You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
parking in a hazardous position?
Full story [url= http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2013/2/12/court-rules-leaving-a-vehicle-in-a-hazardous-position-amounts-to-careless-driving/46180/ ]here....[/url]
Meh, I'm ok with that - makes sense. I wonder a little what the van driver was doing to hit him without attempting to slow down, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Well you are driving when you park your car. Whether the conviction was justified depends how bad the parking was which is impossible to judge without good photos of the location from different angles.
Hmm. Not to sure what to think really about this one.
If the van driver had ploughed straight into some slow moving cyclists at the same place, would the argument be made that were causing a hazard?
I guess it comes down to what's considered a necessary obstruction.
Whether or not his parking was dangerous, I fail to see how he's responsible for others' basic inability to drive.
“There were a number of drivers who had difficulties,” said Philip Somarakis, head of the motoring offences team at Davenport Lyons.“One had to make an emergency stop to avoid hitting his vehicle.”
Driving without due care or too fast for the conditions then, shirley?
a van driver was not so fortunate. He ploughed into the parked vehicle, and was killed instantly. It was estimated by the police that he hit Jenkins’ stationary vehicle at between 50-60mph.
How do you hit a [i]parked[/i] van at 60mph?
It does seem to me that there was more than one person driving badly that day...
Lucky it was a parked lorry and the van driver killed himself before he killed anyone else.
It sounds like bad parking, but anyone who goes round a blind bend, and hits something round that bend because they don't see it in time, was driving too fast.
However, the practical effect of this was to force drivers travelling in the same direction as him to drive around his parked vehicle, thus crossing the double white lines.
I disagree with the wording on the article. The drivers weren't forced to cross the white lines, they were forced to stop as they could not proceed without crossing the white lines which is prohibited. If they crossed the white lines they are also committing an offence.
Not defending the bloke who parked, who sounds like a bit of an idiot too.
edit: Oh and if the van driver was doing 50-60mph when he hit the lorry he was almost certainly exceeding the speed limit previous to this as I can't believe he didn't brake at all.
15 months in prison primarily because other people can't drive properly. Seems very harsh
I disagree with the wording on the article. The drivers weren't forced to cross the white lines, they were forced to stop as they could not proceed without crossing the white lines which is prohibited.
Correct, but,
If they crossed the white lines they are also committing an offence.
Incorrect. You're allowed to cross white lines to negotiate static (or very slow moving, IIRC) hazards. Though obviously, you should give way to oncoming vehicles.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people will sit in a queue of slow traffic for miles because they're scared to overtake, but will sling their car into oncoming traffic with gay abandon to pass say a roadworks or a cyclist.
If they crossed the white lines they are also committing an offence.
Not true, you can cross double white lines to overtake a stationary vehicle or a slow moving vehicle (under 10mph)
Based on what I've read (which may or may not be an accurate representation of the facts) it seems like the guy parking up made a stupid decision and the guy driving was going too fast.
Which reflects my day to day experience as a pedestrian, driver and cyclist, the ability to drive responsibly with proper risk assessment and within the law, seems to be right off the agenda and badly needs sorting out.
ah, ok. didn't realise that. sorry.
From elsewhere:
A blazing low winter sun – reflecting on the damp road and a well-known hazard at that time of year – was “blinding” drivers approaching the flat bed lorry at the top of a hill, it was claimed.
And
Mr Smith said accident investigators found Mr Kemp was driving at a “inappropriate” speed for the conditions – estimated at 50-60mph. But police were also satisfied the place Jenkins had stopped was “dangerous”.
Probably the van drivers fault as much as the truck drivers. Only one person could be prosecuted though.
Ah, here. See the final sentence.
129Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26
Probably the van drivers fault as much as the truck drivers. Only one person could be prosecuted though.
Only "up to" one person.
Sorry, the more I think about this, the more I think it's bobbins. I don't doubt for a second that the lorry [s]driver[/s] parker was parked in a hazardous, nay dangerous position. But if you plough into a large static object at 60mph, there's really only one 'at fault' party there. The fact that it was a truck (you know, those well known hard-to-see things) is by the by; what if it was a herd of cows from a nearby farm, or a lorry had shed its load, or someone walking across the road even? 15 months for Daisy and Ermintrude? "What are you in for?" "Moo?"
But if you plough into a large static object at 60mph, there's really only one 'at fault' party there.
Go and build a brick wall just over the crest of a blind hill on a NSL road then.
Yes we all know that if you can't stop in the distance you can see you're going too fast blah blah blah, but but the reality is that we all do, because slamming on the brakes to do 10mph at every corner/crest is mental (not to mention dangerous). Rightly or wrongly we all assume that in the second or so we can't actually see there will be nothing untoward happening. This would also preclude most people driving more than 30mph in the dark.
Meantime, [url= http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2013/February/feb1913-death-crash-policewoman-escapes-charges/ ]"Death crash policewoman escapes charges because ‘phone was in her lap’"[/url]
Carpenter pulled out of a side road into the path of David Bartholomew, 54, riding his Honda CBF1000 on the A31 in Ferndown, Dorset, on March 20 last year.
Carpenter repeatedly lied to police, saying she had not been on the phone. She then claimed she had briefly taken a call before admitting she had been on the phone the entire journey. She said the device was in her lap on loudspeaker.
does anyone know where the A68 crash happened? would be interesting to see a map/ street view of where it was.
[i]Rightly or wrongly we all assume that in the second or so we can't actually see there will be nothing untoward happening. [/i]
I'm scared now.
And yet the driver who killed a cyclist by dooring him in a bus lane got off with no charges?
Have to love how the justice system is different when there's a motorist as the victim.
One of two conclusions; the lorry driver had a crap legal team and/or the judge had been cut up by a lorry...
I'm scared now.
Sorry, but whether you realise or not, you do do it, even more so when it's wet.
Take motorway driving at night. Likelihood is you're not going to be using your main beam due to other traffic, are you saying you can stop from 70 in the distance your dipped beam headlights illuminate? You're just assuming there's nothing further ahead, you can't actually see.
Or do you do 30 on motorways?
To compensate for this he left his hazards on
I'm amazed he got done in that case - I thought hazard lights allowed delivery drivers to park wherever they liked?
And yet the driver who killed a cyclist by dooring him in a bus lane got off with no charges?
At least he got charged and taken to trial by the CPS, the bus driver who actually ran into the cyclist and killed him was at least as culpable as the lorry driver in this case and didn't even get charged.
Did he drive dangerously? Yes, apparently so, by parking it where he did that was deemed to be driving dangerously.
Did someone die because of it? Yes. Even though the van driver by his own error failed to avoid the collision, it wouldn't have happened if the lorry driver hadn't driven dangerously.
Offence complete.
The van driver appears to have also committed an offence, either a Section 2 or 3, but that has no bearing on whether or not the lorry driver committed one. He did and has been convicted of it.
Spot on, thegreatape. I don't know why other people have so much trouble understanding that.
Though to be pedantic, the lorry driver was found to have driven carelessly, not dangerously.
If you cant see a truck that you're just about to drive into.....
Quite right aracer, I must be stuck in the past before death by careless existed! And not reading properly.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm fine with that being careless parking.
It just bugs me that more things aren't.
+1 thegreatape. Parking is driving, and just because the other driver also screwed up doesn't mean the driver is absolved of blame. He created the dangerous situation that the second driver walked into.
Offence complete.
I don't disagree, but, there's "careless parking" and then there's "driving at full tilt into a stationary truck."
Sure, the truck driver parked carelessly. But fifteen months because someone else wasn't looking where they were going? Harsh, at least.
15 months for careless driving that caused a death.
If it was as simple as 'fifteen months because someone wasn't looking where they were going' then we'd have all got 15 months! He got 15 months for a combination of what he did and the outcome of doing it.
Whether or not the outcome of an action should influence the punishment is another question.
It' a tough one. One angle not mentioned yet is that delivery drivers are faced daily with having to park illegally, if they want to keep their jobs.
I drove for a living in and around Aberdeenshire for a good few years. If I had a delivery for a shop on Union Street, the only option (for many shops) was to pull over on the double yellows / on a bus stop, stick the hazards on, and run into the shop. Sometimes you were lucky and got out before you were ticketed, sometimes not. All tickets are the liability of the driver.
If I'd consistently returned with undelivered packages, "because I couldn't park", I wouldn't have lasted long in the job...
does anyone know where the A68 crash happened? would be interesting to see a map/ street view of where it was.
It happened here - http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=403072&Y=558150&A=Y&Z=115
People absolutely fly along that stretch south bound. It is right on the crest of a hill but I'd have expected people looking far enough ahead to have seen the lorry from 1/2 mile away.
Just a thought...what would the outcome have been if he had stopped because he had broken down at the same place?
I assume they would have called the police to put in place warnings and perhaps slowed motorists down whilst waiting so there would not have been an accident
I dont think you can be done for breaking down in a bad place tbh it is what you do afterwards that will be critical
IAMNAL
But fifteen months because someone else wasn't looking where they were going? Harsh, at least.
Compared to the sentence you'd get for actively killing a cyclist whilst behind the wheel, certainly. I suspect 15 months is probably reasonable according to the sentencing guidelines though.
If I'd consistently returned with undelivered packages, "because I couldn't park", I wouldn't have lasted long in the job...
I believe the concentration camp guards used a similar argument.
Just a thought...what would the outcome have been if he had stopped because he had broken down at the same place?
That is a good question. I wonder if the defence used it. Probably not given the outcome.
aracer - Godwin would be proud.
NO if you are going to quote cases bother to understand what the charge was. In the car door case it was for manslaughter. This was for death by careless driving. A charge which was created precisely because proving manslaughter on the roads is very difficult.Aidy - Member
And yet the driver who killed a cyclist by dooring him in a bus lane got off with no charges?Have to love how the justice system is different when there's a motorist as the victim.
for most traffic offences causing or permitting is an offence too. if you can prove the company made you park dangerously and kill someone then the company can also be prosecuted.I drove for a living in and around Aberdeenshire for a good few years. If I had a delivery for a shop on Union Street, the only option (for many shops) was to pull over on the double yellows / on a bus stop, stick the hazards on, and run into the shop. Sometimes you were lucky and got out before you were ticketed, sometimes not. All tickets are the liability of the driver.
I have no problem with the charge, too many people park dangerously. Yes there is reason to think the driversare at fault too but bear in mind we have no parking on many nsl roads for a reason and you should notpark anywhere it would cause people to have to violate a solid white line.
If the lorry owner realised it was dangerous he was daft to park there. And leaving his engine running was illegal too.
I drove for a living in and around Aberdeenshire for a good few years. If I had a delivery for a shop on Union Street, the only option (for many shops) was to pull over on the double yellows / on a bus stop, stick the hazards on, and run into the shop.
Last time I was in Union St the traffic was doing about 20mph not 60mph and there wasn't any bends at the crests of a hill.
Just a thought...what would the outcome have been if he had stopped because he had broken down at the same place?
From the article...
The police claimed his driving had fallen below the standard one would expect of a competent driver in that he created an [b]unnecessary hazard.[/b]
The same points were argued at length before the Court of Appeal, but three judges agreed that Jenkins had caused an [b]unnecessary hazard[/b] which was bordering on the dangerous. They also rejected his defence team’s argument that he was no longer ‘driving’.
I think the case against a driver who had broken down in that position would be much weaker. Breaking down in that position is not a choice in the same way that parking there was. You might say that it's still the driver's fault he broke down, if a lack of maintenance was the cause, but I think that's getting a bit weak, and in any case the location is unlikely to have been a deliberate choice.
It would also be argued that breaking down does not constitute driving in the same way as parking was held to be.
He added: “This case is interesting because it confirms that once a vehicle is parked up where it causes an obvious risk, responsibility for that vehicle nevertheless continues with the driver who cannot claim that he has now ceased driving.”
Even though the offence of death by careless driving could be argued against, for the reasons above, this bit suggests that the driver still has a responsibility to deal with the hazard his vehicle is causing, so if the driver didn't take reasonable actions to safeguard others he might still be found culpable of something.
NO if you are going to quote cases bother to understand what the charge was. In the car door case it was for manslaughter. This was for death by careless driving. A charge which was created precisely because proving manslaughter on the roads is very difficult.
I did, thanks.
The point was not that the two cases were similar, or that the law was applied unfairly, it was to illustrate the inadequacies of the justice system with regards to vulnerable road users.
In the car door case it was for manslaughter.
They prosecuted the wrong man, the bus driver should have been in the dock for being unable to stop. CPS failing to get the law applied correctly again.
Should you never be allowed to pass another vehicle then incase they swerve into your lane, making you liable?
Perhaps he'd have got a lesser sentence if a cyclist had been killed going round the parked van?