Careless Driving
Discussion
A hypothetical case for the BiB, and for anyone else.
Nice respectable South Yorkshire business lady on her way to work. Clean licence. Drives down a side road to a junction with a nice NSL B road. She wants to cross over to another side road on the other side. Moderate traffic.
The car in front of her pulls out to turn right (so, across the B road traffic into the far side lane of the B road). She follows and collects a motorbike in her door. Biker was comfortably under the speed limit and riding appropriately.
Conditions were good, visibility was good, perhaps 150 yards in that direction of the oncoming bike before the road turn obscured vision.
Several months later, biker dies.
Should she be charged? If so, what with, and what should her sentence be.
Give reasons.
Nice respectable South Yorkshire business lady on her way to work. Clean licence. Drives down a side road to a junction with a nice NSL B road. She wants to cross over to another side road on the other side. Moderate traffic.
The car in front of her pulls out to turn right (so, across the B road traffic into the far side lane of the B road). She follows and collects a motorbike in her door. Biker was comfortably under the speed limit and riding appropriately.
Conditions were good, visibility was good, perhaps 150 yards in that direction of the oncoming bike before the road turn obscured vision.
Several months later, biker dies.
Should she be charged? If so, what with, and what should her sentence be.
Give reasons.
Careless driving, I would imagine. A very similar case happened near Shap in Cumbria and to the best of my knowledge the driver got a Carless conviction and 6 points.
As far as I'm aware the CPS charging guidelines specifically cite emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle as an example of careless driving.
For Death by Dangerous I'd expect you'd need evidence of additional bad driving to realistically expect a conviction.
As always, it's the culpability of the defendent which is on trial, not the effect of the actions. A careless driving charge could not be later turned into a death by dangerous.
I imagine if it were to happen later she would be able to be charged with the new offence of Death by Careless?
As far as I'm aware the CPS charging guidelines specifically cite emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle as an example of careless driving.
For Death by Dangerous I'd expect you'd need evidence of additional bad driving to realistically expect a conviction.
As always, it's the culpability of the defendent which is on trial, not the effect of the actions. A careless driving charge could not be later turned into a death by dangerous.
I imagine if it were to happen later she would be able to be charged with the new offence of Death by Careless?
careless driving if the court believe it was an accident.
dangerous if the court things she saw the bike & didnt care.
as a biker myself i've still got to say that the fact the biker died months later isnt that important too it, if she'd pulled out infront of a truck & died herself she'd still be guilty of the same offence.
punishing people for the part of the curcumstances which had nothing to do with them is wrong. bikers accept the extra risks when they get on a bike so cant punish her for the fact the biker got hurt more than a car driver would.
dangerous if the court things she saw the bike & didnt care.
as a biker myself i've still got to say that the fact the biker died months later isnt that important too it, if she'd pulled out infront of a truck & died herself she'd still be guilty of the same offence.
punishing people for the part of the curcumstances which had nothing to do with them is wrong. bikers accept the extra risks when they get on a bike so cant punish her for the fact the biker got hurt more than a car driver would.
Hooli said:
careless driving if the court believe it was an accident.
dangerous if the court things she saw the bike & didnt care.
as a biker myself i've still got to say that the fact the biker died months later isnt that important too it, if she'd pulled out infront of a truck & died herself she'd still be guilty of the same offence.
punishing people for the part of the curcumstances which had nothing to do with them is wrong. bikers accept the extra risks when they get on a bike so cant punish her for the fact the biker got hurt more than a car driver would.
Note that historically (> 3 years ago, from memory), the consequences of CD/DD were deemed to be inadmissable in making a decision on seriousness. The fact that she pulled out without looking properly would've been taken into account, but whether the biker was killed or unhurt was not material.dangerous if the court things she saw the bike & didnt care.
as a biker myself i've still got to say that the fact the biker died months later isnt that important too it, if she'd pulled out infront of a truck & died herself she'd still be guilty of the same offence.
punishing people for the part of the curcumstances which had nothing to do with them is wrong. bikers accept the extra risks when they get on a bike so cant punish her for the fact the biker got hurt more than a car driver would.
