I've been thinking about this a bit after some idiot ran out from behind a bus and I had to slam on and swerve to miss him, if it had been some oap he'd have been a gonner.
I read in a Clarkson column that they were thinking of charging anyone involved in a motor incident in which someone dies with manslaughter as a matter of course.
Basically if some pillocked runs out from behind a but into moving taffic and ends up with his brains smeared across my windscreen I get done for manslaughter and get put away for 8 years (given that's a common sentance for manslaughter)....
I don't know how true that is, but personally I think to ruin someones life over something they could do nothing about is a disgrace.
Does anyone know a bit more about this as clearly I don't know too much!
Gone to jail?
-
mysteryboy
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 2673
- Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:46 pm
- Location: London Drives: MK4 8V Hates: Speed Bumps
- Contact:
-
Tahrey1043
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 5184
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:15 am
- Location: Birmingham! Enjoys: The pseudo-G-Smiles provided by a 1.6 Megane Sport valver...
- Contact:
dont underestimate the incredible bullsh*t lengths the government will go to when it comes to them vs the motorist
they all live in city of london, remember, where the car is pretty much a non-starter as a transport idea. and who was it came up with first the red flag, then the 12, and 20mph blanket speed limits? a long time ago, granted, but we then didnt get the true "derestricted" condition for very long neither.
this is just one of a brace of unsavoury ideas they're wheeling around at the moment. you'd freak if you heard all of them at once.
PS i missed that issue, if you could pop a scan of the article up on imageshack or something i'd be very grateful, sounds fascinating (well, clarkson on safety and speeding is at least good for a laugh
)
they all live in city of london, remember, where the car is pretty much a non-starter as a transport idea. and who was it came up with first the red flag, then the 12, and 20mph blanket speed limits? a long time ago, granted, but we then didnt get the true "derestricted" condition for very long neither.
this is just one of a brace of unsavoury ideas they're wheeling around at the moment. you'd freak if you heard all of them at once.
PS i missed that issue, if you could pop a scan of the article up on imageshack or something i'd be very grateful, sounds fascinating (well, clarkson on safety and speeding is at least good for a laugh
)-
helios1
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 8:56 pm
- Location: Aberystwyth, Wales, usually in my Mk4 1.3L
http://www.topgear.com/content/features ... s/2/4.html
Ive found the article on the top gear site. Makes a good read
Ive found the article on the top gear site. Makes a good read
-
PoloCornwall
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:05 am
- Location: Cornwall
I have another idea. Ban radial tyres and make us all drive around on crossplys. This way, no one would want to break the speed limit, because you can have just as much fun at 40 on a crossply as you can at 400 on a low-profile Pirelli. Even James May could power slide a Morris 1000. Oh, hang on, I've just remembered, he couldn't.
Sounds GoOd
Sounds GoOd
Well im in this situation just now, basically 2 guys ran across a dual carriageway during the night, i missed 1 & crashed in2 the other. THe guy was taken to hospital looking in a bad way & iwas told that if he didnt make it i would basically go2 jail & await trial. But he was ok (apart from lots of broken bones)
So now ive to go2 court being accused of careless driving as im supposed to be able have avoided him.
Even the police that came to charge me said that the laws regarding this are s**t but its the law.
So now ive to go2 court being accused of careless driving as im supposed to be able have avoided him.
Even the police that came to charge me said that the laws regarding this are s**t but its the law.
-
Tahrey1043
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 5184
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:15 am
- Location: Birmingham! Enjoys: The pseudo-G-Smiles provided by a 1.6 Megane Sport valver...
- Contact:
well maybe present the case that you were travelling at the legal limit of 70mph, your minimum stopping distance was 100 metres, the dudes jumped out with only 20 metres between you... you could not reasonably be expected to avoid hitting him, and it's more honestly a case of "death by misadventure" (or possibly, being drunk - did they do a blood test on him?)
after all, you managed to twitch-swerve just enough to avoid his friend, but there are physical limits. are you supposed to drive down the road at 25mph*, 45mph below the limit for that road, just on the off chance that tonight will be the one night out of thousands two tanked up retards will play chicken with you?
* given that 80% die at 40mph, and only 20% at 30, a rather dodgy curve drawn from that shows that less than 1% of peds involved in a road accident will die from their injuries at 25mph, which probably counts as ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Acheivable) in terms of road safety. After all, that's like falling from your bike. If the govt really was serious about improving safety without cacking on the motorist, they'd have made the mental leap to putting in a good number of 25 limits in high traffic areas that are unsafe, giving the very best combination of throughput and survivability. If it's good enough for the americans, canadians, french, spanish, german, japanese (aka, 40kmh) then why not us? Instead of a stark choice between reasonable travelling speed (30) but a 20% mortality rate OR SO IT IS CLAIMED, or guaranteed survival but a bone-aching 50% slower crawl (20). Hmmmm...???
35 limits, too (or ~60kmh, also common in europe, and the states) for where the leap between 30 and 40 is a little too big. maybe some 15s for really tricky urban estates or shopping areas without imposing a completely ignored "10". 45 (70k) and 55 (90k) would be kind of unneccessary as there's small enough proportional gaps between 40, 50, 60 for them to blend with reasonable seamlessness. 70k and 90k limits are handy when you're on a kilometre based system to make things really smooth, but a bit OTT.
there is precedent, after all - the telford bridge over the menai straight, connecting bangor to anglesey in NW wales, has a well-established (and often obeyed, as it's narrow and frightening) 15mph limit. Possibly the only one on a public road in the UK. but all the same - it is there, it is a legally sanctioned restriction (even got full inner-lit signs) and its not a multiple of ten.
after all, you managed to twitch-swerve just enough to avoid his friend, but there are physical limits. are you supposed to drive down the road at 25mph*, 45mph below the limit for that road, just on the off chance that tonight will be the one night out of thousands two tanked up retards will play chicken with you?
* given that 80% die at 40mph, and only 20% at 30, a rather dodgy curve drawn from that shows that less than 1% of peds involved in a road accident will die from their injuries at 25mph, which probably counts as ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Acheivable) in terms of road safety. After all, that's like falling from your bike. If the govt really was serious about improving safety without cacking on the motorist, they'd have made the mental leap to putting in a good number of 25 limits in high traffic areas that are unsafe, giving the very best combination of throughput and survivability. If it's good enough for the americans, canadians, french, spanish, german, japanese (aka, 40kmh) then why not us? Instead of a stark choice between reasonable travelling speed (30) but a 20% mortality rate OR SO IT IS CLAIMED, or guaranteed survival but a bone-aching 50% slower crawl (20). Hmmmm...???
35 limits, too (or ~60kmh, also common in europe, and the states) for where the leap between 30 and 40 is a little too big. maybe some 15s for really tricky urban estates or shopping areas without imposing a completely ignored "10". 45 (70k) and 55 (90k) would be kind of unneccessary as there's small enough proportional gaps between 40, 50, 60 for them to blend with reasonable seamlessness. 70k and 90k limits are handy when you're on a kilometre based system to make things really smooth, but a bit OTT.
there is precedent, after all - the telford bridge over the menai straight, connecting bangor to anglesey in NW wales, has a well-established (and often obeyed, as it's narrow and frightening) 15mph limit. Possibly the only one on a public road in the UK. but all the same - it is there, it is a legally sanctioned restriction (even got full inner-lit signs) and its not a multiple of ten.
well the police have worked out that i was travelling between 45-60mph when i hit the guy, if id hit him at 70mph or over hed b a goner. They had been drinking tho im told that doesnt matter
I asked about the cahnce that they were in fact playin chicken, but the police said that it would be incosiderate to ask the boy or his family that question........
I asked about the cahnce that they were in fact playin chicken, but the police said that it would be incosiderate to ask the boy or his family that question........
-
Tahrey1043
- Bling Bling Diamond Member
- Posts: 5184
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 1:15 am
- Location: Birmingham! Enjoys: The pseudo-G-Smiles provided by a 1.6 Megane Sport valver...
- Contact:
it certainly would have mattered if YOUD been drunk, or if he'd gone off and caused other more obvious aggro somewhere, so why does he get off in the blame stakes?
and what if his game of chicken had led to you avoiding him, but crashing in a way that was fatal to yourself? (or his bonce had smashed thru your screen and clocked you one hard enough to knock-out / kill?)
not speaking ill of the dead like ... as he seems to have got a rather severe comeuppance already. But it does sound like the police at this point are discounting any possibility that you did everything right that you could, and he brought it on himself.
and what if his game of chicken had led to you avoiding him, but crashing in a way that was fatal to yourself? (or his bonce had smashed thru your screen and clocked you one hard enough to knock-out / kill?)
not speaking ill of the dead like ... as he seems to have got a rather severe comeuppance already. But it does sound like the police at this point are discounting any possibility that you did everything right that you could, and he brought it on himself.