YES.
When will people be held responsible for their driving?
Driving too fast for both the speed limit and the conditions, undertaking, and killing two pedestrians. What do you have to do to get locked up?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 20 Jan 12 at 19:03
|
|
Not so sure. Around here (rural, no street lights) I am sick to death of travelling the lanes to happen upon folk walking Towser or riding a horse etc., when none of them can be bothered to help their own situation by wearing something reflective. Same much applies to school children all dressed in black. WHEN will the numpties involved understand they are not invincible? and when will Parent's start to care for their offspring.
|
>> Not so sure. Around here (rural, no street lights) I am sick to death of
>> travelling the lanes to happen upon folk walking Towser or riding a horse etc., when
>> none of them can be bothered to help their own situation by wearing something reflective.
>> Same much applies to school children all dressed in black. WHEN will the numpties involved
>> understand they are not invincible? and when will Parent's start to care for their offspring.
>>
The more sensible folk walking in rural areas around here wear cycle flashing LEDs on their clothes, unfortunately many are not sensible.
|
|
Headtorch in the wilds here - helps recover the turds as well.
|
>> Headtorch in the wilds here - helps recover the turds as well.
>>
Can't you wait 'til you get home? ;-)
|
|
An age thing - The smaller spaniel has some spectacular ones, don't know where it all comes from ! (well I know exactly where really !)
|
My blimmin 12 year old Milo managed 4 today four for crying out loud!
I wouldn't mind but he only has one meal a day.
|
|
Spaniels have no attention span - the older one does not ponder whilst doing it - sometimes up to three on a decent walk - vet says it's normal, tried him on low residue food - didn't like - costs a fortune in pooh bags (.17p for a hundred in Tesco - scented nappy liners - same thing different name and price)
|
|
Dunno, it looks like, from that story, that the two just walked into the road. They may have been just as negligent and dangerous.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 20 Jan 12 at 19:08
|
The girl he was undertaking saw them and slowed. He didn't take the hint.
A speed camera van sometimes sits round a blind bend near here, when it is there you can see the brakelights from half a mile back. Thats another hint many miss.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 20 Jan 12 at 19:18
|
Pled guilty suggests he was taking responsibility for his driving.
"causing the deaths by dangerous driving of Terry Charlton and Les Hutton by careless driving" suggests the reporter is an imbecile.
|
It was a mistake, albiet with fatal consequences but the blame was not all his. Pedestrians have just as much duty of care when they step into the road as drivers do.
I've never seen the point of jailing drivers for errors of judgement unless there other factors involved such as alcohol or deliberately driving in a dangerous manner. Accidents happen, there but for the grace of God, etc.
|
>> I've never seen the point of jailing drivers for errors of judgement unless there other
>> factors involved such as alcohol or deliberately driving in a dangerous manner. Accidents happen, there but for the grace of God, etc.
>>
It was not an accident, He was breaking the speed limit, driving too fast for the conditions, and undertaking. All three are deliberate decisions.
|
>> It was not an accident, He was breaking the speed limit, driving too fast for
>> the conditions, and undertaking. All three are deliberate decisions.
As is walking into a busy road. Its not quite as cut and dried as you seem to think.
|
...suggests the reporter is an imbecile...
"Imbecile" is a bit strong, but the reporter appears to have confused the offences of death by dangerous driving and death by careless driving.
Death by dangerous carries a maximum of something like 14 years.
Death by careless - which I'm fairly sure this was - carries a maximum of five years.
|
>> suggests the reporter is an imbecile.
>>
This is the Wigan Evening Post - 'reporting' and 'reporter; is a bit optimistic
|
>> Dunno, it looks like, from that story, that the two just walked into the road.
Yes. Pedestrians are often entirely at fault in this kind of accident. I know this from personal experience although Alhamdulillah! my suicidal ped, although drunk, wasn't very seriously hurt.
Those two had just come out of the pub too.
|
Looks about right to me. Careless but not reckless.
I'd like to think in circs I'd have thought about why car in o/s lane slowed, particularly there were other cues like presence of pub/shops or if I knew road. But if there was reason like an impending turn?
39 in a thirty suggests an indicated speed a tad over 40 so speeding is proven but again not at a reckless level.
If the outcome had been impact with an unseen car and no PI then I doubt he'd be looking at more than 6 points never mind a ban.
|
...Looks about right to me...
