due care & attention
Discussion
streaky said:
streaky said:
The hazards might be unseen ... but they should be anticipated.
Whilst this is generaly sound advice, you cannot realisticly drive around anticipating somethign like spilled diesel etc. on every bend in the road. Ice is a little different as you can predict if it's likely to have formed by the recent temperatures etc.
Yes you can. Is there a smell of (eg) diesel fuel in the air, is the road surface a different colour, is part of it more reflective than the rest, is the route just after a lorry or bus depot (at which they are likely to have filled up)?
To survive on the road today you must anticipate at all times. Re-action is a poor substitute for pro-action.
Re-action is the only option we have these days...you used to be able to drive pro-actively but these days when you have to be on the lookout for cops up trees, and behind poles and on bridges, and speed cameras and lasers, and specs, and pedestrians and cyclists with zero road sense and zero responsibility for being on the road, you better damn well drive re-actively or you will not be driving for very long....
I was in a similar incident (mud on road which now with an extra 4 years of driving experience would probably have avoided) and got offered the 1 1/2 day course which I found a load more useful than a 3 point / £100 fine.
Perhaps he could write to the police & ask to be put on this course - it would save them court & admin costs & he may actually become a better driver at the end of it.
Although having said that, the NIP may mean that 'they' have already made up their minds...
Perhaps he could write to the police & ask to be put on this course - it would save them court & admin costs & he may actually become a better driver at the end of it.
Although having said that, the NIP may mean that 'they' have already made up their minds...
I don't see what you mean by zero tolerance of accidents, Julian.
There are a number of defences open to a driver involved in an accident, automatism, mechanical failure, avoiding a more serious incident, most of which tend to come to light when the case comes to court. Any half decent brief would be able to tell the driver what to say to get off the charge.
There's that recent case where to youths who were in a car which killed an old boy waiting at a bus stop were able to get off the charge of causing death by the classic defence of it wasn't me who was driving.
But the thing is that driving too fast for the road conditions is a pretty basic error. Whilst we all might have committed this, the number who have gone so fast as to crash into parked vehicles is, presumably, considerably lower.
The thing that all police officers wish is that drivers would drive within their limits. If this were to come to pass - somewhat unlikely - then there would be hardly any accidents and no need for speed limits. But, alas, we all know that we are superb drivers and a slight blip, like crashing into vehicles, is just one of those things that happens to all of us.
The average driver reckons he is better than 87% of drivers. And that is the basic problem with our roads - most drivers are only half as good as they think they are.
I too have misjudged road conditions, camber and corners but never to the extent that I have slid off the road. I'm lucky in that I have had a number of driving courses (paid for by your taxes, and I'm grateful) but no one in my immediate circle of friends has crashed into parked cars. When watching rugby yesterday I broached the subject to some spectators and only one said he had done so and that was because he was drunk at the time - by his own admission, without apology and with a laugh!
I must admit to getting really fed up with turning up at accidents where a car driver is blatently at fault, either through incompetance or drink, to find a mass of excuses and a mangled innocent. Virtually all accidents are caused by drivers/riders and are avoidable by just using a bit of sense. With modern safety features drivers are largely sheilded from their own idiocy but pedestrians and other road users not in cars are just as vulnerable as they have always been.
Explore your own and your car's limits by all means but do it on a circuit. You'll be surprised how low they are, I know I was. But the knowledge itself makes you a better driver if you drive within those limits.
If you crash for no reason accept that you were at fault. And, more importantly, get better. Your dick doesn't fall off if you are not the best driver in the world.
Derek
There are a number of defences open to a driver involved in an accident, automatism, mechanical failure, avoiding a more serious incident, most of which tend to come to light when the case comes to court. Any half decent brief would be able to tell the driver what to say to get off the charge.
There's that recent case where to youths who were in a car which killed an old boy waiting at a bus stop were able to get off the charge of causing death by the classic defence of it wasn't me who was driving.
But the thing is that driving too fast for the road conditions is a pretty basic error. Whilst we all might have committed this, the number who have gone so fast as to crash into parked vehicles is, presumably, considerably lower.
The thing that all police officers wish is that drivers would drive within their limits. If this were to come to pass - somewhat unlikely - then there would be hardly any accidents and no need for speed limits. But, alas, we all know that we are superb drivers and a slight blip, like crashing into vehicles, is just one of those things that happens to all of us.
The average driver reckons he is better than 87% of drivers. And that is the basic problem with our roads - most drivers are only half as good as they think they are.
I too have misjudged road conditions, camber and corners but never to the extent that I have slid off the road. I'm lucky in that I have had a number of driving courses (paid for by your taxes, and I'm grateful) but no one in my immediate circle of friends has crashed into parked cars. When watching rugby yesterday I broached the subject to some spectators and only one said he had done so and that was because he was drunk at the time - by his own admission, without apology and with a laugh!
I must admit to getting really fed up with turning up at accidents where a car driver is blatently at fault, either through incompetance or drink, to find a mass of excuses and a mangled innocent. Virtually all accidents are caused by drivers/riders and are avoidable by just using a bit of sense. With modern safety features drivers are largely sheilded from their own idiocy but pedestrians and other road users not in cars are just as vulnerable as they have always been.
Explore your own and your car's limits by all means but do it on a circuit. You'll be surprised how low they are, I know I was. But the knowledge itself makes you a better driver if you drive within those limits.
If you crash for no reason accept that you were at fault. And, more importantly, get better. Your dick doesn't fall off if you are not the best driver in the world.
Derek
derek, you are really talking about society in general, not just driving issues.
We ahve become used to watching people 'spinning' their way out of trouble...We see people in power getting let off and everyone else having to fend for themselves.
Human nature is to protect ones self, we are now protecting ourselves from the very people we are paying to protect us...
We ahve become used to watching people 'spinning' their way out of trouble...We see people in power getting let off and everyone else having to fend for themselves.
Human nature is to protect ones self, we are now protecting ourselves from the very people we are paying to protect us...
mondeoman said:
What was the speed limit in force, how fast was he going?
TOO FAST!! The muppet is obviously incapable of controlling his car properly in any given circumstances & like Derek Smith said, it's people like this that give ammunition to the Speed Kills/Arrive Alive groups. It's driving like this that needs to be punished, not someone that does 1mph over the limit without incident.
streaky said:
Mr2Mike said:
streaky said:
The hazards might be unseen ... but they should be anticipated.
Whilst this is generaly sound advice, you cannot realisticly drive around anticipating somethign like spilled diesel etc. on every bend in the road. Ice is a little different as you can predict if it's likely to have formed by the recent temperatures etc.
Yes you can. Is there a smell of (eg) diesel fuel in the air, is the road surface a different colour, is part of it more reflective than the rest, is the route just after a lorry or bus depot (at which they are likely to have filled up)?
On a bike you may be able to smell the diesel before hitting it, but in a car with the windows closed you could be taking a bend at what would otherwise be a perfectly safe speed and find a diesel slick half way around and traffic approaching in the other direction. Likewise wildlife running out of hedgerows a few feet in front of you.
There are always situations that are outside of your control, it's just not possible for driving skill on any one drivers part to totaly remove the chances of an accident.
>> Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 6th October 11:19
centurion07 said:
mondeoman said:
What was the speed limit in force, how fast was he going?
TOO FAST!! The muppet is obviously incapable of controlling his car properly in any given circumstances & like Derek Smith said, it's people like this that give ammunition to the Speed Kills/Arrive Alive groups. It's driving like this that needs to be punished, not someone that does 1mph over the limit without incident.
Rather judgmental without knowing the facts ............
Imagine a hypothetical, you're doing 45 in a 50, parked cars occasionally on either side, sight-lines and stopping distances are good, left hand bend ahead, cat runs out, you swerve to avoid, slide on diesel into parked car - perfectly safe, within speed limit, a situation that ANYONE of us could have happen... You want a NIP for "due care" for that?
Get the facts, then we'll make a judgement call.
Distinct double standards being shown here - we're so often "Well I was speeding last night and nothing happend, so I must be great" but if anyone we don't know has a spill, "idiots for speeding" we say. Ho Hum.
>> Edited by mondeoman on Monday 6th October 11:26
Point taken....but going on the original post I stand by my comment! 
"A friend of mine recently had an accident after LOSING CONTROL of his car on a bend, He simply took the corner a little TOO FAST slid out and hit a parked car."
If there are "mitigating" circumstances i.e. the proverbial cat in the road forcing him to swerve onto the fresh diesel spillage covering a patch of black ice, then I shall cut him some slack, but at the end of the day, whatever happened, his buddy has said he was going too fast!
"A friend of mine recently had an accident after LOSING CONTROL of his car on a bend, He simply took the corner a little TOO FAST slid out and hit a parked car."
If there are "mitigating" circumstances i.e. the proverbial cat in the road forcing him to swerve onto the fresh diesel spillage covering a patch of black ice, then I shall cut him some slack, but at the end of the day, whatever happened, his buddy has said he was going too fast!
pesty said:
Does that mean that every time someone goes into the back of a car at say a roundabout they get done for due care?
I dont really understand this surly everyone who has an accident could be charged with the same?
Yes it does. The act is very specific.
Section 3 RTA 1988
If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention. or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place,, he is guilty of an offence.
Due care and attention is the standard of driving that would be expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the attendant circumstances
Sliding of the road and into a car, hedge or a tree due to the factor of excess speed alone is clearly not within the scope of being a careful and competent driver. Had the driver been careful and competent in those attendant circumstances the collision would not have occurred. Neither is hiting someone up the backside creful or competent.
There are specific defences available to those people who are charged with an offence under Section 3 RTA 1988.
The standard of driving at the time is a question of fact for a court to decide, and in so deciding the magistrates may take into account local factors such as the expected level of traffic , the time of day and peculiar hazards etc.
The Police do not convict anyone of anything. They merely suggest through evidence collected after the event that the relevant offence to a set of circumstances be considered by the CPS to be put before a court. The court then decide whether this offence has been committed.
Note that the offence of careless driving does not apply to just motor vehicles! Neither does it just apply to careless acts. It also caters for inconsiderate use of a machine (lawn mower) and also not just on a road. It could be a public place. You can get prosecuted for an offence under Sect 3 in a privately owned car park if at the time it is deemed a public place!
Derek Smith said:
Explore your own and your car's limits by all means but do it on a circuit. You'll be surprised how low they are, I know I was. But the knowledge itself makes you a better driver if you drive within those limits.
Some of the problem is, I feel, that the car's limits are amazingly high these days. Modern cars develop an astonishing amount of both grip and performance - and I'm not even talking about "sports" cars which major on this.
Its easy to start believing, if you are a numpty, that the limits of the car are infinitly high because in regular driving you can never reach them.
Then suddenly one day whilst driving like a tool one finds the limit and the driver has no response. Spin. Ouch.
In general I have to say that the phenomenal improvement in cars abilities has been a very good thing...its a shame we haven't seen a similar improvement in drivers.
So..due care and attention..? Misjudging a corner is a mistake plain and simple. Driving so damn fast that the consequences of misjudging the corner is a prang - well with no external factors that's got to be considered dangerous driving. Of course...there could be mitigating circumstances.
Given that no-one was hurt I just hope this bloke learns from this and never does it again - mitigating circumstances or not.
Aren't we getting a little confused here?
There are two issues.
The first being driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions.
The second being driving at a speed in excess of the speed limit.
It is perfectly possible to drive at 20MPH in a 30MPH limit and for that to be in appropriate. Also it is perfectly possible to drive at 90 MPH in a NSL safely.
How can we convince the speed kills brigade that speed isn't the main factor when it comes to accidents if when someone does get it wrong (due to speed) we don't consider that they should be punished.
If we want to improve the road casualty figures (and that is what *I want) then we should encourage the police to try to change driver behaviour. They can do that by enforcement and/or education.
There are two issues.
The first being driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions.
The second being driving at a speed in excess of the speed limit.
It is perfectly possible to drive at 20MPH in a 30MPH limit and for that to be in appropriate. Also it is perfectly possible to drive at 90 MPH in a NSL safely.
How can we convince the speed kills brigade that speed isn't the main factor when it comes to accidents if when someone does get it wrong (due to speed) we don't consider that they should be punished.
If we want to improve the road casualty figures (and that is what *I want) then we should encourage the police to try to change driver behaviour. They can do that by enforcement and/or education.
I agree that education is the way. I would almost have skidding and swerving part of the learner test.
I remember when I was young my old man waited until there was snow and ice all over the road and then he took me out in his hillman imp.
Right, he said while cocking his leg from the passenger footwell over into the driver footwell, Ill control the accelerator, you do the rest.
And for the next day I spent my time trying to keep the car on the road and out of ditches while he kept his foot on the throttle. He finished the day saying I should practice it every winter, and every winter I have.
I am now a firm believer you can't learn anything I learnt that day in a book. If I tried to teach that to my son I'd be arrested, yet it has kept me safe many years. Every year I still practice it at the first sign of snow every year.
I do think there's an answer to this sort of accident. It's very predictable that a teenager is going to have this sort of accident. Can't the more adventurous think of a better way than everyone drive slower and slower because its the only way we think we can control and measure?
I remember when I was young my old man waited until there was snow and ice all over the road and then he took me out in his hillman imp.
Right, he said while cocking his leg from the passenger footwell over into the driver footwell, Ill control the accelerator, you do the rest.
And for the next day I spent my time trying to keep the car on the road and out of ditches while he kept his foot on the throttle. He finished the day saying I should practice it every winter, and every winter I have.
I am now a firm believer you can't learn anything I learnt that day in a book. If I tried to teach that to my son I'd be arrested, yet it has kept me safe many years. Every year I still practice it at the first sign of snow every year.
I do think there's an answer to this sort of accident. It's very predictable that a teenager is going to have this sort of accident. Can't the more adventurous think of a better way than everyone drive slower and slower because its the only way we think we can control and measure?
Don,
Yes, of course, you are right. Car's limits are incredibly high these days. I meant to say the driver's limits rather than the car's. Sorry for the confusion.
Due to rapid tyre wear I took 2 degrees of toe-in off the rear wheels of my Ginetta. I forgot to tell my son who, when he took it out on a hill climb spun off on his first practice run. He thought there was a fault with the car, rear tyre pressures was his guess, yet on a road neither I nor my son could discern any difference in handling. On a circuit (ok, so a hill-climb is not a circuit) the change was only too obvious.
He was a little miffed when I confessed to it being my fault. I've got to pay for the damage.
Derek
Yes, of course, you are right. Car's limits are incredibly high these days. I meant to say the driver's limits rather than the car's. Sorry for the confusion.
Due to rapid tyre wear I took 2 degrees of toe-in off the rear wheels of my Ginetta. I forgot to tell my son who, when he took it out on a hill climb spun off on his first practice run. He thought there was a fault with the car, rear tyre pressures was his guess, yet on a road neither I nor my son could discern any difference in handling. On a circuit (ok, so a hill-climb is not a circuit) the change was only too obvious.
He was a little miffed when I confessed to it being my fault. I've got to pay for the damage.
Derek
JJ99, was this question a set up to provoke a debate? I saw a very similar style of question on another forum recently, which again was set up to cause a debate and was later compared (by the poster) to the responses found on this forum. The ambiguity and lack of information does not really allow a reasonable debate to take place in relation to the incedent. However it does provoke a gut reaction in people and thus allows you to highlight certain prejudices.
Forgive me if your question is genuine but I have seen this done before and the poster I refered to above didn't answer my question at the time, as to why they were doing it.
My answer to the question posed is that I do not have enough information to form a valid opinion.
Forgive me if your question is genuine but I have seen this done before and the poster I refered to above didn't answer my question at the time, as to why they were doing it.
My answer to the question posed is that I do not have enough information to form a valid opinion.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff