PDA

View Full Version : Fined trying to "save...young persons from a genuine risk"


Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 14:44
So scorn is poured when I suggest that people might get into trouble for a traffic violation despite only trying to help in an emergency (in that case help an ambulance)? I think some people should read this story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/27/nmother27.xml). Fined 100, 3 penalty points for driving 600 yards to save 10 children from violence, despite the court accepting that she was trying to save them from genuine risk. Sickening. I wonder what happened to the thugs?

Mr Lexx
27th Sep 2006, 14:53
10 kids in a civic? what is it, a clown car? Something is fishy with that story. How long does it take to load 10 kids into a car (including 3 in the boot)? Did the "thugs" just stand there and watch?

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 14:55
Remember being a kid, Mr Lexx. You would pile in any old how, and if the boot was open that would not present even a moment's hesitation. The court acepts it, with all the evidence presented.

419
27th Sep 2006, 15:17
Call me cynical, but 10 kids, all around 16 years old, and one adult, and you expect me to believe that there wasn't a single mobile phone amongst them.

If they felt in danger, why didn't anyone call the police, either at the time of the incident, or when they were a couple of hundred yards up the road?
I'm sure if a call had been made, it would have been mentioned in the newspaper report.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
27th Sep 2006, 15:30
Most on this site would react sensibly to stressful and threatening events. Alas, this is:

a a woman
b a mother

I would imagine emotion took over and rationality went walkabout.

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 15:30
Hahahaha you make some great jokes, 419!

Even had there been time to phone, how soon could they expect the police? That day, if they were lucky. There is nothing to suggest they knew one was close by. Why on Earth would that be any help? They'd have been attacked already, and the police wouldn't arrest the crimminals anyway.

I made 2 phone calls to the police the other evening, because someone was throwing large, lit fireworks from a flat window into a main street of bars and restaurants, amongst parked and moving cars, among people walking along the road, beside a couple with a baby, near the doorway of a late-opening shop. They never turned up, despite the fact that I hung around for 15 minutes and eventually talked to a couple of "community support officers" who hadn't even been told about the incident near where they were patrolling. They made no follow-up call to me, despite the fact that I saw the man light one firework and throw it, and which flat he was in, and could have identified him.

The police here more care about perceived intolerance than in potentially dangerous crime :yuk:

GBZ

So what was so irrational about her actions? You were there to judge, I assume. Were you called as a witness?

Mr Lexx
27th Sep 2006, 15:47
But there was a policeman 600 yards away, the article says so:E

woolyalan
27th Sep 2006, 16:04
The fact that the bill was only 600 yards up the road doesn't mean it would take him 600 yards/20 seconds to get there...:} but yes, it doesn't seem right, like Mr Lexx says, 10 in a civic??? id love to see that!

Also, how silly can you be:


"I explained to the driver why I'd stopped her and she said, 'I've got another three in the boot' ."

419
27th Sep 2006, 16:09
She was stopped by a police officer
Now, if it had read, "she stopped when she saw a police officer, because she wanted to report the attack", that would be different.

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 16:14
419

It's amazing how many PPRuNers were there at the time. You saw that she had seen the policeman, despite trying to drive in a bit of a panic with 10 children in the car, I assume?

419
27th Sep 2006, 16:38
Okay, she didn't see the policeman because she was
trying to drive in a bit of a panic with 10 children in the car

Surely, that would also mean that she might not have seen another car, or a pedestrian, and possibly killed one or more innocent people.

She was 600 yards from where the incident happened, and should have stopped if it wasn't safe to continue, and with 11 people in a very overloaded car, and the driver "in a bit of a panic", it wasn't safe to continue.

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 16:48
Mmmmmm, so you know she was paniced now? Before you expected her to notice a policeman. Now you expect her to be watching the road, and driving carefully - before the priority was noticing a policeman presumed to be on the footpath. That is the point. You are judging from a distance, with no evidence. You were not there.

The court took the evidence, and gave what seems like an unjust penalty. That fits with what I had commented on when a fellow PPRuNer had been called selfish for not speeding past a camera to help an ambulance.

woolyalan
27th Sep 2006, 16:57
419

despite trying to drive in a bit of a panic with 10 children in the car

Mmmmmm, so you know she was paniced now?

hang on a minute... :confused:

Wether it was right to do what she did or not, the fact of the matter is, she broke the law... spectaculaly i might add, i mean, a civic for gods sake, 6 of the kids would have no seatbelt, 3 IN THE BOOT!!! imagine if she had hit a post or something, how many would have been crushed???

419
27th Sep 2006, 17:00
Now you expect her to be watching the road, and driving carefully
Putting words in peoples mouths are we? What I actually said was, If she couldn't drive safely
and should have stopped if it wasn't safe to continue,

G-CPTN
27th Sep 2006, 17:00
The court took the evidence, and gave what seems like an unjust penalty.
Whilst, according to the media publicity, that might seem to be the situation, there are often two sides to every story.
WE will almost certainly never know the TRUTH, but, reading and rereading the story causes me to be suspicious of the lady's account of events.
But, as I said, we will probably never know.


