A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 14th 07, 03:44 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Toby Sleigh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge

In today's Times 2 a short piece by Humfrey Hunter

From The Times
March 14, 2007


"Did you know?

Can I get a witness?

It is a bright spring afternoon and a young man almost runs over a courier
in Covent Garden, before getting out of his car and attacking him. A flurry
of punches and a headbutt leave the cyclist's nose broken. More than a dozen
witnesses, me among them, offer statements to the police. Not a single
person pretends to look the other way.

Fast forward ten months to trial day, earlier this week. Ten witnesses turn
up and the motorist, knowing that he cannot fight such a weight of evidence,
pleads guilty. He is convicted of ABH (assault, occasioning actual bodily
harm) and careless driving. But why only careless driving? After all, he
nearly ran over the courier. What happened to the more serious offence
charge of dangerous driving?

Ah, says the policeman supervising us, bit of a problem there. The courier
did not turn up to court and prosecution is a bit tricky without your main
witness. This one was still in bed at 2pm when the trial began. What? We
ten, who have never met him before, give up our days on his behalf and he
doesn't bother to show up?

I am angry because so much about this case was right. The public pitched in
unreservedly and the two policemen involved were a credit to the Met.

But how disappointing - and how frustrating- that the victim was the only
one who failed to do his bit. "



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle1509771.ece




Ads
  #2  
Old March 14th 07, 09:18 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mark Thompson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge

But how disappointing - and how frustrating- that the victim was the
only one who failed to do his bit. "


People like that should be run over and given a broken nose.

Nice of the people to help out thobut - and southerners too.
  #3  
Old March 14th 07, 11:40 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
burt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 393
Default Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge


"Mark Thompson"
pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_t o_reply*.com wrote in
message . 1.4...
But how disappointing - and how frustrating- that the victim was the
only one who failed to do his bit. "


People like that should be run over and given a broken nose.


How did the writer of the article know why he wasn't there? Accusing
someone of being in bed at 2pm with what appears to be no proof whatsoever
doesn't appear to be the behaviour of what I would call a reliable witness.
He could have been in hospital. He could be from another country and went
home six months ago. There are any number of perfectly valid reasons for
his non-appearance. Conclusion very firmly jumped to.

In fact, the more I think about it, the less likely this story seems. A
dozen witnesses? All of whom are prepared to give their details? All of
who were prepared to turn up at court? All of whom would be called by the
prosecution when a couple would have been quite sufficient? hmmmmmm.
Possible, just very, very unlikely.

Perhaps that's the explanation. The courier realised the odds of this
happening, invested in a lottery ticket as it was obviously the luckiest day
of his life, and now he's lounging on a tropical island, with dusky maidens
bringing cool drinks!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 902 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!


  #4  
Old March 16th 07, 05:07 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
J. Chisholm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge

Toby Sleigh wrote:
In today's Times 2 a short piece by Humfrey Hunter


Fast forward ten months to trial day, earlier this week. Ten witnesses turn
up and the motorist, knowing that he cannot fight such a weight of evidence,
pleads guilty. He is convicted of ABH (assault, occasioning actual bodily
harm) and careless driving. But why only careless driving? After all, he
nearly ran over the courier. What happened to the more serious offence
charge of dangerous driving?

I fear a lot of people get confused over 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving.

You could kill 10 people in a bus queue and if it was 'agreed' that this
was because your foot slipped off the brake onto the accelerator it
would be careless driving. But if you drive in an aggressive manner
witnessed by a number of people but only squash a fly that would still
be dangerous driving.
The charge should be on the nature of the driving not the consequences
of your actions or missactions

Discuss

Jim Chisholm
  #5  
Old March 16th 07, 05:35 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Ian Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,622
Default Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:07:45 +0000, J. Chisholm wrote:

The charge should be on the nature of the driving not the
consequences of your actions or missactions

Discuss


OK. No it shouldn't. In H&S sentencing guidleines the penalty takes
into account the outcome of teh offence. This would be more
appropriate and would encourage more care.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
  #6  
Old March 16th 07, 06:20 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Matt B
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 920
Default Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge

J. Chisholm wrote:

The charge should be on the nature of the driving not the consequences
of your actions or missactions

Discuss


I tend to agree. Neither the law though, nor justice, is based on that
simple logic. Emotions, the victims' need for retribution, deterrence,
punishment and public (the tabloid press) mob-rule instincts and
tendencies are taken into account.

