Safe Speed Forums

I don't think anyone was suggesting that it was 'acceptable'. However I have significant doubts that it fits the legal definition of dangerous driving.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I agree with Paul. It's more a case of negligence, where as DANGEROUS driving is a different kettle of fish!

A change in the handling does not have to mean the vehicle is overloaded - and the condition of the vehicles suspension would have an influence.
However, from reports at the time, I suspect the car was over it's anticipated limit, AND it would have undoubtedly affected the handling. That would be safer if it was recognised and compensated for - but dangerous if the driver was inexperienced in driving with such a load.
To then drive at speed has compounded the mistake.


I think the prosecution has undoubtedly brought the problem to the attention of a lot of drivers, but I feel the conviction and sentence unecessarily harsh.

It comes back to sentencing. Is it meant to PUNISH, or PROTECT?

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

Last week, Police Camera Action featured an Escort Estate, stopped by police with 12 people in it.
They emptied the car on camera, with the Doctor Who theme playing, and a Tardis in the corner of the screen which registered each person as they exited the vehicle

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

I agree with Paul that this is not Dangerous Driving.

What charge should have been brough (assuming for the moment that the crime [Not the consequence, the crime] is of sufficient severity that a custodial sentence should be optional/prescribed if found guilty?

Are there any non-motoring precedents? I'm tired and can;t think of a sensible example, so herewith a silly one - and apologies to all mothers, bouncy castle manufacturers etc..

What if, hypothetically, someone has a bonucy castle at a kids birthday party which says "maximum 5 children plus one adult and no putting pencils in your ears", yet the supervising parent allows two adults and six children in, and fails to stop three of them putting pencils in their ears, the thing bursts and punctures three children's brains? What charge then on the mother (I'm sure the bouncy castle designers, manufacturers, suppliers and distributors would all end up on a wrap of sme sort here, but what charge on the mother?).

Manslaughter on the grounds of negligence?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Roger, I don't believe there are any proper non-motoring precedents or equivalents that apply to such enormous numbers of people.
The private motor car - great though it is - places in the hands of ordinary, fallible people, the means by which to kill another person(s) quickly and easily. At both a societal and individual level we tend to suppress this piece of knowledge because statistically the chances of it happening to us personally are small indeed.
Nobody sets out on a car journey with the express intention of killing the children of two of their friends and a complete stranger as well. Unfortunately life is complicated and we have all had occaision to ignore the niggling doubts about the wisdom of what we are doing and carry on regardless - 'pressonitis' it is known as in the aircraft engineering world, where the need to get the job done overrides our knowledge that we are cutting safety corners.
So, how do you prevent hard pressed, impatient, tired, etc people from doing dumb things in/with their car?
And, what does society do with errant motorists after the funerals?
Is remorse enough or is it simply too late once the deed is done?
Does jailing people actually do any good other than satisfy the need to see justice done; the threat of imprisonment isn't stopping all the stupid acts that are going on across the roads of the UK as you read this is it? Is it merely 'revenge' as PeterE often calls it? FWIW, I'd suggest than any state punishment amounts to vegeance against the wrongdoer, and if the threat of punishment fails to act as a detterent then threat must be carried through or else it becomes meaningless.
I realise I've posed a lot of questions and haven't answered many of them. I know for a fact that if someone were to kill or seriously injure a member of my family in circumstances where, had they been driving their vehicle properly and responsibly (as they were taught) they would have been well placed to avoid causing the incident, then I'd want 'revenge', hell yes! Have I ever done so myself? Yes, I'd be lying if I said I hadn't. Does this make me a hypocrite? Yes, perhaps, but the knowledge that I am human isn't going to alter things one iota.

Punishment pure and simple is certainly one of the legitimate purposes of penalties imposed by the courts, i.e. depriving people of money or liberty for having done something wrong.

However in cases like this the deterrent effect is very weak as the offender didn't deliberately or knowingly set out to do something wrong - it was an unintended consequence of a negligent action.

Deterrence only works where the action - whether it be drink-driving, theft, murder or whatever - is at least to some extent premeditated.

I'm not seeking to make a point with this particular case as it raises some difficult issues. It is clear that the woman could reasonably be expected to have known that stuffing seven teenagers plus herself into a five-seater car was irresponsible. But I'm sure that many of us in our younger days have ridden in overloaded cars and thought little of it. If she had been stopped by a police officer, I suspect the copper would either have given her a telling off or at worst charged her with careless driving. Per se, the overloading would not have been classed as "dangerous".

And, given the circumstances, I continue to believe that a suspended sentence would have been more appropriate. Imprisoning people in such cases serves no useful purpose.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Perhaps, but this 'empathy by association' doesn't make it right. In fact, it makes matters worse because we all got away with it, we know people who got away with it and some would be tempted to try again.



OK then, here's one for the BiB out there. Had you stopped this woman with her car laden with 7 kids...would you have permitted her to continue with her journey????

Actually I don't think it is about stats, I think it is about ubiquity and function. c.f. guns in the USA.

I think it's REALLY about risk/reward ratio. The benefits outweigh the risks. As simple as that.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Paul,

having looked at the charging standard I think it does fall into the definition of dangerous driving: see: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html#13

There is clearly provision within the charging standard to take account of the vehicles condition and load. there is also example (and one would assume legal precedent) that includes Driving a vehicle with a load which presents a danger to other road users.

IMO driving with 3 more passengers than the vehicle is designed
for, failing to take this into account when settng speed and the fact that she lost control and crossed the cariage way would suggest a good case.

However, since she pleaded guilty we'll never know how good the case was.

I would totally agree that her actions on there own do not meet what I would call dangerous driving.

The trouble is - the government is complicit in that the driving license restricts the type of vehicle you may drive, but not the standard to which you drive it.

Commercial drivers and PSV's all get tested in relation to loading, while the average car driver takes a test with just the examiner in.
If you were to take the test in a 1.2 Nova/Corsa, with five adults in, the examiner would have an opportunity to gauge whethre you handled the vehicle competantly under the conditions.
A taxis driver has a plate stating the limit to the number of persons that can be carried - no mention of weight or age. My vehicle has no such plate, and has rear seats - each with a safety belt - but previous vehicles having a single bench type seat have had no warning that only 3 people may sit on it.

Two years ago, a local coach driver, standing in for a sick colleague, drove a double decker school bus under a low bridge, slicing the top off.
None of the children were injured. However the driver received a 1 year jail term, and much was made in court of the fact he only had sight in one eye. His site defect was known, and his PSV license granted in the full knowledge of this. But what was the purpose of sending him to jail?
He was in a strage vehicle on a strange route, and having had the one accident, was the driver least likely to have a repeat accident of the same nature. His colleagues were just as likely to repaet the accident in spite of his jail term
The same week, a local youth, struck down a female stranger in the street and seriously assaulted her because his girlfriend mistakenly identified her as somebody she had argued with. Another words, a premeditated assault, which left the victim seriously injured - and all he got was a 6 month sentence. A stiffer sentence WOULD be a deterent to him and others, unlike the coach driver's sentence.

Justice has to be done - and SEEN to be done.
This woman failed to anticipate the consequences of her loading the vehicle in the manner she did. Her license did not require her to be tested on this, nor lay down conditions under which said license was granted. She did not exceed the speed limit in force.
A case of being mislead into thinking if it were dangerous, somebody would warn you?

At the very least, this case should be turned into a THINK advert, to warn OTHER drivers of the dangers of loading, AND excess speed with such a load, AND exceeding the numbers of passengers for which the vehicle was designed.

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

Who prosecutes the negligence by the authorities in not having a safety barrier?

...and what's the betting a yellow box on a pole is erected before a barrier?

Why should there be a safety barrier?

I regularly drive along a 70 mph dual carriageway with no safety barrier (although the central reservation is somewhat wider than the Oxford ring road)

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Why should trapeze artists perform with a safety rope - it rather lowers the impact of the show!
However they are thought to be effective at stopping the artist getting injured when they do have a slip up.

In this case, the woman crossed the median, and struck cars on the other carriageway - the trauma may have been reduced had there been a barrier to keep vehicles in with other vehicles going in the SAME direction.

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

I'm interested in the suggestion that drivers are not educated with regard to load. If true they are unique, as even motorcyclists are tested on load and passengers.

surely it covered in the theory test.

interestingly most cars are fitted with a max load and passenger plate in the vehicle now

Letter in today's Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 63,00.html

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

But surely to goodness the very reason that drivers should not be negligent whilst behind the wheel of their car is to lessen their chances of initiating a sequence of events that might have unintended or inforseen circumstances. THATS THE WHOLE FLAMIN' POINT
Are we now saying that it is completely unrealistic to expect people to behave properly behind the wheel of their motor vehicle? That as long as they don't intend to kill someone and are sufficiently sorry afterwards then clemency should be shown?
I fear I will never be able to align myself with this 'fatalistic' way of viewing road safety