Dangerous driving

naked_draughtsman wrote on 26/03/2007 21:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

There's a story on the BBC news website of how a driver who cut a corner is
in court chargd with death by dangerous driving after he hit a car doing so
and killed a 4 year old.

Does that imply that anyone cutting a corner is driving dangerously (in a
legal sense, not in the common sense) or do you have to hit someone before
it's dangerous?

Only asking as two cars overtook me on a blind bend driving on the wrong
side of the road this morning, and it's a regular occurrence....

There are lots of things people do that are dangerous but they get away
with it most of the time e.g. driving with insufficient sleep. However
Selby and Zak Carr show that getting away with it most of the time does
not mean that it's not dangerous.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

naked_draughtsman wrote on 26/03/2007 21:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Does that imply that anyone cutting a corner is driving dangerously (in

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

legal sense, not in the common sense) or do you have to hit someone

before

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it's dangerous?

Only asking as two cars overtook me on a blind bend driving on the wrong
side of the road this morning, and it's a regular occurrence....

There are lots of things people do that are dangerous but they get away
with it most of the time e.g. driving with insufficient sleep. However
Selby and Zak Carr show that getting away with it most of the time does
not mean that it's not dangerous.

Quite right. To be honest, it's always annoyed me that there's any
difference at all, in terms of sentences dished out, between 'causing death
by dangerous driving' and plain old 'dangerous driving'. They are the same
thing, the former just means that the perpetrator happened to get unlucky
and actually kill someone. The increased sentence is, to my mind, purely
for the purpose of judicial revenge and to keep the Daily Mail readers
happy.

naked_draughtsman said:

Does that imply that anyone cutting a corner is driving dangerously
(in a legal sense, not in the common sense) or do you have to hit
someone before it's dangerous?

If it is dangerous to cut the corner, it should be classed as
dangerous driving. If it is not dangerous to cut the corner, it should
not be classed as dangerous driving. Pretty simple, really.

F'rex., one lane I drive down from time to time has a number of bends
with wide views right across - if there is no oncoming or overtaking
traffic, it is perfectly safe to cut the corner. If other traffic
wants to use that bit of tarmac, it is not safe. Further on, there are
bends where the road is hemmed in by hedges. Here, it is never safe to
cut the corner, because you can't see if anything is coming the other
way.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Stevie D said:

naked_draughtsman said:

Does that imply that anyone cutting a corner is driving dangerously
(in a legal sense, not in the common sense) or do you have to hit
someone before it's dangerous?

If it is dangerous to cut the corner, it should be classed as
dangerous driving. If it is not dangerous to cut the corner, it should
not be classed as dangerous driving. Pretty simple, really.

F'rex., one lane I drive down from time to time has a number of bends
with wide views right across - if there is no oncoming or overtaking
traffic, it is perfectly safe to cut the corner. If other traffic
wants to use that bit of tarmac, it is not safe. Further on, there are
bends where the road is hemmed in by hedges. Here, it is never safe to
cut the corner, because you can't see if anything is coming the other
way.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

In simple terms dangerous driving is were driving falls far below that
as would be expected of a careful and competent driver.
Dangerous; generally refers to when there is a risk of injury or
injury is caused.

Cutting a corner could be dangerous but you would probably be looking
at careless and inconsiderate or driving without due care. It's
dependant upon the circumstances.

Stevie D said the following on 28/03/2007 00:04:

Quoted message said:

F'rex., one lane I drive down from time to time has a number of bends
with wide views right across - if there is no oncoming or overtaking
traffic, it is perfectly safe to cut the corner.

In fact, in some situations you used to be encouraged to do that as it
can give you better visibility for a longer distance ahead. There's a
road I can think of in Wales (can't remember the number off-hand) that
meanders down a valley side. Given the conditions Stevie D describes,
that is also perfectly safe to virtually straight-line.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Just Visiting said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

naked_draughtsman wrote on 26/03/2007 21:14 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Does that imply that anyone cutting a corner is driving dangerously (in

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

legal sense, not in the common sense) or do you have to hit someone

before

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it's dangerous?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only asking as two cars overtook me on a blind bend driving on the wrong
side of the road this morning, and it's a regular occurrence....

Quoted message said:

There are lots of things people do that are dangerous but they get away
with it most of the time e.g. driving with insufficient sleep. However
Selby and Zak Carr show that getting away with it most of the time does
not mean that it's not dangerous.

Quite right. To be honest, it's always annoyed me that there's any
difference at all, in terms of sentences dished out, between 'causing death
by dangerous driving' and plain old 'dangerous driving'. They are the same
thing, the former just means that the perpetrator happened to get unlucky
and actually kill someone. The increased sentence is, to my mind, purely
for the purpose of judicial revenge and to keep the Daily Mail readers
happy.

Historically the reason for this is that juries were unwilling to
convict a person of manslaughter in cases where the driver was
manifestly driving dangerously. Causing death by dangerous driving
was enacted to reduce this perversity and ensure more equitably that
justice was served.

Sniper8052

On 28 Mar, 09:48, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Just Visiting said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

naked_draughtsman wrote on 26/03/2007 21:14 +0100:
> Does that imply that anyone cutting a corner is driving dangerously (in

a

Quoted message said:

> legal sense, not in the common sense) or do you have to hit someone

before

Quoted message said:

> it's dangerous?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Only asking as two cars overtook me on a blind bend driving on the wrong
> side of the road this morning, and it's a regular occurrence....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are lots of things people do that are dangerous but they get away
with it most of the time e.g. driving with insufficient sleep. However
Selby and Zak Carr show that getting away with it most of the time does
not mean that it's not dangerous.

Quoted message said:

Quite right. To be honest, it's always annoyed me that there's any
difference at all, in terms of sentences dished out, between 'causing death
by dangerous driving' and plain old 'dangerous driving'. They are the same
thing, the former just means that the perpetrator happened to get unlucky
and actually kill someone. The increased sentence is, to my mind, purely
for the purpose of judicial revenge and to keep the Daily Mail readers
happy.

Historically the reason for this is that juries were unwilling to
convict a person of manslaughter in cases where the driver was
manifestly driving dangerously. Causing death by dangerous driving
was enacted to reduce this perversity and ensure more equitably that
justice was served.

Sniper8052

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DangerDrive/

Meant to post this previously.

Sniper8052

Quoted message said:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DangerDrive/

Meant to post this previously.

Why do you think a death is necessary to trigger such an action - if
"After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
test then they might reasonably be assumed to be a danger to others."?

--
Matt B

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DangerDrive/

Quoted message said:

Meant to post this previously.

Why do you think a death is necessary to trigger such an action - if
"After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
test then they might reasonably be assumed to be a danger to others."?

--
Matt B

Fair point, perhaps you would like to draft a petition that removes
that necessity.

Sniper8052

Quoted message said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DangerDrive/
Meant to post this previously.

Why do you think a death is necessary to trigger such an action - if
"After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
test then they might reasonably be assumed to be a danger to others."?

Fair point, perhaps you would like to draft a petition that removes
that necessity.

:-) Fair point.

There is a serious flaw though with the "...are automatically guilty
of..." bit. It means that someone, other than a court, would have to
decide if the driver in question did actually "cause death or injury to
another". Who would be given that responsibility, and what might the
safeguards against abuse be?

--
Matt B

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

[email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DangerDrive/
> Meant to post this previously.
Why do you think a death is necessary to trigger such an action - if
"After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
test then they might reasonably be assumed to be a danger to others."?

Quoted message said:

Fair point, perhaps you would like to draft a petition that removes
that necessity.

:-) Fair point.

There is a serious flaw though with the "...are automatically guilty
of..." bit. It means that someone, other than a court, would have to
decide if the driver in question did actually "cause death or injury to
another". Who would be given that responsibility, and what might the
safeguards against abuse be?

--
Matt B

I am not going to discuss this with you. You have your own drum and
want to bang it, you have no conception of the principals of law or
social and natural justice just your viewpoint that you repeat ad
nausium without ever learning from your errors or giving ground to
those with greater experience than yourself.

Sniper8052

Quoted message said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

On 28 Mar, 12:24, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> [email hidden] wrote:
>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DangerDrive/
>> Meant to post this previously.
> Why do you think a death is necessary to trigger such an action - if
> "After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
> test then they might reasonably be assumed to be a danger to others."?
Fair point, perhaps you would like to draft a petition that removes
that necessity.

:-) Fair point.

There is a serious flaw though with the "...are automatically guilty
of..." bit. It means that someone, other than a court, would have to
decide if the driver in question did actually "cause death or injury to
another". Who would be given that responsibility, and what might the
safeguards against abuse be?

I am not going to discuss this with you.

Fine, your choice. But don't expect me therefore to second-guess your
rationale.

Quoted message said:

You have your own drum and
want to bang it,

If by that you mean I am passionate about road safety, and /effective/
ways of improving it, then yes.

Quoted message said:

you have no conception of the principals of law

It is /because/ I understand the principles of law that I posed the
question above.

Quoted message said:

or
social and natural justice

Oh the irony. Social, and natural, justice, dictate that all road users
be treated equally, consistently, and proportionately. How does "are
automatically guilty of..." fit in with those principles?

Quoted message said:

just your viewpoint that you repeat ad
nausium

When, and if, appropriate.

Quoted message said:

without ever learning from your errors

More irony.

Quoted message said:

or giving ground to
those with greater experience than yourself.

It is by learning from those with greater experience than myself, and
from observing human nature, that I have honed my views to their current
state. What I refuse to do though, is base my views on obvious
preconceptions, misconceptions, prejudices, junk science or greenwash.
Can you honestly say the same?

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 28 Mar, 12:24, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

Another bun to the troll...

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

I think most right-minded readers
here will draw the appropriate conclusion.

Oh don't worry. Most already have.
I'm a little surprised you haven't noticed.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Quoted message said:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/DangerDrive/

Meant to post this previously.

Sniper8052

.... and there was me thinking you needed to give your proper name to
sign a petition, or is there something we should be told?

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

"I've noticed that the press tends to be quite accurate, except
when they're writing on a subject I know something about."
(Keith F. Lynch)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On 28 Mar, 12:24, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

Another bun to the troll...

Oh, do grow up. It is plain to me who, if anyone, is trolling here.

Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

Jeff York said:

Quoted message said:

JT's definition of a troll is obviously at odd with Wikipedia's.

It goes: Someone who disgrees with me and some number of regular posters here.

The trouble is that there are quite a few people who will go along with that.

I had insulting posts from several people who made not the slightest attempt to
back up their assertions that I was a troll or could not argue coherently.

I was under the impression that the u.r.c definition of a "troll" is
"anyone who disagrees with the premise 'that motorists are the spawn
of the Devil'".

There is more than an element of truth in that.

Most of the really large flame strewn threads I have seen lurking here off an on
seem to result from someone who, although they may well believe that motorists
*are* by and large, the devil's spawn, would at least like to see a little
balance and fairness in the arguments deployed.

I feel that's important because apart from the fact that it's more honest, if
people read some of the one-sided baloney posted here from time to time, and try
and argue a case in front of a less partisan audience, they will be torn to
shreds.

One of the worst culprits of the 'blame the motorist at any cost' philosophy
seems to have deserted the ng, I don't know when or why but I can only believe
that it's a good thing.

A fair and balanced argument is always better than a group of partisan posters
simply agreeing with each other and ridiculing anyone who tries to inject the
missing balance.

Ziggy said the following on 29/03/2007 14:32:

Quoted message said:

One of the worst culprits of the 'blame the motorist at any cost' philosophy
seems to have deserted the ng, I don't know when or why but I can only believe
that it's a good thing.

You sure you didn't KF him? ;-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Ziggy said the following on 29/03/2007 14:32:

Quoted message said:

One of the worst culprits of the 'blame the motorist at any cost' philosophy
seems to have deserted the ng, I don't know when or why but I can only believe
that it's a good thing.

You sure you didn't KF him? ;-)

LOL!

I don't KF people. Even when I just lurked it would have been pointless because
you'd have seen the responses and then had to google to see what they'd said in
full.

OTOH, I use kill threads without compunction so real trolls don't bother me at
all.

(Just googled, and he really doesn't post here much any more.)