Witcham horse rammer let off
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshir...
How in the name of blazes can this possibly be justified? If one of us had gone round a corner in that fashion even without hitting anyone it would probably be a dangerous driving charge, a brainless pillock does it and it's perfectly OK. Massive massive massive double standard.
How in the name of blazes can this possibly be justified? If one of us had gone round a corner in that fashion even without hitting anyone it would probably be a dangerous driving charge, a brainless pillock does it and it's perfectly OK. Massive massive massive double standard.
Especially given there is video evidence of his woeful driving, I am amazed he was not prosecuted.
He knocked down two horses + riders after coming around a bend on the wrong side of the road.... what more do you have to do to get in front of a court? Weird thing is that he'd have probably been in a court for doing 100mph on a wide straight motorway in good weather with no traffic about.
He knocked down two horses + riders after coming around a bend on the wrong side of the road.... what more do you have to do to get in front of a court? Weird thing is that he'd have probably been in a court for doing 100mph on a wide straight motorway in good weather with no traffic about.
Awful driving.
Entered the corner way too fast and then seemed more concerned with making the turn than avoiding crashing into the only animate object in his/her path.
As bad as it looked, in the absence of any other evidence such as bald tyres, witnesses to earlier dangerous driving, texting, breaking the speed limit, previous driving convictions, leaving the scene of the accident etc. then I guess all the Police have is the evidence of someone making poor judgement on a fast, slippery bend.
I don't know if I could ever get behind the wheel again if I did that.
Entered the corner way too fast and then seemed more concerned with making the turn than avoiding crashing into the only animate object in his/her path.
As bad as it looked, in the absence of any other evidence such as bald tyres, witnesses to earlier dangerous driving, texting, breaking the speed limit, previous driving convictions, leaving the scene of the accident etc. then I guess all the Police have is the evidence of someone making poor judgement on a fast, slippery bend.
I don't know if I could ever get behind the wheel again if I did that.
LeoSayer said:
Awful driving.
Entered the corner way too fast and then seemed more concerned with making the turn than avoiding crashing into the only animate object in his/her path.
As bad as it looked, in the absence of any other evidence such as bald tyres, witnesses to earlier dangerous driving, texting, breaking the speed limit, previous driving convictions, leaving the scene of the accident etc. then I guess all the Police have is the evidence of someone making poor judgement on a fast, slippery bend.
I don't know if I could ever get behind the wheel again if I did that.
To add to that, judging by how quickly the car stopped, speed was too high for the bend, but not high in absolute terms- no evidence of generally driving like a nutter, just of a mistake, albeit a bad one.Entered the corner way too fast and then seemed more concerned with making the turn than avoiding crashing into the only animate object in his/her path.
As bad as it looked, in the absence of any other evidence such as bald tyres, witnesses to earlier dangerous driving, texting, breaking the speed limit, previous driving convictions, leaving the scene of the accident etc. then I guess all the Police have is the evidence of someone making poor judgement on a fast, slippery bend.
I don't know if I could ever get behind the wheel again if I did that.
And of course other than 'Death by' offences, most traffic offences relate to the standard of driving which is in the driver's control, not the consequences, which have a large element of luck. To me that is how it should be, although not everyone agrees!
cb31 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
It never even got to court.
Sorry, what were the police thinking? Nothing for that but people getting large punishments for a bit of extra speed with no adverse consequences? MadnessEither way, it would be interesting to know why/how?.
He made no effort to avoid an accident, wasn't travelling that fast, didn't swerve or try and take the road on the right. Looked to me like he was using his phone as he certainly didn't seem to be looking at the road properly.
Absolutely shocking decision, at the very least the driving was careless just by the fact he hit someone on the wrong side of the road.
When you consider that exceeding the speed limit on a clear straight empty road in good conditions can lead to jail it makes a mockery of the justice system.
Absolutely shocking decision, at the very least the driving was careless just by the fact he hit someone on the wrong side of the road.
When you consider that exceeding the speed limit on a clear straight empty road in good conditions can lead to jail it makes a mockery of the justice system.
Retroman said:
Not sure about dangerous driving but deffo careless
The driver approached the corner too quickly and because it was wet, they understeered
It doesn't look like they went into the other lane on purpose but obviously going too fast for the road conditions caused the accident.
If it's judged as careless, as it appears to be, then the 'Driver Alert Scheme' (which I assume is another name for 'Driver Improvement Scheme') is an alternative outcome to prosecution. The driver approached the corner too quickly and because it was wet, they understeered
It doesn't look like they went into the other lane on purpose but obviously going too fast for the road conditions caused the accident.
Hol said:
cb31 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
It never even got to court.
Sorry, what were the police thinking? Nothing for that but people getting large punishments for a bit of extra speed with no adverse consequences? MadnessEither way, it would be interesting to know why/how?.
What makes you think that the CPS was involved?
jm doc said:
He made no effort to avoid an accident, wasn't travelling that fast, didn't swerve or try and take the road on the right. Looked to me like he was using his phone as he certainly didn't seem to be looking at the road properly.
^^^^ This. He certainly wasn't looking at the road.......This looks like the most up-to-date policy booklet on courses and when they can be offered: http://www.npcc.police.uk/Publication/NPCC%20FOI/O...
There's no point taking this sort of thing to court as a jury would never convict - look at the case of Michael Mason, he was run down and killed by a lady who had no mitigation other than she didn't know what happened, a jury decided that it wasn't even careless driving let alone dangerous. Which is insane.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff