Driver fined over puddle splash
Discussion
There are 2 distinct legs to Sect 3 RTA 88.
One is driving without due care and attention.
The second is driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. This is the offence selected that has resulted in this comment. The classic case scenario even quoted way back as far as 1957 was splashing a pedestrian. In the case Pawley v Wharldall [1965] confirmed it was an offence.
Is it extremely naff if on spotting a large pool of water at the side of the road and a Pedestrian walking on the pavement alongside one charges through heedlessly or acceptable as some have stated?
dvd
One is driving without due care and attention.
The second is driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. This is the offence selected that has resulted in this comment. The classic case scenario even quoted way back as far as 1957 was splashing a pedestrian. In the case Pawley v Wharldall [1965] confirmed it was an offence.
Is it extremely naff if on spotting a large pool of water at the side of the road and a Pedestrian walking on the pavement alongside one charges through heedlessly or acceptable as some have stated?
dvd
lambo cop said:
A college of mine reported someone a few years back for this. He was in a video equipped car when the car in front made an obvious swerve to the left to go through a puddle and splash some pedestrians. The video evidence was there and so the guy was reported.
I would have no problems what so ever with reporting someone for this offence. However there have got to be some points to note such as the driver deviated from his intended route with clear intention of causing "Distress" to others for a silly prank.
If the driver clearly swerved, then it would be Dangerous Driving, surely?
Dwight VanDriver said:
There are 2 distinct legs to Sect 3 RTA 88.
One is driving without due care and attention.
The second is driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. This is the offence selected that has resulted in this comment. The classic case scenario even quoted way back as far as 1957 was splashing a pedestrian. In the case Pawley v Wharldall [1965] confirmed it was an offence.
Is it extremely naff if on spotting a large pool of water at the side of the road and a Pedestrian walking on the pavement alongside one charges through heedlessly or acceptable as some have stated?
dvd
It's so wrong, but.....
I love heading towards a big puddle if I see a fat person near one... The look of horror on their face as they realise they might actually have to run makes it worth the fine
lambo cop said:
Before (as per the reply below) we all rush out and take pics of Bib going through puddles, lets establish as per in all law the "mens rea" of this incident. If you, as I have posted swerve to go into a puddle with "intent" then you should be reported. However if you are just driving and you splash someone as an accident then that is a different matter!
Again if it was unintentional why plead guilty ?
If the law was that simple then we wouldn't need lawyers.Indifference to the consequences of ones act (also known as recklessness) equates to intention.
A fresh perspective:
You're wondering down the road, some kid runs up to you with a grin, whips out a super soaker from behind his back and sprays you till you're dripping. You're going to be pissed, but you're not going to expect him to go to jail, or for the police to get involved at all. Similarly water baloons or anything else that involves a prank and water. So how is this situation at all different?
I absolutely detest people that drive through puddles - they're clearly either doing it on purpose or they're such bad drivers they don't notice the fact that they're covering all the pedestrians with water. But police evidence and a court case is absurd - they should be dragged out of their car and shoved into the puddle!
We're going to need a new phrase soon cos nanny state doesn't even begin to cover it!
You're wondering down the road, some kid runs up to you with a grin, whips out a super soaker from behind his back and sprays you till you're dripping. You're going to be pissed, but you're not going to expect him to go to jail, or for the police to get involved at all. Similarly water baloons or anything else that involves a prank and water. So how is this situation at all different?
I absolutely detest people that drive through puddles - they're clearly either doing it on purpose or they're such bad drivers they don't notice the fact that they're covering all the pedestrians with water. But police evidence and a court case is absurd - they should be dragged out of their car and shoved into the puddle!
We're going to need a new phrase soon cos nanny state doesn't even begin to cover it!
lambo cop said:
Again if it was unintentional why plead guilty ?
For the same reason people plead guilty to speeding offences even when they're pretty sure they weren't speeding: they will made an example of. Having the temerity to plead not guilty to an offence is often results in sentencing that borders on the vindictive.
Mr Whippy said:
This fecking country is so fooked up!
We need a good famine/disease/war to get people's lives into perspective I think!
Dave
Harsh, but very true!
I guess we now have so many civil servants with nothing better to do, so the nanny state expands.
The policeman was probably so eager to pull the driver of this awfull crime, he sped up and soaked the workmans mates too.
What gets me are the idiots who stand at the kerbside next to a puddle!
This is not the first time someone has been fined for the "offence" of soaking someone by driving through a puddle ... interestingly, I was warned that this was an offence when taking my first UK driving lesson in the rain (in the year nineteen hundred and frozen-to-death).
I look forward to the day when I see a soakee take the number of a soaker when teh soakee has been standing by the puddle ... then siding with the driver in thatthe soakee brought the soaking upon themselves. Of course, that doesn't apply to a workperson who has no choice about where to stand.
Streaky
This is not the first time someone has been fined for the "offence" of soaking someone by driving through a puddle ... interestingly, I was warned that this was an offence when taking my first UK driving lesson in the rain (in the year nineteen hundred and frozen-to-death).
I look forward to the day when I see a soakee take the number of a soaker when teh soakee has been standing by the puddle ... then siding with the driver in thatthe soakee brought the soaking upon themselves. Of course, that doesn't apply to a workperson who has no choice about where to stand.
Streaky
markh508 said:
Would the law expect you to slow down or stop for the pedestrian to pass or drive around the puddle?
The law doesn't come into it. Only a moron would do otherwise.
I don't have any problems with this case. A moron soaked a workman, and the moron was even moronic enough to do it right in front of a police car. The morons moricness then prevented him from dealing with the situation properly, and he drove off.
If this case has cost the tax-payer then why isn't the moron paying his way?
lambo cop said:
I'm still not sure this isn't a wind-up.
Okay, its a wind-up but makes a change from debating scameras and truck drivers...
Well there's one lorry driver here who manages to get from a-b without soaking anyone.
The day I see a big puddle with people near it, and don't figure it out for myself will be the day I hang my driving gloves up.
And the day i soak someone and don't immediately stop to aplogise or offer help won't ever happen.
lambo cop said:
BBC said:
Mr Evans pleaded guilty to driving without due consideration for road users at Yeovil Magistrates' Court.
Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: "I think we've all seen and we all know motorists who do this kind of thing on purpose and I think if someone does do it on purpose they should be prosecuted.
"But in this case he had slowed down and was only doing 15mph. He hadn't realised how deep the puddle was. It was unintentional."
If it was unintentional then why plead guilty ?
Before (as per the reply below) we all rush out and take pics of Bib going through puddles, lets establish as per in all law the "mens rea" of this incident. If you, as I have posted swerve to go into a puddle with "intent" then you should be reported. However if you are just driving and you splash someone as an accident then that is a different matter!
Again if it was unintentional why plead guilty ?
Because mein Lieber, the guy said he felt intimidated by the police car who followed him after spotting the incident und apparently became irritable when the driver asked if driving through a puddle byu accident was an offence. - und because of all this uind long drawn out business of court, hiring lawyer - it may hace seemed cheaper option to plead guilty in ignorance that this would cost fine of £150 und three penalty points!
Und perhapsI should have taken the muppet in a police car to court last year when he splattered me und perhaps I should alao take a supermarket to court because I gor my little tootsies und trouser bottomes wet because of nasty und deepest puddle in their car park cuased by fact thehy could not be bothered to fit adequate drainage!
fq400 said:
A fresh perspective:
You're wondering down the road, some kid runs up to you with a grin, whips out a super soaker from behind his back and sprays you till you're dripping. You're going to be pissed, but you're not going to expect him to go to jail, or for the police to get involved at all. Similarly water baloons or anything else that involves a prank and water. So how is this situation at all different?
I am sure Dorset Police proscuted a 10 year old for a water pistol incident once....
It was about the time someone ate the officers cheese sandwich when participating in police line-up und he was "starving" .... allegedly . Und even though he bought a replacement of better crusty French bread und cheese quality - it seemed the offcer preferred his processed between sliced cardboard .. 
fq400 said:
I absolutely detest people that drive through puddles - they're clearly either doing it on purpose or they're such bad drivers they don't notice the fact that they're covering all the pedestrians with water. But police evidence and a court case is absurd - they should be dragged out of their car and shoved into the puddle!
We're going to need a new phrase soon cos nanny state doesn't even begin to cover it!
Depends on the road layout. Ist possible on narrow road to be unable to avoid driving through und if deep enough it can soak a person at low speed. It has happened to me in past.... und ruined my nicest outfit at time. I looked like a very wild wet cat at time
Und was just unlucky to be in vicinity of puddle just as car approached it...
>> Edited by WildCat on Tuesday 1st November 00:41
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff