A place to record lenient sentencing for motorvehicle....

[kwackers]

Road killing sentence reduced on appeal because defendant was a nice guy, really.

What I find really odd is that he was apparently so tired that having just killed someone he was falling asleep in the police car!
If that doesn't wake you up - what would?

[gaz]

http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/20151020-car ... sentencing

Sentencing

Acquitted of dangerous driving, Noble was sentenced on the 14 October 2015 at Plymouth Crown Court for causing death by careless driving, an offence punishable with a prison sentence of up to 5 years.
...
Sentencing him to 24 weeks custody suspended for two years, Recorder Donald Tait referred to Noble as 'a decent man, with a long history of association with the church'. His decision to illegally use his mobile phone whilst driving a lorry was described as 'a moment of carelessness' rather than 'seriously culpable behaviour' as outlined by the Sentencing Council.

[thelawnet]

No prison for killer lorry driver

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jail.html

Apparently he lost consciousness momentarily due to coughing. The prosecution said this was because he was drinking coffee while driving, while the defence said it was because he had a smoker's cough.

[kwackers]

No prison for killer lorry driver

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -jail.html

Apparently he lost consciousness momentarily due to coughing. The prosecution said this was because he was drinking coffee while driving, while the defence said it was because he had a smoker's cough.

And apparently if you believe a lot of folk (even on here) self driving cars will be a disaster.
IMO it's just more evidence that the sooner we remove as much control as possible from the monkey behind the wheel the better.

[jochta]

Nobody blamed or charged with this...

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/mai ... -1-7535514

Apparently driving at 73mph in fog in a 60mph zone isn't reckless according to the coroner who recorded a verdict of accidental death on all five victims. If the driver had survived would they have been charged with death by dangerous/careless driving? If so then the verdict should be unlawful killing for his passengers surely?

[Guy951]

Isn't it time Sol was prosecuted for being an accessory in so many KSI incidents? After all, we couldn't possibly blame the driver.

I was totally blinded by the sun. I just heard a bump

Kempston lollipop lady: Brian Wright cleared of driving offences after accident
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-35060435

Brian Wright, 55, was cleared of causing serious injury by dangerous driving by a jury at Luton Crown Court, who heard he was blinded by the sun.
He was also cleared of a lesser charge of causing serious injury by careless driving.
The trial heard Mrs Blackburn's head hit the pillar of the windscreen of Mr Wright's VW Golf after he failed to stop at a pedestrian crossing at Bedford Road Lower School at about 15:40 GMT.

[Mike Sales]

And apparently if you believe a lot of folk (even on here) self driving cars will be a disaster.
IMO it's just more evidence that the sooner we remove as much control as possible from the monkey behind the wheel the better.

I know you are an enthusiast for self driving cars, and you may well be right. But I think you exaggerate a little when you say a lot of people here believe they will be a disaster. It is quite reasonable to examine the implications of them, and it requires a bit of faith to believe there cannot possibly be any problems.

[kwackers]

it requires a bit of faith to believe there cannot possibly be any problems.

Faith? Why does it require faith? Self driving cars exist, they're driving round right now. Everything they do is analysed to the nth degree. This process will continue for years before they become mainstream.
I don't really follow why years and millions of miles worth of data is equivalent to "faith"...

I'm sure there may well be problems, but I doubt they'll be in the order of the million deaths and tens of millions of serious injuries that cars are currently responsible for.

It's hard to imagine how anything could be worse than having humans drive (something I was contemplating as I dodged the bin lorry determined to overtake me whilst wanting to turn left just 30 yards further up the road this morning).

[Guy951]

...and it requires a bit of faith to believe there cannot possibly be any problems.

It doesn't require much faith to assume a camera and radar-guided car won't have any problems "seeing" through bright sunlight or fog, which would cut out a large number of "accidents".

[Mike Sales]

You seem to take any discussion as "predicting disaster".
As I said, DLCs will probably fulfill your beliefs. I am still at a loss to understand why you want to shut down discussion.
In a previous post I wanted to explore the implications of us vulnerable road users becoming confident that cars will behave correctly, that they will be aware of us when a human driver might not be, and so behave differently. You must be well aware that the fact that we cannot rely on drivers giving us priority correctly means we modify the way we ride.
You accused me of belonging to the "brigade" of those against DLCs.

[beardy]

I expect that the technology will be up to the task, I also accept that they will be programmed to allow greater speed, efficiency and progress not to improve the safety of "unexpected" non-motorised lifeforms on the roads.

[Vorpal]

And apparently if you believe a lot of folk (even on here) self driving cars will be a disaster.
IMO it's just more evidence that the sooner we remove as much control as possible from the monkey behind the wheel the better.

I know you are an enthusiast for self driving cars, and you may well be right. But I think you exaggerate a little when you say a lot of people here believe they will be a disaster. It is quite reasonable to examine the implications of them, and it requires a bit of faith to believe there cannot possibly be any problems.

I doubt that anyone believes that there won't be problems. Actually, I think that there will be problems. I also think that people will so worried about it that self-driving cars will be highly scrutinized. The problems will come initially, from people who expect tham to behave like humans, and then later after everyone relaxes & thinks they are safe

[kwackers]

You seem to take any discussion as "predicting disaster".
As I said, DLCs will probably fulfill your beliefs. I am still at a loss to understand why you want to shut down discussion.

Shut down how?
I'll be honest and say I don't think there's a lot to discuss. They're not only coming they're already here. Any issues will show themselves up as the numbers start to grow although at some point it's a foregone conclusion that one will be involved in an RTA and that in itself will be interesting as I fully expect people to write them off as "dangerous" whilst ignoring the pile of bodies humans are responsible for.

You accused me of belonging to the "brigade" of those against DLCs.

I can't see any evidence I accused you of that - was this a different thread? I'd need to see it to figure out why I said that.

[Mike Sales]

I doubt that anyone believes that there won't be problems.

Kwackers gives the impression that he thinks there won't be problems.

The problems will come initially, from people who expect tham to behave like humans, and then later after everyone relaxes & thinks they are safe

This is exactly what I was wanting to talk about. I rather resented being called a "brigade" member. This was in another thread.

[kwackers]

Kwackers gives the impression that he thinks there won't be problems.

Nope. Kwackers actually said he was sure there would be problems.
What Kwackers is pointing out is that the problems humans create will always be greater than those created by machines that aren't ego powered.