Safe Speed Forums

You couldn't make it up!

Link to Daily Telegraph

_________________
"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

I think this is really tragic. I can well imagine that it's virtually impossible to come to terms with such horrific injuries.

I beg and pray that I wouldn't be stupid enough to try to drive if it happened to me, but I do know that I'd continuously be testing myself against my own previous standards.

I've posted this, personally, not to excuse but to explain, how a 'good man' might find himself in the position.

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

gotta love lawyers.

I find myself hoping that the court is lenient in sentencing him.

Whilst the knee-jerk reaction is to throw our hands up in horror at this, but in truth the whole thing is such a ridiculous one-off situation that I wonder at the point of bringing it to court at all.

As long as the court can satisfy themselves that the guy isn't going to do it again I think an absolute discharge wouldn't be unreasonable - seems to me like he's had more than his fair share to put up with already.

You can almost imagine BRAKE baying for blood, calling for courts to get tough and send out a strong message to blind people not to put people at risk by trying to drive etc etc...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Yep

I can agree with an absolute discharge (Mark Milton-suffered enough!) but his friend should be up for aiding and abetting... but he is banned already
no mot tax insurance is also a problem

You have to remember this man has never seen uk traffic and he was taken to this place by the passenger and the passenger made the decision that this was a safe place to experiment.

_________________
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

I have heard of blind racing drivers (Using co-pilots)!

They are good too apparantly!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

It is an interesting point though, as it would appear that he has been prosecuted due to his degree of impairment, rather than the actual standard of his driving. So in point of fact this ought to have failed the test for the charge laid against him, which is supposed to be solely judged by the standard of driving.

It could be argued that, ludicrous as it might sound, the defence brief was actually right, and the charge that should have been laid was one of "driving while unfit to do so" or some such.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Perhaps, but a charge of dangerous driving would IMHO also fit.

A person drives dangerously when:

The way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver

AND

It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

A competent and careful driver would probably agree that a blind person driving a car was a dangerous act and that to drive at all falls way below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

Its semantics to the Nth degree.

According to the CPS



I've emboldened the bit that appears to be the threshold between careless and dangerous.

IMO, 'the way he drives' takes in more than whether or not he stays within his lane, signals correctly etc

As an example, suppose I find a quiet, straight stretch of motorway, position the car in the middle lane, stick a blindfold on and then hit the gas. After a minute I take the blindfold off.

It's perfectly possible that I could stay safely within my lane and not hit anything. I'm not sure I'd be able to find anyone (other than the defendant) who would tell me it wasn't dangerous.

SNAP!

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Firstly, note that the two clauses are linked by an AND clause, not by an OR, so both need to be met for a successful prosecution. There seems little doubt that the second is met, but the first doesn't seem quite so clear.

IMO the clause "the way that he drives falls far below..." is as observed by a bystander. The only evidence of "bad driving" was that he had drifted over the centre line on the approach to a left hand bend. As the defence pointed out, that would not be considered as falling far below standard for any other driver, and to retrospectively apply the knowledge that he was blind is a matter for the second clause not for the first.

My feeling is that whilst his driving was clearly dangerous, even reckless, nevertheless I don't think it met the strict terms of qualification for the offence of DD, and even the reported statements made by the bench reflect that.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Per the tabloids . yep .. positively baying for blood.


Nope.. for record.. I just cannot condone a biind man driving a car supervised by an alllegedly banned driver.

However, I can sympathise with the blind person wishing to prove some "capabilty" - having seen for myself how patronising and condescending people can be to persons handicapped to any degree.

But there are limits and I really do think this was transgressed beyond "rational"

However. gaol is not the answer here. Hefty fine and a warning.. I doubt if the persons would repeat the offence.. Punish - yes. Be unnecessarily harsh.. NO!

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I think any of us might drift beyond 'rational' after being blown up.

Is there a potential defence/mitigation of diminished responsibility in DD cases?

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

It reminds me of a radio feature I once heard where someone said, "I pulled over on to the hard shoulder and had to finally admit to myself that I was blind." (blind in a functional sense rather than totally unable to see anything)

I agree with Paul and others that, while this was mindblowingly irresponsible, there was no malice or deliberate recklessness involved, and a custodial sentence would be quite inappropriate. So long as neither drives again for a long time

_________________
"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

Must say I'm disappointed to find excuses being made for this sort of behaviour. I thought we promoted Safe driving???

Always assuming the reported facts are true, this was a monumentally stupid and criminal thing to do that could easily have led to deaths. Just suppose your child had been on the pavement near him?

Lock him up and throw away the key.

Alternatively, if as the paper seems to indicate, he's a foreign national, immediate deportation with no return on conviction - the same as should happen with any foreign national that is convicted of any crime in this country that carries a jail term.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

I strongly disagree it is the co-driver who broke all the rules
the co-driver provided the car
took the decision where to conduct the experement
failed to get the insurance
mot
tax

He could have used a closed supermarket car park, race track or a farm track but he chose a public road

It is the co-driver who has allready been banned should be severly punished for totaly dis-respecting uk laws. that threat might even mean expulsion from the uk.

_________________
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

But the driver drove it ..... everyone is responsible for their own actions

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

Yes they are. But can you really predict your own behaviour after you have been blown up? I can make one certain prediction about my behaviour. I would need to test myself against my own previous abilities.

I hope I wouldn't be stupid enough to drive, but I couldn't guarantee anything. After you have been blown up, what have you got left to lose? Somehow you have to find out...

As I said before - I'm not trying to excuse his behaviour - I'm trying to explain it. I believe I can even understand it.

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

Understand that Paul - but one of the big problems that I see with our current judicial system is the army of psychiatrists & social workers that (unlike what you're saying) try to excuse criminal behaviour. I really would like to see us go back to people being responsible for their own actions.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

When they do (and I agree that they do) they are getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Mostly that 'army' (in this context) is supposed to be creating an environment where crime is less likely.

Moving to a 'closer to home' example, suppose there's a so-called dangerous bend where 1 in 2,500 drivers crash. To make matters worse there are mature trees outside the bend and there are fatalities.

Now any driver who crashes on that bend is wholly responsible for his own crash. But if the local authority (LA) has the opportunity to engineer out the bend and they don't take it, they too are responsible for the subsequent crashes. It's in these sorts of situations where people get confused about who is responsible for what and who is excusing what.

The truth is that the LA is responsible for the environment, while each individual is responsible for his own behaviour. Confusion is rife and many a failed driver will blame the LA for his own crash.

The 'environmental' responsibilities are measured statistically. In a better environment the bad outcomes are less likely. The behavioural responsibilities are measured individually.

If it's crime, then for example, rates of recidivism are an 'environmental' responsibility for the prisons and for the various support services. Individual recidivism remains the responsibility of the individual.

So I'm perfectly happy that we should blame 'system factors' for crime rates, while still ensuring that we blame individuals for their crimes.

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