ADUK Archive

If juries and magistrates are reluctant to convict, perhaps due to subconsciously imagining themselves in the shoes of the "unlucky" driver (there but for the grace of God go I...) coupled with the criminal burden of proof, is there a case for treating revocation of driving licences as a civil matter, where the burden of proof would be lower?

So, if one is involved in a fatal or serious injury collision, for which one is found responsible on the balance of probabilities - i.e. enough for a negligence claim - one could lose one's licence for a period?

Or an thorough investigation of all aspects of an incident (as would for example happen in a rail crash)?
Driver found to have been illegally texting whilst moving = ban. Potential loss of licence to drive larger (and more lethal) road machinery - whether or not that contributed to the incident as it proves an inability to comply with the lecence conditions.
Vehicle found to be of inherently unsafe design (blind spots where driver has no possibility of seeing someone enter them) = Vehicles redesigned and old designs removed from the road. During the interim safer working practices are legally mandated - second person in the cab who can watch in blind spots where the driver is overloaded.
Driver unable to exp;lain why she did not see a cyclist directly in front of her? Witness says "Perhaps she was dazzled by so many lights"? Proper examination of whether that location is dazzling to drivers and engineering solutions sought. Removal of the driver's licence pending investigation into whether she has physical difficulties (blind spots on her retina? Concentration difficulties?) and permanent removal if a safe and reasonable explanation is not forthcoming. A licence to drive is not a right.

vonhosen wrote:

TripleS wrote:Hmm, it looks as if we're maybe getting a bit touchy here again.

TBH, Dave, in the 'lorry versus motorbike' case we originally looked at, I feel you're letting the lorry driver off the hook a bit too readily; but that's just my feeling. I'm surprised you didn't expect a bit more care from him than he actually displayed, but there you go.

I assure you it's not.

My take on it was that he was too fast into (rushing to beat the pedestrian to) the junction & in doing so didn't leave himself the time & space he needed to make the necessary & expected checks to complete the manoeuvre safely. That resulted in him not seeing an approaching motorcycle that he should have seen (in a position & doing what it was reasonable to expect it to do).

Beg pardon, Von, but your reply doesn't seem to relate to my bit that you quoted. I suspect you're replying to somebody else.

TripleS wrote:your reply doesn't seem to relate to my bit that you quoted. I suspect you're replying to somebody else.

No, he's not.

He's saying it's not just you - he shares your feeling.

Hope that clarifies

TripleS wrote:

vonhosen wrote:

TripleS wrote:Hmm, it looks as if we're maybe getting a bit touchy here again.

TBH, Dave, in the 'lorry versus motorbike' case we originally looked at, I feel you're letting the lorry driver off the hook a bit too readily; but that's just my feeling. I'm surprised you didn't expect a bit more care from him than he actually displayed, but there you go.

I assure you it's not.

My take on it was that he was too fast into (rushing to beat the pedestrian to) the junction & in doing so didn't leave himself the time & space he needed to make the necessary & expected checks to complete the manoeuvre safely. That resulted in him not seeing an approaching motorcycle that he should have seen (in a position & doing what it was reasonable to expect it to do).

Beg pardon, Von, but your reply doesn't seem to relate to my bit that you quoted. I suspect you're replying to somebody else.

You said in relation to the lorry V motorbike "..but that's just my feeling"

I put that in bold to emphasise what my reply was aimed at & said "I assure you it's not (just your feeling that is)"

Sorry, guys, brain not quite in gear.

Some newer cars have blind spot warning systems - are there such systems for lorries?
would it work / help?
could / should they be made compulsory?

Alasdair

akirk wrote:Some newer cars have blind spot warning systems - are there such systems for lorries?
would it work / help?
could / should they be made compulsory?

Alasdair

TfL have been looking at a range of detection systems, including cctv and infrared or ultrasonic (don't know the details ).

IIRC, all new trucks and buses will have autobrake systems from 2016.

thank you - interesting

akirk wrote:Some newer cars have blind spot warning systems - are there such systems for lorries?
would it work / help?
could / should they be made compulsory?

Yay, more technology to go wrong and to allow people to blame /something/ else other then themselves

Ancient wrote: ... A licence to drive is not a right.

Perhaps the fact that having one's licence removed is often part and parcel of punishment for a criminal offence lends credence to the feeling that it is a right that can only be taken away as a punishment? Perhaps that leads people to feel punished or persecuted when their licences are removed for non-fault reasons like health?

I think that perhaps there is a gap between these two extremes where there may be sufficient evidence of fault or causation - leading to loss of licence as a civil matter, a negligence claim and perhaps compensation - when the evidence may be insufficient to secure a criminal conviction.

I also think it would be beneficial to require those losing there licences (perhaps where the revocation is for longer than a minimum period) to retake their tests.

chrisl wrote:I also think it would be beneficial to require those losing there licences (perhaps where the revocation is for longer than a minimum period) to retake their tests.

How about when people hold a licence but don't own a car? How long would they be permitted to not own a car before being required to retake the test?

Gareth wrote:How about when people hold a licence but don't own a car? How long would they be permitted to not own a car before being required to retake the test?

I'm not sure that I understand the question so forgive me if I'm not addressing your point. To what extent is car ownership germane to the issue of licence holding? I don't have to own a vehicle to commit road traffic offences or to drive a vehicle negligently causing injury, and the requirement to retake the test rests on my wish to regain the licence.

You may have a licence but only ever hire vehicles; that's not unusual.
Think how many different types of car (for instance) you could drive over a period.