Just a thought…what would the outcome have been if he had stopped because he had broken down at the same place?
From the article…
The police claimed his driving had fallen below the standard one would expect of a competent driver in that he created an unnecessary hazard.
The same points were argued at length before the Court of Appeal, but three judges agreed that Jenkins had caused an unnecessary hazard which was bordering on the dangerous. They also rejected his defence team’s argument that he was no longer ‘driving’.
I think the case against a driver who had broken down in that position would be much weaker. Breaking down in that position is not a choice in the same way that parking there was. You might say that it’s still the driver’s fault he broke down, if a lack of maintenance was the cause, but I think that’s getting a bit weak, and in any case the location is unlikely to have been a deliberate choice.
It would also be argued that breaking down does not constitute driving in the same way as parking was held to be.
He added: “This case is interesting because it confirms that once a vehicle is parked up where it causes an obvious risk, responsibility for that vehicle nevertheless continues with the driver who cannot claim that he has now ceased driving.”
Even though the offence of death by careless driving could be argued against, for the reasons above, this bit suggests that the driver still has a responsibility to deal with the hazard his vehicle is causing, so if the driver didn’t take reasonable actions to safeguard others he might still be found culpable of something.