Advice re Dangerous Driving charge.

Janey51

I am really shocked at the vitriolic replies received on here. I have not slept since the accident. No one was injured except me.My car was barely marked. In horrendous weather I misjudged an overtake. Something which I am sure many people have done. I did not try to justify my actions. I have driven for over 30 yrs with not even a speeding ticket. I do not drink or take drugs. It is believed my error was due to a medical event which I could not have prevented. So please, do not jump in to condemn. I have resolved not to drive again as I cannot put myself in the position of being the cause of harm to anyone else.

Aylesbury_Duck

I don't think there were any vitriolic replies. One or two abrupt ones, but nothing too bad.

Good for you for taking ownership of the situation and stopping driving. Too many people wouldn't do the same in your situation.

SHAFT

Janey51 wrote: »

I am really shocked at the vitriolic replies received on here. I have not slept since the accident. No one was injured except me.My car was barely marked. In horrendous weather I misjudged an overtake. Something which I am sure many people have done. I did not try to justify my actions. I have driven for over 30 yrs with not even a speeding ticket. I do not drink or take drugs. It is believed my error was due to a medical event which I could not have prevented. So please, do not jump in to condemn. I have resolved not to drive again as I cannot put myself in the position of being the cause of harm to anyone else.

So you shouldn't have been convicted of dangerous driving.

AdrianC

The "explanation" raises more questions than it answers, unless you read it as being very carefully worded and look at it what it doesn't say.

A cynic could perceive that other vehicles were damaged, and that the medical condition was known beforehand. Why an overtake was even being attempted in "horrendous weather" is probably the key to the case. I'm also intrigued as to how the OP was injured in a car that was "barely marked", I have to admit.

But it's all beside the point, and of prurient interest only. The court has decided that the OP's driving was of a standard far below that to be expected of a reasonable, cautious driver. They have all the information and evidence, we have one account which can hardly be neutral.

iolanthe07

I'm also intrigued as to how the OP was injured in a car that was "barely marked", I have to admit.


You can get a nasty skin reaction from an airbag suddenly exploding, and also whiplash, without necessarily too much damage to the car, but I wonder if the charge was downgraded to careless driving. Dangerous driving charges are rare and difficult to prove.

AdrianC

Airbag deployment and whiplash don't happen in a car that's "barely marked".

The OP's refused to answer whether the charge did get downgraded, but has said they got the "minimum sentence", without specifying which charge it was for - I know how I perceive that.

SHAFT

iolanthe07 wrote: »

I'm also intrigued as to how the OP was injured in a car that was "barely marked", I have to admit.


You can get a nasty skin reaction from an airbag suddenly exploding, and also whiplash, without necessarily too much damage to the car, but I wonder if the charge was downgraded to careless driving. Dangerous driving charges are rare and difficult to prove.

Not if there's evidence to support a charge.

Hermione_Granger

AdrianC wrote: »

Airbag deployment and whiplash don't happen in a car that's "barely marked".

Hitting a parked car at 10mph could easily set off an airbag and although there may be some damage, if the force of the impact was taken solely by the bumper hitting square on then this damage could well be hidden and the whiplash could be from the airbag and not from the impact itself.

matttye

AdrianC wrote: »

Minimum possible sentence for Dangerous includes a 12mo ban, and a extended retest...

Unless special reasons applied.

droopsnoot

Maybe the OPs accident involved crashing into the front wall of their house, hence the concern that it might affect their contents insurance.