there's a growing weight of evidence to say it's the cars deciding to crash stop all by themselves
I've had a lower grade version of this in a US hire car - I think it took exception to the rapid lateral movement of a nearby car, but that was two lanes away. Either that or an insect or bit of debris flew straight at the sensor. Car jammed on and then luckily let go again before we lost too much speed (busy traffic behind). Quite scary.
I wonder if with these apparently lenient sentences there's an element of "there but for the grace of god
That's definitely the case, IMO.
The case in the OP got round the jury aspect because he pleaded (pled?) guilty to death by dangerous driving. I can't believe a jury would've convicted him of it, given typical jury behaviour - in fact I'd be amazed if the prosecution even tried for dangerous driving. Him coming across a judge with the opinion/interpretation as shown by this one was extremely unlikely IMO. If you stacked up all the cases where drivers have killed somebody, I'd have this one right down at the lower end in terms of culpability ... and yet there he goes off to jail
What are we prosecuting here, actions, intent... or severity of the outcome? Moreover, are we doing so consistently?
Be interesting to know how many "accelerator instead of brake" accidents there are every year. I know my mil had one before giving up driving but luckily for her only her pride, a fence and her car were damaged.
as i put in an earlier post, sins of omission (didn't take time to familiarise with the van, didn't feel able to tell their boss they didn't feel capable of driving a new type of vehicle) - and then a 'yep, another day and time that could be me'
vs sins of commission (choosing to speed, drive when drunk, read your whatsapp) where I think more legitimately people would (or should) throw the book
I can't believe a jury would've convicted him of it, given typical jury behaviour
Which is why jury trials are a really outdated concept when trying to apply modern technical law. The concept behind jury trials was that people of a similar background would make the decisions not some upper class judge making prejudiced decisions based on class assumptions (although it was still rife back in the day).
Which is why jury trials are a really outdated concept when trying to apply modern technical law. The concept behind jury trials was that people of a similar background would make the decisions not some upper class judge making prejudiced decisions based on class assumptions (although it was still rife back in the day).
Also, it's harder to secretly bribe 12 people than one?
I agree that juries, esp in driving cases, are far too lenient/credulous/biased. More widely even but deffo with driving, I think that juries should be asked to give decisions of fact, not interpretation - "we accept that stumpyjon was travelling at 50-55 mph when his car struck the pram" Then the court should turn to EXPERT judges of driving standards and ask whether this was careless or dangerous (perhaps how a driving examiner would act if a candidate behaved similarly: Minor downscore = probably (sadly) within normal standards; major = careless driving; stop the car immediately and terminate test = dangerous)
There also should be a proper definition of "momentary", as in "momentary loss of concentration". How long can that be allowed to stretch before it's failure to attend to the task in hand ? So many times a drive has a "momentary lapse" on a straight road with good sightlines and hits a bike after 20 seconds of them being visible
I'm for mandatory black box fitment to any vehicle they're insured for, for anyone who collects 6 points in a 12 month period, too - funded by the offender.
What are we prosecuting here, actions, intent... or severity of the outcome? Moreover, are we doing so consistently?
Be interesting to know how many "accelerator instead of brake" accidents there are every year. I know my mil had one before giving up driving but luckily for her only her pride, a fence and her car were damaged.
Even then though, as Jon says there are degrees of... is "culpability" the right word? Your MIL, I assume, was still driving when she was no longer fit. The airborne warrior on the previous page though, he just accidentally stood on the Go pedal whilst reaching behind for something. That's easily done, I've done it myself, though I wouldn't be faffing about in the back with the car still in Drive...!
I'm for mandatory black box fitment to any vehicle they're insured for, for anyone who collects 6 points in a 12 month period, too - funded by the offender.
It's a little surprising that they've not been made mandatory on new vehicles by now, what is it, Whole Vehicle Type Approval or something? Mind you, we'd probably brexit our way out of any EU legislation.
Not even necessarily for prosecutions or to make people drive more cautiously, but they must have a value for crash investigations. Dashcams too, why aren't they integrated by now? My car isn't special and it's dripping with RADAR and gods know what else, there's already a rear view camera, why can't I stick an SD card in it?
I am surprised insurance has not made cameras virtually mandatory by discounting those with them
I am surprised insurance has not made cameras virtually mandatory by discounting those with themThat would imply that having a camera makes you less likely to be the subject of a claim! If all it does is clarfiy who was at fault it might not be in insurers' best interests! Indeed they might show their insured was actually liable!
It's a little surprising that they've not been made mandatory on new vehicles by now, what is it, Whole Vehicle Type Approval or something? Mind you, we'd probably brexit our way out of any EU legislation.Not even necessarily for prosecutions or to make people drive more cautiously, but they must have a value for crash investigations.
It is under consideration https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/mandating-vehicle-safety-technologies-in-gb-type-approval/mandating-vehicle-safety-technologies-in-gb-type-approval
I think the EU may already be ahead of us (or perhaps its still in the pipeline there) but many new cars do have speed, pedal, steering etc recorded and accessible to forensic crash investigators even if not required in the UK. I'm not sure many drivers are aware of this.
I agree that juries, esp in driving cases, are far too lenient/credulous/biased. More widely even but deffo with driving, I think that juries should be asked to give decisions of fact, not interpretation - "we accept that stumpyjon was travelling at 50-55 mph when his car struck the pram" Then the court should turn to EXPERT judges of driving standards and ask whether this was careless or dangerouswhere the dispute is more about whether a particular course of action was careless/dangerous rather than what action was taken, expert witnesses are commonly used by both prosecution and defence to help juries understand the point. The challenge is the legislation has what the lawyers call an objective test, but everyone else would call subjective criteria...
depending what you got the points for 6 points apparently doesn't even load your premium that much. That suggests that points aren't necessarily a good indicator of future risk. Its not unusual for death by driving offences to be someone with a clean license (but its also not unusual for others to have a spectacular driving record, or even by disqualified). There's a quite scary number of people driving whilst disqualified, revoked, or never having passed a test in the first place.I'm for mandatory black box fitment to any vehicle they're insured for, for anyone who collects 6 points in a 12 month period, too - funded by the offender.
I think the EU may already be ahead of us (or perhaps its still in the pipeline there) but many new cars do have speed, pedal, steering etc recorded and accessible to forensic crash investigators even if not required in the UK. I'm not sure many drivers are aware of thisit's been a thing for 15+ years in a lot of cars. Just keep adding finer details and more channels. It's usually civil liberty groups or antiquated legal frameworks that stop the data being used. (Or just a lack of budget)
The data gets used internally quite a lot though.
So we know that most "my car randomly accelerated, I'm going to sue" are actually people pressing their accelerator pedals flat to the floor. The rest are badly fitted/aftermarket floormats.