In the news - Jaguar Land Rover Manager - Road Rage Crash

[DonkeyApple]

k-ink said:

I am trying NOT to re-start the anti 4x4 thing. But am interested in the general large car v tiny car situation...

We've all seen those mental blokes in their wife's small car driving like aggressive lunatics.

I think that there is just a significant proportion of unstable men with anger and inferiority issues in the UK. I don't actually think what car they drive is relevant.

I do think that people are more prone to noticing this behaviour when it is done by people who are a certain colour or drive a certain type of car etc. I think that is just natural human behaviour.

[DBSV8]

Artey said:

Willy Nilly said:

Do "we" want to see his life ruined too, possibly costing the state many thousands of pounds when he can't find a job and ends up on benefits, or do "we" want him to be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society? When he has finished his sentence, how does he make amends?

We could bring back labour camps, people like him instead of sitting on their asses in nice secure lockups could do something useful like build roads or do other things that could serve society as a whole which would offset the costs incurred by the state. But I guess his/their human rights would suffer innit, we can't have this happen.

its cases like this , when you realise how soft our penal system is , just google Russian prisons , and you will see a different system that is actively " designed to make each day as unpleasant as possible , 5 years inside one of these , would be a very sobering experience. no human rights here !!
His act was deliberate , undertaking and driving across a live carriageway with no consideration for the occupants in either cars was culpable , reckless , dangerous regardless of what vehicle he was driving

As a human knowing the outcome that his actions have caused and fully aware of the life changing injuries received by the two children. He then chose to lie
This lack of remorse changes the situation entirely , a sorry excuse for a human being , I would be actively waiting for this scum to be coming out of jail in 2 years and crippling him , "an eye for an eye"
when hes going to suffer like these two innocent kiddies for the rest of his life ...is real justice

[Impasse]

KungFuPanda said:

Yep and it's going to be one massive claim. None of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the Disco were negligent so they all have claims against the driver of the Disco and his insurers.

The girl's claims are going to be the biggest. Not only will they have a claim for pain, suffering and loss of amenity but their claim for special damages is going to have to cover future care and future loss of earnings probably until their retirement age due to their future disadvantage on the labour market.

Further up the thread there are some who are complaining that this amount hasn't already been agreed and settled and that somehow JLR should be embarrassed. I'll leave them to their Daily Mailesq comments.

[Sheepshanks]

KungFuPanda said:

None of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the Disco were negligent...

I think someone mentioned it earlier, but I'd be genuinely interested to know if they were in appropriate (for their size/age) restraints.

[nffcforever]

DonkeyApple said:

We've all seen those mental blokes in their wife's small car driving like aggressive lunatics.

I think that there is just a significant proportion of unstable men with anger and inferiority issues in the UK. I don't actually think what car they drive is relevant.

I do think that people are more prone to noticing this behaviour when it is done by people who are a certain colour or drive a certain type of car etc. I think that is just natural human behaviour.

I haven't seen those blokes.

[Ari]

deadslow said:

nffcforever said:

No, no, no! His actions were not ENTIRELY and WHOLLY intentional!!

He did not intend to hit the car. That would be seriously crazy.

I hope you never ever get called up for jury service.

He drove so negligently that the consequences were foreseeable. He ought to be inside for at least 10years.

Precisely this.

Not sure why it's so hard to understand. There's a massive difference between (for example) hitting a patch of spilt diesel and coming off the road (an accident, even if it could be argued that you should have seen it or should have been driving at a speed to allow for such things) and driving so ferociously aggressively that there is a very real chance that you are going to have a very serious coming together with another road user.

The latter is not something you do 'accidentally'.

[Willy Nilly]

DBSV8 said:

Artey said:

Willy Nilly said:

Do "we" want to see his life ruined too, possibly costing the state many thousands of pounds when he can't find a job and ends up on benefits, or do "we" want him to be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society? When he has finished his sentence, how does he make amends?

We could bring back labour camps, people like him instead of sitting on their asses in nice secure lockups could do something useful like build roads or do other things that could serve society as a whole which would offset the costs incurred by the state. But I guess his/their human rights would suffer innit, we can't have this happen.

its cases like this , when you realise how soft our penal system is , just google Russian prisons , and you will see a different system that is actively " designed to make each day as unpleasant as possible , 5 years inside one of these , would be a very sobering experience. no human rights here !!
His act was deliberate , undertaking and driving across a live carriageway with no consideration for the occupants in either cars was culpable , reckless , dangerous regardless of what vehicle he was driving

As a human knowing the outcome that his actions have caused and fully aware of the life changing injuries received by the two children. He then chose to lie
This lack of remorse changes the situation entirely , a sorry excuse for a human being , I would be actively waiting for this scum to be coming out of jail in 2 years and crippling him , "an eye for an eye"
when hes going to suffer like these two innocent kiddies for the rest of his life ...is real justice

How is that going to make the situation better and also stop him doing anything like this again? I would expect that people just get hardened to a prison like that and the next time they go in it won't seem so bad.

[Ari]

Willy Nilly said:

Would the parents of the girls have a case to sue the man in the Discovery? I'm thinking the cleaners and taking him there.

He's insured. Rightly or wrongly, that's what insurance is for.

[Ari]

nffcforever said:

Ari said:

Yes, precisely. His actions were entirely and wholly intentional.

They went wrong in an absolutely appalling way, but there is NO way you could call what he did an accident - he drove incredibly recklessly entirely deliberately.

Bit like firing a gun in a busy place. You might not aim it at someone and you might argue that you didn't mean to shoot anyone. But to suggest it's an 'accident' if you did is absurd.

No, no, no! His actions were not ENTIRELY and WHOLLY intentional!!

He did not intend to hit the car. That would be seriously crazy.

I hope you never ever get called up for jury service.

The irony is strong with this one.

[Dr Jekyll]

Willy Nilly said:

Do "we" want to see his life ruined too, possibly costing the state many thousands of pounds when he can't find a job and ends up on benefits, or do "we" want him to be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society? When he has finished his sentence, how does he make amends?

Maybe by committing suicide? That's the best option I can think of.

[nffcforever]

Ari said:

Precisely this.

Not sure why it's so hard to understand. There's a massive difference between (for example) hitting a patch of spilt diesel and coming off the road (an accident, even if it could be argued that you should have seen it or should have been driving at a speed to allow for such things) and driving so ferociously aggressively that there is a very real chance that you are going to have a very serious coming together with another road user.

The latter is not something you do 'accidentally'.

I did respond to that post saying I agreed with it essentially. But fact is, in layman terms, he didn't set out intentionally to hit the car. That part of it was unintended.

[nffcforever]

Ari said:

The irony is strong with this one.

What are you getting at? Are you suggesting he intentionally hit the car?

Because he didn't, did he. So what exactly is wrong with what I said?

[Ari]

Sheepshanks said:

KungFuPanda said:

None of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the Disco were negligent...

I think someone mentioned it earlier, but I'd be genuinely interested to know if they were in appropriate (for their size/age) restraints.

Only in the movies do cars collide with that kind of severity and at high speeds only for people to stagger out rubbing their heads and saying 'ow'.

I read somewhere that the Insignia (the car that the Discovery drove into) was doing about 50mph. At 50mph, if a two tonne 4x4 plows into the front of you then there are going to be very severe consequences no matter how good the car and the restraints.

[Artey]

Willy Nilly said:

DBSV8 said:

Artey said:

Willy Nilly said:

Do "we" want to see his life ruined too, possibly costing the state many thousands of pounds when he can't find a job and ends up on benefits, or do "we" want him to be rehabilitated and become a useful member of society? When he has finished his sentence, how does he make amends?

We could bring back labour camps, people like him instead of sitting on their asses in nice secure lockups could do something useful like build roads or do other things that could serve society as a whole which would offset the costs incurred by the state. But I guess his/their human rights would suffer innit, we can't have this happen.

its cases like this , when you realise how soft our penal system is , just google Russian prisons , and you will see a different system that is actively " designed to make each day as unpleasant as possible , 5 years inside one of these , would be a very sobering experience. no human rights here !!
His act was deliberate , undertaking and driving across a live carriageway with no consideration for the occupants in either cars was culpable , reckless , dangerous regardless of what vehicle he was driving

As a human knowing the outcome that his actions have caused and fully aware of the life changing injuries received by the two children. He then chose to lie
This lack of remorse changes the situation entirely , a sorry excuse for a human being , I would be actively waiting for this scum to be coming out of jail in 2 years and crippling him , "an eye for an eye"
when hes going to suffer like these two innocent kiddies for the rest of his life ...is real justice

How is that going to make the situation better and also stop him doing anything like this again? I would expect that people just get hardened to a prison like that and the next time they go in it won't seem so bad.

You can google memoirs of people who went through labour camps. Not many would want to get back inside.

They'd have to be oldskool camps, not the modern EU lefty kind though. And if they don't learn anything and go back in again... gooooooood, more resurfaced roads, railways, train stations, more hospitals and such. Possibilities are endless.

[Ari]

nffcforever said:

Ari said:

The irony is strong with this one.

What are you getting at? Are you suggesting he intentionally hit the car?

Because he didn't, did he. So what exactly is wrong with what I said?

I don't think you're going to get it.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Dr Jekyll said:

Maybe by committing suicide? That's the best option I can think of.

Have you considered seeking psychiatric help?

[Artey]

Ari said:

I read somewhere that the Insignia (the car that the Discovery drove into) was doing about 50mph. At 50mph, if a two tonne 4x4 plows into the front of you then there are going to be very severe consequences no matter how good the car and the restraints.

57mph, Signum vs modern Disco

[nffcforever]

Ari said:

I don't think you're going to get it.

Cop out. If you're suggesting that because I have an opinion that certain types are cars are more likely to be driven in an aggressive manner (which appears to be backed up by various studies) that this somehow means my ability to act as a fair and balanced member of a jury could be called into question then that is just weird.

Edited by nffcforever on Friday 27th May 20:46

[KungFuPanda]

Sheepshanks said:

KungFuPanda said:

None of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the Disco were negligent...

I think someone mentioned it earlier, but I'd be genuinely interested to know if they were in appropriate (for their size/age) restraints.

You're right. I never actually thought of that. Even if the two kids weren't properly restrained, the parents would be held responsible for the improper restraining and it would be their insurance that paid out a small proportion of damages. The larger proportion would always be paid out by the insurer's of the Disco.

[KungFuPanda]

Impasse said:

KungFuPanda said:

Yep and it's going to be one massive claim. None of the occupants of the vehicle hit by the Disco were negligent so they all have claims against the driver of the Disco and his insurers.

The girl's claims are going to be the biggest. Not only will they have a claim for pain, suffering and loss of amenity but their claim for special damages is going to have to cover future care and future loss of earnings probably until their retirement age due to their future disadvantage on the labour market.

Further up the thread there are some who are complaining that this amount hasn't already been agreed and settled and that somehow JLR should be embarrassed. I'll leave them to their Daily Mailesq comments.

Absolute idiots. I would expect for there to be a large interim payment to be made swiftly but there is no way a Court would approve any final settlement until years down the line when the final prognosis of the injuries can be ascertained. In claims such as this, both Insurers and both sets of Solicitors work together to reach a settlement. It is a lot less adversarial.