Author Topic: Another sad day  (Read 2739 times)

Another sad day
« on: April 07, 2008, 03:30:41 pm »

Seineseeker

  • Biting the cherry of existential delight
    • The Art of Pleisure
Re: Another sad day
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2008, 03:36:52 pm »
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.

Julian

  • samoture
Re: Another sad day
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2008, 03:39:44 pm »
[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. :(

Re: Another sad day
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2008, 03:44:39 pm »
Was there any evidence that being on the hands-free had any bearing on the accident?

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Another sad day
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2008, 04:37:17 pm »
[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
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Re: Another sad day
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2008, 04:55:29 pm »
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
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.”
― Douglas Adams

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Another sad day
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2008, 04:57:41 pm »
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
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

border-rider

Re: Another sad day
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2008, 05:00:55 pm »
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

Quote
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

Re: Another sad day
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2008, 05:06:08 pm »
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
“There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.”
― Douglas Adams

Julian

  • samoture
Re: Another sad day
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2008, 05:21:02 pm »
[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.

Re: Another sad day
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2008, 05:23:50 pm »
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

Re: Another sad day
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2008, 05:25:54 pm »
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?

Re: Another sad day
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2008, 04:15:57 pm »
and I thought a life was only cheap in third world country's

steveB

Re: Another sad day
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2008, 06:17:53 pm »
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.

spen666

Re: Another sad day
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2008, 06:03:05 am »

Quote
"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.