BBC NEWS | UK | England | Devon | Pilot jailed over speeding lies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8347140.stm)

Why 'Oh dear'?
Repeat offender and liar to boot. Deserves what he got.

How stupid can one be....

This is a joke right?? Is it just me that thinks this is a waste of taxpayers money to put the guy in jail for 4 months? But, hey, whatever---I dont pay taxes in the UK.

In reality, the guy drove 23 mph over the speed limit, and then told a lie to cover it. Be honest---how many of us have NEVER told a little white lie like that?

I see there are major drug, alcohol and gang problems in the UK just the same as here in the US, surely, the prisons would serve a better purpose putting these type of people away.

We already have grossly overcrowded prisons, and this is the sort of reason why. What is in the public interest about sending this guy to jail at taxpayers (my!) vast expense?

Sure the guy should be punished for perjury and the logbook offences but an appropriate punishment is a fine and/or doing something useful in the community and/or house arrest. Jail should be reserved for people who are a danger to society and whilst speeding might be antisocial (depending on where and how its done) its not normally a jailable offence.

HC

I agree people,

I'ts actually :mad: pathetic that we have such draconian driving rules here.
The problem is that our road transport network is just not up to the volume of traffic. Add to that road works, accidents etc and you find yourself speeding.

Even if you're speeding for no good reason, the penalties here are just completely dis-proportionate to the offence - which is no doubt why this guy went to such lengths to cover it all up.

I'm not advocating what he did, but I completely abhor the system, which effectively 'drove' him to do it. I would imagine that he'll now lose his job and his life will now take a significant turn for the worst. Simply because he was speeding.

This country regularly allows, rapists, muggers, sex offenders and the like off the hook with increasing regularity, but this guy gets thrown to the dogs.
It's a disgrace.

Joel:ugh:

He told more than one lie and one of the lies he told was to try and incriminate someone else. Nice man :rolleyes:.

If he'd just owned up to the speeding, he'd have had a hefty fine and lost his licence for a year. Now, he has a criminal record and likely no job to go back to after falsifying log books. Our prisons may well be overcrowded but I agree with the Judge in this case; he has to give a custodial sentence in order to send the right message.

Cheers

Whirls

Simply because he was speeding.

No, because he perverted the cause of justice. With all that entailed: falsifying log books, and naming an innocent person as the driver is hardly the actions of a moment of madness, as he claimed.

Serves him right.


It must have been a long moment of madness.

The innocent party agrees with me.

More here:- Air ambulance pilot jailed for speed trap lie - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6515318/Air-ambulance-pilot-jailed-for-speed-trap-lie.html)

Edited to add:-
The judge,
did not disqualify Drury from driving or order him to pay costs.
From:- Air ambulance pilot jailed for lying about speed offence (http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/sw/Air-ambulance-pilot-jailed-lying-speed-offence/article-1490602-detail/article.html)

.

Maybe he'd have been better advised to produce a fake Libyan birth certificate?

Boy, times must be hard when an Air ambulance pilot must resort to such actions to dodge a 60£ fine...

I find the penalty "awarded" here beyond stupid. Prison? Give me a break! A simple (but hefty) fine, loss of drivers and pilots license(for the logbook-entries) for a period would be a perfectly sane reaction.

I agree with the opinion that this guy should have been given a community service sentence rather than Prison. Jailing him only creates further prison overcrowding and further cost to the taxpayer. He should be given a bucket and sponge and made to clean every speed sign in the County !

As you may have guessed by my name, I am involved in the surfacing/repair of roads. (and no I’m not a Gypsy !)

Working on Britain’s roads can be a very dangerous occupation. Drivers totally disregard speed limits within roadworks and seem to think that workmen can be used as target practice. I have had cars run into the back of Lorries, trailers, rollers and People. I have seen far too many workers jump for their lives to avoid being run over by arrogant drivers who think that the World should step aside to let them past. We need to slow down and have a different attitude to speed on the roads, as we have done with drink driving.

Joel, I’m not sure what the draconian rules you refer to are but, if you are ever in Scotland I’ll take you to a resurfacing job on a Country road (during the School Run ).

I bet you will view speeding differently afterwards !

Tarman

Drury also asked for three Civil Aviation Authority offences to be taken into account -
Can a Crown Court absolve liability for aviation offences?

Tarman

I can sympathise but (as a speed freak myself) the problem you are citing is inappropriate speed and not paying attention, not breaking the speed limit (which is 60mph on the roads you are talking about, which is probably too fast round a blind bend etc). There are plenty of ludicrously slow speed limits on dual carriageways etc, just as there are country roads where to be doing the speed limit is reckless. Unfortunately the law finds it too difficult to have an offence of inappropriate speed, resorting to the easily-measured but totally dumb speed limit instead.

Just like flying, compliance with the traffic laws does not make for safety per se, nor does non-compliance intrinsically mean dangerous. Safe driving and flying is only about what is going on inside your head!

You would like it in the USA where they have road signs like "hit a workman, $40,000 fine and 2 years jail minimum" but then the Americans were always into revenge and retribution!

HC

he perverted the cause of justice. With all that entailed: falsifying log books, and naming an innocent person as the driver is hardly the actions of a moment of madness, as he claimed.

Serves him right.

I guess the only option then is to take him out back and string him up by the b@<hidden>!:ok:

Probably preferable to what the Icelandic woman might do to him if she finds him ... :}

Cheers

Whirls

Tarman

I have absolutely no doubt that there are bloody lunatics out there and I'm not advocating him or anyone else breaking the law. I'm also certain that working in the environment you do is very hazardous.

But 'basic' speeding offences should be treated as a misdemeanour and dealt with by way of a fine and totting up. But the points stick on your license for 4 years and if you get 12 you face a driving ban.

Obviously, more serious speeding offences or regular persistence should be dealt with more seriously.

What he did was stupid and by lying and falsifying his log book he's made it worse. But there are people out there who are regularly mugging, committing burglary, TWOCing and they get sweet FA in comparison to the harsh sentence he got. You've only got to watch any of these 'fly on the wall' documentaries involving our emergency services and see the scum that they deal with who invariably get nothing from our judicial system.

Last week the East Anglia Air Ambulance was attacked by a load of scumbags when it flew to assist somebody that was injured at it. Now that's something that warrants a prison sentence. You can read about it here (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/393874-air-ambulance-crew-attacked-rave.html).

By the way I completely accept he has been punished for the falsification of logbook entries and his lying etc. But my point is that our laws should not be so harsh on basic speeding offences and it's this that has driven the bloke to make matters worse.

You can probably tell, I don't agree with speeding fines - and no I don't have any points on my license!

Joel :ok:

Probably preferable to what the Icelandic woman might do to him if she finds him ...

Specially with a name like "Anna Margrét Sigurðardóttir "---sounds nasty...

But my point is that our laws should not be so harsh on basic speeding offences Sorry Joel, this was not basic speeding offence; it was more than 50% over the speed limit and he already had 6 points on his licence. We're not talking about 36 in a 30 limit; we're talking about a speed which is greater than that allowed on normal, open roads. Most 40 mph limits are in built-up areas or through rural villages; some limit needs to imposed.

You can't surely be advocating a free-for-all as regards speed limits around the country. :confused:

Cheers

Whirls

Hi Whirly,

Maybe the speed limits are too low? (And no, I'm not being sarcastic here either.)

Even the AA has agreed that our speed limits need reviewing and, in particular, advocate an increase on the motorway up to 80mph. (I'm sorry I don't have the source of this info - and, yes, there recommendation had caveats with it.)

Now, I'm no expert on this , but I am a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists and have been since 1984, and I can drive a car very fast having owned some particularly high performance cars in my driving career, but we're just too harsh on your average speeding offence.

Whirly, this guys 6 points is probably 2 x SP30's which, with respect and IMHO, is nothing in the whole grand scheme of things.

I don't actually think I'm advocating anything (it probably sounds like I am) what I am saying is that our law needs to be proportionate to the offence and I just don't think it is - and I'm pretty certain, I am definitely not on my own.

Whirly, in my day job, I am involved with very serious crimes and when I see how the law is not proportionate across the spectrum of criminality, it sort of gets my blood boiling. (I hope you don't think I'm having a go at you by the way)

Joel :ok:

Just found a link to the AA comment here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4528507.stm)

His excuse for lying:

"I was under intense stress as an air ambulance pilot being responsible for the crew, and the patients.”

Is just classic. From now on, every time I c*ck something up, I'm going to blame it on the stress of flying a helicopter.

Joel, I think maybe you're entering another discussion here - this one involves, even by my standards of driving, a consistent & flagrant disregard of speed limits with which the driver thought he could get away by lying.

Cheers

Whirls (3 points)

Speeding is not a jailable offence, never has been.

He did not get the jail sentence for speeding, get that straight in your head before being critical of the sentence. He's locked up because he tried to defeat the ends of justice.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

How would you deter people from falsifying a log book, a fine? This guy had a job flying the air ambulance but he's happy to make up stuff to put in his log bbook. How can he be trusted?

I think he deserves to be jailed for thinking he could get away with it. However being stupid is not an offence punishable by imprisonment just like speeding isn't.

Whirls,

Ok, we have understood that this guy was a notorious speed-freak, and he lied to try to prevent his license from being pulled. Stupid decision, no question! Would that have automatically effected his pilot-license as well?? I don't know what the regs in th UK say about that, but it may have been one of the reasons for him to act like he did.

The reason this case is being discussed here is that he got a prison sentence for it!! That must come from that he has written down his lie as a statement, nothing else.

Why not smack him with a fine of 2000 £ and 2 years suspended license. And an additional 6 month to a year suspended pilot-license for the 3 accounts from the flying bit. Would think that whould work better than 4 months in prison!!

Airpolice,

Now, as I understand it. The crime was speeding. But when confronted with the crime, he made up the story and falsified his logbook to cover up, right?
Wouldn't it be appropriate in this case, that the CAA would be reacting on the counts regarding the logbook-coverup?? Revocation or suspesion of license and a fine perhaps. The guy is for sure not going to have an easy time getting employed again! But Prison??? come on!!

Whirly,

How does breaking the speed limit 3 times equate to a consistent and flagrant disregard for the speed limit? The lying and all the other crap he did. No argument. That he should not have done!

In a poll [27th August 2009] for YouGov and insurance firm Admiral, 82% of motorists admitted to exceeding speed limits sometimes or frequently. The figure was 86% for male drivers and 78% for women motorists.

I am definitely in the 86% and I'm honest enough to admit it. If you're in the other % then I take my hat off to you. But the fact is, this guy stupidly made matters worse because our system is not punishing proportionally. If the system was proportionate I would hazard a guess that he would not have gone on to lie and falsify his documents, and I stress I am NOT forgiving those actions.

You can read the whole lot here (http://www.rac.co.uk/news-advice/motoring-news/post/2009/8/80-of-drivers-break-speed-limits/)

Whirls, I welcome your commentary and opposition to my way of thinking and I'm considering everything your saying - just in case I'm barking up the wrong tree. I also appreciate that you haven't done what I know other members on this forum have sometimes done i.e resorting to slinging insults etc.

Anyway, I am 2,300 miles away from my usual home, where it is now 02:00 and I'm off to bed. So if you reply tonight, you won't get one back from me until tomorrow. :)

Laters........

Joel :ok:

Joel, in general I am not in disagreement with your points here except I do think 23 mph over the speed deserves a ban especially in a 40.

Cheers

Whirls

Probably preferable to what the Icelandic woman might do to him if she finds him ...


Whirls
Would you care to explain who she is and what she did and to whom?

I know that Icelandic women bite but being capable of worse things than stringing one up on his b***s??? nooooohhh! :uhoh:

Gordy
Don't give me that. You would have a go at Margrét in a jiffy, just because of the name :cool:

Heli-Ice, have you read the article? The pilot accused an Icelandic woman whom he'd met a few years previously whilst on holiday of the speeding offence. She was tracked down by the police and was, to put it mildly, a tad piqued.

Cheers

Whirls

Whirls

to put it mildly, a tad piqued

Gotta love the British inuendo...I bet SHE would hang him by the b@<hidden>, and not even think of the word "piqued" once...:):)

Ok, now I see...

I only read the article on the BBC link, didn't pay the latter one any attention. Now this is clear to me.

I guess this is the reason why I didn't get her any far last weekend. When I told her I was a helicopter pilot, she went apesh*t on me! :}

Thanks Whirls.

Nubian.


We need to consider the bigger picture here.

This guy is dishonest, not just a speeder, but dishonest. For that he needs to be punished. The court's full written verdict will make interesting reading, and I am not sure why the previous poster thinks the 6 points will be 2 SP30 offences.

The "taking into account" of the CAA offences is a formality to avoid another court hearing and I "suspect" that he was going to jail regardless of what the CAA charged him with. The main offence was attempting to defeat the ends of justice and for that he NEEDS to go to jail.

As for the CAA log book offences. I have to fly to get hopurs in my book, are you suggesting we just let him make his up over breakfast?

Who is going to employ him as a Pilot when he has a history of falsifying his log book?

Life will be different for him now, that's for sure. Maybe some other people will think twice about making up entries when this is how the courts deal with it.

Interesting comments regarding the rights and wrongs of speeding etc. Probably best for your MP :)

The sentence this gentleman received from the Recorder will be for the act/s of perverting the course of justice rather than the original charges.

It would appear his speeding offence would have made him a totter so he was looking at a fine of between 75 and 125% of his weekly income and possibly a minimum of 6 months ban. However, although loss of job is not normally a mitigating factor, given the nature of it, he might just have been able to significantly reduce or avoid disqualification unless he had already used that mitigation before. So, maybe thirty days, a fine and at the end of it all, no points on his licence. Not the worst situation given the circumstances he now finds himself in because he lied, falsified documents and involved an innocent party for which he appears to have been sentenced at the lower end of relevant precedence.

This prat did not get jailed for speeding.

He would likely have got a fine and if his points had totted up then a ban.

However the reason he was given a custodial sentence was becauase he perverted the course of justice by lying and attempting to incriminate someone else and using a false instrument (falsifying documentation).

Are those of you who say the sentence was too harsh condoning the manipulation of aviation documentation to to suit your own needs? If so then I say you are as guilty as he is for even considering it.

I think the Judge did the right thing and made an example of this individual and hopefully it will send out a message that if you try and get away with an offence by lying, then your excuse wont be taken at face value and it will be fully investigated and if caught lying you will go down for it.

Rant over!

an interesting thread, but is this pilot a helicopter pilot or fixed wing air ambulance.;)

He's a plank driver.

Oh dear, indeed!

Airpolice,
No, I don't think anyone should have more hours in their logbook than they have been flying. You're missing my point.
I am just thinking it's strange that this offence(the cover-up lie), would be worse than rape and other "real" crime.

Wasaloadie,
I don't think the sentence was too harsh, but wrong method of punishment used.

I have mentioned above what I think would be reasonable punishment, and I still think jail in this case is not the way to go.

Whirly,

I'm out of bed now.

I think 23 miles per hour i.e. 50% over the speed limit certainly deserves a harsher punishment and yes, probably a ban. I've enjoyed our discussion; I hope you have too. :ok:

Airpolice/Wasaloader

It was me that suggested that the 6 points was 'probably 2 x SP30's - I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption. I would imagine the majority of convictions in this country are SP30's, maybe not, I don't know. :confused:


As for everything else he did, it's not in any way acceptable behaviour, and not one of my previous posts condones it in anyway. However I personally do not think that a custodial sentence was appropriate. A huge fine, community service, or even a suspended sentence maybe, but not a custodial sentence. I don't think he lied in court under oath did he? (I'm not sure.)

Guys, there are hundreds, probably thousands of cases going through our court system with defendants who are serial scroats, with far more serious offences getting sweet F.A. from the courts. These are the people that should be getting sent down.

Just out of interest, how many MP's, have been prosecuted, let alone convicted or even sent to prison for claiming expenses that were not due to them. It looks to me like its been endemic. And I don't believe for one second that these were mistakes. They've ALL been working the system.

NOW THATS CRIMINAL!

Joel :ok:

Unfortunately for him the court will have expected more of him (being a professional pilot, and one who works for the police) than the anti-social types referred to in other posts. His social status is aggravating not mitigating in the eyes of the court.

This was heard in the Crown Court so he was well "up-tariff" to begin with. Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice are regarded very seriously in law and he can be considered "lucky" to get a 4-month custodial sentence: he'll serve 2 months.

Is it just? yes
Hard? yes
Was he an idiot? yes
Any sympathy for him? yes

Hope he gets back on track on the other side of this.

...was appropriate... until a few minutes ago.... Then I remembered that in the UK last year almost FORTY THOUSAND thugs received cautions for GBH and other assaults on innocent victims.. on every occasion the victim was savagely beaten, bottled or bitten. Let's hope he successfully appeals.... my guess is that he's already seen the error of his ways. :ugh: bm

BoengMEL

This is the point I've been trying to make!

Joel :ok:

If the judge had any discretion to give a community sentence (and he may not have had) there would have had to be mitigating circumstances. And that hardly seems to be the case.

The inability of the judicial system to effectively and justly deal with violent crime and the innapropriate issuing of cautions (against guidelines apparently) - are (galling as it may be) other matters...

And lets not forget that lying, misleading and falsifying is a fundamental part of British culture, as so clearly demonstrated by our Great Leaders in Westminster! Only a couple have ever gone to jail for it (one was Archer, but that was more probably for the quality of his books!)

HC

It's a good point, it doesn't seem fair given widespread "dodginess" in UK society at large. But what the police pilot, Archer, and Jonathan Aitkin did was try to pervert the course of justice by lying under caution or oath. And got caught.

Jail didn't reform Archer much: he wrote another literary classic based on his experences. :}

I guess the only option then is to take him out back and string him up by the b@<hidden>!

Now you're being ridiculous. We don't do that in this country.









Unfortunately.

Pilot drives his car in excess of the speed limit. Anyone hurt? no. In fact he has probably helped save many lives through his job.
Police serve him with a fixed penalty, he says he didn't do it.
Police charge him with perverting the course of justice instead and off to prison he goes.
This is a "Victimless crime".
Hell, does that mean we are not allowed to plead "not guilty" now? :eek:

We are living in a police state.:rolleyes:

The original offence is of little relevance. This character was prepared to construct an elaborate set of lies when he knew he was guilty.

This character was prepared to construct an elaborate set of lies when he knew he was guilty

A bit like pleading "not guilty" then. :rolleyes:

How many of us say "we didn't do it"?
It is our right to say "I didn't do it guv",
or "prove it".

Is that not so?

Now watch out, you get charged with perverting the course of justice instead.:eek:

This is a "Victimless crime".

Only because his victim was able to prove that she was not driving the car. Not only is he a liar, but to blame her without her agreement or even her knowledge, he is stupid as well. If he had named you instead of her, would you still feel the same way? More to the point, would you accept the blame?

There are honest, trustworthy pilots out there, let one of them have his job.

Guys,

There seems to be a lot of people on here who, apparently, have never lied, broken the speed limit, cheated on their partner, parked on a double yellow line, dropped litter, smoked pot etc etc etc. (Im guilty of most of the aforementioned plus some!)

I have a zero tolerance for your typical bad boy. I'm highly respectful of the Police, the Armed forces and the Emergency services to name but a few.

This guy broke the law and he should be punished. He tried to cheat his way out of it and that should also be punishable. He's a bloody idiot and there is no argument.

If, prison is the answer, then so be it. But on that basis I want to see EVERY SINGLE SCROAT that has ever got away with a custodial sentence for the thieving, mugging, robbing, gun toting, knife wielding offence or whatever they commit. I want them all re-arrested and shoved in prison where they belong.

This guy has f**cked up. No doubt. But he turned up for court, probably wearing a suit. He probably didn't sleep for months and he's probably regretting every second of it - which is more than can be for said for most of the others who keep getting off.

And as for all the MP's expenses. Well apparently that's O.K. Oh and apparently Stephen Gerrard is allowed to tw*t some geezer in an unprovoked attack in a pub which has been captured on CCTV and that's self defence.

B***ocks.

This guy should be punished, but he shouldn't be in prison. End of!

Joel :ok:

There seems to be a lot of people on here who, apparently, have never lied, broken the speed limit, cheated on their partner, parked on a double yellow line, dropped litter, smoked pot etc etc etc. (Im guilty of most of the aforementioned plus some!)



In the words of Lennie Godber in Porridge;

Godber: I'm only in here due to tragic circumstances.
Fletch: Which were?
Godber: I got caught.

@<hidden> Joel

I agree with you 100% you have taken the words out of my mouth:ok:

Chester:ok:

ps. Silsoe very good !!!!!!!!!

Agree with the non-custodial point; the guy's name is all over the industry now, surely no need to also make him look for the soap in the prison showers at taxpayer expense.

Anyway, isn't this really more of a Jetblast discussion?

Anyway, isn't this really more of a Jetblast discussion?
Well said. Captain X is an Air Ambulance pilot, and not a Helicopter Air Ambulance pilot (unless their 'Blackhawk' variant of the Beech KingAir B200 has a rotor or two!).
X had worked as deputy chief pilot for Exeter based Capital Air Charter, which flies medical evacuations all over Europe.

Chopjock,

Which crime is it that you think has no victim?

Which crime is it that you think has no victim?The guy gets put into prison, presumably for comitting a crime. I do not see a victim in this case, other than perhaps himself..
Let's see now, he attempts to pervert the course of justice, that is, he tries to get out of a £60 fixed penalty and 3 points. Oh my god! What a criminal, so put him in Jail then. :eek: Way over the top.

Hello everybody..

Think we are back to basics here; In our community, you are aloud to make mistakes but don't lie about it :=!! Then you are kinda' f.....d.. because we know each others, as the CP's..

Fly safe, don't lie.. wiisp

Chopjock
A bit like pleading "not guilty" then.

How many of us say "we didn't do it"?
It is our right to say "I didn't do it guv",
or "prove it".

Is that not so?

Now watch out, you get charged with perverting the course of justice instead.
You make an interesting point. Obviously being found guilty after maintaining a defence of not guilty usually implies some perjury or attempt to pevert the course of justice. My layman's understanding is that the UK practice (and CPS policy) is not to seek further punishment in these cases. Perhaps someone better qualified than me (FL ?) would care to comment ?

It is not perjury to say "I didn't do it" that's the one time you can lie under oath without fear of being punished for it.

This guy went way outside the scope of denying it. He fabricated a defence based on false logbook entries and incrimination. He'd have been better off sticking to the speed limit, but that's not his style it seems.

If the court system is not robust in dealing with people who abuse the system, then Law and Order is in danger of not being enforced at all.

The fact that so many other people are getting off with a Police Caution, just in case they didn't know they were not allowed to carry a knife, is another matter.

There is no way the (current) justice system can deal with everyone so some will slip through. There are enough muggers andd housebreakers to fill the courts all week so should the CPS ignore motoring offences entirely or build more courts?

Much longer sentences are the answer, people do not re-offend whilst in jail! Ask yourself, what is it that society wants from this pilot? Surely it is to have him desist from speeding, and making false log book entries. Well that's going to be taken care of for at least 16 weeks, I call that a result.

Long term, he may go back to speeding, he may even become an international drug smuggler flying low over the North Sea helping his new found friends from prison, since he should be unable to get a legitimate flying job now.

Airpolice

I'm sorry but I'm going to jump in here, I'm agitated and you're wrong! (Respectfully)

We've thrown what I imagine is usually a perfectly law abiding citizen in prison because our system finds it easier to convict people who commit a motoring offence than it does a scroat who has absolutely no respect for the law full stop. This is evidenced by the amount of them that don't turn up for court, don't pay their fines, re-offend or break their bail conditions.

Just to clarify, I know he's not been put in prison for speeding. But it's the fact that our ridiculous totting up system for speeding offences is pushing people to do what this guy did to avoid losing their license.

The most common criminal conviction in this country is a motoring offence. It's bloody ridiculous. I can tell you this. If you ask any member of the public are they more frightened of a car driving down the road at 45 miles an hour in a 30 zone or a group of scroats on a street corner, smoking, swearing spitting and probably about to mug someone. I can't imagine how many would answer the car speeding - assuming they knew it was speeding in the first place.

And please don't start bringing up road safety issues either. We're living in a nanny state. You can quote road safety to me when the government bans cigarettes. Because that kills more bloody people than anything and yet we do sweet F.A, about that. Why? Because the Government get billions in taxes from their sale. So don't quote me road safety please! It's bo**ocks.

I do not condone, in any way, the actions he took to avoid getting his motoring punishment. He should have been punished, but not prison. I don't want my tax money putting a guy who has gone off the rails once in his life being used in this way. I want shell suited scumbags who thieve and rob there way through life incarcerating. And I think you will find that the majority of the British public do too.

Most of the British public abhor our motoring laws and the dis-proportionality of the punishment. 86% of the public apparently break the speed limit. If we had a more proportionate punishment this guy probably wouldn't have gone to the stupid lengths that he did to evade conviction. And even though he did, he shouldn't be in prison!

And just whilst were on the subject, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. Why is it that he has to tell the Police who was driving? It's the only law in the country (I believe) where you do not have the right to remain silent. Disgraceful.

I notice that no-one has responded to the fact that not one single MP has been charged for falsification of their expenses. I notice that nobody has commented on why a professional footballer manages to walk scot free form an assault captured on CCTV when all of his mates pleaded or were found guilty. Amazing.

This guys broke the speed limit - for that he should be fined
He tried to incriminate someone else - stupid and out of order; he should be punished.
He falsified his log books - way out of line too

And to answer your question about courts. Personally If our court system can't cope with the proper criminals then it definitely shouldn't be wasting it's time or our money on a bloody speeding offences. (and I'm not referring to this particular matter because this obviously goes beyond that)

£2,500 fine. Some community service and a speed awareness course.

Now is there any chance we can get some proper criminal locked away?

Is there f**k!!!!

Joel :mad: (Angry and irritated!)

Airpolice,

Yes, you're right. Once you have done something illegal, you should be locked up forever, cause then you're not able to commit crime anymore.... great retoric!!

Ask yourself, what is it that society wants from this pilot? Surely it is to have him desist from speeding, and making false log book entries. Well that's going to be taken care of for at least 16 weeks, I call that a result.Are you for real??

Oh yes, I am very pleased that this maniac will be off the streets for 16 weeks, not able to falsify his logbook!! Once he's out again, I'll start to feel threatend again, not from him speeding (as I take it he'll be without a license for longer than 4 months), but from what he can do with a Parker :eek:

I live in rural SW Durham county here in the UK. The local authority Durham County Council is paying out 7% of its yearly income in pensions. We don't have fixed speed cameras so if you want to speed come here...chances of being caught if you are over 30 and drive a nice car are minimal. The money that was spent on Traffic Cops now goes in pension payments.

He didn't try to get an innocent person in trouble.Drury believed the Safety Camera Partnership would not pursue the matter if the driver was now abroad, but it did, and the woman received a letter.
I'm not surprised he believed that.
I am surprised the authorities waste time and money tracking down speeders who are no longer in the country.
Maybe if penalties for speeding werent so draconian folk would just pay up and not be driven to do things like he did.

It's long been UK government policy to divert people from custody. Why? Because they know it is socially damaging, tends to increase offending rates (when compared to diversion/community sentences) and costs a fortune.

The argument that no offending happens whilst someone is in jail is not sensible. You could also stop aviation accidents by stopping flying. The length of the sentence in this guy's case (4 months: 2 custody; 2 on licence) is short. Who would wish him a longer one? It would mean more damage to him, more expense and diminishing returns in terms of the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the punishment.

The judge expressed regret that he had to send him to jail. He will have known full well that the sentence could be disastrous for the life of that person and have many negative consequences for family and friends.

Joel, I found your post tough going after I got as far as


what I imagine is usually a perfectly law abiding citizen in prison


Law abiding people do not attempt to defeat the ends of justice and pick and choose which laws to obey.....nor do they have previous for drink driving.

From one of your earlier posts

Whirly, this guys 6 points is probably 2 x SP30's which, with respect and IMHO, is nothing in the whole grand scheme of things.


Far from it.

The most telling part of his criminal background is that at the time of this trial, he was facing prosecution for failing to provide the details for another offence.

He hasn't "gone off the rails once" as you describe it, he's laying a new track on a different heading!

Hardly a moment of madness.

You seem to be concerned with yobs in hoodies spitting and mugging. Have you considered that they might have the same view on anti mugging laws that you have on speeding?

And just whilst were on the subject, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. Why is it that he has to tell the Police who was driving? It's the only law in the country (I believe) where you do not have the right to remain silent. Disgraceful.


Your understanding of the law seems to be at odds with reality. "You are not obliged to say anything, but it may harm your defence.......

The requirement to identify the driver is a burden placed on the registered keeper. If you can't accept that responsibility, don't have a car. He was well aware, at the time of the speeding, that this is the case.



Nubian

Once he's out again, I'll start to feel threatend again, not from him speeding (as I take it he'll be without a license for longer than 4 months),
He can drive when he gets out of jail, assuming he can get insurance.




Bronx,

Why don't we all just say that you were driving the car every time we get a form in the post? That way we can all carry on speeding and under your plan, nobody chases up the overseas driver.

Please post your mailing address for all the speeders in the UK to put on their forms.




In the words of the accused:


After the hearing, Drury, deputy chief pilot of Exeter Airport-based Capital Air Charter, said he regretted his actions and apologised to former colleagues, friends and family members.
"I put it all down to a moment of madness," said the pilot responsible for flying medics, doctors and patients from places including Jersey and Tenerife.
"Intense stress in a job as an air ambulance pilot being responsible for the crew, and the patients, plays on your mind. I was flying under pressure at the time.
"I don't know why I did what I did. I keep asking myself 'What was I thinking?'
"I tried to put the blame on someone else at the time who was overseas. I was under constant pressure at work. Long days and early starts. I am not trying to excuse my actions, but the intense and stressful nature of my job contributed to me making a stupid mistake.
"I am ashamed of myself. I have let down my company, my friends and my family. I lied because I did not want to lose my licence. It was just stupid. I knew I would lose my job if I lost my driver's licence. I already had nine points.
"Living in Plymouth and working in Exeter, I wouldn't be able to get a taxi there and back every day. I knew there was a chance I could get caught but I did not realise the police would go into so much detail in catching me. It all snowballed.
"The only thing I could think of for proof was to try and change my log book to say I was flying at the time."

Let's remind ourselves that this is PPRUNE.

How many Pilots think, compared with other forms of employment, that you work long days with early starts, to the point where it affects your ability to know right from wrong. Ask a local taxi driver how many hours a week he works.



Plymouth Crown Court was told that on February 6, Joseph Drury was caught on a mobile speed camera on the A374 Embankment Road in Plymouth doing a speed of 63mph in a 40mph limit in his Audi A6.

Expecting penalty points, and fearing he would be banned under the totting-up process – because he believed he already had nine penalty points on his licence – Drury claimed that the person driving had been an Icelandic woman and not him.
But he had just six points on his licence, and would not have been banned after all.

The court was told that Drury believed the Safety Camera Partnership would not pursue the matter if the driver was now abroad, but it did, and the woman received a letter




The court heard Drury was evidently trying to protect his driving licence. At the time he had six points on his licence but faced prosecution for failing to identify the driver for another traffic offence.

He also had a previous conviction for drinking and driving.

Drury, of Plymouth, admitted perverting the course of justice and asked for three offences under air regulations to be considered.

He was jailed for four months and the court was told it was likely he would lose his job and his pilot’s licence.

Drury had worked as deputy chief pilot for Exeter based Capital Air Charter, which flies medical evacuations all over Europe.
He has been grounded since June, but has been doing menial work including sweeping the hangars.

Recorder Martin Meeke, QC, told him: “Conduct such as yours is capable of undermining both public justice and the public’s confidence in our system and the punishment must dissuade others who may be minded to act in a similar way.”




So, he's a drunk driver who speeds, tells and writes lies.

Yet still, some of you want to say the system has been hard on him.................

Hi Airpilot

I really haven't got the time nor inclination to continue this argument for which you are completely outvoted. Interestingly, his previous convictions etc were not made available to anyone on this post earlier.

Apparently now though you seem to think that the British public are going to find mugging a perfectly acceptable activity - whereas the general public do NOT consider a basic motoring offence to be a particularly heinous crime. And I don't either.

This guy may be a bod boy. He may even deserve prison, because he is a serial bad boy. But most of the comments that I and others have made regarding this post relate to how he has been treated for this particular offense in isolation, especially as his previous acts weren't made general knowledge until you so kindly posted it.

So in isolation a person who breaks the speed limit and then tells a few lies about it shouldn't be going to prison.

Airpilot, give up mate. You're hopelessly out argued, outvoted and I suspect you are as gulity as the rest of us of some form of misdemeanor in life.

No mention of the MP's or Stephen Gerrard I see. ;)

Joel:ok:

I really haven't got the time nor inclination to continue this argument for which you are completely outvoted.

No, he's not. Lots of 'us' feel the same way as airpolice. But maybe we're not all quite as vocal as you, Joel.

Airpolice,

From the reports of the case in media, which I have read and posted my view based on, I have not come across the previous offences regarding DUI, a bit of information that changes my view quite a bit.
Now, what I do not understand with this case is that he'll be able to drive again immediately upon release, and no fine! Does not make sense to me.:confused:
A driving-ban for 2 years and a heavy fine should be minimum, prison-sentence or not. Didn't know it was an either or case, with regards to penalty.

I'll stand by my previous posts, but based on what I knew then, and therefore this will be my last reply on this thread.

Cheers,

N.

To explain to Nubian why he was not banned.

If he had been disqualified, then he would have a zero points balance when the disqual period is up.

This way he is still in the frame for a ban when he next gets caught.

A good result for him would have been a 2 month ban and when he gets out he'd be able to drive as he'd have a licence with no points.

Currently he has 6 with a case pending.

Lots of 'us' ? Not sure what that's supposed to mean.
I think you'l find your'e well outnumbered.
But to be honest I care not. I'm bored now.

Joel :ok:

Joel. Good posts. :ok:

The speeding didn't merit disqualification. The guy did wrong and got caught and is now paying a high price because he's in prison. He's gonna find it difficult enough to get a job anyway when he gets out. What's the point of making it even more difficult by disqualifying him so he can't take any job where he needs a car to get to work.

This all boils down to one thing, IMHO. Do the right thing; 'fess up to your wrongs like a man and wear the consequences. Imagine if this same fellow told a little white lie to ATC in non-radar airspace and it resulted in a mid-air because he didn't meet a time/level/speed requirement.

I tell my trainees all the time; if you mess up, file against yourself and let someone else be the judge. In my experience, honesty counts for a lot. Now there's a novel idea.....honesty!!

That sums up the core situation very nicely ATCO!

All of the attendant issues here are entirely periferal to the ethics of honesty.

@<hidden>
Airpilot, give up mate. You're hopelessly out argued, outvoted and I suspect you are as gulity as the rest of us of some form of misdemeanor in life.
Not so.
You seem determined to minimize this guy's string of offences in every way possible.
He has a long history of driving offences: he didn't just speed three times as you suggest, he got caught three times, which suggests that he makes a habit of speeding and that even after being convicted has not stopped doing so.
Now we are told he has been drink driving as well.
He tried to get an innocent woman charged with his own offence.
He falsified aviation records.

Now, he has been shown that he can not continue to behave like this, and perhaps he will finally learn that lesson. The punishment seems to me just about correct.

Your comparison with bent MP's and other criminals is irrelevant. If you think they are too lightly treated then join one of the many other threads on these subjects.

With you 100% Sallyann

"Why cant you go and catch some muggers, burglars, etc, etc, instead of persecuting poor innocent motorists like me?"

The pathetic bleat of the "bang to rights" speeding motorist everywhere.

As the career criminals used to say "If cant do the time - dont commit the crime" If you dont the think the motoring laws of your country apply to you because you are such a good driver/drive such an advanced car/have such a pressing need to get where you are going, fair enough, but dont moan when you get caught and fined.

I still don't see a victim though :rolleyes: And the road he was speeding on is a nice long straight dual carriagway. No pedestrians anywhere.:)

Lots of 'us' ? Not sure what that's supposed to mean.
I think you'l find your'e well outnumbered.

The 'us' was referring to all those people who have been reading the thread, believe that Mr Drury was punished fairly for the crimes that he committed but had not yet spoken out. (Posts #71, 72, 73 and 74 above help to confirm this).

And Sallyann1234's post sums up my thoughts precisely (thank you, Sa). Mr Drury was punished for his repeated dishonesty, not necessarily just for being 16mph over the speed limit.

But to be honest I care not. I'm bored now.

Oh, but you'll be back... ;)

Hi Bravo 73

I appreciate the good banter ;) I was DETERMINED not to reply, but I'm sat in an airport waiting to come home and ......well it had wireless internet.

But my overall point seems to be shared by most including, to a degree, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner who today has said....well you can read it for yourself....

Met Chief Sir Paul Stephenson Says Thugs Are Getting 'Parking Fines' Amid Rise In Soft Penalties | UK News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Met-Chief-Sir-Paul-Stephenson-Says-Thugs-Are-Getting-Parking-Fines-Amid-Rise-In-Soft-Penalties/Article/200911215444371?f=rss)

and my point? the wrong sort of people are getting sent down.
sure this guy's a naughty boy, but we aren't 'at risk' from him, he needs punishing, but NOT prison, whereas........well I think the Commissioner's article speaks for itself.

I rest my case, Your honour!!!!!

Joel :ok:

" but we aren't 'at risk' from him"


Being simple, me that is, please explain using any form of irrational logic that supports your case as to why, given his cavalier attitude to driving and his personal abrogation of responsibility, we aka the general public are not at risk...and then there's the little matter of drink / driving which seems to have escaped your attention....so, no, no risk to the public at all it seems....:rolleyes:

Love your comment about "can't help but speed" re the various delays we encounter on the road......your right foot,presumably, is controlled independently from other limbs and your brain then is it ?.

" I rest my case"..........not destined to be the greatest defence lawyer in the UK then it would seem based on your own evidence are we JT?:E

Did I read somewhere that 80% of motorists confess to speeding?( or a cavalier approach to driving if you like) Presumably we are at risk from 80% of motorists then? Or is that speeding is not the real issue?, just a revenue collection service perhaps? I often drive in excess of the speed limit, usually at 0200, in the morning when safe to do so, are the public at risk from me? I think not.
With regards to drink driving, that was another issue and he has been punished for it, right? I see that some of us here are happy to live in a police state then.:eek:

I wonder where chopjock got this idea from


And the road he was speeding on is a nice long straight dual carriagway

http://micromancs.com/a4speeder.jpg

Looks to me like he's braking on a bend. That would suggest he has recently been doing more than 63, and he failed to spot the mobile camera set up.

In a poll for YouGov and insurance firm Admiral, motorists admitted to exceeding speed limits sometimes or frequently. Of the 3,280 people questioned, 14% said they had been caught speeding in the past year. A round seven in 10 drivers were in favor of raising the speed limit on motorways to 130km/h (80mph) or higher, while nearly a third backed 32km/h (20mph) on residential streets

Maybe if there were A LOT MORE samples taken, this might have some relevance. From more than 33 Million drivers in the UK, they asked 3,280.

One could argue that anyone exposed to a criminal, past or present, is 'at risk', but to what degree? Am I going to be intimidated if I bump into this guy in the street in a couple of months? There is no doubt, we all break the rules now and again <waits for flame from virtuous minority>, but this chap was serial offender, albeit a string on relatively minor misdemeanours <waits for flame from road safety brigade>.

The problem here is that what this bloke did was far from 'a moment of madness'; he behaved as only one who thinks they are above the law could behave. He deliberately constructed a fictitious and unnecessarily complex set of lies to protect his driving license. If he was smarter, he'd have got away with it. I wonder how his 'above the law' attitude manifests itself in his flying?

IMHO he needed a wake up call, but a custodial sentence wasn't necessary <waits for support from JT fan club and flame from 'us'>. That call could have happened with a hefty fine and lengthy spell of community service (that being particulalry apt considering his rather pathetic mitigation claim that was 'stressed' due to the responsibility of his public service job - which really irritates me, but I assume is a symptom of his superiority complex).

What he did was wrong; he took a risk, got caught and should now accept the consequences. Although he was silly, he's obviously not stupid so hopefully he'll learn from it, unlike the ever growing number of scrotes that cruise the UK's cities and habitually attack law-abiding citizens. These yobs are stupid and don't learn because they don't need to. They know that if they get caught mugging an old lady, all they'll get is a slap on the wrist, maybe an ASBO to show off to their mates, and even greater resentment and disrespect for anything that stands for discipline. Bring back capital punishment <waits for major flame from human rights group>!

TTB (clean license, regularly exceeds speed limits - when it is safe to do so)

I wonder where chopjock got this idea from




http://micromancs.com/a4speeder.jpg

Looks to me like he's braking on a bend. That would suggest he has recently been doing more than 63, and he failed to spot the mobile camera set up.

He deserves everything he gets if that's an indication of his driving abilities.
I mean, I've took that bend at 80+ in a ropey old Astra and not so much as tapped the brakes. Bet he's got a big watch as well...

I've took that bend at 80+ in a ropey old Astra and not so much as tapped the brakes.You mean you didn't see the camera :}

Cheers

Whirls

.... Although he was silly, he's obviously not stupid

Err, most would tend to disagree there.



With Pilots wages what they are, a hefty fine is likely to be a pityful amount to him, so he got what he deserves.

To prevent people from complaining about short jail terms, he should have been given 12 months.

PLONKER.

You mean you didn't see the camera :}

Cheers

Whirls

Wasn't arsed Whirls, it was my mate's car...

Not as straightforward as it seems
I wonder where chopjock got this idea from


Quote:
And the road he was speeding on is a nice long straight dual carriageway
http://micromancs.com/a4speeder.jpg
Embankment road has three "long Straights" and two gentle curves in the road, with three lanes in places. I would say I was more right than you?. And the pic was taken on the end of a straight bit, thank you very much.:p

Three lanes and 40MPH limit? give me a break.!

There are several breaks in that stretch of road. There are no barriers so the consequences of yer man going stright on are serious.

There are a few junctions where traffic crosses that road, hence the 40 limit. If it was barriered and unbroken between the roundabouts, then it would be a 70.

Hi Airpilot

I really haven't got the time nor inclination to continue this argument for which you are completely outvoted. Interestingly, his previous convictions etc were not made available to anyone on this post earlier.

I don't know who Airpilot is, or what he or she has said, but I'm with him, or her.

For the avoidance of doubt.

Despite my sources and contacts, I have not used any information in the posts on here that is not in the public domain.

The previous offences, the picture of the evidence and the reports from the court are all available on newspaper websites.

Before posting anything on this thread I did a little (Internet) enquiring into the case and was able to come to my opinion based on a wide range of evidence.

And quite a few terminological inexactitudes?
(Newspaper reports!)

And the pic was taken on the end of a straight bit, thank you very much.
I think you will find that most bends are located at the end of a 'straight bit' :}
In this case the car is photographed in the bend, at 63 mph with its brake lights on, so it was evidently travelling faster than this down the 'straight bit'. It also appears that the road was wet, so not the best place to be thumping on the brakes.

But how many times do you need to be told that he was not jailed for this offence? If he had just pleaded guilty he could have got off with a modest fine and a few more points on his licence.

It was his own subsequent free choice of action that put him in jail.

with a modest fine and a few more points on his licence.With 6 point already and 63 mph in a 40 limit, he'd have likely been banned. However, that's still no excuse for the subsequent choices and decisions he made.

Cheers

Whirls

Whirls,

even if he had not been banned for this one, there is still the outstanding enquiry of a similar nature. That will surely result in points and take him over the top.

I understand that he asked for the CAA offences to be taken into account.

However, I think the "failure to disclose" from the previous incident, of which I know nothing more that I can print here, is still on file.

I have never argued in favour of the hooded skulls not getting jailed. I think they should be locked up, but jyst because they get away with it is no reason to let this guy away with trying to avoid the due process.

I wish the press had been more open about describing him; perhaps along the lines of "lying driver gets jailed" not as a "speeding air ambulance pilot"

Chopjock

I see that some of us here are happy to live in a police state then.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif

If you define a police state as:

one with laws passed by democratically elected governments...

one where said laws are enforced by an overwhelmingly incorrupt police force (and I know there's the odd exception)...

one where offenders are tried by a generally fair judicial process...

one where lying boy racers with no integrity wind up in jail where they rightly belong...

If that's your definition - then yes, I'm delighted to live in a police state:ok:

Tankertrashnav,

You know that's completely over the top.





True, mind. Count me in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toptobottom
.... Although he was silly, he's obviously not stupid

Err, most would tend to disagree there

ZH875 - at the risk of getting into semantics, maybe I should define 'Stupid'; I meant he obviously isn't uneducated - he's a CPL!! And at the risk of sounding adversarial, I wouldn't make assumptions about other Prooner's views... a flaming would be inevitable (I know!!)

TTB

With 6 point already and 63 mph in a 40 limit, he'd have likely been banned.

If he'd turned up in a freshly-pressed uniform, given a good impersonation of contrition, and pleaded that he needed his driving licence to get to his air ambulance flying, he might have swung it.

f you define a police state as:

one with laws passed by democratically elected governments...


Errrrrr................................

Oh, sorry! Of course the the current govinmint was not democratically elected therefor the UK is not a police state.

Is that the argument or should we go to the Hamsterwheel?

JTobias
I've read your posts with interest.
Some of your comments about what happens to people convicted of serious crimes are wide of the mark, but you’ve raised several important issues which IMHO are worthy of serious discussion. :ok:

Sallyann1234 But how many times do you need to be told that he was not jailed for this offence?He doesn't need to be; he knows.
JT argues that jail was too harsh a punishment.


airpolice Before posting anything on this thread I did a little (Internet) enquiring into the case and was able to come to my opinion based on a wide range of evidence. You and I obviously have very different ideas about what constitutes evidence. eg "The most telling part of his criminal background is that at the time of this trial, he was facing prosecution for failing to provide the details for another offence." So the "most telling" in your opinion is an offence he is alleged to have committed but which hasn't been proved and may not be. :rolleyes:

Law abiding people do not ....... pick and choose which laws to obeyI suppose that depends upon how strictly you define the term "law abiding". Very few motorists can honestly claim they never exceed a speed limit, even on a deserted road.
By your definition, the overwhelming majority of people who are also drivers are not law abiding people.

There is no way the (current) justice system can deal with everyone so some will slip through. There are enough muggers and housebreakers to fill the courts all week so should the CPS ignore motoring offences entirely or build more courts?Most sensible members of the public are more concerned about mugging (robbery) and housebreaking (burglary) than speeding. Surveys consistently show that those are the two offences which most members of the public fear most.

You seem to be concerned with yobs in hoodies spitting and mugging. Have you considered that they might have the same view on anti mugging laws that you have on speeding? I don’t doubt that muggers would much prefer the police to be spending time catching speeding motorists.

(JTobias) Your understanding of the law seems to be at odds with reality. Not IMHO.

To explain to Nubian why he was not banned. You can guess but you’re not in a position to "explain" why he was not banned.
FWIW, based upon my long experience in the courts, I think your guess is wrong and Bronx’s guess is far more likely to be correct.

Much longer sentences are the answer, people do not re-offend whilst in jail!The second half of that sentence is (generally) correct.
As for the first half, some people would say it depends upon the seriousness of the offence.

FL

Oh No!

Joel seems to have got himself a Lawyer!

Whatever next?

Oh dear, has the nasty man put you in your place, airpolice? :E

To all those who say they "regularly exceed the speed limits....when it's safe to do so"; how can you possibly know when something out of the blue is going to strike? There are plenty of people with clean driving records who have gone to their graves because they were caught out and their speed killed them. The higher your speed, the more energy is stored in your vehicle that will obliterate whatever jumps out in front of you as well as yourself and the longer your reaction times (in metres or feet). I suspect that there are not a few out there that still drink and drive and exceed the speed limit. Oh, joy.

Of course, all speed limits are arbitrary in the sense that they could be calibrated in tenths of kmh instead of whole 10's of kmh but let's leave that in the hands of those who are trained to make those speeds and live with it.

What worries me more with this particular gentleman is that he lied and continued to lie to protect himself. If that's a pattern in his life, I don't want him driving my family around, let alone flying them around.

At the risk of repeating myself, why not a little HONESTY??

My latest hobby is pottering along narrow little roads,
obeying the speed limit, to see how long the queue gets
behind me.
Must be an age related thing.

There are plenty of people with clean driving records who have gone to their graves because they were caught out and their speed killed them.

What an absurd statement.

My latest hobby is pottering along narrow little roads,
obeying the speed limit, to see how long the queue gets
behind me.


Hope you wear a flat cap or a trilby as you drive Norm, That really pisses the petrolheads off :E

Hmmm. Flat cap/trilby. Pottering along holding everyone up.

My best guess is a Volvo 240. Do I win a prize? :ok:

After Norm was caught "slowing"
:Ehttp://www.fwi.co.uk/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=3808424

What worries me more with this particular gentleman is that he lied and continued to lie
There seemed to be a few children at primary school who always seemed to be able to tell stories. I presume that some continued and became confidence tricksters (if they were convincing liars) or criminals . . .

M Mouse,

I can give you about half a dozen examples from my own family and circle of friends if you like.

Here's one that happened in my current country of residence. A friend had a camel go through his windscreen at night on an unlit road. Highly unfortunate but he was going at a speed too fast for the conditions. I mention that because I have a clean record but I ,too, have driven within the limit but too fast for the prevailing conditions. So yes, I'm not perfect, but I'm a bit retentive when it comes to observing speed limits because they are designed to save as many lives as possible on our roads.

Observing limits has some side benefits. I never have to worry about speed traps and I don't have to pay speeding fines...ever.

I presume that some continued and became confidence tricksters


More likely politicians.

There seemed to be a few children at primary school who always seemed to be able to tell stories. I presume that some continued and became confidence tricksters (if they were convincing liars) or criminals . . .

. . . or politicians, of course. ;)

....have driven within the limit but too fast for the prevailing conditions.

Precisely, your implication was that the speed was the killer, it isn't, inappropriate speed is, irrespective of what the limit might be.

Come to think of it I haven't seen many camels on the A4 lately.

...but I'm a bit retentive when it comes to observing speed limits because they are designed to save as many lives as possible on our roads.


Forgive me if I find your assumption touchingly naive. It may apply where you live but is certainly not the case in the UK.

To all those who say they "regularly exceed the speed limits....when it's safe to do so";

It's safe to do it in Germany on the Autoban, and since I have a German car (Audi Quatro) it should be just as safe to do it here in the UK.
I can safely drive past a school in excess of the speed limit with out hurting anyone, at 2 am, in the morning when no pedestrians are there. Same on the motorway, I can drive my high performance car perfectly safely at 100mph at 3 in the morning when the road is deserted. :ok:

To all those who say they "regularly exceed the speed limits....when it's safe to do so

It was me that said this and I stand by it!!

chopjock - couldn't have said it any better than you - inappropriate speed is the problem :ok:

Mods

This was and is a thread actively followed and posted to by Rotorheads. A good number have followed the thread to Jet Blast but it is being diluted now into a trite discussion for all comers. Can we come back please?

The debate had value and was of interest to registered members.

TT

TorqueTalk, all ppruners are registered and even Rotorheads are free to fraternate with the hoi polloi and look at other forums. Honestly. :}

The pilot was not a helicopter pilot so Rotorheads wasn't really appropriate.

Cheers

Whirls

Oh I'm more than hapoy to mix it with the hoi polloi :)

Only the discussion had interested Rotorhead posters enough to justify the tread in that forum in its own right methinks.

Ah but TorqueTalk, it has meant that some Rotorheads have actually ventured outside into the big, bad world :} You are allowed out but you might have to hold Mummy's hand and must be back home before dark :p

Besides, it was getting pretty trite on Rotorheads before it moved here. :)

Cheers

Whirls

Breadth is one thing: Diversity another

YouTube - Diversity - Dance Act - Britains Got Talent 2009 Ep 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPcGy77Gru8)

Ah wait. I'm straying off Jet Blast now :ok:

TT