dangerous driving

jedster

A few weeks ago there were a couple of threads (including one about Amir Khan) in which I called for a clear set of guidelines that would encourage juries to differentiate between careless and dangerous driving more appropriately (harshly!). This has just been published by the CPS

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/pros ... cy.html#25

Dangerous driving
Dangerous driving not only includes situations where the driver has taken a deliberate decision to drive in a particular way, but also covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be dangerous, even if only for a short time.
The circumstances of every case will be unique and we will consider these in each case before reaching a decision as to the appropriate level of charge.
There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as dangerous and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as dangerous driving:
racing or competitive driving;
speed, which is highly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;
aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles, or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;
disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;
disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;
overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;
driving a vehicle with a load which presents a danger to other road users;
where the driver is suffering from impaired ability, such as having an arm or leg in plaster, or impaired eyesight;
driving when too tired to stay awake;
driving a vehicle knowing it has a dangerous defect;
using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that use;
reading a newspaper/map;
talking to and looking at a passenger where the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that;
selecting and lighting a cigarette, or similar, in circumstances where the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that.

I think that is a damn good list and exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

J

spen666

jedster wrote:

A few weeks ago there were a couple of threads (including one about Amir Khan) in which I called for a clear set of guidelines that would encourage juries to differentiate between careless and dangerous driving more appropriately (harshly!). This has just been published by the CPS

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/pros ... cy.html#25

Dangerous driving
Dangerous driving not only includes situations where the driver has taken a deliberate decision to drive in a particular way, but also covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be dangerous, even if only for a short time.
The circumstances of every case will be unique and we will consider these in each case before reaching a decision as to the appropriate level of charge.
There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as dangerous and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as dangerous driving:
racing or competitive driving;
speed, which is highly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;
aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles, or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;
disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;
disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;
overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;
driving a vehicle with a load which presents a danger to other road users;
where the driver is suffering from impaired ability, such as having an arm or leg in plaster, or impaired eyesight;
driving when too tired to stay awake;
driving a vehicle knowing it has a dangerous defect;
using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that use;
reading a newspaper/map;
talking to and looking at a passenger where the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that;
selecting and lighting a cigarette, or similar, in circumstances where the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that.

I think that is a damn good list and exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

J

This list is a piece of spin

This guidance already existed

The guidance is so vague and wooly with so many get out clauses in it.

It is really not worth the paper it is printed upon

Mike Healey

spen666 wrote:

jedster wrote:

A few weeks ago there were a couple of threads (including one about Amir Khan) in which I called for a clear set of guidelines that would encourage juries to differentiate between careless and dangerous driving more appropriately (harshly!). This has just been published by the CPS

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/pros ... cy.html#25

Dangerous driving
Dangerous driving not only includes situations where the driver has taken a deliberate decision to drive in a particular way, but also covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be dangerous, even if only for a short time.
The circumstances of every case will be unique and we will consider these in each case before reaching a decision as to the appropriate level of charge.
There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that courts will regard as dangerous and the following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as dangerous driving:
racing or competitive driving;
speed, which is highly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic conditions;
aggressive driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles, or driving much too close to the vehicle in front;
disregard of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis, would appear to be deliberate;
disregard of warnings from fellow passengers;
overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;
driving a vehicle with a load which presents a danger to other road users;
where the driver is suffering from impaired ability, such as having an arm or leg in plaster, or impaired eyesight;
driving when too tired to stay awake;
driving a vehicle knowing it has a dangerous defect;
using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that use;
reading a newspaper/map;
talking to and looking at a passenger where the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that;
selecting and lighting a cigarette, or similar, in circumstances where the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that.

I think that is a damn good list and exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.

J

This list is a piece of spin

This guidance already existed

The guidance is so vague and wooly with so many get out clauses in it.

It is really not worth the paper it is printed upon

Surely Spen, you're not implying that the dangerous use of mobile phones while driving is not prosecuted, on every occasion possible, with the full rigour of the law? :?

