Penalties for careless driving

tyskie
tyskie Posts: 252
edited March 2008 in Commuting chat
Are there any magistrates out there who can help me rationalise this one. About 5 months ago I got taken out by a car and suffered a broken femur, severed quad tendon, couple of broken metacarpals and numerous cuts & bruises. Anyway, driver pleads guilty to careless driving and gets 7 points and a paltry £100 fine. What's the £100 fine supposed to achieve as it surely can't be a punishment or a proper incentive to pay attention when driving? Am I missing something?

:?:

p.s. helmet has 6 cracks right through the foam but my head survived unscathed. :wink:

Comments

  • prj45
    prj45 Posts: 2,208
    tyskie wrote:
    What's the £100 fine supposed to achieve as it surely can't be a punishment or a proper incentive to pay attention when driving? Am I missing something?

    I think it breaks down into admin charges, and a small charge that goes to victim support.

    Of course, the person may choose not to pay the fine, in which case its off to prison
    Photos - Blog - Bike
  • Gambatte
    Gambatte Posts: 1,453
    Seems to me that nowadays the punishments for bad driving are not given out by the courts, but by the insurance companies.

    What does this mean beyond the £100 fine?

    As regards the licence - nothing, unless within the next 3 years they pick up a couple of SP30s. When they'll probably persuade a magistrate that they need to keep their licence.

    The insurers tho will keep the points as a reference for 5 years, and ask for a punitive premium.
  • tyskie
    tyskie Posts: 252
    Gambatte wrote:
    Seems to me that nowadays the punishments for bad driving are not given out by the courts, but by the insurance companies.
    quote]

    That seems to be the case, which as the 'victim' in all this doesn't really provide me with a sense of justice having been done.
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    Presumably you are considering a civil claim?

    p.s. on the helmet, you do realise that cracks are generally considered as a sign of brittle failure, which doesn't absorb very much energy, and is not the way the helmet is designed to work?
  • hamboman
    hamboman Posts: 512
    BentMikey wrote:

    p.s. on the helmet, you do realise that cracks are generally considered as a sign of brittle failure, which doesn't absorb very much energy, and is not the way the helmet is designed to work?

    oh no, not the helmet debate again! :lol:
  • tyskie
    tyskie Posts: 252
    BentMikey wrote:
    Presumably you are considering a civil claim?

    p.s. on the helmet, you do realise that cracks are generally considered as a sign of brittle failure, which doesn't absorb very much energy, and is not the way the helmet is designed to work?

    Having looked at available information, that seems a good point on the helmet. So at best it took a little bit of the impact and saved my head a rather nasty graze (the helmet was pretty scuffed).

    I'm pusuing a civil claim, however, it's the lack of sanction by the state that narks me.
  • tyskie
    tyskie Posts: 252
    BentMikey wrote:
    Presumably you are considering a civil claim?

    p.s. on the helmet, you do realise that cracks are generally considered as a sign of brittle failure, which doesn't absorb very much energy, and is not the way the helmet is designed to work?

    Having looked at available information, that seems a good point on the helmet. So at best it took a little bit of the impact and saved my head a rather nasty graze (the helmet was pretty scuffed).

    I'm pusuing a civil claim, however, it's the lack of sanction by the state that narks me.
  • BentMikey
    BentMikey Posts: 4,895
    That's good to hear. Hopefully the stress and pain of the civil claim will convince the driver to take more care in future around cyclists, and to spread that same message to all his/her mates.

    btw, I'd still be quite happy if my helmet saved me from cuts and grazes!!! No loss there for you at all.

Categories