Road traffic collision and driver fleeing the scene

Mercdriver

drD wrote: »

Haha good one! No... a Mercedes!! :rotfl:

Not really a good one as he is trolling the forum at the moment

Nodding_Donkey

drD wrote: »

I could see further up that the guy was smoking as well behind the wheel, (I got a worse picture of this, but technically that's illegal as well, though the police don't enforce it)

I had to quote this bit of BS for prosterity

drD

neilmcl wrote: »

No it isn't, unless there was someone under 18 there in the car with him.

There was someone in the car with him but I couldn't tell their age.
Careless driving while smoking is as I understand it also an offence.

Joe_Horner

drD wrote: »

There was someone in the car with him but I couldn't tell their age.
Careless driving while smoking is as I understand it also an offence.

That's entirely different to smoking being illegal.

It's the careless part - "without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road" - that makes it an offence. It's entirely possible to drive safely while smoking.

In fact, it's possible to smoke while greatly exceeding the standard of many drivers out there, such as those who inconsiderately enforce "their rights" to the extent that an accident results.

drD

Mercdriver wrote: »

Not really a good one as he is trolling the forum at the moment

Hmm touched a nerve there. I wonder what car... oooh your username! :money:

unholyangel

drD wrote: »

There was someone in the car with him but I couldn't tell their age.
Careless driving while smoking is as I understand it also an offence.

Careless driving is an offence, smoking behind the wheel (providing no minors) is not.

Its possible that smoking behind the wheel could be used in conjunction with other information to prove the standard of driving was careless but just that fact on its own is unlikely enough to prove the charge.

I'd guess 70/30 on the liability - because the overriding responsibility to ensure the merge is carried out safely is on the car that is merging, not the traffic already in that lane (who the merging car should be giving way to). If you perform an unsafe manoeuvre, it is not up to other motorists to pull out all the stops and make your manoeuvre safe for you. Thats your liability, not theirs.

DoaM

Could it be argued that the BMW driver was at fault as he was the one seeking to change lanes?

Car_54

Was the arrow labelled "Turn left". If not, it is indicative, not mandatory.

AndyMc.....

unholyangel wrote: »

Careless driving is an offence, smoking behind the wheel (providing no minors) is not.

Its possible that smoking behind the wheel could be used in conjunction with other information to prove the standard of driving was careless but just that fact on its own is unlikely enough to prove the charge.

I'd guess 70/30 on the liability - because the overriding responsibility to ensure the merge is carried out safely is on the car that is merging, not the traffic already in that lane (who the merging car should be giving way to). If you perform an unsafe manoeuvre, it is not up to other motorists to pull out all the stops and make your manoeuvre safe for you. Thats your liability, not theirs.

All depends on what he was smoking.

unholyangel

AndyMc..... wrote: »

All depends on what he was smoking.

Judging by the way some people drive, they must be smoking the plastics from their dash.