hedgehog

I note, once again, that attempts are being made to make it all the fault of the motorist when there is an accident and to demand more severe sentences as well. A double edged sword here:

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../10506.htm#a11

What is most interesting is the section concerning pedestrians which states:

Similarly, 66 of the 125 deaths involving pedestrians were either classed as accidental death or "NFA'd". Since 57 cases were still on going, the proportion of cases in which no court action was taken may be still higher

(NFA = no further action)

This refers, of course, to court action against the motorist involved. However the recently produced report from the TRL on blood alcohol levels in people killed in road accidents show that of 691 pedestrians for which information is available 292 were over the legal blood alcohol limit for driving. Between 2200 and 0400, i.e. peak drinking time, this figure rose to 96% of pedestrians killed in road accidents being over the blood alcohol limit to drive.

The message is quite clear, if some drunk falls in front of your car the current government want you to go to prision for it regardless of the circumstances. Your insurance company will also be paying out and you can just imagine how that is going to impact premiums when the insurance companies know that all contact with pedestrians and cyclists is going to cost them a big pile of money with no chance to defend the situation.

Some months ago they tried to push through a law which would make ANY accident between a motorist and a cyclist or pedestrian automatically the motorists fault. If you were sitting parked and a cyclist rode into the side of your car then you could go to jail for it, and your insurance would certainly be paying out. That attempt at persecution was not successful and so they are trying to achieve the same thing by a slightly different route.

Jerome

This kind of thing makes me realise I live in the right country.

Leslie

Time for the revolution I think!

Les

hedgehog

Those people who live off the blame and claim culture must be over the moon about this, all they need is a registration number, a bike and a report from a friendly doctor listing a range of damage and they have another couple of grand in their hand. That the government want to introduce a no questions asked system whereby this cash comes direct from the motorist is a good indication of the level of persecution we are about to experience.

Soon DLA and unemployment benefit will be done away with as the motorist will be supporting the claim culture.

Jerome

Another bonus of this legislation, if it comes in, is that the insurance companies get to further increase their profits.

hedgehog

I'm not sure they do. I live in Northern Ireland where insurance premiums are at least twice what they are in the rest of the UK. In many cases they would be somewhat more than twice what most of the rest are paying. Insurance companies claim that this is because of the cost of personal injury claims as NI is the ultimate in claim culture, and has been that way for many years now.

If there were such a big profit to be made out of this then I would expect there to be lots of insurance companies operating in NI but, in truth, there are only a very few here pushing premiums yet higher.

My guess is that should this happen many insurance companies might pull out of the car market leaving everyone with higher premiums and less competition which, in turn, would drive premiums even higher.

Remember, as a motorist you job is about to become paying for a crimial underclass all at the behest of some green nutter on a push bike.

unclebuck

Once again New Labour legislation that will favour the irresponsible scum of our society.

fast bloke

agreed 100% about insurance. I got a quote from every company that insures in Northern Ireland last year for an M5. Best was 6k. I bunged an English postcode into egg website with all my details and got a quote for 1700. changed it to my own postcode and they couldn't quote.

There is a standard set of claim payments 'on the mainland' Over here it is decided on a case by case basis by the magistrate. If it was so good, egg could have sold me a policy for 5k, sticking 3300 straingt in the profit book, but it seems not as they wouldn't even consider me

boomer

...but consider that the definition of "Serious Injury" is...

"An injury for which the person is detained in hospital as an in-patient, or any of the following injuries whether or not the casualty is detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the crash."

...so the Crown Courts are going to get very busy with pedestrians who were "very shook up" or "trapped a finger" but never even went to hospital!!

mb

NotoriousREV

Wait a minute. Am I reading the same thing as you guys because I see no mention of persecution? The whole thing is talking about "those who cause death or injury on the roads". I can't find mention of prosecuting every driver involved in a serious accident. I think the report makes some very good points.

For example, if you cripple someone for life as the result of a car accident you can only be sentenced to 2 years, whereas if you'd gotten out of your car and hit him with your fist, you could get 5 years!

I found this part of the report summed it up nicely: "there seems to be a mental blockage ... The blockage seems to be that because (like probably most people in this room) they have driving licences, they are car drivers and they realise some of the risk around it that there is some let-off point in it, instead of saying, "With the right to drive your car and drive it along a road there is a responsibility."

If you don't cause death or serious injury when driving, you have nothing to fear from this report.

BEW

Not to me it isn't!

All I see from that is an increase in sentences for those who kill on the roads while being reckless/drunk etc,surely that's a good thing?


