The Road Maniac and Pathetic Punishment Thread

[icowden]

I await comments from those who earlier presented themselves as experts on the current flawed legal system, but I'd argue that passing a marshalled "ROAD CLOSED" barrier is "obviously dangerous" every time.

A good run down of careless vs dangerous is here:
https://www.thelawsuperstore.co.uk/.../what-counts-as-careless-or-dangerous-driving

Essentially it agrees (as do I) with what you say. If deliberately driving through a road closed sign and then deliberately driving at the crowd isn't dangerous driving, I'm not sure what is. The only thing I can guess at is that the Police/CPS don't feel they have enough evidence to go for a dangerous charge rather than a careless charge. I think sometimes the rationale is that it's better to succeed with a charge of careless driving than fail to get a successful prosecution for dangerous driving. There doesn't seem to be a hierarchical fallback that if dangerous driving isn't proven, it couldn't then be considered careless driving.

 

[raleighnut]

A good run down of careless vs dangerous is here:
https://www.thelawsuperstore.co.uk/.../what-counts-as-careless-or-dangerous-driving

Essentially it agrees (as do I) with what you say. If deliberately driving through a road closed sign and then deliberately driving at the crowd isn't dangerous driving, I'm not sure what is. The only thing I can guess at is that the Police/CPS don't feel they have enough evidence to go for a dangerous charge rather than a careless charge. I think sometimes the rationale is that it's better to succeed with a charge of careless driving than fail to get a successful prosecution for dangerous driving. There doesn't seem to be a hierarchical fallback that if dangerous driving isn't proven, it couldn't then be considered careless driving.

I just hope the Magistrates are 'ex service' or lost family in the Wars, they should come down on her like a ton of bricks. Completely disrespectful of those who paid the ultimate price for the Great Britain we live in.

 

[Dogtrousers]

By the way I remember cycling through the remembrance day service at Hildenborough last year. I quite often ride past road closed signs, to see exactly how closed the road is, but I figured what this was all about and realised that I might look like a dick if I rode through so I got off and walked. The service wasn't going on at the time, just lots of people milling around.

 

[Alex321]

I think the options are careless ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA ) or dangerous ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A ) but I could be wrong.

Looking at the definitions, they are both "falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver" but the latter is "obviously dangerous".

No they aren't. Careless is just "A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver." Not "far below".

While Dangerous is
"For the purposes of sections 1 [F2, 1A] and 2 above a person is to be regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only if)—
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."

I guess (but am not a lawyer) they need to figure the amount of danger posed. The press say she "ploughed through the crowd" and "clipped two brownies" which sounds quite dramatic but the truth may (or may not) be more prosaic, and perhaps she was just being horrible and entitled rather than actually dangerous.

It is hard to see how ploughing into a crowd of people could not be something a competent and careful driver would see as obviously dangerous. And it was also rather obviously "far below" what a competent driver should be doing.

Looking at the report, the only thing I can think may have reduced it to careless was if she was going slowly enough to not be risking significant injury. And there are no reports of the brownies she clipped being injured, which tends to support that.

 

[mjr]

By the way I remember cycling through the remembrance day service at Hildenborough last year. I quite often ride past road closed signs, to see exactly how closed the road is, but I figured what this was all about and realised that I might look like a dick if I rode through so I got off and walked. The service wasn't going on at the time, just lots of people milling around.

Yeah, but presumably if a marshal was standing by the closure sign, you'd ask them? Most will let a bike through if safe, but if they didn't, would you shout "I'm more concerned with the living than the dead" and barge past them, then shout "hurry up" as the Last Post played, as the driver in Halvergate reportedly did?

I'm wondering what a driver would have to do to a pedestrian or cyclist to be charged with dangerous driving around here.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Yeah, but presumably if a marshal was standing by the closure sign, you'd ask them? Most will let a bike through if safe, but if they didn't, would you shout "I'm more concerned with the living than the dead" and barge past them, then shout "hurry up" as the Last Post played, as the driver in Halvergate reportedly did?

I'm wondering what a driver would have to do to a pedestrian or cyclist to be charged with dangerous driving around here.

I just got off. I wasn't fussed about a short walk. It seemed the appropriate thing to do. I also got to have a look around at all the different assembled people and just generally take it in.

 

[grldtnr]

I just got off. I wasn't fussed about a short walk. It seemed the appropriate thing to do. I also got to have a look around at all the different assembled people and just generally take it in.

Thing is you are far less intrusive or dangerous on a bicycle, there is a fair amount of self preservation as well, unless you happen to be reckless and stoned out of your bonce.
Pavement cyclist exempt of course, the ones who insist on riding by at breakneck speed with no brakes.

 

[brommieinkorea]

False, in the actual human world.

People are not robots. They make mistakes, they get carelkess. They do not usually do these things deliberately, and suggesting they do is not going to help solve the issues.

So, you're saying all of these people are grossly incompetent and just can't safely operate an automobile? Can't see a person in the road ? Must drive 150% of the speed limit? Obvious answer is that the private automobile should be banned, if what you say is true. But I'm not shilling for the automotive industry.

 

[brommieinkorea]

Indeed, in the Bassam case it's possible that he wasn't looking at his phone when it just happened to be playing the Youtube app and he just happened to unaccountably move into the opposing lane and kill someone. Not necessarily likely but as there are grounds for doubt we have to live with the fact that it didn't meet the required standard of evidence for conviction.

That ship has sailed. It is what it is ( )

I did wonder whether the presence of the phone running an app other than a legally positioned satnav might be in some way contrary to the recent beefing up of the RTA under Grant Schapps, but evidently not. Perhaps it needs more beefing up as it seems to have failed in its intent in this case.

And to pre-empt the inevitable "oh, but we all do it sometimes" - no we don't "all do it sometimes". If I'm driving on my own put my phone on silent, do not disturb (no vibrate) or switch it off completely and put it out of the way in the passenger side glovebox. Always. Not just sometimes, always. If someone else is in the car they are in charge of my phone and it's still normally on do not disturb.

Problem with this is that we (US and the UK) have a different set of laws that serve to protect motorists exclusively. If a perpetrator uses a weapon other than a car, no one questions whether or not it could have been an accident.

 

[Drago]

So, you're saying all of these people are grossly incompetent and just can't safely operate an automobile? Can't see a person in the road ? Must drive 150% of the speed limit? Obvious answer is that the private automobile should be banned, if what you say is true. But I'm not shilling for the automotive industry.

Don't worry Brommie, he's wrong.

Driving carefully and diligently require the driver to make a positive decision to do so before starting their journey.

You cannot accidentally fail to make that decision.

There is no mysterious force that causes us to fail to make that decision.

There is only laziness and carelessness and both are human conditions that we each have the ability to overcome...should we choose to do so.

The problem is laziness is so widespread, hence people driving so many short journeys in the first place, that it has become seen as some kind of universal excuse - its been repackaged and renamed as some kind of force majeure, some inexplicable overpowering entity that causes people not to make that positive decision before setting off.

 

[raleighnut]

Don't worry Brommie, he's wrong.

Driving carefully and diligently require the driver to make a positive decision to do so before starting their journey.

You cannot accidentally fail to make that decision.

There is no mysterious force that causes us to fail to make that decision.

There is only laziness and carelessness and both are human conditions that we each have the ability to overcome...should we choose to do so.

The problem is laziness is so widespread, hence people driving so many short journeys in the first place, that it has become seen as some kind of universal excuse - its been repackaged and renamed as some kind of force majeure, some inexplicable overpowering entity that causes people not to make that positive decision before setting off.

I'd actually like to take cars back to late 50's early 60's spec, you needed to concentrate on driving back then not this 'sat in an armchair playing a video game' that modern cars seem to be.....................No 'reset' button in the real world.

 

[icowden]

Driving carefully and diligently require the driver to make a positive decision to do so before starting their journey.
You cannot accidentally fail to make that decision.
There is no mysterious force that causes us to fail to make that decision.
There is only laziness and carelessness and both are human conditions that we each have the ability to overcome...should we choose to do so.

All of that is nonsense. Humans are fallible. To err is human. Our brains work on prediction models, we don't see what is actually there until it isn't. We make a prediction based on what is going to happen. We have blind spots and many different systems which sometimes mean we miss something. You can't just turn all of that off by making a decision. We are not robots.

 

[mjr]

All of that is nonsense. Humans are fallible. To err is human. Our brains work on prediction models, we don't see what is actually there until it isn't. We make a prediction based on what is going to happen. We have blind spots and many different systems which sometimes mean we miss something. You can't just turn all of that off by making a decision. We are not robots.

Stop start
I have some sympathy with that but there are limits. Straying fully into incoming traffic on a fairly straight road, barging past a marshalled barrier, or doing 140mph in the 60 limit - those are not simple mistakes like putting two wheels on the line in a bend, failing to spot a bus stop marking, or going 2mph over, but they all seem to be treated as such.

 

[Alex321]

So, you're saying all of these people are grossly incompetent and just can't safely operate an automobile? Can't see a person in the road ? Must drive 150% of the speed limit? Obvious answer is that the private automobile should be banned, if what you say is true. But I'm not shilling for the automotive industry.

What an utterly ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said.

there is not a single part of what you wrote which relates to anything I said.

 

[Alex321]

Don't worry Brommie, he's wrong.

I am not wrong in the slightest.

Driving carefully and diligently require the driver to make a positive decision to do so before starting their journey.

You cannot accidentally fail to make that decision.

It also requires you to maintain concentration and care throughout your journey, not just at the start.

And people can AND DO accidentally fail to do those.

As I seem toi have to remind you every bloody week, people are not robots.

There is no mysterious force that causes us to fail to make that decision.

There is only laziness and carelessness and both are human conditions that we each have the ability to overcome...should we choose to do so.

True, but it requires constant attention to do so, and actual real life people don't always manage that.

Are you trying to tell us that you have never, ever, made a mistake while driving?

The problem is laziness is so widespread, hence people driving so many short journeys in the first place, that it has become seen as some kind of universal excuse - its been repackaged and renamed as some kind of force majeure, some inexplicable overpowering entity that causes people not to make that positive decision before setting off.

Can you point to anybody suggesting that?