Hope you at least got a generous insurance payout. I don't think there are any legal options, but no doubt you'll get some inventive suggestions...

Yeah the compensation I hope is fair, what is seen as fair I have no idea?

I just feel this is not fair, they have been banned for less time than I have been off work.

When I say fair, I haven't been paid out yet. Any figures you guys think?

If youv'e got permanent damage then you must be able to claim compensation surely. That's what I'd be after.

'Adequate punishment' however, is confusing me. Do you want compensation, the offending driver to have a more severe punishment, or both?

A mate of mine had his legs 'smashed to bits' (in the words of his consultant) & had a fair old payout, don't think he was arsed what the offending driver got as punishment.

What are my options if I feel this an inadequate punishment?

**** all.
Best to just try and move on.
Don't try and equate actual dangerous driving with the offence of dangerous driving, and don't try and equate the law with justice.
Hope your injuries don't give you too much grief.

I say this about all the cycling accidents and incidents that happen, but it also applies here as well. If you are involved in something, anything, make sure that you have your own legal representation. Do not assume that any part of the legal system is going to represent you or fight your corner.

Take out legal insurance.

Snob, thought so.

Grunt, compensation is being dealt with through my solicitor and their insurance company.

I just feel upset that they have not been punished adequately in my eyes.

Looks like I'll never play cricket or golf again. Both of which I love.

Msp, good call.

Guilty plea to the lesser charge before trial, or found guilty after trial?

I would guess it was magistrates court, not a trial.

compensation is being dealt with through my solicitor and their insurance company.

I think to have any chance of justice, you need to instruct your solicitor to keep on top of, and ensure you are represented in any prosecution, as well as dealing with the compensation side of things. Probably too late in this case now, but something others should take note of.

We are brought up with a belief that the justice system is there to represent us, but it is almost bizarre the way victims are completely cut out.

Yes magistrates court. They pleaded guilty by letter but then the judge ordered them to appear in person due to the severity.

I just feel upset that they have not been punished adequately in my eyes

you need to understand the difference between intent and outcome. Obviously the outcome was very serious but the harm you suffered wasn't the result of malice - they didn't intend to crash, although they clearly didn't take sufficient measures to insure they didn't, or hurt you specifically or anyone else generally, they just took bad decisions that lead to an accident - they were in that accident too, and I doubt they wanted to be.

Just walking up to you and punching you on the nose would have a far less serious outcome - but the intent to do harm is there and that would be prosecuted and sentenced more severely than an unintended action with unintended consequences.

I would guess it was magistrates court, not a trial.

Come again?

Dont take their first offer. I dont know how it works but who is picking up your Solicitors bill?

Personally if it effects sports you used to enjoy I'd want at least starting with a six figure.

Mac- true

If you're not happy then you know what to do...

[img] [/img]

Hammy to answer your question no I don't think this is the right outcome to my mind overtaking in circumstances where you have to swerve to avoid oncoming traffic and swerving at such speed and in such a manner that he loses control and barrel rolls is at first sight Dangerous Driving. If prosecuted as careless I would have expected a little more on the ban and fine but he would have got a third off the fine for an early guilty plea .

As has been hinted at above the criminal court is concerned to establish the extent of the criminal conduct and the degree of intent in road traffic incidents the loss is viewed very much as pure chance and not taken to aggravate the offense . In simple terms people can drive very dangerously spend a lifetime "making progress in traffic" and have the good luck never to injure anyone on the other hand a minor one off error could be fatal. The law by and large looks at the risk run not the consequences. That is the criminal case in which the Queen takes the offender to court and imposes a punishment for breaking her law . Even as a victim you are only a witness and have no rights to representation and no control over events .
The civil case is where you take him to court for the wrong he has done to you and you are incharge of the conduct of the claim there you get compensated for all the loss he has caused you . Hopefully that will translate to a shed load of cash .

Oh and good luck.

The definition of dangerous driving always causes problems for courts and jury's, it states.

[b]the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;[2]
[/b]
The problems arise ascertaining what " falls far below" actually means.
And the sentance on conviction for dangerous driving is 5 years, so will go to crown court, again a costly exercise.

so in most cases which are on the borderline of dangerous and due care, the cps will always choose due care.
And without knowing all the facts, sound more like a due care than a dangerous, for cps guidelines .

Ps, the prosecution do NOT need to prove any intent for dangerous

[i]if it effects sports you used to enjoy I'd want at least starting with a six figure. [/i]

'mental suffering' seems to not carry much weight, tbh, if you can prove loss of future income, damage to property etc then you get paid but more nebulous stuff appears to not get much actual cash.

Don't just add up monetary losses. Add on as much as you can think of for the permanent disability and loss of quality of life. I'd agree with the previous poster talking of 6 figures (though to be honest, I doubt you'll get that much). The fact that they are at least convicted is a big help as it establishes their fault beyond doubt. Don't be ashamed of pushing for the largest settlement possible, it's not an ideal outcome (I'd prefer to see proper treatment in the criminal system) but it's the way things are. You should of course seek proper legal advice if you haven't already - a lot of people suggest the CTC is a good starting point.

Easygirl you are right about no intent . I was struggling express my self . The mental element is that which "is obvious" to the objective careful and competent driver.

Three years ago, a driver fell asleep at the wheel, hit me and my family. Totaled our car. All 4 of us off to hospital in ambulances with wife and youngest son with potential neck injuries.

He got 6 points and a fine.

The civil courts/insurers are the places for material damages.

Similar here again - sister in law and aunt were hit head on by a driver who took a corner too fast 'drift style' and took them out.
Two broken ankles and lower legs, broken collar bone, broken ribs, permanent scarring down her sternum and a host of cuts all over her, including face.
The other driver got 6 points and small fine.

Move on. Get a payout for damages.

To be fair, falling asleep at the wheel isn't dangerous driving in the same way as the OPs experience. Still deserves punishment but it is an entirely different situation.

JD - Really? It is taking a decision to drive when you are cognitively impaired and unfit to do so, not just having a sweet, kitten-like, nap... 👿

Of course yes. I am surprised you can't accept there is a difference.

Hammy to answer your question no I don't think this is the right outcome to my mind overtaking in circumstances where you have to swerve to avoid oncoming traffic and swerving at such speed and in such a manner that he loses control and barrel rolls is at first sight Dangerous Driving. If prosecuted as careless I would have expected a little more on the ban and fine but he would have got a third off the fine for an early guilty plea .

No.

1) Its "without due care and attention", not careless.
2) The test is persistance. A one off stupid overtake would be "without due care and attention", to make it dangerous they'd have to be repeatedly doing it, so usualy it's applied to police car chases etc. And with that comes a burden of proof, it's obvious when there's an accident, but unless the police are following with a camera it'd be a difficult one to prove.

Relative to most things driving is "dangerous". Don't confuse that with the legal definition of dangerous driving.

I'll add. With your injuries you may also be looking at (early/earlier) arthritis than what you'd normally expect. Be on your Solicitors case pushing this. Don't take just his/her advice (as he/she may think its gone far enough/done enough from their own perspective) whereas you put the legwork in now.

With your injuries you may also be looking at (early/earlier) arthritis than what you'd normally expect. Be on your Solicitors case pushing this. Don't take just his/her advice (as he/she may think its gone far enough/done enough from their own perspective) whereas you put the legwork in now.

You can't just make up a number, look up what you're entitled to in the green book, it lists pretty much every injury/disease/ailment imaginable.

I know but I'm thinking pushing for the best deal.

Non-physical injuries are also covered in the green book (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder) which need to be thought about and put forward.

Sleepless nights/affecting how/where you drive/angry/or just worry.

JD - well the law - judging by the case results - agrees with me, not you. Each case is a single poor judgement.

Crankboy and Easygirl have covered the main issues:

- the CPS decide what charge to bring, if they don't prosecute as Dangerous the court can't upgrade the charge.
- the decision to treat this as Careless rather than Dangerous is not inconsistent with other cases that come before the courts; from what I've seen one of the differences is if it was a sustained course of conduct - so if there was EVIDENCE that he had repeatedly made bad overtakes along this journey, or ignored double white lines or warning signs they'd have gone Dangerous, for a single moment of bad judgement Careless is more common
- the court is supposed to sentence on the standard of driving not the consequences (although that is as much to work the other way round where he got luck and caused minimal harm to others as it is for the case where minor indiscretion results in major carnage).
- by pleading guilty he's avoided heavy costs but also can expect a 1/3rd reduction in sentence.
- any mitigation he offered (by letter or in person) would be taken into account
- a four month ban may not sound like much to you but its fairly significant for a first offender in an English magistrates court.
- YOU can't complain the sentence was unduly lenient. The Crown can appeal it, but they won't in this case because it is not UNDULY lenient (this standard is very tough) or outside the range any reasonable bench would have imposed.
- given the number of cases that never make it to court, or which collapse before or during a trial then you might think on this outcome as a "success".

- YOUR compensation is totally independent of the criminal sentence, and the admission of guilt can only help your case.

JD - well the law - judging by the case results - agrees with me, not you. Each case is a single poor judgement.

My last comment, reading the topic reminded me of 10pshort's prison experience (he got 12months):

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=141&t=442266&i=40

What are my options if I feel this an inadequate punishment?

I don't think the criminal justice system works like that. The victims don't get to choose the punishment, for obvious reasons.

I just feel this is not fair, they have been banned for less time than I have been off work.

Thisisnotaspoon where do you get your persistence test from? If I see an oncoming police car responding to an emergency and deliberately drive to block it causing it to hit me , is that only careless because it was a single act?

I just feel this is not fair, they have been banned for less time than I have been off work.

Is there no way you can make a representation? Of course not exactly a victim impact statement but similar?

[i]and deliberately drive to block it causing it to hit me[/i]

it's proving intention that's the problem you may know you did it deliberately but how can anyone prove that in court if you say 'sorry, it was a moments inattention'?

[quote=easygirl ]The definition of dangerous driving always causes problems for courts and jury's, it states.
the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous;[2]

The problems arise ascertaining what " falls far below" actually means.

I disagree. The bigger issue is the definition of a careful and competent driver. On average you probably stand a better chance of the definition being used actually being a competent driver in a magistrates court, but clearly there are likely to be some magistrates with pretty poor standard of driving who think they're above average.

wwaswas I am not seeking to explore how one proves dangerous driving but how one defines it . Persistence is not the test for dangerous driving one off acts can and do amount to dangerous driving . It is obviously easier to demonstrate the offence from a prolonged series of poor manoeuvres but they are not essential to making out the offence.

The definition has been posted above and easygirl rightly corrected or clarified the lack of any need to show intent in the offence.

I presume if there was intent then a different, more serious charge could be brought? Though as always you have the issue of proving intent beyond reasonable doubt, which is why I'd expect very few such cases come to court (did intent get proved with the bloke who reversed over a bike trailer in a Rangie?)

Edit: remembered enough of that case for google to help - it seems he did get charged with (and pleaded guilty to) GBH
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1421135/Road-rage-driver-reversed-over-child-in-bicycle-buggy.html

Thisisnotaspoon where do you get your persistence test from? If I see an oncoming police car responding to an emergency and deliberately drive to block it causing it to hit me , is that only careless because it was a single act?

That's an entirely different scenario (but would according to the link below be "dangerous").

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/

We had this discussion on a H&S course as a tangent from stuff like a fine from HSE after an accident Vs corperate manslaughter, allong the lines of faiulre to fix an unkonwn fault is an accident, failure to do any maintenance at all (i.e. persistance) increaces the severity of the charge.

It's not the only way to get charged with dangerous driving, but it is the one commonly used as it's about the only one that's proveable, the rest is all subjective e.g. "without due care" is defined as "bleow the standard expected", "dangerous" is "far below". Regardless of consequence, is a bad overtake below the standard expected, or far below?

thisisnotaspoon
from your link:-

"The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:
blah blah
overtaking which could not have been carried out safely;
blah blah
a brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre. This covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be dangerous even for only a short time"
So yes a single bad overtake can be dangerous.

I particularly approve of "failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists,"

1) Its "without due care and attention", not careless

Actually, for the assistance of those engaging in point scoring pedantry, the [u]offence[/u] is Careless, and Inconsiderate, Driving, and the [u]definition[/u] of that offence is when a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place.

[quote=crankboy ]I particularly approve of "failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists,"

If only the CPS and the courts actually paid any attention to that bit.

Me too! I have today just had a conversation with the officer who decided not to prosecute the driver who ran me down when I was in a bus lane the other driver cut across traffic from a side street on my right to enter a side street on my left hitting me at 90% . One of the factors relied on to decide not to prosecute was the opinion of the attending officer "the cyclist must accept some responsibility to ensure their own safety when approaching a junction." to be clear I was travelling at normal traffic speed in a bus/cycle lane along side a lane of cars with right of way, the car that hit me had to shoot at 90% across a cycle lane a traffic lane a hatched divide a second traffic lane then into the bus lane to hit me and did not stop until it was half in the other side road .

[quote=crankboy ]the opinion of the attending officer "the cyclist must accept some responsibility to ensure their own safety when approaching a junction."

That is complete BS and victim blaming at it's absolute worst - the sort of thing which is part of the problem. Personally I'd be putting in a complaint about that, stating the part of the CPS guidance you've just quoted, and asking where in the HC or any CPS guidance it mentions what he's suggested as a reason for reducing the culpability of a driver. I'm fairly sure similar complaints have actually resulted in an admittance from the police that they were incorrect and it's a start if we can change a few attitudes.

Actually why don't you just name the "officer" concerned on here...

because it was one of a number of factors . The personal call was an attempt to head off the complaint I made when I received a generic standard computer signed letter saying no proceedings would be taken and listing generic example factors that would have been considered.

The standard factors listed all in my view went towards prosecution I asked for a detailed and reasoned explanation for the decision about my case . That is what I got, cctv showed before after but not the incident I know the area and camera system that is plausible, eye witness on pavement saw it but says if he had been driving he may not have, cyclist behind says he was keeping pace with me and feathered his brakes as he has seen a similar there ,he states he could not express an opinion as to blame . Mystery man in car in cue says I was going at a pace . The two nice ladies who administered first aid and tried to lynch the driver were not statemented even though they are the only actual eye witnesses I was aware of?
So I can see that from a cash strapped police perspective the case is a potential bag of nails . I got the smell it was going to go off when the original officer took my account by phone when I was leaving causality and told me I had to "understand the drivers side another driver had flashed her so she had just gone and never saw me ."
What I really wanted was some indication it had actually been investigated which the letter did not give and some comfort that the driver had received some sort of threat or warning which they have not they got the same standard letter I got .

Well what you've outlined there is also a complete load of BS - your speed is irrelevant, as is the opinion of eye witnesses on blame (that is determined from the facts which is what they provide information on). Though I do particularly like the "officer" completely ignoring the HC and the law regarding flashing in his comments to you. As I stated above, I'd be taking that further as they are provably incorrect in some of their judgements - the officer supplying that opinion really needs correcting. Though you probably know all that anyway.

Serious comment about naming and shaming - if the police and their complaints won't do anything then social media might.

[quote=crankboy] In simple terms people can drive very dangerously spend a lifetime "making progress in traffic" and have the good luck never to injure anyone on the other hand a minor one off error could be fatal

This reminds me of the story (PistonHeads?) about a driver who took a wet corner a *little* too fast, and spun the car (ending up in the opposite side of the road).

At the same time, a few bikers were coming round the same corner - opposite direction - "most likely above the speed limit", and one rider hit the car, and died as a result.

The driver got something like 6 months inside for "death by dangerous driving" (or equivilant).

EDIT: I think this was the story, although the original post has been removed. The comments say enough.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=210&t=629763&mid=0&i=0&nmt=Prison+Diary&mid=0

Xiphon, that is the story Hora linked to at the end of page one. His link gives the full description.

The biker didn't die, but he has a paralysed right arm and will never work again.

The driver got 12 months for dangerous driving.

Ah thats it (memory a little shady) - sorry I didn't see Hora's post.

Aracer ta for your comments I agree with you and spent twenty minutes putting my side to the guy who made the charging decision,not the original officer . There is a sound argument to be made but it would at best end in a criminal trial where the prosecution witnesses would be arguing with each other. I still find the incident very hard to come with ironically enough because my injuries were relatvely slight . I don't want to put myself through months of stress or my wife and son through months of me being stressed . in the civil case the insurers have accepted liability so I will get some compo though again I plan to cut and run if they make a sensible offer rather than go for the full psychological bits . hard to see how you value my reaction to what didn't happen.

Very interesting reading all. Thank you.

A bit more information on my injuries and suffering and what to do next. Result of the accident, smashed radius, dislocated wrist, broken shoulder, severely sprained ankle, lacerated finger (requiring plastic surgery) and deep cut on my knee. Resulting in five nights in LGI. I am still suffering from PTSD and I am still seeing a psychiatrist for this, sixteen sessions in total.

Someone mentioned arthritis, this is already present in my radio carpel joint and also in my Ulna joint and the surgeon has discussed wrist fusion (which I want to avoid). I have had two cortisone injections and I am due to see the consultant for the next step regarding surgery.

Now for the compensation part. I have a solicitor working for me on this. Is it possible to personally sue the offender or do I just get compensation through the insurance company? A couple have mentioned six figure sums, really that much?

The solicitors work with an independent Dr to verify the severity of my injuries, I am yet to see them until I have been discharged. Apparently my wrist is on the complex case list that is discussed every month between the top hand surgeons in the North and I fear a general Dr will not report the extent of my injuries fully.

My whole life I have played a high level of cricket and now I can't. I have lost a huge social circle and I feel lost.

Thanks again for any comments that may help me.

Hammy you are personally suing the other driver he has insured against the risk of you doing it,hence your solicitor dealing with his insurers .

Given your very significant injuries combined with the psychological impact plus loss of life pleasures I would expect quite a high settlement.

Your solicitor should be able to give you a broad ball park idea. A rough suggestion from mine for PTSD alone was 9k I for many reasons don't think I have PTSD and am happier suggesting a bit of adjustment disorder to get something modest and move on .
One thing your solicitor can do is work out an agreed bare minimum get that as an interim payment and finalise the settlement when your prognosis is settled.

Your solicitor can and should get reports from the appropriate level of expert including if needed the surgeons who treat your wrist not just a general doctor.

Crankboy, thank you that makes sense.

[quote=crankboy ]Aracer ta for your comments I agree with you and spent twenty minutes putting my side to the guy who made the charging decision,not the original officer . There is a sound argument to be made but it would at best end in a criminal trial where the prosecution witnesses would be arguing with each other. I still find the incident very hard to come with ironically enough because my injuries were relatvely slight . I don't want to put myself through months of stress or my wife and son through months of me being stressed . in the civil case the insurers have accepted liability so I will get some compo though again I plan to cut and run if they make a sensible offer rather than go for the full psychological bits . hard to see how you value my reaction to what didn't happen.

I totally understand your position on this. The point here isn't to get a criminal trial (I doubt that will now happen whatever you do), but to adjust the attitudes of some police officers. I'm not an expert on this, but I believe there is a formal complaints procedure to be followed which has resulted in officers being told they are wrong in similar cases before (it is after all quite clear that the officer does not correctly understand the law based on some of his comments to you). Clearly it's up to you what you want to do, as it involves no hassle at all for me to pontificate on an internet forum, but you certainly have my backing (for what that is worth) to take it further.