Safe Speed Forums

It is always controversial to speak out against these sorts of emotive campaigns as it opens one to criticism for being uncaring, but I believe the change in the law you seek is a dangerous kneejerk reaction based on simplistic thinking - precisely the sort of motivation behind the speed camera campaign - and will ultimately prove totally counter-productive.

To mandatorily increase the penalties for such incidents will just increase the temptation to 'hit-and-run' as there is more to gain from trying to evade the penalty, especially when a case like yours proves that it is possible to 'disappear' after the incident.

Surely there is a case here for more police and better detection of such criminals rather than the ineffective deterrant of tougher sentencing IF you get caught.

I hear what you are saying r11co. However I am saying tougher sentences for all where it is warranted, such as when these drivers hit and run. I am not saying speed cameras are the detterent that would work as that is not the case and I am fully aware of that. I do believe that the fact of the automatic ban for drink driving has worked though as people are now better educated to the fact that if they drink drive they will lose their license and it makes them think twice before taking their car out if they intend to drink. Therefore being tougher there has worked and so if the education is in place that if you commit an offence behind the wheel and then run away tougher sentencing will be imposed than if you take the consequences of your actions people are less likely to run in the first place. At the moment the law is an ass. It is so wrong that you can go out and damage someones property and get a 3 year prison sentence whereby if you go and kill someone you will only get charged with damaging the property and not the loss of life you have caused. When are the victims of these crimes going to get justice.

[quote="mahali" ]I hear what you are saying r11co. However I am saying tougher sentences for all where it is warranted, such as when these drivers hit and run. I am not saying speed cameras are the detterent that would work as that is not the case and I am fully aware of that.[/quote]

Sorry. My point was not that speed cameras were being offered as a solution. What I was trying to say is that often the demands for ever tougher sentences come from a simplistic belief that tougher sentencing automatically equals bigger deterrance and therefor has to work, like the way some people purport speed cameras 'automatically' have to mean slower speeds and therefor safer roads.

We can have the most draconian sentences in the world in theory for our crimes, but they offer no better a solution than more lenient sentences if the detection and trial and prison infrastructure is not in place to support them. The threat is not what will happen to you if you get caught. The threat comes from being caught in the first place, and more and more criminals of the type you descibe are well aware of the daily reduction in police personnell, the ever increasing backlog in our courts and the overflowing prison population.

The incident from what is being stated happened 4 vehicle's ahead, and the Pug driver did not impact with anyone. Is the Pug driver being made a scape goat.

It may sound unsavoury due to the childs death, however that should not cloud the reality of the problem.

It appears the vehicle in front had to brake, however those details have not been clarified.

The following 4th vehicle crashed into oncoming traffic through no fault other than their own, as the incident was 3 car's away.

_________________
Steve

You seem to have misunderstood bmwk12.
The peugeot was driving up the middle of the road causing every vehicle in both directions to swerve and brake not just the vehicles involved in the impact. There is no doubt that the peugeot was at fault. As I have already stated the driver of the vehicle my daughter was in does have to take some of the blame as he reacted badly to the situation, but the situation would never have occured to begin with had the peugeot not been there or had it been driving sensibly.

I don't know enough about the incident to say if the Pug driver is being made a scapegoat, but if the police are going to Crimewatch they must think they have a good chance of successfully convicting 'em for something serious. It's pretty unusual for a motoring offence to be on Crimewatch, so I'm assuming that they've got evidence but are lacking identification. Yes, an assumption, but a reasonable one.
I agree that a death, particularly the death of a child, makes an incident far more emotionally loaded, and that sometimes that can cloud the facts. But mahali has been pretty open here. The Pug was been driven badly and the driver of another car reacted badly to that. Both drivers are at fault, but we need to ask if the second driver would have reacted the same way if the Pug presented no danger. If not, then the Pug driver was the root cause.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Assuming the desciption of events is accurate, then mahali is absolutely correct. There is something in law called the chain of causation where they look for the first action, deemed as criminal, that if it had not been committed the incident would not have taken place. This is why the police can rightly pursue and charge the Peugeot driver.

Many years ago my father was involved in an accident on the M6 caused as a result of a female driving a SAAB who changed lanes in front of the car in front of him causing that driver to brake sharply to avoid a collision - my father collided with the rear of that car. The SAAB driver drove off but was traced through her registration number, was taken to court and thanks to lots of witness testaments was apportioned full responsibility for the incident.

However, the above incident took place over 15 years ago, and I doubt the police would be as vigilant today in tracing the driver.

This would appear to be case on basis that Pug driver's erratic driving caused the incident to occur. They call it vicarious responsibility/liability. One of the things that protects surgeon if patient dies whilst they correct mistake of previous surgeon. Chap may bleed to death in theatre in front of me and colleague - say - - but the original surgeon's mistake caused it - therefore he gets the full charge from Medical Council - though we would also have to answer questions on it as well!

It also happens if RTAC victim contracts MRSA (not in my hospitals) and dies. Person who caused accident could be charged with causing death byt careless/dangerous driving (and think it has happened - remember reading something somewhere or other ---anyone?). Hospital would shoulder some of blame on the hygiene question - but main cause of death would be down to fact that the twazak who caused accident which evenutallly killed him put him there in first place and he gets charged (another way of manipulating those stats of course - blame the driver and not the hospital )

mahali - missed this thread whilst I was on holiday. Hope programme went well - and we will watch out for it this Thursday!

We understand what you are going through.

Unfortunately mate - there is hard core of chancers who never learn - and a lot of banned drunks who re-offend after the ban even! Normal law abiders liek me, thee and most on this site think twice before drinking and driving - but - believe me there are some really dangerous folk around!



I know - the bench book, guidelines are daft - and many cases are only as good as our paperwork (of which there are unbelievable amounts!)

We really do try our best mate to get the bad guys!

Agree with the Mad Doc. Our hols crossed slightly this year - he went to Switzerland for fortnight and I went to Italy for just over a week - so we missed this thread!

Will look out for your you on Thursday and hope all is well with you and yours - though I know - nothing will compensate you for losing your daughter that way!

We do understand - only too well!

Mahali, I cannot even begin to understand the loss you and your family are going through and hope that justice will be served on those responsible for contributing to this tragic accident.

However, there are a few points which cloud this case.

You say the car which caused the accident was travelling at speeds well in excess of 80mph. Can I ask whether this is an accurate calculation or whether this is the opinion of other motorists involved.

You also mention that the car your daughter was in skidded into the path of oncoming traffic. I myself was involved in an accedent recently when a slow moving vehicle pulled out infront of me and blocked the carriageway. I had three options:

1. Continue in a straight line underneath the 20tn agricultural trailer infront of me which would have almost certainly decapitated me and my passenger.
2. Swerve to the right into oncoming traffic and risk colliding with oncoming motorists
3. Swerve to the left into a 3ft thick stone wall.

In the event, I felt I had no choice but to plough the side of my car hard against the wall whilst maintaining control of the vehicle and use the friction of the scrape and the brakes to slow down as much as possible before colliding with the obstructing vehicle. Both my passenger and I were extremely lucky and walked away. But it could have easily been a different story.

Because neither my passenger or I were seriously hurt, the police would not even attend the accident scene.

There are a couple of points I'm getting at here.

- I appreciate more than most that split second reactions in a potential accident situations are very difficult to comprehend. However, the actions of the driver of the car your daughter was in do seem to be one of the main contributions to the accident. Are the police taking any action against this driver?

- Secondly, I think that the police procedures set out to deal with these kinds of accident are not robust enough to cope with motoring today. The attention your case has received from local police is disgusting.

I believe that far more should be done where the actions of motorists have contributed to an accident and the penalties imposed far tougher.

I sounds like the driver of the vehicle which you believe caused the accident wrecklessly endangered many peoples lives. There is a critical difference between a split second reaction causing an accident and those actions of someone who is willing to continually put other people at risk.

For this reason, I think that dangerous and wreckless drivers should face far tougher penalties. I fully support your campaign.

I can fully sympathise with you and support what you are doing - have signed your petition.

Seven years ago my fiance and her friend were killed by a drunk driver when the lorry he was driving hit her friends mini. her friend was killed outright, she died some 20 minutes later. I was called of duty and told someone with my details on them had been taken into hospital no other information. It wasn't until I got to the hospital that I was asked to attend the morgue and identify her.

The driver was still at the scene when the police arrived and was so drunk he could barely walk. When it got to court he ended up with a minmal fine and a minimal ban. The judge told him that the reason he escaped a custodial sentance was that he wasn't speeding.

The fact that two people had died seemed to escape him.

Apparently the motor car has killed more people than both world wars, I don't know about that, but I do know in the wrong hands a car can be a deadly weapon. Yet the courts blindly ignore that when passing sentance.

I wish you luck that a. the toerag responsible is caught and b. the court rises to the occasion.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk