|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speeding driver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On 10/09/2020 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote: On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence really does look lenient. The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree. Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything? Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that. Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence. Hardly. Oh definitely. You're defending the action of the driver. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speeding driver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On 10/09/2020 13:56, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 2:16:13 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote: QUOTE: RobD | 926 posts | 1 day ago 9 likes So at what point does breaking the law whilst driving, in this case speeding go from careless to dangerous? The answer is contained within the relevant Road Traffic Act and in certain decisions of the relevant upper courts. QUOTE: (Road Traffic Act 1988) Section 2A: Meaning of dangerous driving. (1) For the purposes of sections 1 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. (2) A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the purposes of sections 1 [F2, 1A] and 2 above if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous. (3) In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances *shown* to have been within the *knowledge* of the accused. (4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried. ENDQUOTE My emphases above. Note that Section 2A subsection 3 effectively requires a mens rea and means that the alleged offence cannot be regarded as absolute (unlike, say, excess speed or failure to comply with traffic lights or one-way working). QUOTE: Section 3: Careless, and inconsiderate, driving. If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence. ENDQUOTE Neither offence requires any damage or injury to have been caused. The law clearly provides that the judgment of what is "dangerous" falls to a "competent and careful driver" (and by extension, the court, standing in the shoes of a competent and careful driver), *not* a cyclist or any other person with a loose-screw grudge against motor traffic. But of course, that is obvious and you had already realised it. If you're not speeding and not doing anything illegal and it happens I can kind of understand it being careless, you weren't taking appropriate care, but as soon as you're speeding that should be dangerous driving shouldn't it? Why? 35mph in a 30mph speed limit is an absolute offence in its own right, but is it automatically dangerous (or even careless)? If so, how? And if it were, why would we need a law against exceeding the speed limit if it automatically counted as either careless or dangerous driving? See: https://www.mosshaselhurst.co.uk/site/news/legal/high-speed-is-that-dangerous-driving QUOTE: In a case from 2006, the Director of Public Prosecutions v Mark Scott Milton, Lady Justice Hallett said “it is not for this Court to attempt to lay down hard and fast rules that driving at X times any particular speed limit is so excessive as to amount to dangerous driving per se. That would be an impossible and inappropriate task”. As a result of that it is a question of the circumstances of each particular case as to whether driving at high speed is dangerous or not. That can depend upon road conditions, traffic conditions, the preponderance or otherwise of junctions, schools, houses, factories etc, and many other factors. In a recent case on the A11 in Suffolk a driver was banned for 56 days for speeding at 154 mph. It is to be noted that that was a charge of speeding. ENDQUOTE That's not the reported case I was thinking of, but the Court of Appeal once held that [a high speed] was not automatically dangerous or to be deemed to be so in the absence of other specific and evidenced circumstances which, when combined with the speed, created a situation which a "competent and careful driver" would regard as dangerous. Just as with other legislation which calls for the judgment of a person of any particular description (eg, a competent and careful driver), the reasonableness of the judgment of that person itself has to be objective. For instance, someone saying "I am a reasonable person and I would always judge 45 in a 40 as dangerous" is not acting reasonably and therefore not lawfully. It would not be up to you to burst into the court to declare your own claimed care and competence and to beg to differ with the magistrates or the jury. It would seem harsh if they were doing 42mph in a 40, a few mph can be a momentary slip, but 60 in a 40 is not in that territory. The courts do have some guidelines on how to treat various degrees of excess speed. As you can see above, a driver was disqualified for 56 days for driving at 156mph in a (presumed) 70mph limit. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speedingdriver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On 10/09/2020 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 13:05, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote: On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence really does look lenient. The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree. Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything? Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that. Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence. Hardly. Oh definitely. You're defending the action of the driver. The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering English and exercising logic), don't you? I am declining to condemn him as having done something deliberately when there is no evidence to support such a view and when there is good reason for believing that the accident happened other than as a result of deliberate or wilful behaviour on the part of the driver. If you wouldn't deliberately endanger the lives of your own children (I'm being very charitable to you in assuming that without eliciting it directly from you), what makes you "think" that the driver in the case would have done so? But you, of course, don't need tiresome things like evidence, do you? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speeding driver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On 10/09/2020 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 14:25, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2020 13:05, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote: On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence really does look lenient. The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree. Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything? Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that. Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence. Hardly. Oh definitely. You're defending the action of the driver. The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering English and exercising logic), don't you? You decided your opinion was the only possible one and closed off discussion. snipped unread |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speedingdriver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On 10/09/2020 15:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 14:41, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2020 14:25, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2020 13:05, JNugent wrote: On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote: On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote: On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence really does look lenient. The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree. Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything? Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that. Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence. Hardly. Oh definitely. You're defending the action of the driver. The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering English and exercising logic), don't you? You decided your opinion was the only possible one and closed off discussion. My opinion, here and elsewhere, is that you cannot condemn anyone for anything without evidence which *credibly* supports it. The only evidence here supports the opposite view from the one you wanted to take (without your having to bother with little things like evidence). snipped unread ....andd reinstated because (a) it is central to the esponse to TMS320's dishonest posts, and (b) it embarrasses him by exposing the unthinking nature of his "conclusions". QUOTE: [in response to: "You're defending the action of the driver":] The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering English and exercising logic), don't you? I am declining to condemn him as having done something deliberately when there is no evidence to support such a view and when there is good reason for believing that the accident happened other than as a result of deliberate or wilful behaviour on the part of the driver. If you wouldn't deliberately endanger the lives of your own children (I'm being very charitable to you in assuming that without eliciting it directly from you), what makes you "think" that the driver in the case would have done so? But you, of course, don't need tiresome things like evidence, do you? ENDQUOTE Your attempt at a response was laughable. And you knew that. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speedingdriver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 2:16:13 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE: wtjs | 162 posts | 2 days ago 6 likes A custodial sentence, even a 6 month one, was required- along with a driving ban of at least 5 years. That would have shown that sociey takes the offence seriously- admittedly this wasn't one of the 'didn''t see the cyclist, not my fault' examples. This was a 'didn't see the margin of the road and that massive tree and I had to speed because I was driving a fast car', which the police generally excuse as 'momentary loss of concentration so it's all right'. We don't know how hard it was prosecuted, but it looks more like a sentencing failure born of the 'making the driver suffer won't bring back the dead' dodge. CPS should appeal this joke sentence. We're all disregarding the community service-and we're quite right. https://road.cc/content/news/wife-tr...entence-277085 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speedingdriver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On 10/09/2020 17:30, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 2:16:13 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote: QUOTE: wtjs | 162 posts | 2 days ago 6 likes A custodial sentence, even a 6 month one, was required- along with a driving ban of at least 5 years. That would have shown that sociey takes the offence seriously- admittedly this wasn't one of the 'didn''t see the cyclist, not my fault' examples. This was a 'didn't see the margin of the road and that massive tree and I had to speed because I was driving a fast car', which the police generally excuse as 'momentary loss of concentration so it's all right'. We don't know how hard it was prosecuted, but it looks more like a sentencing failure born of the 'making the driver suffer won't bring back the dead' dodge. CPS should appeal this joke sentence. We're all disregarding the community service-and we're quite right. https://road.cc/content/news/wife-tr...entence-277085 Why doesn't the state dispense with the traffic police, the CPS and the magistrates' courts and appoint Simon Mason to carry out all their functions? After all, even without hearing the evidence presented to the court, he knows it all and they apparently know nothing. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speedingdriver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On Thursday, 10 September 2020 13:00:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 03:13, Mike Collins wrote: On Thursday, 10 September 2020 00:50:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote: On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence really does look lenient. The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree. Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything? Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that. So you are saying motor vehicles are so dangerous they kill people even if the licensed operator has no malicious intent? Yet again, you appear to have tremendous difficulty with English. I didn't say that or anything even remotely like it. I *asked* whether the reported fact that the driver of a car which crashed had his "toddler son" aboard (at the time of the crash) didn't indicate that he had no intention of crashing the vehicle and that none of it was deliberate (as suggested - exceptionally stupidly, even for this place - by a previous poster). The only possible answer, from a sane respondent, has to be "Yes, it does indicate a lack of intention and deliberateness". So you agree, cars injure and kill innocent bystanders absent any malicious intent by the nominal operator. Why do we let fallible human beings to operate such unpredictable dangerous machinery on public roads? That's a different question entirely and rather more cosmic in its scope. You could ask the same question in respect of sharp kitchen knives and bottles of aspirin. And the answers for all three (as for many other things) would probably be quite similar. Outside of Liverpool people do not normally run around the streets with kitchen knives or try to force Aspirin down the throats of others. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speedingdriver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On 10/09/2020 16:25, JNugent wrote:
I am replying just so that you can't apply the "you didn't reply so I won" rule. ...andd reinstated because .... you're a tedious individual. snipped unread again |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speedingdriver says family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence
On 11/09/2020 08:06, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 16:25, JNugent wrote: I am replying just so that you can't apply the "you didn't reply so I won" rule. ...andd reinstated because ... you're a tedious individual. snipped unread again Once more, TMS320 demonstrates that he cannot stand being shown to be wrong yet again. Here's the snipped material, reinstated (again): [in response to TMS320's: "You're defending the action of the driver" (written because he wants to believe that the driver in a traffic accident deliberately caused a crash whilst his toddler son with him in the car:] QUOTE: ....and reinstated because (a) it is central to th response to TMS320's dishonest posts, and (b) it embarrasses him by exposing the unthinking nature of his "conclusions". The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering English and exercising logic), don't you? I am declining to condemn him [the driver] as having done something deliberately when there is no evidence to support such a view and when there is good reason for believing that the accident happened other than as a result of deliberate or wilful behaviour on the part of the driver. If you wouldn't deliberately endanger the lives of your own children (I'm being very charitable to you in assuming that without eliciting it directly from you), what makes you "think" that the driver in the case would have done so? But you, of course, don't need tiresome things like evidence, do you? Your attempt at a response was laughable. And you knew that. ENDQUOTE Perhaps you *would* deliberately endanger your family members out of some perverted "logic" and perhaps you believe that everyone else would deliberately do the same. You are wrong on that as on so much else. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lorry driver who killed cyclist after rolling through give way saidhe was taught to "progress where possible" | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 0 | July 17th 20 01:45 PM |
"Cyclist sent flying as he is hit by a turning car after undertaking a waiting vehicle - so was he in the wrong?" | Pamela | UK | 9 | March 13th 20 09:29 AM |
Cyclist Killed by "Good" Pothole | Guy Cuthbertson[_9_] | UK | 11 | April 3rd 10 08:08 AM |
"Otherwise law-abiding" speeding motorists "laughable" - reader letter | PiledHigher | Australia | 5 | November 16th 06 07:28 AM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |