Car crashes into building - please post your Local news stories

Mungecrundle wrote:

Many of these incidents are slightly comical in that someone did something stupid but fortunately no-one was seriously hurt. This one is utterly horrific. As a parent to young adults of the same age group it is my worst nightmare. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-57824359 If you think that cyclists lives are of unique low value to some perpetrators of our (in)justice system then think on this. The driver had been drinking and was driving at upwards of 120mph in a 40 zone. The conditions were treacherous following rainfall. The coroner deemed that the case did not justify a record of unlawful killing, and to quote; "But did the driving meet the test of the conduct of the driver being truly exceptionally bad? No."

I looked up "unlawful killing" and came across this PDF: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/law-sheets-no-1-unlawful-killing.pdf

It starts with

Quote:

1. Following the decision of the High Court in R (Wilkinson) v HM Coroner for Greater Manchester South District [2012] EWHC 2755 (Admin) the conclusion of unlawful killing is restricted to the criminal offences of -
   1. Murder,
   2. Manslaughter (including corporate manslaughter), and
   3. Infanticide.
2. The conclusion of unlawful killing does not extend to the criminal offences of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving: ibid. By analogy it does not extend to Health and Safety Act offences where death results. No reference should be made in an inquest to any of these offences or the elements of the offences (except occasionally where it is necessary to acknowledge their existence and to dismiss them as irrelevant).
3. Bad driving cases causing death may, therefore, only be regarded as unlawful killing for inquest purposes if they satisfy the ingredients for manslaughter (gross negligence manslaughter) or where a vehicle is used as a weapon of assault and deliberately driven at a person who dies (murder or manslaughter depending on the intent).

That suggest to me (with no relevant knowledge of law) that bad driving would only qualify if it was considered gross negligence manslaughter which is later defined as:

Quote:

The authorities, particularly R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (HL) (see Archbold
2016 at 19-111 and 19-122), show that a person commits the offence of gross
negligence manslaughter (at common law) where the following elements are
proved -

1. The existence of a duty of care (based on ordinary principles of negligence) owed to the deceased,
2. a breach of that duty of care,
3. the risk of death (not just the risk of serious injury: R v Misra [2005] 1CrAppR 21 [25] (CA)) was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the misconduct: Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2001] 1 AC 360, 393 (HL),
4. the breach caused the death, and
5. having regard to the risk of death involved, the misconduct was grossly negligent so as to be condemned as the serious crime of manslaughter.

I'm not sure why driving at over 100mph into a house without even braking doesn't qualify.

Another driverless car. Did they go over the pavement first into the parking area?

I can only imagine it was driven down the tracks from an access further down and left, at best to cause disruption, or at worst an accident, which is even more worrying.

Police gave her a citation for "failing to stay in marked lanes,"

!!

It's a drive-through, OK?

I have noticed that on wet roads motorists often seem not to have slowed at all.

I always take at least a gear off, not push as hard, especially on corners and am even more careful when approaching junctions.

My cantilever brakes were very affected when water got onto the rims, and then there is a lack of adhesion with the tyre on tarmac, so meaning a faster lock up of the wheel when using disks.

Nope, disqualified. The newspaper and eye witness both state  "driver" and we know these incidents happen when the car does it all by themselves.

Yep, more like it as the car did it in the headlines. (Although medical episode is the closest to not being driven).

“People should know better. If you see a low bridge coming towards you then you don’t progress, do you?”

No, I certainly wouldn't. I'd be running away.

Isn't that precisely why they put bollards in front of shop windows etc?  Because some people will try and crash their car into the shop entrance on purpose...

hard to understand that one

street view - https://goo.gl/maps/Y3dacXmp31ZjVGy87

Well doesn't that mean his solicitor lied in court when he stated:-

" his client had been left devastated by the crash and shown remorse throughout the investigation."

After all he would have known about the arrest for driving whilst unlicensed and uninsured before he made that statement on his behalf. Maybe one of the resident legal eagles can confirm that.

I also think that the judge should review and if the mitigation had been used to give such a pitiful sentence, then it is removed from consideration. 

"Newest First" does work for me on ordering correctly, but "Threaded" doesn't thread properly and shows Munges post from 1 month ago as the latest. 

I think it broke somewhere around the 200 comments. 

Surprisingly pretty much all the comments are about it being dangerouse MGIF's causing all the problems and not an inanimate piece of asphalt. 

As for the driver in the main report. Probably just coincidental that she is blaming the road and the easily distracted scenery and it is her car which is the one on the wrong side of the road with the other car appearing to have been forced well off the road on its correct side of travel.

Get in the sea

Somehow these submerged cars are not as entertaining when it's not a BMW driver whose premiums just went up.

hirsute wrote:

https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19531969.driver-avoids-jail-falsely-...

Hits lampost

"Bhaskaran has six previous convictions for 17 offences including matters of dangerous driving and drink driving, for which he was given a community order with unpaid work and a 28 month disqualification

He was ordered to carry out 60 hours of unpaid work and complete a 30-day rehabilitation activity requirement."

That'll show him.

Another gentle caress on the wrist.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Nope, disqualified. The newspaper and eye witness both state  "driver" and we know these incidents happen when the car does it all by themselves.

I was surprised to see the use of 'driver' in that article, so maybe some reporters are trying to use appropriate language now.

However, the titles under the images are labelled "A car crashed into a traffic light on Fishponds Road in Bristol" so I think it still counts.

Mark B wrote:

“People should know better. If you see a low bridge coming towards you then you don’t progress, do you?”

No, I certainly wouldn't. I'd be running away.

I used to be really scared of a particular bridge, but I've learnt to get over it

A driver in his 20s, late at night, in a BMW, who ends up with injuries bad enough to keep them in hospital...nope complete mystery that one...Or am I just being cynical

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

"Newest First" does work for me on ordering correctly, but "Threaded" doesn't thread properly and shows Munges post from 1 month ago as the latest. 

I think it broke somewhere around the 200 comments. 

Because my comments, on any subject, are; the most important, relevant, witty, erudite and mostly squirrel free.

No. It is also too cold to cycle and no one can cycle up hills.