Home

Should those in charge of a vehicle involved in a fatal collision face manslaughter charges? Many here argue they should, well it's happening:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40927791

If only this charging approach was consistently applied to all vehicle operators.

Discuss...

8 comments

Avatar
Woldsman [179 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

I think we should remember that this is an ongoing trial in a UK court. I would imagine that the story will soon make its way to the news section of road.cc where it will appear - as it does on the BBC's web site - with comments switched off.  

Avatar
brooksby [2507 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes
Woldsman wrote:

I think we should remember that this is an ongoing trial in a UK court. I would imagine that the story will soon make its way to the news section of road.cc where it will appear - as it does on the BBC's web site - with comments switched off.  

Isnt this just discussing it and the issues around it?: "water cooler moment " and all that. 

Avatar
Woldsman [179 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:
Woldsman wrote:

I think we should remember that this is an ongoing trial in a UK court. I would imagine that the story will soon make its way to the news section of road.cc where it will appear - as it does on the BBC's web site - with comments switched off.  

Isnt this just discussing it and the issues around it?: "water cooler moment " and all that. 

I'm fairly sure that threads like this get deleted for ongoing trials.  I suppose we could err on the side of caution and discuss the matter around an actual water cooler. But, hey, I'm no expert. 

Avatar
Duncann [1080 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes

"If only this charging approach was consistently applied to all vehicle operators."

Had those other vehicle operators deliberately removed legally-required brakes then you might find that a similar approach to charging applied.

Avatar
brooksby [2507 posts] 1 month ago
1 like
Duncann wrote:

"If only this charging approach was consistently applied to all vehicle operators."

Had those other vehicle operators deliberately removed legally-required brakes then you might find that a similar approach to charging applied.

Is a closer analogy when HGVs don't have the legally recommended anti blind spot mirrors?

Avatar
Duncann [1080 posts] 1 month ago
0 likes
brooksby wrote:
Duncann wrote:

"If only this charging approach was consistently applied to all vehicle operators."

Had those other vehicle operators deliberately removed legally-required brakes then you might find that a similar approach to charging applied.

Is a closer analogy when HGVs don't have the legally recommended anti blind spot mirrors?

Is "legally recommended" a thing? Surely the law requires, rather than recommends?

Avatar
Internet Pawn [17 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

One of the charges here is 'wanton and furious cycling', which is exactly the same offence as 'wanton and furious driving'.  What are the chances of a car driver doing 20mph being charged under this section?

Avatar
wycombewheeler [1164 posts] 1 month ago
1 like

I would be a lot mire comfortable with the issue if the headlines had been about cycling without a brake rather than 20mph cyclist which we have all been told for years is a safe speed to aspire to in urban areas "20s plenty" and all that.