Driver jailed for 'driving like a lunatic'
Discussion
Bucks Free Press
According to reports he was driving at between 60 and 75mph in a 60 limit and hit a car emerging from a side road.
According to reports he was driving at between 60 and 75mph in a 60 limit and hit a car emerging from a side road.
We don't know if the people he overtook witnessed the crash, thus could say he was doing more than 60mph. If not, then he may not have been doing anything wrong at the time the car pulled out. But you'd expect him to be more cautious at the junction if he's had a crash there before. If he was really being reckless then he deserves some kind of punishment.
I suspect the mental anguish of what he has done will be enough though, he doesn't really need a prison sentence. However, the other driver paid a much higher price already.
I suspect the mental anguish of what he has done will be enough though, he doesn't really need a prison sentence. However, the other driver paid a much higher price already.
How do 'lunatics' drive? No, don't bother answering that!
Sadly, Henry Goddard did not define "lunatic". He did however, state that "idiot" had an IQ of 0 to 25, "imbecile" had an IQ from 26 to 50, and "moron" had an IQ from 51 to 70 (or a mental age of 8 to 12 on the Binet scale. Terman's classification extends the scale: 70-80 is "borderline deficiency", 80-90 is "dulless" and 90-110 is "normal or average intelligence".
Streaky
Sadly, Henry Goddard did not define "lunatic". He did however, state that "idiot" had an IQ of 0 to 25, "imbecile" had an IQ from 26 to 50, and "moron" had an IQ from 51 to 70 (or a mental age of 8 to 12 on the Binet scale. Terman's classification extends the scale: 70-80 is "borderline deficiency", 80-90 is "dulless" and 90-110 is "normal or average intelligence".
Streaky
So it is correct to describe 'Dubya' as a moron - S
But there's spirited driving and there's spirited driving. He might've overtaken those three cars like a nutter, or he may have gone round them where it was safe to do so, checked his mirrors like a good boy, done everything by the book.
And up to 75 in a 60? I don't know the road, so again I can't comment. But who's to say it's not a big, wide stretch with plenty of visibility, easily able to take traffic up to 80 if so required?
And the final point - the car pulled out of a junction into his path. You see this all the time - people are unable to judge the speed of oncoming traffic, they pull out and 1 second later are surprised when the oncoming traffic narrowly avoids shunting them up the rear end. Or in some cases is forced to take avoiding action.
Someone died in this accident, and I'm sorry for them and their family. But I don't think we should automatically be judging this young man. Overtaking three cars does not make you a lunatic. Hitting a car that's pulled out into your path does not make you a lunatic. He may well have been driving like a WGKE, or he may have been driving perfectly well but a little too quickly. The fact remains that we don't know. We weren't there.
And up to 75 in a 60? I don't know the road, so again I can't comment. But who's to say it's not a big, wide stretch with plenty of visibility, easily able to take traffic up to 80 if so required?
And the final point - the car pulled out of a junction into his path. You see this all the time - people are unable to judge the speed of oncoming traffic, they pull out and 1 second later are surprised when the oncoming traffic narrowly avoids shunting them up the rear end. Or in some cases is forced to take avoiding action.
Someone died in this accident, and I'm sorry for them and their family. But I don't think we should automatically be judging this young man. Overtaking three cars does not make you a lunatic. Hitting a car that's pulled out into your path does not make you a lunatic. He may well have been driving like a WGKE, or he may have been driving perfectly well but a little too quickly. The fact remains that we don't know. We weren't there.
He has been found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and as several BiBs have explained this is not an easy charge to get home.
On a different note, why is there a general sense that if someone has been convicted of a motoring offence involving death or serious injury then the driver didn't really mean it and the sentence is too long? Yet the sentence for a burglar etc is never long enough.
On a different note, why is there a general sense that if someone has been convicted of a motoring offence involving death or serious injury then the driver didn't really mean it and the sentence is too long? Yet the sentence for a burglar etc is never long enough.
The point I was illustrating, from the report, was that the cause of the event might well have been the actions of the dead driver, exacerbated by the 'unexpected' speed of the convicted man. If you call driving at 15mph over the NSL 'lunatic' it doesn't leave much in the way of superlatives for some of the far worse driving we've all seen. The death, unfortunate as it is, wasn't caused it seems by the convicted driver's speed, but by the dead driver pulling out of the side road. Newspaper reports are all too often ambiguous.
Sgirl said:
But I don't think we should automatically be judging this young man.
No we shouldn't, he has already been judged in Court and found guilty.
motco said:
The point I was illustrating, from the report, was that the cause of the event might well have been the actions of the dead driver, exacerbated by the 'unexpected' speed of the convicted man. If you call driving at 15mph over the NSL 'lunatic' it doesn't leave much in the way of superlatives for some of the far worse driving we've all seen. The death, unfortunate as it is, wasn't caused it seems by the convicted driver's speed, but by the dead driver pulling out of the side road. Newspaper reports are all too often ambiguous.
The point people are making, is that all this would have been factored in to the court case.
If the above was true, then he either had the worst defense lawyer ever, or came up against an outstanding CPS lawyer (do they exist), or maybe, just maybe, he was guilty?
motco said:
The point I was illustrating, from the report, was that the cause of the event might well have been the actions of the dead driver, exacerbated by the 'unexpected' speed of the convicted man. If you call driving at 15mph over the NSL 'lunatic' it doesn't leave much in the way of superlatives for some of the far worse driving we've all seen. The death, unfortunate as it is, wasn't caused it seems by the convicted driver's speed, but by the dead driver pulling out of the side road. Newspaper reports are all too often ambiguous.
Fatal accidents are investigated very thoroughly and I would imagine that had the dead driver been at fault then it would have been discovered. You don't need to be exceeding the speed limit to be driving like a lunatic. Point about newspaper reports is well made.
There's something not right about that news report (surprise surprise).
Piddington is on the B4011 (between Long Crendon and Bicester), a challenging and twisty B-road with a few good overtaking opportunities, but quite a few blind exits and opportunities for emerging cars to conflict. High variation in speed required to drive safely as vision moves around.
The A40 between West Wycombe and Stokenchurch is 10 miles away. It's a wide boulevard at that stretch, opening into a descent of Aston Hill after Stokenchurch which is rather tasty to come back up.
We, with a dodgy news report, don't really have a lot of facts compared with the trial judge.
Piddington is on the B4011 (between Long Crendon and Bicester), a challenging and twisty B-road with a few good overtaking opportunities, but quite a few blind exits and opportunities for emerging cars to conflict. High variation in speed required to drive safely as vision moves around.
The A40 between West Wycombe and Stokenchurch is 10 miles away. It's a wide boulevard at that stretch, opening into a descent of Aston Hill after Stokenchurch which is rather tasty to come back up.
We, with a dodgy news report, don't really have a lot of facts compared with the trial judge.
Flat in Fifth said:
Do us all good to remember 3rd party perception
It's an interesting point, few cheeky overtakes before taking it easy and then involved in non fault accident. You now have several people with the hump who want to give evidence against you.
Edited by NCC1701 on Wednesday 16th May 10:26
motco said:
The point I was illustrating, from the report, was that the cause of the event might well have been the actions of the dead driver, exacerbated by the 'unexpected' speed of the convicted man. If you call driving at 15mph over the NSL 'lunatic' it doesn't leave much in the way of superlatives for some of the far worse driving we've all seen. The death, unfortunate as it is, wasn't caused it seems by the convicted driver's speed, but by the dead driver pulling out of the side road. Newspaper reports are all too often ambiguous.
Driving like a lunatic and driving between 60 and 75 are not linked in the report. You have made the link and also made up your own reason for the collision. I doubt you know better than the court. When pulling out of a sideroad we do our best to look out for people who should be driving a bit slower at that point, but we can't always avoid someone who is "driving like a lunatic".
motco said:
The death, unfortunate as it is, wasn't caused it seems by the convicted driver's speed, but by the dead driver pulling out of the side road.
Depends. While 75 in a 60 is hardly 'lunatic' driving, he was possibly on the wrong side of the carriageway coming towards the junction and therefore may have not been obviously visible to the guy pulling out. Even if he then had already pulled back in to his lane before the junction, the driver pulling out who had not seen him initially would suddenly have found this guy on top of him when he had least expected it. Therefore speed may have been a factor, although I would be more likely to side on the idea that overtaking coming to a junction (and therefore a bit of stupidity on the part of the convicted) was the cause.
Like you say though, it's difficult to know all the circumstances. Maybe the dead driver didn't pay attention properly or pulled out in a tiny gap (we've all done that I'm sure) and misjudged the time he had available.
I suspect that the victim of this collision checked it was clear and then proceeded only to have the convicted mans car appear on the wrong side of the road whilst he pulling across the front of the cars being overtaken. Before you overtake you ALWAYS check for cars pulling out of side roads or other entrances (on both sides of the road). To assume otherwise is very dangerous. Hence this guy was convicted of causing death be dangerous driving.
Always check for the unexpected and always give yourself a way out, you don't just indicate, floor it and hope for the best. It appears that this guy did and so he's going to spend the next year or so looking for the prison soap. Not a lot of sympathy for him to be honest. Also I don't see how being a few MPH over the limit has anything to do with the case.
The article says seat coupe, do you think the author meant Cupra?
MilnerR said:
I suspect that the victim of this collision checked it was clear and then proceeded only to have the convicted mans car appear on the wrong side of the road whilst he pulling across the front of the cars being overtaken.
I believe in staying out a long time, but 15 miles does seem to be pushing it a bit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff