reohn2 wrote:Whenever I'm overtaken too closely by motor vehicles and get the chance to remonstrate with them,which is more often than one might think due to TL's and traffic jams within the next half mile or less,the first thing I say to the driver is "if either one of us had made a mistake back there,I would've been in hospital or worse and you'd have had no driving licence". The response is sometimes derisory but mostly it's met with an apology or no reply at all. The thing is that too many drivers just don't see the consequences of their actions,end of.They just don't see a human being before them,rather just a thin thing on the road in front a like to the left that needs overtaking asap,and no one is doing anything of significance to dispel their erroneous outlook on human beings that choose to cycle. That is why occasionally all the fatal ingredients come together at once and someone loses a mother,father,brother,sister or child and the grief lasts forever. The erroneous belief by drivers that everything will be OK this time is reinforced every time a driver overtakes a cyclist too closely and doesn't make contact.
+1 .. A series of unfortunate events
NO. Defintly NO. It's dangerous driving. Careless driving is a potentially non dangerous driving error. Dangerous driving is when the consequences of such driving are potentially or actually dangerous to others or the self,surely. How anyone cannot be found guilty of dangerous driving if their driving is potentially dangerous is beyond me,but it seems the UK courts find it difficult to define such driving as dangerous due a lack of will. The sooner that will is found the sooner driving will become safer and especially around vulnerable road users IMHO.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2 wrote:Whenever I'm overtaken too closely by motor vehicles and get the chance to remonstrate with them,which is more often than one might think due to TL's and traffic jams within the next half mile or less,the first thing I say to the driver is "if either one of us had made a mistake back there,I would've been in hospital or worse and you'd have had no driving licence". The response is sometimes derisory but mostly it's met with an apology or no reply at all. The thing is that too many drivers just don't see the consequences of their actions,end of.They just don't see a human being before them,rather just a thin thing on the road in front a like to the left that needs overtaking asap,and no one is doing anything of significance to dispel their erroneous outlook on human beings that choose to cycle. That is why occasionally all the fatal ingredients come together at once and someone loses a mother,father,brother,sister or child and the grief lasts forever. The erroneous belief by drivers that everything will be OK this time is reinforced every time a driver overtakes a cyclist too closely and doesn't make contact.
+1 .. A series of unfortunate events
NO. Defintly NO. It's dangerous driving. What defines dangerous driving ? Careless driving is a potentially non dangerous driving error. Dangerous driving is when the consequences of such driving are potentially or actually dangerous to others or the self,surely. Your definition of dangerous driving seems to imply intent How anyone cannot be found guilty of dangerous driving if their driving is potentially dangerous is beyond me,but it seems the UK courts find it difficult to define such driving as dangerous due a lack of will. Got up this morning, kissed my wife goodbye and set off to dangerously drive in order to harm someone. The sooner that will is found the sooner driving will become safer and especially around vulnerable road users IMHO.
Law .. surely you want law rather than revenge ?
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
reohn2 wrote:Careless driving is a potentially non dangerous driving error. Dangerous driving is when the consequences of such driving are potentially or actually dangerous to others or the self,surely. How anyone cannot be found guilty of dangerous driving if their driving is potentially dangerous is beyond me,but it seems the UK courts find it difficult to define such driving as dangerous due a lack of will. The sooner that will is found the sooner driving will become safer and especially around vulnerable road users IMHO.
It's about the standard of driving rather than the danger to others - driving of a standard worse than that of a competent driver is careless, driving far below that standard is dangerous driving. In non-legal speak, either is dangerous. I think there's a good case for getting rid of the dangerous/careless distinction, and letting the magistrate/judge decide the seriousness of the offence when sentencing
the snail wrote:It's about the standard of driving rather than the danger to others - driving of a standard worse than that of a competent driver is careless, driving far below that standard is dangerous driving. In non-legal speak, either is dangerous. I think there's a good case for getting rid of the dangerous/careless distinction, and letting the magistrate/judge decide the seriousness of the offence when sentencing
Can you give us a link to the Competent Licensed Driver Standard please .. i will be a BS or EN standard ... of course i don't expect you to do that ..lets leave competency management to the professionals ...
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
The incidents and comments above all have a common thread - far too many drivers do not take sufficient account of what might happen. Going too fast for the conditions or road layout and not giving sufficient space for others are all symptoms of the complancency and impatience that ultimately lead to incidents that sometimes tragically result in people being KSI. What we need is the occurrences that do not result in KSI being prosecuted, the ‘near misses’ are the early warning signs yet the police and the legal system dismiss these out of hand. Even when drivers amass 12 points or more they are still allowed to drive - it is completely unacceptable and if it was occurring in any other walk of life it just would not be tolerated. Zero tolerance of poor driving standards is the right way forward yet continually we see outrageous outcomes being seen as minor infringements that do not merit punishment.
My thoughts entirely, but in addition to the near misses, there are plenty of "damage only" crashes being ignored, which would kill or maim a vulnerable road user.
landsurfer wrote: +1 .. A series of unfortunate events
NO. Defintly NO. It's dangerous driving. What defines dangerous driving ? Careless driving is a potentially non dangerous driving error. Dangerous driving is when the consequences of such driving are potentially or actually dangerous to others or the self,surely. Your definition of dangerous driving seems to imply intent How anyone cannot be found guilty of dangerous driving if their driving is potentially dangerous is beyond me,but it seems the UK courts find it difficult to define such driving as dangerous due a lack of will. Got up this morning, kissed my wife goodbye and set off to dangerously drive in order to harm someone. The sooner that will is found the sooner driving will become safer and especially around vulnerable road users IMHO.
Law .. surely you want law rather than revenge ?
Yes I do and the law is not being upheld,time and time again in favour of the motorist,there's a hole thread devoted to hi-lighting how that's the case in the UK today.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Barks wrote:The incidents and comments above all have a common thread - far too many drivers do not take sufficient account of what might happen. Going too fast for the conditions or road layout and not giving sufficient space for others are all symptoms of the complancency and impatience that ultimately lead to incidents that sometimes tragically result in people being KSI. What we need is the occurrences that do not result in KSI being prosecuted, the ‘near misses’ are the early warning signs yet the police and the legal system dismiss these out of hand. Even when drivers amass 12 points or more they are still allowed to drive - it is completely unacceptable and if it was occurring in any other walk of life it just would not be tolerated. Zero tolerance of poor driving standards is the right way forward yet continually we see outrageous outcomes being seen as minor infringements that do not merit punishment.
Spot on. Meanwhile police funding numbers are continually reduced,reduced to such an extent that proper and thorough investigation of such criminals isn't carried out because of the at lack of funding. Simply put,it's a free for all on UK roads where might is right and the vulnerable are swept aside in favour of the mighty.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2 wrote:Careless driving is a potentially non dangerous driving error. Dangerous driving is when the consequences of such driving are potentially or actually dangerous to others or the self,surely.
However the driver that killed Mrs Boardman I think is now being charged with careless driving. There should not be a distinction between careless and dangerous driving. They should both be replaced with something like "driving that caused injury". There wouldn't then be "loopholes" or arguments whether it was careless or dangerous.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Mrs Boardman, a keen cyclist, died after she fell off her bike and Rosney drove over her at a roundabout on 16 July 2016.
It's very unusual for cyclists to simply "fall off" their bike - especially experienced ones in mid summer. She might have been knocked off her bike or lost her balance trying to swerve, brake or colliding etc, but this sounds like victim blaming.
I read she was knocked from her bike by a collision with a pickup, or am I mistaken.
I quoted a BBC web page. It's all down to how it's reported. The problem with the way it's reported influences people's views. "She fell off her bicycle and was run" over makes it sound like her fault for falling off.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Prosecution counsel John Philpotts said the case against Mr Rosney, from Connah's Quay, Flintshire, was one which "tragically illustrates the potential extreme danger of using a mobile telephone while driving"
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2 wrote:Careless driving is a potentially non dangerous driving error. Dangerous driving is when the consequences of such driving are potentially or actually dangerous to others or the self,surely.
However the driver that killed Mrs Boardman I think is now being charged with careless driving. There should not be a distinction between careless and dangerous driving. They should both be replaced with something like "driving that caused injury". There wouldn't then be "loopholes" or arguments whether it was careless or dangerous.
It has always been difficult to understand how any driving error that resulted in death could be considered anything other than dangerous.
Prosecution counsel John Philpotts said the case against Mr Rosney, from Connah's Quay, Flintshire, was one which "tragically illustrates the potential extreme danger of using a mobile telephone while driving"
So how can it be careless?? Legal definitions I suppose.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Prosecution counsel John Philpotts said the case against Mr Rosney, from Connah's Quay, Flintshire, was one which "tragically illustrates the potential extreme danger of using a mobile telephone while driving"
So how can it be careless?? Legal definitions I suppose.
It's not careless driving,it's dangerous driving and the proof is the death of Carol Boardman.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
the snail wrote:It's about the standard of driving rather than the danger to others - driving of a standard worse than that of a competent driver is careless, driving far below that standard is dangerous driving. In non-legal speak, either is dangerous. I think there's a good case for getting rid of the dangerous/careless distinction, and letting the magistrate/judge decide the seriousness of the offence when sentencing
Can you give us a link to the Competent Licensed Driver Standard please .. i will be a BS or EN standard ... of course i don't expect you to do that ..lets leave competency management to the professionals ...
I've read elsewhere, shouldn't the test be whether or not someone would fail their driving test (if they made a particular manoeuvre or undertook a particular activity while taking said test). If they would have failed, then their driving licence goes through the shredder. As an absolute minimum.