Park Royal car accident - driver charged

[Gloster]

I thought that I'd someone was over 18 it was their own responsibility to wear a seatbelt, not the driver?

There is a considerable amount of wildly differing advice online, some of it from sites than seem to be trying to masquerad as official ones, but it looks as though it is the passenger’s responsibility if they are 14-years old or over. (That from West Yorkshire Police, the first site that appeared both genuine and clear.)

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought that I'd someone was over 18 it was their own responsibility to wear a seatbelt, not the driver?

There is a considerable amount of wildly differing advice online, some of it from sites than seem to be trying to masquerad as official ones, but it looks as though it is the passenger’s responsibility if they are 14-years old or over. (That from West Yorkshire Police, the first site that appeared both genuine and clear.)

I stand corrected. But for the avoidance of doubt any passengers of mine will not be travelling in my car unless they wear a seatbelt even if it's their responsibility rather than mine

Seat belt requirements. This table summarises the main legal requirements for wearing seat belts in cars, vans and other goods vehicles.

	Front seat	Rear seat	Who is responsible?
Driver	Seat belt MUST be worn if fitted	-	Driver
Child under 3 years of age	Correct child restraint MUST be used	Correct child restraint MUST be used. If one is not available in a taxi, may travel unrestrained.	Driver
Child from 3rd birthday up to 1.35 metres in height (or 12th birthday, whichever they reach first)	Correct child restraint MUST be used	Correct child restraint MUST be used where seat belts fitted. MUST use adult belt if correct child restraint is not available in a licensed taxi or private hire vehicle, or for reasons of unexpected necessity over a short distance, or if two occupied restraints prevent fitment of a third.	Driver
Child over 1.35 metres (approx 4ft 5ins) in height or 12 or 13 years	Seat belt MUST be worn if available	Seat belt MUST be worn if available	Driver
Adult passengers aged 14 and over	Seat belt MUST be worn if available	Seat belt MUST be worn if available	Passenger

The Highway Code - Rules for drivers and motorcyclists (89 to 102) - Guidance - GOV.UK

Rules for drivers and motorcyclists, including vehicle condition, fitness to drive, alcohol and drugs, what to do before setting off, vehicle towing and loading, and seat belts and child restraints.

www.gov.uk

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've also, when driving, had rather more experiences -- fortunately not actual accidents, thanks to my prompt reactions -- usually involving 'box boy' delivery riders, in which the bike was certainly responsible.

The Deliveroo (etc) riders are an absolute menace, the way they ride I expect they will actually kill someone sooner or later. Best one I’ve seen was them riding at full pelt the wrong way down a narrow one way street right at my car. And that’d be my worry about presumed liability, I’d hate to lose my no-claims discount because of some halfwit Deliveroo rider.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Our neighbour's very short daughter fell foul of this rule, cited above: 'Child from 3rd birthday up to 1.35 metres in height (or 12th birthday, whichever they reach first) -- Correct child restraint MUST be used.' She was really annoyed that when all her pals were no longer required to be in a kiddie seat, she was obliged to sit in one, which, by the age of nine or ten, she found very embarrassing.

 

[E27007]

The Driver of the vehicle in the Park Royal incident received a 7 year gaol sentence and a 12 year driving ban.
It was revealed that in 2020 the driver was banned from driving for a major speeding incident of 95 mph in a 50 mph zone

Park Royal Incident

 

[SargeNpton]

Under both English and Scottish law, a claimant cyclist must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a defendant driver was negligent. Many safety campaigners, including the UK’s national cycle charity, the CTC, have called for a new system of "presumed liability" - whereby the defendant driver would be presumed to be at fault unless they can prove otherwise.

Did this not change last year with the amendment to the Highway Code?...

"It is important that ALL road users are aware of The Highway Code, are considerate to other road users and understand their responsibility for the safety of others.

Everyone suffers when road collisions occur, whether they are physically injured or not. But those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.

Cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse drawn vehicles likewise have a responsibility to reduce danger to pedestrians.

None of this detracts from the responsibility of ALL road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, to have regard for their own and other road users’ safety."

