“No deterrent whatsoever”: Teenage driver who apologised to cyclist in court after crashing and leaving him with life-threatening injuries sentenced to community service

EK Spinner wrote:

I hate the casual use of the term "Blind bend" like it is a physical feature.

All bends in the road have a radius, and site lines, some are tighter than others.

They only become "Blind" when approached too fast, operators of any vehicle on the road network should always be able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear.

There's a really simple concept to counter this fallacy of a blind bend:

Quote:

Advanced drivers use a technique called 'limit point analysis' to assess a bend on the approach. The limit point is the farthest point along a road to which you have a clear and uninterrupted view of the road surface, i.e., the point along the road where both sides of the carriageway appear to meet in a point. 

BikingBud wrote:

There's a really simple concept to counter this fallacy of a blind bend:

Quote:

Advanced drivers use a technique called 'limit point analysis' to assess a bend on the approach. The limit point is the farthest point along a road to which you have a clear and uninterrupted view of the road surface, i.e., the point along the road where both sides of the carriageway appear to meet in a point. 

Not just advanced drivers, I was taught that on day one of motorcycle training: you look for the vanishing point and if it's moving away from you the bend is opening out, if it's moving towards you the bend is tightening up and you need to start backing off.

Not just advanced drivers, I was taught that on day one of motorcycle training: you look for the vanishing point and if it's moving away from you the bend is opening out, if it's moving towards you the bend is tightening up and you need to start backing off

Unfortunately the police, or the Lancashire ones at least, aren't aware of this, either with reference to their own driving or to the driving of others, on Day 1 or Day 3561

https://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/

https://upride.cc/incident/ma12eyg_punto_closepassuwlcross/

Fantasy lawyering. 
There is zero chance of this ever being charged as dangerous driving and no such thing as pleading upwards from careless. 
 

Why do you waste your time posting such nonsense?

Secret_squirrel wrote:

There is zero chance of this ever being charged as dangerous driving and no such thing as pleading upwards from careless.

I suspect you are right but I really hope you are wrong. In my opinion driving at speed round a blind bend is dangerous driving and not merely careless. At some stage the CPS and the courts may accept this too but I doubt it will happen in my life time.

Actually, 'going too fast' is listed as an example of dangerous driving. The law certainly would allow for this offence to be charged as dangerous driving.

The reason it's often not considered, is there seems to be a perception that 'dangerous driving' needs to be outrageous and sustained - the sort of driving you'd see on 'police interceptors' as they chase a joyrider through a housing estate. It's motor-normativity and really should be challenged.

From the CPS: https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences

Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:
- racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;

Not a lawyer but it seems to me that for better or worse (probably some of both) the law allows for an "averaging of all behaviours we're aware of" and (sentencing guidelines or no) that in practice sets expectations, whatever the words say?

With motoring there is an vast amount of "low level" lawbreaking in terms of speeding, driving on pavement etc. and plenty of "thoughtless or incompetent driving".  So perhaps that in effect raises the bar for "serious criminality"?

Again I've none of the stats and it's arguable several ways but presumably for many category of crimes only an (estimated) tiny fraction actually make their way to conviction?

But what is speeding?

A massive over simplification that does nothing to consider the road conditions or the prevalent risks.

Progressing along a wide and clear road may be safe at 90 mph and under differing conditions, fog, snow/ice unsafe at 20 mph. But the former is due to common understanding is speeding and the latter is "safe".

The point is that those we trust, the accident investigators, should use appropriate phrases such as "excessive" or "extreme" or "safe" this can then form the charge and support the CPS argument.

In this case the defendent's own counsel provided “He took that corner way too fast. It’s something he wishes he could reverse.”

So he has admitted travelling at excessive speed. I am just perplexed at how it is not being proscuted as dangerous driving?

BikingBud wrote:

But what is speeding?

A massive over simplification that does nothing to consider the road conditions or the prevalent risks.

That kind of advanced analysis is "too soon" for UK drivers it seems.  Even though we have "drive to the conditions" as part of driver training.

It's probably just what you get because humans, with things like the psychological "anchoring" effect.

BikingBud wrote:

The point is that those we trust, the accident investigators, should use appropriate phrases such as "excessive" or "extreme" or "safe" this can then form the charge and support the CPS argument.

Unfortunately at least some of the accident investigators - as reported here in road.cc e.g. here - appear to have internalised "that's just how it is on the roads" and spend time excusing deficient drivers.

BikingBud wrote:

In this case the defendent's own counsel provided “He took that corner way too fast. It’s something he wishes he could reverse.”

So he has admitted travelling at excessive speed. I am just perplexed at how it is not being proscuted as dangerous driving?

It's a fact that most drivers don't keep to some of the posted speeds (in any conditions). And the CPS seems to judge that "dangerous driving" requires some really wild behaviour, probably lot of proof including of "ill intent".  They are of course judged on getting *some* kind of convictions, but they may not be wrong.

You'll also be familiar with the Incompetence Paradox whereby evidence of poor driving ability can be used as a defence or in mitigation.

I had not seen that before but reading it I was shouting that they have handed all the evidence to the prosecution to support the charge. Only to be as dismayed as the first commentor:

"It’d be interesting to know what the prosecutors closing remarks were. I’d like to think he made the same deductions as you and pointed out to the jury that you can’t beat a charge of incompetence by pleading incompetence."

I can only deduce that the prosecutor was, being lenient to them, poorly prepared, and taken back by the own goal by the accused.

I have offered some "critique" of that thread regarding the abysmal bus driver, investigator and coroner.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Fantasy lawyering. 
There is zero chance of this ever being charged as dangerous driving and no such thing as pleading upwards from careless. 

Why do you waste your time posting such nonsense?

His counsel admitted “He took that corner way too fast. It’s something he wishes he could reverse.”

CPS says cheers, Dangerous Driving -  take significant driving ban. Job jobbed.

My understanding of speed in relation dangerous driving charges is that to be considered dangerous, the speed needs to be knowingly and objectively too high - i.e. was travelling 80mph in a 30mph - or excessive to the point it should be obvious to the driver that they posed a danger.

In this instance, neither seems applicable. The fact the driver attempted the corner at that speed demonstrates that they believed - in the moment - it was possible to do so... alas they were utterly wrong in this perception. And without recorded speeds, there is no objective measurement either. 

It is obvious in hindsight that the drivers speed was excessive, but this is crucially after the event.  

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

My understanding of speed in relation dangerous driving charges is that to be considered dangerous, the speed needs to be knowingly and objectively too high - i.e. was travelling 80mph in a 30mph - or excessive to the point it should be obvious to the driver that they posed a danger.

In this instance, neither seems applicable. The fact the driver attempted the corner at that speed demonstrates that they believed - in the moment - it was possible to do so... alas they were utterly wrong in this perception. And without recorded speeds, there is no objective measurement either. 

It is obvious in hindsight that the drivers speed was excessive, but this is crucially after the event.  

ALAS!

And that right there is the problem. A direct indicator of the level of normalisation- fucking ALAS!

If they do not know the speed is too high they shouldn't have a license! 

Advanced drivers use a technique called 'limit point analysis' to assess a bend on the approach. The limit point is the farthest point along a road to which you have a clear and uninterrupted view of the road surface, i.e., the point along the road where both sides of the carriageway appear to meet in a point. 

But it is with that hindsight that they are being prosecuted! 

The facts are there to be seen. In reality they were there to be seen at the time of the incident in the same manner that the victims were there to be seen but a whole raft of weak and woeful blame diffusing excuses, including victim blaming reduce the drivers' responsibilities and perpetuate the normalisation of other pesky road users being killed by myopic and inattentive drivers driving large lethal weapons with impunity.