Nothing new there,I killed a drunk pedestrian 10 years ago (no charges against me) and someone who witnessed it waited 5 years to go through the courts for £1500!

Tiggs

"The message is quite clear, if some drunk falls in front of your car the current government want you to go to prision for it regardless of the circumstances. "

you mean....the message you want people to hear and if you say it loud enough ppl will belive it.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

I thought there was a law in Canada where if a pedestrian crosses infront of you, you have to give way as per a zebra crossing? i.e pedestrians have right of way.

I'm sure that law was pushed through to spite the American's Jay walking laws

Although I guess little in the form of prosecution would take place in both countries. I suppose...common sense prevails - unlike the UK which seems to have dissolved into stupidity amongst many high ranking political figures

My opinion on the matter is this: the larger the vehicle...the greater the right of way. If this simple logic was applied then we'd all be alot safer. And artic has ROW over a car - less visbility, less manouverability, thus more difficulty in avoiding accidents. Likewise with cars to bikes (good 'ol SMIDSY ), and bikes to cycles, then cycles to pedestrians etc. Bottom line is walk onto a road without looking, expect to be ran over. There is only so much a driver can do to avoid an accident, even at 20mph a car cannot stop on a penny and steering to avoid usually means a head on collsion with another vehicle.

The only blame I can put on mortoists is that every driver in this country needs to under go proper training in accident avoidance, and learn to control a car properly in an emergency, as most drivers can't. That would improve safety - not dishing out prosecutions ***** nilly!

hedgehog

Read it again. Read it in light of the fact that there has already been an attempt to push through a bill that makes the motorist responsible for ALL accidents. Remember the fox hunting bill? Remember how it failed so they changed the law and brought it back?

What is says is that, to the dismay of the administration, motorists are having accidents with pedestrians and yet the police consider quite a considerable percentage of these accidents to warrant no further action to be taken against the motorist. As I pointed out there are simple underlying trends in pedestrian accidents, such as from 10PM until 4AM 96% of pedestrians killed in road accidents are drunk.

While I accept, just like the police do, that in some of these 96% of cases the motorist was still at fault what I don't accept is that the administration should be putting pressure on the police to prosecute all motorists involved in accidents with pedestrains, and that is effectively what this document calls for.

I agree totally that motorists who are dangerous should be taken off the roads but I don't think that you should go to jail because some drunk staggers down your driveway some night, falls over, bangs his head on your car and when you find him in the morning it is all your fault.

This document will be used to put pressure of police forces to prosecute all motorists involved in an accident, and on the courts to impose a much greater sentence on them than is currently the case. As some point out there will be cases where this is entirely justified but the 66 people I quoted above where the police thought, after investigation, that no further action was be required will, as you can see from the tone of this document, be getting to rot in jail for quite some considerable length of time. The administration has decided that they are guilty, even if the police who investigated decided they had no case to answer and, in all likelyhood, the pedestrian was at fault. Remember in over 80% of pedestrian accidents the official cause is "entered the carriageway without looking." Now they don't need to look, it's your fault anyhow.

Just remember that the next time you watch some drunk stagger off the pavement or a cyclist go through a red light. YOU will be going to jail for that some day.

Spoon

Unfortunately for that statement there are some that do not have a choice, short or long term.

These people shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as you are holding.

NotoriousREV

Hedgehog, I suggest YOU re-read not only your own link, but the previous bill you're referring to.

Your link shows a recommendation to stiffen penalties for those who cause death or serious injury through reckless/drunk/poor driving.

The previous bill was to bring in an assumption of liability towards an insured motorist on a civil level i.e. where an insured driver was in collision with an uninsured 3rd party (pedestrian/cyclist etc not uninsured drivers) that the insurance would pay out to the 3rd party. That bill was never intented to "blame" motorists within the criminal court. The bill was very strongly resisted by the insurance industry and it seems that good sense prevailed and it was rejected.

boomer

..but as the definition of "serious injury" includes people who are "shook up" or "squeezed" (intentional flippant wording for severe general shock and crush injuries) - we can all look foward to a visit to the big hall (and possibly the big house) for all but the most minor of incidents - WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE TO BLAME!!!!

...yet the real criminals get community service or ASBOs (after umpteen offences), which they completely ignore Seems like the government is hell bent on improving the crime clear-up figures - by hook or by crook!!

mb

NotoriousREV

Perhaps my understanding of the English language is different to yours, but if you cause an accident are you not, by definition, to blame?

If you are merely involved in an accident, you won't be held responsible.