Tourist Tony

Define "dangerous use"...

Anonymous

Tourist Tony wrote:

Define "dangerous use"...

He did.
... mobile phones while driving.

Tourist Tony

What Spen and I are getting at is the phrasing. I don't think that many here will disagree with the definition "mobile phones when driving", but the big list quoted says:
"using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that use; "

It doesn't take a genius to understand that certain judges and magistrates will use the get-out clauses built into that sentence. Anyone remember the kiddy who drove daddy's Porsche at over 150mph on the Isle of Wight, and was CLEARED of dangerous driving in one of the more barking decisions ever handed down?

Sexybird (feels odd to call you that), we agree on this one, but the way that is written leaves too many holes. Both Spen and I work in different aspects of law. He has a rather more robust way of posting, but we both see the same thing: it sounds good, but it deliberately leaves an escape hatch for the CPS.

Anonymous

Tourist Tony wrote:

What Spen and I are getting at is the phrasing. I don't think that many here will disagree with the definition "mobile phones when driving", but the big list quoted says:
"using a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the driver was avoidably and dangerously distracted by that use; "

It doesn't take a genius to understand that certain judges and magistrates will use the get-out clauses built into that sentence. Anyone remember the kiddy who drove daddy's Porsche at over 150mph on the Isle of Wight, and was CLEARED of dangerous driving in one of the more barking decisions ever handed down?

Sexybird (feels odd to call you that), we agree on this one, but the way that is written leaves too many holes. Both Spen and I work in different aspects of law. He has a rather more robust way of posting, but we both see the same thing: it sounds good, but it deliberately leaves an escape hatch for the CPS.

Wadya mean?

You work in law?
Thought you were in the aeronautics business.
Must be confusing you with someone else. :roll:

Tourist Tony

I was.....and indirectly still am. My first degree was in aero eng.

Anonymous

And your other degrees would be in?

nwallace

The 10mph motorist with a fear of driving

A woman who suffers from a clinical fear of driving is facing a ban after police caught her creeping down a motorway at 10mph.

The phobia was revealed in court after Stephanie Cole, 57, pleaded guilty to driving without reasonable consideration.

Police spotted Mrs Cole on the M32 in Bristol in her mini MPV - with a sign in the back which read "I do not drive fast, please over take" - at 1pm on Aug 30 this year.

She was straddling the hard shoulder and the inside lane on the 70mph motorway and, despite driving at a walking pace, repeatedly jammed on her brakes.

Officers pulled Mrs Cole over only to be told: "I'm scared. I've no confidence on the motorway. Last time this happened the policeman drove me there."

Mrs Cole, of Fishponds, Bristol, pleaded guilty to driving without reasonable consideration by letter yesterday at North Avon magistrates' court. The case was adjourned for her to appear in person as she is likely to be banned.

In a letter, read to the court, Mrs Cole said her GP had been treating her for a "fear of driving" for the past three and a half years. She said: "I think a driver improvement course would help."

The chairman of the bench, Malcolm Richardson, said: "We have no doubt that the bench should seriously consider banning Mrs Cole from driving for this offence.

"It's unfortunate that the current requirements of the driving test would not require Mrs Cole either to drive on the motorway or at night, both of which are an issue with her medical condition.

"We shall adjourn the case till Jan 4. I hope she doesn't drive here."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... ver122.xml

Tourist Tony

Modern languages/French is the current one. Why ask?

grayo59

Tourist Tony wrote:

Sexybird (feels odd to call you that), ...

Why odd? Does the poster not match the title?

Tourist Tony

Well....we did have the Swiss troll a while ago who claimed to be "a leggy lass" and was actually three different men......
And Spindrift doesn't look anything like wind driven snow.
He's dirtier, for a start.

meagain

"The guidance is so vague "

By definition "guidance" tends to the vague. Better "guidance" and thus discretion (even if wrongly applied - in someone's view it ALWAYS is!) than totally rigid offence X equals punishment Y.

Guidelines not tramlines, please.