Death by dangerous driving

[kirennia]

Right, I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before on here so I'll sum up exactly what happened to an old college buddy of mine.

I saw him about a month before he had a car accident which ultimately ended his life. He was talking about his new bike and how much he loved doing it up, had a great night and that ended up being the last time I saw the guy alive.

He was driving along when a car pulled out of the road our old college was on, he swerved to miss the car which basically didn't see him and he ended up going under a heavy goods vehicle (initially was told it was a bus but that was misinformed). Under there, he caught fire but was dragged out alive and taken onto an ambulance where half way to the hospital, a BMW driver side swiped the ambulance and he died following that. Death following you or what eh?

The reason I bring this up again is that the guy who pulled out on him got his sentence a few days back...7 points on his licence and a £500 fine. Now, I'm not saying the guy deserved a brutal jail sentence for what was a mistake but ...well...was the judge on crack? Not only does this rich person end up losing around a weeks wages but they are still allowed to drive, without having to retake their test after killing someone.

This begs the question to be asked, how much is a life worth? He was doing really well for himself after going back to college, everyone had a great time around the guy and his life was ended by someone who didn't pay attention and has ultimately come away with little more then mental scarring.

Seriously, it's just further reinforcing my stand point that if you really want to kill someone, run them over...fuck it, you'll be driving again the next day.

This countries legal system is beyond a joke sometimes...that is all.

 

[tris-]

but in the end it was an accident, correct?
he was under no influence of alcohol, drugs or using phones or other shit?

both parties are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well, the one who initiated this final destination style accident combo, didn't really do THAT much wrong.

Didn't see him, especially if th vision was blocked, and the rest well...

 

[kirennia]

but in the end it was an accident, correct?
he was under no influence of alcohol, drugs or using phones or other shit?

both parties are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

He wasn't under the influence nor using his phone. He just didn't look and pulled out. The guy on the bike (gonna keep names out of this) was travelling under 30mph and had to swerve or side swipe them.

Well, the one who initiated this final destination style accident combo, didn't really do THAT much wrong.

Didn't see him, especially if th vision was blocked, and the rest well...

You don't get much of a clearer exit out of that junction (realise you wouldn't know that ofc). He was the only one on that side of the road, the driver just didn't look properly.

 

[tris-]

so he made a mistake.

no one is perfect and its simply unlucky the outcome of his mistake was so horrific.

 

[kirennia]

so he made a mistake.

no one is perfect and its simply unlucky the outcome of his mistake was so horrific.

Ending a life in that way, no matter the intentions, should not leave a person on the road without a ban... I mean, 7 points isn't even a case of 1 more strike and you're out, if he killed another person it'd only just push him over the 6 month ban limit.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You don't get much of a clearer exit out of that junction (realise you wouldn't know that ofc). He was the only one on that side of the road, the driver just didn't look properly.

Ok, then it was just a mistake like tris- said.

Every driver does these, doesn't remember the 10-2 rules all the time.

And he got punished for that mistake, but in no way was he responsible for the kids death.

I'd say the BMW driver should be slapped with a hefty punishment, but, that's a different story.

You make it sound like "there's a maniac driving around killing people", when infact, it ws simply, utterly, a minor mistake that lead to horrific concequences.

Everyone on these boards has done something sometime that COULD have lead to anything.

 

[tris-]

so if he didnt die, then you wouldnt want a ban?

 

[Wonk]

about 1 year ago, a friend of mine got driven down right in front of me. He was on his bike when it happened.

The worst thing is that the fucking driver only stopped for a second, and then drove away. We wrote down his number plate though, and got in touch with the police.

 

[leviathane]

driving offenses are dealt with pretty much a slap on the wrist these days. It's pretty piss poor what you can get away with tbh.

 

[Binky the Bomb]

but in the end it was an accident, correct?
he was under no influence of alcohol, drugs or using phones or other shit?

both parties are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Not so, since the driver was the catalyst for the accident, and he was under no influences, then he's guilty of gross negligence, in charge of a vehicle.

He should have looked properly and seen the biker coming, and NOT pulled out. The biker would not have to have taken the evasive action, and POSSIBLY not have died. Sure, something else could have happened, but it didn't, and the driver IS at fault. He should have gone through testing, not just for his lisense, but for other factors (Eye tests, fatigue at the time etc).

Accidents on the road DO happen, and there is always a clear line of blame as to where the fault lyes. In this instance, from the information given, the fault belongs to an inatentive driver.

As for the second driver who hit the ambulance, he's in even deeper shit. Consider what an ambulance looks like, its size, colour and the blairing sirens and lights. If he hit an ambulance, it "should" be an automatic ban, he had no excuse for operating a moving vehicle around a vehicle of the emergency services (Thats why they say, "Hear the sirens see the vehicle, pull over and let it pass). Doing so in any way other than getting out of its way is usually considered an offense.

Both drivers shoul have been banned, and forced to retake tests, not to mention heavier fines, and some prison time (personally, i'd rebuild the forced labour prisons).

 

[old.Tohtori]

Also wanted to mention, that it's easy to demand bans and such when the object is a "wrong doer no question".

Imagine if you will, i came to these boards and posted:

Gods, i ws pulling out of the driveway today and just didn't notice a guy driving a bike down the road. He avoided the collision but (explain). I feel so bad about it, i just don't know how i can go on driving or even go on knowing i caused this.

I doubt many here would be, in all seriousness, calling for me to be banned from the roads, wanting a deathpenalty(not that you did) or some such.

 

[tris-]

Not so, since the driver was the catalyst for the accident, and he was under no influences, then he's guilty of gross negligence, in charge of a vehicle.

there is no negligence unless you owe a duty of care.

 

[Binky the Bomb]

there is no negligence unless you owe a duty of care.

From my understanding of the law is that "The one who causes the incident to start, is the one who is responcible."

So, if the guy had spotted the bike and hadn't pulled out, then the accident AS IT HAPPENED, would not have happened. Sure, something else may have occured, but then it would be someone elses fault. Not so in this case.

And yes, you do have a duty of care if you hold a lisence to operate a vehicle on the roads, off the roads, or on a private estate. If you operate a vehicle, and the vehicle is involved in an accident of any description, and you are operating (or someone operates the vehicle whith your permission) then you are liable.

Thats how its explained when you learn to drive, and i'm pretty sure its on your insurance too (worded mostly about who is responcible for paying for said accident).

 

[Golena]

First off i'll address the obvious point. All that was said was a BMW driver hit the ambulance, and he should now be banned from driving and possibly thrown in prison? What are we basing that on? He was driving a BMW so was obviously a twat?
No information was given as to where or how the accident took place, or if the Ambulance was driving in a safe manner, yet everyone on this thread up until now has thrown the book at him with no context or evidence..

The thing about life is that it's fragile. There's 100 ways each of us could kill ourselves each and every day, and when one of these ways finally turns up there's the inevitable witch hunt to find out who to blame after each one. Like Toht implied, that exact same scenario but without the fatal consequences probably happens once every 10 seconds in this country. Do we really want to throw 6 people in jail for 3 seconds of carelesness every minute?
I do actually believe that people should be punished based on the intent rather than the consequences. One person has lost their life, it doesn't mean we have to destroy someone else's life in order to make it even, if they wern't deserving of that. I'm fairly sure that for 99% of the population having to live with the mistake is far more of a punishment than anything the courts could throw at them.

 

[old.Tohtori]

First off i'll address the obvious point. All that was said was a BMW driver hit the ambulance, and he should now be banned from driving and possibly thrown in prison? What are we basing that on? He was driving a BMW so was obviously a twat?
No information was given as to where or how the accident took place, or if the Ambulance was driving in a safe manner, yet everyone on this thread up until now has thrown the book at him with no context or evidence..

The BMW driver sideswiped the ambulance, the issue here is that the original guy(no BMW) who initiated this chain o events, isn't getting enough of a slap in kirennias opinion.

 

[Lamp]

The sentences imposed for death by careless/ dangerous driving in the UK have always been controversial.

Manslaughter (murder without the intent) can get you life imprisonment.

Yet if you're driving a car and kill someone - again no intention to kill the person - you can get the most apallingly lenient sentence.

Does't marry up.

 

[Chronictank]

He wasn't under the influence nor using his phone. He just didn't look and pulled out. The guy on the bike (gonna keep names out of this) was travelling under 30mph and had to swerve or side swipe them.
.

Sorry but that doesnt add up, you very obviously do not have the whole story as if indeed he was completely responsible for the accident he would have lost his liscence
The very fact he didn't means in all likelyhood the entire blame did not sit on the driver or there were other factors in play
For example if it was a particularly bright day then the bike may not have been legitimately been seen, which would have all come out in court.

I sympathise that you are annoyed as it was your friend who died, but either you arent telling us the whole story or you do not know it yourself

I guess it makes me the bad guy for saying what the rest of you are thinking

 

[Laddey]

The sentences imposed for death by careless/ dangerous driving in the UK have always been controversial.

Manslaughter (murder without the intent) can get you life imprisonment.

Yet if you're driving a car and kill someone - again no intention to kill the person - you can get the most apallingly lenient sentence.

Does't marry up.

What she said.

 

[Chronictank]

The sentences imposed for death by careless/ dangerous driving in the UK have always been controversial.

Manslaughter (murder without the intent) can get you life imprisonment.

Yet if you're driving a car and kill someone - again no intention to kill the person - you can get the most apallingly lenient sentence.

Does't marry up.

well it does, manslaughter also covers if you beat someone up but dont intend to kill them

 

[Golena]

The BMW driver sideswiped the ambulance, the issue here is that the original guy(no BMW) who initiated this chain o events, isn't getting enough of a slap in kirennias opinion.

Yeah I know that. I was simply pointing out that pretty much no information was actually given on how the second accident took place, yet.

I'd say the BMW driver should be slapped with a hefty punishment

So you've convicted him based on what here?
If the incident happened while the ambulance was jumping a red light (which is likely) then it's the ambulance's resonsibility to make sure it's safe to do so, not the cars with the green light to leap out of he way, although they should stop if they can to let the ambulance through..

Apply that to the first accident where again we have very little actual idea of what happened other than the most superficial details. No offence to Kirennia, but as it was his mate he's going to have an obviously biased view on the situation, as anyone in his situation would do. Therefore saying if the punishment is fair or not is really impossible for us to really comment on in this situation.
I'm fairly sure that everyone here that has driven a car has pulled out of a junction at one time or another without a full understanding of everything around them. Because someone wasn't in exactly the wrong place at exactly the wrong time you probably never even noticed you did it however. I think the average driver can process about 70% of the information around him when driving. That means pretty much everyone has a 30% blindspot for making mistakes. 99.99% of the time nothing important happens in that 30% tho.

 

[DocWolfe]

Maybe the guilt of knowing that you killed someone is punishment enough... except if you're a chav.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So you've convicted him based on what here?
If the incident happened while the ambulance was jumping a red light (which is likely) then it's the ambulance's resonsibility to make sure it's safe to do so, not the cars with the green light to leap out of he way, although they should stop if they can to let the ambulance through..

Well ofcourse i base my assumptions on the info given. Now if someone came in and said "the BMW actually wasn't driven, it just was launched by a catapult in Leeds", then i'd change my opinion.

 

[Nate]

If I'm honest, I think your friend also made a mistake by riding a bike rather then driving a car. Too many people get killed on bikes.

I don't agree that chain of events should lead to the initial person getting the biggest fine/sentance. A pedestrian could have walked out in to the road without looking before he even got to that junction, effectively slowing him down enough to meet this car at the junction. Would he have got a jail sentance? Every confrontation should be handled separately and not be based on previous events unless the people involved causing it are the same.

 

[kirennia]

If I'm honest, I think your friend also made a mistake by riding a bike rather then driving a car. Too many people get killed on bikes.

Completely agree mate, that's why I tend to mention my half brothers death, my dads miraculous brush with death and now this to riders and I've only known 5 people who ride motorbikes...

I didn't mention anymore about the second driver because I simply don't know; it was just there to explain exactly what happened to him.

I haven't posted everything because I didn't think it would turn into FH investigations!

Reading throiugh the article again, the guy was charged with dangerous driving rather then manslaughter because the guy on the bike swerved and didn't actually hit him, even though his actions did lead to his crash. The driver had pulled out without looking properly, blaming it on sun glare on his dashboard which to me, would always mean, you don't pull out until you can see properly.


As for the actual punishment, I seem to of had words put in my mouth as to what I actually thought would be appropriate. For a well paid individual (yes fines should be applied according to your wealth...) £500 is a joke. To be able to cause as accident which hurts someone that badly (he wasn't the person who killed him mind), being able to drive off a few weeks later just isn't good enough. Where are the eye sight tests? Reaction tests? DRIVING tests that should follow.

My opinion for what should happen? 2 year ban and make sure that by the time they're back on the road they've completed their advanced driving test. I still think anyone who causes any kind of an accident should have a mandatory advanced driving test to follow as well as their ability to actually drive on the road.

On the same topic, why aren't elderly people required to retake their driving tests often? Twice in two months we had elderly people in torbay responsible for driving through the front of a house; I don't think our government seems to grasp the concept of what constitutes a safe user of something which has the easy potential to kill people. It's not some toy, in terms of the amount of concentration to use it properly is concerned, it's no less dangerous then using a gun.

 

[Golena]

My opinion for what should happen? 2 year ban and make sure that by the time they're back on the road they've completed their advanced driving test. I still think anyone who causes any kind of an accident should have a mandatory advanced driving test to follow as well as their ability to actually drive on the road.

On the same topic, why aren't elderly people required to retake their driving tests often?

We've had this discussion in another thread not that long ago.

I really think that people of any age should have to retake a driving test every 5 years minimum, but also that the driving test should be updated to contentrate more on if your a safe driver, not on if your hands are fixed at the 10 and 2 o'clock positions.

Taking one test when your 17 then never having to be rechecked until your 80+ is stupid tho! The cost of it wouldn't be an issue either since it could almost certainly be covered by reduced insurance premiums as the number of accidents should theoretically fall.

 

[Iceforge]

I read over this, and to me it boils down to this:

A guy made a mistake in traffic, because he didn't do as he was supposed to do in the situation, and another individual suffered death from first guys mistake.

Now, without debating whatever it was with INTENT, or if it was GROSS NEGLIGENCE from his side, the fact of the matter is that he made a mistake in traffic with fatal consequences for another human being. Size of the fine and jail time, that depends on intend and gross negligence to me, so wont debate that, but in the name of traffic safety and to hinder the mistake being repeated, the person who has shown he makes fatal mistakes in traffic should be required to retake his driving license.
Thing slips from memory over the years and becomes rutine, by refreshing it entirely (which the shock might have done a bit) society can decrease the chances of him repeating that msitake again later in life.

 

[swords]

How the fuck do you not notice an ambulance enough to side swipe it?

 

[Pixsovgzslfhyasio]

I'm sorry about your friend, condolences.

 

[Chronictank]

I read over this, and to me it boils down to this:

A guy made a mistake in traffic, because he didn't do as he was supposed to do in the situation, and another individual suffered death from first guys mistake.

Now, without debating whatever it was with INTENT, or if it was GROSS NEGLIGENCE from his side, the fact of the matter is that he made a mistake in traffic with fatal consequences for another human being. Size of the fine and jail time, that depends on intend and gross negligence to me, so wont debate that, but in the name of traffic safety and to hinder the mistake being repeated, the person who has shown he makes fatal mistakes in traffic should be required to retake his driving license.
Thing slips from memory over the years and becomes rutine, by refreshing it entirely (which the shock might have done a bit) society can decrease the chances of him repeating that msitake again later in life.

again, assuming it was all on the driver and there were no other factors coming into play
Saying his sentance is wrong without knowing all the facts is plain idiocy which is why most of this thread is so ridiculous