Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Driving Standards

I think with an intention to hurt and the fact that hitting someone with a car can very plausibly kill them, it's likely over the threshold.

Nah. It has to be an intenton to kill or commit GBH.

If he says his intention was to scare or give him a light tap it's hard to see how an intention to kill can be considered proven, especially if, as is so often the case, the cyclist initiated the confrontation.
 
Nah. It has to be an intenton to kill or commit GBH.

If he says his intention was to scare or give him a light tap it's hard to see how an intention to kill can be considered proven.

Yeah, think you’re right, looking at it.
I read so many things involving US law that I think I get the systems mixed up.

I wonder whether it would be simple manslaughter if the person has died, or whether a murder charge would then be in the frame…
 
Lack of mens rea. There needs to be proof of an intention to kill.

or commit serious harm

Sure the article is a local rag and even 'respsected' national rags are pretty poor with details these days, however a direct quote from the article:

Sheriff Alison Michie said:
The manner of your driving saw you repeatedly swerving until you struck the cyclist with your car to his very seriously injury – fracturing a vertebra and his pelvis. You say you experienced a red mist

Swerving repeatedly until you strike a cyclist, any reasonable person would know that is likely to result in serious injury, and indeed in this case it did. So meets the threshold, but as so often is the case, car drivers are held to a lower standard of account than others whose violent outbursts cause serious harm.
 
or commit serious harm

Sure the article is a local rag and even 'respsected' national rags are pretty poor with details these days, however a direct quote from the article:



Swerving repeatedly until you strike a cyclist, any reasonable person would know that is likely to result in serious injury, and indeed in this case it did. So meets the threshold, but as so often is the case, car drivers are held to a lower standard of account than others whose violent outbursts cause serious harm.

He was probably trying to swerve out of the way to prevent the cyclist from ramming him.
 
or commit serious harm

Sure the article is a local rag and even 'respsected' national rags are pretty poor with details these days, however a direct quote from the article:

Swerving repeatedly until you strike a cyclist, any reasonable person would know that is likely to result in serious injury, and indeed in this case it did. So meets the threshold, but as so often is the case, car drivers are held to a lower standard of account than others whose violent outbursts cause serious harm.

I think that would have been an argument for a murder charge if the cyclist had died, but with attempted murder I think the intention to kill is primary.
It's one of those cases of "moral luck".
 
What are you dribbling on about? A few minutes ago you were wibbling about it not being the driver's fault.
Do you have any point to make?
I wasn’t, and you posted that you were getting mixed up with US law a few posts previously. Maybe you need a cup of tea and a stfu?.
 
I wasn’t, and you posted that you were getting mixed up with US law a few posts previously. Maybe you need a cup of tea and a stfu?.

#3,249 :facepalm:

And how are US vs UK distinctions re: attempted murder relevant to anything that you have tried to say.
Anyone else picking up a strong whiff of "butthurt and looking for a win".

I'm just not sure why... :confused:
 
#3,249 :facepalm:

And how are US vs UK distinctions re: attempted murder relevant to anything that you have tried to say.
Anyone else picking up a strong whiff of "butthurt and looking for a win".

I'm just not sure why... :confused:
Try reading 3249 again, and the post I responded to.

I’m neither of those things, you’re just very confused.
 
Was tailgated by a bus earlier tonight, until eventually they overtook me. later on, having passed me when we entered a dual carriageway section of road, but with the bus still visible ahead the same vehicle made what seemed to be a very shit manoeuvre (sudden lane change which caused another vehicle to take evasive action)

Should I report to the bus company? Was a bit pissed off about being tailgated as the conditions were rather poor and I had dropped my speed accordingly. There were no vehicles behind the bus so no reason to tailgate me. Bus appeared to be out of service as no passengers on board or lights on in the passenger cabin
 
I’ve reported it at the weekend and had an email today from the bus company which said amongst other things:

you are right to bring this to our attention.
Anyway with the information I provided they think they can identify the driver and take any action as required.

I hope the driver doesn’t lose their job, but then you think about that bin lorry driver in Scotland who killed several people. Certainly if I’d had to make an emergency stop the bus would have gone straight into me
 

Note that it's the lack of insurance that got the car seized, not the driving like a absolute cunt bit. 120mph doesn't even warrant a year's ban these days...

 
Note that it's the lack of insurance that got the car seized, not the driving like a absolute cunt bit.

It's seized for no insurance because it's impossible for the scrote to drive away from the scene legally. They can, and often will, seize the car for 'driving like a cunt', but it creates a shit load of work (car has to be collected and impounded; the driver transferred to safety if it's on a motorway; police officers taken away from other stuff, etc ... ), so it probably more efficient to let the driver take his own car away and do him later through the courts if he's not pissed/uninsured/no licence ....

He didn’t have insurance because no one would sell it to him. The dealer who sold him the car 2 days earlier would’ve known that, so they should be investigated too if they let him it drive away without checking.
 
Back
Top Bottom