Fair play to the judge, a short stretch was the easy option.
And the guy's barrister will be dining out on the case for a while.
|
I hold no brief for, nor want to be an apologist for the driver, but the site is less than a mile away from where I sit.
I recall being aware of the accident when it happened last year, The next set of traffic lights, within sight of the accident site, is where I picked up my first speeding ticket closer to 40 that 30 years ago. I don't use the road very often, and I don't know that I'd be doing 39 down there. And reading the report in the paper, I could see how it could happen, how it could happen to me.... or any of us
It's gone six oclock on a february evening, probably completely dark, certainly raining, possibly quite bad visibilty
The road is a 30 mph dual carriageway, there are at least two cars, one in each lane, both having gone through a set of lights, the car in lane 2 is ahead off the one in lane 1. There are two men crossing the dual carriageway from right to left, possibly in dark clothes, at least one has been in a local pub celebrating.
The car in lane 2 sees them slow down - 'takes her foot of the accelerator' I think it says in the paper i.e, no brake lights, no horn blowing, no light flashing. The driver of the car in lane 1 is a local, and knows there is a right turn ahead. He makes the assumption that she is turning right, and cannot see the two men because of the car in lane 2.
The two men, sood on the central reservation, one has taken beer, one wanting to get his chip home before they go cold, they look left see the car in lane 2 slowing down, think 'they are slowing down to let us cross', but they can't see the car in lane 1, so they cross the road...........
It just makes me shiver a little bit, so I just thought I'd get it off my chest.
n.b. I'm guessing, but if the pedestrians had been to the chippy on that road, then they had walked past, the pedestrian crossing at the set of traffic lights referred to above, and the pub, as mentioned by Bromptonaut, as a quarter of a mile further down the road. So I can see myself on either side of this equation, because I know that if I had to cross that road, I'd exercise my option to cross it where and when I wanted to, and thats when I've not been drinking
Last edited by: borasport on Fri 20 Jan 12 at 21:46
|
I attended this incident in a professional capacity. It was one of those jobs that will stay with me.
|
Travelling at 39 mph at night on a wet road in a 30 area is clearly careless.
But accidentally undertaking in those circumstances is easily done. If you are travelling at roughly the same speed and are slightly behind the car in the outer lane, there can be legitimate reasons for finding yourself undertaking. The most likely is that the other car is slowing to turn right.
Crossing a two-lane road on foot is notoriously a potential danger, because cars in one lane almost inevitably obscure the view in the other. It can easily happen the other way round, when a pedestrian judges correctly that he can cross the inner lane, but then walks into an overtaking car in the outer lane. He didn't see the car, the car driver didn't see him.
I think there is a strong onus on pedestrians to exercise extreme care when lane-dodging.
I agree - in this case there are arguments both ways, it is not so clear-cut as suggested.
|
No, he didn't get off lightly. He wasn't a "joy rider" evading the police or even doing something many of us might have done on an off day or when distracted - a bit over the limit, passing left of a slowing car on a dual where there is a turn ahead - many people don't signal these days and we draw conclusions almost unconsciously from speed and position.
He is quite probably a decent ordinary bloke who is mortified at the consequences and will feel sick every time he thinks about it for years. Has has children who do not need him in prison. My guess is that he'll be a very careful driver for a long time and no purpose will be served by locking him away, other than the approval of the victims families - who will still be bereaved and angry, regardless.
Bad things happen to decent people.
|
I'm another vote for the sentence being about right... for the reasons already stated.
He stayed at the scene; he was otherwise completely legit; he tried to help; his speed wasn't ridiculous in the first place; he pleaded Guilty (i.e. made a mistake and admitted it); there is an onus on the pedestrians to 'get it right'; what happened with the undertake is easily understandable (many cars use lane 2 when they shouldn't and many people nowadays turn without indicating).
|
Sound stuff from the Dugong and Westpig.
Thinking about this case, and the numerous near-misses and occasional accidents I have experienced or witnessed over the years, I would mention the risk pedestrians pose to themselves when they run across more than one lane of moving traffic going in the same direction. If a vehicle slightly in front, in the other lane, slows unexpectedly, it's a good idea to slow too if you have time to react, because sprinting peds may be about to appear. Trouble is, you often don't have the time to react. It's best to be driving an HGV or tall van because then you can see the approaching kamikazes over the tops of the cars. If you're in a car next to a van though, it's the other way round and you can't see until too late.
