Prison Diary

[Daaave]

Next time you fancy a fun drive in your pride and joy, think what could happen...

http://www.prisondiary.co.uk/


****NOT MY BLOG****

[e-trainer]

Next time you fancy a fun drive in your pride and joy, think what could happen...

http://www.prisondiary.co.uk/

Your blog does highlight a flaw in how we deal with motoring offences. For now let’s forget if you were guilty or not, but look at the same driving behaviour (as described by the prosecution in your case) Had you driven into the bend with excess speed, lost control of your car and hit a tree instead of a motorcyclist and were the only person injured, what would you have been charged with and what would any sentence have been? It came down to luck (in your case bad luck) had circumstances been different and the motorcyclist not been there you would have done what millions of drivers do every day, made a mistake whilst driving! Should we (or the police if we had any traffic police) be stopping more drivers who make mistakes and educate those drivers before they like you run out of luck?

[Red Herring]

I'm not so sure i agree with your definition of a mistake. Being in the wrong gear, misjudging a junction and clipping a kerb, or even stopping at a junction and looking but not seeing an approaching vehicle, could all be seen as mistakes. They are events that were not intentional where the driver set out to do something properly but through being human they didn't do it right.

Driving along a stretch of road knowing full well that you are trying to make progress by driving as quickly as you believe you "safely" can, and going into a bend (on a road by his own admission he knew well) so quickly that you lose control and broadside up the road, is more than a mistake. It is taking a calculated risk where the price of you getting it wrong could well be somebody else's life, and in this case it very nearly was, and it is pre-meditated. We all know that if we push a vehicle towards it's limits there is a chance we will get it wrong.

There are two options in this example. Either the driver could see across the bend, saw the motorcyclist coming, yet still decided to go into the bend at the speed he did, or he couldn't see through the bend, couldn't see the motorcyclist, yet still decided to rely on using a piece of road he couldn't see was clear. Either way he took a chance with somebody's else's life and it's right he pay the price, if for no other reason than to send a message to other drivers that we all have a responsibility towards each other. If you need to read a blog like this one to know that then help yourself. Personally I was already aware of the consequences of a "fun drive".

[TripleS]

I expect a "fun drive" means different things to different people. In a recent post I said something about not looking for excitement in my driving, and that's true. My enjoyment comes from using a fairly wide speed range at times, but being considerate to other road users and trying not to push things too far.

That was a terrible incident though. I feel for all concerned.

Even so, I do not support the idea of never being able to use anything more than lowish speeds on public roads. It is but one example - which may not concern most people - but to me such constraints inevitably devalue the feeling of life.

Best wishes all,
Dave - still a relic of a bygone era.

[MGF]

The first point that needs to be made relates to the perception that motoring offences are unique in that the consequences of the culpable act affect the charge and sentence. This happens throughout the criminal law.

The second point I would like to make is that, according to one side of the story, the morocyclist wasn't able to stop safely in the distance he could see to be clear which, in my view, contributed to the accident. Accidents usually occur when two examples of bad driving/riding meet.

Third point. The offence of dangerous driving has an objective test. It is much easier to be convicted with an objective test than a subjective one.
The former offence of 'reckless driving' was dropped in favour of 'dangerous driving' because the latter test would result in more convictions. My view is that only reckless driving should attract a prison sentence.

The appropriate sentence in this case is a hefty ban. Indeed any accident where there is evidence of careless or dangerous driving should be prosecuted with a view to a ban on conviction. Let's not wait until people are hurt.

Taking bad drivers off the road is the answer rather than putting them in prison unless of course an offence constituting the usual elements for a crime has been committed.

[Red Herring]

That was a terrible incident though. I feel for all concerned.

Even so, I do not support the idea of never being able to use anything more than lowish speeds on public roads.

I have no problem with high speeds, provided the person using them is not going to involve someone else in their "mistake". The road traffic act is there to protect everybody, not just us.