 

[zwk500]

Did this not change last year with the amendment to the Highway Code?...

Does the highway code change the legilsation?

 

[SargeNpton]

Does the highway code change the legilsation?

From the Highway Code's introduction...

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. See an explanation of the abbreviations.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’."

 

[AlterEgo]

The Driver of the vehicle in the Park Royal incident received a 7 year gaol sentence and a 12 year driving ban.
It was revealed that in 2020 the driver was banned from driving for a major speeding incident of 95 mph in a 50 mph zone

Just an overall, complete piece of sh00t of a human being, and our justice system is a joke.

 

[bramling]

Just an overall, complete piece of sh00t of a human being, and our justice system is a joke.

Yes highly unsatisfactory all round.

 

[Egg Centric]

Just an overall, complete piece of sh00t of a human being, and our justice system is a joke.

If you read the judgement then it appears his friends/family are also sh00ts (see section 3.12).

(I actually think the sentence is about right but I am a bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to prison compared to most people).

 

[ainsworth74]

If you read the judgement then it appears his friends/family are also sh00ts (see section 3.12).

Interesting reading (as they usually are). Strikes me that the starting point is too low for this sort of offence and, without wishing to be a stuck record, it's crackers that you can be disqualified before for speeding, then kill someone (fundamentally for speeding again) and still not have a permanent disqualification!

 

[Ediswan]

Interesting reading (as they usually are). Strikes me that the starting point is too low for this sort of offence and, without wishing to be a stuck record, it's crackers that you can be disqualified before for speeding, then kill someone (fundamentally for speeding again) and still not have a permanent disqualification!

An analysis of the judicial reasoning for rarely imposing a disqualification for life is here:
https://www.bsbsolicitors.co.uk/blog/driving-disqualifications-lifetime-ban/
I pick this quote, but better to read the whole thing, it is not long.

a decision of the Court of Appeal in a case called Tantrum (1989) 11 Cr.App.R.(S.) 348 where, in the judgment of the Court, Gatehouse J. said:

"In any event, the disqualification for life should be a penalty imposed only in very exceptional circumstances. Normally disqualification should not inhibit too much rehabilitation of the offender. Very long disqualifications tend to do just that and cause further crimes to be committed."

Note: I will not be getting drawn into a discussion of this specific case.

 

[Egg Centric]

Interesting reading (as they usually are). Strikes me that the starting point is too low for this sort of offence and, without wishing to be a stuck record, it's crackers that you can be disqualified before for speeding, then kill someone (fundamentally for speeding again) and still not have a permanent disqualification!

I have a real bugbear with "speeding" being used as an explanation for anything. "Unsafe speed" or "excessive speed" or the like fine - but the number on a sign means nothing. This is dangerous driving, pure and simple. If the speed limit were 120mph or 10mph that wouldn't change.

 

[AM9]

I have a real bugbear with "speeding" being used as an explanation for anything. "Unsafe speed" or "excessive speed" or the like fine - but the number on a sign means nothing. This is dangerous driving, pure and simple. If the speed limit were 120mph or 10mph that wouldn't change.

The number on the sign doesn't "mean nothing". It is the maximum legal speed for that part of the road network that has been determined by those who are responsible for the road. It is not an average, a target or a recommended speed, and those who exceed it are subject to prosecution. The fact that there are roads where it is possible for drivers to exceed the posted speed limit doesn't change anything, just as there are plenty of unrestricted ountry lanes where 30mph would be hazardous. The drivers decision is to choose a safe speed that is within the posted limits. Recognising the actual road's characteristics, the prevailing weather condition and the presence of other road users.

 

[Egg Centric]

The number on the sign doesn't "mean nothing". It is the maximum legal speed for that part of the road network that has been determined by those who are responsible for the road. It is not an average, a target or a recommended speed, and those who exceed it are subject to prosecution. The fact that there are roads where it is possible for drivers to exceed the posted speed limit doesn't change anything, just as there are plenty of unrestricted ountry lanes where 30mph would be hazardous. The drivers decision is to choose a safe speed that is within the posted limits. Recognising the actual road's characteristics, the prevailing weather condition and the presence of other road users.

Yes, that is indeed how speed limits work

It's also orthogonal to what I was saying. I would have thought that "means nothing" is clearly in reference to safety, not in the literal sense that the sign has no meaning whatsoever.

 

[Horizon22]

Here’s video footage of the incident

https://twitter.com/courtnewsuk/status/1658861769190776832?s=46&t=CNuIVkxUNiCIU6N8sSkp7g

 

[Egg Centric]

Here’s video footage of the incident

https://twitter.com/courtnewsuk/status/1658861769190776832?s=46&t=CNuIVkxUNiCIU6N8sSkp7g

It's absolutely astonishing - and a great tribute to Range Rover engineers as well as the giants whose shoulders they stood upon - that anyone survived that at all, isn't it? Especially since they weren't all wearing seatbelts (including but not limited to the dead one).

 

[AM9]

Yes, that is indeed how speed limits work

It's also orthogonal to what I was saying. I would have thought that "means nothing" is clearly in reference to safety, not in the literal sense that the sign has no meaning whatsoever.

I don't agree that the speed limit shown means nothing wrt safety. The speed limit is whatever somebody who has a responsibility for safety has set it to. The fact that some drivers don't agree with the actual figure (either higher or lower), doesn't change anything as far as their own driving is concerned. If they really feel that it has been set too high, they should drive at a lower speed at which they themselves feel safe. If on the other hand they think that the maximum speed is too low, that's tough, they should just drive within the limit (recognising any transient local conditions that require an even lower speed). There are too many drivers who convince themselves that they are safer if they drive at a higher speed. When doing so, if caught by the authorities, they should accept any penalty due to them, - i.e. there is no excuse for speeding is a strict liability offence.

 

[Egg Centric]

I don't agree that the speed limit shown means nothing wrt safety. The speed limit is whatever somebody who has a responsibility for safety has set it to. The fact that some drivers don't agree with the actual figure (either higher or lower), doesn't change anything as far as their own driving is concerned. If they really feel that it has been set too high, they should drive at a lower speed at which they themselves feel safe. If on the other hand they think that the maximum speed is too low, that's tough, they should just drive within the limit (recognising any transient local conditions that require an even lower speed). There are too many drivers who convince themselves that they are safer if they drive at a higher speed. When doing so, if caught by the authorities, they should accept any penalty due to them, - i.e. there is no excuse for speeding is a strict liability offence.

This has nothing to do with my point though. Whether or not someone with responsibility for safety has objectively set the speed limit to a safe speed, there still *is* a safe speed for any particular circumstance and it is exceeding that speed which is dangerous - not the number on the stick.

You are basically arguing the generalised case for speed limits. That's not relevant to what I'm saying. It is not my intent to get into a debate on the merits of speed limits.

 

[AM9]

This has nothing to do with my point though. Whether or not someone with responsibility for safety has objectively set the speed limit to a safe speed, there still *is* a safe speed for any particular circumstance and it is exceeding that speed which is dangerous - not the number on the stick.

You are basically arguing the generalised case for speed limits. That's not relevant to what I'm saying. It is not my intent to get into a debate on the merits of speed limits.

It is dangerous exceeding the "speed on the stick" because anybody else on the highway has a reasonable expectation that users will keep to that limit, and their actions will be guided by that. I think we are in agreement that just because a road has a certain indicated limit, driving at that speed (at a perticular point along it) can also be dangerous, even though that act alone would not attract a charge of breaking the displayed speed lmit.

 

[Egg Centric]

It is dangerous exceeding the "speed on the stick" because anybody else on the highway has a reasonable expectation that users will keep to that limit, and their actions will be guided by that. I think we are in agreement that just because a road has a certain indicated limit, driving at that speed (at a perticular point along it) can also be dangerous, even though that act alone would not attract a charge of breaking the displayed speed lmit.

Whilst I agree that the speed limit sets an expectation of other road users, it may or may not be dangerous to exceed it in the circumstances depending upon the circumstances (such as approaching a junction or whatever, whether there is traffic, etc) - it's clearly neither automatically dangerous nor automatically safe. If it were automatically dangerous to exceed it, emergency services wouldn't be allowed to. However I really do not want to get sucked into some kind of speed limit debate.

Particularly since either way it has nothing whatsoever to do with accidents like this where the speed is (just watch that video) grossly excessive, not to mention the (very likely*) intoxication.

*The treatment of it in the judgement is somewhat more nuanced than that, but I think we can use common sense...

 

[LOL The Irony]

Here’s video footage of the incident

https://twitter.com/courtnewsuk/status/1658861769190776832?s=46&t=CNuIVkxUNiCIU6N8sSkp7g

This is the most detailed footage of the accident yet and blow me, it's cartwheeling through the tesla superchargers. The loss of energy caused by that probably saved that female passengers life.

 

[baz962]

Just watched the video. I'm amazed anyone walked away.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Just an overall, complete piece of sh00t of a human being, and our justice system is a joke.

Agree on the first part, not so much the second. The sentence is about right given the law and given the circumstances, including the fact he lost a leg and the deceased wasn’t wearing a seatbelt.

Strikes me that the starting point is too low for this sort of offence and, without wishing to be a stuck record, it's crackers that you can be disqualified before for speeding, then kill someone (fundamentally for speeding again) and still not have a permanent disqualification!

It’s always a tough one, as I don’t think it is desirable that recklessness be punished the same as deliberate. No matter what we think of this man and his behaviour it’s not as though he intended to crash his car, kill a passenger and lose a leg.

As for permanent disqualification, the real issue there is that, without hope of rehabilitation, people will just ignore the disqualification. Yes that’s an offence, but only if it’s detected.

 

[Bayum]

Just an overall, complete piece of sh00t of a human being, and our justice system is a joke.

What is a ‘sh00t’?

 

[zwk500]

What is a ‘sh00t’?

a slightly politer form of s**t, I imagine.

 

[Killingworth]

As for permanent disqualification, the real issue there is that, without hope of rehabilitation, people will just ignore the disqualification. Yes that’s an offence, but only if it’s detected.

Unfortunately that is a large part of the problem. The majotity of disqualified drivers probably don't go on to reoffend but a large number clearly do, not a few while still disqualified.

Apart from apprehension after another offence there's no clear way of knowing how many are doing this or stopping them.

Add to that the unknown number of drivers on the road who have never taken a test. Aa long as they drive carefully they're unlikely
to be detected either

Given the number of vehicles on our roads it's a miracle there are so few accidents, a tribute to the good driving of the vast majority of us most of the time.

However in the not too distant future some form of speed limiting technology will have to be fitted to prevent speeding at levels like in this case.

 

[ainsworth74]

It’s always a tough one, as I don’t think it is desirable that recklessness be punished the same as deliberate. No matter what we think of this man and his behaviour it’s not as though he intended to crash his car, kill a passenger and lose a leg.

I suppose that's a very valid point. Though it does rankle that he speeded once before (and was disqualified for it) and then speeded again and killed someone (yes she wasn't wearing a seatbelt but he was still the one driving recklessly) and left himself and two others with significant injuries. One can also assume that he was speeding on other occasions just wasn't caught and didn't lose control of the vehicle. To a degree that suggests to me that perhaps this individual just wasn't suited to driving on the public highway. Should there be an entitlement to drive if you can pass your test even when on multiple occasions you've demonstrated a disregard for the rules of the road and underestimated your own abilities?

As for permanent disqualification, the real issue there is that, without hope of rehabilitation, people will just ignore the disqualification. Yes that’s an offence, but only if it’s detected.

Another good point and I'm not sure what can be done about that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Though it does rankle that he speeded once before (and was disqualified for it) and then speeded again and killed someone

I’ve said before that I don’t think dangerous driving and drink driving is treated seriously enough. Sentences are too light when people get away with it and thankfully don’t seriously injure or kill people.

And I think that has an impact on people like this- there’s no sanction earlier on, so they carry on driving dangerously and driving whilst drunk until they do manage to kill someone.