Driving Standards

[sleaterkinney]

So this just driving without due care and attention and worth three points:

 

[magneze]

So this just driving without due care and attention and worth three points:

They should be embarrassed by that not fucking tweeting it.

 

[existentialist]

So this just driving without due care and attention and worth three points:

He's a marked man, now. If he ever gets caught doing something like that again, there's no way he'll be able to argue SMIDSY.

 

[BigTom]

I'm surprised tbh as West mids traffic police have been sound and i'd expect a careless/dangerous driving charge for that but it's a cps decision i guess and the fact the cyclist avoided the collision *might* make it hard to get a higher charge to stick, i don't know the case law or the full wording of the law.

Still nice to see i can now report online and not need to go to the station

 

[Mrs D]

West Mids police did go for a dangerous driving charge, but the CPS downgraded it because they like an easy life.

 

[BigTom]

West Mids police did go for a dangerous driving charge, but the CPS downgraded it because they like an easy life.

Cheers. As i've found out Careless driving is due care and attention, thought they were separate charges.
Was just looking for the law and found the cps charging guidelines

The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the RTA 1988 is committed when a person's standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous

Road Traffic Offences: Guidance on Charging Offences arising from Driving Incidents | The Crown Prosecution Service

Really seems straightforward to me. I don't know how much effect it has that now this is case law, that behaving like that is not considered dangerous driving so in future similar won't be charged as dangerous either.

 

[Mrs D]

It's the "far below" that is normally the problem. I guess as the cyclist managed to stay upright the CPS thought the standard of driving was not sufficiently far below as to be obviously dangerous.

 

[hash tag]

In the same vein...

David Beckham employs 'Mr Loophole' lawyer to fight speeding charge




How can you prove when a non-registered letter arrived?

Well, he's done it. It's been accepted that the letter arrived a day late

 

[Saul Goodman]

Well, he's done it. It's been accepted that the letter arrived a day late

It's nice when somebody beats the system. Hopefully it'll pave the way for normal folk.

 

[hash tag]

Dream on.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Dream on.

Worked for me, about 20 years ago.

 

[hash tag]

I think it's Mrs Strasse you should be speaking to.

 

[hash tag]

Flaming hell; not one but two big fires on the M40 this morning. Looks like Armageddon!
Huge crash and fire shuts busy motorway during morning rush-hour

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Driver smashes into car as he checks phone

Dashcam and in-cab footage of a truck driver playing with his phone, ploughing in to a car, killing the driver of the car. Truck driver has just got 5 years. He knew that playing with his phone would lead to him killing someone, so why only 5 years? if you walk down the street loosing off shots from a gun and someone dies you get life. What's different here?

 

[hash tag]

I agree with your sentiment, but, Killing someone in the street, or similar could be manslaughter. Didn't someone recently get a suspended for that.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I agree with your sentiment, but, Killing someone in the street, or similar could be manslaughter. Didn't someone recently get a suspended for that.

Manslaughter can attract a life sentence, there are massive variations in intent and/or actions within that offence. I feel that if you are doing something that has a very high probability of leading to someone's death then you are at the more serious end of the manslaughter spectrum and your sentence should reflect that.

 

[Mrs D]

Driver smashes into car as he checks phone

Dashcam and in-cab footage of a truck driver playing with his phone, ploughing in to a car, killing the driver of the car. Truck driver has just got 5 years. He knew that playing with his phone would lead to him killing someone, so why only 5 years? if you walk down the street loosing off shots from a gun and someone dies you get life. What's different here?

I suspect if he knew that, he wouldn't have done it. It's not the playing with the phone that was the problem in itself - most new cars have touch screens in a similar position intended to be used while driving. The problem was that his attention was on the phone for 18 seconds without being on the road.

If you'd asked the shotgun person in your example whether they intended to "walk down the street loosing off shots from a gun" they would say yes. If you'd asked this driver whether he intended to "spend 18 seconds looking at his phone and not the road" he'd probably have said no.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Manslaughter can attract a life sentence, there are massive variations in intent and/or actions within that offence. I feel that if you are doing something that has a very high probability of leading to someone's death then you are at the more serious end of the manslaughter spectrum and your sentence should reflect that.

I think he got off lightly because he pleaded guilty and showed remorse.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I suspect if he knew that, he wouldn't have done it. It's not the playing with the phone that was the problem in itself - most new cars have touch screens in a similar position intended to be used while driving. The problem was that his attention was on the phone for 18 seconds without being on the road.

If you'd asked the shotgun person in your example whether they intended to "walk down the street loosing off shots from a gun" they would say yes. If you'd asked this driver whether he intended to "spend 18 seconds looking at his phone and not the road" he'd probably have said no.

If he'd missed the message that fucking about on your phone kills then he should not have been in possession of a driving licence. It's not as if the government has been keeping that bit of info a secret.

When he looked at his phone for 18 seconds, what do you think he was intending to do if it wasn't 'look at phone for 18 seconds'? Boil an egg or something?

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I think he got off lightly because he pleaded guilty and showed remorse.

Yeah, probably. And that's shit an'all, only a twat of Katie Hopkins proportions could plead anything other than guilty with the footage. So that should count for nothing.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Yeah, probably. And that's shit an'all, only a twat of Katie Hopkins proportions could plead anything other than guilty with the footage. So that should count for nothing.

I'm torn, because on the one hand I hate people who use phones whilst driving. They're far worse than Hitler. I wouldn't give a fuck if they were all involved in single vehicle accidents and died. That's how much I hate them. But on the other hand, I think the sentencing in this case was about right. Death by dangerous carries a 14 year max sentence. If you think of the worst possible case, where someone steals a massive truck, then uses it as a battering ram to push cars out of the way whilst trying to evade the cops, and kills 10 people in the process, then goes to court, pleads not guilty and shows no remorse, that's the 14 year end of the scale. This case is a far cry from that.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I'm torn, because on the one hand I hate people who use phones whilst driving. They're far worse than Hitler. I wouldn't give a fuck if they were all involved in single vehicle accidents and died. That's how much I hate them. But on the other hand, I think the sentencing in this case was about right. Death by dangerous carries a 14 year max sentence. If you think of the worst possible case, where someone steals a massive truck, then uses it as a battering ram to push cars out of the way whilst trying to evade the cops, and kills 10 people in the process, then goes to court, pleads not guilty and shows no remorse, that's the 14 year end of the scale. This case is a far cry from that.

tbf, although it is rarely used in UK courts, they do have the option of consecutive sentences, so 140 years would be the maximum there.

 

[Saul Goodman]

tbf, although it is rarely used in UK courts, they do have the option of consecutive sentences, so 140 years would be the maximum there.

They do, but as you said, it's rarely used. It's almost always concurrent.
And if the person who stole the truck had a good brief, they'd probably get 8 years.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

They do, but as you said, it's rarely used. It's almost always concurrent.
And if the person who stole the truck had a good brief, they'd probably get 8 years.

Lorry drivers jailed over fatal M1 crash

14 years for 8 lives taken, 21 months per life.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Lorry drivers jailed over fatal M1 crash

14 years for 8 lives taken, 21 months per life.

That's a strange one. The only person actually driving at the time, the person who ran into the minibus and killed the passengers, got off the lightest.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

That's a strange one. The only person actually driving at the time, the person who ran into the minibus and killed the passengers, got off the lightest.

Yeah, at first glance it does seem strange, but did you read what that other cunt was up to though?

 

[Mrs D]

If he'd missed the message that fucking about on your phone kills then he should not have been in possession of a driving licence. It's not as if the government has been keeping that bit of info a secret.

When he looked at his phone for 18 seconds, what do you think he was intending to do if it wasn't 'look at phone for 18 seconds'? Boil an egg or something?

The message has been quite clear that using a hand-held mobile phone is a bad idea. The message has been that people should use a hands-free kit in order to use their mobile phone while driving.

My point was that your example of manslaughter involving someone firing off a shotgun has a different level of intent. The person couldn't argue that they didn't intend to walk down the street firing the gun, they can only argue that they didn't intend to shoot anyone. You can't be sitting at home intending to stay there, but then glance at your shotgun and become distracted such that you find yourself in the street firing it off without having had any prior intention to do so.

 

[hash tag]

I suspect if he knew that, he wouldn't have done it. It's not the playing with the phone that was the problem in itself - most new cars have touch screens in a similar position intended to be used while driving. The problem was that his attention was on the phone for 18 seconds without being on the road.

If you'd asked the shotgun person in your example whether they intended to "walk down the street loosing off shots from a gun" they would say yes. If you'd asked this driver whether he intended to "spend 18 seconds looking at his phone and not the road" he'd probably have said no.

The majority of touch screens that are being used while driving are smart phones. That is illegal. The phones should not be stuck to the windscreen in the line of vision, the majority are.
in our touchscreen car, the touch screen refuses to work above 5mph and that's exactly how it should be. Most touch screens are far to detailed to be safely operated while driving.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Yeah, at first glance it does seem strange, but did you read what that other cunt was up to though?

Oh the other cunt definitely deserved locking up but what if the engine had blown up on the minibus, or it had to stop due to an accident or a traffic jam, or for some other reason. Then the only person at fault would have been the driver who ran into it.
I wonder would he have got 14 years if he hadn't been drinking but stopped his vehicle on the motorway, got out and walked away, prior to the crash.
Fuck him anyway. Fuck them both. I think it should be illegal to use a phone whilst driving. Hands-free or otherwise.

 

[Mrs D]

The majority of touch screens that are being used while driving are smart phones. That is illegal. The phones should not be stuck to the windscreen in the line of vision, the majority are.
in our touchscreen car, the touch screen refuses to work above 5mph and that's exactly how it should be. Most touch screens are far to detailed to be safely operated while driving.

Most new cars have touchscreens to control basic functions such as the aircon and are designed to be used while driving. e.g.