Police charge woman stranded for two days after crash

[The Stranger:Me]

Your next sentence makes an assumption (that she'd learn from the experience) that has been proven unreliable in the past, Which is how we got to the law, charge, prosecuting deal in the first place. The police are obliged to charge someone driving negligently (and as they've investigated and come to that conclusion, we have no real cause to doubt the product of that investigation). That's their job, that's what we pay them to do. Judges decide whether she's guilty or not, that's we pay them to do.

I heard of research the other day which suggests that a warning from the Police has a greater impact on road safety than ticketing. You get a ticket and you slow down for a short while whilst the shock sinks in, but shortly thereafter think screw it and are back speeding. If you get a warning you think, damn that was lucky and respect it rather than resent it.

However some are quite capable of learning. It is the ones whom aren't that are the cause of the problem and time spent on the distinction would be time well spent.

But assuming you are correct on the need to prosecute all mistakes, why then do the Police not apply this principal to Klark, even when she has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated an inability to learn respect for the law or the Police force.

As to the bleeding hearts screwing up society, the failure to prosecute and remove Klark has done far more harm to society than any bleeding heart could ever do.

[scracha]

Do they..........I know this is NZ but in the UK they use commonsense.........I mean in UK if you hit someone up the rear you don't get charged like you do here.....

Wanna bet? Fully insured, well below speed limit (35mph on a 60 limit), fully MOT'd etc etc. Blind bend, road narrowed a little and result was a head on. Nobody injured, both cars written off but cops charged me with careless (she wasn't charged as she wasn't Scottish and had a daddy in the local Rotary club). Try 8 points (12 points in UK = bye bye license for 6 months), 650 pounds fine plus 240 pounds court costs? The UK traffic cops are complete bastards too and are charging everyone with whatever they can.

[The Stranger:Me]

If nothing else, it gives a judge the chance to force a retest of her license. If she can drive sufficiently well to get it back, that's fine, at least some attempt at removing a possibly unsuitable driver from the roads was made.

You don't think that maybe after 2 days wondering if she was going to die alone in some fucked up country at the bottom of the world she has that one figured out?

[Grahameeboy]

Wanna bet? Fully insured, well below speed limit (35mph on a 60 limit), fully MOT'd etc etc. Blind bend, road narrowed a little and result was a head on. Nobody injured, both cars written off but cops charged me with careless (she wasn't charged as she wasn't Scottish and had a daddy in the local Rotary club). Try 8 points (12 points in UK = bye bye license for 6 months), 650 pounds fine plus 240 pounds court costs? The UK traffic cops are complete bastards too and are charging everyone with whatever they can.

Sorry to hear that but I was talking about rear end shunts.

I guess we have to remember that the speed limit is a maximum and both cars were written off.

[Grahameeboy]

Prolly crash.

But the correct answer is "Always drive so as to be able to stop safely in the clear hazard free road visible ahead"

So , if you can't see what's around the bend - slow down.

If only life was that simple Ixion...............so if your doing 50kph so have 45 feet to brake and you can only see 10 feet in front you should be doing 15kph......

[spudchucka]

What's the point in charging her, or anyone for a mistake?

The entire internet isn't big enough to host that discussion.

[Grahameeboy]

The entire internet isn't big enough to host that discussion.

Surely Spank Me just has to upgrade site..............??

[spudchucka]

Intresting point..what would the Police do in that situation?

Sudden emergence of animals onto the roadway can be a defence against a careless driving charge.

[Grahameeboy]

Sudden emergence of animals onto the roadway can be a defence against a careless driving charge.

Mmmm sudden lapse of concentration......................doya think??

[Ixion]

If only life was that simple Ixion...............so if your doing 50kph so have 45 feet to brake and you can only see 10 feet in front you should be doing 15kph......

Yep. In fact if I could only see 10 feet in front of me I'd slow to less than 15kph.

Never can figure why people have so much of a problem with this. Is very simple really. What you can't see is dangerous. Works for me.

[Grahameeboy]

Yep. In fact if I could only see 10 feet in front of me I'd slow to less than 15kph.

Never can figure why people have so much of a problem with this. Is very simple really. What you can't see is dangerous. Works for me.

Well we are both alive and kicking so guess we have both managed eh?

[spudchucka]

Mmmm sudden lapse of concentration......................doya think??

Sudden emergence of animals, as in you are cruising along and "suddenly" an animal bolts across your path from the side of the road and you have no way of avoiding it or you swerve and end up leaving the road.

It wouldn't be a defence if you came flying around a corner on a country road and smacked into farmer Brown's cows because in a rural setting you should be anticipating such hazards.

[Skyryder]

Sudden emergence of animals, as in you are cruising along and "suddenly" an animal bolts across your path from the side of the road and you have no way of avoiding it or you swerve and end up leaving the road.

It wouldn't be a defence if you came flying around a corner on a country road and smacked into farmer Brown's cows because in a rural setting you should be anticipating such hazards.

I may be wrong Spud but I was under the impression that their is some legal responsibilty for farmers to ensure that their stock, does not/can not, wander on the road. What's the law on this??

Skyryder

[scracha]

Sorry to hear that but I was talking about rear end shunts.
I guess we have to remember that the speed limit is a maximum and both cars were written off.

Were both well below speed limit and we both couldn't stop in time. Nobody injured. My insurance paid for her car (wouldn't have been a 50/50 if the cops hadn't put their oar in), loss of wages and inconvenience so why the @#$ck did the prick coppers charge? And likewise with rear end shunts, if nobody is injured and the damage gets paid for by the "guilty" party then why lay charges? Paying 100's more in insurance is as good a deterrant as any.

Anyways...putting all of these "careless" crashes into perspective. Should the cops charge us whenever we drop our motorcycles? $hit happens, road surfaces differ etc etc. Careless driving charges should only be lain when people are driving like arseholes, leaving 1s braking distances etc etc.

[mooks]

so does that means 49.9 some % aren't?

the nice cop that pinged me for "leaning over a bit in the wind there missy..."
He was nice enough to let me off with a smile and a caution - when I was going a bit quick round the pauatahanui inlet on my 900.
That man deserves a DB.

Some of them are ok.