Safe Speed Forums

How about asking them "if you had stayed at home that morning instead driving, would the collison still have occured?"
"No"
"Guilty of careless driving".

Further to my previous post:

If he was convinced that his accident was down to speed, and it turns out - as I strongly suspect - that it was actually down to inattention, then he will not have learned his lesson.
He might drive a bit slower, but he'll probably not do anything about his attention deficit - and so there's a fair chance that he will have another accident due to inattention. And perhaps he'll kill someone next time.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I wouldn't disagree with that.
My point all along, which is based not on opinion but on cases I have dealt with, is that lots of drivers seem unable to distinguish between good conditions , marginal conditions and bad conditions.

I have seen camera photos which show cars at 55+ in a 40 limit when it was too foggy to read the reg number. If it had been possible to catch the driver I doubt he would have said that he was deliberately driving dangerously. He is much more likely to say that with his high performance car and exceptional driving skills he was perfectly safe.

Until there is a fool proof way of telling idiots like him from those who are safe at speed the current system is likely to stay.

It is without doubt the commonest excess speed that drivers admit to. I have no idea why.

Questions in court are asked by the prosecution and defence advocates. JPs only ask questions when they are not clear about a point that has already been raised. When a specific speed has been stated there would by no excuse for a JP to ask anything more.

If asked "how much slower would you need to have been going to avoid the collision?" The defence or the clerk or the chairman should immediately say that it would be necessary to establish the defendants credentials as an accident investigator before he could be required to answer such a question.
When something like that does come out in court, it is almost always as a voluntary remark by the defendant.


If you say you did whatever it was that you are accused of that must be the strongest form of evidence. You were there and are making yourself liable to punishment by saying you did it.
leaving aside those with mental illness,how could any evidence be stronger than that?

On the rare occasions when someone is charged with DWDC and states that excess speed was the sole cause they have admitted to an aggravating feature which will increase the sentence.

Bacause they have admitted that the cause of the accident was something entirely within their own control.
Not a sudden braking by the car in front, not a patch of diesel, not the never seen before and never seen again black dog that ran out, not the person who waved to them, not the gangsters who were chasing them, but their own fault.

I could wish that a few more had realised that I neither defend nor attack cameras.

My intention was simply to post some information about how cases are really dealt with to counter some of the more lurid stuff that abounds on the net.

I don't think there is anything more i can add to this thread and I have lots of other things I should be doing.

thanks for the time and replies.