Parliament Briefing Papers

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby akirk » Tue Feb 23, 2016 2:38 pm

Just stumbled across this website:
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... ding=false
(filtered for transport)

items on the first page include ADIs / Serious Driving Offences...

might be some interesting bits in there for anyone who is bored...

Alasdair

User avatar
dvenman
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:28 am

Re: Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby dvenman » Tue Feb 23, 2016 4:00 pm

Interestingly, the serious driving offences paper has a (not exhaustive) list of things considered to be dangerous and a list of things considered to be careless. Check http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N01496.pdf, pages 7 and 8.

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby akirk » Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:12 pm

so speed which is appropriate or inappropriate (but not particularly inappropriate) for road or traffic conditions is not dangerous driving - so 120 down a dual carriageway on a clear dry day with no turnings, and low or no other traffic is not dangerous - I think that seems fair, but the same in rush hour / rain / road with turnings / etc. would be - again, seems very reasonable...

some interesting documents linked in the footnotes as well

Alasdair

michael769
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:36 am

Re: Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby michael769 » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:50 am

akirk wrote:so speed which is appropriate or inappropriate (but not particularly inappropriate) for road or traffic conditions is not dangerous driving


Yes the English courts have ruled that evidence of speeding is not in isolation evidence of DD.

The Scottish courts have taken the opposite view and it is quite routine for speeding drivers in Scotland to be convicted of DD.

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby akirk » Thu Feb 25, 2016 12:10 pm

michael769 wrote:
akirk wrote:so speed which is appropriate or inappropriate (but not particularly inappropriate) for road or traffic conditions is not dangerous driving


Yes the English courts have ruled that evidence of speeding is not in isolation evidence of DD.

The Scottish courts have taken the opposite view and it is quite routine for speeding drivers in Scotland to be convicted of DD.


So does Scotland have statutory law to back that up? Presumably they must... seems a strange difference though

Alasdair

michael769
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 8:36 am

Re: Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby michael769 » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:23 am

Yes - Sect 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended.

It's just a matter of interpretation. The Scottish courts have ruled that the evidence of a reading from a speed meter indicating a speed well above the prevailing speed limit can on it's own be evidence of a standard of driving that falls far below that expected of a competent and careful driver.

The English courts have taken a different view - in that there must be evidence that the speed (without regard for the speed limit) was grossly excessive for the prevailing conditions.

It is by no means unusual for what are two very different legal systems to apply statutory laws in different ways.

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby akirk » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:57 am

interesting -thank you... could be a fascinating legal battle - the law / guidance I believe defines the competent / careful driver as what can be expected of the normal driver - with one licensing & test system across both countries, surely that definition must then be the same - i.e. the expectation of the driver must be the same across both countries as the test system is the same, therefore deviation from that position must be the same in both - however the law wishes to try to define it... not quite sure how that could ever be tested, but at a logical level there does seem to be a mismatch...

Alasdair

Gareth
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:44 pm
Location: Berkshire
Contact:

Re: Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby Gareth » Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:24 am

akirk wrote:defines the competent / careful driver as what can be expected of the normal driver

It appears the Scottish law system includes the fiction that competent / careful drivers don't break speed limits!
there is only the road, nothing but the road ...

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby akirk » Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:10 am

:) but surely it has to tie back to the driving test as that is the government defined level at which they consider someone competent and give them the freedom to drive through issuing a licence - therefore with one test across both countries I don't see how you can legally argue different definitions of a competent driver! It is indicative of an increasing mess at a legal level between the countries making up the UK - how can you devolve some poweres and not others when the two are intrinsically linked - makes no sense at all...

Alasdair

ancient
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:03 pm

Re: Parliament Briefing Papers

Postby ancient » Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:45 pm

No, it ties back to what a jury will believe a competent and careful driver may legitimately do, i.e. it is cultural. Hence in England a jury is quite capable of believing (and a judge is capable of directing) that a competent and careful driver can accidentally drive into a person who has been in plain sight for several seconds.

"There but for the grace of god go I", so it must be normal to drive inattentively.


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest