Should this lady go to court?
Discussion
Pal of mine was driving his Terrano SUV along an A road last week. He indicated left and slowed to turn into a drive on his left.
Next thing he hears is a huge bang as a lady drove her car, “sperlatt” into the back of his vehicle, hitting it with such force that it snapped the axle of the Terrano and resulted in two write-offs.
Luckily, her airbag deployed and she was left with a cut face. He has a mild whiplash injury.
Playing Devils Advocate here, I am wondering what benefit to society would flow from putting this lady in court and charging her with dangerous driving, or lack of due care or whatever.
She was a nurse who had just finished her shift in the local (large and very busy) hospital.
She says she can’t remember the accident or what caused it; did she nod off in micro-sleep, was she distracted by something in the road; was she thinking of a serious issue from the hospital she had just left.
Seems to me that all she has done is make a human error with what could have been serious or even fatal results but nevertheless, a mistake of some sort.
What do PH’ers think should happen to her and why?
Next thing he hears is a huge bang as a lady drove her car, “sperlatt” into the back of his vehicle, hitting it with such force that it snapped the axle of the Terrano and resulted in two write-offs.
Luckily, her airbag deployed and she was left with a cut face. He has a mild whiplash injury.
Playing Devils Advocate here, I am wondering what benefit to society would flow from putting this lady in court and charging her with dangerous driving, or lack of due care or whatever.
She was a nurse who had just finished her shift in the local (large and very busy) hospital.
She says she can’t remember the accident or what caused it; did she nod off in micro-sleep, was she distracted by something in the road; was she thinking of a serious issue from the hospital she had just left.
Seems to me that all she has done is make a human error with what could have been serious or even fatal results but nevertheless, a mistake of some sort.
What do PH’ers think should happen to her and why?
She shoule be charged with driving without due care or attention (or whatever it's called these days)
You wouldn't be saying that if it was a pilot of a 747 who just made a mistake and crashed a plane full of people on landing...
If she felt unfit to drive (i.e. too tired), she shouldn't have driven.
IMO
You wouldn't be saying that if it was a pilot of a 747 who just made a mistake and crashed a plane full of people on landing...
If she felt unfit to drive (i.e. too tired), she shouldn't have driven.
IMO
Guidelines in our Force would be that she is offered chance to take "Driver Improvement Scheme" if she has no previous motoring convictions, if not, she is reported for summons for driving without due care and attention.
Should she "get off" scot free because it was an "accident"? My own view is no, as it's one that was entirely avoidable. If she's that tired that she can't drive safely, she shouldn't be on the road.
starts ducking in readiness for collective flaming coming my way...
Should she "get off" scot free because it was an "accident"? My own view is no, as it's one that was entirely avoidable. If she's that tired that she can't drive safely, she shouldn't be on the road.
starts ducking in readiness for collective flaming coming my way...
Interesting topic, it is precisely for this reason that folks who are perceived as 'killers' get off lightly, much to the dismay of the tabloids. On this occassion the result is two written off vehicles, but had a pedestrian gotten killed then what should happen? either way the human error would have been the same, but with different outcomes.
Same error/crime, so same punishment? regardless of a death or not?
Same error/crime, so same punishment? regardless of a death or not?
dibble said:
starts ducking in readiness for collective flaming coming my way
not from here mate - 100% agree.
Spoke to a fellow engineer who said he has had 7 seperate accidents where he has gone into the back of people
Suffice to say I walked off before I had a few words....
Edited because dibble made my words all tiny
>> Edited by gh0st on Thursday 1st July 15:59
Tafia said:
Terrano SUV
Has he been seen at out patients in the Pyhcriatrick (can't spell don't care) hospital yet.
Listen we all make mistakes, and it's a sad fact that sometimes our attention lapses. What's the point in getting 3 points on her licence. She ain't gonna do it again in a hurry is she.
So she fell asleep? There but for the grace of GOD go half the population.
She was taxed, insured and the insurance companies will sort the damage and decide liability, unless she decides to lie, in which case the county court will decide.
SHit Happens
In my opinion, sometimes the bigger picture should be looked. We should probably rule out malicious intent as it looks doubtful that she *meant* to smack into the back of the other car. Therefore it was an accident. Wholly unavoidable, but for the fact it happened and you cannot change it. Ultimately, however, that is what insurance companies and indeed BiB are there for.
Why should she go to court? You are only assuming she was too tired, however, as her job is a very important one to the community, should she be punished by loss of licence? Some people plead they should keep their licence for their jobs; I would prefer a nurse kept hers than a salesman. Not because it allows her family to keep eating by her income, but the fact that ultimately the service she provides to the community is likely greater than the sum of the parts. Unlike a salesman (IMO and no offence to vast number of salespersons on PH)
My argument here would be different if she had malicious intent. This was a pure accident and thus should be treated as that.
Why should she go to court? You are only assuming she was too tired, however, as her job is a very important one to the community, should she be punished by loss of licence? Some people plead they should keep their licence for their jobs; I would prefer a nurse kept hers than a salesman. Not because it allows her family to keep eating by her income, but the fact that ultimately the service she provides to the community is likely greater than the sum of the parts. Unlike a salesman (IMO and no offence to vast number of salespersons on PH)
My argument here would be different if she had malicious intent. This was a pure accident and thus should be treated as that.
Dibble said:
Guidelines in our Force would be that she is offered chance to take "Driver Improvement Scheme" if she has no previous motoring convictions, if not, she is reported for summons for driving without due care and attention.
How would this scheme help? What does it consist of? Does it teach you how to spot danger signs of fatigue and illness within yourself?
Or is it focused on speed?
In any case - as nurse she should have been aware of her state of mind before driving off.
Dibble said:
Should she "get off" scot free because it was an "accident"? My own view is no, as it's one that was entirely avoidable. If she's that tired that she can't drive safely, she shouldn't be on the road.
starts ducking in readiness for collective flaming coming my way...
Not at all Liebchen!
She should be prosecuted for this - on basis that if it had not been Tafia's mate's car - it could have been a person.
She should have been aware of her ability and sense of fatigue before setting off, and we should view way we feel before we set off. If we feel unfit - then we should really decide if we are fit enough to operate machinery - and if answer is no - take taxi! It is same as being drunk in charge!
Hard hearted - NO!
Been on receiving end of someone unfit to drive - and you could say it is personal bias on my part --- but I speak from experience of worse outcome than a pranged car!
WildCat said:
Guidelines in our Force would be that she is offered chance to take "Driver Improvement Scheme" if she has no previous motoring convictions, if not, she is reported for summons for driving without due care and attention.
How would this scheme help? What does it consist of? Does it teach you how to spot danger signs of fatigue and illness within yourself?
Or is it focused on speed?
Driver Improvement is diferent to the speed awareness course; it tries to identify the particular causes of participants' collisions, and creates strategies for the drivers to recognise and overcome them in future. The other participants learn from your errors, and vice versa. There is also a driving component, to make sure particpants don't have any obvious bad habits. If they do, these are also addressed by feedback and training on the day.
The easiest example is a lady I dealt with who went through a red light and caused a collision. She ran the light because she couldn't see it, due to the sun being low in the sky and blinding her. The course identified to her that if she couldn't see any traffic signal, for whatever reason, she should always assume it's red, and treat it appropriately.
Successful completion of the course avoids a prosecution, but you only get one go at it.
WildCat said:
In any case - as nurse she should have been aware of her state of mind before driving off.
Agreed.
WildCat said:
She should be prosecuted for this - on basis that if it had not been Tafia's mate's car - it could have been a person.
I think we're getting onto thin ice here - rather than the "what if" scenario, she should be dealt with according to the prevailing circumstances at the time of the collision.
WildCat said:
She should have been aware of her ability and sense of fatigue before setting off, and we should view way we feel before we set off. If we feel unfit - then we should really decide if we are fit enough to operate machinery - and if answer is no - take taxi! It is same as being drunk in charge!
Agreed again.
rich-uk said:
Would you be saying the same if she killed a young family waiting at a bus stop??
She didn't though - so no comment. You can't say she should go to court based on what might have happened. Thats like that tom cruise film where they convicted people before they carried out the crime - funny situation to get into. You still don't know if there were circumstances leading to the 'incident' - tiredness or whatever. People have been killed at bus stops solely by accident with no other incriminating factors. I am not saying its acceptable to those it affects but it happens.
I would prefer people got punishment fitting of their crime.
Someone driving over a narrow bridge in bath swerved to avoid two drunk students who fell into the road whilst mucking about. In the process the driver crashed into a young couple knocking them into the river below and they drowned. I don't think the driver of that car should go to court and lose his licence either - although i think he might have. The students probably didn't even get a second glance by the law, yet it was them that ultimately caused the accident.
Dibble said:
Dibble said:
Guidelines in our Force would be that she is offered chance to take "Driver Improvement Scheme" if she has no previous motoring convictions, if not, she is reported for summons for driving without due care and attention.
How would this scheme help? What does it consist of? Does it teach you how to spot danger signs of fatigue and illness within yourself?
Or is it focused on speed?
Driver Improvement is diferent to the speed awareness course; it tries to identify the particular causes of participants' collisions, and creates strategies for the drivers to recognise and overcome them in future. The other participants learn from your errors, and vice versa. There is also a driving component, to make sure particpants don't have any obvious bad habits. If they do, these are also addressed by feedback and training on the day.
The easiest example is a lady I dealt with who went through a red light and caused a collision. She ran the light because she couldn't see it, due to the sun being low in the sky and blinding her. The course identified to her that if she couldn't see any traffic signal, for whatever reason, she should always assume it's red, and treat it appropriately.
Successful completion of the course avoids a prosecution, but you only get one go at it.
This sounds a good initiative! In fact - very "Paul Smith"
(from post on site to my cousin on "Think! Adverts!" (The teaching one!) What is the feedback? How do you keep tabs to ensure they got the message? Are they on a data base and if they do it again - you chuck book at them?
Who teaches this - BiBs or ADis? Or both?
Is it nationwide? If not - why not? And is it an initiative that could go national?
What is the fee]
Does Brainstorm have such a scheme?
Hmms! Something to congratulate Lancs Police on!
(see = don't criticise all the time!
Dibble said:
She should be prosecuted for this - on basis that if it had not been Tafia's mate's car - it could have been a person.
I think we're getting onto thin ice here - rather than the "what if" scenario, she should be dealt with according to the prevailing circumstances at the time of the collision.
True - probably my own subjective bias got in way!
If you're not in a fit state to drive, and you drive anyway, then you're taking a big risk. Worse still, you're putting other people at risk. The former is stupid but that's your own business. The latter is not on ... no excuses ... and it is reasonable to investigate if she did this, and, if she did, to hold her to account.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff