Cause & Effect?

[anonymous-user]

Just seen this on my local news

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14598727.WAT...

Firstly - BMW driver is a plum, not arguing that.

But, should the driver of the car hogging the outside line also face some kind of penalty? Rightly or wrongly I cant help feeling the BMW drivers actions would have been different had the other car been in the left hand lane.

[anonymous-user]

On the evidence in front of us, the other driver does nothing wrong. Not sure on what basis you could use the behaviour of that driver to mitigate the actions of the BMW?

[anonymous-user]

Not suggesting the other driver provides any form of mitigation. But he is clearly isn't following the highway code, does the recent law against MLMs only apply to motorways?

[bad company]

Reminds me why I have a Dash Cam.

Yes the Pug driver should have pulled over but bloody heck that was a horrible undertake. Shame he didn't get a much longer ban IMO.

[Guybrush]

I think poor driver skill was the cause. It looks like he hit a slippery patch and didn't correct properly.

[Pete317]

It looks like he was going straight, then suddenly veered left - can't really see why

[Terminator X]

What if he'd have flipped out like that whilst over taking? Presumably no offence and just an accident. At the risk of being burned on here that seems harsh to me as it was just an accident.

TX.

Edit - note to self, dash camera not always helpful.

[vonhosen]

Terminator X said:

What if he'd have flipped out like that whilst over taking? Presumably no offence and just an accident.

Maybe, but that's not what happened.

Terminator X said:

At the risk of being burned on here that seems harsh to me as it was just an accident.

Whilst undertaking.

[Dr Jekyll]

I knew someone years ago who when confronted by an MLM on a motorway moved out to lane 3 specifically to avoid undertaking then on the way back to lane 1 hit a slippery patch and wrote his S2000 off against the crash barrier. he was fully insured and got a 1 year ban a big fine and had to retake his test! The problem was that 'witnesses' claimed he had been undertaking he denied this and claimed he had simply moved out to lane 3 and back on a couple of occasions to overtake and this was interpreted as 'weaving through the traffic (having passengered with him I'm inclined to believe him).

So how come someone who definitely passed on the inside and wasn't insured gets off with a 14 day ban?

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

I knew someone years ago who when confronted by an MLM on a motorway moved out to lane 3 specifically to avoid undertaking then on the way back to lane 1 hit a slippery patch and wrote his S2000 off against the crash barrier. he was fully insured and got a 1 year ban a big fine and had to retake his test! The problem was that 'witnesses' claimed he had been undertaking he denied this and claimed he had simply moved out to lane 3 and back on a couple of occasions to overtake and this was interpreted as 'weaving through the traffic (having passengered with him I'm inclined to believe him).

So how come someone who definitely passed on the inside and wasn't insured gets off with a 14 day ban?

Same offence or dangerous driving?
Speed?

[V8LM]

Pete317 said:

It looks like he was going straight, then suddenly veered left - can't really see why

Got to the side of the Pug, dropped a gear and accelerated on (given the date) a slippery road, lost his backend???

[Pete317]

V8LM said:

Pete317 said:

It looks like he was going straight, then suddenly veered left - can't really see why

Got to the side of the Pug, dropped a gear and accelerated on (given the date) a slippery road, lost his backend, over-corrected???

It looks like his back end remains steady - it seems his right-hand brake light comes on momentarily just before he steers left (or appears to)

[anonymous-user]

I don't know the road, but what's around the bend? Is there a reason for the car to be in the offside lane i.e. there's a junction coming-up where he / she would need to be in the offside lane?

Secondly, the Peugeot isn't that far in front of the car with the dashcam (it looks like it's under two seconds). Perhaps they had over-taken the car with the dashcam and were waiting for the correct braking distance to form before moving into the nearside lane.

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

I knew someone years ago who when confronted by an MLM on a motorway moved out to lane 3 specifically to avoid undertaking then on the way back to lane 1 hit a slippery patch and wrote his S2000 off against the crash barrier. he was fully insured and got a 1 year ban a big fine and had to retake his test! The problem was that 'witnesses' claimed he had been undertaking he denied this and claimed he had simply moved out to lane 3 and back on a couple of occasions to overtake and this was interpreted as 'weaving through the traffic (having passengered with him I'm inclined to believe him).

So how come someone who definitely passed on the inside and wasn't insured gets off with a 14 day ban?

Same offence or dangerous driving?
Speed?

Dangerous driving. As for speed he reckoned 70, witnesses reckoned 50-60.

[anonymous-user]

La Liga said:

I don't know the road, but what's around the bend? Is there a reason for the car to be in the offside lane i.e. there's a junction coming-up where he / she would need to be in the offside lane?

Secondly, the Peugeot isn't that far in front of the car with the dashcam (it looks like it's under two seconds). Perhaps they had over-taken the car with the dashcam and were waiting for the correct braking distance to form before moving into the nearside lane.

There is a roundabout maybe 1/2 - 3/4 of a mile ahead, but its two lanes on, two lanes off with no right turn (unless the peugeot is planning on going back the way they came.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

I knew someone years ago who when confronted by an MLM on a motorway moved out to lane 3 specifically to avoid undertaking then on the way back to lane 1 hit a slippery patch and wrote his S2000 off against the crash barrier. he was fully insured and got a 1 year ban a big fine and had to retake his test! The problem was that 'witnesses' claimed he had been undertaking he denied this and claimed he had simply moved out to lane 3 and back on a couple of occasions to overtake and this was interpreted as 'weaving through the traffic (having passengered with him I'm inclined to believe him).

So how come someone who definitely passed on the inside and wasn't insured gets off with a 14 day ban?

Same offence or dangerous driving?
Speed?

Dangerous driving. As for speed he reckoned 70, witnesses reckoned 50-60.

Different more serious offence then.

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

I knew someone years ago who when confronted by an MLM on a motorway moved out to lane 3 specifically to avoid undertaking then on the way back to lane 1 hit a slippery patch and wrote his S2000 off against the crash barrier. he was fully insured and got a 1 year ban a big fine and had to retake his test! The problem was that 'witnesses' claimed he had been undertaking he denied this and claimed he had simply moved out to lane 3 and back on a couple of occasions to overtake and this was interpreted as 'weaving through the traffic (having passengered with him I'm inclined to believe him).

So how come someone who definitely passed on the inside and wasn't insured gets off with a 14 day ban?

Same offence or dangerous driving?
Speed?

Dangerous driving. As for speed he reckoned 70, witnesses reckoned 50-60.

Different more serious offence then.

But my question is why was it a more serious offence for him to hit a slippery patch than for an uninsured driver to do so?

Bloke with clean license and other perfectly legal gets an overtake wrong and dents a crash barrier - dangerous driving.

Yob with no insurance gets an undertake wrong and goes over the barrier into oncoming traffic - without due care.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

I knew someone years ago who when confronted by an MLM on a motorway moved out to lane 3 specifically to avoid undertaking then on the way back to lane 1 hit a slippery patch and wrote his S2000 off against the crash barrier. he was fully insured and got a 1 year ban a big fine and had to retake his test! The problem was that 'witnesses' claimed he had been undertaking he denied this and claimed he had simply moved out to lane 3 and back on a couple of occasions to overtake and this was interpreted as 'weaving through the traffic (having passengered with him I'm inclined to believe him).

So how come someone who definitely passed on the inside and wasn't insured gets off with a 14 day ban?

Same offence or dangerous driving?
Speed?

Dangerous driving. As for speed he reckoned 70, witnesses reckoned 50-60.

Different more serious offence then.

But my question is why was it a more serious offence for him to hit a slippery patch than for an uninsured driver to do so?

Bloke with clean license and other perfectly legal gets an overtake wrong and dents a crash barrier - dangerous driving.

Yob with no insurance gets an undertake wrong and goes over the barrier into oncoming traffic - without due care.

You'd have to look at the full circumstances that were before the people making the charge decisions, not what you think happened here & what your mate is telling you happened.
There is likely to have been more to the allegation in your mate's hence the decision to charge with dangerous (i.e. the course conduct leading up to it as described by witnesses, multiple passes etc?)

[Psycho Warren]

Both should have been prosecuted. Clearly the BMW driver is a plank and got what he deserved, but the pug driver should have got inconsiderate/careless driving conviction for lane hogging using the video evidence.

The attitude to lane hogging is so lax that IMO harsh penalties for the rare occasions where a lane hogger could be prosecuted, needs to be done to send a message.

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

You'd have to look at the full circumstances that were before the people making the charge decisions, not what you think happened here & what your mate is telling you happened.
There is likely to have been more to the allegation in your mate's hence the decision to charge with dangerous (i.e. the course conduct leading up to it as described by witnesses, multiple passes etc?)

I'm not querying the charge decision. As far as I know someone charged with dangerous can still be convicted of without due care so there is no reason for CPS not to go for dangerous every time.

Also, the witness statements before the case that were made to the police, and presumably went to the CPS, contained lurid stuff from one particular witness such as 'passed several vehicles on the hard shoulder' and estimated speeds of 'up to 130 MPH'. All things that mysteriously did not feature in the witness's evidence given in court, so surely not relevant to the verdict.