Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I’m sure that does happen but as I said, there were people on that speed awareness course with their hands still up at 3 and 4 before 20mph limits were a thing. I don’t think it’s quite as uncommon as people think.
Driving Standards
- Thread starter hash tag
- Start date
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
It’d be interesting to find out how many people get done at what speeds. I reckon you’d be surprised. After all, the plod are perfectly within their rights to bust folk for 1mph plus. I actually think it’s highly likely and completely unsurprising that forces will occasionally reduce the leeway to scoop up a load of folk who are building the 10+2 into their driving.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Shouldn't be open to interpretation. Nor should there be a distinction between 'careless' and 'dangerous', obviously doing anything careless with a car is dangerous.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
There has to be a distinction in the severity of offences. Careless/dangerous/reckless does that. Unless you want to prosecute someone who accidentally slowly bumbles through a red light without any consequences, the same as you would a hooligan who drives through it at 90 whilst racing his mate.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
The distinction comes from adding 'causing death by...'
If someone died, how could it not have been dangerous?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Ok but your post reads like you’re objecting to the difference between careless and dangerous.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
The CPS needs to be able to secure more convictions for dangerous, as it is they seem to feel that is often too difficult and settle for careless which sees the offender get off almost scot free.
mojo pixy
interesting times
I was drawn to look it up because I've had speeding points but never anything more .. I unproudly admit more by luck than intention, when I look at the definitions from this solicitor ...
Careless driving
Careless driving is when the standard of driving ‘falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver’.
There are various situations that might amount to careless driving. In each, the driver will either be regarded as driving without due care and attention, or as driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. Examples of careless driving include -
Dangerous driving
Dangerous driving is when the standard of driving ‘falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver’.
So, there is just one word which separates dangerous driving from careless driving - ‘far’. This might not seem like much, but in reality, the two offences are very different. Namely, dangerous driving is much more serious. Examples of dangerous driving include -
Careless driving
Careless driving is when the standard of driving ‘falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver’.
There are various situations that might amount to careless driving. In each, the driver will either be regarded as driving without due care and attention, or as driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. Examples of careless driving include -
- Tailgating
- Overtaking on the inside
- Running a red light
- Driving while distracted
- Sudden breaking
Dangerous driving
Dangerous driving is when the standard of driving ‘falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver’.
So, there is just one word which separates dangerous driving from careless driving - ‘far’. This might not seem like much, but in reality, the two offences are very different. Namely, dangerous driving is much more serious. Examples of dangerous driving include -
- Racing or driving aggressively
- Dangerous overtaking
- Driving while under the influence of drink or drugs
- Driving despite knowing you are not fit to drive
- Driving a vehicle that you know has a defect
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
The issue is it going before a jury and their idea of careless / dangerous driving. In that case they might not think 10 over the speed limit and going through a red was dangerous.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
The jury don't decide what the driver is tried for. In the case of careless driving it's not even heard by a jury, just magistrates.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Hardly any of them will get to the magistrates. Most people will pay the fine, take the points, and be done with it.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Yeah, but the fact that we never hear about any of them being challenged and thrown out by mags, despite a whole nerd-world dedicated to battling this stuff, suggests there aren't any.
10%+2 isn't just a public allowance, it's because it would be too onerous to show that the measuring equipment was constantly calibrated and accurate.
10%+2 isn't just a public allowance, it's because it would be too onerous to show that the measuring equipment was constantly calibrated and accurate.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I am. Because careless driving is always dangerous. As evidenced by the fact there are many convictions for 'causing death by careless driving'.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Nah. The machine's allowance is 2% or 3%. There's a fair bit more leeway built in than that and the rest is because they don't really want to be busting people for doing just a few miles an hour over the limit.. The fact that you don't hear about them being challenged and thrown out by magistrates suggests they're either upheld and not thrown out or just not reported. Not that it doesn't happen. I'm sure it does.
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Then you're missing the point of how and why motoring offences are charged. See Mojo Pixie's post above.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Yeah, although I'd agree that "causing death by..." doesn't really need the distinction, there should be more than one level of charge for general offences and careless/dangerous seems fine to me.
The issue really lies in part with the wording of the law, and how juries see "dangerous" driving - they will tend not to convict if it's something they think "well, I could have done that, and I'm not a dangerous driver" (
because nobody thinks of themselves as a bad driver, let alone a dangerous one) and partly with the CPS unwillingness to attempt prosecutions for dangerous driving, which then creates a case history of stuff that should be dangerous driving being convicted as careless driving and setting precedents for future cases ("oh, says the CPS, look at this past case which is similar, that was careless driving so this should be too).
The issue really lies in part with the wording of the law, and how juries see "dangerous" driving - they will tend not to convict if it's something they think "well, I could have done that, and I'm not a dangerous driver" (
because nobody thinks of themselves as a bad driver, let alone a dangerous one) and partly with the CPS unwillingness to attempt prosecutions for dangerous driving, which then creates a case history of stuff that should be dangerous driving being convicted as careless driving and setting precedents for future cases ("oh, says the CPS, look at this past case which is similar, that was careless driving so this should be too).
nick
Pleomorphic Adenomas R us
Maybe it's just me being an asshole, but I'm slightly suspicious whether the solicitor has got the legal niceties of the definitions, if they can't spell "braking" correctly (I followed the link Mojo, it's not you, its in the source )
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Not sure why so many drivers around here are so fond of overtaking just as the vehicle in front gets to the crest of a hill. If you can't see the road ahead, don't overtake?
mojo pixy
interesting times
I noticed the spelling mistake too and gave a sigh. Didn't edit because breaking sort of works amusingly. Also it will annoy spelling pedants mightily
I did find essentially the same info elsewhere fwiw.
I suspect that overtaking on a blind bend or a hill, or ignoring the double-white lines, might be the kind of detail that pushes careless into dangerous.
Last edited:
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Doesn't happen. Despite numerous claims on motoring forums from people who have supposedly been done for e.g. a couple of mph over the limit etc, no one in the history of the internet has ever produced any documentation to prove it. In fact, they always go strangely silent when asked to do so, despite previously claiming that they had been outrageously and unjustly targeted.
Last edited:
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Nonsense.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
So you have seen a prosecution for less than 10+2 after all then. Glad that's cleared up!
Similar threads
