CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
OT Pedestrian death: Walk/cycle on the pavement unsafe?
(23 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
That's just awful. Thoughts with his family.
Posted 12 years ago # -
STV report from the "incident site, on the arraigning on petition at Edin Sheriff Court charged: causing death by careless driving under influence of drink/drugs.
He's gonna be a poster boy for anti-drink-driving ads.Posted 12 years ago # -
Driver was drunk and mounted the pavement, and he's getting done for CARELESS driving. What do you have to do for driving to be considered dangerous these days? It's nothing less than insulting to the poor victim's family.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Hi Bhachgen, you got a link for the charge that's been levelled against him? At the very least I would have thought it would be causing death by careless driving, rather than 'just' careless, and there should be a drink driving element as well.
(though I agree, even if it has 'causing death by', what follows should be 'dangerous driving').
EDIT: Apologies, I see that was in the post above you now.
So it is at least causing death, and being under the influence of drink adds to that. Off to see what the tariff is for this.
What upsets me more is just how needless that is - I often refer to road deaths as the greatest preventable killer in the UK, and in this case, a guy just walking home on the pavement minding his own business, that's never been more true.
Main thoughts still remain with his family. RIP.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Right, got the details now, and the charge makes sense.
The tariff for 'Causing death by dangerous driving' is identical to 'Causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink etc.' - and if the driver has tested positive then the second charge is guaranteed to be proven (the first charge 'should' be proven, but if you're given a 100% chance of conviction why would you charge with anything else?).
BOTH carry a max of 14 years imprisonment, unlimited fine, and disqualification (for a minimum period of two years - should be life IMO, but there you go).
(by comparison basic dangerous driving is up to 2 years imprisonment, unlimited fine, and obligatory disqualification (no minimum period)).
The use of the word 'careless' may stick in the throat, but in this case it's entirely the correct thing to charge with.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Everyone knows cars are dangerous if they are not driven properly. Driving dangerously is attempted murder. This man was murdered.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm sure that the driver did not mean to kill the victim - and unless there's an intention to kill then it's not murder. (Not that this excuses the driver in any way.)
Posted 12 years ago # -
The intent to kill is expressed by the decision to drive dangerously.
Posted 12 years ago # -
No he wasn't. Murder requires pre-meditated forethought - the intention to kill. Attemped murder requires the same forethought and so Dangerous Driving is not attempted murder. At worst it's culpable homicide if a reckless endangerment of someone's life can be clearly shown.
I wouldn't say that was impossible in this case, but there would be a lot of mitigations raised which, I am NOT saying are justified, but which would make a conviction in court less likely, whereas the causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink is nailed on.
Which would you rather? Someone walking free because a harder to prove charge was levied; or someone actually feeling the weight of the law for their actions?
I'd personally rather that culpable homicide (Scottish equivalent-ish of a mid ground between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter) was provable in cases such as these, and that it would be used, but as applied through legal history it would be virtually impossible to prove.
Posted 12 years ago # -
'Fraid not. The driver didn't set you to kill the guy and until I'm Benevolent dictator for life stupidity is not a directly punishable offence.
Ninja'd by a pro...
Posted 12 years ago # -
"The intent to kill is expressed by the decision to drive dangerously."
That's not 'intent'. Intent would be 'I'm going to drive dangerously and seek out to kill someone'.
This subject is emotive, and I don't want to say much more on this because really, the important thing here, is that someone died and that's bloody awful.
Posted 12 years ago # -
There seems to be a lot of it about this week
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-20664119
What gets me is the huge difference in the severity of the punishments based upon how "lucky" the victims are.
Assuming neither of this poor couple die, then the driver is likely to be back on the roads in 1 or 2 years and is unlikely to actually go to jail whereas if someone had died then the implications would have been much more serious for exactly the same actions by the driver.
Posted 12 years ago # -
It is odd that the charge "causing death by careless driving while under the influence" exists at all, as though somehow a positive test isn't ipso facto "far below the minimum acceptable standard" (the qualification for a 'dangerous' driving charge).
Still, I suppose the judge could consider it such an aggravating factor that they could hand down 14 years, not that I expect more than a handful (it's probably in bad taste to start a pool).
We live in a sad world where each jury verdict (and consequently, charging decision) seems to further undermine my faith in fellow citizens.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"What gets me is the huge difference in the severity of the punishments based upon how "lucky" the victims are"
That's one of the reasons it took so long to get a 'causing death' charge. It was 'dangerous driving' or 'careless driving' and actually whether someone died or not was irrelevant, the standard of driving was the important thing (which makes logical sense really).
But, there was so much public outrage about various cases because 'someone died', and people thought that was being ignored, that the law got added to.
@Dave, absolutely, being drunk in charge of a car should automatically careless, if not dangerous!
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think you will find the Melrose incident was two people being crushed by an 81 year old reversing his car...I suspect incompetence though senility is the problem in this case.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I do worry about an ageing population that, for many people, has been entirely car-dependent for their whole lives - to the point of scorning other methods of transport.
When coupled with the fact that many shops and services are located in places that require a car to get to and many of our communities are designed around the assumption that residents will have a car then I think we have a growing problem.
As people's eyesight, responses and abilities decline through age, how many people will we have refusing to give up their cars when they really should?
Posted 12 years ago # -
There was an interesting stat recently (?peak car?) about how although car use overall was dropping, car use among women was increasing.
I was being a pedestrian the other day, and noticed that every car that passed me as I stood on the corner of Leven St, was driven by an older middle-aged woman, all single occupancy, except where they had a female passenger of similar demographic.
It struck me that there are probably a lot of women who by virtue of their multiple obligations - caring for older and younger - and shift work and/or self-employed status, are probably far more reliant on cars than their male equivalents with office jobs etc.
And also, by virtue of spending years going around in cars, probably feel distinctly 'unsafe' when on foot or waiting at a bus stop.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Sadly, it turns out Gavin's death was so nearly avoided as his wife had also had a work's night out and she stayed away from her so he could go. It just makes the whole thing that much worse.
Cruel twist of fate for night out road death sportsman
Everyone in the articles comments on Gavin being a nice guy and though it's years since I last saw him I can't think of a time I'd have had a negative comment to make either. Such a waste...
Posted 12 years ago # -
"noticed that every car that passed me as I stood on the corner of Leven St, was driven by an older middle-aged woman, all single occupancy, except where they had a female passenger of similar demographic."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/transport/women-fuel-rise-in-driving.19561652
Posted 12 years ago # -
Well done the EEN on stoking up that guilt :(
Such a horrible waste - totally avoidable, just can't imagine what his family are going through (and hope I never have to).
Posted 12 years ago # -
Thanks for clarifying the different charges WC.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Yes, thanks WC.
On the "stoking up the guilt", there is the flip side of the coin that the EEN has put a human interest angle on this (fate, destiny), keeping it in the public consciousness and may help police find the "mustard" pedestrian witness.
The irony is that the charged driver will probably be looking for a reduced sentence. Having asked for stricter sentencing in the case of his own family tragedy
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
