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

[spindrift]

""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). "

I'm afraid not.

Human scum lawyers like Freeman would advise a blood-soaked alcoholic
to go home, sober up, then call the cops and tell them he's killed
someone.

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:

> ""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). "

> I'm afraid not.

You're "afraid not" what?

That there isn't an offence of failing to stop after a traffic accident?

You're wrong.

That the penalty for failing to stop can run right up the scale to
include disqualification and imprisonment?

You're wrong.

<http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimertogeneral.htm#Failing%20to%20Stop/Give%20Particulars%20after%20an%20accident%20(AC10)%20(AC20)>

> Human scum lawyers like Freeman would advise a blood-soaked alcoholic
> to go home, sober up, then call the cops and tell them he's killed
> someone.

I have no idea who "Freeman" is, but as I understand it, it is the
professional (and ethical) duty of lawyers to advise their clients as
to how the law works and how their case should be best presented (to
the client's advantage). Advising a client who admits an offence to
report to the police sounds like good, solid, reasonable, professional
advice, doesn't it?

 

[BigRab]

Hmmmmmm it seems that he has an M6 convertible - 500bhp 0-60 in
4.6seconds and is one of the fastest accelerating cars on the road.

Rochdale news report has him clocked at 140mph on the M62 on New Years
Eve.

"The 20-year-old, of Lostock, near Bolton, was also charged with
failing to produce a driving licence and failing to produce
insurance."

Maybe if they'd taken his licence from him for a year then we wouldn't
be hearing of him today.

Porkies from Mr K and his lawyers unless he traded that M6 in for the
base model - as if !!!

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On 24 Oct 2007 07:00:33 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> <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).

I know what I said, and I know that what I said was correct. I did
not suggest that the judge should direct anyone to find anyone guilty,
I don't know why you are implying that I did. I did not advocate
elimination of jury trials, I don't know why you are implying that I
did.

It IS the case that the court in this case has found that a careful
and competent driver would be expected to drive at greater than the
speed limit, too fast to stop, down the wrong lane of a road
(overtaking traffic properly stopped at the lights) and go through a
red traffic light with a pedestrian crossing on which pedestrians were
crossing the road.

That IS the finding of this court on this occasion. Despite your
theatrical sighing and straw-man nonsense, that is what has happened.

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

 

[spindrift]

On 24 Oct, 09:35, BigRab <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmmmmmm it seems that he has an M6 convertible - 500bhp 0-60 in
> 4.6seconds and is one of the fastest accelerating cars on the road.
>
> Rochdale news report has him clocked at 140mph on the M62 on New Years
> Eve.
>
> "The 20-year-old, of Lostock, near Bolton, was also charged with
> failing to produce a driving licence and failing to produce
> insurance."
>
> Maybe if they'd taken his licence from him for a year then we wouldn't
> be hearing of him today.
>
> Porkies from Mr K and his lawyers unless he traded that M6 in for the
> base model - as if !!!


Lawyers get drunk drivers off the hook regularly. The lesser charge
of failing to report then applies.

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Oct 2007 07:00:33 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.

>><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).

> I know what I said, and I know that what I said was correct. I did
> not suggest that the judge should direct anyone to find anyone guilty,
> I don't know why you are implying that I did. I did not advocate
> elimination of jury trials, I don't know why you are implying that I
> did.

> It IS the case that the court in this case has found that a careful
> and competent driver would be expected to drive at greater than the
> speed limit, too fast to stop, down the wrong lane of a road
> (overtaking traffic properly stopped at the lights) and go through a
> red traffic light with a pedestrian crossing on which pedestrians were
> crossing the road.

Well, either that, or that such driving is indeed not what would be
expected of a competent and careful driver, but was also not
*sufficiently* far below what would be expected of a competent and
careful driver as to constitute the formal offence of dangerous
driving. It's a matter of degree - as we are both well aware.

You wouldn't be trying to construct a strawman there, would you?

> That IS the finding of this court on this occasion. Despite your
> theatrical sighing and straw-man nonsense, that is what has happened.

I don't know that everybody reading this thread would necessarily be
so familiar with the conduct of legal proceedings as to properly
comprehend the distinction between the abstract notion of "the court"
on the one hand, and on the other, the very real professionals and
judiciary who run it.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 24 Oct, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > That IS the finding of this court on this occasion. Despite your
> > theatrical sighing and straw-man nonsense, that is what has happened.
>
> I don't know that everybody reading this thread would necessarily be
> so familiar with the conduct of legal proceedings as to properly
> comprehend the distinction between the abstract notion of "the court"
> on the one hand, and on the other, the very real professionals and
> judiciary who run it.

Oh I see, you were talking nonsense because any thick people reading
wouldn't understand that what I had said was true.
Perfect sense, that makes.

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

 

[JNugent]

Ian Smith wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:

>>>That IS the finding of this court on this occasion. Despite your
>>>theatrical sighing and straw-man nonsense, that is what has happened.

>> I don't know that everybody reading this thread would necessarily be
>> so familiar with the conduct of legal proceedings as to properly
>> comprehend the distinction between the abstract notion of "the court"
>> on the one hand, and on the other, the very real professionals and
>> judiciary who run it.

> Oh I see, you were talking nonsense because any thick people reading
> wouldn't understand that what I had said was true.
> Perfect sense, that makes.

I take it you have read the post wherein another poster argues that
the issue should never have been tried but (presumably) taken as read
on the say-so of the police?

But please: do have it your own way. Despite the reported words of the
judge indicating (not too subtly, I think) that he regarded the
verdict as over-generous to the defendant, feel free to think of the
"not guilty" decision as being that of the whole "court" rather than
that of the jury.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:23:46 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote:

>spindrift wrote:
>
>> ""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). "
>
>> I'm afraid not.
>
>You're "afraid not" what?
>
>That there isn't an offence of failing to stop after a traffic accident?
>
>You're wrong.
>
>That the penalty for failing to stop can run right up the scale to
>include disqualification and imprisonment?

Maximums are: 6 month's imprisonment, 10 penalty points,
disqualification. NOT the "same penalty the driver was seeking to
avoid."

>You're wrong.

....in NugentWorld, at least.

><http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimertogeneral.htm#Failing%20to%20Stop/Give%20Particulars%20after%20an%20accident%20(AC10)%20(AC20)>

 

[JNugent]

Marc Brett wrote:

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

>>>""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). "

>>>I'm afraid not.

>>You're "afraid not" what?

>>That there isn't an offence of failing to stop after a traffic accident?

>>You're wrong.

>>That the penalty for failing to stop can run right up the scale to
>>include disqualification and imprisonment?

> Maximums are: 6 month's imprisonment, 10 penalty points,
> disqualification. NOT the "same penalty the driver was seeking to
> avoid."

That rather depends on the penalty he was seeking to avoid.

>>You're wrong.

> ...in NugentWorld, at least.

>><http://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/crimertogeneral.htm#Failing%20to%20Stop/Give%20Particulars%20after%20an%20accident%20(AC10)%20(AC20)>

Which bit of "...can carry..." was too difficult for you to understand?

 

[_]

On 24 Oct 2007 09:28:09 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Oct, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>>> That IS the finding of this court on this occasion. Despite your
>>> theatrical sighing and straw-man nonsense, that is what has happened.
>>
>> I don't know that everybody reading this thread would necessarily be
>> so familiar with the conduct of legal proceedings as to properly
>> comprehend the distinction between the abstract notion of "the court"
>> on the one hand, and on the other, the very real professionals and
>> judiciary who run it.
>
> Oh I see, you were talking nonsense because any thick people reading
> wouldn't understand that what I had said was true.
> Perfect sense, that makes.
>

Ian, meet TrollN.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Nigel Cliffe said the following on 24/10/2007 08:32:

> Who else should decide the facts ?

Who decides to issue a punishment if the VED is a day late in being
renewed, or who decides to issue a speeding ticket? Certainly not a jury.

In this particular case, it wasn't a case of the driver not noticing a
red light and hitting a pedestrian (careless), but deliberately passing
a car that had already stopped at the red light, and doing so well in
excess of the speed limit (dangerous). Assuming the case has been
reasonably accurately reported in the media (no guarantee there!), then
it doesn't need a jury to decide that the driving was dangerous and the
magistrate/judge should just be able to impose a sentence. I'm not
talking about doing away with the whole court process - you do still
need witnesses etc to ascertain the facts - but once you've gone
through all the time-consuming palaver to ascertain those facts, why
then should a jury, who are in all probability motorists themselves and
therefore biased, be able to basically ignore those 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.

I've long felt that the jury system is out-dated, along with those silly
wigs the judges wear - it makes the whole process appear to be some sort
of costume drama. Perhaps there are cases where a jury is appropriate,
but not here. I have been called up for jury service, for which I was
justifiably excused, but even to the stage I got to I felt that jurors
were treated as some nuisance part of the legal process. If I had any
vague notion of "doing my duty as a citizen" before, I certainly didn't
have that notion after I read all the blurb they send out. For one
thing, I was expected to serve in a different county, with bugger-all
travel expenses and bugger-all compensation for loss of wages!

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

Unfortunately you're right.

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

 

[Ian Smith]

On Wed, 24 Oct, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Ian Smith wrote:
>
> >>>That IS the finding of this court on this occasion. Despite your
> >>>theatrical sighing and straw-man nonsense, that is what has happened.
>
> >> I don't know that everybody reading this thread would necessarily be
> >> so familiar with the conduct of legal proceedings as to properly
> >> comprehend the distinction between the abstract notion of "the court"
> >> on the one hand, and on the other, the very real professionals and
> >> judiciary who run it.
>
> > Oh I see, you were talking nonsense because any thick people reading
> > wouldn't understand that what I had said was true.
> > Perfect sense, that makes.
>
> I take it you have read the post wherein another poster argues that
> the issue should never have been tried but (presumably) taken as read
> on the say-so of the police?

I've read all the thread. What relevance does that have to anything I
said? Don't tell me you really do think that because some people are
thick you need to talk rubbish to everyone? Really? I actually
suggested that in jest, and am somewhat surprised to find you actually
believe that.

Or maybe you've decided that everyone contributing to the thread
believes everything that any one of them says? Except you, of course.

I know - you're the only sentient being here, aren't you? The rest of
us are just manifestations of a malevolent (but stupid) entity trying
to test you - anything one of us says we all believe.

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

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 24, 1:23 pm, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe said the following on 24/10/2007 08:32:
>
> > Who else should decide the facts ?
>
> Who decides to issue a punishment if the VED is a day late in being
> renewed, or who decides to issue a speeding ticket? Certainly not a jury.
>
> In this particular case, it wasn't a case of the driver not noticing a
> red light and hitting a pedestrian (careless), but deliberately passing
> a car that had already stopped at the red light, and doing so well in
> excess of the speed limit (dangerous). Assuming the case has been
> reasonably accurately reported in the media (no guarantee there!), then
> it doesn't need a jury to decide that the driving was dangerous and the
> magistrate/judge should just be able to impose a sentence. I'm not
> talking about doing away with the whole court process - you do still
> need witnesses etc to ascertain the facts - but once you've gone
> through all the time-consuming palaver to ascertain those facts, why
> then should a jury, who are in all probability motorists themselves and
> therefore biased, be able to basically ignore those 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.
>
> I've long felt that the jury system is out-dated, along with those silly
> wigs the judges wear - it makes the whole process appear to be some sort
> of costume drama. Perhaps there are cases where a jury is appropriate,
> but not here. I have been called up for jury service, for which I was
> justifiably excused, ... For one
> thing, I was expected to serve in a different county, with bugger-all
> travel expenses and bugger-all compensation for loss of wages!

really, I got 20p/mile iirc. I think I was allowed to count the time
as well on my "timesheet"

best wishes
james

 

[Paul Boyd]

[email protected] said the following on 24/10/2007 14:08:

> really, I got 20p/mile iirc. I think I was allowed to count the time
> as well on my "timesheet"

When I first got the summons, I was quite excited. Something different!
Then I started looking into it a bit more. They wouldn't pay for
parking expenses (in the middle of Bristol). They wouldn't even provide
somewhere to park! They would only pay a small proportion of the public
transport costs. My employer would not have paid me, and the amount you
are paid as a juror to compensate for loss of earnings is laughable. If
you were only required for a morning, they would not reimburse you for
loss of wages during the afternoon, although the timing would have been
such that I couldn't have got back to work in time to work an afternoon.
At a time when I was extremely tight for money, with large debts, I
simply didn't have enough money to be able to be on a jury. All that
had nothing to do with why I was excused, BTW.

I'm in a position now where the financial issues would be less of a
worry, but really I felt the way that jurors were treated was pretty
appalling. They really just seem to be a prop to the legal system
because "that's the way it's always been done", but an unqualified prop
that can send someone to jail. Or not.

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

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> [email protected] said the following on 24/10/2007 14:08:
>
>> really, I got 20p/mile iirc. I think I was allowed to count the time
>> as well on my "timesheet"
>
> When I first got the summons, I was quite excited. Something
> different! Then I started looking into it a bit more. They wouldn't
> pay for parking expenses (in the middle of Bristol). They wouldn't
> even provide somewhere to park! They would only pay a small
> proportion of the public transport costs.

My recent experience is that modest public transport costs are covered. Mine
were met in full, but its only a few miles for me.
It did mean some jurors setting out at stupidly early hours to get train
from (say) Beccles to Ipswich.

On juror drove from the sticks on the grounds that the public transport was
silly (about 3hrs each way). She was expecting to have an argument over her
expenses claim. I don't know if it was settled.

Others suffered from the court hours; trains arriving a few minutes after
the supposed "starting time". Or leaving a few minutes before "finishing
time". The irregular hours were also a problem for some; we were frequently
sent home at short notice.



> My employer would not have
> paid me, and the amount you are paid as a juror to compensate for
> loss of earnings is laughable. If you were only required for a
> morning, they would not reimburse you for loss of wages during the
> afternoon, although the timing would have been such that I couldn't
> have got back to work in time to work an afternoon.

This is indeed a serious problem with juries.
I was lucky in being employed by a big UK plc who give their staff paid
special leave for jury service, so financially I was not affected.
However, I'm now self employed, so if I got a summons today things would be
very different. Lawyers expect to be paid well over £50/hr for their time,
some well over £500/hr. In common with lawyers and judges, I'm a
professional and command professional fees for my time. If I'm on a jury, I
cannot be working (and even if sent home, its hard to work when you've
turned down clients to sit on the jury!). Yet a juror is only allowed
around £50/day *including* expenses and loss of income.



> I'm in a position now where the financial issues would be less of a
> worry, but really I felt the way that jurors were treated was pretty
> appalling. They really just seem to be a prop to the legal system
> because "that's the way it's always been done", but an unqualified
> prop that can send someone to jail. Or not.

I'm quite happy with lay juries as a concept. If a case cannot be explained
to the lay person, then its not really a case. A criminal case needs high
standards of proof. However, I also agree that the jury system is a long
way from adequate.



- Nigel

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

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Paul Boyd wrote:
> > 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 ?
>

The man on the Clapham Omnibus - although one probably wasn't passing at
the time ;-)

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> 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.
>

That's right. Rendition to Guantanamo is what they need.

That's irony by the way.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[[email protected]]

On Oct 24, 3:15 pm, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> [email protected] said the following on 24/10/2007 14:08:
>
> > really, I got 20p/mile iirc. I think I was allowed to count the time
> > as well on my "timesheet"
>
> When I first got the summons, I was quite excited. Something different!
> Then I started looking into it a bit more. They wouldn't pay for
> parking expenses (in the middle of Bristol). They wouldn't even provide
> somewhere to park!

There was ample free parking o/s my court building, possibly not for
cars though.


> They would only pay a small proportion of the public
> transport costs.
really, I don't recall this (although it wasn't an issue I needed to
face)

> My employer would not have paid me, and the amount you
> are paid as a juror to compensate for loss of earnings is laughable. If
> you were only required for a morning, they would not reimburse you for
> loss of wages during the afternoon, although the timing would have been
> such that I couldn't have got back to work in time to work an afternoon.
> At a time when I was extremely tight for money, with large debts, I
> simply didn't have enough money to be able to be on a jury. All that
> had nothing to do with why I was excused, BTW.

I sympathise. My employer simply deducted the maximum that I was able
to claim for loss of earnings

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 24 Oct, 08:33, spindrift <[email protected]> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Speeding isn't necessarily dangerous and the camera policy is a
palpable failure, which like the road charging policy, the government
is rapidly backing away from. This is due to the valiant road safety
campaigners such as Paul Smith of Safespeed rather than the shroud
wavers of Roadpeace. As for Mr Khan, what jury would convict one of
our brightest young sportsmen of a goal-able offence?