So many questions

[T.C.]

How, what, why?.............

Obviously wrong to make judgement as we are not privvy to the evidence and it is still early days, but these are the sorts of crashes I used to hate dealing with, just on the basis that it probably could have and should have been avoided.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tw ... li=BBoPWjQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kwacky]

An 89 year old man. You know its going to be pure driver error.

[T.C.]

An 89 year old man. You know its going to be pure driver error.

Although the driver has been arrested on suspicion of a section 1, in my 40 + years experience of investigating crashes, not always the case.

Often mechanical failure comes into it because they are inacapable of ensuring the vehicle is safe. Mentally they are perfectly capable, physically?

Or a combination of the 2

Anyway as I said, we should'nt pre judge as we are not privvy to the evidence until the inquest and even then we won't get all of it, just what the press decide to report.

[Kwacky]

Isn't it standard practice to go in with the higher charge then leave it to the CPS to decide which charge to use for court?

[T.C.]

Isn't it standard practice to go in with the higher charge then leave it to the CPS to decide which charge to use for court?

Yes. That is why he will have been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving but the chances are it will be reduced to a lesser offence.

He will have been told that he was being arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving, (section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) no mention would have been made at that stage of the death element (section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) because the 2 offences are identical as far as the burden of proof is concerned.

Chances of it getting to court on the section 1 offence are remote though, but they have to arrest for the higher offence as you cannot arrest for the lower and then up it to a more serious matter later unless a new but seperate offence came to light.

But deal with the matter as a ore serious case, it is easy to reduce it to a lesser offence once the evidence is known fully.

[StMarks]

An 89 year old man. You know its going to be pure driver error.

I realise that I've written this many times before, but I honestly believe that compulsory driving tests at regular intervals would be very cost efficient.

[T.C.]

An 89 year old man. You know its going to be pure driver error.

I realise that I've written this many times before, but I honestly believe that compulsory driving tests at regular intervals would be very cost efficient.

And I have said this many times, it aint going to happen

Read my post in one of the my other threads today.....

[StMarks]

An 89 year old man. You know its going to be pure driver error.

I realise that I've written this many times before, but I honestly believe that compulsory driving tests at regular intervals would be very cost efficient.

And I have said this many times, it aint going to happen

Read my post in one of the my other threads today.....

Found it, thanks TC,

What were the main reasons for rejecting it?

Vote loser

It was discussed for quite a long time and current advanced examiners like myself were asked to step in because the DSA could not cope with the additional work load even though it would not have been applied retrospectively.

Then someone in the Civil Service quietly pointed out that all new drivers were voters, and whatever Government brought in the change, this would probably result in that party losing votes big time at the following general election.

So the idea very quickly and quietly got shelved and then dropped.

I sit on a number of road safety committees and I have asked if this idea is likely to be re-visited anytime in the future? and I have been stunned by the deafening silence and then a resounding "No"

The introduction of MOT testing would doubtless have been rejected by the same token.??? Surely anyone can see that testing that the driver is roadworthy must be "at least as important" as testing that the vehicle is roadworthy.

I don't pretend to be able to speak with the same moral integrity as Monty etc,,,, but I think there's an old Honda advert that illustrates my opinions of the old "it will never work" response mate.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oih9UHP28c[/video]

IMHO the structure could (& should) be geared to be self funding. Currently we (society in general) pay a heavy price for substandard driving. Not only in lives lost, but in lost productivity, higher insurance premiums, demand on emergency services & the NHS, (and, of course, especially all those highly paid professionals employed wthin the "claims industry" )