R M driver reading manual on steering wheel while driving

[clashcityrocker]

How is "careless driving" different to "dangerous driving"?

[Lounge Lizard]

How is "careless driving" different to "dangerous driving"?

There is no statutory definition of bad driving, but there are a number of general offences that directly concern or may relate to the way in which a vehicle is driven. These are:
murder;
manslaughter;
causing death by dangerous driving;
causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs;
dangerous driving;
causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving;
causing death by driving whilst unlicensed;
uninsured or disqualified;
careless or inconsiderate driving;
wanton and furious driving; and
aggravated vehicle taking.

Definition of dangerous driving (Archbold 32-27) (Wilkinson 5.03).
A person drives dangerously when the way his standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

Careless/inconsiderate driving
This offence is committed when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver (section 3ZA RTA). In determining what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver the prosecutor must take into account not only the circumstances of which the driver could be expected to be aware, but also any circumstances shown to have been within the driver's knowledge.
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence, inadvertence or inexperience.

More on http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... d_driving/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[fishtank]

How is "careless driving" different to "dangerous driving"?

Usually with dangerous driving there has to be intent and a real danger either of injury to any other persons or serious damage to property.
In this case reading the document was clear intent but because of the time and how quiet the road was it was considered that there was minimal danger to others.
He was lucky,it was borderline.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Calm down and stop getting hysterical,there was no other traffic apart from the ambulance driver,nobody got killed or maimed

So the end justifies the means.

To take this to an obscene and ridiculous point is it okay to Drink and Drive as long as you don't hit anything or don't get caught. Of course not, its an offence to drink and drive and its an offence to impair your driving by reading a manual.

,the driver said a warning light came on that he was unfamiliar with and he was trying to find out what it was for

On the face of it nothing wrong with that - except he was in a truck moving at a maximum of 57mph and weighing a minimum of 7.5 tonnes. - An impact force of 815 tonnes

if you look at the case it doesn't say he repeatadley swerved all over the place does it,

One swerve as the ambulance passed him could have been enough to cause an accident. The crime is not the swerving, he could have been driving dead straight and between the lines - it's the act of reading while driving that's dangerous.

ok he should have pulled over on to the hard shoulder and checked it out,

No he shouldn't - it was not an emergency - a "warning light" came one. He should continue driving until there is a safe place to pull over and consult the instruction manual. In the meantime he should remain alert to any changes in the way the vehicle operates. If the vehicle exhibits any dangerous symptoms, such as full or partial loss of brakes, fire or imminent catastrophic failure then he should pull onto the Hard Shoulder.

but he doesn't deserve to have the book thrown at him.

He didn't have the book thrown at him. If he had been found guilty of the original offence he would have lost his licence and job. They took that on board and found him guilty of a lesser offence. He was lucky - again.

Don't talk daft,completely different thing,If he was reading the manual in heavy traffic I could understand your outrage but it wasn't.

If he was in heavy traffic and was reading the manual when the vehicle was stationary then there may be a case for your argument. However he was in a moving vehicle and in either situation its was a dangerous and stupid action.

plus a car on the hard shoulder without lights shows up a long way away,

It does it you are concentrating on driving, in good light conditions, and not reading a manual. A quick glance at the manual taking between 1 and 2 seconds means his vehicle probably travelled 83 ft to 167ft when he wasn't looking, even worse if it was probably dark at the time (early morning in January) that will cut down the distance you first spot a hazard on what is a mostly unlit road (check out google maps/street view)

[DB1100]

Calm down and stop getting hysterical,there was no other traffic apart from the ambulance driver,nobody got killed or maimed

So the end justifies the means.

To take this to an obscene and ridiculous point is it okay to Drink and Drive as long as you don't hit anything or don't get caught. Of course not, its an offence to drink and drive and its an offence to impair your driving by reading a manual.

,the driver said a warning light came on that he was unfamiliar with and he was trying to find out what it was for

On the face of it nothing wrong with that - except he was in a truck moving at a maximum of 57mph and weighing a minimum of 7.5 tonnes. - An impact force of 815 tonnes

if you look at the case it doesn't say he repeatadley swerved all over the place does it,

One swerve as the ambulance passed him could have been enough to cause an accident. The crime is not the swerving, he could have been driving dead straight and between the lines - it's the act of reading while driving that's dangerous.

ok he should have pulled over on to the hard shoulder and checked it out,

No he shouldn't - it was not an emergency - a "warning light" came one. He should continue driving until there is a safe place to pull over and consult the instruction manual. In the meantime he should remain alert to any changes in the way the vehicle operates. If the vehicle exhibits any dangerous symptoms, such as full or partial loss of brakes, fire or imminent catastrophic failure then he should pull onto the Hard Shoulder.

but he doesn't deserve to have the book thrown at him.

He didn't have the book thrown at him. If he had been found guilty of the original offence he would have lost his licence and job. They took that on board and found him guilty of a lesser offence. He was lucky - again.

