Jumping red lights 'not dangerous'... as long as you are in a car and doing almost 50 Mph in a 30 z

[Howard]

Boxer Amir Khan has been cleared of dangerous driving after he went
through a red light and injured a pedestrian. The Commonwealth
lightweight champion was driving his BMW 6 series convertible in
Bolton when he struck Geoffrey Hatton on a pelican crossing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7058736.stm

>From the associated links...

Katherine Brierley was waiting at red traffic lights in Bolton town
centre when Mr Khan overtook her and hit a pedestrian on a pelican
crossing. Miss Brierley told a jury at Bolton Crown Court that Khan
travelled through a red light in the right turn only lane at a speed
of over 40mph.

-------------------------

Boxer Amir Khan has admitted driving "faster than it was safe to do
so" before his car hit a pedestrian...Under cross-examination from Mr
Alaric Bassano, the boxer did not accept his car was a high
performance vehicle capable of rapid acceleration. He said it reached
0-60 in 7.2 seconds which was "just like an average car".

 

[JNugent]

Howard wrote:

> Boxer Amir Khan has been cleared of dangerous driving after he went
> through a red light and injured a pedestrian. The Commonwealth
> lightweight champion was driving his BMW 6 series convertible in
> Bolton when he struck Geoffrey Hatton on a pelican crossing.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7058736.stm
>
>>From the associated links...
>
> Katherine Brierley was waiting at red traffic lights in Bolton town
> centre when Mr Khan overtook her and hit a pedestrian on a pelican
> crossing. Miss Brierley told a jury at Bolton Crown Court that Khan
> travelled through a red light in the right turn only lane at a speed
> of over 40mph.
>
> -------------------------
>
> Boxer Amir Khan has admitted driving "faster than it was safe to do
> so" before his car hit a pedestrian...Under cross-examination from Mr
> Alaric Bassano, the boxer did not accept his car was a high
> performance vehicle capable of rapid acceleration. He said it reached
> 0-60 in 7.2 seconds which was "just like an average car".

That's juries for you.

BTW: "Dangerous" (in its everyday sense) and "dangerous driving" are
two different things. The second of them is defined in law and must be
specifically pproven. That doesn't explain the jury's decision, but at
least it explains how something can be "dangerous" yet not be
"dangerous driving".

 

[Howard]

On Oct 23, 6:19 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:

> That's juries for you.

Quite so, it's perhaps only what one can expect when such cases are
heard by "12 motorists all overseen by another motorist in a wig" to
borrow a phrase from a certain Mr Chapman, who at one time used to
frequent this very forum.
>
> BTW: "Dangerous" (in its everyday sense) and "dangerous driving" are
> two different things. The second of them is defined in law and must be
> specifically pproven. That doesn't explain the jury's decision, but at
> least it explains how something can be "dangerous" yet not be
> "dangerous driving".

I am well aware of this, but to quote from J.S. Dean's classic 1947
treatise on road safety 'Murder Most Foul: a study of the road deaths
problem' (Now reprinted by Roadpeace and available for just £6 per
copy, including postage: Tel 020 8838 5102 or e-mail
[email protected]):

"the "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced on the
insistence of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for
offenders- should be abolished: in the existing circumstances careless
driving is of course always also dangerous driving.'

 

[JNugent]

Howard wrote:
> On Oct 23, 6:19 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's juries for you.
>
>
> Quite so, it's perhaps only what one can expect when such cases are
> heard by "12 motorists all overseen by another motorist in a wig" to
> borrow a phrase from a certain Mr Chapman, who at one time used to
> frequent this very forum.
>
>>BTW: "Dangerous" (in its everyday sense) and "dangerous driving" are
>>two different things. The second of them is defined in law and must be
>>specifically pproven. That doesn't explain the jury's decision, but at
>>least it explains how something can be "dangerous" yet not be
>>"dangerous driving".

> I am well aware of this, but to quote from J.S. Dean's classic 1947
> treatise on road safety 'Murder Most Foul: a study of the road deaths
> problem' (Now reprinted by Roadpeace and available for just £6 per
> copy, including postage: Tel 020 8838 5102 or e-mail
> [email protected]):

> "the "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced on the
> insistence of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for
> offenders- should be abolished: in the existing circumstances careless
> driving is of course always also dangerous driving.'

That is simply disingenuous.

The offence of DWDCAA requires no proof of intention (and is therefore
easy to "prove"). That DWDCAA can often cause danger does not mean
that the behaviour falls within the strict criteria required to prove
"dangerous driving" (which by its nature requires more indication of
of an intent than does careless driving).

 

[JNugent]

Howard wrote:
> On Oct 23, 6:19 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>That's juries for you.
>
>
> Quite so, it's perhaps only what one can expect when such cases are
> heard by "12 motorists all overseen by another motorist in a wig" to
> borrow a phrase from a certain Mr Chapman, who at one time used to
> frequent this very forum.
>
>>BTW: "Dangerous" (in its everyday sense) and "dangerous driving" are
>>two different things. The second of them is defined in law and must be
>>specifically pproven. That doesn't explain the jury's decision, but at
>>least it explains how something can be "dangerous" yet not be
>>"dangerous driving".
>
>
> I am well aware of this, but to quote from J.S. Dean's classic 1947
> treatise on road safety 'Murder Most Foul: a study of the road deaths
> problem' (Now reprinted by Roadpeace and available for just £6 per
> copy, including postage: Tel 020 8838 5102 or e-mail
> [email protected]):
>
> "the "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced on the
> insistence of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for
> offenders- should be abolished: in the existing circumstances careless
> driving is of course always also dangerous driving.'

I should, of course, have added that the disingenuity comes as no
surprise when its source is "Roadpeace", one of whose main founding
consituents is the truly obnoxious organisation "Transport 1895".

 

[burtthebike]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Howard wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 6:19 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
>>
>>>BTW: "Dangerous" (in its everyday sense) and "dangerous driving" are
>>>two different things. The second of them is defined in law and must be
>>>specifically pproven. That doesn't explain the jury's decision, but at
>>>least it explains how something can be "dangerous" yet not be
>>>"dangerous driving".
>
>> I am well aware of this, but to quote from J.S. Dean's classic 1947
>> treatise on road safety 'Murder Most Foul: a study of the road deaths
>> problem' (Now reprinted by Roadpeace and available for just £6 per
>> copy, including postage: Tel 020 8838 5102 or e-mail
>> [email protected]):
>
>> "the "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced on the
>> insistence of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for
>> offenders- should be abolished: in the existing circumstances careless
>> driving is of course always also dangerous driving.'
>
> That is simply disingenuous.
>
> The offence of DWDCAA requires no proof of intention (and is therefore
> easy to "prove"). That DWDCAA can often cause danger does not mean that
> the behaviour falls within the strict criteria required to prove
> "dangerous driving" (which by its nature requires more indication of of an
> intent than does careless driving).

No. The law is disingenuous. Ask anyone whether driving through a red
light is dangerous and 99.9% will say "yes". Intention is irrelevant to the
being dangerous, and the fact that the law takes the ludicrous position of
assuming that dangerous driving has to involve intent is illogical and
absurd. It is clearly extremely easy to behave dangerously without
intending to cause death or injury to others, and since the result, death
and injury, is the same, why do the same punishments apply? People who are
incapable of behaving safely towards others need to have their behaviour
corrected, and a light slap on the wrist is hardly going to do that.

The law is an ass.

 

[Simon Proven]

On Oct 23, 9:24 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Howard wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 6:19 pm, JNugent <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> >>That's juries for you.
>
> > Quite so, it's perhaps only what one can expect when such cases are
> > heard by "12 motorists all overseen by another motorist in a wig" to
> > borrow a phrase from a certain Mr Chapman, who at one time used to
> > frequent this very forum.
>
> >>BTW: "Dangerous" (in its everyday sense) and "dangerous driving" are
> >>two different things. The second of them is defined in law and must be
> >>specifically pproven. That doesn't explain the jury's decision, but at
> >>least it explains how something can be "dangerous" yet not be
> >>"dangerous driving".
> > I am well aware of this, but to quote from J.S. Dean's classic 1947
> > treatise on road safety 'Murder Most Foul: a study of the road deaths
> > problem' (Now reprinted by Roadpeace and available for just £6 per
> > copy, including postage: Tel 020 8838 5102 or e-mail
> > [email protected]):
> > "the "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced on the
> > insistence of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for
> > offenders- should be abolished: in the existing circumstances careless
> > driving is of course always also dangerous driving.'
>
> That is simply disingenuous.
>
> The offence of DWDCAA requires no proof of intention (and is therefore
> easy to "prove"). That DWDCAA can often cause danger does not mean
> that the behaviour falls within the strict criteria required to prove
> "dangerous driving" (which by its nature requires more indication of
> of an intent than does careless driving).

Road Traffic Act 1991:

2A Meaning of dangerous driving

(1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
below, only if)-

(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.

(2) A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the
purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a
competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current
state would be dangerous.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2) above "dangerous" refers to danger
either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and
in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be
expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a
particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of
which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances
shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

(4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state
of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on
or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried."


I see no reference to "intent" in the legal definition. Can you
provide some evidence for your assertion?

 

[JNugent]

Simon Proven wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Howard wrote:
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>That's juries for you.

>>>Quite so, it's perhaps only what one can expect when such cases are
>>>heard by "12 motorists all overseen by another motorist in a wig" to
>>>borrow a phrase from a certain Mr Chapman, who at one time used to
>>>frequent this very forum.

>>>>BTW: "Dangerous" (in its everyday sense) and "dangerous driving" are
>>>>two different things. The second of them is defined in law and must be
>>>>specifically pproven. That doesn't explain the jury's decision, but at
>>>>least it explains how something can be "dangerous" yet not be
>>>>"dangerous driving".

>>>I am well aware of this, but to quote from J.S. Dean's classic 1947
>>>treatise on road safety 'Murder Most Foul: a study of the road deaths
>>>problem' (Now reprinted by Roadpeace and available for just £6 per
>>>copy, including postage: Tel 020 8838 5102 or e-mail
>>>[email protected]):
>>>"the "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced on the
>>>insistence of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for
>>>offenders- should be abolished: in the existing circumstances careless
>>>driving is of course always also dangerous driving.'

>>That is simply disingenuous.

>>The offence of DWDCAA requires no proof of intention (and is therefore
>>easy to "prove"). That DWDCAA can often cause danger does not mean
>>that the behaviour falls within the strict criteria required to prove
>>"dangerous driving" (which by its nature requires more indication of
>>of an intent than does careless driving).

> Road Traffic Act 1991:

> 2A Meaning of dangerous driving

> (1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
> regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
> below, only if)-

> (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.

> (2) A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the
> purposes of sections 1 and 2 above if it would be obvious to a
> competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current
> state would be dangerous.

> (3) In subsections (1) and (2) above "dangerous" refers to danger
> either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and
> in determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be
> expected of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a
> particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of
> which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances
> shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

> (4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state
> of a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on
> or in it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried."

> I see no reference to "intent" in the legal definition. Can you
> provide some evidence for your assertion?

I would say that the clauses "...far below the standard expected..."
(Section 2A, sub-section (1) (a)) and "...it would be obvious..."
(Section 2A, sub-section (2), which seem to operate as necessary
conditions) make intent (or recklessness as to outcome) a prerequisite
for proof of dangerous driving.

The wording is quite different to the wording of the section dealing
with careless driving.

If you aren't sure of the difference, compare the two and you will
appreciate the distinctions immediately.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 23 Oct 2007 16:48:35 -0700, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Road Traffic Act 1991:
>
> 2A Meaning of dangerous driving
>
> (1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
> regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
> below, only if)-
>
> (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.

So either the court would have us believe that a competent and careful
driver would pull out and accelerate round cars waiting at a red
traffic light, exceed the speed limit past the waiting cars and go
through a red light in the wrong lane, or that it would not be obvious
to a competent and careful driver that doing so might be dangerous.

As noted, the law is an ass.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Paul Boyd]

Howard said the following on 23/10/2007 17:06:

> Katherine Brierley was waiting at red traffic lights in Bolton town
> centre when Mr Khan overtook her and hit a pedestrian on a pelican
> crossing. Miss Brierley told a jury at Bolton Crown Court that Khan
> travelled through a red light in the right turn only lane at a speed
> of over 40mph.

Hang on - this guy actually overtook a car waiting at a red light on a
pelican crossing, and gets away with just careless driving? Why the
*********** should this sort of blatantly dangerous driving be judged by
a jury?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[JNugent]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Howard said the following on 23/10/2007 17:06:
>
>> Katherine Brierley was waiting at red traffic lights in Bolton town
>> centre when Mr Khan overtook her and hit a pedestrian on a pelican
>> crossing. Miss Brierley told a jury at Bolton Crown Court that Khan
>> travelled through a red light in the right turn only lane at a speed
>> of over 40mph.

> Hang on - this guy actually overtook a car waiting at a red light on a
> pelican crossing, and gets away with just careless driving? Why the
> *********** should this sort of blatantly dangerous driving be judged by
> a jury?

Because it potentially carries a heavy prison sentence. There are
limits on the powers of the magistrates' courts, which would be the
alternative.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 24 Oct 2007 07:00:33 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2007 16:48:35 -0700, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Road Traffic Act 1991:
> >
> > 2A Meaning of dangerous driving
> >
> > (1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
> > regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
> > below, only if)-
> >
> > (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.
>
> So either the court would have us believe that a competent and careful
> driver would pull out and accelerate round cars waiting at a red
> traffic light, exceed the speed limit past the waiting cars and go
> through a red light in the wrong lane, or that it would not be obvious
> to a competent and careful driver that doing so might be dangerous.

And furthermore, I note the judge said "You drove too fast. You put
yourself in a position where you could not stop ... and inevitably
this collision occurred."

So now we have courts deciding that careful and competent drivers
would be expected to drive too fast to stop, and not realise this
would be dangerous.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2007 16:48:35 -0700, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Road Traffic Act 1991:
>>
>> 2A Meaning of dangerous driving
>>
>> (1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
>> regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
>> below, only if)-
>>
>> (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.
>
>
> So either the court would have us believe that a competent and careful
> driver would pull out and accelerate round cars waiting at a red
> traffic light, exceed the speed limit past the waiting cars and go
> through a red light in the wrong lane, or that it would not be obvious
> to a competent and careful driver that doing so might be dangerous.
>
> As noted, the law is an ass.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

Not the court as such: the jury.

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2007 07:00:33 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Oct 2007 16:48:35 -0700, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Road Traffic Act 1991:
>>>
>>> 2A Meaning of dangerous driving
>>>
>>> (1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
>>> regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
>>> below, only if)-
>>>
>>> (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.
>>
>> So either the court would have us believe that a competent and careful
>> driver would pull out and accelerate round cars waiting at a red
>> traffic light, exceed the speed limit past the waiting cars and go
>> through a red light in the wrong lane, or that it would not be obvious
>> to a competent and careful driver that doing so might be dangerous.
>
>
> And furthermore, I note the judge said "You drove too fast. You put
> yourself in a position where you could not stop ... and inevitably
> this collision occurred."

> So now we have courts deciding that careful and competent drivers
> would be expected to drive too fast to stop, and not realise this
> would be dangerous.

> regards, Ian SMith

<sigh>

The judge can say what he likes. The *jury* found the defendant not
guilty of DD (but guilty of something else). The judge does not tell
the jury to convict. If a judge could do that, there'd be no point in
jury trial (ask Clive Ponting whether that'd be a good idea).

Judges sometimes subtly express their irritation with a "merciful"
jury verdict in their summary of the offence when passing sentence
(assuming there has actually been a conviction).

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Howard said the following on 23/10/2007 17:06:
>
>> Katherine Brierley was waiting at red traffic lights in Bolton town
>> centre when Mr Khan overtook her and hit a pedestrian on a pelican
>> crossing. Miss Brierley told a jury at Bolton Crown Court that Khan
>> travelled through a red light in the right turn only lane at a speed
>> of over 40mph.
>
> Hang on - this guy actually overtook a car waiting at a red light on a
> pelican crossing, and gets away with just careless driving? Why the
> *********** should this sort of blatantly dangerous driving be judged
> by a jury?

Who else should decide the facts ?

There is are serious problems with juries, both the "collection of 12
motorists" issue, and others I noted during a recent spell on a jury .

However, without a major re-design of our judicial system (eg. investigatory
courts rather than adversarial), we're a bit stuck with it.



- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[spindrift]

On 24 Oct, 08:24, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On 24 Oct 2007 07:00:33 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> On 23 Oct 2007 16:48:35 -0700, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Road Traffic Act 1991:
>
> >>> 2A Meaning of dangerous driving
>
> >>> (1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
> >>> regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
> >>> below, only if)-
>
> >>> (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.
>
> >> So either the court would have us believe that a competent and careful
> >> driver would pull out and accelerate round cars waiting at a red
> >> traffic light, exceed the speed limit past the waiting cars and go
> >> through a red light in the wrong lane, or that it would not be obvious
> >> to a competent and careful driver that doing so might be dangerous.
>
> > And furthermore, I note the judge said "You drove too fast. You put
> > yourself in a position where you could not stop ... and inevitably
> > this collision occurred."
> > So now we have courts deciding that careful and competent drivers
> > would be expected to drive too fast to stop, and not realise this
> > would be dangerous.
> > regards, Ian SMith
>
> <sigh>
>
> The judge can say what he likes. The *jury* found the defendant not
> guilty of DD (but guilty of something else). The judge does not tell
> the jury to convict. If a judge could do that, there'd be no point in
> jury trial (ask Clive Ponting whether that'd be a good idea).
>
> Judges sometimes subtly express their irritation with a "merciful"
> jury verdict in their summary of the offence when passing sentence
> (assuming there has actually been a conviction).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The chances of speeding or dangerous drivers getting caught are so
slim (just 6000 speed cameras cover the whole of the UK) that this
risible sentence serves as a green light to all boy racers. Worth
risking killing someone, the penalties are laughably trivial.

 

[spindrift]

On 24 Oct, 08:32, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
> > Howard said the following on 23/10/2007 17:06:
>
> >> Katherine Brierley was waiting at red traffic lights in Bolton town
> >> centre when Mr Khan overtook her and hit a pedestrian on a pelican
> >> crossing. Miss Brierley told a jury at Bolton Crown Court that Khan
> >> travelled through a red light in the right turn only lane at a speed
> >> of over 40mph.
>
> > Hang on - this guy actually overtook a car waiting at a red light on a
> > pelican crossing, and gets away with just careless driving? Why the
> > *********** should this sort of blatantly dangerous driving be judged
> > by a jury?
>
> Who else should decide the facts ?
>
> There is are serious problems with juries, both the "collection of 12
> motorists" issue, and others I noted during a recent spell on a jury .
>
> However, without a major re-design of our judicial system (eg. investigatory
> courts rather than adversarial), we're a bit stuck with it.
>
> - Nigel
>
> --
> Nigel Cliffe,
> Webmaster athttp://www.2mm.org.uk/

It's less the juries, more the law. The current system protects
motorists- even drunk drivers who simply run away from the person they
killed/crippled and face a lesser sentence than that for drunk
driving. Explain that. Or why driving bans run concurrent with
custodials. Barking mad.

Speeding along a right-turn lane toward a pelican with pedestrians on
it is dangerous, we should not allow high paid lawyers to put this
question beofre a jury because it is self evidently recklessly,
stupidly dangerous.

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:
> On 24 Oct, 08:24, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Oct 2007 07:00:33 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>On 23 Oct 2007 16:48:35 -0700, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Road Traffic Act 1991:
>>
>>>>>2A Meaning of dangerous driving
>>
>>>>>(1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
>>>>>regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
>>>>>below, only if)-
>>
>>>>>(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.
>>
>>>>So either the court would have us believe that a competent and careful
>>>>driver would pull out and accelerate round cars waiting at a red
>>>>traffic light, exceed the speed limit past the waiting cars and go
>>>>through a red light in the wrong lane, or that it would not be obvious
>>>>to a competent and careful driver that doing so might be dangerous.
>>
>>>And furthermore, I note the judge said "You drove too fast. You put
>>>yourself in a position where you could not stop ... and inevitably
>>>this collision occurred."
>>>So now we have courts deciding that careful and competent drivers
>>>would be expected to drive too fast to stop, and not realise this
>>>would be dangerous.
>>>regards, Ian SMith
>>
>><sigh>
>>
>>The judge can say what he likes. The *jury* found the defendant not
>>guilty of DD (but guilty of something else). The judge does not tell
>>the jury to convict. If a judge could do that, there'd be no point in
>>jury trial (ask Clive Ponting whether that'd be a good idea).
>>
>>Judges sometimes subtly express their irritation with a "merciful"
>>jury verdict in their summary of the offence when passing sentence
>>(assuming there has actually been a conviction).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -

> The chances of speeding or dangerous drivers getting caught are so
> slim (just 6000 speed cameras cover the whole of the UK) that this
> risible sentence serves as a green light to all boy racers. Worth
> risking killing someone, the penalties are laughably trivial.

Simply breaking an administrative speed limit is indeed treated by the
law as being relatively minor - as it should well be. The offence can
even quite easily be inadvertent.

Coupled with an aggravating circumstance (such as total disregard for
a red traffic light, or collision with a pedestrian lawfully using a
crossing), it is not treated as a minor matter - because the
reasonable inference at the charging stage is that it was not
inadvertent and required a degree of malice or recklessness (what the
Americans call "moral turpitude"). The case is tried in court - and
for more serious charges (eg, dangerous driving), that means the Crown
Court, complete with a jury of the defendant's peers.

I suppose there must be a few citizens so jaundiced and so extreme in
their views that they think that severe, life-shattering, penalties
such as long bans from driving or periods of imprisonment should be
handed out in the form of unproven fixed penalty notices. But luckily,
we live in a civilised country and we have long had this quaint notion
that people have to be guilty (and have to be judged to be guilty)
before we do things like that to them - no matter what the alleged
offence.

 

[BigRab]

Even if it was the 'base' model 3l straight 6 the 0-60 is 6.9s. Close
to his exaggerated 7.2s (surely he didn't unexaggerate the figure LOL)
but if it was the 4.8 V8 version then the figure drops dramatically
to 5.4s.

> the boxer did not accept his car was a high
> performance vehicle capable of rapid acceleration. He said it reached
> 0-60 in 7.2 seconds which was "just like an average car".

Oh I wish I had an "average" car, my Golf 1.6FSI gets there in more
than 10s.

Robert

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:
> On 24 Oct, 08:32, "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Paul Boyd wrote:
>>
>>>Howard said the following on 23/10/2007 17:06:
>>
>>>>Katherine Brierley was waiting at red traffic lights in Bolton town
>>>>centre when Mr Khan overtook her and hit a pedestrian on a pelican
>>>>crossing. Miss Brierley told a jury at Bolton Crown Court that Khan
>>>>travelled through a red light in the right turn only lane at a speed
>>>>of over 40mph.
>>
>>>Hang on - this guy actually overtook a car waiting at a red light on a
>>>pelican crossing, and gets away with just careless driving? Why the
>>>*********** should this sort of blatantly dangerous driving be judged
>>>by a jury?
>>
>>Who else should decide the facts ?
>>
>>There is are serious problems with juries, both the "collection of 12
>>motorists" issue, and others I noted during a recent spell on a jury .
>>
>>However, without a major re-design of our judicial system (eg. investigatory
>>courts rather than adversarial), we're a bit stuck with it.
>>
>>- Nigel
>>
>>--
>>Nigel Cliffe,
>>Webmaster athttp://www.2mm.org.uk/
>
>
> It's less the juries, more the law. The current system protects
> motorists- even drunk drivers who simply run away from the person they
> killed/crippled and face a lesser sentence than that for drunk
> driving. Explain that. Or why driving bans run concurrent with
> custodials. Barking mad.

Are you right about that, though?

AIUI, "failing to stop" is an arrestable specific offence and can
carry the same penalty as whatever charge the driver was seeking to
avoid by running or driving away (including endorsements, driving
bans, fines and imprisonment).

Compare that with the situation as it applies to crime - the burglar
or the axe-murderer does not face an extra penalty because he tries to
run away (or even if he succeeds in running away and is caught later
through forensic evidence or police intelligence work). IOW, the
situation is already arranged so as to discourage drivers from
absconding after a traffic incident. Not that such measures will
prevent a twoccer from disappearing, sharpish.

> Speeding along a right-turn lane toward a pelican with pedestrians on
> it is dangerous, we should not allow high paid lawyers to put this
> question beofre a jury because it is self evidently recklessly,
> stupidly dangerous.

Given that courts without juries (we call them "the magistrates'
courts") cannot impose sentences of longer than six months (IIRC) and
given that the maximum penalty for DD (in appropriate cases) is one of
years rather than months, how would you achieve what you suggest, and
how would you maintain the accused's right to a fair trial?

Or would you not bother about soppy liberal stuff like that?