The CUK jury decide - guilty or not?

[Bacchus]

Plus I stagger on a bus when I'm sober, something to do with hanging on the strap and not planting my feet in a triangle for stability.

how many feet do you have?????

[mudskipper]

how many feet do you have?????

Jake the peg.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Guilty of driving without due care and attention.

10:15 at night in March isn't pitch black so would still be light and a person is big enough for you to see, mitigating circumstances are if I see an animal in the road and can't stop in time I hit it, sorry but swerving etc. to avoid an animal only puts you and other road users at risk. Also the druck has to take some of the blame too

22:15 in March *is* pitch black without moonlight.

[SpontaneousOrder]

No one ever drives with full attention 100% of the time during their entire driving life. The best of us might get close, but it's not realistic to expect 100% 100% of the time.

With that being the case, even though it sounds as though she may have been at fault, it seems an injustice to prosecute her for running over some numpty sleeping in the middle of the road.

[tractor]

...

Jake the peg.

I knew it wouldn't over everyone.

Funny thing is my doctor said it was unusual that one of my eyes was far bigger than the other two.

[tractor]

...

how many feet do you have?????

Everyone likes a bit of praise but no, it's not feet!

[vetran]

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.

other drivers saw him IT and stopped after they passed him IT , they weren't aware it was a man and thought it was an obstruction.

I have some sympathy for her.

[MyUserName]

other drivers saw him IT and stopped after they passed him IT , they weren't aware it was a man and thought it was an obstruction.

I have some sympathy for her.

That is pretty much just semantics though. The point I would expect a judge to look at is that he was visible as proved by other drivers. The fact he was not recognisable as a human at that point is a moot point. If you see something on the road which is not definitely a person you still slow down just in case it is and even if it is not it is still likely to be something you do not want to hit!