Thread starter
#1
Idiot.
My sympathy for him has just gone out the window.
My sympathy for him has just gone out the window.
Tiger was doing 87mph in a 45 mph zone
- Thread starter rudebhoy
- Start date
His driving has always been erratic and fast.
Might have made the corner in a car, rather than a boat.
And they are taking no action......hmmmmm. Can't help but think if it was me, they'd be taking action.
Surely he has to be done for speeding at the very least..?
Bryson told him he needed a lot more speed.
Blimey - that’s going at some speed , lucky to be alive , even more so to not be prosecuted
Doubt it; he has inflicted more penalty on himself than they can, beyond the car owner there appears to be no other injured or out-of-pocket party, where is the benefit in a prosecution. The court of public opinion will inflict more damage on him.
Reckless driving in California... not less than 5 days in jail OR a fine of not less than $125 and not more than $1,000. For more jail time and/or a bigger fine he would have had to injure someone else.
Bit of a waste of the court's time for someone who has given himself life changing injuries, including self-imprisonment whilst he recuperates and no doubt a medical bill that far outweighs a small fine.
Bit of a waste of the court's time for someone who has given himself life changing injuries, including self-imprisonment whilst he recuperates and no doubt a medical bill that far outweighs a small fine.
If he got a driving ban he'd probably serve it on crutches. And given the current climate, the phrase "not in the public interest" is probably even more pertinent than usual. Absolutely nothing to be gained from a prosecution.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,372
Spot on. I often NFA’d single vehicle, sole occupant jobs even if there was a nailed on careless driving offence if the driver had seriously injured themselves. My rationale was always that - the courts couldn’t impose worse penalty than the driver had on themselves.
The only times I ever departed from that was if the driving history was such that a disqualification was in the public interest.
And I agree with those whose sympathy is maxed out. Woods is a fool.
The only times I ever departed from that was if the driving history was such that a disqualification was in the public interest.
And I agree with those whose sympathy is maxed out. Woods is a fool.
Will it? Drugs the other year
All those affairs
Came back hardly anyone actually cared apart from Nike
Go tiger
This will be forgotten
All those affairs
Came back hardly anyone actually cared apart from Nike
Go tiger
This will be forgotten
And rightly so. Simple common sense.
And he never touched his brakes!!
The question I have (as mentioned above), would I be prosecuted for a similar situation? I don't know enough of the rules to know for sure......but I tend to think I would. At least fined a bit heavily....
I am on the other side of the coin .
He should be prosecuted to show the law is for everyone even the rich.
It would create a job for a driver if the ban was long enough.
He should have to pass another driving test and the ban starts then.
The laws on stupid motorists need stepping up.
It was only luck he didn’t hurt anyone else.
The next guy in court is going to claim he shouldn’t be done Tiger wasn’t.
Just my opinion formed from my personal experience of tosses in cars. That’s what Tiger was.
He should be prosecuted to show the law is for everyone even the rich.
It would create a job for a driver if the ban was long enough.
He should have to pass another driving test and the ban starts then.
The laws on stupid motorists need stepping up.
It was only luck he didn’t hurt anyone else.
The next guy in court is going to claim he shouldn’t be done Tiger wasn’t.
Just my opinion formed from my personal experience of tosses in cars. That’s what Tiger was.
Well, the two people on this thread who used to deal with these things for a living don't think you would have been.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,372
Read my last mate - probably not.