What next.... Mute Singers???

|| Can you believe this.... || || Found on another group || ||

Priceless.

Richard Brookman uttered summat worrerz funny about:

"Magistrates must decide whether Aziz's driving fell far below what would be expected of a careful and competent driver and whether it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. Mr Gascoyne added: "The question you will have to ask yourself is whether being blind makes this driving dangerous, bearing in mind that the driving wasn't dangerous.""

It's loonacy such as this that keeps thousands of lawyers, solicitors and baristers along with their goafers in work... still it's only tax payers who are sucking the mop.

Lee

On or around Mon, 04 Sep 2006 21:54:08 +0100, Simon Isaacs enlightened us thusly:

feckinell.

and feckin' lawyers, too:

they have evidence that the bloke was blind, they have evidence that he crossed a double-white line, and was being directed by a banned driver.

how TF that doesn't add up to "dangerous" I've no idea.

Richard

There's a lot of laws being broken in that instance: no licence, no insurance, just for a start. Whether the technicalities make the banned driver liable for supervising, I wouldn't care to guess; it's not as if it was a learner driver. Some of this sounds like an edge case, but would you want to be liable for the driving mistakes of somebody else?

As for "dangerous", there's a legal definition of the offence of "dangerous driving", and that quote is one of the distinctions that can matter. It's the sort of careful explanation of the law that judges have to give.

The line he crossed was reported as a hazard line not a double white. AFAIR a hazard is a warning not a virtual/legal impenetrable barrier.

I wouldn't have thought a driver without insurance would be considered to be "careful and competent". No insurance company would have taken him on if he had declared these disabilities.

Martin

And, AIUI, in order to get a driving licence you must be able to read a number plate at a given distance. With no eyes this chap couldn't have read one at ANY distance.

A colleague suggests that they (or at least one of them had :^) )had been watching "See No Evil, Hear No Evil"

or Blind Fury

SG: There is no test of anything at the time you apply for a driving license. Eye sight is tested immediately before you take the practical driving test (i.e. just before you get into the car with the examiner) and should have been checked by a driving instructor prior to lesson 1. The ability to read a number plate at the prescribed distance is an ongoing legal requirement so even if the driver was sighted at the time of passing the test they can't continue to drive once blind.

Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 96 and Motor Vehicles (Driving Licenses) Regulations 1996 Reg. 36 & schedule 8 apply.

Although I haven't seen a license application form for a while I would expect there to be some find of questions about disabilities, but hey, with this pc government maybe they've been removed so as not to offend anyone :-)

Exactly, in order to get your full licence you have to be able to see, and to apply for your provisional licence you have to declare that you can see.

Lizzy