So you can be jailed for being a passenger
The Older Gentleman
Worrying precedent, that.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XTZ660 Tenere Honda CB400F CB250N SH50
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."
ogden
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>
> Worrying precedent, that.
It is, but I think the key lesson is "don't let someone drive your car
if they've been boozing", which isn't unreasonable.
--
ogden
GSX-R750 K4
RGV250 VJ22
Colin Irvine
the following:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>
>Worrying precedent, that.
What, that if you hand the keys of your car to a drunk you can be held
partly responsible for any deaths they cause? It's not a precedent
that worries me.
--
Colin Irvine
ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
Older Gentleman) saying something like:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>
>Worrying precedent, that.
We covered this last week. Wake up, old man.
Buzby
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>
> Worrying precedent, that.
Not really.
--
Buzby
"there's nothing more dangerous than a resourceful idiot"
Wicked Uncle Nigel
<g...@pumpupthe.net> typed
>The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>
>> Worrying precedent, that.
>
>Not really.
All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.
I don't.
I find it a worrying precedent.
--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"
The secret to surviving is knowing what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
platypus
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby
> <g...@pumpupthe.net> typed
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>
>>> Worrying precedent, that.
>>
>> Not really.
>
> All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
> tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.
>
> I don't.
>
> I find it a worrying precedent.
He didn't have to tell by looking at her that she was over the limit. He
could tell because they'd been drinking together. Also, he wasn't convicted
because she was drunk, but because he'd failed to stop her driving
dangerously.
But the moral of the story has to revolve around the consequences of
trundling around in pikey shit like a Ford Fiesta.
Wicked Uncle Nigel
<mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> typed
>Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
>> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby
>> <g...@pumpupthe.net> typed
>>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>>
>>>> Worrying precedent, that.
>>>
>>> Not really.
>>
>> All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
>> tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>> I find it a worrying precedent.
>
>He didn't have to tell by looking at her that she was over the limit.
>He could tell because they'd been drinking together.
Personally, I don't track my fellow drinkers' intake. Unless it's Nige,
and there's likely to be a piss-taking opportunity in the offing.
>Also, he wasn't convicted because she was drunk, but because he'd
>failed to stop her driving dangerously.
Which he would do by... ?
"Slow down a bit luv, you're going a bit quick".
Yeah, that'd work, right enough.
>But the moral of the story has to revolve around the consequences of
>trundling around in pikey shit like a Ford Fiesta.
You have the right of it.
Colin Irvine
the following:
>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby
><g...@pumpupthe.net> typed
>>The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>
>>> Worrying precedent, that.
>>
>>Not really.
>
>All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
>tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.
Rubbish.
The couple had spent the day drinking at Nottingham racecourse. My
assumption is that the court established Nichols's knowledge of his
partner's incapacity before sending him down for five years.
Wicked Uncle Nigel
<lo...@bottom.of.home.page> typed
>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:15:51 +0000, Wicked Uncle Nigel squeezed out
>the following:
>
>>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby
>><g...@pumpupthe.net> typed
>>>The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>>
>>>> Worrying precedent, that.
>>>
>>>Not really.
>>
>>All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
>>tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.
>
>Rubbish.
>
>The couple had spent the day drinking at Nottingham racecourse. My
>assumption is that the court established Nichols's knowledge of his
>partner's incapacity before sending him down for five years.
She was 1.5 times the limit. Roughly a glass of wine.
Beav
"The Older Gentleman" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk...
'Specially when you realise he was convicted of not stopping her from
driving when he was over the limit himself, which would (to me) seem like
they expected him to make a decision while he was under the influence.
Now given that being over the limit reduces ones faculties to the point
where decisions can't be trusted, how can they then expect him to make a
decision that CAN be trusted?
I know... he's a motorist, the lowest form of life on the planet, so he must
be wrong no matter what the fuck he does.
She's a definite two bagger though.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
Beav
"Colin Irvine" <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> wrote in message
news:bblei45uvq3cjvp3j...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:15:51 +0000, Wicked Uncle Nigel squeezed out
> the following:
>
>>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby
>><g...@pumpupthe.net> typed
>>>The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>>
>>>> Worrying precedent, that.
>>>
>>>Not really.
>>
>>All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
>>tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> The couple had spent the day drinking at Nottingham racecourse. My
> assumption is that the court established Nichols's knowledge of his
> partner's incapacity before sending him down for five years.
He wasn't convicted of anything to do with her drinking. It was her driving
they took a dim view of and the fact that he didn't stop her. Not that he
let her drive in the first place.
Malc
nigel.me.uk> wrote:
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby
> <g...@pumpupthe.net> typed
>
> >The Older Gentleman wrote:
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>
> >> Worrying precedent, that.
>
> >Not really.
>
> All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
> tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.
>
> I don't.
>
> I find it a worrying precedent.
>
IIRC) and one of the cases in before me was for a young lad who'd let
his girlfriend drive his car back to her place (unaccompanied) after a
night out. She was uninsured and crashed and he got done for allowing
her to drive whilst uninsured. As I read it, the law says that the
person driving your car must be fit for purpose.
--
Malc
Colin Irvine
the following:
>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Colin Irvine
><lo...@bottom.of.home.page> typed
>>On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:15:51 +0000, Wicked Uncle Nigel squeezed out
>>the following:
>>
>>>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby
>>><g...@pumpupthe.net> typed
>>>>The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Worrying precedent, that.
>>>>
>>>>Not really.
>>>
>>>All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
>>>tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.
>>
>>Rubbish.
>>
>>The couple had spent the day drinking at Nottingham racecourse. My
>>assumption is that the court established Nichols's knowledge of his
>>partner's incapacity before sending him down for five years.
>
>She was 1.5 times the limit. Roughly a glass of wine.
Or two. So at the time she eventually had her blood test she was
showing 4 to 5 glasses. Allow 1 to 2 hours between digesting last
drink and blood test means she had drunk in the range 5 to 7 glasses
of wine. A full bottle.
Are you saying he shouldn't have been given 5 years? If so, on what
basis, and what sentence or otherwise do you think would have been
appropriate?
Tosspot
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>
> Worrying precedent, that.
Very strange, neither was convicted for DIC, but *both* were convicted
for causing death by dangerous driving.
steve auvache
Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
No precedent there Sir but a well tested principle that any holder of a
driving licence is responsible for the actions of the driver of any
vehicle they may be travelling in.
If it worries you just make sure to ask your bus/taxi/train driver if
she has been drinking, taking drugs, is being pimped or has been within
500 yards of a swarthy foreign looking type carrying a rucksack.
--
steve auvache
A Bloo one with built in safety features
Pete Fisher
<beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>
>"The Older Gentleman" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>
>> Worrying precedent, that.
>
>'Specially when you realise he was convicted of not stopping her from
>driving when he was over the limit himself, which would (to me) seem like
>they expected him to make a decision while he was under the influence.
>
Oh that's OK then. Would you like that defence extended more generally?
"Sorry I decided to drive down the motorway the wrong way, but I was a
bit pissed."
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest * 2 Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Colin Irvine
I've not seen any reports detailed enough to enable that sort of
distinction to be made. Do you have a link?
Tosspot
Colin Irvine
following:
Such as, from TOG's original link, "The court heard that Nichols, who
owned the Jaguar and was the front-seat passenger, was convicted
because he had failed to stop her from driving dangerously."
I don't think that excludes what would have been the most effective
way of stopping her - not giving her the keys in the first place.
The two extreme scenarios seem to me to be -
1) He was pissed out of his brain and was pretty much unconscious
while she nicked his keys, bundled him into the car and drove off. I'd
hate to see him go to gaol for that.
2) He was only just over the limit, she was well over (and so more
dangerous on the roads than him), but she was bullied into driving
because she could afford to lose her licence and he couldn't. In that
case he's every bit as culpable as her.
The truth will be somewhere between the two. The court has established
it to a greater degree than we have. Hence I have no quarrel with the
court's decision.
Pete Fisher
<lo...@bottom.of.home.page> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>
>Such as, from TOG's original link, "The court heard that Nichols, who
>owned the Jaguar and was the front-seat passenger, was convicted
>because he had failed to stop her from driving dangerously."
>
>I don't think that excludes what would have been the most effective
>way of stopping her - not giving her the keys in the first place.
>
>The two extreme scenarios seem to me to be -
>
>1) He was pissed out of his brain and was pretty much unconscious
>while she nicked his keys, bundled him into the car and drove off. I'd
>hate to see him go to gaol for that.
>
>2) He was only just over the limit, she was well over (and so more
>dangerous on the roads than him), but she was bullied into driving
>because she could afford to lose her licence and he couldn't. In that
>case he's every bit as culpable as her.
>
>The truth will be somewhere between the two. The court has established
>it to a greater degree than we have. Hence I have no quarrel with the
>court's decision.
>
AOL
The Older Gentleman
The Older Gentleman
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:37:04 +0000, The Older Gentleman squeezed out
> the following:
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
> >
> >Worrying precedent, that.
>
> What, that if you hand the keys of your car to a drunk you can be held
> partly responsible for any deaths they cause? It's not a precedent
> that worries me.
It worries me for the same reason that the organ donor card opt-in thing
worries me. Something like this always seems to be the first small step
in a progression towards more inimical legislation.
But, hey-ho, I'm probably wrong, and in a few years' time I'm sure
there'll be no presumption that you did not do your best to prevent the
driver from driving dangerously.
The Older Gentleman
> 1) He was pissed out of his brain and was pretty much unconscious
> while she nicked his keys, bundled him into the car and drove off. I'd
> hate to see him go to gaol for that.
>
> 2) He was only just over the limit, she was well over (and so more
> dangerous on the roads than him), but she was bullied into driving
> because she could afford to lose her licence and he couldn't. In that
> case he's every bit as culpable as her.
>
Neither of these scenarios seems to address the fact that the issue was
not that he was convicted for letting her drive while pissed, but for
failing to stop her driving dangerously.
In other words, while he might have suspected she was over the limit,
could he have foreseen she'd try and do 113mph through standing water?
I dunno. I'm uneasy about it, for reasons aforementioned.
Colin Irvine
the following:
>Colin Irvine <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:37:04 +0000, The Older Gentleman squeezed out
>> the following:
>>
>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>> >
>> >Worrying precedent, that.
>>
>> What, that if you hand the keys of your car to a drunk you can be held
>> partly responsible for any deaths they cause? It's not a precedent
>> that worries me.
>
>It worries me for the same reason that the organ donor card opt-in thing
>worries me. Something like this always seems to be the first small step
>in a progression towards more inimical legislation.
Someone posted yesterday that this isn't the first time this sort of
verdict has been reached. And I think it is important that a court be
allowed to judge each case on its merits.
>But, hey-ho, I'm probably wrong, and in a few years' time I'm sure
>there'll be no presumption that you did not do your best to prevent the
>driver from driving dangerously.
The government may be promulgating a presumption of guilt in terrorism
cases, but they're finding it heavy going. And I really think the
courts are on our side so to speak.
Beav
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:50:31 +0000, The Older Gentleman squeezed out
> the following:
>
>>Colin Irvine <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:37:04 +0000, The Older Gentleman squeezed out
>>> the following:
>>>
>>> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>> >
>>> >Worrying precedent, that.
>>>
>>> What, that if you hand the keys of your car to a drunk you can be held
>>> partly responsible for any deaths they cause? It's not a precedent
>>> that worries me.
>>
>>It worries me for the same reason that the organ donor card opt-in thing
>>worries me. Something like this always seems to be the first small step
>>in a progression towards more inimical legislation.
>
> Someone posted yesterday that this isn't the first time this sort of
> verdict has been reached. And I think it is important that a court be
> allowed to judge each case on its merits.
I think the last posts about this "thing" were centred on the same people.
In other words, it as a ginge.
>
>>But, hey-ho, I'm probably wrong, and in a few years' time I'm sure
>>there'll be no presumption that you did not do your best to prevent the
>>driver from driving dangerously.
>
> The government may be promulgating a presumption of guilt in terrorism
> cases, but they're finding it heavy going.
Not to worry, they'll just target the motorist instead. Softer and fairly
easy to trace.
> And I really think the
> courts are on our side so to speak.
Not the side of truth and justice, surely?
Beav
Yeah, the same one TOG posted, but to make life easier, try this
"The court heard that Nichols, who owned the Jaguar and was the front-seat
passenger, was convicted because he had failed to stop her from driving
dangerously."
And this..
"They were both found guilty of two counts of causing death by dangerous
driving."
No mention of either of them being convicted of driving under the influence
in this instance.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
>
Colin Irvine
the following:
>Colin Irvine <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> wrote:
>
>> 1) He was pissed out of his brain and was pretty much unconscious
>> while she nicked his keys, bundled him into the car and drove off. I'd
>> hate to see him go to gaol for that.
>>
>> 2) He was only just over the limit, she was well over (and so more
>> dangerous on the roads than him), but she was bullied into driving
>> because she could afford to lose her licence and he couldn't. In that
>> case he's every bit as culpable as her.
>>
>Neither of these scenarios seems to address the fact that the issue was
>not that he was convicted for letting her drive while pissed, but for
>failing to stop her driving dangerously.
I wouldn't rely on press reports to make that distinction.
>In other words, while he might have suspected she was over the limit,
>could he have foreseen she'd try and do 113mph through standing water?
The court was in a better position than us to decide that.
>I dunno. I'm uneasy about it, for reasons aforementioned.
Fair enough.
Pete Fisher
The Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> cast forth these
pearls of wisdom
>Tosspot <Frank...@esa.int> wrote:
>
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>> >
>> > Worrying precedent, that.
>>
>> Very strange, neither was convicted for DIC, but *both* were convicted
>> for causing death by dangerous driving.
>
>*Ding*
>
>
Which offence carries the greater maximum penalty?
Beav
"Pete Fisher" <Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QuW2mpFFV8JJFw2$@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk...
> In communiqué <UIJVk.2401$bA3...@newsfe03.ams2>, Beav
> <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>
>>"The Older Gentleman" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>
>>> Worrying precedent, that.
>>
>>'Specially when you realise he was convicted of not stopping her from
>>driving when he was over the limit himself, which would (to me) seem like
>>they expected him to make a decision while he was under the influence.
>>
>
> Oh that's OK then.
Did I say that, or are you just clutching at straws coz you've got fuck all
else?
>Would you like that defence extended more generally? "Sorry I decided to
>drive down the motorway the wrong way, but I was a bit pissed."
It's already established that being pissed disallows driving, so why/how
would that be a defence, but what you wrote actually makes no sense at all.
Beav
> Tosspot <Frank...@esa.int> wrote:
>
>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>> >
>> > Worrying precedent, that.
>>
>> Very strange, neither was convicted for DIC, but *both* were convicted
>> for causing death by dangerous driving.
>
> *Ding*
"Double ding."
Alex Ferrier
>
> The truth will be somewhere between the two. The court has established
> it to a greater degree than we have. Hence I have no quarrel with the
> court's decision.
>
*applause*
These arguments are always pointless. Unless you were in possession
of *all* the facts, i.e. in the court room when the case was being
tried.
You have no way of meaningfully aruing the case one way or the other.
Let the courts get on with what they're designed to do.
--
Alex
BMW R1150GS
DIAABTCOD#3 MSWF#4 UKRMFBC#6 Ibw#35 BOB#8
Windy's "little soldier"
Beav
"steve auvache" <dont...@thecow.me.uk> wrote in message
news:FwD2GWAj...@auvache.force9.co.uk...
Stop this bus, you're driving at 1mph over the speed limit and we KNOW that
to be dangerous. You even just stopped in the middle of the road in heavy
traffic causing alll kinds of mayhem.
So exactly WHO decides what's dangerous and what's not I wonder and how many
of us have driven or ridden at speeds in excess of the Jag driver? Not me
Sir.
Colin Irvine
>
>"Colin Irvine" <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> wrote in message
>news:tbifi4l8v4spb0r60...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 02:03:35 -0000, Beav squeezed out the following:
>>>He wasn't convicted of anything to do with her drinking. It was her
>>>driving
>>>they took a dim view of and the fact that he didn't stop her. Not that he
>>>let her drive in the first place.
>>
>> I've not seen any reports detailed enough to enable that sort of
>> distinction to be made. Do you have a link?
>
>Yeah, the same one TOG posted, but to make life easier, try this
>
>"The court heard that Nichols, who owned the Jaguar and was the front-seat
>passenger, was convicted because he had failed to stop her from driving
>dangerously."
See my reply to Tosspot. "I don't think that excludes what would have
been the most effective way of stopping her - not giving her the keys
in the first place."
>And this..
>
>"They were both found guilty of two counts of causing death by dangerous
>driving."
>
>No mention of either of them being convicted of driving under the influence
>in this instance.
Indeed not. But we have no idea of the weight the court gave to the
couple's intoxication in reaching its verdict.
Look, without more information I see no reason to worry about the
court's verdict - you do. Fair enough.
Pete Fisher
Hung for a sheep instead of a lamb. Were they even charged with DIC?
Pete Fisher
>
>"Pete Fisher" <Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:QuW2mpFFV8JJFw2$@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk...
>> In communiqué <UIJVk.2401$bA3...@newsfe03.ams2>, Beav
>> <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>>
>>>"The Older Gentleman" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk...
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>>
>>>> Worrying precedent, that.
>>>
>>>'Specially when you realise he was convicted of not stopping her from
>>>driving when he was over the limit himself, which would (to me) seem like
>>>they expected him to make a decision while he was under the influence.
>>>
>>
>> Oh that's OK then.
>
>Did I say that, or are you just clutching at straws coz you've got fuck all
>else?
>
You implied , by my reading, that because he was drunk he shouldn't be
held responsible for his actions.
>>Would you like that defence extended more generally? "Sorry I decided to
>>drive down the motorway the wrong way, but I was a bit pissed."
>
>It's already established that being pissed disallows driving, so why/how
>would that be a defence, but what you wrote actually makes no sense at all.
>
>
Extend your reasoning to a wider arena than driving. Should people not
be held to account for decisions they make while pissed?
Pete Fisher
>news:FwD2GWAj...@auvache.force9.co.uk...
>> In article <1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk>, The
>> Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>
>>>Worrying precedent, that.
>>
>> No precedent there Sir but a well tested principle that any holder of a
>> driving licence is responsible for the actions of the driver of any
>> vehicle they may be travelling in.
>>
>> If it worries you just make sure to ask your bus/taxi/train driver if
>> she has been drinking, taking drugs, is being pimped or has been within
>> 500 yards of a swarthy foreign looking type carrying a rucksack.
>
>Stop this bus, you're driving at 1mph over the speed limit and we KNOW that
>to be dangerous. You even just stopped in the middle of the road in heavy
>traffic causing alll kinds of mayhem.
>
The old thin end of the wedge argument with a big dollop of reductio ad
absurdum.
>So exactly WHO decides what's dangerous and what's not I wonder
The courts.
> and how many
>of us have driven or ridden at speeds in excess of the Jag driver? Not me
I've still got the ticket I earned for 102 in a 50. Plod then went out
of their way to say I wasn't 'dangerous'. It might be a different matter
today. That much of your argument is true.
Can anyone point to an 'accessory' or 'aiding and abetting' prosecution
of a passenger for *just* speeding ?
Rope
> >The couple had spent the day drinking at Nottingham racecourse. My
> >assumption is that the court established Nichols's knowledge of his
> >partner's incapacity before sending him down for five years.
>
There was a lot of detail in the report on the incident in the Newark
Advertiser at the time, and there was more to it that reported on the
BBC site.
--
Rob_P
UKRM(at)indqualtec.co.uk
uppercase(d) BBIWYMC#1 BOG#11? MRO#31 IBCDBBB#1(kotl)
FJ1200, CCM130 Benelli Cabiolet
Easily confused.
Wicked Uncle Nigel
I'm saying that, once he'd handed the keys over, what she did then was
entirely her responsibility. She is, after all, an adult.
--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"
The secret to surviving is knowing what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
Beelzebub
news:YiL3cv7G...@rcav8r.demon.co.uk...
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, platypus
> <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> typed
>>Also, he wasn't convicted because she was drunk, but because he'd failed
>>to stop her driving dangerously.
>
> Which he would do by... ?
Not handing her the keys to his car for her to drive after she'd spent the
afternoon drinking with him?
The Older Gentleman
> Someone posted yesterday that this isn't the first time this sort of
> verdict has been reached. And I think it is important that a court be
> allowed to judge each case on its merits.
Yes, actually, I agree with that.
>
> >But, hey-ho, I'm probably wrong, and in a few years' time I'm sure
> >there'll be no presumption that you did not do your best to prevent the
> >driver from driving dangerously.
>
> The government may be promulgating a presumption of guilt in terrorism
> cases, but they're finding it heavy going. And I really think the
> courts are on our side so to speak.
I'm not so sure about the courts. They follow the legislation that is
promulgated, although obviously common law is still applicable in many
instances and they can still create a precedent.
If there's one body that I think *is* on our side, as regards repressive
legislation/civil liberties, it's the House of Lords, oddly enough.
Colin Irvine
the following:
>Colin Irvine <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> wrote:
>
>> Someone posted yesterday that this isn't the first time this sort of
>> verdict has been reached. And I think it is important that a court be
>> allowed to judge each case on its merits.
>
>Yes, actually, I agree with that.
>>
>> >But, hey-ho, I'm probably wrong, and in a few years' time I'm sure
>> >there'll be no presumption that you did not do your best to prevent the
>> >driver from driving dangerously.
>>
>> The government may be promulgating a presumption of guilt in terrorism
>> cases, but they're finding it heavy going. And I really think the
>> courts are on our side so to speak.
>
>I'm not so sure about the courts. They follow the legislation that is
>promulgated, although obviously common law is still applicable in many
>instances and they can still create a precedent.
>
>If there's one body that I think *is* on our side, as regards repressive
>legislation/civil liberties, it's the House of Lords, oddly enough.
Yep, we've had plenty of reason to thank them recently.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Wicked Uncle Nigel
<w...@wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> saying something like:
>She was 1.5 times the limit.
1.5 times over the limit -ambiguous reporting, at its best.
Superficially, I took that to mean she was 250% full.
Colin Irvine
the following:
>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Colin Irvine
>>Are you saying he shouldn't have been given 5 years? If so, on what
>>basis, and what sentence or otherwise do you think would have been
>>appropriate?
>
>I'm saying that, once he'd handed the keys over, what she did then was
>entirely her responsibility. She is, after all, an adult.
You're assuming she asked for the keys.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<malcol...@ubht.swest.nhs.uk> saying something like:
>> I find it a worrying precedent.
>>
>It's not a precedent though. I was in court a few years ago (1998
>IIRC) and one of the cases in before me was for a young lad who'd let
>his girlfriend drive his car back to her place (unaccompanied) after a
>night out. She was uninsured and crashed and he got done for allowing
>her to drive whilst uninsured. As I read it, the law says that the
>person driving your car must be fit for purpose.
Exactly. This has all been covered before.
The owner /peson in charge is responsible for who drives it and for
ascertaining their state of fitness. Being drunk is just one of a range
of things that could have backfired on him - if the other person had one
leg and lost control, he'd have been just as liable.
fragmented
> Let the courts get on with what they're designed to do.
Oh yes you canaru!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%60Arued
--
fragmented
fragmented
>
> >
> >"The court heard that Nichols, who owned the Jaguar and was the front-seat
> >passenger, was convicted because he had failed to stop her from driving
> >dangerously."
>
> See my reply to Tosspot. "I don't think that excludes what would have
> been the most effective way of stopping her - not giving her the keys
> in the first place."
That would imply he had knowledge that she was going to drive at
excessive speed.
If she was fuming at being made to drive or completely steaming drunk,
fair play, but otherwise he had no knowledge at that time that she was
going to drive too fast.
If she was not obviously affected by the drink, was a good driver
normally, he had no reason not to give her the keys (because he thought
she would drive dangerously).
> Look, without more information I see no reason to worry about the
> court's verdict
Exactly.
--
fragmented
fragmented
> be held to account for decisions they make while pissed?
Which is complete bollocks.
If that was the case I could decide to kill someone, get drunk, murder
them and get done for being drunk in charge of a chainsaw.
--
fragmented
fragmented
> <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
> >
>
> Hung for a sheep instead of a lamb. Were they even charged with DIC?
Lesser charge, they will have just dropped it.
--
fragmented
Colin Irvine
following:
From today's Guardian. "Butres yesterday admitted an additional charge
of drink-driving".
Veggie Dave
masterpiece:
>He didn't have to tell by looking at her that she was over the limit.
>He could tell because they'd been drinking together.
According to the URL, they'd been drinking at the same venue. Not quite
the same thing. And, when I go drinking with someone, I generally
couldn't tell you how many drinks someone I'm with has or hasn't had.
>Also, he wasn't convicted because she was drunk, but because he'd
>failed to stop her driving dangerously.
I can't count the number of times I've been in a car with someone who I
thought drove like a useless twat. How I can possibly be considered at
fault for their driving, however, is utterly beyond me.
Also, have you ever tried to tell someone their driving was shit? You
get a less aggressive response telling someone you've just fucked their
other half.
--
Veggie Dave
http://www.iq18films.co.uk
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim
that Jesus was not born of a virgin." Cardinal Bellarmine
bod43
> In communiqué <s5RVk.1067$Yt5.1...@newsfe21.ams2>, Beav
> <beavis.origi...@ntlwoxorld.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"steve auvache" <dont_s...@thecow.me.uk> wrote in message
> >news:FwD2GWAj...@auvache.force9.co.uk...
> >> In article <1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk>, The
> >> Older Gentleman <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>
> >>>Worrying precedent, that.
>
> >> No precedent there Sir but a well tested principle that any holder of a
> >> driving licence is responsible for the actions of the driver of any
> >> vehicle they may be travelling in.
>
> >> If it worries you just make sure to ask your bus/taxi/train driver if
> >> she has been drinking, taking drugs, is being pimped or has been within
> >> 500 yards of a swarthy foreign looking type carrying a rucksack.
>
> >Stop this bus, you're driving at 1mph over the speed limit and we KNOW that
> >to be dangerous. You even just stopped in the middle of the road in heavy
> >traffic causing alll kinds of mayhem.
>
> The old thin end of the wedge argument with a big dollop of reductio ad
> absurdum.
>
> >So exactly WHO decides what's dangerous and what's not I wonder
>
> The courts.
>
> > and how many
> >of us have driven or ridden at speeds in excess of the Jag driver? Not me
>
> I've still got the ticket I earned for 102 in a 50. Plod then went out
> of their way to say I wasn't 'dangerous'. It might be a different matter
> today. That much of your argument is true.
>
> Can anyone point to an 'accessory' or 'aiding and abetting' prosecution
> of a passenger for *just* speeding ?
This would appear to be a novel application of the
law.
Firstly - the non-driver's conviction appears to have been
"aiding or abetting (causing death by?) dangerous driving".
No mention of aiding or abetting (or permitting) drunk
driving. So - the non-driver does not appear to have been
convicted based on anything that happened in the car park.
Handing over the keys was not apparently part of the offence.
It appears that the non-driver's offence was failing to
take responsibility for the drivers speed in the
poor conditions at the time of the crash.
Some of this lot seem to think that this case is a
novel interpretation of the statutes and that it
"should" be appealed.
I think I will be looking for the transcript
if it appears on-line.
http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/49217-whats-going-here-8.html
This appears to be a "mirror" of uk.legal and
uk.legal.moderated - feel free to read the original.
Selected quotes.
"R v Allan (1963) and R v Clarkson (1971) make it clear that mere
presence at
the commission of an offence is insufficient to found liability for
aiding
and abetting. The CPS, and the court, would seem to have extended the
principle in Tuck v Robson (1970), where a publican allowed his
customers to
drink after hours, and the fact that he had "authority and control"
made his
failure to prevent this an abetting of the customer's offences.
However, the
licensee of a pub is (IMO) in a very different position to Nichols,
because
his license imposes an implied general duty not to allow offences on
the
premises, whereas Nichols, although the owner of the vehicle, is under
no
legal duty that I'm aware of to ensure that his vehicle is driven
within the
law (apart from the "permitting" offences, which are specifically
legislated
for). **That would seem to be the extension here.**"
My "**"
"Most cases which are appealed don't involve a novel extension of the
way a
well-established law is interpreted - which, as Janitor has argued,
(citing
precedent) appears to have occurred in this case.
If this case survives appeal, a whole new universe of criminal
liability for A&A
in cases of silent, passive, aquiesence will have opened up, ISTM."
"Not quite. Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773
makes
it clear that any assistance *before* the commission of an offence is
counselling or procuring, and at the time of the offence is aiding or
abetting, depending on whether the activity amounts to "encouraging"
or
"helping". Note that both these words require some positive action,
and do
not involve a failure to act even if a duty to act in law arises.
That's why
I say this case is a departure from precedent, and should go to
appeal.
The dangerous driving may have persisted for a short time, and
obviously
caused a death, but it is the actions of this defendant during that
time
that are the point with respect to aiding or abetting. If all he said
was
"drive my car", and then knew that it would be driven dangerously,
that
would be counselling or procuring, not aiding and abetting."
"There's no specific duty on the passenger under any of the driving-
related
statutes, I would agree (as do we all, it seems). But the court has
constructed,
or found, or thinks it has found, an implied duty in the present case,
under A&A
statute. Whether the court was correct in doing so, and in what cases
A&A would
apply is what we should be discussing."
"Perhaps you could post the text of the "Back Seat Driving Act" to
which you allude." **** :)
My "**** :)"
Pete Fisher
<137856cb-4938-4829...@k36g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
bod43 <Bo...@hotmail.co.uk> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>On 22 Nov, 10:36, Pete Fisher <Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone point to an 'accessory' or 'aiding and abetting' prosecution
>> of a passenger for *just* speeding ?
>
>This would appear to be a novel application of the
>law.
>
>Firstly - the non-driver's conviction appears to have been
>"aiding or abetting (causing death by?) dangerous driving".
>No mention of aiding or abetting (or permitting) drunk
>driving. So - the non-driver does not appear to have been
>convicted based on anything that happened in the car park.
>Handing over the keys was not apparently part of the offence.
>It appears that the non-driver's offence was failing to
>take responsibility for the drivers speed in the
>poor conditions at the time of the crash.
>
>
<SNIP interesting legal conjecture>
>
>"Perhaps you could post the text of the "Back Seat Driving Act" to
>which you allude." **** :)
>
>My "**** :)"
The scenario in which I am pretty sure it might apply is in the case of
a learner. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall a pillion with a full
licence being done when a learner at the controls transgressed. That was
years ago. Can you even take a licence holder on the back with 'L'
plates these days?
In that situation, though there is at least some element of control or
implied supervision, however theoretical it might be in anything but a
car with dual controls.
As Rope said, there appears to be a back story to this particular case
with details we haven't been privy to. Perhaps someone has a recording
of him shouting "faster, faster you drunken bitch", just before impact
(joke OK).
If the sole point upon which the prosecution was successful would
equally apply to a passenger (possibly even one not qualified to drive)
failing to prevent an otherwise capable driver of driving like a
fuckwit, then it should be appealed.
I await an opportunity to examine the full facts, such as they can be,
in the transcript, with interest.
Tosspot
> In communiqué <1iqsw4x.ois1pj1yzhe0eN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> The Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> cast forth these
> pearls of wisdom
>> Tosspot <Frank...@esa.int> wrote:
>>
>>> The Older Gentleman wrote:
>>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>> >
>>> > Worrying precedent, that.
>>>
>>> Very strange, neither was convicted for DIC, but *both* were convicted
>>> for causing death by dangerous driving.
>>
>> *Ding*
>>
>>
>
> Which offence carries the greater maximum penalty?
Yeah, I think you got it there. I wonder what that means for DD cases?
Tosspot
> platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote the following literary
> masterpiece:
>> He didn't have to tell by looking at her that she was over the limit.
>> He could tell because they'd been drinking together.
>
> According to the URL, they'd been drinking at the same venue. Not quite
> the same thing. And, when I go drinking with someone, I generally
> couldn't tell you how many drinks someone I'm with has or hasn't had.
>
>> Also, he wasn't convicted because she was drunk, but because he'd
>> failed to stop her driving dangerously.
>
> I can't count the number of times I've been in a car with someone who I
> thought drove like a useless twat. How I can possibly be considered at
> fault for their driving, however, is utterly beyond me.
>
> Also, have you ever tried to tell someone their driving was shit? You
> get a less aggressive response telling someone you've just fucked their
> other half.
*ding* I was going to post exactly that. In essence, I am responsible
for *your* driving while *I'm* in the passenger seat and presumably am
guilty if you drive like a cunt.
You wait till next time i'm in the No. 8 bus.
ogden
*sigh* You seem to be wilfully missing the point.
You are partially responsible for my driving while you're in the
passenger seat in YOUR CAR.
--
ogden
GSX-R750 K4
RGV250 VJ22
Tosspot
Right, then you're not driving my car :) I still reckon it's crap and
ill thought out. Anyhow, I think done to death now, to coin a phrase.
platypus
> platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote the following literary
> masterpiece:
>> He didn't have to tell by looking at her that she was over the limit.
>> He could tell because they'd been drinking together.
>
> According to the URL, they'd been drinking at the same venue. Not
> quite the same thing. And, when I go drinking with someone, I
> generally couldn't tell you how many drinks someone I'm with has or
> hasn't had.
Same venue, also she was his business partner, and they were in a
relationship. The prosecution could have called the waiter as a witness if
there was any dispute.
>> Also, he wasn't convicted because she was drunk, but because he'd
>> failed to stop her driving dangerously.
>
> I can't count the number of times I've been in a car with someone who
> I thought drove like a useless twat. How I can possibly be considered
> at fault for their driving, however, is utterly beyond me.
His car, therefore driven with his permission.
> Also, have you ever tried to tell someone their driving was shit? You
> get a less aggressive response telling someone you've just fucked
> their other half.
Well, I drive like a useless twat, and get told about it on a regular basis.
Eiron
I wonder how this works:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/7743759.stm
"Four men, from Ashbourne, have been detained on suspicion of causing
death by dangerous driving."
And apparently they were all passengers.
--
Eiron.
wessie
> I wonder how this works:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/7743759.stm
> "Four men, from Ashbourne, have been detained on suspicion of causing
> death by dangerous driving."
> And apparently they were all passengers.
>
Stolen car, most likely. Or driving without the owner's permission at
least. Laws introduced to combat twokking state that all occupants of such
a vehicle will be charged. The driver is dead, so escapes charge...
--
wessie at tesco dot net
BMW R1150GS
platypus
Considering that two died in the Corsa and four others were arrested, I
suspect there may have been at least one other car involved.
Pete Fisher
platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
Cue Bruce Springsteen "Racing in the Street"?
platypus
> In communiqué <Y02Wk.91600$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
> platypus <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> cast forth these pearls of
> wisdom
>> wessie wrote:
>>> Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:6ornd7F...@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> I wonder how this works:
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/7743759.stm
>>>> "Four men, from Ashbourne, have been detained on suspicion of
>>>> causing death by dangerous driving."
>>>> And apparently they were all passengers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Stolen car, most likely. Or driving without the owner's permission
>>> at least. Laws introduced to combat twokking state that all
>>> occupants of such a vehicle will be charged. The driver is dead, so
>>> escapes charge...
>>
>> Considering that two died in the Corsa and four others were
>> arrested, I suspect there may have been at least one other car
>> involved.
>
> Cue Bruce Springsteen "Racing in the Street"?
Couldn't possibly comment. I notice that there's no mention in any of the
reports of racing or another car being involved, but that may be for legal
reasons.
Bear
says...
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Buzby
> <g...@pumpupthe.net> typed
> >The Older Gentleman wrote:
> >
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
> >>
> >> Worrying precedent, that.
> >
>
> All the nay-sayers in this thread appear to be assuming that one can
> tell if someone's over the limit by looking at them.
>
>
> I find it a worrying precedent.
It's not actually a precedent, but yes, agreed.
--
2002 Yamaha R1
Saab Aero Sport
Grimly Curmudgeon
something like:
>I wonder how this works:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/7743759.stm
>"Four men, from Ashbourne, have been detained on suspicion of causing
>death by dangerous driving."
>And apparently they were all passengers.
Lots of lies being told, I would think. Better to keep hold of them
until the beati... the truth emerges.
Eiron
It's no longer the thin end of the wedge. Definitely getting towards the
middle.
Remember the Joshua Knights case last May? Six years for causing an accident
that had already happened by the time he got to the scene.
That could happen to any of us.
--
Eiron.
Colin Irvine
To which he pleaded guilty.
>That could happen to any of us.
It could. I'd be worried if I were you.
Thankfully I'm neither you nor worried.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> saying
something like:
>Remember the Joshua Knights case last May? Six years for causing an accident
>that had already happened by the time he got to the scene.
Istr he was racing, but he'd actually stopped doing so and had fallen
back a considerable way. After that point, he wasn't responsible for the
actions of the car driver, imo.
>That could happen to any of us.
True - I suspect it was a pragmatic decision on his part to plead
guilty, if he was being advised to do so by a hack lawyer. A good brief
could have pointed out the inconsistencies and incongruities to the
court, I'm sure.
If the car driver had survived, I'm fairly sure Knights would have got
off much more lightly - sometimes it seems the courts are only out to
exact their pound of flesh, regardless of real guilt.
Adrian
saying:
> I wonder how this works:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/7743759.stm "Four men,
> from Ashbourne, have been detained on suspicion of causing death by
> dangerous driving."
> And apparently they were all passengers.
I suspect this sentence is rather important...
"A man, 18, and two women, aged 20 and 16, were questioned on suspicion
of perverting the course of justice. "
In other words, they know ONE of the fuckers was driving, but not who -
yet - and everybody's lying through their teeth about it.
Lady Nina
<Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Should people not
>be held to account for decisions they make while pissed?
If that could be applied to 1988 and a fair chunk of 1989 I'd be all
in favour.
--
Lady Nina
Beav
"Beelzebub" <nig...@the.world> wrote in message
news:3sidnT4nTZcwb7rU...@bt.com...
> "Wicked Uncle Nigel" <w...@wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:YiL3cv7G...@rcav8r.demon.co.uk...
>> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, platypus
>> <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> typed
>
>>>Also, he wasn't convicted because she was drunk, but because he'd failed
>>>to stop her driving dangerously.
>>
>
> Not handing her the keys to his car for her to drive after she'd spent the
> afternoon drinking with him?
But that makes the assumption she WAS going to drive dangerously. Even stone
cold sober, he probably isn't a mind reader. What he should've done was
wrestle the wheel from her and lob it out of the window while pulling
strongly on the handbrake.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
Beav
"Pete Fisher" <Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QtYGGSP9...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk...
> In communiqué <l1RVk.1065$Yt5...@newsfe21.ams2>, Beav
> <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>
>>"Pete Fisher" <Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:QuW2mpFFV8JJFw2$@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk...
>>> In communiqué <UIJVk.2401$bA3...@newsfe03.ams2>, Beav
>>> <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>>>
>>>>"The Older Gentleman" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk...
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> Worrying precedent, that.
>>>>
>>>>driving when he was over the limit himself, which would (to me) seem
>>>>like
>>>>they expected him to make a decision while he was under the influence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh that's OK then.
>>
>>Did I say that, or are you just clutching at straws coz you've got fuck
>>all
>>else?
>>
>
> You implied , by my reading, that because he was drunk he shouldn't be
> held responsible for his actions.
No. I'm saying they can't have it both ways. He can't be responsible for
someone elses actions if he's not capable of making decisions and if he's
too drunk to drive, he's too drunnk to make decisions, so his conviction for
letting her drive is bollocks. Not that I gaf either way, but he was fucked
no matter what he did (or didn't) do.
>>>Would you like that defence extended more generally? "Sorry I decided to
>>>drive down the motorway the wrong way, but I was a bit pissed."
>>
>>It's already established that being pissed disallows driving, so why/how
>>would that be a defence, but what you wrote actually makes no sense at
>>all.
>>
>>
>
> Extend your reasoning to a wider arena than driving. Should people not be
> held to account for decisions they make while pissed?
I prefer the person who IS responsible (for whatever shit they caused) to
carry the responsibility.
If you got on a bus and decided the driver is driving dangerously, what
would you do about it? Stop him driving and if so, how?
Beav
> In communiqué <Q1RVk.1066$Yt5...@newsfe21.ams2>, Beav
>>
>>"The Older Gentleman" <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> >
>>>> > Worrying precedent, that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Ding*
>>
>>"Double ding."
>>
>
> Hung for a sheep instead of a lamb. Were they even charged with DIC?
More than likely not as the "Death by" is the serious one and the one the
courts would focus on.
Beav
> In communiqué <s5RVk.1067$Yt5....@newsfe21.ams2>, Beav
>>"steve auvache" <dont...@thecow.me.uk> wrote in message
>>news:FwD2GWAj...@auvache.force9.co.uk...
>>> In article <1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk>, The
>>> Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> driving licence is responsible for the actions of the driver of any
>>> vehicle they may be travelling in.
>>>
>>> If it worries you just make sure to ask your bus/taxi/train driver if
>>> she has been drinking, taking drugs, is being pimped or has been within
>>> 500 yards of a swarthy foreign looking type carrying a rucksack.
>>
>>Stop this bus, you're driving at 1mph over the speed limit and we KNOW
>>that
>>to be dangerous. You even just stopped in the middle of the road in heavy
>>traffic causing alll kinds of mayhem.
>>
>
> The old thin end of the wedge argument with a big dollop of reductio ad
> absurdum.
So it's not a matter of breaking th law, but how FAR one breaks it?
>
>>So exactly WHO decides what's dangerous and what's not I wonder
>
> The courts.
The courts aren't on the bus. Or in the car, so although they hand out
penalties, I really don't think they're making the laws and one must break a
law before one can be prosecuted for ... well, breaking the law.
>
>> and how many
>>of us have driven or ridden at speeds in excess of the Jag driver? Not me
>
> I've still got the ticket I earned for 102 in a 50. Plod then went out of
> their way to say I wasn't 'dangerous'. It might be a different matter
> today. That much of your argument is true.
It's all the same argument, just the degrees have changed. As someone said
(maybe you) thin end of wedges".
>
> Can anyone point to an 'accessory' or 'aiding and abetting' prosecution of
> a passenger for *just* speeding ?
I can point out that I got fined and had an endorsement stuck in my
license - even before I HAD a fucking klicense - back in 1964 for "Aiding
and abetting a "driver" to ride a motorcycle combination without "L" plates.
(Sunbeam 500 outfit it was, being pushed because it wouldn't run after the
camshaft had been installed 180 degrees out of plonker)
Pete Fisher
Interesting logic. Someone who is drunk certainly shouldn't be making
important decisions. Henri Paul springs immediately to mind. Slightly
different relationship in this case, but as a thought experiment imagine
that he hadn't driven the car himself that fateful might but given the
keys to an equally compromised by alcohol driver in his employ and told
him to drive.
>>>>Would you like that defence extended more generally? "Sorry I decided to
>>>>drive down the motorway the wrong way, but I was a bit pissed."
>>>
>>>It's already established that being pissed disallows driving, so why/how
>>>would that be a defence, but what you wrote actually makes no sense at
>>>all.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Extend your reasoning to a wider arena than driving. Should people not be
>> held to account for decisions they make while pissed?
>
>I prefer the person who IS responsible (for whatever shit they caused) to
>carry the responsibility.
>
>If you got on a bus and decided the driver is driving dangerously, what
>would you do about it? Stop him driving and if so, how?
>
>
For a start, I wouldn't have personally given the driver the keys to a
bus I owned and asked him to drive would I ?
Call the bus operator and the police (if I had a mobile phone with me)
and get off at the next stop, whilst advising all other passengers to
follow my example. Almost certainly ineffective, but it might just
reduce the potential casualty numbers.
Pete Fisher
>
>"Pete Fisher" <Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bpmEndQF...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk...
>> In communiqué <s5RVk.1067$Yt5....@newsfe21.ams2>, Beav
>> <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>>
>>>"steve auvache" <dont...@thecow.me.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:FwD2GWAj...@auvache.force9.co.uk...
>>>> In article <1iqs1er.mn06sz1g0fawfN%totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk>, The
>>>> Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7741418.stm
>>>>>
>>>>>Worrying precedent, that.
>>>>
>>>> No precedent there Sir but a well tested principle that any holder of a
>>>> driving licence is responsible for the actions of the driver of any
>>>> vehicle they may be travelling in.
>>>>
>>>> If it worries you just make sure to ask your bus/taxi/train driver if
>>>> she has been drinking, taking drugs, is being pimped or has been within
>>>> 500 yards of a swarthy foreign looking type carrying a rucksack.
>>>
>>>Stop this bus, you're driving at 1mph over the speed limit and we KNOW
>>>that
>>>to be dangerous. You even just stopped in the middle of the road in heavy
>>>traffic causing alll kinds of mayhem.
>>>
>>
>> The old thin end of the wedge argument with a big dollop of reductio ad
>> absurdum.
>
>So it's not a matter of breaking th law, but how FAR one breaks it?
>>
Eh?
>>>So exactly WHO decides what's dangerous and what's not I wonder
>>
>> The courts.
>
>The courts aren't on the bus. Or in the car, so although they hand out
>penalties, I really don't think they're making the laws and one must break a
>law before one can be prosecuted for ... well, breaking the law.
>
The courts decide on the basis of the facts before them whether a
statute written by a parliamentary draftsman has been contravened. If it
was all totally cut and dried there would be no need for an appeal
process, and no books full of legal precedents that may subsequently
overturned.
>>
>>> and how many
>>>of us have driven or ridden at speeds in excess of the Jag driver? Not me
>>
>> I've still got the ticket I earned for 102 in a 50. Plod then went out of
>> their way to say I wasn't 'dangerous'. It might be a different matter
>> today. That much of your argument is true.
>
>It's all the same argument, just the degrees have changed. As someone said
>(maybe you) thin end of wedges".
>
>>
>> Can anyone point to an 'accessory' or 'aiding and abetting' prosecution of
>> a passenger for *just* speeding ?
>
>I can point out that I got fined and had an endorsement stuck in my
>license - even before I HAD a fucking klicense - back in 1964 for "Aiding
>and abetting a "driver" to ride a motorcycle combination without "L" plates.
>(Sunbeam 500 outfit it was, being pushed because it wouldn't run after the
>camshaft had been installed 180 degrees out of plonker)
>
>
I covered the learner scenario in another post.
Bear
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:35:25 +0000, Veggie Dave
> <Veggie~Da...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >I can't count the number of times I've been in a car with someone who I
> >thought drove like a useless twat. How I can possibly be considered at
> >fault for their driving, however, is utterly beyond me.
> >
> >Also, have you ever tried to tell someone their driving was shit? You
> >get a less aggressive response telling someone you've just fucked their
> >other half.
>
> expect them to respect my desires wrt to their driving. In their own
> car they can do what the hell they like, but not in mine.
But, in a practical sense, what could you do to stop them, other than
get a bit shouty? It's not like you could take the wheel or whatever,
at least not safely, and without risking a crash.
<suspect in custody to police officer after crash>
"I thought he was driving dangerously, so I grabbed the wheel ... then
we went through the bus queue backwards" :)
Bear
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:03:00 -0000, Bear <bastard...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <h6rki4hqitu0r5dbq...@4ax.com>, Ace says...
> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:35:25 +0000, Veggie Dave
> >> <Veggie~Da...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >> >Also, have you ever tried to tell someone their driving was shit? You
> >> >get a less aggressive response telling someone you've just fucked their
> >> >other half.
> >>
> >> If they were driving MY car I'd feel entirely justified and would
> >> expect them to respect my desires wrt to their driving. In their own
> >> car they can do what the hell they like, but not in mine.
> >
> >But, in a practical sense, what could you do to stop them, other than
> >get a bit shouty? It's not like you could take the wheel or whatever,
> >at least not safely, and without risking a crash.
>
> my keys to and ride with, would respect the wishes of the owner, even
> if they didn't think they were doing anything wrong. Getting shouty
> wouldn't be the way, but a polite request to take it easy please would
> normally suffice.
Oh agreed, but I was thinking about this specific case ... I mean, what
on earth can one actually do, safely, from the passenger seat, if the
driver doesn't want to play ball?
In the Saab, because the key's in the centre console, I guess you could
remove that and stop the engine, but then again that might not be
exactly safe either, given that the brakes are servo assisted, as almost
all are these days. In a normal car you'd be fucked for bringing the
thing to a controlled stop.
Colin Irvine
>In article <igtki45cq544hp36n...@4ax.com>, Ace says...
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:03:00 -0000, Bear <bastard...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <h6rki4hqitu0r5dbq...@4ax.com>, Ace says...
>> >> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:35:25 +0000, Veggie Dave
>> >> <Veggie~Da...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Also, have you ever tried to tell someone their driving was shit? You
>> >> >get a less aggressive response telling someone you've just fucked their
>> >> >other half.
>> >>
>> >> If they were driving MY car I'd feel entirely justified and would
>> >> expect them to respect my desires wrt to their driving. In their own
>> >> car they can do what the hell they like, but not in mine.
>> >
>> >But, in a practical sense, what could you do to stop them, other than
>> >get a bit shouty? It's not like you could take the wheel or whatever,
>> >at least not safely, and without risking a crash.
>>
>> Oh sure. But most people, or certainly anyone I'd bew prepared to give
>> my keys to and ride with, would respect the wishes of the owner, even
>> if they didn't think they were doing anything wrong. Getting shouty
>> wouldn't be the way, but a polite request to take it easy please would
>> normally suffice.
>
>Oh agreed, but I was thinking about this specific case ... I mean, what
>on earth can one actually do, safely, from the passenger seat, if the
>driver doesn't want to play ball?
There's still a lot we don't know about this specific case. He could
even have been sitting there going "FFS, women, is that the fastest
you can go? Put your foot down you stupid twat or we'll be even later
than we are".
Bear
says...
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:55:37 -0000, Bear squeezed out the following:
> >Oh agreed, but I was thinking about this specific case ... I mean, what
> >on earth can one actually do, safely, from the passenger seat, if the
> >driver doesn't want to play ball?
>
> There's still a lot we don't know about this specific case.
Oh sure ... I was just wondering about the specific point, ie how *do*
you stop someone who is driving you in your car from driving too fast or
too dangerously? I can't see any way of safely doing it, therefore I
think it's somewhat unreasonable to punish the passenger, as a general
rule.
platypus
>
> In the Saab, because the key's in the centre console, I guess you
> could remove that and stop the engine
Not unless you'd engaged reverse first.
Bear
says...
Modern Saabs don't bother with that reverse gear lockout.
platypus
> In article <hzvWk.92123$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, platypus
> says...
>> Bear wrote:
>>>
>>> In the Saab, because the key's in the centre console, I guess you
>>> could remove that and stop the engine
>>
>> Not unless you'd engaged reverse first.
>
> Modern Saabs don't bother with that reverse gear lockout.
That's a bit gash. Mind, I suppose it's been downhill since they stopped
making the old 900s.
Jim
Too many facts makes for a boring Usenet discussion.
>Oh sure ... I was just wondering about the specific point, ie how *do*
>you stop someone who is driving you in your car from driving too fast or
>too dangerously? I can't see any way of safely doing it, therefore I
>think it's somewhat unreasonable to punish the passenger, as a general
>rule.
Well, Ford make a thing called MyKey which is meant for parents to give
to their teenaged children to stop them driving above 80mph or turning
up the stereo too loud.
Also, Google make a thing called Google Goggles which is designed to
stop you sending emails when drunk that you'll later regret: it asks you
a series of maths questions.
I think a simple combination of these two technologies is what you're
after...
--
CB500 (blue + flies)
Pete Fisher
<bastard...@gmail.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
If you had world enough and time[1], you could read learn and inwardly
digest[2] this:
BEWARE LARGE PDF
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc300.pdf
from:
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/assisting_crime.htm
[1] With acknowledgements to Andrew Marvel.
[2] In remembrance of my old English teacher in 'Remove'
Beav
"wessie" <putmyn...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B5F8547E...@69.16.176.253...>> "Four men, from Ashbourne, have been detained on suspicion of causing
>> death by dangerous driving."
>> And apparently they were all passengers.
>>
>
> least. Laws introduced to combat twokking state that all occupants of such
> a vehicle will be charged. The driver is dead, so escapes charge...
I'm sure a way will be found to charge and punish him, especially if it
means he can be fined.
Bear
heh. Stinky bait.
I always found the reverse lockout a right PITA TBH.
Plus, the sensor that told the engine it wasn't in reverse was prone to
failure.
Beav
"platypus" <mono...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Y02Wk.91600$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> wessie wrote:
>> Eiron <E1...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:6ornd7F...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> I wonder how this works:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/7743759.stm
>>> "Four men, from Ashbourne, have been detained on suspicion of causing
>>> death by dangerous driving."
>>> And apparently they were all passengers.
>>>
>>
>> Stolen car, most likely. Or driving without the owner's permission at
>> least. Laws introduced to combat twokking state that all occupants of
>> such a vehicle will be charged. The driver is dead, so escapes
>> charge...
>
> suspect there may have been at least one other car involved.
I'll have a stab at it being a Volkswagen Passat.
Beav
"Bear" <bastard...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.23948a72a...@news.individual.net...
Not really, in fact not at all. You wouldn't be able to brake effectively
many times, but you'd certainly be able to bring the car to a stop once with
NO problem. Think about it... If the engine stops for ANY reason, the
manufacturers wouldn't get away with making a car which couldn't be brough
to a halt safely and under full control.
Beav
"Colin Irvine" <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> wrote in message
news:smufi455n74grk3to...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:30:08 +0000, Wicked Uncle Nigel squeezed out
> the following:
>
>>Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Colin Irvine
>
>>>Are you saying he shouldn't have been given 5 years? If so, on what
>>>basis, and what sentence or otherwise do you think would have been
>>>appropriate?
>>
>>I'm saying that, once he'd handed the keys over, what she did then was
>>entirely her responsibility. She is, after all, an adult.
>
> You're assuming she asked for the keys.
I can't see how that would make any difference. She may not have asked for
them, but she TOOK them and that (for me) seems to be an acceptance of
responsibility.
Bear
> > Oh agreed, but I was thinking about this specific case ... I mean, what
> > on earth can one actually do, safely, from the passenger seat, if the
> > driver doesn't want to play ball?
> >
> > In the Saab, because the key's in the centre console, I guess you could
> > remove that and stop the engine, but then again that might not be
> > exactly safe either, given that the brakes are servo assisted, as almost
> > all are these days. In a normal car you'd be fucked for bringing the
> > thing to a controlled stop.
>
> Not really, in fact not at all. You wouldn't be able to brake effectively
> many times, but you'd certainly be able to bring the car to a stop once with
> NO problem. Think about it... If the engine stops for ANY reason, the
> manufacturers wouldn't get away with making a car which couldn't be brough
> to a halt safely and under full control.
Think it through: if you (as the passenger) take an action (removing the
key) which then changes the characteristics of the car, such that the
driver then crashes, would you not be held responsible?
In any case, in a normal car, it's a non-starter of an idea anyway.
I mean, cars aren't designed for passengers to be able to stop them,
which is fair enough in most cases, but again, what is that passenger
supposed to have done in that case?
Beav
"fragmented" <ne...@ukrm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gg8u6a$k7i$3...@media-center.localdomain...
> 'Alex Ferrier' wrote...>
>> You have no way of meaningfully aruing the case one way or the other.
>> Let the courts get on with what they're designed to do.
>
> Oh yes you canaru!
Here we go again. You're worse than a fucking school teacher with bollocks
all to do.
Beav
He'd have probably argued that the other driver wasn't in HIS employ, but in
the employ of the person who Henri Paul himself worked for. He could also
argue that he knew he himself was too drunk to drive, but wasn't qualified
to judge whether someone else (antoehr driver) was. As he's not an "expert"
in the the world of "driving impairment due to intoxication", I suspect he'd
have a solid asrgument too.
>>If you got on a bus and decided the driver is driving dangerously, what
>>would you do about it? Stop him driving and if so, how?
> For a start, I wouldn't have personally given the driver the keys to a bus
> I owned and asked him to drive would I ?
I didn't realize that responsibility for dangerous driving was/is linked to
vehicle ownership.
>
> Call the bus operator and the police (if I had a mobile phone with me) and
> get off at the next stop, whilst advising all other passengers to follow
> my example.
Why bother if it's got fuck all to do with you and you're not responsible
for his/her driving. If you're not responsible for that, you're not
responsible for looking after the well being of the other passengers.
>Almost certainly ineffective, but it might just
> reduce the potential casualty numbers.
Think of the children?
Beav
Be that as it may, what's been pointed out recently is that as this bloke
was charged because he owned the car. Presumably that means that if he
DIDN'T own the car, he wouldn't have been charged with causing death. In my
case, I neither owned the bike or even had a license (not old enough to hold
a license) yet I was convicted of aiding and abetting someone to drive.
I'll end with this... No matter WHO's right or who's wrong, you're fucked,
because that's the way things are now for ANYONE who has the audacity to use
their own powered transport.
I'm old and cynical, but these sorts of cases aren't about justice, they're
about criminalising anyone who doesn't ride the bus or train and anyone who
should even THINK about having a good time. Unless they're in government or
the police, then you can get away with murder and laugh about it.
Pete Fisher
>
>"Pete Fisher" <Pe...@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> Interesting logic. Someone who is drunk certainly shouldn't be making
>> important decisions. Henri Paul springs immediately to mind. Slightly
>> different relationship in this case, but as a thought experiment imagine
>> that he hadn't driven the car himself that fateful might but given the
>> keys to an equally compromised by alcohol driver in his employ and told
>> him to drive.
>
>He'd have probably argued that the other driver wasn't in HIS employ, but in
>the employ of the person who Henri Paul himself worked for. He could also
>argue that he knew he himself was too drunk to drive, but wasn't qualified
>to judge whether someone else (antoehr driver) was. As he's not an "expert"
>in the the world of "driving impairment due to intoxication", I suspect he'd
>have a solid asrgument too.
>
He could try that, but as chief of security or whatever I don't think
the first part of that get out would wash if the nominated driver was a
subordinate. The second point is valid, but just extends the argument
over whether the car owner in the original case could know if the
eventually driver was fit to drive. In some cases it wouldn't take an
expert to know that. As always it comes down to the specific facts.
>>>If you got on a bus and decided the driver is driving dangerously, what
>>>would you do about it? Stop him driving and if so, how?
>
>> For a start, I wouldn't have personally given the driver the keys to a bus
>> I owned and asked him to drive would I ?
>
>I didn't realize that responsibility for dangerous driving was/is linked to
>vehicle ownership.
>>
I was thinking more about the practicalities of whether the driver would
heed any request to moderate their driving. If I was, say, a bus
inspector for the operator or PTE he might listen to what I said.
>> Call the bus operator and the police (if I had a mobile phone with me) and
>> get off at the next stop, whilst advising all other passengers to follow
>> my example.
>
>Why bother if it's got fuck all to do with you and you're not responsible
>for his/her driving. If you're not responsible for that, you're not
>responsible for looking after the well being of the other passengers.
>
As in your scenario I am actually travelling on the bus, I might well
bother to avoid being injured. I'm not responsible for the others but
you may have noticed that I don't subscribe to the sometimes seemingly
pervading UKRM I'm all right Jack fuck the rest of you philosophy.
> >Almost certainly ineffective, but it might just
>> reduce the potential casualty numbers.
>
>Think of the children?
>
>
Oddly, in some situations, I do, so FRO if you don't like it.
Pete Fisher
>>>license - even before I HAD a fucking klicense - back in 1964 for "Aiding
>>>and abetting a "driver" to ride a motorcycle combination without "L"
>>>plates.
>>>(Sunbeam 500 outfit it was, being pushed because it wouldn't run after the
>>>camshaft had been installed 180 degrees out of plonker)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I covered the learner scenario in another post.
>
>Be that as it may, what's been pointed out recently is that as this bloke
>was charged because he owned the car. Presumably that means that if he
>DIDN'T own the car, he wouldn't have been charged with causing death. In my
>case, I neither owned the bike or even had a license (not old enough to hold
>a license) yet I was convicted of aiding and abetting someone to drive.
>
Can you show me the part of the report, ideally in due course the full
legal transcript, that says the only reason he was prosecuted is because
he owned the car?
>I'll end with this... No matter WHO's right or who's wrong, you're fucked,
>because that's the way things are now for ANYONE who has the audacity to use
>their own powered transport.
>
You may be right there.
>I'm old and cynical, but these sorts of cases aren't about justice, they're
>about criminalising anyone who doesn't ride the bus or train and anyone who
>should even THINK about having a good time. Unless they're in government or
>the police, then you can get away with murder and laugh about it.
>
Oh dear. Still, you and I will probably be dead before they come to
confiscate our big boys toys won't we.
Colin Irvine
>In article <MPG.2394957dd...@news.individual.net>,
>Bear <bastard...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There's still a lot we don't know about this specific case.
>
>Too many facts makes for a boring Usenet discussion.
>
>>Oh sure ... I was just wondering about the specific point, ie how *do*
>>you stop someone who is driving you in your car from driving too fast or
>>too dangerously? I can't see any way of safely doing it, therefore I
>>think it's somewhat unreasonable to punish the passenger, as a general
>>rule.
>
>Well, Ford make a thing called MyKey which is meant for parents to give
>to their teenaged children to stop them driving above 80mph
How on earth does that work - limit speed in the middle of a dodgy
overtake?
Colin Irvine
following:
>In communiqué <MPG.2394957dd...@news.individual.net>, Bear
><bastard...@gmail.com> cast forth these pearls of wisdom
>>In article <rv0li4trdjr1rl4h4...@4ax.com>, Colin Irvine
>>says...
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:55:37 -0000, Bear squeezed out the following:
>>
>>> >Oh agreed, but I was thinking about this specific case ... I mean, what
>>> >on earth can one actually do, safely, from the passenger seat, if the
>>> >driver doesn't want to play ball?
>>>
>>> There's still a lot we don't know about this specific case.
>>
>>Oh sure ... I was just wondering about the specific point, ie how *do*
>>you stop someone who is driving you in your car from driving too fast or
>>too dangerously? I can't see any way of safely doing it, therefore I
>>think it's somewhat unreasonable to punish the passenger, as a general
>>rule.
>
>If you had world enough and time[1], you could read learn and inwardly
>digest[2] this:
>BEWARE LARGE PDF
>http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc300.pdf
Ooh. Bedtime reading.