 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
My understanding is, if someone dies by your actions/inactions, and your intent wasn't to kill them, you are guilty of manslaughter. So, why does this not apply to drivers, and are drivers the only exception?
Unless it was an accident of course.
No accidents on the roads, only incidents.
Fault has to lie somewhere (well, in 99.99% of cases anyway)
Voluntary verses Involuntary Manslaughter I guess.
You drive through a red light and run someone over, voluntary choice by you, and should be prosecuted as such.
Someone jumps in front of your car, you've killed em, still manslaughter, but Involuntarily as no choice in the matter - shouldn't be prosecuted.
Massive grey area between the two extremes though.
If you have a nice big drink, masturbate frantically while watching girls aloud on your mobile phone while driving about in your car at 70mph and then kill someone then that's an accident. Could have happened to anyone.
Everything else is a just a bit careless.
No accidents on the roads, only incidents.
Accident means 'without intent', rather than 'without fault'. Unfortunately it get's construed as the latter far too often.
Accident. Defined by ROSPA as
An unplanned, uncontrolled event which has led to or could have led to injury to people, damage to plant, machinery or the environment and/or some other loss
Unplanned and uncontrolled being the main features, whether that's down to wilful negligence or a moment's inattention. Where the definition of road accidents peeves me is where you read of someone asserting that an accident was "unavoidable" or "couldn't be foreseen" In the vast majority of cases that is cobblers. That old couple that got buried when the tunnel they were driving through collapsed on them, I can concede was probably not foreseeable, by them anyway.
Case in point, the girl found guilty of Death by Dangerous Driving today.
[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-cps-actually-manage-to-convict-someone-of-death-by-dangerous-driving ]The CPS actually manage to convict someone of Death by Dangerous Driving[/url]
Why, as it is obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a a carrot that driving a ton of metal without looking ahead is likely to cause death, hasn't she been found guilty of manslaughter?
samuri - Member
If you have a nice big drink, masturbate frantically while watching girls aloud on your mobile phone while driving about in your car at 70mph
Blimey, it's true, 'they' are always watching you 😳
The simple answer there is because she wasn't even prosecuted for that.Why... hasn't she been found guilty of manslaughter?
As to the OP's question on why the 'norm' is not manslaughter for road fatalities - the answer is simple. This used to be the route, but it was very hard to secure convictions. You need to prove recklessness which it can be difficult to convince a Jury about. As a result the statutory offence of causing death by dangerous driving has been invented in the 80's which was revised in the early 90s to make the "test" easier than for manslaughter. Even that proves hard and as a result we now have Death by Careless Driving. Essentially there is a spectrum of fault from Careless - Dangerous - Reckless and only the most serious would be treated as manslaughter. Prosecutions against someone other than the driver are likely to be for manslaughter.
If you have a nice big drink, masturbate frantically while watching girls aloud on your mobile phone while driving about in your car at 70mph
What if it wasn't Girls Aloud, but some other video?
I can't imagine what other video you might be interested in. Are you some kind of pervert?
You need to prove recklessness which it can be difficult to convince a Jury about.
Yet another reason to do away with the current jury system comprising members who either don't care and don't want to be there, or aren't educated and/or intelligent enough to understand the proceedings then. Juries should be made up of people you actually want to be there, who have shown themselves capable of actually understanding what is being said.
So having a posting history on STW would be a better way of getting off during Jury service than a letter from your boss?
Or TuckerUK could decide all cases as then the inconvenience of convincing 12 of your peers beyond reasonable doubt would not be required.Yet another reason to do away with the current jury system comprising members who either don't care and don't want to be there, or aren't educated and/or intelligent enough to understand the proceedings then. Juries should be made up of people you actually want to be there, who have shown themselves capable of actually understanding what is being said.
I doubt the issue is they don't understand what is being said. Quite possibly the opposite - the judge will provide clear direction on the standard of recklessness required to meet the requirements of manslaughter as defined in several centuries of case law!
Death by dangerous driving is a specific offence, that's why.
No accidents on the roads, only incidents.
You're suggesting an accident means it's no-one's fault. That's not true - accidents can be someone's fault. If I accidentally knock a glass onto the floor, it's still my fault despite being an accident.
Accident just means you didn't intend to do it.
I suppose poly's reasoning means that if I went to put a glass in a cupboard, fumbled it and it fell out of the window onto someone's head and killed them, I wouldn't be up for manslaughter.
If I accidentally knock a glass onto the floor, it's still my fault despite being an accident.
What if the glass holds red wine and you have been repeatedly warned that if you leave it there you'll end up knocking it over.....then you knock it over. The jury (when I say jury, I mean one person - and she is also the judge) has found me guilty of this on a number of occasions and due to the mitigating circumstances (prior warning) the pleading of 'accident' has always been revoked. Apparently as I knew leaving the glass there meant I was likely to knock it over I'm a very bad man.
I doubt the issue is they don't understand what is being said. Quite possibly the opposite - the judge will provide clear direction on the standard of recklessness required to meet the requirements of manslaughter as defined in several centuries of case law!
...and they'll think "my driving is just as reckless, could have been me, not guilty".