Don't talk daft,completely different thing,If he was reading the manual in heavy traffic I could understand your outrage but it wasn't.

If he was in heavy traffic and was reading the manual when the vehicle was stationary then there may be a case for your argument. However he was in a moving vehicle and in either situation its was a dangerous and stupid action.

plus a car on the hard shoulder without lights shows up a long way away,

It does it you are concentrating on driving, in good light conditions, and not reading a manual. A quick glance at the manual taking between 1 and 2 seconds means his vehicle probably travelled 83 ft to 167ft when he wasn't looking, even worse if it was probably dark at the time (early morning in January) that will cut down the distance you first spot a hazard on what is a mostly unlit road (check out google maps/street view)

This is nothing like drinking and driving,a warning light can mean an emergency,i.e low oil pressure could mean he has lost all his oil all over the motorway,if they could have made the original offence stick they would have done as it is they only have the word of the ambulance driver,if it had been me driving I would have denied reading the manual and said I had a sneezing fit,to answer your point about not seeing a car on the hard shoulder the lorries headlights would have lit up the vehicles reflectors for at least a quarter of a mile as I said much ado about nothing.

[Lounge Lizard]

"if it had been me driving I would have denied reading the manual and said I had a sneezing fit" - and add perjury to charge to ensure you get the custodial sentance you deserve

"a warning light can mean an emergency"

"This is nothing like drinking and driving" - an idiotic statement. I have been unsafe while driving when too tired and I have been unsafe when driving when ill, neither of which I should have done and both undoubtedly more dangerous than if I had driven after ample sleep and in good health but slightly over the drink drive limit, not that I do that I hasten to add ( i keep below the limit ) nor would I condone anyone else driving over the limit.
It would make no difference if someone was killed by a driver reading a manual or a driver over the drink driving limit. Both are totally unacceptable.

[DB1100]

"if it had been me driving I would have denied reading the manual and said I had a sneezing fit" - and add perjury to charge to ensure you get the custodial sentance you deserve

"a warning light can mean an emergency"

"This is nothing like drinking and driving" - an idiotic statement. I have been unsafe while driving when too tired and I have been unsafe when driving when ill, neither of which I should have done and both undoubtedly more dangerous than if I had driven after ample sleep and in good health but slightly over the drink drive limit, not that I do that I hasten to add ( i keep below the limit ) nor would I condone anyone else driving over the limit.
It would make no difference if someone was killed by a driver reading a manual or a driver over the drink driving limit. Both are totally unacceptable.

You do talk some drivel.A glance at the manual is nothing like being drunk whilst driving,you lot make mountains out of molehills,at the end of the day he strayed onto the hard shoulder thats all,no near miss no one injured,stop being drama queens.

[POSTMAN]

[TrueBlueTerrier]

"if it had been me driving I would have denied reading the manual and said I had a sneezing fit" - and add perjury to charge to ensure you get the custodial sentance you deserve

"a warning light can mean an emergency"

"This is nothing like drinking and driving" - an idiotic statement. I have been unsafe while driving when too tired and I have been unsafe when driving when ill, neither of which I should have done and both undoubtedly more dangerous than if I had driven after ample sleep and in good health but slightly over the drink drive limit, not that I do that I hasten to add ( i keep below the limit ) nor would I condone anyone else driving over the limit.
It would make no difference if someone was killed by a driver reading a manual or a driver over the drink driving limit. Both are totally unacceptable.

You do talk some drivel.A glance at the manual is nothing like being drunk whilst driving,you lot make mountains out of molehills,at the end of the day he strayed onto the hard shoulder thats all,no near miss no one injured,stop being drama queens.

and you are belittling a dangerous act by making excuses - its hardly a glance at the operators manual. He has to find it first, then he had to find the page that shows warning lights, then he had to read the description - hardly a glance.

Also if he was a driver with experience he would be able tell what an Oil warning light was they tend to be generic, as do the warning lights for all the other emergency warnings. At least they were when I failed my HGV course.

As to being a drama queen, I'll accept that and I wear it as a badge of pride. In Northern Ireland a mate of mine was cut in half in a car accident, he died, this was a van on a country road and the bloke later admitted to bending down to pick something up he was distracted for only a few seconds. My mate was behind a land rover just setting up a VCP. Also in the early 70s I had a close Uncle killed by a tanker driver jumping a light. So yes I am a drama queen on this particular subject, and I will always be proud to be.

I am glad I will never be paired with you as if you find this behaviour acceptable because no one was hurt. I'd hate to see what risks you take on the same chance.

[clashcityrocker]

I'm a drama queen as well.

[Lounge Lizard]

"if it had been me driving I would have denied reading the manual and said I had a sneezing fit" - and add perjury to charge to ensure you get the custodial sentance you deserve

"a warning light can mean an emergency"

"This is nothing like drinking and driving" - an idiotic statement. I have been unsafe while driving when too tired and I have been unsafe when driving when ill, neither of which I should have done and both undoubtedly more dangerous than if I had driven after ample sleep and in good health but slightly over the drink drive limit, not that I do that I hasten to add ( i keep below the limit ) nor would I condone anyone else driving over the limit.
It would make no difference if someone was killed by a driver reading a manual or a driver over the drink driving limit. Both are totally unacceptable.

You do talk some drivel.A glance at the manual is nothing like being drunk whilst driving,you lot make mountains out of molehills,at the end of the day he strayed onto the hard shoulder thats all,no near miss no one injured,stop being drama queens.

No more 'drivel' than interpreting "concentrating so hard on the instruction manual that he swerved onto the hard shoulder before veering back onto the M90 motorway" as "a glance at the manual". And, like it or not, there's many a motorist over the drink drive limit, or 'drunk' as you would have it, that covers many miles without swerving onto the hard shoulder before veering back onto a motorway", very wrong, I agree, but dangerous driving comes in many forms and just might, or might not, have disasterous consequences. You would benefit from a wider perspective than the simplistic Daily Mail type blame attitude, anything wrong on the roads is the fault of drink drivers, anything wrong with the economy is the fault of East European migrants, anything else wrong in Britain is the fault of the Labour party and anything else wrong in the world is because Britain no longer has an empire. Sorry, I digress. Drink driving was indeed a serious problem in the 1960s and I remember even in the 1970s motorists boasting about how many pints they had consumed the previous evening before somehow driving home, but thankfully attitudes have changed, few motorists ignore that law like they once did and drink driving is now the cause of a small proportion deaths and serious injuries on the roads. It's to be hoped that just as the drink driving message has now largely been accepted, although there will sadly always be a few idiots that ignore any law, society in a far shorter time similarily accepts the need not to use excessive speed, not to read instruction manuals and not to otherwise drive in a dangerous or inappropriate way.

[DB1100]

It was you who compared it to drink driving not me,and as a former HGV 1 driver I know enough to say that if the truck was going at 56mph and "swerved" on to the hard shoulder it would have been close to tipping over it takes a lot of steering wheel movement to make an HGV swerve more like the driver strayed on to it and then corrected it as someone said before if he looked at the manual for 2 seconds he would have travelled 60 yds well within headlight range,a bad mistake on the drivers part but no reason to get hysterical about it,calm down and carry on,motorways are still the safest roads in the country.And by the way I don't read the Daily Mail ,to anti forces for me I am a Daily Telegraph reader try it you might like it,but then again it hasn't got any of those daft smilies things that you like so you might not.

[clashcityrocker]

And by the way I don't read the Daily Mail ,too anti forces for me. I am a Daily Telegraph reader try it you might like it,

[Lounge Lizard]

It was you who compared it to drink driving not me,and as a former HGV 1 driver I know enough to say that if the truck was going at 56mph and "swerved" on to the hard shoulder it would have been close to tipping over it takes a lot of steering wheel movement to make an HGV swerve more like the driver strayed on to it and then corrected it as someone said before if he looked at the manual for 2 seconds he would have travelled 60 yds well within headlight range,a bad mistake on the drivers part but no reason to get hysterical about it,calm down and carry on,motorways are still the safest roads in the country.And by the way I don't read the Daily Mail ,to anti forces for me I am a Daily Telegraph reader try it you might like it,but then again it hasn't got any of those daft smilies things that you like so you might not.

Which of us first made a comparison to drink driving is of no consequence, but you were happy enough to unconvincingly keep going on about "completely different", this is nothing like drink driving" and " nothing like being drunk".
I am reassured though by one word in your latest post, "former" That you are no longer an HGV driver is good news indeed, and I'm sure our roads are all the safer now.
And I understand that the Torygraph is just a slightly upmarket version of the Daily Mail.

[DB1100]

It was you who compared it to drink driving not me,and as a former HGV 1 driver I know enough to say that if the truck was going at 56mph and "swerved" on to the hard shoulder it would have been close to tipping over it takes a lot of steering wheel movement to make an HGV swerve more like the driver strayed on to it and then corrected it as someone said before if he looked at the manual for 2 seconds he would have travelled 60 yds well within headlight range,a bad mistake on the drivers part but no reason to get hysterical about it,calm down and carry on,motorways are still the safest roads in the country.And by the way I don't read the Daily Mail ,to anti forces for me I am a Daily Telegraph reader try it you might like it,but then again it hasn't got any of those daft smilies things that you like so you might not.

Which of us first made a comparison to drink driving is of no consequence, but you were happy enough to unconvincingly keep going on about "completely different", this is nothing like drink driving" and " nothing like being drunk".
I am reassured though by one word in your latest post, "former" That you are no longer an HGV driver is good news indeed, and I'm sure our roads are all the safer now.
And I understand that the Torygraph is just a slightly upmarket version of the Daily Mail.

20 odd years HGV driving and no serious accidents,seen plenty of bad drivers van and truck and coach at least I know what I am talking about when it comes to driving,I wish I lived a fault free and blameless life like you,no on second thoughts I don't,anyway watch out for swerving lorries and remember I still drive a transit or maxxus and I like to do the crossword when I am driving.