The CUK jury decide - guilty or not?

[mudskipper]

Was she driving carelessly? I'd say yes.

Did her careless driving cause death? Yes.

Guilty.

There but for the grace of <insert [non]deity of choice>.

[meridian]

At a guess it will hinge on what "proper attention" means.

Many drivers, on a dark night, an open road, and no expectation of debris on the road, simply follow the road and watch out for head and tail lights of other cars, especially if they're talking to passengers at the same time. Is that "proper attention" for the expected conditions?

Accidents happen, and sometimes it's the one that's come off worst that is most at fault.

[Ticktock]

At a guess it will hinge on what "proper attention" means.

Many drivers, on a dark night, an open road, and no expectation of debris on the road, simply follow the road and watch out for head and tail lights of other cars, especially if they're talking to passengers at the same time. Is that "proper attention" for the expected conditions?

Accidents happen, and sometimes it's the one that's come off worst that is most at fault.

Yes, accidents happen. In that case there would be no charge against her. As you say, it hinges on whether she was driving carelessly or not.

And the defence of "everyone else drives carelessly" doesn't wash. Where I live I watch the road more carefully in late evening / night as otherwise you get deer / badgers / foxes, etc damaging your car.

[meridian]

The CUK jury decide - guilty or not?

Yes, accidents happen. In that case there would be no charge against her. As you say, it hinges on whether she was driving carelessly or not.

And the defence of "everyone else drives carelessly" doesn't wash. Where I live I watch the road more carefully in late evening / night as otherwise you get deer / badgers / foxes, etc damaging your car.

I didn't say "everyone else drives carelessly", I suggested that a lot of people drive in a similar manner to the defendant. If the judge decides that that is careless then it sets a precedent that those others are also driving carelessly, which will presumably make it easier to gain a conviction for any similar accidents in the future.

So on that one occasion you hit a deer, your insurance could refuse to pay out on the basis that no matter how much you were paying attention, it wasn't good enough. Or if you hit a child darting out from a parked car. Or a Russian gangster after cash for crash.

[Ticktock]

I didn't say "everyone else drives carelessly", I suggested that a lot of people drive in a similar manner to the defendant. If the judge decides that that is careless then it sets a precedent that those others are also driving carelessly, which will presumably make it easier to gain a conviction for any similar accidents in the future.

Not paying attention to the road or your driving IS careless driving. If an obstacle is visible over 100m away but you're too busy doing God knows what to spot it until you're 1m away then I'd suggest that's, at the very least, careless.

There is no need for any precedent - the offence is clearly defined already.

[meridian]

Not paying attention to the road or your driving IS careless driving. If an obstacle is visible over 100m away but you're too busy doing God knows what to spot it until you're 1m away then I'd suggest that's, at the very least, careless.

There is no need for any precedent - the offence is clearly defined already.

Well no, it's not that well defined, otherwise it wouldn't be argued in court. It uses words like "due care" and "reasonable person" so there is plenty of scope for interpretation of what those words mean based on the context of the incident.

[Ticktock]

Well no, it's not that well defined, otherwise it wouldn't be argued in court. It uses words like "due care" and "reasonable person" so there is plenty of scope for interpretation of what those words mean based on the context of the incident.

Although, believe it or not, the law is actually fairly common-sense in it's approach to the majority of cases (it's the exceptions that get called out) that doesn't mean you can pretend it means what you like.

All cases can go to court, no matter how clear cut they are. If someone is videotaped waking up, normal and happy, then saying "I've decided I'm going to kill my wife so I can have her money", then video'd killing her, it still goes to court.

Here's a little guidelines on Careless Driving: Careless driving - Driving Law motoring legal advice

If she had kept schtum she may have got away with it, but as she admitted she was distracted, and that she was talking to her passenger, that opened her up to the charge.

[BrilloPad]

I always find it odd that people say "I was doing 35mph is a 30mph zone as I was concentrating on the road". Most people seem to be able to make a mobile phone call, adjust the radio, think about what is for dinner, etcetc. But come anything that they don't want to do, speeding, paying attention, etc, it all goes out of the window.

Odd that.

[BrilloPad]

There but for the grace of <insert [non]deity of choice>.

You would be fine. You would have seen then them 100m away.

Though the stopping distance with your brakes being naff is about 110m, so maybe not.

[mudskipper]

I got done for careless driving when I was about 20.
I lost my licence for 3 months.

Thank **** I didn't kill (or seriously injure) anyone.