An old case in which a driver hits horses and riders head on, no prosecution.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/witcham-horse-crash-driver-not-13134831
Bonkers ruling.
I just don't understand that at all, it just looks like defacto dangerous driving
Read the story, it was an offence, and the Police thought so. But they thought it was a "low level" offence and so offered a "Driver Awareness Course" instead of prosecution, which the driver did. I think that type of thing doesn't result in a criminal record, but is recorded, so it would not be offered for a subsequent offence.
Not sure about the lowness of the level.
To put it into perspective, my wife was caught doing 36mph in a 30mph limit last week, on a Sunday evening in dry conditions when the roads were quiet. She was also offered a speed awareness course.
Same penalty, but as for the offence - well, call me biased, but I would say there's no comparison.
should have swerved up the inside and carried on their way.
It'll be interesting if they track down and the police decide to act against the windsor triathletes.... not that I'm condoning their actions.
Surely the consequences should be proportionate to the damage but oh no for a long time in the country, we are a soft touch, well the folk making the final decisions are.
An ex colleague had to have a horse destroyed after it was hit by a car. Driver walked away without even a slap on the wrist. Country road, driver simply not paying attention.
Surely the consequences should be proportionate to the damage
I wish they were proportionate to the degree of idiocy on show - that driver could easily have KSI rider and/or horse and it was pure dumb luck that they didn't
I think the fact is that the punishment should be based on the crime, not the consequences of the crime.
Whether the horse was injured or killed or not hit at all is immaterial, many people drive in an inappropriate way.
Of course most (if not all) of us have at some point driven in such a way that this sort of thing could happen - most have hopefully realised and not done it again, so even then how do you know they're not just an unlucky "normal" person.
I would far rather see continuous training for drivers than harsh punishments for everyone unlucky enough to be at fault in an accident.
I would far rather see continuous training for drivers than harsh punishments for everyone unlucky enough to be at fault in an accident
If you are at fault in an accident, then by definition it isn't you who is unlucky: It is the other bloke.
If you are at fault in an accident, then by definition it isn’t you who is unlucky: It is the other bloke.
Nicely put.
I think the fact is that the punishment should be based on the crime, not the consequences of the crime.
The crime in this case being one with a real and evident risk of causing serious injury or death to other people.
If you are at fault in an accident, then by definition it isn’t you who is unlucky: It is the other bloke.
Nicely put.
I think the fact is that the punishment should be based on the crime, not the consequences of the crime.
The crime in this case being one with a real and evident risk of causing serious injury or death to other people.
It must be nice to live in such a black and white world.
Watching the footage it looks like the road was extremely slippery (even considering the weather), the driver didn't appear to be going particularly fast. Could have (and should have) been more cautious, but how many people haven't had something vaguely similar happen to them with blind luck preventing them from hurting anyone or thing? Skidding down the road on black ice or in snowy conditions? Ever fallen off the bike? What if it'd been a child not a tree you hit?
Yes I'm taking it to ridiculous extremes, but I'm fairly sure nearly everyone who drives has had a near miss/learning experience, usually just without horses there at the time.
Yes I’m taking it to ridiculous extremes, but I’m fairly sure nearly everyone who drives has had a near miss/learning experience, usually just without horses there at the time.
I've had a car licence since 1981. I have never at any point lost control of a car in the way that this driver did. Horse or no horse. If you think that this is something that could just happen to any competent driver, I suggest you need to have a long good look at your own standard of driving.
The crime in this case being one with a real and evident risk of causing serious injury or death to other people.
They did not set out in their car that day with that intent.
the driver didn’t appear to be going particularly fast
Really?
Appeared to be driving far too fast in my humble opinion.
I would far rather see continuous training for drivers than harsh punishments for everyone unlucky enough to be at fault in an accident.
The incident in the OP was neither an accident nor as a result of bad luck on the drivers part.
It must be nice to live in such a black and white world. Watching the footage it looks like the road was extremely slippery
Apologies, can't see the video as my mobile connection is currently poop (I've seen it before but can't remember the detail). I thought you were making a general point, though. Admittedly my use of "in this case" reads as rather specific, when I'd intended it to mean "in the case of careless/dangerous driving", sorry.
They did not set out in their car that day with that intent.
So? The point is more one of setting out without adequate intent of *not* harming someone, as exemplified by a non-driving specific offence: involuntary manslaughter is committed without intent to kill, merely with a negligent and/or unlawful undertaking of activities which carry a real risk of death.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">sbob
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">the driver didn’t appear to be going particularly fast
Really?
Appeared to be driving far too fast in my humble opinion.
</div>
Have to agree the speed they enter the corner looks fast, then they slow down/ease off as they realise they're going too fast, go wide, before hitting the horse.
I fail to see how they didn't see the horses very clearly during the whole corner (it wasnt tight enough to be in a blind spot like their A pillars) and use an evasive manouver, i.e. go straight and mount the pavement and grass once they clearly lost control.
Either that or they are extremely bad at driving and simply failed to turn the corner enough.
I'd hazard a guess at an elderly driver.
A woman who my OH works with was seriously injured and her horse, and the person she was riding with's horse, had to be PTS (one of the horse had its lower leg severed and in the panic was trying to stand on the stump) after they were hit by a speeding driver in a 30 limit who claimed the sun was in her eyes. No remorse shown, no responsibility taken, and probably won't get prosecuted. Straight clear road, horses visible for over 100M. Should be strung up, or at the very least have her licence permanently removed.
Driver that broke my spine didn't even get a slap on the wrist. Coppers just said your insurance will sort it. Life long injuries.
Do what the **** you want in a car - kill, injure, it's OK.
Has Philjuniour watched a different video to everyone else?
I’ve been driving since 2001, on buses since 2003.
i do 130,000 miles a year.
i would class my driving skills as average.
’possibly’ my observation skills are a bit better than average, as a result of my job and the continuous training I receive via driver cpc system.
i have never lost control of a vehicle in a way which has resulted in anyone’s injury.
i agree with ‘imnotverygood’ above, if anyone thinks the standard of driving in that video is even close to ok, they need to have a realistic look at their driving.
you don’t have to be at lewis hamilton standard to drive perfectly well, but you do need to pay attention to what you’re doing.
So? The point is more one of setting out without adequate intent of *not* harming someone, as exemplified by a non-driving specific offence: involuntary manslaughter is committed without intent to kill, merely with a negligent and/or unlawful undertaking of activities which carry a real risk of death.
If a person intentionally uses their car in an attempt to kill a horse but fails, is that worse/better/more punishable than someone who through mistake or bad judgement accidentally kills a horse?
If a person intentionally uses their car in an attempt to kill a horse but fails, is that worse/better/more punishable than someone who through mistake or bad judgement accidentally kills a horse?
Does it matter in the context of the point you were making? (Which I took to be that lack of intent to kill implies lack of culpability for killing—which I'd disagree with, and which the law disagrees with. If you were making a different point, sorry, you may need to be more explicit.)
It's a little like asking whether a chef putting his poo in someone's pie in order to make them sick, and the pie goes uneaten, is worse that the chef never washing his hands after going for a dump and then making pies. They're both culpable acts of some form: one through intent to harm, the other through gross negligence (or lack of intent *not* to harm).
Driving far too fast - I'd be surprised if a super car could go round that bend at that speed in the wet, never mind an SUV.
They did not set out in their car that day with that intent.
True. If they had it should be murder / attempted murder.
But whether it's black ice, a wet road, whatever, if you haven't exercised sufficient caution to deal with the potential conditions on the road, surely that is a pretty good definition of 'without due care and attention'; bordering on 'dangerous' if you are so far out of appropriate consideration that you drive into 2 horses.
Fossy, exactly.
Which I took to be that lack of intent to kill implies lack of culpability for killing—which I’d disagree with, and which the law disagrees with.
That's a big jump. It was more in relation to the punishment for the crime not the consequences but I did not quite the right bit.
Far too fast for conditions, understeers on to wrong side of road. What an absolute **** pisstake. Needs the book throwing at them. No wonder people don’t give a shit about driving well.
Easiest way to kill someone? Just mow them down in your motor.
An old case in which a driver hits horses and riders head on, no prosecution.
Yup, so any reason we're dragging it back up?
It was more in relation to the punishment for the crime not the consequences
I see. Sorry. Thought it was all following on from the suggestion that because we all make mistakes, mistakes should go unpunished.
Yup, so any reason we’re dragging it back up?
Flogging a… oh.
I suspect a delayed reaction to the triathlon horse incident from a couple of days ago or whenever it was.
I find this debate about if punishment should be based on the crime or the consequence intriguing.
I don't know if you remember Gary Hart who fell asleep at the wheel of his land rover and drove off the side of the M62 into a ditch. Unfortunately the ditch had the east coast main line at the bottom of it and he caused the Selby rail disaster that killed 10 people. He was sentenced to 5 years. Shortly after their was an editorial in a paper pointing out the number of people that fell asleep at the wheel throughout the country in the same month after not sleeping sufficiently and fell in a ditch the and how non of them had been prosecuted.
Then there was Adam Lynn who threw and landed a single punch at a man in a pub brawl but the bloke died and he was sentenced to 3 years for manslaughter. How many hundred punches must be thrown every weekend in pubs around the UK with the same level of intent and malevolence but fortunately without the same outcome and custodial sentence?
My vengeful heart wants to see them punished for the consequences. My more rational head would prefer them to receive the same as others showing the same poor judgement - so either everyone goes to prison for throwing a punch or falling asleep at the wheel or no one does.
In that video above how would people feel if the car had over-steered across the road at the same speed, in the same conditions but the road was empty?
I fail to see how they didn’t see the horses very clearly during the whole corner (it wasn't tight enough to be in a blind spot like their A pillars) and use an evasive manoeuvrer, i.e. go straight and mount the pavement and grass once they clearly lost control.
Bingo.
It's frightening that they took the horses over mounting the verge as the best course of action.
The standard of driving was shit enough that a licence should have been lost.
I think the fact is that the punishment should be based on the crime, not the consequences of the crime.
Clearly driving too fast round a corner and losing control is bad. The driver is to blame for that, not luck.
There being nothing there to hit would have been lucky.
Horse there? Unlucky.
Child there? really unlucky.
A whole group of cyclists? Extremely unlucky, etc.
The action of the driver could be exactly the same, but with very different consequences. This must be quite a tricky thing for legal types to deal with.
I cycle commute, and there have been 2 incidents in the last year or so (caused by knobs driving far too fast on twisty country roads) where I have genuinely thought 'I almost died just there'. I'd love if the drivers could be tracked down and prosecuted, but should they be punished as if they had mowed me down and killed me, or just for driving like a knob? Can you punish someone for something they didn't actually do?
Can you punish someone for something they didn’t actually do?
Attempted murder carries the same penalty as murder, so presumably yes. The reason such lenient sentences are handed out in these situations is, I suspect, mainly due to either the jury, or the judge (or both!) being acutely aware that they're only one small step from making the same mistake.
So instead of everyone trying to improve the standard of their driving, or slowing down, they perpetuate a system.
Ah, I dunno - driver "alertness" course (whatever the **** that is) done, back on the road, perfectly alert and competent. Why should anyone actually be punished for driving like a moron?
I think the fact is that the punishment should be based on the crime, not the consequences of the crime.
Really? Just think about that for a moment longer.
I spun my car on a bend a few years ago and clattered into a land rover coming the other way. Police turned up, no-one was hurt, they gave me a (deserved) ticking off and insurance took care of the rest. The road was greasy, it wasn't the best driving, entirely my fault. Probably not in the public interest to take it any further though.
Are you actually, seriously, saying that if I had spun into a group of cyclists rather than a land rover I should have just got a ticking off? I would have fully expected to have had the book thrown at me, and quite rightly so.
Are you actually, seriously, saying that if I had spun into a group of cyclists rather than a land rover I should have just got a ticking off? I would have fully expected to have had the book thrown at me, and quite rightly so.
Put that the other way around - your misjudgement saw you crash a car in a way that could have killed more vulnerable road users than you actually hit. Why did you deserve to avoid prison? What extra level of misjudgement did the alternative you that hit the cyclists make that you did not that makes the real you so special that a ticking off was enough?
In that video above how would people feel if the car had over-steered across the road at the same speed, in the same conditions but the road was empty?
I agree with your previous sentiments wholeheartedly. The punishment should fit the crime and not necessarily the consequences, which are going to vary wildly based on your luck that day.
I still feel this is absolutely a punishable offence however. There's no excuses for overcooking a bend like that and they're lucky the consequences were not worse. I personally know several people who have died in accidents like this. That kind of driving is really unacceptable and putting them on a speed awareness course sends out the wrong message. In my opinion they should have been banned, regardless of consequences.
Jesus Christ! Those poor horses/people!
If that's not an imprisonable offence, I don't know what is.
The incident in the OP was neither an accident nor as a result of bad luck on the drivers part.
This shite again! Unless you are suggesting that the driver intentionally rammed the horses, then yes, it was an accident. That doesn't mean, suggest or imply that it was either unavoidable or not someone's fault / responsibility.
The word "accident" means an unplanned, unintended event with negative consequences (potential or actual). It does not mean "a thing that couldn't have been foreseen or avoided and isn't anyone's responsibility or fault".
This was clearly an accident. It was equally clearly one that could easily have been foreseen, could easily have been avoided, and was the fault of the driver.
If that’s not an imprisonable offence, I don’t know what is.
Sexually abusing children?
"
I suspect, mainly due to either the jury, or the judge (or both!) being acutely aware that they’re only one small step from making the same mistake.
So instead of everyone trying to improve the standard of their driving, or slowing down, they perpetuate a system."
Absolutely, spot on.
"Sexually abusing children?"
That is. Unless, you're connected to the royal fam/serving government, then it's encouraged.
I'm supposed to be ignoring sbob, but that was pretty funny 😀
Thing is, about this intention/consequences... so IF the consequences were ignored, then NOBODY would get done for speeding, unless they caused an incident. It obviously doesn't work like that. The consequences of driving like a TOOL have to be taken in to consideration and the punishment made accordingly. The horse thing should've resulted in at least a ban. Maybe the judge in the case mistook horses for bikes. Easily done when you're a doddery, senile old ****er.
And other RANDOMLY capitalised sentences.
If it helps, the bend in the video is just after the end of a 30mph speed limit, so maybe the driver was a bit keen to accelerate, given the rain.
Whether this makes a difference I'll let others debate.
Finally got round to reading this thread and watching the video...
Seriously, how the hell can that driver not lose their license for life and not have the car confiscated, but simply be sent on a Driver Alertness Course?
Un-bloodybelievable!
