Whilst passing sentence on Sean Goodfellow and Murray McAllan, both found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, temporary judge Kenneth McIver said, ‘As in many of these tragic driving deaths, issues are here raised as to the wisdom of allowing new drivers immediate, unrestricted and unconditional driving opportunity.’
The judge also said, ‘To drive at speeds in excess of 90mph on such a road is complete folly. To do so while engaging in a contest of speed, effectively a road race with another vehicle, is indescribably stupid and dangerous.’
Whilst I agree with His Honour Judge McIver as to the folly of racing on roads, I think that the DVLA and VOSA should be taking immediate steps to remove Judge McIver’s driving licence from him until he can demonstrate his knowledge, by passing a new test.
Why?
Because the speed limit on that stretch of road is not ‘unrestricted and unconditional,’ to use the Judge’s words.
It is 60mph.
So the Judge appears not to know that the speed on that road is 60mph, and the Judge appears to be unable to understand that these two foolish young men, who drove at speeds of up to 90mph along it, would have broken whatever restriction had been put in their way.
It also seems to me that (again, to use his own words) the Judge seems to believe that we have some roads in the UK that are ‘unrestricted and unconditional’.
This is also not the case.
Therefore the Judge, Mr McIver, should have his licence removed and should be compelled to take a retest with immediate effect; he has clearly demonstrated he does not know some of the most fundamental rules of the road.
“are here raised as to the wisdom of allowing new drivers immediate, unrestricted and unconditional driving opportunity”
you see I read that as him saying that its not right that once someone has passed their test they are allowed to drive without any further restrictions or conditions – unlike in Germany where a driver is allowed to pass their test at the age of 16 or 17 (I can’t remember the exact age) but for the next year are only permitted to drive if they have someone in the car who is over the age of 21 (or some such ruling). Some countries I think require you to display the P plates to show that you have only recently passed your test. Others apply other restrictions or conditions to new drivers.
Here once you have passed your test thats it, off you go.
Funny how one sentance can be interpreted differently – the wonders of the english language.
Do you know what I don’t get about the driving test here? Howcome you don’t have to pass a motorway section of test, to prove that you know what you’re doing on the fastest roads we have in the UK? It’s stupid, “Brilliant, you can parallel park in a residential street and you can look in your mirror before indicting to turn into a box junction. You want to go bombing down a road at 70 while negotiating what some twat in a beamer is going to do next? On you go son..”. Mental.
Echoing Mia’s comments, the sentence is not unambiguous, although I confess I read it as she did. In this case I’d probably reserve my wrath for the two nimrods who broke the law and caused death as a result.
B,
I make it three to one for license restrictions vice speed limits.
At least the judge sent them down the steps for 4 1/2, and tore up their licenses for twelve more. It’s a start.