Better Driving Please

[MGF]

Is an example of the aiding, abetting etc if I was to sit in the passenger seat of a vehicle, being driven by someone well over the drink-drive limit and knowing fine well that he is - and taking no steps to prevent him?

If you are not in any way assisisting him to drive I don't see how you can be A,A,C,Ping.

You do not normally have a legal obligation to interfere with someone who is breaking the law.

[vonhosen]

Or what about all the passengers on the 328 bus yesterday -- he stopped a bit sharpish, alarming a passenger, thus passing the threshold for a S3 offence.

We were all aiding and abetting by not rising up and mutinying?

Does aiding, abetting etc really apply to sins of omission?

Is an example of the aiding, abetting etc if I was to sit in the passenger seat of a vehicle, being driven by someone well over the drink-drive limit and knowing fine well that he is - and taking no steps to prevent him?

If you are not in any way assisisting him to drive I don't see how you can be A,A,C,Ping.

You do not normally have a legal obligation to interfere with someone who is breaking the law.

My point is that an intructor/observer (or what ever else you want to call yourself) is exerting influence/control over another in their driving & can be guilty of an offence by omission. The IAM or others will be in a similar position to employers in this regard, as an organisation with control & responsibilities over those acting in it's name within it.


As has been said the aiding, abetting, counseling & procuring applies to all summary & indictable offences. We don't have to look at it's application to speed offences alone to see how omission applies.

The case law for turning a blind eye stems from "R v J F Alford Transport".

Without going into it all, what it came down to was that a number of drivers were allegedly commiting driving offences & the management knew but did nothing.

The ruling shows that what is required to prosecute successfully is that
1) That one of the managers has knowledge of the offences, but takes no steps to prevent those activities.
2) The manager concerned had intended directly/indirectly to encourage (e.g. turning a blind eye). It was not necessary for the manager to have intended to commit an offence.

Such a manager was a representative of his organisation & as such the organisation would be criminally liable for aiding and abetting.

In view of that, I don't think the IAM can take any other stance than that which they do, whether that prevents getting people through the door or not.

I should point out that in the stated case the company in question were acquitted, because the required evidence wasn't presented, but the case set precedence for what is required.

[Nigel]

I think your last post just about sums it up Von.

As far as being called an observer, I was told this is a political title, meant to shut the dsa up, as most of us don't hold the adi qualification, and therefore can't accept payment for the instruction/advice given.

I am also led to believe that in general the dsa & its adi's aren't that keen on us, as we take business away from them, although to be honest I can't see many members of the public paying for tuiton that they don't legally need, when we struggle to almost give it away.

The actual instuction/advice giving bit is a fine line, I tend to give what I think you term as "hot" advice, I think the correct procedure is to state what you want them to do,get them to do it, stop them, tell them what you've "observed" etc.

So far I've found what I do seems to work ok for my candidates.

[martine]

The IAM and RoSPA have chosen which way they want to go. That is a politcal choice.

No it's not, it's the law!

It's interesting that some people draw a distinction between 20, 30, 40, 50 limits and Nationals. They rigidly stick to the lower limits but have decided to be more 'flexible' on Nationals. Personally I don't understand the distinction for this and I say this as someone who regularly is 'flexible' with m-ways! (what a hypocrit!).

[TripleS]

The IAM and RoSPA have chosen which way they want to go. That is a politcal choice.

No it's not, it's the law!

It's interesting that some people draw a distinction between 20, 30, 40, 50 limits and Nationals. They rigidly stick to the lower limits but have decided to be more 'flexible' on Nationals. Personally I don't understand the distinction for this and I say this as someone who regularly is 'flexible' with m-ways! (what a hypocrit!).

If I may leave aside the legal aspects* and just consider the practicalities:

I don't see why this should be a problem Martin. In towns and villages etc. it seems to me reasonable to use lowish speeds where you have a dense hazard climate, so set a limit of 30 or 40 mph according to the location, and leave it at that, at least as a guide. Personally I wouldn't bother with the complexity of trying to nominate a higher speed limit in the middle of the night when the hazard climate is less severe. Even if it were possible I don't think the benefits would make it worthwhile.

The situation out on the open road is quite different in my view. There the sensibly usable speed range varies so widely that the imposition of our 60/70 mph NSLs is worthless as a guide, unlike the situation in built up areas.

I think that is where the distinction can be made. Incidentally, are you not taking more of a risk by being 'flexible' on motorways as opposed to other 'out of town' roads?

* I have to leave those aside, I can't cope with all of that.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[martine]

The situation out on the open road is quite different in my view. There the sensibly usable speed range varies so widely that the imposition of our 60/70 mph NSLs is worthless as a guide, unlike the situation in built up areas.

Hmmm...I'd say the situations where it's appropriate to travel at 80+ on a single-carriageway country road are few and far between. I'd agree that 60 is sometimes too restrictive though. I suppose my 'problem' is if it's OK to break NSL 60s why do some people advocate sticking rigidly to 30s - I can think of roads around Bristol where some 30s are inappropriate.

Incidentally, are you not taking more of a risk by being 'flexible' on motorways as opposed to other 'out of town' roads?

Errr no I don't think so - I'd argue it's generally safer to do 85 on a m-way than 75 on a country road. The stats bear this out I'd have thought.

[TripleS]

The situation out on the open road is quite different in my view. There the sensibly usable speed range varies so widely that the imposition of our 60/70 mph NSLs is worthless as a guide, unlike the situation in built up areas.

Hmmm...I'd say the situations where it's appropriate to travel at 80+ on a single-carriageway country road are few and far between. I'd agree that 60 is sometimes too restrictive though. I suppose my 'problem' is if it's OK to break NSL 60s why do some people advocate sticking rigidly to 30s - I can think of roads around Bristol where some 30s are inappropriate.

Oh well, sorry Martin, but we see that differently. I see lots of single carriageway roads where speeds well in excess of 80 mph are quite OK. I'm not saying you can maintain uninterrupted high speeds for long distances, but short stretches often provide opportunities for 100 mph or more if you have sufficient acceleration capacity available. To me that is a substanatial part of the enjoyment of it - judging what speeds are appropriate from within a fairly wide range. To me that is driving. You say 60 is sometimes too restrictive, whereas I feel it is too low for most SC roads of A and B class. Country lanes are a different matter altogether - 60 is certainly too high for a lot of those.

With regard to the matter of complying with 30s etc. I just feel the two situations - NSLs v BUAs - are fundamentally different scenarios. Apart from the hazard density I referred to earlier, I prefer to go through BUAs quietly to avoiding causing disturbance and general upset to those who live there, apart from the speed limit/safety aspect. Taking the package as a whole, I suppose that's partly why (in my terms at least) I don't feel guilty about having my fun in the NSLs. As for inappropriate 30s, yes they have become more irritating in recent years and I do take liberties a bit more with some of them, more so than I would with genuine 30s.

Incidentally, are you not taking more of a risk by being 'flexible' on motorways as opposed to other 'out of town' roads?

Errr no I don't think so - I'd argue it's generally safer to do 85 on a m-way than 75 on a country road. The stats bear this out I'd have thought.

Ah yes, in safety terms - which is what I was supposed to be focussing on. I started thinking about the risk of being caught by a camera - they being more of a problem on some motorways than they are on SC A and B roads. Sorry, I switched horses in mid-stream.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Darren]

Come on guys, this is totally off topic for the thread. Please call it a day here. We are going to lock it and split it up. 15 pages of thread is a bit...errr...mad