47mph in a 30 zone, "Not Dangerous"

[spindrift]

The absurdity of the current law on what constitutes "dangerous driving".




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7058736.stm

Despite the judge's encouraging remarks, a driver didn't see a pedestrian change direction, in a panic to save their life.

 

[bonj2]

this tells you all you need to know.
in particular
"The current system is still looking at the state of mind of the driver, simply because it makes no sense not to. If the decision to charge, and the level of penalty, were to be decided simply on the 'dangerousness' of the driving, then every driver who pulled out of a side road and either failed to see the oncoming car, or misjudged its speed, would be charged with Dangerous Driving - because there is no doubt that such an act poses a danger to other road users. In fact, these drivers are almost always charged with Careless Driving, because it is recognised that they did not intentionally take the risk, but failed to take sufficient care."

 

[piedwagtail91]

no doubt that the verdict would have been the same if the driver had been a penniless student in a clapped out old lada?
obviously the same because british justice is the best in the world.
a world famous bolton boxer and a bolton jury, pretty much the same as ken dodd verses the taxman with a liverpool jury.
if 47 mph in a busy towncentre going through a red light isn't dangerous then what the hell is.
apparently he does a lot of good work in his spare time (as if that is relevent to a jury) well acording to the local news anyway.

 

[spindrift]

It was a pelican, actually. So a driver is doing a speed that's lethal, above the limit, and doesn't even notice a pedestrian where it is blindingly obvious a pedestrian may be.

And it's not dangerous, oh no.

You're right piedwagtail, it's bought justice.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

apparently he does a lot of good work in his spare time (as if that is relevent to a jury) well acording to the local news anyway.

Must have lots of spare time though, if he drives at those speeds.

 

[piedwagtail91]

the bloke whose leg he smashed is still hobbling around with a walking stick.

 

[Cab]

Beggars belief. So far over the limit, went straight over a crossing... I dunno, if that isn't dangerous driving then our legal definitions are totally screwed up.

 

[bonj2]

Beggars belief. So far over the limit, went straight over a crossing... I dunno, if that isn't dangerous driving then our legal definitions are totally screwed up.

maybe, but the sentence is more important than the wording. Better as it is than if he'd got convicted of dangerous driving but only got a £200 fine and no ban.

 

[piedwagtail91]

after reading the report in the bolton newspaper i couldn't help feeling that the judge had infleunced the jury by almost blaming the victim for panicking and getting knocked down when faced with some moron doing the best part of 50 mph coming straight for him.
it was only after that that he blamed khan, but then started arse licking by saying what a good bloke he was as he did a lot of good work and that he was young and young drivers tend to do that sort of thing.
what planet are these idiots from?

 

[bonj2]

That may be what the bolton newspaper wanted you to feel. Newspapers do like to whip up hysteria, you know.

 

[spindrift]

The fine is no punishment, and he'll just pay a driver.

 

[bonj2]

The fine is no punishment, and he'll just pay a driver.

agreed, and probably true. But what can you do, short of a custodial? If they'd put him in prison, there would have been cries he'd "unfairly been made an example of". You may say that's fair enough, but there's lots of people who wouldn't.

 

[Cab]

But what can you do, short of a custodial?

Doing nearly 50 in a 30 zone? Why stop short of custodial?

 

[bonj2]

Doing nearly 50 in a 30 zone? Why stop short of custodial?

Because for it to be fair, you'd have to then imprison everyone who did that. And contrary to what you might like to think, it isn't rare enough for doing that not to represent a serious strain on the already overcrowding prison population.

Or did you mean why stop AT custodial?

 

[Cab]

Because for it to be fair, you'd have to then imprison everyone who did that. And contrary to what you might like to think, it isn't rare enough for doing that not to represent a serious strain on the already overcrowding prison population.

Or did you mean why stop AT custodial?

Soon enough, if people were put in the jail for hitting nearly 50 in 30mph zones, the incidence of people doing it would go right down.