|
Causing death by careless driving covers it.
|
Causing death by careless driving covers it.
That is what she pleaded guilty to but was convicted for dangerous driving which presumably has a higher punishment scale.
|
Causing death by careless driving covers it.
That is what she pleaded guilty to but was convicted for dangerous driving which presumably has a higher punishment scale.
I'm glad she was found guilty and of a higher level crime - all too often, many people think that because a mobile phone is operating in 'hands free' mode, or that their car has an in-built touch screen for its ICE and phone-paring system, then its perfectly legal, and, by default, safe to use at all times. Obviously in this case, she wasn't using hands-free anyway, but you see my point
They are not - any sort of distraction whilst driving can cause an accident, and the driver should have (given they passed their test) enough ability and common sense to know when is an appropriate time to use such tech and when it isn't. Sadly, an indictment of much of society today, who seem to require every specific 'do' and 'don't', rather than a set of basic guidelines and using common sense.
|
|
"Obviously in this case, she wasn't using hands-free anyway..."
Unless I'm mis-reading the article, she was using hands-free, but I agree totally with your point that, in may people's minds, "hands-free" equals "legal" equals "safe".
A while back, missing an exit on the M25 while in animated conversation convinced me that I needed to get a grip on any kind of distraction while I'm driving.
|
"Obviously in this case, she wasn't using hands-free anyway..."
Unless I'm mis-reading the article, she was using hands-free, but I agree totally with your point that, in may people's minds, "hands-free" equals "legal" equals "safe".
A while back, missing an exit on the M25 while in animated conversation convinced me that I needed to get a grip on any kind of distraction while I'm driving.
Sorry - I may have mis-read a sentence in the report about phones not being completely hands-free, i.e. having to press the touch screen (phone or car) to accept a call or turn the sound up/down, and thought this was the case here. Sounds like it wasn't, though the 'dtraction' argument I made still stands, as backed up by the judgement in court.
|
|
|
|
|
According to the newspaper article, the driver was on the phone for a total of 34 minutes out of the 40 minute journey - distracted by telephone calls she herself had made for 85% of the time. Although the blame lies squarely with the driver, I hope her friend has had time to reflect on his actions as well. "I could tell she was in the car...a catch up about our lives and families... (27 minutes later) I immediately thought an accident had occurred."
Edited by Bilboman on 01/12/2017 at 09:31
|
|
Pointless to debate whether careless or dangerous driving - it is inevitable that there will continue to be at least 20 phone-related fatalities per annum. Sending distracted drivers to prison is a pointless waste of money. Far better to compel a few hundred hours of community service e.g. litter-picking town paths, parks and country roads, washing pensioners' cars, cleaning off graffiti, etc.
Anyway, lots of unanswered questions here. Most 'accidents' are multifactorial. Adequacy of road? Weather? Alcohol? Lights on bike? Health/intelligence/competence/experience of driver? Fatigue?
In earlier days of motoring, it was advised that one shouldn't chat with the driver.
Edited by John F on 01/12/2017 at 11:39
|
Pointless to debate whether careless or dangerous driving - it is inevitable that there will continue to be at least 20 phone-related fatalities per annum. Sending distracted drivers to prison is a pointless waste of money. Far better to compel a few hundred hours of community service e.g. litter-picking town paths, parks and country roads, washing pensioners' cars, cleaning off graffiti, etc.
Anyway, lots of unanswered questions here. Most 'accidents' are multifactorial. Adequacy of road? Weather? Alcohol? Lights on bike? Health/intelligence/competence/experience of driver? Fatigue?
In earlier days of motoring, it was advised that one shouldn't chat with the driver.
Waste of time .. community service..
FAR Better is several hundred hours in A&E dealing with traffic accident victims..Preferably over weekends and at night..
|
Pointless to debate whether careless or dangerous driving - it is inevitable that there will continue to be at least 20 phone-related fatalities per annum. Sending distracted drivers to prison is a pointless waste of money. Far better to compel a few hundred hours of community service e.g. litter-picking town paths, parks and country roads, washing pensioners' cars, cleaning off graffiti, etc.
Anyway, lots of unanswered questions here. Most 'accidents' are multifactorial. Adequacy of road? Weather? Alcohol? Lights on bike? Health/intelligence/competence/experience of driver? Fatigue?
In earlier days of motoring, it was advised that one shouldn't chat with the driver.
Waste of time .. community service..
FAR Better is several hundred hours in A&E dealing with traffic accident victims..Preferably over weekends and at night..
Yep, quite agree madf - maybe porters delivering the victims of accidents to the morgue, or cleaners who clear up the b***** mess in the A&E trauma room after another idiot community service oik has taken away the victim of the accident (9 times out of 10 not the driver and cause of the accident).
|
Waste of time .. community service..
FAR Better is several hundred hours in A&E dealing with traffic accident victims..Preferably over weekends and at night..
Yep, quite agree madf - maybe porters delivering the victims of accidents to the morgue, or cleaners who clear up the b***** mess in the A&E trauma room ....
Sounds good but totally impractical. RTA victims are a tiny proportion of A & E patients, most of whom are inappropriate attendees that should be sorted by the local GPs. Those that do attend are desperately trying to magnify and medicalise their minor aches, pains and distress to obtain the maximum possible 'compensation' following bumps of no greater severity than might be experienced on a fairground dodgems ride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
