Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Dangerous Driving
I just want peoples opinion on this. I am to face a jury next week on the charge of dangerous driving. In 2007, I was involved in a RTA. I was driving an 18 tonne truck on a motorway where I was approaching a queue of traffic (some distance away, probably over 150 yards). I realised it was a queue for the next junction so decided to change lanes. I was sitting on cruise control at 56mph (top speed and speed limited) I looked in my drivers side mirror to check for traffic. . I then looked over to my blind spot, and pressed my brake to disengage the cruise control and then saw a car so I cancelled my intention to move over and pressed the brake again to slow the truck down. I noticed that my truck was not slowing at all and I pressed the brake again to no avail. I panicked thinking that my brakes had gone. The vehicle at the back of the queue (a white van) was getting nearer and nearer. I quickly checked the hard shoulder to see that it was clear. I then swerved my vehicle towards it. Unfortunatly, by this time, a car had replaced the van at the back of the queue (the van was in front of the car so obviously had jumped in front of me). I hit the car en route to the hard shoulder and my truck came to a stop 100 yards from the impact site. After checks on the truck, it was discovered that there were no faults. It dawned on me that I must have pressed the accelerator instead of the brake. 2 people were seriously hurt in the accident and, after a year, I was charged with Dangerous Driving. My solicitor advised me to plead not guilty but now Im not so sure. Ive been reading alot of reports on the internet that people are being done for this but others are having the lesser charge of Undue Care for the manner of driving that I believe is far worse than what I did. Is this dangerous driving? I believed that Dangerous Driving was an intentional act like reading a map, speeding, racing and being avoidably distracted as these are calculated risks that drivers take.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lonedad. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Docspock - The thing is the CPS would not have seen it that way. If you had an accident and the police saw that equipment blu tacked to your dash then they would have prosecuted you. Im being very serious here. Any form of avoidable distraction, especially if an accident occurs is sufficent grounds for prosecution.
I know you do not like lorries but if you really took notice, you would see that most truckers are safe and carefull drivers. I think you really see them as a hinderance than a danger. That is unfair to convict someone like me based on your personal thoughts on certain vehicle drivers than an actual drivers individual case.
All the things that you have said that you hate about lorry drivers are not the things that i had any habit of doing. Im sorry you hate lorry drivers but we are not all like that.
I know you do not like lorries but if you really took notice, you would see that most truckers are safe and carefull drivers. I think you really see them as a hinderance than a danger. That is unfair to convict someone like me based on your personal thoughts on certain vehicle drivers than an actual drivers individual case.
All the things that you have said that you hate about lorry drivers are not the things that i had any habit of doing. Im sorry you hate lorry drivers but we are not all like that.
Plead guilty and save yourself a more severe sentence.
I have only read what you have written and IMO you did not leave enough braking distance as a professional driver, for ANY eventualities.
Also looks like you have prolonged this case if it happened in 2007 -you could have served your ban and slap on the wrist by now.
I dont know what you are trying to prove here -you even implied yourself that you may have hit the accelerator.I hope this is going to be part of your defence !!
Hold your hands up man -guilty as charged !
I have only read what you have written and IMO you did not leave enough braking distance as a professional driver, for ANY eventualities.
Also looks like you have prolonged this case if it happened in 2007 -you could have served your ban and slap on the wrist by now.
I dont know what you are trying to prove here -you even implied yourself that you may have hit the accelerator.I hope this is going to be part of your defence !!
Hold your hands up man -guilty as charged !
The one worry I had when I asked for this case to be committed to crown court from the magistrates was that I could end up with jurors convicting me before theyve heard any evidence based on their own personal feelings towards lorry drivers. I know we are a hated bunch but, being a lorry driver, lorry drivers also have a love/hate relationship with car drivers.
Being a lorry driver, I now know the things not to do around lorries. The biggest problem for lorry drivers is the blind spot. You will never understand a lorries blindspot unless you drove one. The modern lorry is seriously not made for its purpose. If you look the next time you see an 07 plate lorry, you'll see that the drivers window is far too small. This makes looking in your blind spot very difficult and can lead to drivers missing a passing car. This is why I shifted my body so much when checking my blind spot so that I could virtually look down the side of my truck. Sometimes cars will just sit for ages in your blind spot, this leads to obvious problems. Alot of lorries actually do leave sufficent space between them but alot of vans and cars think you are being polite and allowing them in. This is a major pain. Often, cars would pull out in front of trucks from side roads as they think they can accelorate away from danger. I know of 2 drivers that have killed people because of this because the car driver misread the speed of the truck and didnt think of the longer braking distance the truck needed. thankfully no charges were ever made to these 2 drivers.
Being a lorry driver, I now know the things not to do around lorries. The biggest problem for lorry drivers is the blind spot. You will never understand a lorries blindspot unless you drove one. The modern lorry is seriously not made for its purpose. If you look the next time you see an 07 plate lorry, you'll see that the drivers window is far too small. This makes looking in your blind spot very difficult and can lead to drivers missing a passing car. This is why I shifted my body so much when checking my blind spot so that I could virtually look down the side of my truck. Sometimes cars will just sit for ages in your blind spot, this leads to obvious problems. Alot of lorries actually do leave sufficent space between them but alot of vans and cars think you are being polite and allowing them in. This is a major pain. Often, cars would pull out in front of trucks from side roads as they think they can accelorate away from danger. I know of 2 drivers that have killed people because of this because the car driver misread the speed of the truck and didnt think of the longer braking distance the truck needed. thankfully no charges were ever made to these 2 drivers.
Then theres the drivers that queue hop in front of lorries and the car drivers who just sit in the middle lane at all times.
The lorries that seem to you to be sitting side by side on the motorway is basically down to the lorries speed limited. All lorries should be fitted with a limiter so the truck cannot exceed 56mph. Depending on either trucks weight and load and also add on any slight gradient of the road, this courses that affect. Its not being malicous or nasty, its just that at some point during overtaking, the road has slightly gone uphill. Some car drivers say that one of those vehicles should brake and then get over when clear. The thing is, this would cause so many problems and confusion that it would actually be very dangerous to do so. The authorities would say to any lorry driver in that situtation to carry on its course.
im not saying every lorry driver is a safe driver, thats obviously not the case but most lorry drivers are.
The lorries that seem to you to be sitting side by side on the motorway is basically down to the lorries speed limited. All lorries should be fitted with a limiter so the truck cannot exceed 56mph. Depending on either trucks weight and load and also add on any slight gradient of the road, this courses that affect. Its not being malicous or nasty, its just that at some point during overtaking, the road has slightly gone uphill. Some car drivers say that one of those vehicles should brake and then get over when clear. The thing is, this would cause so many problems and confusion that it would actually be very dangerous to do so. The authorities would say to any lorry driver in that situtation to carry on its course.
im not saying every lorry driver is a safe driver, thats obviously not the case but most lorry drivers are.
Dris - The stopping distance for a lorry in dry day conditions is 100 yards so I did have enough room. Ill have a good talk with my solicitor tomorrow.
In fact, it took CPS a year to charge me and then, between the CPS and courts, there were delays, paperwork **** ups and even a judge ringing in sick that has delayed this so much
In fact, it took CPS a year to charge me and then, between the CPS and courts, there were delays, paperwork **** ups and even a judge ringing in sick that has delayed this so much
lonedad -I am only playing the Devils Advocate here and IMO you will be found guilty.
I have no gripes against any lorry drivers or any drivers at all its just some of the fools who get behind any wheel who I have a gripe with and I dont think you are one of them..My husband drives a lorry at times for his work -not an Artic but a Class B (if thats what they are still called).
I just feel that you are throwing yourself into the lions den so to speak and it would be wise to speak to your brief -can you not call a private hearing and offer to plead guilty to a lesser charge?
I can guarantee the Procurator Fiscal (in Scotland )-dont know what it is in England, will have you tied in knots as you are obviously and naturally extremely anxious.
I only give my opinion as in what I would do in similar circumstances and thats to avoid a trial.
I have no gripes against any lorry drivers or any drivers at all its just some of the fools who get behind any wheel who I have a gripe with and I dont think you are one of them..My husband drives a lorry at times for his work -not an Artic but a Class B (if thats what they are still called).
I just feel that you are throwing yourself into the lions den so to speak and it would be wise to speak to your brief -can you not call a private hearing and offer to plead guilty to a lesser charge?
I can guarantee the Procurator Fiscal (in Scotland )-dont know what it is in England, will have you tied in knots as you are obviously and naturally extremely anxious.
I only give my opinion as in what I would do in similar circumstances and thats to avoid a trial.
We've offered a guilty plea for undue care 3 times and theyve always been declined.
Im kind of upset with my solicitor because i first allowed him to convince me to send this to the crown court when I originally wanted it heard at the magistrates court. Hes a very strong character and has the gift of the gab which makes you trust him. He is adamant that this is undue care and actually got in a right tizz at the start of the year because of a court mess up (Judge said the charge would be undue care and CPS said they were going to accpet that, only for me to turn up to court to be told it was an admin mistake). The barrister has said we have a good case as well. The thing is, its not men in suits and their opinions that I want to listen to. the whole point of me going to crown court was for me to be judged by my peers rather than, in the words of my solicitor "middle class shop keepers that are the magistrates". This is why Ive posted here becuase the people who frequent here are the kind of people who form a typical jury.
Im gutted that this is now at crown court. If i was to plead guilty it would have been in magistartes court. Now im in crown court and if I plead guilty ill be sentanced for something harsher when it would have been lesser with the magistrate.
I still think im not guilty and the world has gone mad but Im having doubts. Maybe doubts should be expected as I am really scared by all this. Im scared that I could end up in prison and that my daughter will have to go into care
Im kind of upset with my solicitor because i first allowed him to convince me to send this to the crown court when I originally wanted it heard at the magistrates court. Hes a very strong character and has the gift of the gab which makes you trust him. He is adamant that this is undue care and actually got in a right tizz at the start of the year because of a court mess up (Judge said the charge would be undue care and CPS said they were going to accpet that, only for me to turn up to court to be told it was an admin mistake). The barrister has said we have a good case as well. The thing is, its not men in suits and their opinions that I want to listen to. the whole point of me going to crown court was for me to be judged by my peers rather than, in the words of my solicitor "middle class shop keepers that are the magistrates". This is why Ive posted here becuase the people who frequent here are the kind of people who form a typical jury.
Im gutted that this is now at crown court. If i was to plead guilty it would have been in magistartes court. Now im in crown court and if I plead guilty ill be sentanced for something harsher when it would have been lesser with the magistrate.
I still think im not guilty and the world has gone mad but Im having doubts. Maybe doubts should be expected as I am really scared by all this. Im scared that I could end up in prison and that my daughter will have to go into care
Do you not have a pre trial appearance in court?
Again I dont know what this is referred to in England but certainly in Scotland there is a private hearing prior to trial.
It would appear that your Barrister has a point to prove.
Undoubtedly you are guilty of 'some charge' whether you accept it or not -there is no such thing as an 'accident' -its its due to undue care and attention in any given situation.The problem is that if I were on a jury and I was presented with your summary of the accident I would think -as a member of the public ' -that you were chancing it TBH-and you and your legal team were taking us for fools.
Sorry to be blunt but just think if you were on the jury -you would think the same.
I do wish you well and I do think you should find your voice with your Barrister - you are nothing to him -he couldnt care less what happens to you so fight your corner because no one else will do it for you.
Good luck for a lesser sentence.
Again I dont know what this is referred to in England but certainly in Scotland there is a private hearing prior to trial.
It would appear that your Barrister has a point to prove.
Undoubtedly you are guilty of 'some charge' whether you accept it or not -there is no such thing as an 'accident' -its its due to undue care and attention in any given situation.The problem is that if I were on a jury and I was presented with your summary of the accident I would think -as a member of the public ' -that you were chancing it TBH-and you and your legal team were taking us for fools.
Sorry to be blunt but just think if you were on the jury -you would think the same.
I do wish you well and I do think you should find your voice with your Barrister - you are nothing to him -he couldnt care less what happens to you so fight your corner because no one else will do it for you.
Good luck for a lesser sentence.
Dris - If you were a member of a jury, which would you convict of?
Dangerous Driving - A person drives dangerously when the way his standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver AND it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Both parts of the definition must be satisfied for the driving to be dangerous within the meaning of the Act. (Section 2A(1) RTA 1988).
or
Careless Driving - This offence is committed when the defendants driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver (section 3ZA RTA).
Dangerous Driving - A person drives dangerously when the way his standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver AND it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Both parts of the definition must be satisfied for the driving to be dangerous within the meaning of the Act. (Section 2A(1) RTA 1988).
or
Careless Driving - This offence is committed when the defendants driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver (section 3ZA RTA).
Well Im pleading not guilty to dangerous driving. We're trying to get the prosecution to accept a guilty plea for careless driving but they wont accept it so we are going for trial against dangerous driving. My solicitor said that they will try and convince the judge to offer the jury to give an alternative verdict for careless driving as well as the dangerous driving.
Firstly, lonedad I must confess to not having read all of this thread. Sometimes threads such as this become a little diverted from the main issue and this one certainly seems to have done so here and there. I�ve only read your question and the last few answers.
I must say that if your description of events is accurate, then Dangerous Driving does seem an inappropriate charge. It is quite true that there is only one word difference in the legal definition of the two offences, but the CPS has charging guidelines and the episode you describe does not, in my view, equate with the CPS version of dangerous driving:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_ manual/dangerous_driving/index.html
Suggesting that you opt for a Crown Court trial when, presumably, magistrates had accepted jurisdiction, was a very strange piece of advice from your solicitor. You will not find too many advocates who adopt such an approach, especially on the grounds you quote (...�middle class shopkeepers...� etc.). He should know (and should have advised you) that, apart from the possibility of a harsher sentence and heavier costs if you are convicted, conviction rates in magistrates� courts are actually lower than in the Crown Court. Nonetheless, judges and magistrates use broadly similar guidelines for this offence (certainly at the lower end of seriousness, which this is). In originally accepting jurisdiction the shopkeepers must have believed their sentencing powers were sufficient, so even if you are convicted you should not received a harsher sentence than they could impose.
From your description I believe you are guilty of careless driving (a �momentary lapse�). I would be interested to learn the outcome.
I must say that if your description of events is accurate, then Dangerous Driving does seem an inappropriate charge. It is quite true that there is only one word difference in the legal definition of the two offences, but the CPS has charging guidelines and the episode you describe does not, in my view, equate with the CPS version of dangerous driving:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_ manual/dangerous_driving/index.html
Suggesting that you opt for a Crown Court trial when, presumably, magistrates had accepted jurisdiction, was a very strange piece of advice from your solicitor. You will not find too many advocates who adopt such an approach, especially on the grounds you quote (...�middle class shopkeepers...� etc.). He should know (and should have advised you) that, apart from the possibility of a harsher sentence and heavier costs if you are convicted, conviction rates in magistrates� courts are actually lower than in the Crown Court. Nonetheless, judges and magistrates use broadly similar guidelines for this offence (certainly at the lower end of seriousness, which this is). In originally accepting jurisdiction the shopkeepers must have believed their sentencing powers were sufficient, so even if you are convicted you should not received a harsher sentence than they could impose.
From your description I believe you are guilty of careless driving (a �momentary lapse�). I would be interested to learn the outcome.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank54 mins ago
ChatterBank61 mins ago
It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank68 mins ago
Crosswords70 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles72 mins ago