We do not shy away from prosecuting other killers because it was not foreseeable what the outcome would be, only when it is motor vehicle drivers. And this is the whole point, these incidents are perpetually presented as accidents when in fact they are collisions that are a natural consequence of people driving with little regard for the conditions or their own abilities.

We frequently judge things as deliberate or reckless not only speed, if it was obvious in hindsight that the speed was excessive then that can only be deemed as reckless abandon ~ dangerous driving.

Some one was nearly killed ergo it was dangerous!

If others cannot rationalise that and adapt their behaviour then they are not capable of managing the risks of operating a motor vehicle and cannot be trusted with a license. 

BikingBud wrote:

Some one was nearly killed ergo it was dangerous!

That assertion is at the heart of this and "road safety" generally.  We have a conflict of purposes between:

a) A view of transport through the lens of "health and safety"
b) A view of transport through law (as practiced in court)
c) "Common sense" - how people feel and act in practice

Your statement is generally in accordance with (a) - but not necessarily with (c) as "we all know accidents happen, drivers 'innocently kill' people.  Plus knowing that perhaps it's actually a bit negligent to cycle on the roads when you know people can drive poorly".

And in fact it's often not in accordance with (b) as lawyers will bring up the logically possible, or seek to sow doubt, or remind the jury of (c) because "there but for the grace of god go I" helps a defence.  And the legal system is subject to its own dynamics (not least that it relies on laws, funding and sometimes a bit of direction from the political side).

To the political - having committed to mass motoring I suspect that it would be really hard to raise the "accepted" skill levels for driving much.  Lots of reasons: at the "entry" as we raise the bar more will not pass the test, plus costs of training / examinations will go up.

But we've made driving a fundamental part of being an adult - not just for utility but also for status.

Then: will it make much difference?  As well as the test you'll need resources to check / police all the time.  Because "mass motoring" in effect means "casual motoring" - people are going to be doing it round the clock, driving for a long time, when tired, when distracted, in all kinds of emotional states, when they're ill or when their abilities have declined but they haven't noticed.

chrisonabike wrote:

BikingBud wrote:

Some one was nearly killed ergo it was dangerous!

That assertion is at the heart of this and "road safety" generally.  We have a conflict of purposes between:

a) A view of transport through the lens of "health and safety"
b) A view of transport through law (as practiced in court)
c) "Common sense" - how people feel and act in practice

Your statement is generally in accordance with (a) - but not necessarily with (c) as "we all know accidents happen, drivers 'innocently kill' people.  Plus knowing that perhaps it's actually a bit negligent to cycle on the roads when you know people can drive poorly".

And in fact it's often not in accordance with (b) as lawyers will bring up the logically possible, or seek to sow doubt, or remind the jury of (c) because "there but for the grace of god go I" helps a defence.  And the legal system is subject to its own dynamics (not least that it relies on laws, funding and sometimes a bit of direction from the political side).

To the political - having committed to mass motoring I suspect that it would be really hard to raise the "accepted" skill levels for driving much.  Lots of reasons: at the "entry" as we raise the bar more will not pass the test, plus costs of training / examinations will go up.

But we've made driving a fundamental part of being an adult - not just for utility but also for status.

Then: will it make much difference?  As well as the test you'll need resources to check / police all the time.  Because "mass motoring" in effect means "casual motoring" - people are going to be doing it round the clock, driving for a long time, when tired, when distracted, in all kinds of emotional states, when they're ill or when their abilities have declined but they haven't noticed.

And here is maybe my downfall as an engineer and being involved in safety I am too objective.

1. Not killing or injuring people is the desired state:
2. That is common sense and if common sense cannot protect people from being killed or injured:
3. Law should come into play to redress those who have failed to  meet the standard of acceptable behaviour.

Let's stop beating around the bush, accepting with a shrug of the shoulders that "accidents happen" and lets challenge the ill percieved "wisdom" that covers most of motoring and leads to abrogation of responsibility, eg SMART motorways are not dangerous, bends in roads are not dangerous, narrow roads are not dangerous, drivers are!

Well, law isn't engineering...

I think using mental tools like the hierarchy of hazard controls or ones more specific to transport (e.g. the Dutch Sustainable Safety system [1] [2] [3]) to avoid classes of problems entirely is the immediate way forward.  Or at least mitigate consequences. Or failing even that at least help provide inputs and set the tone for the legal process *.

If things have reach the criminal justice system or civil courts, from an engineering perspective things have already failed.  Of course the law can play an important part to the extent that it provides feedback.  Including - probably most importantly - in the minds of people ** ("if you do they'll throw the book at you!") .  It's debateable how effective this is in the UK.  Is it "just a few thousand more police will do it" or "we've reached the point of zero returns", or "it would be much worse without the current lottery of spotty sentencing and minimal road policing..."

In the end it's all about feedback loops (in the human / political sphere).  Here's an example of how that works for transport in the Dutch "local / regional government" organisation of responsibility (I confess I've even less idea how this all fits together here in Scotland...)

* e.g. "The place where the crash occurred is self-evidentally a residential street because ALL our residential streets have similar, very unabiguous design - and they all have the same (low) speed limit so we don't need to start down 'My client had no idea about the speed limit' or 'He didn't think he was going fast'..."

** Aside from addressing "desert" or "redress" - which is extremely important for individuals but overall more about maintaining confidence in the law than anything to do with safety.

I refer to being an engineer only to emphasise my consideration of the logical approach that should be applied in the justice system, rather than some wishy washy tolerance of unacceptable performance.

I would wholeheartedly welcome the implementation of a sustainable system however, we find that the UK is barely ready to accept that cycling is a valid and effective means of transport never mind increase significantly the resources spent and the turmoil caused in striving to acheive that nirvana.

On the basis that we do not adjust the current transport system by doing the above then we will be faced with evermore situations where poor/careless/dangerous driving continues to be supported by lame excuses. It is not like rain, which will come when it does, these collisions are as a direct result of the behaviour of and the decisions made by drivers, eg when the rain does come and drivers don't slow down, drivers don't increase the gap between themselves and the vehicle in front, drivers don't put thier lights on, drivers continue to drive without responding to the  changing hazards. Then find they skid, aquaplane, lose sight of and separation from other vehicles due to decreased visibility and then collide!

Treat every death as unlawful and investigate until it is clear that murder or manslaughter were not in effect. Every VSI as GBH until the driver is deemed to have been completely exonerated ie thier driving was meticulous and in no way contributed or they were unable to have intervened to avoid the outcome eg a tyre blowout.

Didn't see you, sun was in my eyes, the cyclist swerved as I was overtaking, came out of nowhere, blind bend and all other manner of limp excuses should be struck off as any mitigation because they can, and should, all be countered by effective driving skills. See five whys of investigation for an indicator of where root cause can quickly determine the limits of driver skills and assess the underlying cause. If you don't possess the skills then you are not equipped to drive.

Residential street or blind bend or motorway or roundabout, high vehicles going under low bridges the onus is always on the driver to proceed with appropriate caution. You don't proceed with caution and there is a collision there are no excuses. End of.

We see responses of distress and concern about little bunnies or fluffy puppies or foxes or badgers being killed, culled or abused but when we harm or kill humans, who are on cycles or pedestrians, we get platitiudes such as "ALAS" (FFS) or "oh well it happens".  

Sounds counterintuitive but I think fixing the legal system would be harder than fixing the street design and rules - and might even cost more!

Not 100% certain but I'd guess that in NL, Scandinavia, Seville etc (even in a few places in London) transformation started without requiring fundamental changes to the legal system. Although some fixes there eventually would be great.

(Law doesn't bring anyone back from death, its deterrent effect is debatable for any given crime type, and any "reform" of offenders by the system even more so!)

Changes to infra and design to can at least be done locally and incrementally. After all, most roads have shorter careers than lawyers!

Of course politically people *will* buy "hard on criminals" policies - because we all know that doesn't apply (negatively) to us... and we may feel the legal system is far more preventative than it is.

OTOH as Chris Boardman points out it is possible to sell infra / layout changes on the basis of "safer for your kids, and you - the local people - can have control of what happens that affects you".

AFAIK the only legal changes of note in this area have been the 20mph default in Wales (a specific change, not eg. changing criteria for what needs proved and how in a case) and some tweaks to sentences.

The political will for change comes from push/support from the electorate - which is currently weak or absent for "road safety" and "fixing transport". Getting more people doing a bit of active travel would help. (Of course the pull of lobbying and potential from the motor industry and tech-bros continues as before or grows.)

"Treat every death as unlawful" - I suspect that is a bridge too far politically and culturally (not a lawyer or coroner so don't know just how fundamental of a legal change that is).

The other thing we *do* know is that people aren't completely fooled by "legal safety" - you can promise them that all drivers are great "because we throw the book at them if not" but they're still not going to let their kids out in a stream of traffic at 30mph!

Agree, but again it's how to start to break the vicious circle?

Currently there's very little disincentive not to ignore bans, because cars are seen as an essential tool if not a human right ("exceptional hardship..."), so people don't seem to be terribly supportive (e.g. informing the police), the roads aren't well policed (not a priority / "no resource"), the courts don't apply much in the way of penalty and ultimately the politicians don't see this as a way to make themselves popular.

Bans need a decent chance of being detected doing so, and a penalty for ignoring them which is a reasonable deterrent and (because some just don't care) with the sanction of removing people from the driving population (e.g. prison until we get some kind of tech solution, and maybe even then).

Presumed liability is (everywhere it's practiced) strictly a civil measure.  I'm not sure how often people manage to get compensation currently?  I do wonder - given we struggle to bring drivers to court for causing injury or even death (and also struggle to convict them when we do).  Although of course criminal standards are different.  Anyway - while having this is a good idea it's possibly icing for a cake we don't yet have?

Apology means FA. Who cares if he regrets or not. The milk has spilled. I hope the family successfully sues the perp for a massive personal injury compensation to be paid out of his motor insurance policy. That way he will forever be turned down by insurers when trying to renew.

farucoia wrote:

Maybe the community service.  The regret seems genuine.  But 12 months?  What's wrong with 5 year bans, in this and so many other cases.  Indeed in the very worst cases, lifetime bans.

I'd argue that nothing at all is wrong with the bans that you describe -- and they exist in some places.

A member of my extended family did something terrible and stupid with a motor vehicle twenty-odd years ago, in New York State, in the US. He has never since been able to obtain a driver's license in any US state -- despite the fact that he was about 14 years old at the time. It appears as though he will never drive legally in this country. Apart from the fact that he stole the vehicle in question, the details of his crime(s) have remained sufficiently sealed that I'm unaware of them. I feel certain he must have put someone in the ground (and most likely, a close relation of a judge, given the vociferous nature of the state's desire to punish him).

That one joy ride has cost him tremendously, and he has struggled to even obtain employment since, in large part due to being unable to drive. He frankly isn't sufficiently clever for most jobs that don't require being able to drive, and lives in a rural area.

I feel bad for the kid, and he hasn't had any good breaks in his life, but I can't say that he doesn't deserve what he got in this case, and he should have gone to prison if he did half of what I expect he did (not that such would've had a better outcome).

eburtthebike wrote:

It may be that the driver is genuinely remorseful, and that a heavier sentence would make no difference, but the ban is derisory.

But sentencing should also have the effect of deterring other similar offences. 

If custodial and long-term bans were used as a deterrent then the roads should become safer.

Problem is:

Quote:

The statistics from August 2024, given to the BBC by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, showed 10,000 valid licence holders with 12 points or more, the typical threshold for a ban 

and

"Motorist with 176 penalty points still driving on UK's roads, DVLA figures show"