Since a case (can anyone quote which) a few years back, the bench now can (and should) take the consequences into consideration, albeit with less weight than the actual degree of carelessness.
Good stuff so far - any other opinions? Causing death by DD? 6 points too harsh? Too lenient? How big a fine?
Dr Jekyll said:
Isn't it true that a court dealing with a dangerous charge can convict of careless if the criteria for dangerous are not met?
Quite so..If a defendant is found not guilty of a s.2 RTA offence (dangerous), they can be found guilty of the lesser s.3 offence (careless & inconsiderate) if the circumstances are appropriate..
Other 'alternative verdicts' include:
causing death by dangerous driving -> dangerous driving
causing death by careless when under the influence of drink or drugs -> careless, driving whilst unfit through drugs, driving with excess alcohol, failing to provide a specimen, etc
dangerous cycling -> careless & inconsiderate cycling
Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 12th February 19:05
At the moment, a charge of death by careless driving requires an element of breath/alcohol level being above the prescribed limit at the time of the incident that caused the death. Without that, the circumstances as posted would more than likely attract a summons for careless driving alone. Magistrates cannot sentence on the severity of injury to others involved. Only on the degree of carelessness that was attributable to the cause of the collision.
From the facts given Death by Dangerous would seem very hard. Proving the death in this instance may not be entirely straightforward before you even look at the dangerous element.
As has been said, either way, if the original driving before the death was only deemed as careless, the subsequent death has no impact on that charge. If the driving had been considered as Dangerous, then it would be reasonable to try for Death by Dangerous.
As has been said, either way, if the original driving before the death was only deemed as careless, the subsequent death has no impact on that charge. If the driving had been considered as Dangerous, then it would be reasonable to try for Death by Dangerous.
RtdRacer said:
Hooli said:
careless driving if the court believe it was an accident.
dangerous if the court things she saw the bike & didnt care.
as a biker myself i've still got to say that the fact the biker died months later isnt that important too it, if she'd pulled out infront of a truck & died herself she'd still be guilty of the same offence.
punishing people for the part of the curcumstances which had nothing to do with them is wrong. bikers accept the extra risks when they get on a bike so cant punish her for the fact the biker got hurt more than a car driver would.
Note that historically (> 3 years ago, from memory), the consequences of CD/DD were deemed to be inadmissable in making a decision on seriousness. The fact that she pulled out without looking properly would've been taken into account, but whether the biker was killed or unhurt was not material.dangerous if the court things she saw the bike & didnt care.
as a biker myself i've still got to say that the fact the biker died months later isnt that important too it, if she'd pulled out infront of a truck & died herself she'd still be guilty of the same offence.
punishing people for the part of the curcumstances which had nothing to do with them is wrong. bikers accept the extra risks when they get on a bike so cant punish her for the fact the biker got hurt more than a car driver would.
Since a case (can anyone quote which) a few years back, the bench now can (and should) take the consequences into consideration, albeit with less weight than the actual degree of carelessness.
Good stuff so far - any other opinions? Causing death by DD? 6 points too harsh? Too lenient? How big a fine?
Richard C said:
Ever since the Gary Hart case courts seem to have been directed to punish in proportion to the consequences rather than the culpability. Political reasons I assume.
And you are only partially right. The guidelines indicate that the degree of carelessness is still our main criteria for the 'seriousness', but we can also take the consequences into account now, albeit with a lesser weighting.
Quite different from your statement above in reality...
Looking at the facts and having worked for 6 years with road traffic as a designated caseworker for CPS I'd say it's careless driving. The charging standard is a momentary lapse in concentration and it is highly unlikely that intent for anothing else can be proved. For dangerous driving the Crown would need to prove that the driving fell far below the standard expected of a reasonable and competent driver. No matter how unpleasant the result of the accident the court will sentence on the momentary lapse of concentration that caused it. For sentencing purposes, even when a death was involved the penalty in our area- and they do vary- would be 6 pp's and £120 fine on a guilty plea.
RtdRacer said:
Richard C said:
Ever since the Gary Hart case courts seem to have been directed to punish in proportion to the consequences rather than the culpability. Political reasons I assume.
And you are only partially right. The guidelines indicate that the degree of carelessness is still our main criteria for the 'seriousness', but we can also take the consequences into account now, albeit with a lesser weighting.
Quite different from your statement above in reality...
Dr Jekyll said:
Isn't it true that a court dealing with a dangerous charge can convict of careless if the criteria for dangerous are not met? Come to think of it I don't know why anyone is charged with careless instead of dangerous.
When I worked in the courts in Scotland, it was common for the Fiscal to libel a S3 as an alternative to a S2.In death cases a S3 was often an alternative to a S1. But in one of the most perverse jury verdicts I have ever seen, a jury acquitted an accused of both S1 and S3. They thought he was a nice local boy who couldn't possibly have left his girlfriend burn to death in his wrecked car
His defence - which they believed - was that she was driving. Neither were wearing seatbelts. He got thrown free, her remains were found on the drivers side.I had never seen my easy going old Sheriff so angry. He - literally - stormed out of court in a towering rage
However, Darwin came into play. A few months later, the "nice local boy" crashed his car only a few miles away. He was alone and was trapped under the car. When a passing motorist noticed the wrecked car several hours later he was, as we say in Glasgow, "Pan Bread".
A result? Or divine retribution?
Edited by matchmaker on Friday 22 February 20:54
Andrea Charity said:
Looking at the facts and having worked for 6 years with road traffic as a designated caseworker for CPS I'd say it's careless driving. The charging standard is a momentary lapse in concentration and it is highly unlikely that intent for anothing else can be proved. For dangerous driving the Crown would need to prove that the driving fell far below the standard expected of a reasonable and competent driver. No matter how unpleasant the result of the accident the court will sentence on the momentary lapse of concentration that caused it. For sentencing purposes, even when a death was involved the penalty in our area- and they do vary- would be 6 pp's and £120 fine on a guilty plea.
THe fine will be income related - 1 weeks' net income, according to guidelines. And these days, as per my post above, you can and should take the consequences into consideration, albeit with a lesser weight.RtdRacer said:
Richard C said:
Ever since the Gary Hart case courts seem to have been directed to punish in proportion to the consequences rather than the culpability. Political reasons I assume.
And you are only partially right. The guidelines indicate that the degree of carelessness is still our main criteria for the 'seriousness', but we can also take the consequences into account now, albeit with a lesser weighting.
Quite different from your statement above in reality...
RtdRacer said:
Andrea Charity said:
Looking at the facts and having worked for 6 years with road traffic as a designated caseworker for CPS I'd say it's careless driving. The charging standard is a momentary lapse in concentration and it is highly unlikely that intent for anothing else can be proved. For dangerous driving the Crown would need to prove that the driving fell far below the standard expected of a reasonable and competent driver. No matter how unpleasant the result of the accident the court will sentence on the momentary lapse of concentration that caused it. For sentencing purposes, even when a death was involved the penalty in our area- and they do vary- would be 6 pp's and £120 fine on a guilty plea.
THe fine will be income related - 1 weeks' net income, according to guidelines. And these days, as per my post above, you can and should take the consequences into consideration, albeit with a lesser weight.Richard C said:
In my opinion, magistrates who feel they should take the consequences into consideration are no longer impartial arbiters of justice but are part of a politicised system that is driven by the populist hysteria one can read in the Sun and lesser rags
Partially correct. We are part of a politicised system - how do you think statutes end up on the books? It's called democracy. We elect 'em - they make laws...But we are impartial. We use the Law of the Land, and the various guidelines defined by organisations like the SGC - a very august body IMO - and we apply it.
My guidelines say I should take the consequences into consideration, therefore I do. Impartially. And those guidelines are drawn up by a lot of very, very clever people. Cleverer and more experienced in the whole field of justice and the law, dare I say, than you or I.
s2art said:
Nonsense. Its just pandering to the hard of thinking (the majority). There is no logical reason why the same action should suffer different penalties just because of chance circumstances.
If you stabbed someone and they lived then you would be up on various charges.Non of which would be murder.
Yet if the victim died, you would be charged with murder.
To go by your logic, the offense should be called "Stabbing"?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff