Cyclist with no lights or reflectors killed

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:25:09 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/08/2013 12:36, Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:08:12 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

What constitutes "dangerous" vs "careless" driving then in the RTA?
Momentary lapse vs persistent reports of bad driving prior to impact?

IIUC careless driving is something that a person did(or failed to do)
unintentionally, whilst dangerous driving was caused by something the
driver did(or failed to do) deliberately. Not sure about the
distinction between "reckless" and "dangerous" however.

You're right on the distinction between "careless" (inattention) and
"dangerous" (falling well below the standard of driving required, out of
deliberate choice).

In law, the concept of recklessness is one which is applied to the
commission of an act which might or might not have a particular outcome,
in circumstances demonstrating an indifference as to whether that
possible outcome occurs. An example is throwing a brick over a high
garden fence. Statistically, it probably won't hit the greenhouse, but
it might, and since the thrower knows it might and throws it just the
same, he is acting recklessly. That's a description straight of the
textbook, more or less.

But how is that differentiated from an act that is *dangerous*, which
is also an act which is likely to cause harm, but will not necessarily
do so? Why would you describe throwing a brick over a wall as being
reckless, but not describe it as being dangerous?

--
Cynic

On 13/08/2013 17:42, Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:25:09 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 13/08/2013 12:36, Cynic wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:08:12 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

What constitutes "dangerous" vs "careless" driving then in the RTA?
Momentary lapse vs persistent reports of bad driving prior to impact?

IIUC careless driving is something that a person did(or failed to do)
unintentionally, whilst dangerous driving was caused by something the
driver did(or failed to do) deliberately. Not sure about the
distinction between "reckless" and "dangerous" however.

You're right on the distinction between "careless" (inattention) and
"dangerous" (falling well below the standard of driving required, out of
deliberate choice).

In law, the concept of recklessness is one which is applied to the
commission of an act which might or might not have a particular outcome,
in circumstances demonstrating an indifference as to whether that
possible outcome occurs. An example is throwing a brick over a high
garden fence. Statistically, it probably won't hit the greenhouse, but
it might, and since the thrower knows it might and throws it just the
same, he is acting recklessly. That's a description straight of the
textbook, more or less.

But how is that differentiated from an act that is *dangerous*, which
is also an act which is likely to cause harm, but will not necessarily
do so? Why would you describe throwing a brick over a wall as being
reckless, but not describe it as being dangerous?

The terms are defined in law; the description is applied to acts which
fit them.

It isn't arbitrary, though there may well be difficult judgments to call
on the boundaries between carelessness, dangerousness and recklessness.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 12/08/2013 18:48, John Benn wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 10/08/2013 11:25, Judith wrote:
Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666

I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not it was dark at the time.
Do you have to celebrate every cyclist that gets killed?

For my money anyone eating, reading maps newspapers or texting whilst
driving is guilty of careless driving if they only hit street furniture
or
barriers and dangerous driving if they kill or injure someone.

Someone invisible.

Only to the sort of car driver that closes their eyes when they see a
hazard. It was around sunset when this pillock piled into the cyclist. His
eating the sandwich whilst driving was the fundamental cause of the
accident - the lack of reflectors or rear lights on the bike was a very
convenient "get out of jail free" card for a grossly negligent motorist

Perhaps you should write to the court to point this out to them. They seem
to have overlooked it for some reason!

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:08:12 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 10/08/2013 22:56, Alex Heney wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:50:02 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 10/08/2013 11:25, Judith wrote:
Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666

I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not it was dark at the time.
Do you have to celebrate every cyclist that gets killed?

For my money anyone eating, reading maps newspapers or texting whilst
driving is guilty of careless driving if they only hit street furniture
or barriers and dangerous driving if they kill or injure someone.

Whether it is careless driving (section 3 RTA) or dangerous driving
(section 2 RTA) has nothing to do with results.

If somebody gets killed that turns a section 2 offence into section
1, or a section 3 offence into section 2B. But it doesn't change
careless into dangerous.

What constitutes "dangerous" vs "careless" driving then in the RTA?
Momentary lapse vs persistent reports of bad driving prior to impact?


Careless is "below", while dangerous is "far below" what would be
expected of a competent & careful driver.


According to the law

Dangerous driving:
==================================
For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be regarded
as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2) below, only
if)—
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
in that way would be dangerous.
==================================

Careless, or inconsiderate driving:
=================================
Meaning of careless, or inconsiderate, driving

(1)This section has effect for the purposes of sections 2B and 3 above
and section 3A below.
(2)A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and
attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be
expected of a competent and careful driver.
(3)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would
be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case,
regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be
expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been
within the knowledge of the accused.
(4)A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable
consideration for other persons only if those persons are
inconvenienced by his driving.
=====================================


I ask because we have an interesting one locally where from time to time
visiting Americans leaving a hotel are injected onto the A19 dual
carriageway against the traffic. Is that dangerous or careless driving?
(it is hellishly dangerous for the legitimate Southbound traffic)

Same for overtaking on a blind bend, entering a roundabout going around
the wrong way or reversing down a motorway slip road are they careless
or dangerous. I am curious to establish where the threshold lies...

It should be decided on the facts of each case.

The CPS guidance is he
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...d_driving/#a29

there is quite a long list of things which would tend to be regarded
as dangerous driving in that guidance.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"No good deed goes unpunished" - Clare Booth Luce
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:36:50 +0100, Cynic
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:08:12 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

What constitutes "dangerous" vs "careless" driving then in the RTA?
Momentary lapse vs persistent reports of bad driving prior to impact?

IIUC careless driving is something that a person did(or failed to do)
unintentionally, whilst dangerous driving was caused by something the
driver did(or failed to do) deliberately. Not sure about the
distinction between "reckless" and "dangerous" however.

The Road Traffic Act doesn't use the word Reckless (I believe it once
did), so for purposes of this discussion, the difference is
irrelevant.

But I would say that behaving dangerously means deliberately exposing
to risk, while behaving recklessly means behaving without regard to
whether there is risk.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"No good deed goes unpunished" - Clare Booth Luce
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 18:46:20 UTC+1, John Benn wrote:
"Martin Brown" wrote in message

...

On 12/08/2013 18:48, John Benn wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message

...

On 10/08/2013 11:25, Judith wrote:

Sandwich-eating driver cleared of dangerous driving death.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-23626666



I suppose it depends somewhat on whether or not it was dark at the time.

Do you have to celebrate every cyclist that gets killed?



For my money anyone eating, reading maps newspapers or texting whilst

driving is guilty of careless driving if they only hit street furniture

or

barriers and dangerous driving if they kill or injure someone.



Someone invisible.



Only to the sort of car driver that closes their eyes when they see a

hazard. It was around sunset when this pillock piled into the cyclist. His

eating the sandwich whilst driving was the fundamental cause of the

accident - the lack of reflectors or rear lights on the bike was a very

convenient "get out of jail free" card for a grossly negligent motorist



Perhaps you should write to the court to point this out to them. They seem

to have overlooked it for some reason!

The Crown is, by law, in part responsible. A Crown-licenced driver is in effect employed by the Crown (and pays for such "privilege". Their is a conflict of interest in that a Crown-licenced driver is trialled in a court owned and operated by the Crown. The overlook is intentional as they would like all compensatory payment to be settled by motoring (notice, not driving) insurers and not be pursued themselves for compensation. As long as you realise the gubernent is corrupt and acting unlawfully to support the Crown, you will comprehend the situation around Crown operated courts.

I suspect you already know.

On Tuesday, 13 August 2013 22:28:51 UTC+1, Alex Heney wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:36:50 +0100, Cynic

wrote:



On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:08:12 +0100, Martin Brown

wrote:



What constitutes "dangerous" vs "careless" driving then in the RTA?

Momentary lapse vs persistent reports of bad driving prior to impact?



IIUC careless driving is something that a person did(or failed to do)

unintentionally, whilst dangerous driving was caused by something the

driver did(or failed to do) deliberately. Not sure about the

distinction between "reckless" and "dangerous" however.



The Road Traffic Act doesn't use the word Reckless (I believe it once

did), so for purposes of this discussion, the difference is

irrelevant.



But I would say that behaving dangerously means deliberately exposing

to risk, while behaving recklessly means behaving

in't that for school rules, while for a UK Crown citizen, as adults, it is referred to as acting?

Why as children are we to behave and as adults we act?
Issit that our schooling is training to be as a school of fish (a collective of easily led beings)out of the sea?


without regard to

whether there is risk.

--

Alex Heney, Global Villager

"No good deed goes unpunished" - Clare Booth Luce

To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

Well you were the one that claimed that he was a 'Barista' !!!

Jeff




Woooooosh



Ahh! the sound of the meaning of Barista going over your head!!!

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message ...


Well you were the one that claimed that he was a 'Barista' !!!

Jeff




Woooooosh



Ahh! the sound of the meaning of Barista going over your head!!!

Have you been drinking?

On 14/08/2013 11:31, Partac wrote:


"Jeff" wrote in message ...

Well you were the one that claimed that he was a 'Barista' !!!

Jeff




Woooooosh



Ahh! the sound of the meaning of Barista going over your head!!!

Have you been drinking?

Yes, but not coffee!

Jeff