£100 fine for running over 5 pupils and a lollipop lady

[Rhys W]

This guy lost control of his powerful car, he was wearing flip-flops at the time. Flip-flops FFS, they're for the beach and the beach only! Saw someone at work wearing them today, presumably he drove in wearing them as well. Morons.

Guilty school crash driver Robert Bell fined £100.

£100 please, try not to do it again ok?

 

[caerau]

 


Be thankful he didn't kill a cyclist, he'd have probably got a medal.

[caerau]

Incidentally, I was under the impression it was illegal to drive in flip flops  - that's before any other considerations - or am I wrong?

[hellymedic]

I didn't think there was any specific law about footwear for driving. Mr Bell  had to pay over £1000 in costs.

[sojournermike]

Incidentally, I was under the impression it was illegal to drive in flip flops  - that's before any other considerations - or am I wrong?

I don't think it is illegal, unless they stop you having full control of the vehicle. TBH I'm not sure that there's enough information to judge the flip flops or to suggest they were the cause of the accident. It seems more likely that he was just incompetent and got it wrong. The sentence seems (far) too light, but we've seen this before in Wales - there was a chap recently who killed a cyclist whilst driving into the sun with a dirty screen in a car that was poorly maintained and illegal, but he escaped with a small fine, a short ban and the judge's sympathy I think.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

I think the fact that he was wearing flip flops, if nothing else, shows a lack of responsibility and care.   I'd like to see people who are so casual about how they drive take a tough re-test along with the other penalties.

Anyway

The court heard there are civil proceedings pending over the crash.

No doubt his insurance company are likely to end up with a substantial bill; let's hope Mr Williams' premiums are so high he thinks twice about his motoring lifestyle.

[PaulF]

To put it in perspective it's the same fine as for setting off a speed camera at say 35 in a 30mph zone.

[Jaded]

Everyone is a driver. It could have happened to me. There but for the grace of god go I. He didn't mean to press on the wrong pedal. Roads are for cars. Blah blah.

[numbnuts]

To put it in perspective it's the same fine as for setting off a speed camera at say 35 in a 30mph zone.

That really sums it up 

[contango]

To put it in perspective it's the same fine as for setting off a speed camera at say 35 in a 30mph zone.

Or driving in a bus lane, or blocking a box junction, or sending in your tax return a day late.

[Cudzoziemiec]

The penalty is derisory, but the fact that he was found guilty of driving without due care and attention, even though the judge accepted the coughing fit, is notable.

But what if he actually had been unconscious before hitting them?

During the trial, respiratory expert Professor Alyn Huw Morice said the evidence pointed to Bell having fainted due to a coughing fit – which causes around 25 road deaths a year.

It wouldn't really be his fault - but it would still be him and his car that killed those people. Would he have received any penalty? I expect not. Perhaps cars should be fitted with something like the train driver's dead man's handle - but I think driverless cars will be here first.

[clarion]

Ridiculous.

[David Martin]

Julian will probably correct me but the outcome in this case is not relevant to the crime. It would have been the same in law if he had not hit the children, or even not crashed at all as the law does not specifically make hitting children with a car an offence. Had he killed them then it would have been death by careless instead of just careless, but as he didn't the offence remains the same as it was performeed, not with regard to the outcome.

[Jaded]

If he had been a forklift driver at work, what would the outcome have been.

[Jaded]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-27455126

They are more concerned with catching people that photograph crashes than they are about those that cause the crashes.

[Diver300]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-27455126

They are more concerned with catching people that photograph crashes than they are about those that cause the crashes.

Well they are concerned with catching people taking photographs while driving.

Photographing the aftermath of an accident while not driving may not be tasteful or respectful, but it probably isn't illegal and is certainly less likely to be dangerous than photographing while driving.

[perpetual dan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-27455126

They are more concerned with catching people that photograph crashes than they are about those that cause the crashes.

Doing those who fail the "don't break the law while the police are looking" test isn't such a bad start on tackling those who feel they can break the law in a car with impunity. Not exactly systematic, but not ignoring it either.

[Veloman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-27455126

They are more concerned with catching people that photograph crashes than they are about those that cause the crashes.

I think they are concerned about people who break the law by using a mobile as a camera while driving.

If an accident was caused by a blow-out, in an otherwise legal tyre, then little to catch.  Not all accidents are caused by negligence.

[Jaded]

I wonder what proportion of crashes are not caused by negligence.

[arabella]

Julian will probably correct me but the outcome in this case is not relevant to the crime. It would have been the same in law if he had not hit the children, or even not crashed at all as the law does not specifically make hitting children with a car an offence. Had he killed them then it would have been death by careless instead of just careless, but as he didn't the offence remains the same as it was performeed, not with regard to the outcome.

but but but ...
how does this fit with the 'take your victim as you find him' (exact phrase may be a bit different but similar intention).  And would anything have happened at all if no-one had been run down?

[perpetual dan]

Julian will probably correct me but the outcome in this case is not relevant to the crime. It would have been the same in law if he had not hit the children, or even not crashed at all as the law does not specifically make hitting children with a car an offence. Had he killed them then it would have been death by careless instead of just careless, but as he didn't the offence remains the same as it was performeed, not with regard to the outcome.

A search suggests the range of penalties for careless driving is

If a case goes to court the maximum penalty is £5000 together with 3-9 points and a discretionary disqualification.

But I suspect that you're right: it is the lack of care rather than the outcome that determines the penalty.

Fingers crossed for the private claim by the victims.

[Cudzoziemiec]

AIUI if he his coughing fit had actually rendered him unconscious, he would not have paid any penalty even if he had killed the children. He would not have been responsible for his actions at that moment, being unconscious, so could not have been driving carelessly. We're told there are about 25 cases a year of "death by unconscious driving", I wonder how many cases there are which never come to light because no one, or only the driver, is injured?

[David Martin]

Julian will probably correct me but the outcome in this case is not relevant to the crime. It would have been the same in law if he had not hit the children, or even not crashed at all as the law does not specifically make hitting children with a car an offence. Had he killed them then it would have been death by careless instead of just careless, but as he didn't the offence remains the same as it was performeed, not with regard to the outcome.

but but but ...
how does this fit with the 'take your victim as you find him' (exact phrase may be a bit different but similar intention).  And would anything have happened at all if no-one had been run down?

IANAL but:
The matter of intent I presume. There would have been no intent to mow down kids and a crossing patrol, it is an unintentional collision. The typical case of joe hits Bill. Bill suffers a serious outcome due to a condition that Joe did not know about. Joe intended to hit Bill and therefore must take him as he finds him.

..d

[maxcherry]

Slightly off topic but.

Does the fine include compensation to the victims or will they
have to take out a separate court case against him and his insurance company?

[Riggers]

Not being in any way a student of criminal Law, but I would have thought a Civil Action would follow on from the verdict. Loss of earnings for the Lollipop Lady, and ongoing (possible) medical concerns to be considered.