Manslaugter v Accident

Where all the blog posts go that end up on the front page!
Post Reply
philbell
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:31 pm
Political Stand:

Manslaugter v Accident

Post by philbell » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:45 am

I am going to pick up on a forum post that has had some good responses:

http://www.letpoliticstalk.com/showthread.php?tid=671

A lot of the people posting used driving offences as examples though these didn't really cover the post as such and kinda made this side issue.

The general concensus was that if you were speeding or drink/drug driving then you should automatically expect many years behind bars.

There is can be a clear distinction at times, eg. Drunk/Drug drivers should be hammered if they are to blame. There are many cases though where people have broken the law by being over the limit say and been involved in a killer accident that would have been impossible to avoid no matter how good their reactions. So should these people still be given a sentence the same as some drunk who has driven in to a crowd of people at a bus stop? Just cos they were in the wrong place at the wrong time!!

What if you had had a few drinks the night before and you were driving to work, sat at a junction waiting to turn and some clown just smacks straight in to the back of your car without braking and kills a passenger with no seat belt on. The police come, breath test you and you fail by the 1 m/g. Should you then spend x years in prison for it??

It is not that clear cut that if you are commiting an offence you should take the punishment for something someone else is at fault with.

(I do not condone driving while under the influence under any circumstances. I have been in the above accident though, apart from the being over the limit part.)

That accident was caused by a sober incompetent. Should drivers be charged for being incompetent? I imagine most people say 'NO' to that as drivers have passed a test to prove the competence of the driver.

Speeding is also on the list of the arguments. People speeding when an accident occurs are the cause period. The facts are that people driving too slow cause more accidents than almost anything else. Ever been stuck on a twisty 'A' road a couple of cars behind an old dear on a Sunday afternoon doing 25-30 in a 60 limit? Then the stretch of dual carriageway comes up, you get ready to overtake and the couple of cars in front pull out and pootle past at 40 in a 70 limit. Is it any wonder after 10 miles of this that some people just take stupid risks to get past? Even without speeding over the limit these people are being put at risk by the annoyance put upon them by the slow moving idiots. If they drove at a reasonable speed in the 1st place there would not be a problem. Should they be Charged for all the accidents they cause?

I have driven down the motorway so many times when it is totally empty only to come accross a car doing 50 in either the 2nd or 3rd lane!! I nearly hit a car that was doing 20 in the 2nd lane but was veering in to the 3rd lane on an empty M5 (which was illegal Min 30 or 40? bet they wouldn't have been charged!!)and was forced to undertake it to avoid an accident. Would that then have been my fault had I hit it? regardless of the speed I was doing? Should have I been fined if it was passing a police point at the time?

These cases are not so clear cut as saying that He is right cos he is sober and she is wrong cos she speeding. Each case needs to be looked at in itself. Having said that, it should not be a case of I can afford the best lawyer so I can get off when Mr x who can't afford one gets hammered for the slightest misdemeanor as happens now.

User avatar
appleton
Technical Administrator
Posts: 1209
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: London, UK
Political Stand: Liberal
Contact:

RE: Manslaugter v Accident

Post by appleton » Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:59 pm

There are many cases though where people have broken the law by being over the limit say and been involved in a killer accident that would have been impossible to avoid no matter how good their reactions. So should these people still be given a sentence the same as some drunk who has driven in to a crowd of people at a bus stop? Just cos they were in the wrong place at the wrong time!!
Had something written up until I accidentally closed it. So annoying!!

Yes, They should be. They still broke the law regardless. Breaking the law shouldn't be without consequences!
What if you had had a few drinks the night before and you were driving to work, sat at a junction waiting to turn and some clown just smacks straight in to the back of your car without braking and kills a passenger with no seat belt on. The police come, breath test you and you fail by the 1 m/g. Should you then spend x years in prison for it??
Funny you say this. I got drunk last Wednesday at a good friends work leaving party and I only realised I had a driving test the next morning when I was drunk!! Got in at 1am went to sleep at 2am woke up in the morning. I didn't smell of alcohol but passed my test regardless.

:happy0045:

Was I over the limit? Don't think so. Should you be charged for being 1 m/g over the limit. Maybe a fine. Prison would be a bit excessive for 1 m/g over.
That accident was caused by a sober incompetent. Should drivers be charged for being incompetent? I imagine most people say 'NO' to that as drivers have passed a test to prove the competence of the driver.


Some people have passed in different eras, some got lucky on the day. The current test doesn't prove competence only further driving can. Trains drivers can be charged for being incompetent. So can pilots. So drivers should too.

Anyone who has ever driven in London would want to get out and charge 90% of drivers for this :P

I drove around manor house/finsbury park on Monday. The driving os most people was terrible and you have to force your way around otherwise you end up sitting somewhere for ages. The pedestrians are no better!!
Speeding is also on the list of the arguments. People speeding when an accident occurs are the cause period. The facts are that people driving too slow cause more accidents than almost anything else. Ever been stuck on a twisty 'A' road a couple of cars behind an old dear on a Sunday afternoon doing 25-30 in a 60 limit? Then the stretch of dual carriageway comes up, you get ready to overtake and the couple of cars in front pull out and pootle past at 40 in a 70 limit. Is it any wonder after 10 miles of this that some people just take stupid risks to get past? Even without speeding over the limit these people are being put at risk by the annoyance put upon them by the slow moving idiots. If they drove at a reasonable speed in the 1st place there would not be a problem. Should they be Charged for all the accidents they cause?
Slow and reckless seems to be the worst but it keeps on appearing with the older generation. They don't realise how dangerous it is and when you talk to them they think its only the younguns who pose a risk!

They should be charged but I don't see that minimum speed sign often enough. It's mainly the max sign so they probably would get away with it!!
I have driven down the motorway so many times when it is totally empty only to come accross a car doing 50 in either the 2nd or 3rd lane!! I nearly hit a car that was doing 20 in the 2nd lane but was veering in to the 3rd lane on an empty M5 (which was illegal Min 30 or 40? bet they wouldn't have been charged!!)and was forced to undertake it to avoid an accident. Would that then have been my fault had I hit it? regardless of the speed I was doing? Should have I been fined if it was passing a police point at the time?


You probably would have been fine as long as you were not doing over 70! If a car is not doing the minimum speed it is illegal so it probably would have been his fault. The speed differential can be huge between 20/30mph difference.
These cases are not so clear cut as saying that He is right cos he is sober and she is wrong cos she speeding. Each case needs to be looked at in itself. Having said that, it should not be a case of I can afford the best lawyer so I can get off when Mr x who can't afford one gets hammered for the slightest misdemeanor as happens now.
Each case is looked on upon itself now but it doesn't seem to work. There needs to be somethings as clear cut saying if you've broken the law you are under suspicion leniency can only be decided in the courtroom.

Thats how I see it :)
"Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back" - John Maynard Keynes

philbell
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:31 pm
Political Stand:

RE: Manslaugter v Accident

Post by philbell » Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:39 am

Just trying to stir up a bit of controversy lol, not quite got there yet tho!! will work on it!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests