Careless driving
Discussion
A work colleague has stuffed his Honda into a crash barrier on a wet slip road. No injuries, but a few yards of buggered armco and a badly damaged car.
The police attended and he's worried he'll get done for careless driving. On the one hand he did crash a perfectly good S2000, on the other he isn't the type to be careless, quite the contrary. I suspect he just didn't spot how slippery the road was.
Just how big a mistake do you have to make to be done for 'without due care and attention' and what penalty can he expect?
The police attended and he's worried he'll get done for careless driving. On the one hand he did crash a perfectly good S2000, on the other he isn't the type to be careless, quite the contrary. I suspect he just didn't spot how slippery the road was.
Just how big a mistake do you have to make to be done for 'without due care and attention' and what penalty can he expect?
The CPS would have to make out a sufficient case to prove the allegation. This may be difficult for them if there are no witnesses. Having an accident is in itself not DWDC.
A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Its unlikely that he get done for due care and attention, as normally thy don't bother unless there an injury. But what he will probably get is a fat bill for the street furniture that has been.
and believe it or not that shit is pretty expensive.
and believe it or not that shit is pretty expensive.
Edited by holborn on Wednesday 28th November 21:47
When I crashed my car a week after passing my test a police car turned up and asked if me and my passenger were ok, asked if we needed to use a phone or sit in the car and after he saw we were organised, drove on his way with wave.
I think unless iot is blatantly obvious that you did something ridiculous then I wouldn't worry at all.
Dave!
I think unless iot is blatantly obvious that you did something ridiculous then I wouldn't worry at all.
Dave!
rewc said:
The CPS would have to make out a sufficient case to prove the allegation. This may be difficult for them if there are no witnesses. Having an accident is in itself not DWDC.
A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Watts v Carter 1959A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. Driver did not give any explanation of the circumstances and was charged with driving without due care and attention. At court his solicitor argued that there was no case to answer. The justices dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed.
Appeal was allowed & the case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict, because the evidence disclosed a primae facie case of driving without due care and attention.
In conclusion, no other evidence apart from the facts was produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the driver, a due care offence had been proved.
vonhosen said:
rewc said:
The CPS would have to make out a sufficient case to prove the allegation. This may be difficult for them if there are no witnesses. Having an accident is in itself not DWDC.
A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Watts v Carter 1959A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. Driver did not give any explanation of the circumstances and was charged with driving without due care and attention. At court his solicitor argued that there was no case to answer. The justices dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed.
Appeal was allowed & the case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict, because the evidence disclosed a primae facie case of driving without due care and attention.
In conclusion, no other evidence apart from the facts was produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the driver, a due care offence had been proved.
i asked a completely ridiculess question about hovercrafts on the public road and within minutes you had an answer
You are human aren't you or are you as rumoured actually the vonitron 2000
(note clown icon to denote this isn't a serious question before some has a go at me for being nasty to our walking rule book)
vonhosen said:
Watts v Carter 1959
Car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. Driver did not give any explanation of the circumstances and was charged with driving without due care and attention. At court his solicitor argued that there was no case to answer. The justices dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed.
Appeal was allowed & the case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict, because the evidence disclosed a primae facie case of driving without due care and attention.
In conclusion, no other evidence apart from the facts was produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the driver, a due care offence had been proved.
The conclusion being that only infallibility is acceptable?Car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. Driver did not give any explanation of the circumstances and was charged with driving without due care and attention. At court his solicitor argued that there was no case to answer. The justices dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed.
Appeal was allowed & the case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict, because the evidence disclosed a primae facie case of driving without due care and attention.
In conclusion, no other evidence apart from the facts was produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the driver, a due care offence had been proved.
I have no doubt that the appellate judge never made a mistake in his life.
vonhosen said:
rewc said:
The CPS would have to make out a sufficient case to prove the allegation. This may be difficult for them if there are no witnesses. Having an accident is in itself not DWDC.
A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Watts v Carter 1959A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. Driver did not give any explanation of the circumstances and was charged with driving without due care and attention. At court his solicitor argued that there was no case to answer. The justices dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed.
Appeal was allowed & the case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict, because the evidence disclosed a primae facie case of driving without due care and attention.
In conclusion, no other evidence apart from the facts was produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the driver, a due care offence had been proved.
holborn said:
vonhosen said:
rewc said:
The CPS would have to make out a sufficient case to prove the allegation. This may be difficult for them if there are no witnesses. Having an accident is in itself not DWDC.
A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Watts v Carter 1959A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. Driver did not give any explanation of the circumstances and was charged with driving without due care and attention. At court his solicitor argued that there was no case to answer. The justices dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed.
Appeal was allowed & the case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict, because the evidence disclosed a primae facie case of driving without due care and attention.
In conclusion, no other evidence apart from the facts was produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the driver, a due care offence had been proved.
No defence offered & prosecution case sufficient to prove case.
vonhosen said:
holborn said:
vonhosen said:
rewc said:
The CPS would have to make out a sufficient case to prove the allegation. This may be difficult for them if there are no witnesses. Having an accident is in itself not DWDC.
A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Watts v Carter 1959A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. Driver did not give any explanation of the circumstances and was charged with driving without due care and attention. At court his solicitor argued that there was no case to answer. The justices dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed.
Appeal was allowed & the case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict, because the evidence disclosed a primae facie case of driving without due care and attention.
In conclusion, no other evidence apart from the facts was produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the driver, a due care offence had been proved.
No defence offered & prosecution case sufficient to prove case.
beyond a reasonable doubt
holborn said:
vonhosen said:
holborn said:
vonhosen said:
rewc said:
The CPS would have to make out a sufficient case to prove the allegation. This may be difficult for them if there are no witnesses. Having an accident is in itself not DWDC.
A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Watts v Carter 1959A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. Driver did not give any explanation of the circumstances and was charged with driving without due care and attention. At court his solicitor argued that there was no case to answer. The justices dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed.
Appeal was allowed & the case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict, because the evidence disclosed a primae facie case of driving without due care and attention.
In conclusion, no other evidence apart from the facts was produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the driver, a due care offence had been proved.
No defence offered & prosecution case sufficient to prove case.
beyond a reasonable doubt
vonhosen said:
rewc said:
The CPS would have to make out a sufficient case to prove the allegation. This may be difficult for them if there are no witnesses. Having an accident is in itself not DWDC.
A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Watts v Carter 1959A few years ago I witnessed the effects of a lorry running into the back of car which was stopped at red lights. The car was in the inside lane and I was in the outside lane so I did not see any events leading up to the accident just the effect.
The driver of the lorry was charged with DWDC and was found not guilty. There were no witnesses to the drivers actions prior to the accident - the magistrate decided it was an accident and accidents happen.
Car left the road and collided with a telegraph pole. Driver did not give any explanation of the circumstances and was charged with driving without due care and attention. At court his solicitor argued that there was no case to answer. The justices dismissed the case, but the prosecution appealed.
Appeal was allowed & the case remitted back to the justices with a direction to convict, because the evidence disclosed a primae facie case of driving without due care and attention.
In conclusion, no other evidence apart from the facts was produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the driver, a due care offence had been proved.
t couldn't come up with a "valid" reason, he deserved to be found guilty.Your friend has Honda S2000 and wet road, all the valid reason you need!
Dr Jekyll said:
he isn't the type to be careless, quite the contrary. I suspect he just didn't spot how slippery the road was.
Just playing devil's advocate, but isn't failing to spot how slippery it was (and adjusting driving to suit) careless? Did every other car crash? OK, I know the S2000 is RWD and a handful, that the driver should know that.A colleague of mine got done in similar circumstances to the incident Von mentions - my mate crashed into a road sign on a bend and (for some unfathomable reason - honesty?) reported it to the Police. Next thing he's being cautioned and then a summons arrived and he was convicted. Hard to argue that driving into a road sign isn't careless.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff