A Simple Question For Gone, Towman, and their Ilk
Discussion
Three cars are driving down a dual carriageway.
Car a is doing 30mph in the left hand lane.
Car b is doing 70mph in the left hand lane.
Car c is doing 100mph in the third lane.
Car b pulls out into the middle lane to overtake car a.
Three drunken girls decide to kill themselves and make a suicide pact.
They meet on a bridge over the dual carriageway.
Girl a jumps off the the bridge into lane 1 and lands far enough in front of the driver of car a for him to stop in time, but he still hits her and kills her (though if he had been doing 70 he would have been gone before she landed, for the sake of argument, I've not done the math).
Girl b, after sitting on the wall lit parapet for a while, jumps off the nearest side of the the bridge in front of car b, too close for him to stop at 70mph, and "he kills her" (at 11:00pm on a Saturday night near a built up area and where a lot of drunks hang out).
Girl c jumps off the far side of the bridge right in front of car c. Despite managing to scrub off 30mph the driver of car c still hits and "kills" girl c.
Who would be guilty of what?
How would your answer change if the driver of car c -
i) Saved girl c by swerving left and killing girl b?
ii) Saved the girl by swerving left and killing driver b?
iii) Saved the girl, but killed himself (at 70mph), by swerving right?
iv) Was the Chief Constable of Derbyshire on "police business".
v) Was the Chief Constable of Derbyshire's police driver driving his boss on "police business".
vi) Was Was the Chief Constable of Derbyshire's civilian driver driving his boss on "police business".
Car a is doing 30mph in the left hand lane.
Car b is doing 70mph in the left hand lane.
Car c is doing 100mph in the third lane.
Car b pulls out into the middle lane to overtake car a.
Three drunken girls decide to kill themselves and make a suicide pact.
They meet on a bridge over the dual carriageway.
Girl a jumps off the the bridge into lane 1 and lands far enough in front of the driver of car a for him to stop in time, but he still hits her and kills her (though if he had been doing 70 he would have been gone before she landed, for the sake of argument, I've not done the math).
Girl b, after sitting on the wall lit parapet for a while, jumps off the nearest side of the the bridge in front of car b, too close for him to stop at 70mph, and "he kills her" (at 11:00pm on a Saturday night near a built up area and where a lot of drunks hang out).
Girl c jumps off the far side of the bridge right in front of car c. Despite managing to scrub off 30mph the driver of car c still hits and "kills" girl c.
Who would be guilty of what?
How would your answer change if the driver of car c -
i) Saved girl c by swerving left and killing girl b?
ii) Saved the girl by swerving left and killing driver b?
iii) Saved the girl, but killed himself (at 70mph), by swerving right?
iv) Was the Chief Constable of Derbyshire on "police business".
v) Was the Chief Constable of Derbyshire's police driver driving his boss on "police business".
vi) Was Was the Chief Constable of Derbyshire's civilian driver driving his boss on "police business".
From experience as a forensic scientist investigating traffic accidents (and knowing what the CPS would run with):
Driver of car A could be guilty of either death by dangerous or without due care or nothing at all. All depends on the amount of time he wasted before getting on the brakes. You are allowed a reasonable reaction time (1-2 seconds more or less) before it becomes careless and a few more seconds before it becomes dangerous.
Driver of car B could be cleared of everything. He was travelling at no more than the legal limit and provided he reacted quickly so as not to lay himself open for a WDC charge.
Driver of car C would be looking at death by dangerous, no matter what he did (with the exception of option (iii) in your list, because we don't often put dead people behind bars).
As for (iv),(v) & (vi), the simple answer is in the wording of the 'exemption' for Police purposes. A driver can only exceed the speed limit if not to do so would impede Police business. e.g. when in a pursuit or going to a 'response' call could be seen to be times when it would be necessary. Driving the CC around might well not be considered necessary by the courts. Even so, the exemption does not excuse dangerous driving or without due care. I've had more than a few jobs where despite the exemption the officer was still charged. Punished, well that's another matter.
Driver of car A could be guilty of either death by dangerous or without due care or nothing at all. All depends on the amount of time he wasted before getting on the brakes. You are allowed a reasonable reaction time (1-2 seconds more or less) before it becomes careless and a few more seconds before it becomes dangerous.
Driver of car B could be cleared of everything. He was travelling at no more than the legal limit and provided he reacted quickly so as not to lay himself open for a WDC charge.
Driver of car C would be looking at death by dangerous, no matter what he did (with the exception of option (iii) in your list, because we don't often put dead people behind bars).
As for (iv),(v) & (vi), the simple answer is in the wording of the 'exemption' for Police purposes. A driver can only exceed the speed limit if not to do so would impede Police business. e.g. when in a pursuit or going to a 'response' call could be seen to be times when it would be necessary. Driving the CC around might well not be considered necessary by the courts. Even so, the exemption does not excuse dangerous driving or without due care. I've had more than a few jobs where despite the exemption the officer was still charged. Punished, well that's another matter.
You see George, when you read the response from Stressed Dave, you realise that this is what the forum is about.
A crytal clear, coherent, reasonable argument with no insults, no jeering and stupidity; and it has nothing to do with whether or not you are in agreement. Because you can now reply with either a similarly structured opposing argument or comments in agreement.
It then becomes satisfying, constructive and everyone is thinking and learning.
The decision I made a few weeks ago when I was on the receiving end of this utter stupidity was to simply ignore it, and so far it has worked extremely well.
Towman in particular seems to revel in winding people up; don't rise to it, just ignore it and put your effort into worthwhile debate with people you can enjoy talking to.
A crytal clear, coherent, reasonable argument with no insults, no jeering and stupidity; and it has nothing to do with whether or not you are in agreement. Because you can now reply with either a similarly structured opposing argument or comments in agreement.
It then becomes satisfying, constructive and everyone is thinking and learning.
The decision I made a few weeks ago when I was on the receiving end of this utter stupidity was to simply ignore it, and so far it has worked extremely well.
Towman in particular seems to revel in winding people up; don't rise to it, just ignore it and put your effort into worthwhile debate with people you can enjoy talking to.
StressedDave said:Is that despite -
From experience as a forensic scientist investigating traffic accidents (and knowing what the CPS would run with):.....
Driver of car B could be cleared of everything. He was travelling at no more than the legal limit and provided he reacted quickly so as not to lay himself open for a WDC charge.
diesel ed said:IE he was driving "legally" only in so far as he was not exceeding the limit. But he had plenty of time and opportunity to anticipate what happened. And even if not I have it on good authority that -
Girl b, after sitting on the well lit parapet for a while, jumps off the nearest side of the the bridge in front of car b, too close for him to stop at 70mph, and "he kills her" (at 11:00pm on a Saturday night near a built up area and where a lot of drunks hang out).
towman said:
IMO down to the car driver. 11pm in a built up area - you have to expect irrational moves from drunks.
StressedDave said:Despite -
Driver of car C would be looking at death by dangerous, no matter what he did (with the exception of option (iii) in your list, because we don't often put dead people behind bars).
diesel ed said:IE he would have killed her even if he had been doing 70 initially, and was doing 70 when he hit her?
Girl c jumps off the far side of the bridge right in front of car c. Despite managing to scrub off 30mph the driver of car c still hits and "kills" girl c.
StressedDave said:Interesting to get an authoratative, but non-"official" view on some of those points. Especially as driving at around 100mph seems to be taken as automatically being dangerous driving by some police and in some courts.
As for (iv),(v) & (vi), the simple answer is in the wording of the 'exemption' for Police purposes. A driver can only exceed the speed limit if not to do so would impede Police business. e.g. when in a pursuit or going to a 'response' call could be seen to be times when it would be necessary. Driving the CC around might well not be considered necessary by the courts. Even so, the exemption does not excuse dangerous driving or without due care. I've had more than a few jobs where despite the exemption the officer was still charged. Punished, well that's another matter.
IOLAIRE said:I sometimes wonder. For example, the "Bogush" thread, refered to elsewhere, that I discovered after Flat in Fifth confused me with a.n other. It ran on for a couple pages of insults, wind-ups, jeering and such like stupidity after said Bogush had been banned. The most disturbing facet was that this was a continuation of the "content" of the first couple of pages of that thread which seemed to be a continuation of a couple of similar threads. Worse, there was no moderation of the insults, wind-ups, jeering and such like stupidity and yet I can find nothing to justify the banning. Strange. Is that what the forum is all about?
You see George, when you read the response from Stressed Dave, you realise that this is what the forum is about.....
.....The decision I made a few weeks ago when I was on the receiving end of this utter stupidity was to simply ignore it, and so far it has worked extremely well.
diesel ed said:
You see George, when you read the response from Stressed Dave, you realise that this is what the forum is about.....
.....The decision I made a few weeks ago when I was on the receiving end of this utter stupidity was to simply ignore it, and so far it has worked extremely well.
I sometimes wonder. For example, the "Bogush" thread, refered to elsewhere, that I discovered after Flat in Fifth confused me with a.n other. It ran on for a couple pages of insults, wind-ups, jeering and such like stupidity after said Bogush had been banned. The most disturbing facet was that this was a continuation of the "content" of the first couple of pages of that thread which seemed to be a continuation of a couple of similar threads. Worse, there was no moderation of the insults, wind-ups, jeering and such like stupidity and yet I can find nothing to justify the banning. Strange. Is that what the forum is all about?
I know what you mean George, but I think a consideration has to be made for the sheer size of the PH forums; I mean the General Gassing forum just goes like a fair, right into the night, so it would be almost impossible to check every page.
But there is a report abuse facility, so if you feel that you can't get peace from any of these people report them, I wouldn't hesitate if the circumstances arose.
I suppose they work on a "breach of the Peace" type principle. Someone wants to say something perfectly sensible and legal, but if it's going to cause a load of undesirables to riot it's the law abiding guy who gets penalised. Perfectly understandable in modern society where PC has become institutionalised, and is now being incorporated in every aspect of the laws of the land.
stone said:
Are your qestions leading somewhere? 
You honestly don't expect anybody to answer your questions do you?
stone said:Do you mean informative, intelligent, well structured, probing, truth seeking, illuminating, polarising, non PC, witty, entertaining......?
I sometimes wonder. For example, the "Bogush" thread, ?
Bound to be co-incidence, I've heard that there are three of us who can do that. Though I did notice that people either loved him or hated him, and they either seem to love or hate me. Could there be another reason for that than just our style and tone do you think?
stone said:
your tone and writing style has remarkable similarities to the now banned Bogush.
IOLAIRE said:
George, the main reason I know you're not Bogush, and unfortunately no one else seems to see it, is that he had utterly no sense of humour.
Whereas you, at times you can be just as subtly mental as I. (that's a compliment by the way)
diesel ed said:
Driver of car B could be cleared of everything. He was travelling at no more than the legal limit and provided he reacted quickly so as not to lay himself open for a WDC charge.
Is that despite -diesel ed said:
Girl b, after sitting on the well lit parapet for a while, jumps off the nearest side of the the bridge in front of car b, too close for him to stop at 70mph, and "he kills her" (at 11:00pm on a Saturday night near a built up area and where a lot of drunks hang out).
IE he was driving "legally" only in so far as he was not exceeding the limit. But he had plenty of time and opportunity to anticipate what happened. And even if not I have it on good authority that -
The law is quite subtly written here. The standard is 'below the level of a careful and competent driver'. I would argue (as probably would any half-decent barrister) that a driver could not reasonably anticipate somebody deliberately jumping off an overbridge. Ergo, standard not below that of a careful and competent driver - no case to answer.
diesel ed said:
Driver of car C would be looking at death by dangerous, no matter what he did (with the exception of option (iii) in your list, because we don't often put dead people behind bars).
Despite -diesel ed said:
Girl c jumps off the far side of the bridge right in front of car c. Despite managing to scrub off 30mph the driver of car c still hits and "kills" girl c.
IE he would have killed her even if he had been doing 70 initially, and was doing 70 when he hit her?
Sorry, sad bit of mathematics drove that reply. If he'd been doing 70 at the same point he braked from 100 he'd have pulled up before the point of impact. Bit of an easy one to prosecute: "had the defendant been obeying the speed limit he would never have hit the deceased". Again, in the circumstances quoted I'd have given the pathologist a hard time proving that the impact with the car killed the girl rather than the fall from the overbridge. If she was already dead, then the impact with the car was of no concern and you could only prosecute for dangerous driving, and with a bit of a fair wind and a decent lawyer you're back into arguing what you could reasonably anticipate.
That's the trouble with these hypothetical cases - the law isn't black or white and at the end of the day it falls to human judgement.
StressedDave said:Even if she had been sitting in plain view for some time? She might have been sitting safely simply sightseeing. She might have been yet another suicide slipping off the side of a bridge. Or she might have just been silly and about to slip off. If "a driver could not reasonably anticipate somebody deliberately jumping off an overbridge" surely "a driver could not reasonably anticipate somebody deliberately jumping off" a pavement?
The law is quite subtly written here. The standard is 'below the level of a careful and competent driver'. I would argue (as probably would any half-decent barrister) that a driver could not reasonably anticipate somebody deliberately jumping off an overbridge. Ergo, standard not below that of a careful and competent driver - no case to answer.
StressedDave said:The speeds were made up and a side issue. If they don't or can't work the main point is still what would happen to him if she jumped so close that he would still have killed her if initially driving at 70. The scubbing off of speed down to 70 was just to add a further twist to the scenario. (And if there is still a problem with the speeds then he was travelling over the limit by whatever works
Driver of car C would be looking at death by dangerous, no matter what he did (with the exception of option (iii) in your list, because we don't often put dead people behind bars). diesel ed said:IE he would have killed her even if he had been doing 70 initially, and was doing 70 when he hit her?
Girl c jumps off the far side of the bridge right in front of car c. Despite managing to scrub off 30mph the driver of car c still hits and "kills" girl c.
) >> Edited by diesel ed on Saturday 27th November 21:11
ronj said:
Three cars are driving down a dual carriageway.
Car a is doing 30mph in the left hand lane.
Car b is doing 70mph in the left hand lane.
Car c is doing 100mph in the third lane.
.................................................
?????????????
Ron.
Perhaps it was today's deliberate mistake?........
Well spotted.
Wacky Racer said:
Three cars are driving down a dual carriageway.
Car a is doing 30mph in the left hand lane.
Car b is doing 70mph in the left hand lane.
Car c is doing 100mph in the third lane.
.................................................
?????????????
Ron.
Perhaps it was today's deliberate mistake?........
Well spotted.
You're both missing the next part of the post; read it properly.
Wacky Racer said:
Three cars are driving down a dual carriageway.
Car a is doing 30mph in the left hand lane.
Car b is doing 70mph in the left hand lane.
Car c is doing 100mph in the third lane.
.................................................
?????????????
Ron.
Perhaps it was today's deliberate mistake?........
Well spotted.
To be totally fair to Diesel ed, dual carriageways can have more than 2 lanes!
So not as much a deliberate mistake as a lack of lateral thinking perhaps on these posts
.diesel ed said:
Are your qestions leading somewhere?
You honestly don't expect anybody to answer your questions do you?
Well, certainly I don't expect those to whom it was addressed to. Well, not sensibly anyway
Diesel ed.
Ask a sensible question and you will get a sensible answer.
Someone jumping off a bridge to kill themselves will ususally time it so that they land on the road just in front of a vehicle driven under them regardless of how fast it happens to be travelling.
Simple judgement takes over. Car travelling at 70mph, person jumps a little sooner than they do for one which is travelling at 30mph.
In my experience of bridge jumpers, the vehicle drivers stand little chance if the jumper is determined to end their life. They are accurate in landing in front of the vehicle, sometimes before the driver has had chance to undergo any serious braking effort to avoid the impact!
A motorway bridge is on average about 17'6'' in height. It does not take a couple of seconds to go from 17'6'' to 0'' in free fall! Reaction time for a driver is about .7 seconds leaving little time to deal with anything else even at 30mph if they get it right as they ususally do.
Its all about timing
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff