due care & attention
Discussion
madcop said:
My answer to the question posed is that I do not have enough information to form a valid opinion.
I have enough information. Have been to these on many occasions and informed the unfortunate miscreant of the facts of life and the road Traffic Act!
I do not doubt your experience for a second Madcop, but as you say, you have been to these incedents, but not to this one and from the limited information posted, neither has anybody else.
jj99 said:
It just seemed strange to me that he should recieve the NIP when as far as i can see there is no evidence to prove anything.
The evidence is that had he been careful/competent, he would not have hit the other car. The definition is quite specific.
A collision occurred, therefore there was an element of human error (careless) or a mechanical defect (defence to careless) or some other situation he was trying to avoid which would have had greater consequences (defence to careless) or he was unaware of his actions which were caused by an involuntary brain function called automitism (defence to careless).
jj99 said:
Can anyone tell me what he is likely to recieve if guilty.
Between 3 and 9 points and an earnings related fine set at level 4 on the standard scale. The Magistrates have the discretionary powerto disqualify him from driving if they wish and if he pleads not guilty and is found guilty, costs of the court which can be up to £1000
I hope that helps.
This may be an unpopular view, but I see it like this:
The vast majority of people speed at some time or another - and every now and then we get caught(nearly always a fair cop). I for one know that I am not always paying 100% attention, after all there are too many shiny cars and pretty girls to look at out there. Most of the time, we all get away with the fact that we are not paying full attention, sometimes we get punished by it, it's just the way it goes - call it an occupational hazard.
The vast majority of people speed at some time or another - and every now and then we get caught(nearly always a fair cop). I for one know that I am not always paying 100% attention, after all there are too many shiny cars and pretty girls to look at out there. Most of the time, we all get away with the fact that we are not paying full attention, sometimes we get punished by it, it's just the way it goes - call it an occupational hazard.
fast armchair said:
This may be an unpopular view, but I see it like this:
The vast majority of people speed at some time or another - and every now and then we get caught(nearly always a fair cop). I for one know that I am not always paying 100% attention, after all there are too many shiny cars and pretty girls to look at out there. Most of the time, we all get away with the fact that we are not paying full attention, sometimes we get punished by it, it's just the way it goes - call it an occupational hazard.
Quite right, I don't think 100% of drivers do pay 100% attention for 100% of their journey, but I don't think misjudging a corner/your speed so badly that you end up sliding into another car is simply down to being momentarily distracted by something?
centurion07 said:
[quote=fast armchair]
Quite right, I don't think 100% of drivers do pay 100% attention for 100% of their journey, but I don't think misjudging a corner/your speed so badly that you end up sliding into another car is simply down to being momentarily distracted by something?
Nobody is saying it is and in fact he may well have been concentrating very hard when he entered the bend in the wrong position and with too much speed. The crux of the matter in this case that he was not competent to negotiate the bend when he did so. I hope that cures your confusion
madcop said:The evidence is that had he been careful/competent, he would not have hit the other car. The definition is quite specific.
Surely by this definition if you don't have an accident then it cannot be careless.
I wouldn't like to drive by you with no hands on the wheel but claim it wasn't careless as I didn't have an accident.
Surely by this definition if you don't have an accident then it cannot be careless.
I wouldn't like to drive by you with no hands on the wheel but claim it wasn't careless as I didn't have an accident.
I'm late to ths thread, but IMHO this is a bit harsh. I was involved in an RTA where a girl in a Clio drove straight out onto a roundabout, at about 30 mph, that I was already on. I was doing just about 18 mph but was so close that I could not stop without hitting her. The visibility into the road she came from is poor so I did not see her earlier.
The point is she did NOT get done for any offences at all despite it clearly being her fault and it is obvious she was 'driving without due car and attention' or even 'dangerous driving' by not stopping at the give way lines at the entrance to the roundabout.
The point is she did NOT get done for any offences at all despite it clearly being her fault and it is obvious she was 'driving without due car and attention' or even 'dangerous driving' by not stopping at the give way lines at the entrance to the roundabout.
mondeoman said:No need to avoid hitting cats - not reportable. And anyway, I don't like cats! I do recommend avoiding badgers however, Old Brock is a big lump to hit and likely to cause severe damage to your vehicle!
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, ...
streaky said:
mondeoman said:
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, ...
No need to avoid hitting cats - not reportable. And anyway, I don't like cats! I do recommend avoiding badgers however, Old Brock is a big lump to hit and likely to cause severe damage to your vehicle!
Imagine your driving along a wet road with black ice, and petrol. All of a sudden a tail section from a jumbo jet which has been having difficulties in the air lands on the road in front of you. You take immediate avoiding action, swerve past ten innocent children on the pavement while keeping both hands on the wheel and your fog lights on to warn pedestrians. Meanwhile the fireball created melts a flat spot on your rear tires. Having pulled into sainsburys carpark and just done a celebratory doughnut the rest of the plane crushes the car to a pulp but you survive. IS THAT AN ACCIDENT
>> Edited by Julian64 on Wednesday 8th October 11:00
Julian64 said:
Sorry about the accident but I didn't think you had to stop at a give way sign.
If you are referring to my accident, it was on a roundabout, I think maybe I should have said stop lines, not give way
. I was on the roundabout, in the correct lane, she came out straight in front of me...bang, one less Clio and a bit of minor damage to my Range Rover.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff