UK and Europe · Public discussion

driver charged (at last...)

Started by wafflycat · · Last activity · 19 posts · 770 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
20 April 2006
Last activity
21 April 2006
Original author
wafflycat
Posts
19
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
770
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–19 of 19
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. You may remember postings on here about Zak Carr being killed on the A11
    last October. Basically he was rear-ended by a terminally unobservant fule
    as far as I know.

    At long last, someone has been actually charged in this sad matter.

    See

    http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED20%20Apr%202006%2012%3A00%3A58%3A873

    or

    http://tinyurl.com/s8yl8

    It says, "A man was today due to appear in court facing charges over the
    death of a champion cyclist.

    Donald Pearce, 48, of Colman Road, Norwich, has been charged with causing
    death by reckless driving following the death of Zak Carr last year.
    Following his arrest by police, Pearce was bailed to appear at Norwich
    Magistrates Court today."

    Can those who know the technicalities of the law advise me, please - I
    thought that 'death by reckless driving' had been changed to 'death by
    dangerous driving' some time ago. Am I thinking completely out of my tree
    here??

    If it is the case that it was changed, I hope that it's just the reporter
    getting it wrong and not the guy being incorrectly charged and going to get
    off on a technicality...

    Cheers, helen s

    --

    ~~
    you may need to remove dependence
    on fame & fortune from organisation
    to get correct email address
    ~Noodliness is Good~

  2. wafflycat said:


    Can those who know the technicalities of the law advise me, please -
    I thought that 'death by reckless driving' had been changed to 'death
    by dangerous driving' some time ago. Am I thinking completely out of
    my tree here??

    IIRC, Causing Death by Reckless Driving was the old offence pre the 1991
    Road Traffic Act. Its big problem was the judgement of recklessness
    required an assessment of the thinking of the driver, which was
    notoriously difficult to prove. The new offence of Causing Death by
    Dangerous driving was based on the standard of driving, not the why the
    person was driving that way.

    Out of interest, pre 1977 it was Causing Death by Reckless or Dangerous
    Driving but was reworded in the Criminal Law Act as Causing Death by
    Reckless Driving. This was following a lot of debate as to whether the
    Causing Death by.. part should be dropped altogether as it was the
    standard of driving that was being prosecuted, not whether or not it led
    to injury or death. The charge was introduced in the first place though
    in 1956 because with only Careless and Reckless Driving charges, it
    required juries to convict drivers of manslaughter or murder to get a
    higher penalty if someone was killed, something the juries proved very
    reluctant to do. Which brings us full circle to the recent debate in
    this parish about whether such deaths should be prosecuted as
    manslaughter or murder.

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham

  3. So the EDP and EEN decided to treat Zak's death with the respect and
    courtesy it deserved (Traffic chaos after accident) and then get the
    details of the charges wrong?

  4. "spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    So the EDP and EEN decided to treat Zak's death with the respect and
    courtesy it deserved (Traffic chaos after accident) and then get the
    details of the charges wrong?

    That would not surprise me in the slightest.

    helen s

  5. wafflycat wrote "Can those who know the technicalities of the law
    advise me, please - I
    thought that 'death by reckless driving' had been changed to 'death by
    dangerous driving' some time ago. Am I thinking completely out of my
    tree
    here?? "

    I think both offences still exist.
    Put crudely, sub-standard driving comes in degrees of severity, from
    relatively minor 'careless driving' then 'dangerous driving' up to the
    extreme ' reckless driving'. Put very crudely, reckless driving is the
    sort which will probably cause an accident every time, while dangerous
    driving is the sort where the driver might manage to get away with it
    for months but will sooner or later cause a serious accident. Careless
    driving creates a enhanced risk of minor accidents and/or slight risk
    of a major one.

  6. Quoted message said:

    wafflycat wrote "Can those who know the technicalities of the law
    advise me, please - I
    thought that 'death by reckless driving' had been changed to 'death by
    dangerous driving' some time ago. Am I thinking completely out of my
    tree
    here?? "

    I think both offences still exist.

    CPS Chapter and verse:
    DRIVING OFFENCES INVOLVING FATALITIES
    When a death occurs on the road in circumstances which suggest an offence
    has been committed, the police will investigate. Whether an offence has been
    committed will depend on the conduct of the driver of the vehicle. Where a
    death has been caused, one of the following offences may have been
    committed:

    a.. careless driving or inconsiderate driving - section 3 Road Traffic Act
    (RTA) 1988;
    b.. causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or
    drugs - section 3A RTA 1988;
    c.. causing death by dangerous driving - section 1 RTA 1988;
    d.. manslaughter - contrary to common law (rarely - used mainly where a
    person intends to cause some harm, eg by deliberately driving into someone).
    The offence of driving without due care and attention is committed when the
    driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and
    competent driver in all the circumstances of the case. If a death has
    occurred as a result of careless driving, this can only be reflected in the
    charge if the driver is under the influence of drink or drugs. There is no
    offence of causing death by careless driving. A person drives dangerously
    when:

    a.. the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a
    competent and careful driver; and
    b.. it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in
    that way would be dangerous.
    The manner of the driving must be considered objectively. In practice, the
    difference between the two types of bad driving will depend on the degree to
    which the driving falls below the minimum acceptable standard. If the manner
    of the driving is below that which is expected, the appropriate charge will
    be careless driving; if the manner of the driving is far below that which is
    expected, the appropriate charge will be dangerous driving. There is no
    statutory guidance about what behaviour constitutes a manner of driving
    which is "below" and "far below" the required standard.

    Where a death has occurred it is especially important that offenders are
    brought to justice. But, as the law stands, death does not, by itself, turn
    an accident into careless driving or turn careless driving into dangerous
    driving.

    When considering the appropriate charge, it is the behaviour that is the
    deciding factor, ie whether the driving was careless or dangerous rather
    than the consequences. However, The CPS requires that in any prosecution for
    driving without due care and attention, where a death has resulted from the
    manner of the driving, those presenting the facts of the case to the court
    should give full details, including the fact that a death resulted.

    pk

  7. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    I think both offences still exist.
    Put crudely, sub-standard driving comes in degrees of severity, from
    relatively minor 'careless driving' then 'dangerous driving' up to the
    extreme ' reckless driving'. Put very crudely, reckless driving is the
    sort which will probably cause an accident every time, while dangerous
    driving is the sort where the driver might manage to get away with it
    for months but will sooner or later cause a serious accident. Careless
    driving creates a enhanced risk of minor accidents and/or slight risk
    of a major one.

    Having done a swift check on Auntie Beeb's handy online law terminology
    guide, causing death by reckless driving has been superceded by causing
    death by dangerous driving. See
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/jargonbuster_c.shtml Now there is 'carless or
    inconsiderate driving' and 'causing death by dangerous driving' which is the
    more serious offence.

    Cheers, helen s

  8. wafflycat said:


    Having done a swift check on Auntie Beeb's handy online law terminology
    guide, causing death by reckless driving has been superceded by causing
    death by dangerous driving. See
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/crime/law/jargonbuster_c.shtml Now there is
    'carless or inconsiderate driving' and 'causing death by dangerous
    driving' which is the more serious offence.

    I'm trying to imagine the offence of "carless driving." Have cars
    become mandatory now?

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham

  9. "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    I'm trying to imagine the offence of "carless driving." Have cars become
    mandatory now?

    Just checking on your proof reading skills, Tony ;-)

    Cheers, helen s

  10. Tony Raven said:

    I'm trying to imagine the offence of "carless driving." Have cars
    become mandatory now?

    It's quite common.

    http://www.ntk.net/2003/07/25/#ANTI_NEWS

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22carless+driving%22

    And I'm sure the .gov.uk one wasn't there at number one
    two and a half years ago.

    --
    Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
    "Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
    but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
    -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  11. Tony Raven said:

    I'm trying to imagine the offence of "carless driving." Have cars
    become mandatory now?

    It almost seems that way...
    After a minor prang last week our car is off the road with a smashed
    headlight. Other party admitted liability, and the letter from their
    insurance mentioned "replacement car if you can demonstrate a need".
    Now I don't think we /need/ a car but it comes in handy at times, so I
    called, prepared to discuss to what extend I need it. Turns out that the
    only criteria is that our car is off the road.
    Same with the rental company shortly after: when would I need the car?
    While I was thinking about what upcoming trips were necessary and which I
    could do by bike he continued by asking if our car was away for repairs
    yet, and as soon as I mentioned I couldn't drive it at the moment it
    meant I needed a car right away.

    And back to cycling: car rental company guy did say the Brompton was very
    handy when I used it to pick up the car.

    Roos

  12. "spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    So the EDP and EEN decided to treat Zak's death with the respect and
    courtesy it deserved (Traffic chaos after accident) and then get the
    details of the charges wrong?

    It's been confirmed that the driver has been charged with causing death by
    dangerous driving. Evening News reporting getting it wrong - quelle
    surprise!

    Cheers, helen s

  13. A11 crash causes traffic chaos

    17 October 2005 13:40

    A male cyclist was seriously hurt in an accident today that blocked the
    northbound carriageway of the A11, between Wymondham and the Thickthorn
    Roundabout, near Norwich, for over four hours.

    The accident was reported at 7.23am and resulted in major traffic
    problems in the vicinity. Diversions were set up at the B1135, near the
    Norfolk Police operation headquarters at Wymondham, and traffic was
    routed through Hethersett.

    The cyclist was in collision with a Rover car and suffered a head
    injury and other serious injuries. He was taken to the Norfolk and
    Norwich University Hospital by ambulance. The car driver is believed to
    have been unhurt.

    The road re-opened at 12.12pm.

    Norfolk police are appealing for information, and would like to hear
    from anyone who saw the cyclist prior to the crash.

    A car ended up on the roundabout at the A40/A143 junction at Stuston,
    near Diss, at 4.55am today. The non-injury accident happened in thick
    fog, damaging a chevron sign at the roundabout. The road was not
    obstructed and no other vehicle was involved.

    http://tinyurl.com/pe7mu

    Charming.

    Presumably the EDP would report September the Eleventh as:

    "Plane incident causes traffic chaos, delays expected.

    (2986 people dead)."

    "The cyclist was in collision with a Rover car"

    Peculiar wording.

  14. Quoted message said:

    Charming.


    <snippity>

    Quoted message said:

    "The cyclist was in collision with a Rover car"

    Quoted message said:

    Peculiar wording.

    It's basically just due to lazy reporting. The 'journalist' has simply
    taken the information given by the police and "written it in their own
    words" like wot they were taughtt at skool.

    They've searched for little (if any) extra information and, in the absence
    of any information about the victim, were only able to chuck in a few of
    their own words on the problems caused by traffic.

  15. Mark Thompson said:

    It's basically just due to lazy reporting. The 'journalist' has simply
    taken the information given by the police and "written it in their own
    words" like wot they were taughtt at skool.

    They've searched for little (if any) extra information and, in the absence
    of any information about the victim, were only able to chuck in a few of
    their own words on the problems caused by traffic.

    My experience of local paper journalists is that if you were to write
    "this journalist is a numpty" in the middle of a press release, you
    would find "this journalist is a numpty" faithfully reproduced in the
    newspaper under their byline.

    National papers are worse in that the journalist reads and then
    misinterprets/misrepresents what was in the press release/interview.

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham

  16. On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:56:42 +0100 someone who may be "wafflycat"
    <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    At long last, someone has been actually charged in this sad matter.

    Will they be convicted though? The local paper here contains an
    example of a motorist on trial in circumstances where one might
    question how hard the government pushed their side of the case.

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=601632006

    "A PENSIONER who knocked down an 84-year-old man because he did not
    notice a red traffic light has been cleared of causing death by
    dangerous driving but convicted of a lesser charge. [snip]

    "The jury found the serious charge not proven, but unanimously
    convicted Shaw of a lesser offence of careless driving.

    "Judge Lord Wheatley fined him £1000 and banned him from driving for
    12 months."

    "Carelessly" crashing into someone and killing them? I wonder.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh
    I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

  17. David Hansen said:


    "The jury found the serious charge not proven, but unanimously
    convicted Shaw of a lesser offence of careless driving.

    "Judge Lord Wheatley fined him £1000 and banned him from driving for
    12 months."

    "Carelessly" crashing into someone and killing them? I wonder.

    Wrong logic I'm afraid. According to the law

    A person drives dangerously when:

    The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent
    and careful driver

    AND

    It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in
    that way would be dangerous.

    Now we all know that ignoring a red light does not fall far below the
    standards expected of a normal driver nor do they think it is dangerous.
    The Courts seem to think killing someone with a car is not exceptional
    either. Ergo Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is a theoretical
    offence only ;-^)

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham

  18. Tony Raven said:

    According to the law

    A person drives dangerously when:

    The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent
    and careful driver

    AND

    It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in
    that way would be dangerous.

    Now we all know that ignoring a red light does not fall far below the
    standards expected of a normal driver nor do they think it is dangerous.
    The Courts seem to think killing someone with a car is not exceptional
    either. Ergo Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is a theoretical
    offence only ;-^)

    Slightly funny if only it wasn't so serious. Anyway, the definitions you
    presented prove that Causing Death by Dangerous Driving is not a
    theoretical offence: they don't mention a 'normal driver', only a
    'competent and careful' one. I assume you'd include yourself in that group?
    --
    Michael MacClancy

  19. Tony Raven said:

    My experience of local paper journalists is that if you were to write
    "this journalist is a numpty" in the middle of a press release, you
    would find "this journalist is a numpty" faithfully reproduced in the
    newspaper under their byline.

    A friend of mine worked for a local paper for a period until he decided to
    take a career change in the direction of primary school teaching. He was
    once sent out with a photographer to report on the "bad parking" that was
    blocking a residential street. On arrival they found not one car in the
    street. Their instructions were to press on regardless, so they ditched
    the photo and got a couple of quotes from local residents ("Yes. It's
    terrible. I can never get through the street to get home 'cos there's cars
    parked all ways!"😉. The article was run. Never underestimate the power of
    an imminent deadline.

    Jon

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.