The CUK jury decide - guilty or not?

[VectraMan]

But when police reconstructed the scene they found a mannequin used to stand in for Mr Cook's motionless form was visible 123 metres ahead, giving them nine seconds to stop.

He was visible, the guy was a moron but it looks like she was not paying full attention to the road.

The problem with that is that the police obviously knew what they were looking at. You don't slam your brakes on as soon as you see something unusual; you're going to spend a few seconds thinking "what's that?" before your brain puts together that it's maybe something you should avoid. A fox or something running out is different as your brain reacts to the movement.

IIRC there were some kids killed playing on the M62 a couple of years ago, and nobody blamed the driver for not seeing them.

Still she was pretty dumb admitting that she was distracted and saying she only saw him with 1 second to go. So maybe she should be prosecuted for that reason.

[BrilloPad]

The problem with that is that the police obviously knew what they were looking at. You don't slam your brakes on as soon as you see something unusual; you're going to spend a few seconds thinking "what's that?" before your brain puts together that it's maybe something you should avoid.

One should avoid all obstructions if possible. I learnt that the hard way getting a puncture 30 years ago.

[MyUserName]

The problem with that is that the police obviously knew what they were looking at. You don't slam your brakes on as soon as you see something unusual; you're going to spend a few seconds thinking "what's that?" before your brain puts together that it's maybe something you should avoid. A fox or something running out is different as your brain reacts to the movement.

That is a fair point, however other drivers had seen him and stopped to sort it out so when they compare her driving to theirs she is going to seem guilty. I cannot say for sure but I would think that if I saw something 100 metres ahead on the road I would begin slowing down just in case it is something dangerous.

[Ticktock]

You don't slam your brakes on as soon as you see something unusual; you're going to spend a few seconds thinking "what's that?" before your brain puts together that it's maybe something you should avoid.

If I see something lying across the road 100m ahead of me I might not slam on the brakes, but I will slow down until I can make out what it is and decide whether I need to stop, go around, or blast on through.

[BrilloPad]

She's a crook woman, apparently.

Crook woman accused of causing death by careless driving appears in court - Chronicle Live

The 32-year-old appeared wearing a blue coat, black trousers and a white top.

Guilty!

[northernladuk]

There should be some form of punishment just for not being able to tell the difference between a badger and a human being even in the dark IMO.

[original PM]

what about the scams where eastern Europeans (allegedly) fake these sorts of things so a woman stops and they gang rape her?

In this day and age if you go to sleep in the middle of the road it is probably not going to end well?

[northernladuk]

what about the scams where eastern Europeans (allegedly) fake these sorts of things so a woman stops and they gang rape her?

In this day and age if you go to sleep in the middle of the road it is probably not going to end well?

Never mentioned sleeping in the road in any of my road safety lessons when I was a nipper so it must be ok. We were told running across was bad but didn't mention sleeping so it should be fine.

[VectraMan]

There should be some form of punishment just for not being able to tell the difference between a badger and a human being even in the dark IMO.

1. 2.

So which is the badger, and which is the human?

[Platypus]

A similar incident took place in my town, late at night, it was very dark. The person in the road was killed.

The driver was prosecuted and jailed. Ruined his life.