 of driving and an advanced course is another 5 weeks on top of that. These are highly trained people and much better drivers than the public at large.

This doesn't mean that emergency services should be excused from speeding off duty. Driving on blues is a risky business that needs to be justified by the job that is being responded to, but that doesn't mean that the level of driving is any less than it would be on duty. My objection to his speed is more abuse of position than it is a safety one.
 
Thekwango said:
Question.

For those saying he was right to not be banned because of his job. Where do you draw the line? At what point does his job stop protecting him? 120mph, 130mph, or does he have to cause an accident and does it have to be a serious one?
Click to expand...

I don't think the speed is the issue, you could do 130mph safely or it could be dangerous to do 85mph.
 
The police did say it was a clear sunny day with light traffic, so that is one of the things they take in to account.

I'm glad I don't live in the black and white country some of you live in.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Whilst I don't condone his speed whilst not on duty, it's not quite as simple as you seem to suggest. On duty, the fact is that the same laws don't apply to emergency services drivers, and there is currently a bill in parliament to further strengthen exemptions in cases of dangerous driving. For example Police pursuit drivers using tactical contacts to end pursuits. You also need to take account of the fact that the training for many of these people is extensive. A standard response course in the Police where I am is 3.5 weeks 9-5 of driving and an advanced course is another 5 weeks on top of that. These are highly trained people and much better drivers than the public at large.

This doesn't mean that emergency services should be excused from speeding off duty. Driving on blues is a risky business that needs to be justified by the job that is being responded to, but that doesn't mean that the level of driving is any less than it would be on duty. My objection to his speed is more abuse of position than it is a safety one.
Click to expand...

When he's trained to drive at high speed he's trained to do so in a vehicle equipped for such tasks. I'm assuming he was caught in his private vehicle which won't have the highly visible reflective patterns, the lights, the sirens and the levels of maintenance.
Many of us untrained plebs may well be better drivers. We may have quicker reflexes. Better judgement. We wouldn't receive any leniency. If anything his training should have made him even more aware that what he was doing was wrong.
Is Lewis Hamilton free to drive however he wants as he's an outstanding driver who understands how to drive in difficult conditions at speed and with outstanding reflexes.
 
Dis86 said:
When he's trained to drive at high speed he's trained to do so in a vehicle equipped for such tasks. I'm assuming he was caught in his private vehicle which won't have the highly visible reflective patterns, the lights, the sirens and the levels of maintenance.
Many of us untrained plebs may well be better drivers. We may have quicker reflexes. Better judgement. We wouldn't receive any leniency. If anything his training should have made him even more aware that what he was doing was wrong.
Is Lewis Hamilton free to drive however he wants as he's an outstanding driver who understands how to drive in difficult conditions at speed and with outstanding reflexes.
Click to expand...


I was going to say plus Hamilton has brought huge funds to the UK economy, if not "saved lives", but of course he's a tax exile ;)
 
Diddums said:
EDIT: Nevermind, turns out he was speeding 3 weeks after the fire, I thought it was on the way there. In that case I dunno. On one hand I reckon throw the book at him but on the other the NHS is struggling for staff so maybe we should let him off and show some more appreciation? I dunno.
Click to expand...

Pleased I wasn't the only one. Started reading with the preconception that it was the ambulance doing 116mph

I agree with you. Tricky one really.
 
VincentHanna said:
The police did say it was a clear sunny day with light traffic, so that is one of the things they take in to account.

I'm glad I don't live in the black and white country some of you live in.
Click to expand...
exactly what is black and white about it? the fact there are laws in this country and you either follow them or suffer the designated penalties? that's a bad thing is it?
i'm glad i don't live in your country, where certain people might get the full weight of that penalty and others get nothing or vastly reduced penalties, even when adding supposed caveats like stress which, as far as i'm concerned, should be filed under "driving w/out due care and attention" if they claim it affects him that much. certain affected him keeping w/in 46mph of the top speed limit didn't it?
 
Dis86 said:
When he's trained to drive at high speed he's trained to do so in a vehicle equipped for such tasks. I'm assuming he was caught in his private vehicle which won't have the highly visible reflective patterns, the lights, the sirens and the levels of maintenance.
Click to expand...

That is a fair comment.

Dis86 said:
Many of us untrained plebs may well be better drivers. We may have quicker reflexes. Better judgement. We wouldn't receive any leniency. If anything his training should have made him even more aware that what he was doing was wrong.
Is Lewis Hamilton free to drive however he wants as he's an outstanding driver who understands how to drive in difficult conditions at speed and with outstanding reflexes.
Click to expand...

This is a typical but misguided understanding of driving fast on public roads. Many of the public think they are good drivers, but this is very different driving where you have to unlearn how most people drive to even start. Emergency services driving isn't about reflexes, if you have to use fast reflexes, you're doing it wrong. The public don't understand how highly these officers/paramedics are trained but it's a different world.
 
I am a big believer that speed does not equal danger.

I'd rather see speeding laws and limits relaxed but massively increase sentencing for laws based on dangerous driving, using your phone, drink or drug driving etc.

Country roads having national speed limits of 60mph, but quite often just doing 30mph down them could easily result in a death.

Doing 120mph on a motorway isn't dangerous if the conditions are right for that speed. People are also more alert and aware of the road and surroundings at higher speeds. I would say that makes them safer than a driver doing 50mph with their mind turned off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom