Death by dangerous driving
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4575329.stm
This accident happened a while back and has obviously just concluded.
I'm really not convinced by what's gone on. The kid rides his bike across a pedestrian crossing and gets killed, the driver gets death by dangerous because he was speeding and his car was knackered. Fair enough.
However, one of my best mates was in the car behind when this happened, and gave CPR to the kid at the scene.
This did not happen on the pedestrian crossing, but about 50 yards up the road (the skid marks and flowers are still there), the kid rode straight out into the road from behind some railings. My mate said that if the guy in front hadn't have hit him, then he would have had a job avoiding him, and he wasn't speeding.
A seven year old disabled kid is riding his bike near a major arterial route into Newcastle unsupervised. He rides straight out onto the road from behind some railings without stopping to check ("he just flew straight out") and gets killed. Driver in jail for five years.
[quote=my mate]i think thats harsh unless he was drunk or on the phone, there wasn't much he could do[/quote]
Whats the result of all this?
Well, about 2 miles further up the road there is a thirty limit, and this accident has been used to justify the placement of....you know what's coming....a scamera van!
Aside from tenuous reasons for scam placement, this case shows that speed didn't cause the death of the kid.
Q. If Mark Tye was driving slower, would the kid have been hit?
A. Not by the bonnet of Mr Tye, but would have been by the (limit-abiding) car behind.
Q. If Mark Tye had driven faster, would the kid have been hit.
A. Again, not by Mark Tye(as he would have been past the point in the road where the kid illegally entered teh carriageway - even if it had of been on the crossing.....[quote=the court]David had been playing on his bike with friends and rode across the road while the lights were still green for traffic. [/quote]), but again yes by other cars.
Therefore, the speed of Mark Tye was not a factor in the accident happening, merely a factor in which driver was involved. The cause of death was the kid riding his bike recklessly onto a major road, not the speed of Mark Tye. How will the scameras (which will shortly be placed on this bit of road in addition to the newly installed interactive signs) prevent this from happening again?
They won't.
Fencing the path off right up to the pedestrian crossing would help, but it wouldn't help meet partnership targets....
This accident happened a while back and has obviously just concluded.
I'm really not convinced by what's gone on. The kid rides his bike across a pedestrian crossing and gets killed, the driver gets death by dangerous because he was speeding and his car was knackered. Fair enough.
However, one of my best mates was in the car behind when this happened, and gave CPR to the kid at the scene.
This did not happen on the pedestrian crossing, but about 50 yards up the road (the skid marks and flowers are still there), the kid rode straight out into the road from behind some railings. My mate said that if the guy in front hadn't have hit him, then he would have had a job avoiding him, and he wasn't speeding.
A seven year old disabled kid is riding his bike near a major arterial route into Newcastle unsupervised. He rides straight out onto the road from behind some railings without stopping to check ("he just flew straight out") and gets killed. Driver in jail for five years.
[quote=my mate]i think thats harsh unless he was drunk or on the phone, there wasn't much he could do[/quote]
Whats the result of all this?
Well, about 2 miles further up the road there is a thirty limit, and this accident has been used to justify the placement of....you know what's coming....a scamera van!
Aside from tenuous reasons for scam placement, this case shows that speed didn't cause the death of the kid.
Q. If Mark Tye was driving slower, would the kid have been hit?
A. Not by the bonnet of Mr Tye, but would have been by the (limit-abiding) car behind.
Q. If Mark Tye had driven faster, would the kid have been hit.
A. Again, not by Mark Tye(as he would have been past the point in the road where the kid illegally entered teh carriageway - even if it had of been on the crossing.....[quote=the court]David had been playing on his bike with friends and rode across the road while the lights were still green for traffic. [/quote]), but again yes by other cars.
Therefore, the speed of Mark Tye was not a factor in the accident happening, merely a factor in which driver was involved. The cause of death was the kid riding his bike recklessly onto a major road, not the speed of Mark Tye. How will the scameras (which will shortly be placed on this bit of road in addition to the newly installed interactive signs) prevent this from happening again?
They won't.
Fencing the path off right up to the pedestrian crossing would help, but it wouldn't help meet partnership targets....
Yup, had he had an MOT or un-defective car and wasn't probably driving like a "loon" (dunno how you classify that, high rpm but low speed, or just high speed or what, how do you define loon?) then he would have probably just been the poor person who hit a silly young kid.
But as it works out, being a dodgy driver in a dodgy car leaves you to take the blame for some silly reason, even though the kid would have met his fate with any other car driven by any one else.
Lesson to you all. Don't drive "obviously" around people, they are your enemy if something goes wrong. They call you wreckless because they hear revs, or hear you wheel spin.
