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

[Sir Jeremy]

On 24 Oct, 08:39, spindrift <[email protected]> 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.
>
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Quite right, a speeding motorist- no trial-just chop his bollocks off.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Sir Jeremy said the following on 25/10/2007 22:34:

> Quite right, a speeding motorist- no trial-just chop his bollocks off.

Sounds good. A plan with no drawbacks. Or her's of course - oh, er
hang on....

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:


> As for Mr Khan, what jury would convict one of
> our brightest young sportsmen of a goal-able offence?

Assuming you mean 'gaol', one that puts life and well-being before
idiocy?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Simon Proven]

On Oct 24, 3:21 am, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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.

I disagree; it certainly didn't help Gary Hart since no intent to
drive
dangerously was ever shown in his case. He drove whilst tired,
but it was never shown that it was obvious /to him/ that this was
dangerous, nor could it be.

In Attorney General's Reference (No 4 of 2000) (2001) 2 Cr. App. R.
417 Woolf CJ said at p 422:

"The essential limbs, as is common ground, do not require any specific
intent to drive dangerously. Section 2A sets out a wholly objective
test. The concept of what is obvious to a careful driver places the
question of what constitutes dangerous driving within the province of
the jury."

(Copied from Wikipedia).

 

[Martin Dann]

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

You would have though that he would have learnt his lesson after the
above incident, but allegedly driving at 140mph on the M62, 9 months
later, and then failing to turn up to court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7064007.stm

 

[[email protected]]

Martin Dann wrote:
> 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
>
> You would have though that he would have learnt his lesson after the
> above incident, but allegedly driving at 140mph on the M62, 9 months
> later, and then failing to turn up to court.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7064007.stm

He did learn his lesson. The lesson was "you can drive like a ***** and
break someone's leg as a result, and it doesn't really matter that much
- all that will happen is you'll have to use taxis for six months".
Could be excused for not bothering to turn up if that's all they're
going to do.


-dan