Passed a test ??
- Thread starter artyman
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,519
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
I imagine she stepped on the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal - not an uncommon mistake. What happened then is that as the car speeds-up the driver panics and steps on the 'brake' even harder.
(If her brakes really failed, she wouldn't have driven-off in a car that can't stop, to fatch her dad)
(If her brakes really failed, she wouldn't have driven-off in a car that can't stop, to fatch her dad)
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 45,519
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 10,675
- Location
- South Bucks
- Car
- CLS63 SB, SLK55, CLK350 'Vert, Triumph Sprint (Bike not Dolly...),
F**k a D**k! This sort of accident is usually more the preserve of OAPs, and they don't usually drive away to fetch a relative.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 10,675
- Location
- South Bucks
- Car
- CLS63 SB, SLK55, CLK350 'Vert, Triumph Sprint (Bike not Dolly...),
"Chander, from Leamington, has been judged medically unfit to plead or stand trial". I'm afraid I don't believe for one moment that he didn't know he wasn't capable of driving safely but did so anyway, and his lawyer came up with a 'sympathetic' medical assessment. Ernest Saunders and his recovery from Alzheimers, anybody?.
There really should be some sort of legal sanction against the driver in a case like this.
In my car at all times I carry a small tub of honey, a stone and a box of tissues.
If I find myself in a situation where I’m facing a potential prosecution for a specific motoring offence eg. driving without due car and attention, I will quickly throw the stone into the front footwell along with the honey. I will also blow my nose several times and discard the tissues around the car and use the defence of ‘Automatism’.
“Officer I was proceeding down the road when I was suddenly struck in the side of the head by a stone (making sure the window is down) which hit the tub of honey causing it to spill in the footwell. I was then suddenly attacked by a swarm of bees which caused me to have a sneezing fit”
Unless I have a stroke then I’m fooked
Automatism is the classic ‘involuntary act’ defence, and arises where a driver experiences a “total destruction of voluntary control”[1] at the wheel of his vehicle. It must be noted that the loss of control must be a complete and total loss of control: a partial loss of control is insufficient. The loss of control must also relate to the driver’s control of his own actions rather than to the driver losing control of the car due to factors such as speed or poor driving conditons, for example: losing control as a result of having an epileptic fit is clearly different to ‘losing control’ by skidding on a patch of ice. It should, of course, be emphasised that self-induced automatism does not count: the state of automatism must not be caused by the defendant in any way. For this reason, fatigue arising from a long journey is incapable of amounting to automatism.
The scope of this defence is broad, but Hill v Baxter[2] gave numerous examples of the type of situation where automatism can be made out. These included (non-exhaustively):
(a) Where the driver suffers from a stroke or epileptic fit at the wheel;
(b) Where an ‘act of God’ intervenes;
(c) Where the driver is struck by a stone; and
(d) Where the driver is attacked by a swarm of bees.
In 1998, the Magistrates Court heard a case where an HGV driver had crashed into a queue of stationary traffic on the M62, causing damage to 7 other vehicles and serious injury to other drivers.[3] The driver stated that, when he was 60 feet away from the queue, he suffered from a severe sneezing fit, consisting of 4-5 sneezes in rapid succession, which made him disorientated and unable to control his vehicle so as to avoid a collision. In that case, the Magistrates held that, on these specific facts, the automatism defence was made out because sneezing can produce a state of automatism. This case is very fact-specific, and so it is highly unlikely that every sneeze would be severe enough to amount to automatism in the circumstances of the individual case.
It goes without saying that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs whilst driving cannot amount to a defence of automatism.
If I find myself in a situation where I’m facing a potential prosecution for a specific motoring offence eg. driving without due car and attention, I will quickly throw the stone into the front footwell along with the honey. I will also blow my nose several times and discard the tissues around the car and use the defence of ‘Automatism’.
“Officer I was proceeding down the road when I was suddenly struck in the side of the head by a stone (making sure the window is down) which hit the tub of honey causing it to spill in the footwell. I was then suddenly attacked by a swarm of bees which caused me to have a sneezing fit”
Unless I have a stroke then I’m fooked
Automatism is the classic ‘involuntary act’ defence, and arises where a driver experiences a “total destruction of voluntary control”[1] at the wheel of his vehicle. It must be noted that the loss of control must be a complete and total loss of control: a partial loss of control is insufficient. The loss of control must also relate to the driver’s control of his own actions rather than to the driver losing control of the car due to factors such as speed or poor driving conditons, for example: losing control as a result of having an epileptic fit is clearly different to ‘losing control’ by skidding on a patch of ice. It should, of course, be emphasised that self-induced automatism does not count: the state of automatism must not be caused by the defendant in any way. For this reason, fatigue arising from a long journey is incapable of amounting to automatism.
The scope of this defence is broad, but Hill v Baxter[2] gave numerous examples of the type of situation where automatism can be made out. These included (non-exhaustively):
(a) Where the driver suffers from a stroke or epileptic fit at the wheel;
(b) Where an ‘act of God’ intervenes;
(c) Where the driver is struck by a stone; and
(d) Where the driver is attacked by a swarm of bees.
In 1998, the Magistrates Court heard a case where an HGV driver had crashed into a queue of stationary traffic on the M62, causing damage to 7 other vehicles and serious injury to other drivers.[3] The driver stated that, when he was 60 feet away from the queue, he suffered from a severe sneezing fit, consisting of 4-5 sneezes in rapid succession, which made him disorientated and unable to control his vehicle so as to avoid a collision. In that case, the Magistrates held that, on these specific facts, the automatism defence was made out because sneezing can produce a state of automatism. This case is very fact-specific, and so it is highly unlikely that every sneeze would be severe enough to amount to automatism in the circumstances of the individual case.
It goes without saying that being under the influence of alcohol or drugs whilst driving cannot amount to a defence of automatism.
MrRight
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2018
- Messages
- 900
- Location
- surrey
- Car
- S205 C63s Estate + w211 e63 +smart 44 brabus sport
This is simply sensationalist reporting . The car is perfectly parked. Isnt the whole point of going to the gym to be able to get slim (so that you can fit through tiny gaps ? There are at least 2 inches between the RR's driver door and the Volvo ... plenty of room