Pulling fast out of a junction and getting some wheel spin maybe accidentally, but hit a pedestrian 50m down the road and all of a sudden you were driving like a loony!
When I worked at a shell shop, police pulled up and told off a driver for wheel spinning out of the forecourt. When the police came in, I informed them about the spill in the exit, and it had been happening all day, people spinning out of the petrol station. I made it very clear they shouldn't go around policing when they only have half the facts. Even they just percieved this driver as a loony on the face of no facts, even though he had done nothing wrong!
Keep car MOT'd and drive right in your head around pedestrians etc, then you can't really go as far wrong as this poor chap has!
Dave
But as it works out, being a dodgy driver in a dodgy car leaves you to take the blame for some silly reason, even though the kid would have met his fate with any other car driven by any one else.
Lesson to you all. Don't drive "obviously" around people, they are your enemy if something goes wrong. They call you wreckless because they hear revs, or hear you wheel spin.
Pulling fast out of a junction and getting some wheel spin maybe accidentally, but hit a pedestrian 50m down the road and all of a sudden you were driving like a loony!
When I worked at a shell shop, police pulled up and told off a driver for wheel spinning out of the forecourt. When the police came in, I informed them about the spill in the exit, and it had been happening all day, people spinning out of the petrol station. I made it very clear they shouldn't go around policing when they only have half the facts. Even they just percieved this driver as a loony on the face of no facts, even though he had done nothing wrong!
Keep car MOT'd and drive right in your head around pedestrians etc, then you can't really go as far wrong as this poor chap has!
Dave
Dwight VanDriver said:
Twelve of your peers who heard all the evidence
DVD
They didn't hear all of it as my mate didn't give a statement.
SMS 5 mins ago said:
Depends what you see as fast and swerving, to me and you no to the kids mother yes. My opinion, the kid rode his bike infront of the car, I wouldn't have crossed on a bike there, I'd have used the subway (about 100yards away)
I can't say that this guy doesn't deserve some sort of punishment, at the very least, he was driving in a non-defensive manner in an unroadworthy car.
What I was trying to say was that this accident, however tragic, has been exploited by the local scameraship to roll out more vans when they can't prevent unsupervised, non-fully abled seven year olds from riding their bikes into the middle of the road.
Knowing the area well I wouldn't be surprised if he was playing chicken(out riding his bike with his friends). It's very common for the kids off that estate to do that across that road (and the A1!), trying to be kind, it's not the most civilised of areas, with shaved heads and hooded tops prevalent.
He would have hit him as he wasn't very far behind the beemer as it had pulled across in front of him, and the kid rode across the road diagonally into the traffic so increased the time exposed to danger.
If this guy had been going 40 he wouldn't have gotten to the point in the road where the kid rode out, as I said earlier, but the kid would still have been hit.
My mate didn't leave any details (probably freaked out after trying to resusitate a "completely mangled" kid), no-one found out that he was involved until a couple of months after.
The particular part of the road isn't really the sort of place that you would expect kids to be (unless you know the road and know that they play chicken across it all the time).
I do think that he should be punished for what happened (too fast when traffic around, (mainly) unsafe vehicle), but the point I was making was that this incident is used as reason to place scams, when scams wouldn't have prevented the kid being hit - responsible parenting might have though.
If this guy had been going 40 he wouldn't have gotten to the point in the road where the kid rode out, as I said earlier, but the kid would still have been hit.
My mate didn't leave any details (probably freaked out after trying to resusitate a "completely mangled" kid), no-one found out that he was involved until a couple of months after.
The particular part of the road isn't really the sort of place that you would expect kids to be (unless you know the road and know that they play chicken across it all the time).
I do think that he should be punished for what happened (too fast when traffic around, (mainly) unsafe vehicle), but the point I was making was that this incident is used as reason to place scams, when scams wouldn't have prevented the kid being hit - responsible parenting might have though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4572919.stm
few more details in this one from monday
the boy was thrown right over the car, witnesses saw tyre smoke etc
all the above points have some validity, but the chances are that if he'd been driving at 40, in a car with decent brakes and tyres the collision speed might have been low enough for the boy to survive
basically, drive in a 'spirited' fashion, you might get away with it, but if something happens, no matter how unexpected, you'll get screwed
few more details in this one from monday
the boy was thrown right over the car, witnesses saw tyre smoke etc
all the above points have some validity, but the chances are that if he'd been driving at 40, in a car with decent brakes and tyres the collision speed might have been low enough for the boy to survive
basically, drive in a 'spirited' fashion, you might get away with it, but if something happens, no matter how unexpected, you'll get screwed
I'm not defending the driver, but attacking the statements made.
The tyre smoke merely suggest the car had no ABS and the tyres locked under braking ... you can see the same at low speed on the GP circuits.
Streaky
hugoagogo said:I hit a lad at less than 10mph (he ran out from a shop behind a PO van, just 12 yards from a zebra crossing from which I was pulling away ... I was a learner at the time), he flew over the roof (of a Wolsey 1500).
the boy was thrown right over the car, witnesses saw tyre smoke etc
The tyre smoke merely suggest the car had no ABS and the tyres locked under braking ... you can see the same at low speed on the GP circuits.
Streaky
If the facts are as stated the defendant would have grounds for an appeal on the basis of fresh evidence not available at the time of the trial.
Excess speed of itself is not proof of dangerous driving nor is death or serious damage to property.
There are many cases of "death by careless" and "death by accident" which the CPS under great public pressure bring as death by dangerous.
Excess speed of itself is not proof of dangerous driving nor is death or serious damage to property.
There are many cases of "death by careless" and "death by accident" which the CPS under great public pressure bring as death by dangerous.
There were large black skidmarks on the road (still slightly visible) due to locking up, the ABS was found to be not working. Anyone thoughts on how much difference it would have made?
I do think there has been a certain amount of pressure from teh public (as ever in cases like this), with the local paper leading the way - KILLER DRIVER MOWED DOWN SEVEN YEAR OLD. Hardly representative, it's not lke he mounted the pavement and hunted him down.
I do think there has been a certain amount of pressure from teh public (as ever in cases like this), with the local paper leading the way - KILLER DRIVER MOWED DOWN SEVEN YEAR OLD. Hardly representative, it's not lke he mounted the pavement and hunted him down.
No problem with the sentance, too fast for conditions in unroadworthy car.
Disabled 7 year old riding unsupervised next to dual carriageway, parents will be suffering too much for me to comment.
Sgt Phil King of Northumbria Police said: "His driving was appalling when you consider the volume of traffic and the time of day. I cannot think of anything worse."
Really?
Little imagination or too much "Speed kills"?
>> Edited by superflid on Wednesday 25th May 13:41
Disabled 7 year old riding unsupervised next to dual carriageway, parents will be suffering too much for me to comment.
Sgt Phil King of Northumbria Police said: "His driving was appalling when you consider the volume of traffic and the time of day. I cannot think of anything worse."
Really?
Little imagination or too much "Speed kills"?
>> Edited by superflid on Wednesday 25th May 13:41
superflid said:
Sgt Phil King of Northumbria Police said: "His driving was appalling when you consider the volume of traffic and the time of day. I cannot think of anything worse."
The driver of the car behind seemed to think his driving was ok, as for the unroadworthyness, tough tits.
superflid said:
Little imagination or too much "Speed kills"?
Sgt Phil King of Northumbria Police
PM of NSCP is Ray King.....
Jewhoo said:
Sgt Phil King of Northumbria Police said: "His driving was appalling when you consider the volume of traffic and the time of day. I cannot think of anything worse."
The driver of the car behind seemed to think his driving was ok, as for the unroadworthyness, tough tits.
superflid said:
Little imagination or too much "Speed kills"?
Sgt Phil King of Northumbria Police
PM of NSCP is Ray King.....
Never, they wouldn't...would they....
MoJo.
Dwight VanDriver said:
Twelve of your peers who heard all the evidence and arguments
DVD
actually 12 unemployed, retired or middle class 'house wives' most of whom are unable to follow arguements, simple instructions from the judge or assess facts logically not emotionally... but in this case they seem to have stumbled on the answer; drive a shagged car, someone dies, unlucky, see you in 2 years.
rhinocar said:
If the facts are as stated the defendant would have grounds for an appeal on the basis of fresh evidence not available at the time of the trial.
Excess speed of itself is not proof of dangerous driving nor is death or serious damage to property.
There are many cases of "death by careless" and "death by accident" which the CPS under great public pressure bring as death by dangerous.
It would seem from the Telegraph that the Defendant pleaded guilty, glad I put that "if" in now.
rhinocar said:
It would seem from the Telegraph that the Defendant pleaded guilty, glad I put that "if" in now.
I don't think he had much choice (in pleading guilty) because the car was unroadworthy, presumably there were other charges like driving a vehicle with defective brakes etc? Nothing was reported.
I'm not a legal expert, so is it possible that he was convicted for CDBDD because his car was dangerous, and the other arguments were used to back this up(and jumped on by the local media)? If this was the case then he would have had no choice but to plead guilty as his car was unroadworthy.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff