Re: Jumping red lights 'not dangerous'... as long as you are in a car and doing almost 50 Mph in a 30 zone as well.

Ian Smith wrote:
On 24 Oct 2007 07:00:33 GMT, Ian Smith <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 23 Oct 2007 16:48:35 -0700, Simon Proven <sproven@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Road Traffic Act 1991:

2A Meaning of dangerous driving

(1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
below, only if)-

(a) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful driver, and

(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
in that way would be dangerous.

So either the court would have us believe that a competent and careful driver would pull out and accelerate round cars waiting at a red traffic light, exceed the speed limit past the waiting cars and go through a red light in the wrong lane, or that it would not be obvious to a competent and careful driver that doing so might be dangerous.


And furthermore, I note the judge said "You drove too fast. You put yourself in a position where you could not stop ... and inevitably this collision occurred."

So now we have courts deciding that careful and competent drivers would be expected to drive too fast to stop, and not realise this would be dangerous.

regards, Ian SMith

<sigh>

The judge can say what he likes. The *jury* found the defendant not guilty of DD (but guilty of something else). The judge does not tell the jury to convict. If a judge could do that, there'd be no point in jury trial (ask Clive Ponting whether that'd be a good idea).

Judges sometimes subtly express their irritation with a "merciful" jury verdict in their summary of the offence when passing sentence (assuming there has actually been a conviction).
.

Relevant Pages