The speed the traffic was doing is a red herring really whatever safety wonks may claim. There are many 30mph stretches in this country where the traffic does 40 as a matter of course. As a car driver I am constantly aware of the danger I pose to catatonic pedestrians and wobbling idiot cyclists by my very presence, and it sometimes gives me the shivers. One of these could blight my life permanently through no real fault of mine.
|
If you aren't a car driver, or a well brought-up London nipper, you won't always be aware of the dangers in busy multi-lane traffic situations. So it's a good idea to play safe. Crossing roads any old where is a complex skill.
Better really to be a total PITA pedestrian, the sort that waits at a light-controlled crossing on a virtually empty road pressing the button until some hapless cursing motorist is brought to an unnecessary halt, only then waddling across with his or her fat little nose in the air.
People like that never acknowledge a vehicle's courtesy in lifting off or even braking to let them cross. Londoners of both sexes and all classes quite often do though.
|
I still say YES.
If you are in control of a ton of metal you are responsible for any damage you do with it.
You lot would make good judges, (as long as it wasn't your family members he killed).
I was having an informal chat with the (RAF) examiner that had passed me for my HGV1 licence. The bottom line of the decision, "Is he going to kill someone".
|
>> I still say YES.
>>
>> If you are in control of a ton of metal you are responsible for any
>> damage you do with it.
>>
>> You lot would make good judges, (as long as it wasn't your family members he
>> killed).
And I think you are ignoring any facts or circumstances about the case
|
>> The bottom line of the decision, "Is he going to kill someone".
But really the question means: Does his driving seem to make it likely that he will kill someone? Driving examiners are no more clairvoyant than anyone else. They can't possibly know for sure that a candidate will never be involved in an accident or crash fatal to someone else.
It can happen to anyone ON. The road is a very complex place. Setting a principle like yours - any car driver who hits any pedestrian is to blame for the latter's injuries - makes it easy to reach a quick decision on a case of this sort: a decision which will quite often be wrong and unjust. I'm glad you're just a drunken matelot and not a judge.
|
Missed the edit:-
OK I know pedestrians can be a pain, (like cyclists) unless one jumps in front of your car deliberately it is the drivers fault. Pedestrians are road users too, like when the have priority when crossing a road you are turning into. (Rule 170)
|
>> unless one jumps in front
>> of your car deliberately it is the drivers fault.
...no chance. We all take responsibility for our own actions. Unless it was young kids crossing that road, the pedestrians have a responsibility to themselves.
It's the same for cyclists or motorcylists, they are more vulnerable so should take more care..equally drivers should allow them leeway...however it is not all loaded against the driver.
|
Leave poor ON alone - he jumped the gun and just looked at the headlines.
It's not his fault he can't backtrack unlike the rest of us.
*ahem*
|
|
Thanks Lygonos, I don't need defending, someone has to give this lot something to bite on. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 22 Jan 12 at 17:37
|
>> give this lot something to bite on. :-)
And a very gristly bite it can be... eats all his spinach that one, 'I yam what I yam and I don't care a damn...'
:o}
|
Maybe then he will finally let us know the answer to the world's greatest conundrum.....
Is Popeye's archenemy Bluto or Brutus ?
|
>> Maybe then he will finally let us know the answer to the world's greatest conundrum.....
>>
>> Is Popeye's archenemy Bluto or Brutus ?
>>
olive oyl
|
>> olive oyl
>>
Mrs ON was called that on one occasion, she was seriously unimpressed.
Not by me I would add, I value my life. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 22 Jan 12 at 20:09
|
There you go..........
tinyurl.com/djdme8
Have you spent any time in Costa Rica Lygonos? :-)
|
|
Apparently I made some films to help me pay my way through University....
|
|
Have you told your customers? :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 22 Jan 12 at 20:30
|
Same much applies to school children all dressed in black ... when will parents start to care for their offspring?
That one's harder than you might think if you also want your offspring warm on the way to and from school, and not picked on in the playground for being different from the mob.
Our two have ski-jacket type things with reflective flashes, but the base colours are still slate grey and darkish royal blue - hardly the most conspicuous thing out there. And even those took a lot of hunting on websites and a couple of returns of unsuitable attempts to get hold of. And next autumn they'll be too small and we'll have to do it all over again.
One question to which the free market has not provided the answer.
|
So - did he get off lightly ? - Old Navy