PS, the Policeman was probably keeping his distance from what might have proved to be a potentially violent situation, not wishing to inflame it by his (provocative) presence.

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 17:01
Woolyalan

Has Jet Blast fallen so far I have to give up all subtlety now, and explain in words of one syllable?

419 was making assumptions. I was not trying to say what actually happened, but pointing out circumstances that might have made those wrong. We don't know. All we know is that someone fleeing genuine danger was fined and given points.

G-CPTN

The court that did have the evidence accepted the account. I cannot see anything that makes it impossible.

419

What if she didn't think it safe to stop?

419
27th Sep 2006, 17:09
419 was making assumptions
Like this one from one of your posts you mean?
before the priority was noticing a policeman presumed to be on the footpath.
He could just as easily been in a policecar, or on a motorcycle.
What if she didn't think it safe to stop
Well, it certainly wasn't safe for her to continue driving.

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 17:19
Yes indeed, but I was speculating, I was pointing out alternative assumptions to yours, my whole point (which appears to have sailed over som heads, but I did state it directly) was not to say what did happen, but to show that the assumptions you were mamking were not necessarily true, I never tried to say I had the whole story. Since the court which had the evidence accepts the story given as truth, I think it is unwise to try and spreculate from ignorrance, as you were trying to do!

How do you know it was not safe to continue? Only from an assumption based on the court's decision. Yet the court also accepted that it was not safe to remain where they started, so we can say it was not safe to stay behind.

G-CPTN
27th Sep 2006, 17:56
G-CPTN

The court that did have the evidence accepted the account. I cannot see anything that makes it impossible.
In 1963, I was 'seen' (by a Police Traffic Patrol Car) exceeding the speed-limit when driving a minivan (BMC, not US) towing a trailer whilst descending a gradient. I SAW the Police car, and adjusted my speed accordingly, as he pulled-out and followed me. The highway changed from downhill to uphill, and I was subsequently stopped and charged with speeding (no VASCAR in those days). In court, I produced calculations (supported by highway gradient charts) that showed that the evidence given by the Police was false, and that the claimed offence was not possible. The Magistrate(s) (I forget) 'accepted the evidence, but decided that, on probability the vehicle was travelling faster than the limit - case proved!'
So, the Police could LIE (the evidence produced in court was impossible), but, on balance, the Magistrate(s) were minded to believe this lie.

HERE we have an absolute offence PROVEN (ten children in a Civic has to be overloading in anyone's book), and, although the Magistrates ACCEPT the mitigation (of need), this was not (strictly) a War Zone, so the usual laws applied.

And, YES, I admit that (earlier) I WAS speeding, but I was NOT guilty of the offence AS CHARGED, supported by the (false) evidence (as accepted by the Magistrate(s)).

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 18:01
That rather supports my case that the courts are against the motorist. It also does nothing to challenge my central argument, that even valid mitigation does not protect a driver. Read my first post.

Mr Lexx
27th Sep 2006, 18:42
Blimey Tuned In, the way you are vociferously defending this woman, one might surmise that she is a relative of yours. :rolleyes:

Tuned In
27th Sep 2006, 18:48
Blimey, Mr Lexx, does no-one actually read my original post! I am defending the point I made. It has nothing to do with this woman once the court has accepted her mitigation - it has to do with the court's attitude to that mitigation!

most of the replies here bear no relation to that issue, just make random assumptions about this woman's assumed lies which are irrelevant. The court accepted her story, my point was about the court officials' behaviour not hers.

G-CPTN
27th Sep 2006, 18:57
I can still recall the momentary euphoria when the Magistrate announced that he fully accepted my evidence that the vehicle was incapable of the performance reported by the Police Constable, followed by the shock of the 'case proven' announcement!
I believe that THIS is the sort of anomaly that Tuned In is writing about.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
28th Sep 2006, 02:18
That rather supports my case that the courts are against the motoristRubbish! it doesn't support your 'case' at all, in fact quite the opposite. If the courts were really 'against the motorist' then they wouldn't do anything to protect them from other road users.

Overloaded lorry? no problem sir. Brakes not working? Carry on. Blocking a public thoroughfare by parking reclessly? Never mind madam, take as long as you want. Benn drinking have we? Oh I see it's your birthday, well here's a fiver, get yourself a beer at the next pub.

Quite obviously this woman was driving a vehicle in a manner that was dangerous to other 'motorists'. The courts and the surrounding legal system protected them by stopping and punishing her.

:D

Tuned In
28th Sep 2006, 14:24
Quite obviously this woman was driving a vehicle in a manner that was dangerous to other 'motorists'That is far from obvious, so you are working from a mistaken assumption. The court did not find that; it found she was careless. The court cannot act on anything but its own findings in determining the penalty.

In fact it seems from the report that she was stopped for having an overloaded car, there is no indication that she was fined for risking other motorists. So she was balancing a certain risk from a violent gang armed with potentially deadly weapons, or driving them a short distance at a potential risk in the unlikely event of an accident.

She is being fined for taking action that while technically illegal, she believed reduced the risk to these people, and the court accepted that. That is against the interests of the motorist.