Giving up

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by JBB, Nov 18, 2004.

  1. >Nope. Both hands on the wheel. No-one else in the car to talk to. No
    >pretty young women wandering around to distract him (I've actually heard
    >that cited as an excuse!). Just crap.
    >
    >Jon


    As an aside, but showing the sort of crap some drivers will use to get out of
    their responsibilities...

    Last night I was driving Herman and whilst stationary at a junction where I was
    waiting for a gap in traffic to turn left on to the main road. Fool in Audi
    came up behind. He then drove straight into the rear of my car... Said fool in
    Audi said it was my fault that he drove into the back of my car as my car was
    stationary... Said fool refused to exchange details and insisted him driving
    into the back of my stationary car was not his fault but mine. Luckily no-one
    was physically hurt, but I was getting a tad worried for my own safety due to
    the aggressive manner of the Audi fool. So I phoned the police and gave the
    registration mumber of the Audi. It took that to get the guy to give me his
    details. Obv. he's never read the HC as regards leaving space between you & the
    vehicle in front..

    Cheers, helen s


    --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
    to get correct one remove fame & fortune
    h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*[email protected]$*a$o*l.c**$om$

    --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
     


  2. On 19 Nov 2004 00:29:07 -0800, "MartinM" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >who is really going to bother bringing such a case against a 76 yr old
    >pensioner, justified though it could be?


    Anyone who is interested in natural justice? Just guessing.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  3. Call me Bob

    Call me Bob Guest

    On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:49:52 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>who is really going to bother bringing such a case against a 76 yr old
    >>pensioner, justified though it could be?

    >
    >Anyone who is interested in natural justice? Just guessing.


    Ah, well, there's yer mistake see. The British justice system and
    police have very little to do with actual justice.



    --


    Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.
     
  4. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    MartinM wrote:


    > who is really going to bother bringing such a case against a 76 yr old
    > pensioner, justified though it could be? I think just taking him off
    > the road was seen as the best course of action. There are still flowers
    > on the crossing every year.


    I think there is some merit in ensuring that criminal behaviour that
    kills people is properly investigated, and recorded. A
    nudge-nudge-wink-wink "give us your licence and we'll say no more"
    attitude ensures that dangerous driving does not get taken seriously.
    This death is presumably recorded as a accident with no reference to the
    fact that the driver was grossly incompetent.

    I don't think that old drivers are a massive problem on our roads, but
    wouldn't it be useful to know?

    James
    --
    If I have seen further than others, it is
    by treading on the toes of giants.
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
     
  5. Paul - xxx

    Paul - xxx Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? vaguely muttered something like ...

    > In my view leaving the scene should be subject to mandatory
    > disqualification, just like drink-driving.


    I completely agree.

    > In this case if it can be shown that prompt medical treatment may have
    > saved the cyclist's life, the driver should be charged with
    > manslaughter.


    I disagree. If the driver's left the scene and the victim dies, then the
    driver ought to be charged with manslaughter. I'd suggest that ought to
    also be true regardless of the circumstances of the accident. there is no
    excuse or reason to leave the scene, especially when there are serious
    injuries.

    If the judiciary start to 'get tough' on these sorts of 'accidents' then the
    message might get across that driving safely is a good thing.

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules !!!
    "A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
     
  6. Paul - xxx

    Paul - xxx Guest

    James Annan vaguely muttered something like ...

    > A
    > nudge-nudge-wink-wink "give us your licence and we'll say no more"
    > attitude ensures that dangerous driving does not get taken seriously.
    > This death is presumably recorded as a accident with no reference to the
    > fact that the driver was grossly incompetent.


    I completely agree. Even though he didn't leave the scene, he did cause a
    death. There ought to be some form of justice for the family of the victim,
    and simply taking his licence away amounts to a slap on the wrist.

    Hardly the cost of a life is it ....

    --
    Paul ...
    (8(|) Homer Rules !!!
    "A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
     
  7. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    Paul - xxx wrote:


    > I completely agree. Even though he didn't leave the scene, he did cause a
    > death. There ought to be some form of justice for the family of the victim,
    > and simply taking his licence away amounts to a slap on the wrist.
    >
    > Hardly the cost of a life is it ....


    Well in some ways the loss of a licence is a far more severe punishment
    than most younger drivers would have faced in similar circumstances. I
    can see that a prosecution resulting in 3 points and a 60 quid fine
    would be fairly irrelevant to him...but it would at least mean a
    criminal conviction for behaviour that on the face of it seems to have
    been clearly criminal.

    What I was really objecting to was the "all the police could do"
    comment. They can do plenty, but rarely choose to.

    James
    --
    If I have seen further than others, it is
    by treading on the toes of giants.
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
     
  8. MartinM

    MartinM Guest

    dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
    > >Nope. Both hands on the wheel. No-one else in the car to talk to. No


    > >pretty young women wandering around to distract him (I've actually

    heard
    > >that cited as an excuse!). Just crap.
    > >
    > >Jon

    >
    > As an aside, but showing the sort of crap some drivers will use to

    get out of
    > their responsibilities...
    >
    > Last night I was driving Herman and whilst stationary at a junction

    where I was
    > waiting for a gap in traffic to turn left on to the main road. Fool

    in Audi
    > came up behind. He then drove straight into the rear of my car...

    Said fool in
    > Audi said it was my fault that he drove into the back of my car as my

    car was
    > stationary... Said fool refused to exchange details and insisted him

    driving
    > into the back of my stationary car was not his fault but mine.

    Luckily no-one
    > was physically hurt, but I was getting a tad worried for my own

    safety due to
    > the aggressive manner of the Audi fool. So I phoned the police and

    gave the
    > registration mumber of the Audi. It took that to get the guy to give

    me his
    > details. Obv. he's never read the HC as regards leaving space between

    you & the
    > vehicle in front..


    same thing happened to us a few years ago; the driver apologised
    profusely and offered to pay without involving the insurance. Until he
    got the bill that was, whereupon he then claimed we had rolled
    backwards (On a slightdown hill!). My insurance paid for the small
    claim, which never actually happened as he caved in the day before the
    hearing. I'm sure the insurance companies try this on all the time.
     
  9. Rich

    Rich Guest

    "James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    >
    > Yeah right. It might have been all the police/CPS could be bothered doing,
    > but driving straight through a red light when a pedestrian is crossing is
    > clearly so far below a normal standard of driving


    Whilst I heartily concur with your sentiments, and those of other posters, I
    think you mean "reasonable standard of driving". The normal standard of
    driving is so low that it could be used as an excuse.

    that it
    > would have been an open-and-shut case for DWDCAA at a minimum, and it is
    > hard to see how he could defend a charge of DBDD.
    >
    > James
    > --
    > If I have seen further than others, it is
    > by treading on the toes of giants.
    > http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
     
  10. Rich

    Rich Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 19 Nov 2004 00:29:07 -0800, "MartinM" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>who is really going to bother bringing such a case against a 76 yr old
    >>pensioner, justified though it could be?

    >
    > Anyone who is interested in natural justice? Just guessing.


    Pedant mode on: natural justice? Justice is a human concept, and there is
    no such thing as "natural" justice. Nature is frequently quoted as being
    red in tooth and claw and natural justice is that of the strongest. Pedant
    mode off:

    I absolutely agree that the perpetrator should never be allowed to drive
    again. I'd swap all the remorse in the world for a little foresight from
    the people who feel the remorse.

    As for the law which gives lower penalties for leaving the scene than for
    drink-driving, that's utterly absurd.
    >
    > Guy
    > --
    > May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    > http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
    >
    > 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  11. gemarc

    gemarc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    The situation with older drivers is a mes.

    A relative of mine is 95 and until recently was still driving dispite being totally unsuitable for driving (he can hardly walk, and has very poor eyesight amongst other things)

    How did the dvlc decide if he was fit to drive?

    they asked him to self declare if he was fit and he said he was next thing he keeps his licence.

    After a long strugle involving getting the doctor to write to the DVLC he is now off the road but I wonder how many other people like him are still on the road?
     
  12. Anthony Cox

    Anthony Cox Guest

    In message <[email protected]>, Simon
    Brooke <[email protected]> writes
    >> A 71-year-old man from the Andover area was arrested this week in
    >> connection with the accident and has been released on police bail
    >> until next Monday.

    >
    >The sort of thing you might expect from a 17 year old hooligan, but by
    >that age you'd have hoped he'd know better.


    I had an octogenarian pull out in front of me at a junction last week.
    I was festooned with lights and reflectives.

    He wasn't even aware of me when I came screaming to a halt in front of
    his window and just pulled away.

    --
    Anthony Cox
     
Loading...
Loading...