|
The driver of the car with camera is probably guilty of driving without due care! Anybody who stays close to a vehicle being driven like that is potentially a candidate for a Darwin Award in their own right.
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Sun 9 Aug 15 at 15:36
|
|
10 months jail suspended, three-year driving ban and heavy costs... the guy got away, more or less, with a demented and murderous bit of driving.
|
|
Yet again a motorist "ploughs" into something. Journalese for "glances off".
|
Well I certainly have ossifer, pssdasarat... how about you though? Eh? Eh?
Oh good, what a relief... fancy another small nip do you?
|
|
The sentence he received is an absolute 'king joke in my not-so humble opinion.
|
>>The sentence he received is an absolute 'king joke in my not-so humble opinion.
Drinking driving, nobody injured, little or no property damage, 3 year ban and a 10 month suspended sentence.
In the context of other punishments given that seems somewhere between appropriate and pretty severe to me
|
I see your logic, Mark, but isn't the issue more about what damage, injury etc COULD have been caused by this man's driving?
All was (comparatively) well in this case because other drivers were keeping their distance - which sadly isn't always so.
I think there would be no point in anything more severe than a suspended prison sentence, but I'd have banned him from driving for at least 10 years. Possibly the law doesn't allow for as long as that, in which case it should.
|
>>I see your logic, Mark, but isn't the issue more about what damage, injury etc COULD have been caused by this man's driving?
There is merit in that statement, but that isn't really how it is done.
Consider an example I have used before, two identical drivers, identically drunk, driving identically. Driver one leaves the road and crashes into a bench wrecking it.
Two days later driver two does the same, but this time there is a woman with two children sat on the bench.
The two drivers don't get the same punishment.
|
This gentle man was incarcerated for a crime he 'could have' committed, but didn't. Sure enough, he did intend to commit the crime.
uk.news.yahoo.com/deaf-man-jailed-over-bid-meet-girl-13-155305191.html#C7MP7IX
Someone intending to drive a vehicle while being totally unfit to, due to being three times over the drink drive limit 'could have' caused mayhem and loss of innocent lives, but didn't.
The sentence should act as a punishment and a deterrent to himself and to others, but I don't think it does.
|
>> >>The sentence he received is an absolute 'king joke in my not-so humble opinion.
>>
>> Drinking driving, nobody injured, little or no property damage, 3 year ban and a 10
>> month suspended sentence.
Appropriate, it was a pretty appalling piece of driving. And then to carry on? yes appropriate sentencing
>> In the context of other punishments given
Ah thats a whole new kettle of fish You can't compare inappropriately light sentencing and use that as a yardstick to argue against appropriate sentencing. Attack the light sentencing tho by all means.
|
It's true no one was hurt and the main person at risk was the drunk - very goddam drunk - driver, who got away with it more or less. A very disgraceful display.
I suppose a three-year ban will concentrate the guy's mind. Or not, as the case may be.
Some people get blackouts when they drink. Looked a bit like that. Will he see the quack and get checked out?
But why would he? So far so good he may be thinking.
|
Have we been drinking, sir? - sherlock47