Attempted murder is another obvious anomaly. The charge only results if
the victim, whom the assailant fully intended to kill, and left the
scene convinced he had achieved his objective, as a result of some fluke
of circumstances - a lucky encounter with a passing paramedic, the
concrete block chained to his leg hasn't cured and dissolves off, or
whatever, somehow survives and makes a miraculous recovery.

Manslaughter is another. There was either an intention to kill, or
there wasn't.

Recklessness, negligence, or some other failure to exercise full care as
to whether someone is killed or injured or not, should not be treated
less seriously because, by some lucky chance, no-one was hurt.

Using a car reckless as to the consequences, past a school, or wherever
should always be treated the same, and under the same law as using
anything else (chainsaw, shotgun, fists, ...) - as if all those who
could have been killed or injured were killed or injured.

--
Matt B
  #7  
Old March 17th 07, 12:25 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,493
Default Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge

in message , J. Chisholm
') wrote:

Toby Sleigh wrote:
In today's Times 2 a short piece by Humfrey Hunter


Fast forward ten months to trial day, earlier this week. Ten witnesses
turn up and the motorist, knowing that he cannot fight such a weight of
evidence, pleads guilty. He is convicted of ABH (assault, occasioning
actual bodily harm) and careless driving. But why only careless driving?
After all, he nearly ran over the courier. What happened to the more
serious offence charge of dangerous driving?

I fear a lot of people get confused over 'careless' and 'dangerous'
driving.

You could kill 10 people in a bus queue and if it was 'agreed' that this
was because your foot slipped off the brake onto the accelerator it
would be careless driving. But if you drive in an aggressive manner
witnessed by a number of people but only squash a fly that would still
be dangerous driving.


While I would agree that this /is/ the state of the law, it seems to me
pure common sense that if your driving was so careless that you actually
killed someone, that is in itself sufficient evidence that your driving
was dangerous.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

:: Wisdom is better than weapons of war ::
:: Ecclesiastes 9:18 ::
  #8  
Old March 17th 07, 02:32 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Alistair Gunn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 730
Default Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge

Simon Brooke twisted the electrons to say:
While I would agree that this /is/ the state of the law, it seems to me
pure common sense that if your driving was so careless that you actually
killed someone, that is in itself sufficient evidence that your driving
was dangerous.


Whilst I don't like the idea of making the law even more complicated, and
there's also the issue that juries might not convict on two of these
options, perhaps there should be 4 offences?

[1] Careless Driving
[2] Careless Driving leading to harm
[3] Dangerous Driving
[4] Dangerous Driving leading to harm

(Substitute whatever phrase you prefer for "leading to harm"!)
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
  #9  
Old March 17th 07, 10:12 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Tony Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,692
Default Careless driving conviction instead of dangerous driving charge

Alistair Gunn wrote on 17/03/2007 01:32 +0100:

Whilst I don't like the idea of making the law even more complicated, and
there's also the issue that juries might not convict on two of these
options, perhaps there should be 4 offences?

[1] Careless Driving
[2] Careless Driving leading to harm
[3] Dangerous Driving
[4] Dangerous Driving leading to harm

(Substitute whatever phrase you prefer for "leading to harm"!)


If you substitute death for harm then by later this year that will
describe the law.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dangerous Driving - RTA Sniper8052(L96A1) UK 15 March 9th 07 12:14 AM
Cyclict killed in Oxford, no question of dangerous driving Just zis Guy, you know? UK 26 March 23rd 06 06:43 PM
Test your driving Skill at http://driving-test.friendsrus.net [email protected] UK 5 November 17th 05 07:47 PM
Dangerous driving LSMike UK 2 May 28th 05 04:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.