Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: slowfen on 07 April, 2008, 03:30:41 pm
-
lorry driver banned for 12 months (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn%5Fnews%5Fhome/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=304804)
-
Just how can he only get a 12 month driving ban? If I was swinging an axe around in the street and accidentally chopped someone's head off, would I get a community service order? No I don't think so.
-
[presses repeat button]
Because the law only provides for what he was doing (driving without due care) not for the consequences. They can't even do him for dangerous driving, because the mobile was hands-free. :(
-
Was there any evidence that being on the hands-free had any bearing on the accident?
-
[presses repeat button]
Because the law only provides for what he was doing (driving without due care) not for the consequences. They can't even do him for dangerous driving, because the mobile was hands-free. :(
Could you clarify this a bit? Just being on a mobile (non-handsfree) is sufficient in law to be dangerous driving. You can be done for dangerous driving without being on a mobile.
Ergo you can be done for dangerous driving whilst being on a handsfree mobile but the prosecution has to work much harder (ie to show that the standard of driving was well below that of a careful and courteous driver).
So he could have been done for DD if they could build a strong enough case...
..d
-
I would have said that the words "courteous and careful driver" are incompatible with being on a mobile phone - handsfree or not
The law in this case is an ass
-
I would have said that the words "courteous and careful driver" are incompatible with being on a mobile phone - handsfree or not
The law in this case is an ass
But would it be 'below', or 'far below'..?
..d
-
There are two different laws here
Since 2003 it has been illegal to drive using a hand-held mobile phone. That law doesn't apply to hands-free, and it's a specific offence - not dangerous driving
Then there is the question of dangerous driving. AFAIK using a hand-held phone is neither necessary nor sufficient for a charge of dangerous driving. RoSPA say
Drivers should also note that the existing law requiring drivers to be in proper control of their vehicle, or careless or dangerous driving laws can be applied to driving while using a hands-free phone, if the police believe the nature of the driving warrants it.
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/driving/mobile_phones.htm
-
I would have said that the words "courteous and careful driver" are incompatible with being on a mobile phone - handsfree or not
The law in this case is an ass
But would it be 'below', or 'far below'..?
..d
Without a definition of the terms (I'm sure there is one) we are into semantics here but IMO a careful driver would not use a mobile phone while the vehicle was in motion so therefore - far below
-
[presses repeat button]
Because the law only provides for what he was doing (driving without due care) not for the consequences. They can't even do him for dangerous driving, because the mobile was hands-free. :(
Could you clarify this a bit? Just being on a mobile (non-handsfree) is sufficient in law to be dangerous driving. You can be done for dangerous driving without being on a mobile.
Of course. I believe that succumbing to an act of oral love at the wheel would amount to dangerous driving, without any mobile involved.
But in this instance it seemed that his negligence was in concentrating on his conversation not on the road, and I don't think using a hands-free would be considered 'falling far below' the average standard.
-
I would have said that the words "courteous and careful driver" are incompatible with being on a mobile phone - handsfree or not
The law in this case is an ass
But would it be 'below', or 'far below'..?
..d
Without a definition of the terms (I'm sure there is one) we are into semantics here but IMO a careful driver would not use a mobile phone while the vehicle was in motion so therefore - far below
Its not semantics, I believe the law defines careless driving as that which falls 'below' the standard reasonably expected and dangerous driving as that which falls 'far below' the standard reasonably expected.
IANAL however the law punishes the risky action (offence) and not the consequences of the offence.
If a policeman sees you useing a hand held mobile whilst driving we would hope that he gives you a ticket regardless of whether you have an accident or not.
Matthew
-
Did he admit that he was distracted by his conversation at some point?
The phone angle seems a bit of red herring - surely the charge and the punishment would have been the same in this case if there had been no phone involved?
-
and I thought a life was only cheap in third world country's
-
Many moons ago I posted how my daughter's friend's car was hit head on in a country lane, the friend suffered terrible leg injuries, which three years later she hasn't recovered from.
The car that hit her was driven by someone that was well over the DD limit, he was also on medication for depression, he was overtaking a tractor on a blind bend.
He didn't get done for dangerous driving either.
-
"This sentence reflects the current problem faced by courts while they wait for the introduction of the new charge of causing death by careless driving.
"The charge currently available is careless driving, which fails to reflect that someone has lost their life, and thus the sentence handed down falls far short of delivering any real sense of justice."
This quote from a spokesperson for Brake referred to in the article is accurate
Putting on my legal head for a moment [I sound like an internet version of Worzel Gummidge]
The current publicity given by the government and the introduction of the law re using a hand held mobile gives the tacit impression that it is fine to use a mobile phone hands free.
This as you realise when you give it some thought is not correct, but I think the publicity would make it difficult to say the driver fell FAR BELOW the standard of a reasonable driver given he was driving using the phone in the manner which the government is implying is safe.