Driver hits cyclist, left for dead. Let off in court.

esuhl

It was too lenient

Johno100 wrote: »

You are asking the wrong person, ask the police and/or CPS why they went with speeding and not Dangerous Driving.

How can anyone suggest that it's not dangerous to drive at 154mph?!

Johno100

It was too harsh

esuhl wrote: »

How can anyone suggest that it's not dangerous to drive at 154mph?!

I refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous answer.

esuhl

It was too lenient

Johno100 wrote: »

I refer the honourable gentlemen to my previous answer.

If you don't think it's necessarily dangerous to drive at 154mph, then you must drive like an absolute lunatic!

brat

It was too lenient

esuhl wrote: »

If you don't think it's necessarily dangerous to drive at 154mph, then you must drive like an absolute lunatic!

I don't. It depends entirely on the circumstance and the competence of the driver.

Nasqueron

Johno100 wrote: »

So what recommendation did the police put forward Dangerous Driving or just speeding?

No idea, I am not the police, you would guess given the speed it was that

Johno100 wrote: »

ALL three of those individuals were found guilty of DANGEROUS DRIVING, not simply speeding, can't you see the distinction?

If you read the cases the speed was the only factor in judging dangerous driving, I skipped over others at that sort of speed where there was a separate element that justified it. Those 3 cases got dangerous driving purely because of the speed they went at. In this case 99.99% the CPS went with the softer penalty as he pleaded guilty and they didn't fancy going for dangerous driving for some reason

brat

It was too lenient

I don't believe it's right to create a direct association between speed and dangerous driving. The danger is in the attitude of mind that causes the speed.

I drive carefully at high speed regularly, yet other than some advanced driver training, I have no special skills to permit me. I often calculate the risk associated with the speed, and express that risk verbally, and if the risk becomes too great, I will cease. I I have an exemption in certain circumstances to speed limits but no exemption to drive carelessly or dangerously,

Dangerous driving necessarily has to take account of all the factors. Inappropriate speed will very often be a significant factor in compiling a case for dangerous driving. In three cases I reported, the drivers were convicted of 'dangerous' largely on the basis of an inappropriate speed of 7, 10 and 15mph.

Prosecutors will always look for reasons why a particular speed was dangerous in the circumstances. As 'excess' speed tends more and more towards 'inappropriate' speed, it will be easier to find reasons to raise a speeding offence to careless driving or dangerous driving. But to attribute danger or carelessness to a defined ratio over a speed limit is wrong.

d70cw6

since the cyclist caused the accident, then it's their own fault. charges against driver seem entirely reasonable.

Johnmcl7

d70cw6 wrote: »

since the cyclist caused the accident, then it's their own fault. charges against driver seem entirely reasonable.

I don't know if you're mixed up with the thread you're replying to or just trolling but short of the cyclist force feeding the driver alcohol then forcing them drive into their bike when inebriated, it wasn't the cyclist at fault.

John

d70cw6

was the driver drunk?

Johnmcl7

d70cw6 wrote: »

was the driver drunk?

Sober people don't generally refuse to give a sample without reason and get convicted for failing to provide a sample also there is nothing to indicate the cyclist was at fault.

John