death by careless driving

Former Member

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7178120.stm

the difference between causing death by dangerous driving and careless driving.
although i fail to see how being distracted whilst driving (for example looking down to view your GPS) is 'careless' and not 'dangerous' if it happened to kill someone...
but kill someone by doing this with no previous driving offenses and you get... a community sentence.

discuss....

Former Member

you can't see the difference?

There is a difference between looking at your GPS and overtaking around a blind corner at twice the speed limit - wouldn't you say?

Former Member

CheeseOnToast wrote: »

you can't see the difference?

There is a difference between looking at your GPS and overtaking around a blind corner at twice the speed limit - wouldn't you say?

That's not what was said. She said she failed to see the difference between 'careless' and 'dangerous' when it comes to the situation of looking at your GPS.

Former Member

Because it is being careless not purposefully dangerous :rolleyes:

Former Member

CheeseOnToast wrote: »

Because it is being careless not purposefully dangerous :rolleyes:

I'd say that depends on your definition of the two words. I understand what otter means because in my opinion it would be 'careless' to keep looking at your GPS whilst driving but it could also be classed as 'dangerous' just as much to keep looking at it as someone could get hurt. How they distinguish between the two could be tricky unless they have some specific test to distinguish them from one another.

Former Member

I think the clear difference is that dangerous driving is likely to cause an accident, whereas careless driving merely reduces your ability to react to something out of the ordinary that might happen on the road. If someone runs out in front of a car, for example, it's not the driver who caused the accident, but careless driving might be the reason he/she doesn't stop in time. I'd also say that it would depend on how premeditated the "dangerous driving" was. You have to make a decision to drink drive, for example, whereas a screaming child in the back of your car is more of a momentary disraction that might affect your reactions.

But I'd have to hear the court's definition of it before I decided whether it was a good idea.

Former Member

I think it seems like a good idea. At some point I'm sure most drivers have been distracted by changing a CD/tuning in the radio, by a child or passenger doing something distracting in the car, by a billboard or something else going on in the street/road. If an accident occurs at that time then the driver's reactions are going to be slower and means that at the time of the accident they were driving carelessly, I think.

However there is a massive difference between that and someone doing 50 on a 30 road one evening and hitting a pedestrian, or chatting on their phone and smoking a cigarette and then causing an accident, or generally not driving to the conditions. I guess in the second case (of dangerous driving) it seems that the driver is willfully not driving carefully.

Providing that there are clear definitions of what constitutes each and that someone who is clearly driving dangerously cannot "get off" on a careless driving charge instead, then it seems like a reasonable change. After all, a momentarily careless driver is gonna have to live with the death of someone on their conscience for the rest of their lives.

Former Member

Common driving distractions (from the article)

Eating at the wheel or using items like teapots

Who has a teapot while driving the car????

Shaving

Former Member

A very silly proposal. What's to stop someone who knew full well they were driving dangerously from attempting to argue in court that it was just "momentary inattention"?

Former Member

Someone looking down briefly at their radio to change the channel and killing someone, is not the same as someone who causes and accident because they were applying makeup or reading a map. The former don't deserve serious punishment for a momentary mistake. The latter deserve everything they get for being an idiot.

Former Member

Admittedly some cases might prove to be neither here nor there, but there is a big difference between someone who is driving according to the law until momentarily loses concentration by changing the radio station, and someone going at 50mph through an urban area racing his mates in another car.

And what about the other party involved? If the hypothetical driver who simply stopped paying attention for a moment to change radio stations hit another car at relatively low speed, and the driver of the other car dies because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt like he should have and went flying through the windscreen, should the first driver still deserve jail?

How about a pedestrian who recklessly and illegally chooses to cross a motorway or be on a tunnel/road where no pedestrians are allowed? Should the driver still go to jail for somebody elses's utter idiocy?

Former Member

-

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

What the hell are they doing applying makeup in the first place?

Running late is probably the main reason, it's not hard to figure out.

Former Member

-

Former Member

I didn't say it was the right thing to do, you asked a question and I answered it.

Former Member

Whowhere wrote: »

Someone looking down briefly at their radio to change the channel and killing someone, is not the same as someone who causes and accident because they were applying makeup or reading a map.

:yes:

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

What the hell are they doing applying makeup in the first place? They're meant to be driving the car, not using it as a bloody beauty parlour.

Why have you deliberately altered what i've said?

I said

Someone looking down briefly at their radio to change the channel and killing someone, is not the same as someone who causes and accident because they were applying makeup or reading a map. The former don't deserve serious punishment for a momentary mistake. The latter deserve everything they get for being an idiot.

This isn't a newspaper where you can simply alter word-order and insert words to change what i said completely.

Former Member

DC85 wrote: »

:yes:

:yes: to that :yes:

I bet there's hardly a driver on the road who's concentration has slipped for a moment or who hasn't sometimes accidently gone over the speed limit

Former Member

-

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. No, it's called selective quotation. It's editing bits out, whilst keeping the central point. It's not the first time I've done it, it won't be the last either. If you're not happy, either PM me to discuss it further, or contact a moderator.

It's to make this point - you claimed that a person who was applying makeup shouldn't be punished in the same way as someone who was doing something else, like two guys having a race on a public road, for example. If they both end up causing injury or death, why should the consequences be different?

That's the trouble with selective quoting as he didn't say that at all...

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. No, it's called selective quotation. It's editing bits out, whilst keeping the central point. It's not the first time I've done it, it won't be the last either. If you're not happy, either PM me to discuss it further, or contact a moderator.

It's to make this point - you claimed that a person who was applying makeup shouldn't be punished in the same way as someone who was doing something else, like two guys having a race on a public road, for example. If they both end up causing injury or death, why should the consequences be different?

Are you insane? I said exactly the opposite. Someone applying makeup or reading a map (as an example) should recieve a harsher punishment than someone who takes their eyes off the road for a second.

re-read my post and correct yourself please.

Former Member

-

Former Member

Oh dear...

It's just a retraction Stargalaxy. We all misread things from time to time. I apologised to you just a few days ago for mistakenly believing you had made some comments when it'd been another poster. No big deal.

Former Member

-

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

Assuming that Whowhere said there's a difference between someone who looks away for a moment, and someone who's putting on some lippy, I'd ask - what's the difference? Whichever is the case, it means your concentration isn't entirely on the road.

You've never let your concentration slip momentarily when driving? Never switched over a radio station or skipped a disc on the DVD? Always kept exactly to the speed limit? never turned your head slightly to talk to the person sitting next to you? never let your eyes slip to a clock to see if you're running late?

Former Member

Are you some sort of idiot ^^^^^^


Read what he said properly.

Former Member

Bollocks, meant the ^^^^ @ SG.

Former Member

-

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

Third, I usually drive alone

I wonder why that is ....

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote: »

Third, I usually drive alone, so that circumstance doesn't really apply.

Uncanny, that...

but I'm only human

Can we have proof?

Former Member

-