[peted76]

Inspired by years of insulting and demonstrative sentences handed out to criminal drivers.. A catch all thread to remind us just how messed up the judiciary and law system is. 

Here’s what Dangerous Driving is suposed to be:

Dangerous driving

The offence of dangerous driving is when driving falls far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and includes behaviour that could potentially endanger yourself or other drivers. 

Examples of dangerous driving are:

speeding, racing, or driving aggressively
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers
overtaking dangerously
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load

Distractions are also causes of dangerous driving, for example:

using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, selecting music, tuning the radio

.

.

So why don’t more people get prosecuted for this?

Topic

[stonojnr]

But it is already, the CPS
But it is already, the CPS provide clear guidance that causing a crash that results in injury or death whilst driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is dangerous driving.

They simply don’t follow their own guidance, presumably to ensure the conviction rate stats stay high when they pursue the lesser careless instead.

So it should be either the judges job or the prosecution to explain to juries in simple language, the law says this about this charge, you must find the defendant guilty on this basis, leave your preconceptions outside this court room.

[Rendel Harris]

One useful thing that could

One useful thing that could be done, at least, is to make causing an incident when driving under the influence of drink or drugs de facto dangerous driving (as it is, obviously). At the moment the driver gets charged for drunk/drug driving but their driving can still be assessed as careless rather than dangerous, implying that getting behind the wheel bombed does not necessarily fall “far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver”, which is patently absurd.

[chrisonabike]

As usual perhaps the question
As usual perhaps the question is “how did we get here”? Was this because before such offenses juries could only be offered manslaughter (and didn’t convict) or far more minor offenses? But far has this worked to drain the drama / make things more objective?

Second – who or what does this serve? If – as seems to be accepted not infrequently – “it was a moment’s inattention / loss of control in a lifetime’s blameless driving” – why bring to court and punish at all? Of course, fixing “the system” is fortunately beyond the remit of the courts… on the other side – the few where the judge seems to be looking in vain for their black hat – are they actually deterred in any way? (Never mind stopped – effective driving ban enforcement mumble mumble).

[chrisonabike]

Careless and dangerous
Careless and dangerous definitions always seem to me as arbitrary and subjective as a questioning the length of a short vs. long piece of string.

I suspect that the law likes this kind of thing as appropriate flexibility to cope with human circumstances. Equally where I see the remarkable variation in punishments (if any) applied as evidence for further subjectivity and human bias there are of course guidelines there and presumably that would be evidence of the system taking into account all factors.

My belief in that view is lessened since – as far as I know there is no legal impediment (cost though…) to introducing a driving test examiner as an expert witness and yet we’ve never read of this. Of course perhaps the prosecutors know their business and that this would be a right turn-off for any jury – or even judge?

[chrisonabike]

Do driving examiners accept
Do driving examiners accept “the sun was in my eyes” or “they wobbled and fell into my path; there was nothing I could do”?

[ktache]

But surely killing someone

But surely killing someone during a driving test would be an almost certain fail…

[ktache]

This thread ain’t going to be

This thread ain’t going to be as fun as “car crashes into building”

Couple of reasons though, easy acceptance of plea bargaining down to careless, and juries made up of drivers.

[Hirsute]

This one was
This one was
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67959162

[Tom_77]

mattw wrote:

Why four counts, when he only killed one with his car, afaics?

I think it’s four counts because he was found to be over the limit for four different substances – alcohol, cannabinoids, MDMA, and cocaine.

[Rendel Harris]

mattw wrote:

Why four counts, when he only killed one with his car, afaics?

Most likely that is a reporting error and he was charged with four offences in total, probably (at a guess) causing death by careless driving, driving under the influence of alcohol, driving under the influence of drugs, and leaving the scene of an accident?

[mattw]

Why four counts, when he only

Why four counts, when he only killed one with his car, afaics?

[mattw]

There’s quite a history of

There’s quite a history of case law around the definition of dangerous driving.

Here for example is an awful interview with Thomas Davies who claimed he did JOGLE at an average speed of 89 mph in his tuned Audi with a long-range tank he had cobbled together, then said he had been lying when he got to Court, got off the charges and is proud of himself.

(All the statements about law in the interview are not correct, but it illustrates the point.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwfJEcrEaik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsl_S3lS-Ok&t

[peted76]

the little onion wrote:

I think the principle problem is that dangerous (and careless) driving is defined in law as relative to “the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver”. So you are asking a bunch of other drivers in the jury to assess whether this driver was much worse than them. Given the number of drivers you see on their phone, or parked dangerously, or whatever, the standard of competence and care is very, very low.

 

I would favour a move that would define careless and dangerous driving as driving that would constitute a major fault in a driving test. 

It beggers belief that ‘UK driving test standards’ are NOT what defines exactly what careless or dangerous driving is to begin with..  when the laws were defined, surely that’s exactly what was meant. Where or rather when did the judiciary decide that UK driving test standards were to be considered higher than that of ‘actual’ UK driving standards? 

[the little onion]

I think the principle problem

I think the principle problem is that dangerous (and careless) driving is defined in law as relative to “the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver”. So you are asking a bunch of other drivers in the jury to assess whether this driver was much worse than them. Given the number of drivers you see on their phone, or parked dangerously, or whatever, the standard of competence and care is very, very low.

 

I would favour a move that would define careless and dangerous driving as driving that would constitute a major fault in a driving test. 

[peted76]

Starting with today’s

Starting with today’s travesty.. as covered by road.cc… four counts of Causing death by ‘careless driving’… how is this not dagerous driving?

A motorist who drank a bottle of vodka, as well as taking cocaine, ecstasy, and cannabis at a party, before striking and killing a cyclist and fleeing the scene – and later lying to police officers about his identity, showing no remorse for his actions – has been sentenced to six years and nine months in prison, and banned from driving for a further two years.

https://www.gmp.police.uk/news/greater-manchester/news/news/2024/january/man-sentenced-to-six-years-nine-months-in-jail-after-fatal-road-traffic-collision-in-bolton/ 

 

[Author]

Replies