Man Cleared After Knocking Down Lollipop Lady

[Tilly2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-35060435


Can someone explain to me how it is that this man has been cleared of this offence. I truly do not understand.

[hc4361]

Yes, dangerous driving is an offence but in this instance the court decided that the driver had not been driving dangerously.

[ummmm]

Again...what about the cars behind you?

[ToraToraTora]

stopping can be fatal pete, there is no correct answer you have to react to conditions, this happened to me once. I was on a busy road and a setting sun just caught a fine mist on my visor and scattered orang light all over, now I know that I couldn't stop or I'd be dead, being on a bike so I quickly flipped up my visor and continued without changing speed. I was blinded for what in reality was about a second but it seemed longer, terrifying.

[bhg481]

With a wicked glint in my eye I twist the subject onto driverless cars. With sensors not using visible light they would not be dazzled; they would be able to see if there was a problem in front and, if they did stop suddenly, the driverless car behind would react more quickly than a human driver and there would be no accident. Perhaps sometimes driverless cars are better than humans.

[ummmm]

PiedPiper...it's not to do with fault it's to do with the danger of doing it.

[ToraToraTora]

yes piedpiper, in my example above it would be their fault and I'd be strawberry jam, cold comfort. Fault is irrelevant here.

[jennyjoan]

I too have been blinded by the sun and I think to myself as I drive through - wow, this is so dangerous.

I would say the gentleman who did it probably has been punished enough. It is an awful thing to go through with the rest of your life - he didn't set out that morning to kill anybody. My sympathies lies with him and the victim and her family. It is indeed a no win-win situation.

[Pete65]

It is extremely foolhardy to drive if you cannot see your way ahead, whether there is traffic behind you or not. If pulling the sun visor down is of no help, you should stop.
Tora, I do appreciate what you are saying.
I think we have all had these things happen.
It can be scary!

[Davemano]

hc4361 Where do you get the idea that the The law recognises that no-fault accidents happen?

[ummmm]

50/50 accidents.

[cactusdriver]

I think there were motorists on the jury who thought 'There but for the grace of God go I'. The CPS decided to prosecute and I think on balance the driver was probably to blame but was saved from further punishment by his fellows.

[bhg481]

Person driving along with no known medical conditions suddenly dies at the wheel with a heart attack and mows down a bus queue; whose fault is that?

[Prudie]

Well this case itself proves the law recognises no fault accidents (in fact I thought that was the literal meaning of the word accident).

[vulcan42]

An emergency stop is exactly that, stopping in an emergency, not being able to see where you're going is a bit of an emergency isn't?

[cactusdriver]

The police no longer use the term RTA and now use RTC (road traffic collision)

[Davemano]

Prudie - all this case proves is that someone was charged with an offence and the jury decided that there were mitigating circumstances. The fact that he was charged shows the law considered it to be a Fault Accident.

[jno]

The fact that he was charged shows the law considered it to be a Fault Accident.

Not exactly. The jury are the law too, don't forget. The prosecutors thought it might be a fault accident. But the law has decided it wasn't.

[Davemano]

The jury are not the law and nothing like it. Would seem there is lack of knowledge.