[Red Herring]

The second point I would like to make is that, according to one side of the story, the morocyclist wasn't able to stop safely in the distance he could see to be clear which, in my view, contributed to the accident. Accidents usually occur when two examples of bad driving/riding meet.

With all due respect MGF the motorcyclist may well have been able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear. Unfortunately that space was then taken up by a car coming towards him sideways on his side of the road.

The blog clearly says that the driver looked back and saw the scrape marks from the motorcycle, and the rider, between his skid marks. That tends to suggest he was still going quite quickly sideways at point of impact.

What would you have had the motorcyclist do?

[vonhosen]

That was a terrible incident though. I feel for all concerned.

Even so, I do not support the idea of never being able to use anything more than lowish speeds on public roads.

I have no problem with high speeds, provided the person using them is not going to involve someone else in their "mistake". The road traffic act is there to protect everybody, not just us.

Who can guarantee that ?

[Red Herring]

Nobody can guarantee anything, but there are a few simple rules to observe.
including don't do it where you can see somebody else, and don't do it where you can't see if there is somebody else.

[TripleS]

Nobody can guarantee anything, but there are a few simple rules to observe.
including don't do it where you can see somebody else, and don't do it where you can't see if there is somebody else.

Does that mean you would avoid the use of high speed on a single carriageway road if there is oncoming traffic? Does it also mean you would go so far as to avoid the use of high speed unless there is nobody else in sight?

I don't think we should require the road to be completely deserted before we consider the use of high speed.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[nuster100]

I do find it intresting where he comments on the other peoples reaction to being overtaken, it does seem these days like anyone wishing to make such pogress is labled as a boy racer or bad driver.


Having said that, out of the young people i have known / heard of being killed in car crashes in my area, about 70% have been driving civic type R's

Jay

[vonhosen]

Nobody can guarantee anything, but there are a few simple rules to observe.
including don't do it where you can see somebody else, and don't do it where you can't see if there is somebody else.

So by those rules anyone prosecuted for speeding by a Police officer (whatever margin over the limit) had it coming then ?

And anyone who had a collision when after travelling at a speed in excess of the limit has it coming also ?

The point is will all miss things when driving & with very high speeds the more likely that is.

[fungus]

This brings to mind a discussion I had with a pupil yesterday.

We had been driving on Dual Carriageways and A class roads for a few miles, and then turned off onto C class roads. On more than one occasion I had to tell, or prompt the pupil to slow down on approach to a bend.

When it was safe,
we pulled off the road and discussed the drive. I referred to the section in Stephen Haleys' Mind Driving on assessing risk, in particular the paragraph where two vehicles approach a bend at 60 mph which was the safe speed for the bend if there was sufficient space to pass safely. This was using the Highway Codes stopping distance of 240ft. However, this is only to a stationary object, and takes no account of on coming vehicles.

When I then read the next paragraph, which was the same scenario, but on a single track road, he seemed surprised at the speed that the cars were traveling at when they collided. This, according to the book was 49 mph, which I took to be the speed at which each car was traveling at the moment of impact. This seemed to bring home the fact that if there is not visible unthreatened space ahead, then speed must be brought down.

It is the concept of threatened space that many drivers are not aware of.

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

[waremark]

We may know the risks to which we lay ourselves open when we drive on the highway, but I find this a salutary story nevertheless.

To avoid our attitude or conduct being misinterpreted, I strongly suggest avoiding travelling in convoy, and avoiding any record (for example on this forum) of a disrespectful attitude to either safety or road traffic law.

So far as being able to stop in a relevant distance is concerned, I regard the rule as being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect to remain clear. On a road which only has room for two cars to pass, I would say to an associate: 'Be ready to stop if there is a car overtaking a cyclist towards you just beyond the limit point'. However, on a wider road I would not consider that it was reasonable to expect something coming fast towards me on my side of the road, and would apply the less restrictive test of being able to stop in the distance you can see.

[7db]

Isn't that the blog of 10penceshort form PH?
It's a great read and his experience is very enlightening. He's a nice bloke who made a mistake.

Very enlightening what those whom you have overtaken will say in court.