Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Driving Standards

Been covered on the local BBC News FB page, and someone posted a detailed description of what happened.

A letter had been sent to all the parents not to use the staff car park as it was putting the pupils at risk when they were coming out of school. The teacher was under instruction from the head to stand at the entrance to remind parents not to come in. He turned his back and the the bumper of the car hit the back of his legs and caused him to sit, the driver then accelerates and throws him off the bonnet. He was knocked to the ground and lay dazed for for some time and had a nasty head wound which required gluing. It was not the first time that the driver had driven past the teacher. His defence barrister described him as being 'immature' and having behaved 'outrageously'. The driver admitted assault, actual bodily harm, dangerous driving, driving without insurance and having no MOT, he was jailed for ten months,banned from driving for two years and five months and ordered to pay the victim £140 victim surcharge. The judge told him he needed to examine himself and ask why you needed to behave in that way.
Click to expand...
 
How about a £500 fine and 1 year ban for:

Griffiths drove along the pavement at 30mph and didn’t stop until 65 metres after he hit Georgia [a 15 year old girl].

“He didn’t phone emergency services. Georgia bounced onto his windscreen and smashed all her face.

“She was flung ten feet high, bounced off a wall, and knocked through a small tree so that her strands of hair were left behind in the branches.

“Georgia was two doors away from home when she was hit, and after flying through the air, she landed in the patio area of one of our neighbours.
Click to expand...

White van man got £500 fine after catapulting this schoolgirl through a tree

(she didn't die, induced coma and in hospital for 3 months).
 
Plumdaff said:


What an astonishing bellend. There's some fairly cunty parking at my daughter's school - and lots of complaints on social media that there isn't a parents' car park at an inner city primary (!) but not, thankfully, at this level.
Click to expand...

He sits on the motor there. The mistake the driver made was not reversing instead.
 
BigTom said:
watch carefully, the driver moves forward when the teacher stands sideways/with his back towards the car and nudges the teacher who sits on the bonnet as a result.
Click to expand...
That's what it says in the article but I've just been rocking and rolling it and the cars doesn't seem to move until after he sits down.
 
Spymaster said:
That's what it says in the article but I've just been rocking and rolling it and the cars doesn't seem to move until after he sits down.
Click to expand...

I'll take it frame by frame in a video editor later :) It's kind of irrelevant anyway, and not directed at you, but it's been fucking depressing seeing the social media comments blaming the teacher (shouldn't be there, should be sacked, all his fault for sitting on the bonnet, crazy nonsense).
 
Spymaster said:
That's what it says in the article but I've just been rocking and rolling it and the cars doesn't seem to move until after he sits down.
Click to expand...

I thought the same, but concluded that he leans against the car with the back of his legs, rather than sits down.

The driver was also described as a bully (no, OU has not become a judge) and all round 'orrible cunt.
 
Bahnhof Strasse said:
The driver was also described as a bully (no, OU has not become a judge) and all round 'orrible cunt.
Click to expand...
Well I think we can take that as a given. You have to have a whole fucking bunch of screws loose to do that, but I'd be cross if someone sat on the bonnet of my car too.
 
I'd be cross if someone sat on my boot. But I also wouldn't insist on driving my non MOTed car into a staff car park, then knock the teacher who was preventing me from doing so off balance causing him to sit.

It's all on the driver here.
 
If you think that's insane, try wrapping your noggin around this one from Feb last year
Lorry driver cleared of couple's deaths

lorry driver. Blind in one eye, losing eyesight in the other. Eyesight so bad that he could not do community service. But he was and is allowed to drive.
Got a suspended sentence and 19 month driving ban. He'll be back on the roads in a month or so.
Ran over 2 OAPs who were using a pedestrian crossing.
CLEARED of causing death by dangerous driving. Pled guilty to causing death by careless driving.
 
BigTom said:
If you think that's insane, try wrapping your noggin around this one from Feb last year
Lorry driver cleared of couple's deaths

lorry driver. Blind in one eye, losing eyesight in the other. Eyesight so bad that he could not do community service. But he was and is allowed to drive.
Got a suspended sentence and 19 month driving ban. He'll be back on the roads in a month or so.
Ran over 2 OAPs who were using a pedestrian crossing.
CLEARED of causing death by dangerous driving. Pled guilty to causing death by careless driving.
Click to expand...

I've always thought that was an odd distinction in law, the idea you can be careless but not dangerous.

Winot said:
Yeah but those cyclists jumping red lights eh :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is the driving standards thread. :confused:
 
Teaboy said:
I've always thought that was an odd distinction in law, the idea you can be careless but not dangerous.



This is the driving standards thread. :confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah, the wording of the laws differs, from memory careless is "driving that falls below the expected standard" whilst dangerous is "driving that falls far below the expected standard". The idea that a man with sight in one eye (which was also failing) was being careless when he decided to drive, rather than dangerous is linguistically insane. Legally though that's not the thing in question. From what's said in the article I still have no idea how the jury acquitted him. I think that if he was stopped by the police he'd fail the roadside eyesight test and in the west midlands at least they would revoke the licence immediately. I can only assume the driver never told his employer or the dvla or somehow got an eye test that said he was ok to drive, it seems impossible if he was unfit to do community service that he could pass an eyesight test to drive.
 
BigTom said:
Yeah, the wording of the laws differs, from memory careless is "driving that falls below the expected standard" whilst dangerous is "driving that falls far below the expected standard". The idea that a man with sight in one eye (which was also failing) was being careless when he decided to drive, rather than dangerous is linguistically insane. Legally though that's not the thing in question. From what's said in the article I still have no idea how the jury acquitted him. I think that if he was stopped by the police he'd fail the roadside eyesight test and in the west midlands at least they would revoke the licence immediately. I can only assume the driver never told his employer or the dvla or somehow got an eye test that said he was ok to drive, it seems impossible if he was unfit to do community service that he could pass an eyesight test to drive.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting that his eyesight in the working eye was failing?
 
Spymaster said:
That's what it says in the article but I've just been rocking and rolling it and the cars doesn't seem to move until after he sits down.
Click to expand...

Driver 100% moves first.
In this video there are 10 frames per second so the timing here, the first bit is seconds into the video, last bit is frames which is 1/10th of a second, it's not milliseconds.
Driver move forward twice, first at 31:03 - 31:07 secondly at 32:07-33:00. The teacher starts to sit on the bonnet at 33:07, ~7/10ths of a second after the 2nd move forward.

I've exported these frames from After Effects using a mixing mode called "difference". Difference is a common photoshop layering method - what it does is if the top layer is black, it has no effect and you just see the bottom layer, if it's white then the bottom layer is inverted. In between black and white, or coloured and you get a partially inverted or coloured image. It's what designers use when they are making things like this:
LuWAA.png

With video, by offsetting a second layer of the same video by one frame and using the difference mixing mode, what you get is an output which only shows where the image has changed. If there is no difference, the image is black. So by doing this I can find movement. It's pretty faint tbh but it is clear. You can see the effect clearly in the cars behind which move alot. This driver has nudged forward so it's only faint but hopefully you can see it.
I tried uploading them all to imgur but it only accepted three of them and it's renamed them so I can't be 100% sure which frame is which but I think the top one is from 31:02, before the driver moved so you can see what it's like. The second one is during one of the movements - you can faintly see the outline of the front of the car. I think the last one if from when he starts to sit down.

edit: forgot the imgur link :facepalm:

edit 2: there's 6 images, not 3 as it showed me in the preview

I could post the export here (AE names them automatically with the frame numbers) but it'd be quite a few images and a fair few mb, let me know if you would like me to.
 
right the imgur - click through for better pictures, they are still not great. The last image is him sitting down, the second is the driver moving forward the second time (you can see the timestamp for both is 48s, the timestamp for the others is 47s). Image 5 is the clearest of the driver moving forward, this is from the first movement (you can see the timestamp is 47s).
 
BigTom said:
Driver 100% moves first.
In this video there are 10 frames per second so the timing here, the first bit is seconds into the video, last bit is frames which is 1/10th of a second, it's not milliseconds.
Driver move forward twice, first at 31:03 - 31:07 secondly at 32:07-33:00. The teacher starts to sit on the bonnet at 33:07, ~7/10ths of a second after the 2nd move forward.

I've exported these frames from After Effects using a mixing mode called "difference". Difference is a common photoshop layering method - what it does is if the top layer is black, it has no effect and you just see the bottom layer, if it's white then the bottom layer is inverted. In between black and white, or coloured and you get a partially inverted or coloured image. It's what designers use when they are making things like this:
LuWAA.png

With video, by offsetting a second layer of the same video by one frame and using the difference mixing mode, what you get is an output which only shows where the image has changed. If there is no difference, the image is black. So by doing this I can find movement. It's pretty faint tbh but it is clear. You can see the effect clearly in the cars behind which move alot. This driver has nudged forward so it's only faint but hopefully you can see it.
I tried uploading them all to imgur but it only accepted three of them and it's renamed them so I can't be 100% sure which frame is which but I think the top one is from 31:02, before the driver moved so you can see what it's like. The second one is during one of the movements - you can faintly see the outline of the front of the car. I think the last one if from when he starts to sit down.

edit: forgot the imgur link :facepalm:

edit 2: there's 6 images, not 3 as it showed me in the preview

I could post the export here (AE names them automatically with the frame numbers) but it'd be quite a few images and a fair few mb, let me know if you would like me to.
Click to expand...

Good work. :thumbs:
 
Have a video of some careless driving



How careless of me to deliberately run that cyclist into a wall. Fucking CPS, how does this get charged as "careless" driving not "dangerous".
6 month ban for the driver, should be a lot longer than that.
 
BigTom said:
Have a video of some careless driving



How careless of me to deliberately run that cyclist into a wall. Fucking CPS, how does this get charged as "careless" driving not "dangerous".
6 month ban for the driver, should be a lot longer than that.
Click to expand...


It's madness, total madness. We've had this conversation before but the distinction between 'Careless Driving' and 'Dangerous Driving' is a pretty dumb one because it's not possible to be careless without being dangerous. Anyway when you deliberately use your car as a weapon it is something else altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mr steev
C1 driving test
Replies
0
Views
137
mr steev
mr steev
tommers
Driving to France / Germany
2
Replies
56
Views
1K
tommers
tommers
Fez909
Girlfriend caught driving without insurance - and it's my fault
2 3
Replies
67
Views
4K
Spymaster
Spymaster
N
Do a lot of people who buy 4x4s in London do so because they hate/are scared of driving?
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
WouldBe
WouldBe
danski
Car insurance query/driving a client somewhere- public liability?
Replies
10
Views
444
InArduisFouette
I
Back
Top Bottom