Drifter convicted of dangerous driving
Discussion
Interesting case
What about all the stuff in Evo or on top gear where we see or read about journo's driving too fast, drifting, oversteer etc? Is this not now all fair game? One particular Evo article springs to mind from COTY a couple of years back which accurately describes some public highway drifting.
Not disputing the cockishness of the behaviour - but surely it's one rule for everyone?
What about all the stuff in Evo or on top gear where we see or read about journo's driving too fast, drifting, oversteer etc? Is this not now all fair game? One particular Evo article springs to mind from COTY a couple of years back which accurately describes some public highway drifting.
Not disputing the cockishness of the behaviour - but surely it's one rule for everyone?
G-Rich said:
Interesting case
What about all the stuff in Evo or on top gear where we see or read about journo's driving too fast, drifting, oversteer etc? Is this not now all fair game? One particular Evo article springs to mind from COTY a couple of years back which accurately describes some public highway drifting.
Not disputing the cockishness of the behaviour - but surely it's one rule for everyone?
If often wondered this about programmes like Top Gear, where you see them driving with the tailgate open to get the shot.What about all the stuff in Evo or on top gear where we see or read about journo's driving too fast, drifting, oversteer etc? Is this not now all fair game? One particular Evo article springs to mind from COTY a couple of years back which accurately describes some public highway drifting.
Not disputing the cockishness of the behaviour - but surely it's one rule for everyone?
Look, it's really simple.
He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving - he agreed and admitted that he did exactly what was alleged.
Dangerous driving carries a mandatory minimum 12mo ban and extended test. What, exactly, was he expecting to get when he pleaded guilty?
Anyway, do we need another thread, when the existing one's on page 7 and counting?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&...
He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving - he agreed and admitted that he did exactly what was alleged.
Dangerous driving carries a mandatory minimum 12mo ban and extended test. What, exactly, was he expecting to get when he pleaded guilty?
Anyway, do we need another thread, when the existing one's on page 7 and counting?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&...
La Liga said:
re you suggesting we shouldn't consider "what ifs" and risks?
I do think in a lot of circumstances that the "what ifs" and risks are tailored to suit a particular view point. Going OTT to create an argument against a case.I see many a situation on COPS or INTERCEPTORS on TV/youtube etc. that hand out much less of a punishment to people of organised crime who have created victims through their own planned actions.
For this guy who acted in the early morning with spotters to minimise risks, I think the only danger posed was to himself in reality.
But that's just my take on it.
I think I know the road in question having ventured up in to those parts on occasion. There is a cafe at the top if I remember correctly and I also remember one summer passing a crashed biker who had nicely planted himself in to a stone wall. (His bike was a mess but he was ok).
The considered risks have to be realistic. A lot of criminal law is based around 'prevention being better than the cure'. Even if he's just a risk to himself the consequences of him seriously injuring himself / killing himself mean the road has to be closed and lots of time spent by the emergency services.
AA999 said:
La Liga said:
re you suggesting we shouldn't consider "what ifs" and risks?
I do think in a lot of circumstances that the "what ifs" and risks are tailored to suit a particular view point. Going OTT to create an argument against a case.I see many a situation on COPS or INTERCEPTORS on TV/youtube etc. that hand out much less of a punishment to people of organised crime who have created victims through their own planned actions.
For this guy who acted in the early morning with spotters to minimise risks, I think the only danger posed was to himself in reality.
But that's just my take on it.
I think I know the road in question having ventured up in to those parts on occasion. There is a cafe at the top if I remember correctly and I also remember one summer passing a crashed biker who had nicely planted himself in to a stone wall. (His bike was a mess but he was ok).
Significantly it is not from the viewpoint of a police officer, solicitor or expert and keen motorist...just an ordinary careful and competent driver.
There is no need for danger to be caused to another road user as the law clearly says in (3) that a danger of risk of injury to "any" person is sufficient and that includes the person committing the act. Indeed no person need be in danger as a danger of damage to property is sufficient too.
Danger means that something bad may happen not that it has happened so the common falicy that nobody was hurt and no property was damaged as a defence is facile.
It would seem that the decisions to charge careless rather than dangerous may be more to do with the likely penalties of dangerous driving rather than what could be considered as dangerous driving because an accident, injury or damage have not occured. This shows that the decision makers in the charging are perhaps applying their expertise in driving offences rather than applying the "careful and competent driver" test.
The relevant section of the Act is shown below.
Road Traffic Act 1988
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.
La Liga said:
the convicted drifter said:
Well, here is a video that got me banned for 12 month plus a ridicules fine and unpaid work. Right from the start of this case my solicitor and barrister said the police wanted a deterrent case (make an example off someone) for the Cumbria area.
Yes, blame others to feel better. Eclassy said:
Could he have been prosecuted if he claimed the video was produced with a video editing software?
The prosecution would have it assessed by an expert who'd conclude it were not. ging84 said:
what if there was a nun carrying a basket full of kittens.
what if there was a monkey riding a bike smoking a cigar.
what if his shoes caught fire and he couldn't use the pedals.
Are you suggesting we shouldn't consider "what ifs" and risks? what if there was a monkey riding a bike smoking a cigar.
what if his shoes caught fire and he couldn't use the pedals.
La Liga said:
The considered risks have to be realistic. A lot of criminal law is based around 'prevention being better than the cure'. Even if he's just a risk to himself the consequences of him seriously injuring himself / killing himself mean the road has to be closed and lots of time spent by the emergency services.
So he has been prosecuted for dangerous driving because he may have cost the state some money and inconvenienced other road users? Accepted that he admitted to that charge, just wondering why that was the charge raised. If in addition to spotters he had arranged for medical and recovery support to be on hand would this have made a difference?
Not trying to find excuses, I think what he did was foolish even if not dangerous. That the judge gave him community service rather than time makes me wonder if that was their thoughts too.
Edited by Toltec on Monday 13th July 15:42
Toltec said:
La Liga said:
The considered risks have to be realistic. A lot of criminal law is based around 'prevention being better than the cure'. Even if he's just a risk to himself the consequences of him seriously injuring himself / killing himself mean the road has to be closed and lots of time spent by the emergency services.
So he has been prosecuted for dangerous driving because he may have cost the state some money and inconvenienced other road users? Accepted that he admitted to that charge, just wondering why that was the charge raised. If in addition to spotters he had arranged for medical and recovery support to be on hand would this have made a difference?
Not trying to find excuses, I think what he did was foolish even if not dangerous. That the judge gave him community service rather than time makes me wonder if that was their thoughts too.
Edited by Toltec on Monday 13th July 15:42
The need to close the road, deploy spotters and perhaps have medical and recovery support all point to some form of danger being perceived by the driver who organised all of this so that preparation only confirms there was a danger inherent in his actions. If there was little or no danger why take these 'sensible' precautions?
Toltec said:
So he has been prosecuted for dangerous driving because he may have cost the state some money and inconvenienced other road users? Accepted that he admitted to that charge, just wondering why that was the charge raised.
If in addition to spotters he had arranged for medical and recovery support to be on hand would this have made a difference?
Not trying to find excuses, I think what he did was foolish even if not dangerous. That the judge gave him community service rather than time makes me wonder if that was their thoughts too.
Are you serious?If in addition to spotters he had arranged for medical and recovery support to be on hand would this have made a difference?
Not trying to find excuses, I think what he did was foolish even if not dangerous. That the judge gave him community service rather than time makes me wonder if that was their thoughts too.
Edited by Toltec on Monday 13th July 15:42
tapereel said:
The police, the CPS and then the court all considered it dangerous, that is what counts.
The need to close the road, deploy spotters and perhaps have medical and recovery support all point to some form of danger being perceived by the driver who organised all of this so that preparation only confirms there was a danger inherent in his actions. If there was little or no danger why take these 'sensible' precautions?
Indeed. You'd only have emergency services on standby if it was dangerous. The need to close the road, deploy spotters and perhaps have medical and recovery support all point to some form of danger being perceived by the driver who organised all of this so that preparation only confirms there was a danger inherent in his actions. If there was little or no danger why take these 'sensible' precautions?
tapereel said:
The police, the CPS and then the court all considered it dangerous, that is what counts.
The need to close the road, deploy spotters and perhaps have medical and recovery support all point to some form of danger being perceived by the driver who organised all of this so that preparation only confirms there was a danger inherent in his actions. If there was little or no danger why take these 'sensible' precautions?
There was potential danger hence taking precautions. The need to close the road, deploy spotters and perhaps have medical and recovery support all point to some form of danger being perceived by the driver who organised all of this so that preparation only confirms there was a danger inherent in his actions. If there was little or no danger why take these 'sensible' precautions?
The way you state it then slowing down because you cannot see around the corner is dangerous because if it wasn't you would not need to slow down.
Whether you agree or not the guy was driving dangerously on a public road - personally I'm not bothered, but in the eyes of the law his driving fell far below that expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to you and me that driving in that manner was dangerous.
Don't know if this vid has been posted in a while.
Always comes to mind when Hartside is mentioned...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6WthVp8G10
Always comes to mind when Hartside is mentioned...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6WthVp8G10
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff