Tiger was doing 87mph in a 45 mph zone

[Deleted member 15717]

Not that there is excuse, but those who know the road say it is a fairly steep slope, and despite the 45mph limit, it is common for traffic to ‘flow’ at 60/65 with ease.

to do more than that, sure, daft and i’m
not excusing it, but it could have easily felt ‘normal’ to be travelling and then came unstuck when needing to turn or try to slow down when there was a realisation of speed.

still, it’s done and he won’t be playing top level golf, imo, for another year at least...if he gets the opportunity again

 

[bobmac]

Going that speed through a curve in an SUV was idiotic.

This is the corner where he went off.

 

[clubchamp98]

Or you could turn it around and say that maybe he is still alive due to the fact that he was in an suv rather than a small saloon car, just a thought ?

Last time he crashed an SUV he hit a fire hydrant!!
(In his defence he was being chased by a club wielding irate wife)
So he hasn’t learned any lessons.
In a saloon car he might have stayed on the road.
SUVs don’t take bends very well especially at 87 mph.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

If ever they do it again, ask them what their grounds are.

I have learnt over many years if you have nothing to hide it’s in your interests to be civil and help them do their job.
Being awkward just wastes theirs and my time.
He checked insurance ,tax etc I have no problem with that.

There is a golf club near to me, not mine, where I would be very happy if the police set up shop on a Saturday afternoon and randomly breath tested drivers. They would catch more than their fair share and the roads would be safer for it.

 

[Billysboots]

Well I think they are not doing a very good job judging by most comments here.
But we’re not lawyers.
The police are in a difficult situation with no witnesses.
But if they have evidence of his speeding some sort of prosecution should be seen to be done.
Who picks what laws to ignore, ? them or the prosecutor.?

In the U.K. (again!), in certain cases the police can make a charging decision and in others it must be the CPS.

If the exact same circumstances as Woods’ crash had happened here in my time then, as a police sergeant, I could make the decision whether or not to prosecute. Based on the facts alone, if it was found that the driver was simply driving too fast to negotiate a bend and put themselves in plaster for months then, if they had an otherwise clean driving history, the decision would likely as not be to not prosecute for reasons I have previously set out. I’ve made similar decisions in many cases, and it’s not a case of ignoring the law, it’s about what you are seeking to achieve by applying it.

What really would cause the headache for me if I was to deal with someone well known is what BiM has already detailed - the Public Interest test. I genuinely sympathise with anyone making a charging decision involving anyone famous, because they quite literally are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.

 

[clubchamp98]

This is the corner where he went off.

View attachment 36069

That’s not a very big bend.
It’s a gentle curve.
Given how many houses are there doing 87mph is reckless and he should definitely be prosecuted imo.

 

[Billysboots]

There is a golf club near to me, not mine, where I would be very happy if the police set up shop on a Saturday afternoon and randomly breath tested drivers. They would catch more than their fair share and the roads would be safer for it.

They’d fill their boots if they parked outside most golf clubs.

 

[clubchamp98]

There is a golf club near to me, not mine, where I would be very happy if the police set up shop on a Saturday afternoon and randomly breath tested drivers. They would catch more than their fair share and the roads would be safer for it.

Mine to see it every Saturday pre lockdown.

 

[clubchamp98]

In the U.K. (again!), in certain cases the police can make a charging decision and in others it must be the CPS.

If the exact same circumstances as Woods’ crash had happened here in my time then, as a police sergeant, I could make the decision whether or not to prosecute. Based on the facts alone, if it was found that the driver was simply driving too fast to negotiate a bend and put themselves in plaster for months then, if they had an otherwise clean driving history, the decision would likely as not be to not prosecute for reasons I have previously set out. I’ve made similar decisions in many cases, and it’s not a case of ignoring the law, it’s about what you are seeking to achieve by applying it.

What really would cause the headache for me if I was to deal with someone well known is what BiM has already detailed - the Public Interest test. I genuinely sympathise with anyone making a charging decision involving anyone famous, because they quite literally are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.

Not a criticism but I find that strange.
If they have broken the law famous or not isn’t that what the law is for?

 

[AliMc]

Last time he crashed an SUV he hit a fire hydrant!!
(In his defence he was being chased by a club wielding irate wife)
So he hasn’t learned any lessons.
In a saloon car he might have stayed on the road.
SUVs don’t take bends very well especially at 87 mph.

If you look at Bobmac's photo you can see it's hardy a bend at all, but he shouldn't have been doing 87 mph or whatever whether he was in an suv or a saloon, I was simply replying to my mate KenL's post that he was in a 'shitty 4x4' and making the point that maybe he's lucky to be alive because he was in an suv as possibly it offered more protection

 

[Blue in Munich]

Not a criticism but I find that strange.
If they have broken the law famous or not isn’t that what the law is for?

Famous usually hasn't got anything to do with the charging decision (unless the fame is pertinent to the offence; breach of trust as an example), but that doesn't stop people outside of the decision assuming that the offender's fame was the driving factor in the decision. That's not intended as a slight, but I'm struggling to think of a better way to write it.

 

[Billysboots]

I have learnt over many years if you have nothing to hide it’s in your interests to be civil and help them do their job.
Being awkward just wastes theirs and my time.
He checked insurance ,tax etc I have no problem with that.

But they’re not doing their job if they seek to breath test you with no grounds - they’re acting unlawfully.

If I was driving legally, had not touched a drop of booze and so on, and the police asked me to submit to a breath test you can rest assured I would be asking what their grounds are. And that’s an ex cop talking!

 

[Blue in Munich]

Yes that’s my take on it as well.
If we had a crash do you think the police would carry your clubs away from your car for you.
It’s who he is, not what he’s done that seems to be why the police action or lack of is being questioned.
Motoring law in the US is incredibly strict so some of this really surprised me.

No, but you and I are not professional golfers. When I was doing this sort of thing regularly, if we were responsible for the safety of the contents of a vehicle after an accident, we would ask the occupant if there was anything particularly valuable in the car. Tools of the trade would be considered as valuable & would have been removed to safe storage if practical to do so. In this case, the clubs would be a great temptation left in the back of a wreck in a salvage yard, so I'm not seeing anything particularly strange in this aspect of it.

 

[Blue in Munich]

That sounds sensible.

I've got a question though - when certain forces run high profile campaigns around Xmas to try to catch "morning after" drivers, do they breath test everyone they stop, or just the ones who appear impaired? (it's not a trick question - I genuinely don't know the answer.)

Don't know about campaigns to catch morning after drivers, but on the evening ones I was involved in there were speed detection devices used and anything over the speed limit was stopped and as they had committed a moving traffic offence they were required to provide a sample of breath for analysis. If they passed the breath test & met the parameters for a ticket they'd get that, if not sent away with a verbal warning.

 

[pokerjoke]

You ever done 87mph in a 40 zone ?
I havnt.
Not saying I have never been speeding but that’s just not on.

No I get it 87 in a 40 is ridiculous,however speeding is speeding.
40 in a 30 makes a significant difference
90 as apposed to 70 on a motorway would be significantly more dangerous.
What he did was wrong and I condone it,but once again people are making themselves out to be saints.
He was lucky to live and even luckier not to have killed others.
I’ve been very lucky not to have been killed by a speeding motorist but I was speeding too,we all do it.

 

[howbow88]

There is a golf club near to me, not mine, where I would be very happy if the police set up shop on a Saturday afternoon and randomly breath tested drivers. They would catch more than their fair share and the roads would be safer for it.

At my semi-current club, they would have an absolute field day. Mostly old blokes who are set in their ways and think they know better. All know how much they can handle, etc

 

[clubchamp98]

No I get it 87 in a 40 is ridiculous,however speeding is speeding.
40 in a 30 makes a significant difference
90 as apposed to 70 on a motorway would be significantly more dangerous.
What he did was wrong and I condone it,but once again people are making themselves out to be saints.
He was lucky to live and even luckier not to have killed others.
I’ve been very lucky not to have been killed by a speeding motorist but I was speeding too,we all do it.

I have lost a family member to a speeding Moron.
That’s why I think he should be prosecuted,
It’s a built up area ,he was lucky he didn’t hit anyone else or he would really be in big trouble.
He might not be so lucky next time.

 

[clubchamp98]

Famous usually hasn't got anything to do with the charging decision (unless the fame is pertinent to the offence; breach of trust as an example), but that doesn't stop people outside of the decision assuming that the offender's fame was the driving factor in the decision. That's not intended as a slight, but I'm struggling to think of a better way to write it.

Yes I see your point . But we only hear about the famous ones so it’s a natural assumption and all know someone who’s been prosecuted for less.
But 87 mph in a 45 zone ,someone going 50 gets a 200 buck fine but 87 nothing.
Just me but that’s not right.
But I am still shocked that things like this can be overlooked by the CPS.

 

[RichA]

I've lost 3, in separate incidents - albeit not immediate family. 2 of them were probably at fault. They paid a high price.
We don't know all the facts. He appears to have been reckless, but the only person he has hurt is himself, grievously. Probable permanent disability of some sort seems like a fairly harsh punishment for reckless driving. Can't see much point in fining or jailing him.

 

[clubchamp98]

I've lost 3, in separate incidents - albeit not immediate family. 2 of them were probably at fault. They paid a high price.
We don't know all the facts. He appears to have been reckless, but the only person he has hurt is himself, grievously. Probable permanent disability of some sort seems like a fairly harsh punishment for reckless driving. Can't see much point in fining or jailing him.

No agree but stopping him driving for five years might keep the public a bit safer.