Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 06:51

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 19:23 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
I thought I would post this here, and ask your opinion on what penalty you think might result!!! It might well be one of my acquaintances from church....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7067916.stm
Quote:
Pensioner drives wrong way up M6
An 82-year-old woman was stopped by police after she drove for four miles the wrong way along an unlit section of the M6 on Sunday night.

Police said "numerous" drivers spun out of control and one car crashed swerving to avoid the pensioner's Peugeot in the fast lane near Shap in Cumbria.

Patrol cars halted the woman, from Windermere, near Shap Beck. No-one was seriously injured in the incident.

A spokesman said she could face a charge of dangerous driving.

Sgt Paul Brown, of Cumbria Police, said the pensioner was taken to Penrith Police Station for questioning following the incident.

Remote area

He said: "She's quite confused about what happened.

"We've established that she was trying to travel between Carlisle and Windermere and has somehow managed to make a wrong turn and has ended up coming back up the motorway."

A police spokesman added that it was a "miracle" a serious collision had not occurred.

He said: "We believe she was going the wrong way for up to four miles and she was travelling between 60 and 70 mph in the southbound fast lane.

"The motorway at this point is remote without street lighting and drivers travelling southbound would have only been aware of the approaching vehicle as it was almost upon them."

The driver of a Daewoo car was treated for whiplash at the scene after crashing into the central reservation to evade a head-on smash with the Peugeot.

The Crown Prosecution Service will now decide if she should be charged.

Given this is Callaghan Country, what charges is she likely to face?

Clearly if she did not realise she was on a motorway, then 60 to 70 on an unlit three lane road qualifies this for SPEEDING!

There is something strange here, as because of the separation of the carriageways at this point of the M6, she would not necessarily realise what she had done when she turned onto the motorway - but the road OFF the M6 from Carlisle is not a roundabout, and the A6 is someway from the M6 here - how did she get back onthe way she should have come from?

I suspect she came off the motorway - crossed over to the southbound sliproad.
Realised what she had done, U-turned, but then gone straight over again.

In her defence, it was an appalling night of heavy driving rain, and the junction at Shap is not lit, and at the brow of the off ramp, you cannot see where the junction is until you are right on it.
Because of this, I would not favour the dangerous driving charge unless something in the incidents which followed as she drove the wrong way gave cause.

Careless driving - yes.

Should she keep her license? Hmm. Not sure - any 82 year old prepared to do 60 - 70 these days, has obviously dispensed with the Werthers Original!
How about prosecuting some of the cyclists around Windermere without lights?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 19:47 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
If it's a motorway then 'speeding' isn't relevant unless she was doing more than 70.

Out of interest, is there anything on the slip road to indicate that it's the wrong way and you might not want to go that way?

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 21:37 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
One would hope the wrong entrance had two lit no entry signs as prescribed in tsrgd. Of course down in Hampshire it is only regarded "as guidance"

As for the driver, she might get done for dangerous driving. If her lawyer got medical reports and she decided to give up driving they might just fine her. If she vows to continue driving they might hit her hard and insist she takes an extended test.
(when I say hit her hard, I don't mean with a stick or a slipper. Before anyone escalates this to the ss (social services))

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 22:42 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
Imagine if one of Callaghan's Talivans had been operating when the woman came past. Quiet conditions at night would mean that many of the other drivers were probably travelling at at least 79mph.

So, Callaghan would have charged pretty much everyone except the woman. Utterly ludicrous, no? Surely even he must have realised by now that his cameras are worse than useless. However I'm sure such a realisation wouldn't diminish his enthusiasm one iota.

Of course, as we know from recent events, it's possible Callaghan would have charged the woman with speeding as well, even though she wasn't. The whole "safety camera" scheme is so unbelievably f**ked up, it would be risible if we weren't having to endure it. Not much longer though with any luck.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 02:29 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Ziltro wrote:
If it's a motorway then 'speeding' isn't relevant unless she was doing more than 70.

Out of interest, is there anything on the slip road to indicate that it's the wrong way and you might not want to go that way?

My thinking was that if she didn't know it was a motorway even when she met oncoming vehicles, why was she doing 70? Normally driving the wrong way up lane 3, you would see the other carriageway over the crash barrier - but not here - the carriageways are nearly 1/4 mile apart, separated by fields of sheep!

Also she only travelled four miles before being stopped by police - after they had received calls from drivers on mobiles. Thats about 4 minutes at 60 - 70 mph.
That was a VERY quick response by police, and probably exceeds all expected performance targets!! :wink:
Something does not seem right!

I'm not sure about the signs on the exit ramp - I've never had to even drive past the exit ramp end.
This location really is remote - it's at the summit of a LONG hill!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:19 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I am not exactly sure it is the right spot but she might have tried turning

here..

or here

or evenhere

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.284s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]