If you killed someone when learning with a proper instructor, what would happen?
So I accidently nearly killed someone a couple days ago on one of my lessons, they walked out and I didnt see them, and my instructor only just managed to put the brakes on.
But what would happen if I'd killed them? Surely a learner can't get sent down for careless driving, that'd be like sending a clown to jail for being funny.
Would the instructor be the one in trouble?
But what would happen if I'd killed them? Surely a learner can't get sent down for careless driving, that'd be like sending a clown to jail for being funny.
Would the instructor be the one in trouble?
Scroll to see replies
You'll get done for manslaughter maybe. Maybe the instructor too, but if someone just walked out randomly it'll be hard for the prosecution to prove any intent. Would also depend on witness accounts. You'd have to be going a pretty decent speed to kill them, you'd probably just injure them.
And a learner can be jailed for being careless, just because they're learning doesn't mean they don't have to conform to the driving code.
Interesting question anyway, but I guess any driver, qualified or not could ask the question: 'what would happen if I killed someone when they walked into the road without looking for cars?'
And a learner can be jailed for being careless, just because they're learning doesn't mean they don't have to conform to the driving code.
Interesting question anyway, but I guess any driver, qualified or not could ask the question: 'what would happen if I killed someone when they walked into the road without looking for cars?'
Original post by Michaelj
If someone walked out onto the road without looking then you'd still face charges. However, you might not get a prison sentence either (as it's not exactly you fault). I think the instructor would get in trouble also.
Also maybe it depends on how much experience at driving you had?
Also maybe it depends on how much experience at driving you had?
That is the same logic as saying tube drivers will face charges when someone jumps in front of their train...
Yeah, you and almost certainly the instructor would face charges.
It doesn't matter what the situation was, a person could literally throw themselves in front of your car when you're driving, its still the driver's fault. Pedestrians always come first, so again, even if it was entirely not your fault, you're still subject to the conditions of your driving.
Why weren't you aware of people on the road sides, what was your speed, etc. These are the sorts of questions that break down driver defenses in court. For the record, I'm not at all saying the above applies to you, just in general that if you had hit him, regardless of the consequences, its always the driver's fault. I don't believe there's a single defense a person can use against that sort of enquiry, the driver has to be responsible for their own driving, so if you're driving down a street they need to be consciously aware of all elements going on around them, obviously this can't be done all the time but it makes little difference in a hearing as you'd still almost certainly be convicted.
It doesn't matter what the situation was, a person could literally throw themselves in front of your car when you're driving, its still the driver's fault. Pedestrians always come first, so again, even if it was entirely not your fault, you're still subject to the conditions of your driving.
Why weren't you aware of people on the road sides, what was your speed, etc. These are the sorts of questions that break down driver defenses in court. For the record, I'm not at all saying the above applies to you, just in general that if you had hit him, regardless of the consequences, its always the driver's fault. I don't believe there's a single defense a person can use against that sort of enquiry, the driver has to be responsible for their own driving, so if you're driving down a street they need to be consciously aware of all elements going on around them, obviously this can't be done all the time but it makes little difference in a hearing as you'd still almost certainly be convicted.
Original post by danny111
That is the same logic as saying tube drivers will face charges when someone jumps in front of their train...
The police still have to investigate and so will arrest you and possibly charge you with insufficient evidence. Whether they drop charges or not is upto them.
See Nettleship v Weston
Basically, under the law, learner drivers should be treated as any other driver. The duty of care they owe to their neighbour (anyone foreseeably affected by their actions) is of the same standard.
Although that's negligence (so only really applies to injuring someone) I'm sure the standards would be the same if the driver were charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
Basically, under the law, learner drivers should be treated as any other driver. The duty of care they owe to their neighbour (anyone foreseeably affected by their actions) is of the same standard.
Although that's negligence (so only really applies to injuring someone) I'm sure the standards would be the same if the driver were charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by danny111
That is the same logic as saying tube drivers will face charges when someone jumps in front of their train...
I don't believe the Underground operators do, anymore. Its not the same as stopping a vehicle in a city centre, its an entirely different system for a start.
There was a documentary a few years ago about the people who did that in the London Underground and of the interviewees, none were taken to court or received reprimands in their occupation, I don't believe, there were some twenty-odd drivers on there who had been in that situation and if none had had any further action taken against them, its safe to say they are no longer held responsible.
I understand your point, what you're trying to say, but due to the differences in the systems it wouldn't be 'fair' to prosecute a driver of an underground train for that. Not that it'd be fair to prosecute many drivers who have killed people before, some of the circumstances are, at best, ridiculous to draw charges upon but that's the way it works.
Though I can't say I'd take the job of a train operator like that, waiting at every station for someone to leap out in front of you. 300+ people on some platforms and always the lingering chance you're going to have a person 'go under'.
Original post by DH-Biker
I don't believe the Underground operators do, anymore. Its not the same as stopping a vehicle in a city centre, its an entirely different system for a start.
There was a documentary a few years ago about the people who did that in the London Underground and of the interviewees, none were taken to court or received reprimands in their occupation, I don't believe, there were some twenty-odd drivers on there who had been in that situation and if none had had any further action taken against them, its safe to say they are no longer held responsible.
I understand your point, what you're trying to say, but due to the differences in the systems it wouldn't be 'fair' to prosecute a driver of an underground train for that. Not that it'd be fair to prosecute many drivers who have killed people before, some of the circumstances are, at best, ridiculous to draw charges upon but that's the way it works.
Though I can't say I'd take the job of a train operator like that, waiting at every station for someone to leap out in front of you. 300+ people on some platforms and always the lingering chance you're going to have a person 'go under'.
There was a documentary a few years ago about the people who did that in the London Underground and of the interviewees, none were taken to court or received reprimands in their occupation, I don't believe, there were some twenty-odd drivers on there who had been in that situation and if none had had any further action taken against them, its safe to say they are no longer held responsible.
I understand your point, what you're trying to say, but due to the differences in the systems it wouldn't be 'fair' to prosecute a driver of an underground train for that. Not that it'd be fair to prosecute many drivers who have killed people before, some of the circumstances are, at best, ridiculous to draw charges upon but that's the way it works.
Though I can't say I'd take the job of a train operator like that, waiting at every station for someone to leap out in front of you. 300+ people on some platforms and always the lingering chance you're going to have a person 'go under'.
Okay I didn't know the system is different. My point was that neither the tube driver or the car driver ever had a chance if someone just walks in front of their vehicle.
Original post by ed-
See Nettleship v Weston
Basically, under the law, learner drivers should be treated as any other driver. The duty of care they owe to their neighbour (anyone foreseeably affected by their actions) is of the same standard.
Although that's negligence (so only really applies to injuring someone) I'm sure the standards would be the same if the driver were charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
Basically, under the law, learner drivers should be treated as any other driver. The duty of care they owe to their neighbour (anyone foreseeably affected by their actions) is of the same standard.
Although that's negligence (so only really applies to injuring someone) I'm sure the standards would be the same if the driver were charged with gross negligence manslaughter.
This ^ you're treated no differently to a fully qualified driver. They might be more lenient with sentencing but not with convictions.
Original post by DH-Biker
Yeah, you and almost certainly the instructor would face charges.
It doesn't matter what the situation was, a person could literally throw themselves in front of your car when you're driving, its still the driver's fault. Pedestrians always come first, so again, even if it was entirely not your fault, you're still subject to the conditions of your driving.
Why weren't you aware of people on the road sides, what was your speed, etc. These are the sorts of questions that break down driver defenses in court. For the record, I'm not at all saying the above applies to you, just in general that if you had hit him, regardless of the consequences, its always the driver's fault. I don't believe there's a single defense a person can use against that sort of enquiry, the driver has to be responsible for their own driving, so if you're driving down a street they need to be consciously aware of all elements going on around them, obviously this can't be done all the time but it makes little difference in a hearing as you'd still almost certainly be convicted.
It doesn't matter what the situation was, a person could literally throw themselves in front of your car when you're driving, its still the driver's fault. Pedestrians always come first, so again, even if it was entirely not your fault, you're still subject to the conditions of your driving.
Why weren't you aware of people on the road sides, what was your speed, etc. These are the sorts of questions that break down driver defenses in court. For the record, I'm not at all saying the above applies to you, just in general that if you had hit him, regardless of the consequences, its always the driver's fault. I don't believe there's a single defense a person can use against that sort of enquiry, the driver has to be responsible for their own driving, so if you're driving down a street they need to be consciously aware of all elements going on around them, obviously this can't be done all the time but it makes little difference in a hearing as you'd still almost certainly be convicted.
Original post by Makebelieve15
You'll get done for manslaughter maybe. Maybe the instructor too, but if someone just walked out randomly it'll be hard for the prosecution to prove any intent. Would also depend on witness accounts. You'd have to be going a pretty decent speed to kill them, you'd probably just injure them.
And a learner can be jailed for being careless, just because they're learning doesn't mean they don't have to conform to the driving code.
Interesting question anyway, but I guess any driver, qualified or not could ask the question: 'what would happen if I killed someone when they walked into the road without looking for cars?'
And a learner can be jailed for being careless, just because they're learning doesn't mean they don't have to conform to the driving code.
Interesting question anyway, but I guess any driver, qualified or not could ask the question: 'what would happen if I killed someone when they walked into the road without looking for cars?'
I cross this zebra crossing everyday and no cars (or any type of transportation) would give the slightest hint that they want to stop or slow down their vehicle.
So, if they hit me, would they be automatically at fault?
As I remembered from my driving lesson days, zebra crossing is a priority and all vehicles should stop whilst the pedestrian is crossing the road.
if it is unavoidable then you won't be liable obviously. what would be the point of holding people criminally responsible for things they could not avoid?
so other people would also not avoid the unavoidable?
but if there was something you could of done you will be held at the same standard as someone competent at driving - someone already mentioned the case of nettleship V Weston.
it sounds harsh but it encourages vigilance. imagine how pissed you would be if an idiot driver killed someone you loved then got away with it by saying "i was learning".
so other people would also not avoid the unavoidable?
but if there was something you could of done you will be held at the same standard as someone competent at driving - someone already mentioned the case of nettleship V Weston.
it sounds harsh but it encourages vigilance. imagine how pissed you would be if an idiot driver killed someone you loved then got away with it by saying "i was learning".
Your instructor would lose is job for not paying attention to the road or you.
You'd be facing manslaughter charges for killing someone.
You'd be facing manslaughter charges for killing someone.
Original post by kka25
I cross this zebra crossing everyday and no cars (or any type of transportation) would give the slightest hint that they want to stop or slow down their vehicle.
So, if they hit me, would they be automatically at fault?
As I remembered from my driving lesson days, zebra crossing is a priority and all vehicles should stop whilst the pedestrian is crossing the road.
So, if they hit me, would they be automatically at fault?
As I remembered from my driving lesson days, zebra crossing is a priority and all vehicles should stop whilst the pedestrian is crossing the road.
Yes, but I wouldn't test it unless you want to be killed. Most pedestrians at zebra crossings wait until someone lets them cross.
They're automatically at fault even if they didn't intend to until a court proves them not guilty.
But that's not a proper instructor or learning vehicle (with dual controls). If she had been a a first lesson with BSM then the instructor would have slammed the brakes on. Surely it's the instructors responsibility on the first few lessons especially to take control in situations which could be dangerous, I mean they have brakes too and a full license whereas a learner is learning.
Yeah that's true, if she'd had a propper instructor in a duel control car would have likely never happened which is probably reflected in the sentencing.
Original post by danny111
Okay I didn't know the system is different. My point was that neither the tube driver or the car driver ever had a chance if someone just walks in front of their vehicle.
Oh, absolutely, I got your point I was just playing the Devil's advocate really. Its an impossible feat to stop a vehicle like the above in that short-a-time frame, with a road-vehicle its also difficult but whilst I've seen a few cases where, again, the situation has been a grey-area at the very worst, there's a lot of drivers who aren't as observant as they should be. Its a two way thing, but you're right in that a vehicle trundling through a city-street can't be expected to come to a sudden stop if someone decides to walk out in front of them.
Unfortunately, its just the way it is that you're immediately at fault.
Original post by kka25
I cross this zebra crossing everyday and no cars (or any type of transportation) would give the slightest hint that they want to stop or slow down their vehicle.
So, if they hit me, would they be automatically at fault?
As I remembered from my driving lesson days, zebra crossing is a priority and all vehicles should stop whilst the pedestrian is crossing the road.
So, if they hit me, would they be automatically at fault?
As I remembered from my driving lesson days, zebra crossing is a priority and all vehicles should stop whilst the pedestrian is crossing the road.
That would be an inexcusable fault of their own, a zebra crossing should be stopped at to the best of your abilities if there are pedestrians waiting. If your car is a few meters away when the pedestrian gets there, then of course you can't stop the car that quickly, but it is still a 'rule' that you need to stop your vehicle when you see pedestrians waiting at the crossing.
This does, however, come with the participation of the pedestrian, too, someone would have to be a fool if they just decided to cross thinking vehicles have to stop, they should wait for the cars to stop and then go on, I've been driving when a pedestrian couple have made a beeline for the zebra crossing and literally walked across without pausing to wait, not that I'm saying you're doing the above, but just as a general point it does require some leeway from the pedestrians too.
But yes, if someone hit you on a zebra crossing, really unless you did the above (and even then as cars should always be moving much slower approaching a zebra crossing), they would be immediately at fault.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Bad driving instructors
- Is it harder to pass in your own car
- Driving test with your own car?
- How to know you have a good driving instructor?
- automatic driving need opinions
- I don’t like my driving instructor
- The "I'll never pass my driving test!" thoughts..
- My dad stresses me out so much when driving
- bad driving instructor?
- Should you use hand gestures i.e. to say thanks to other drivers during the test?
- Hills help.
- Why are driving instructors the scummiest of people?
- Head of Year - Making up Serious Lies
- Give up on driving
- driving test crash
- Driving instructor was a inapropriate and unprofessional?
- Not sure about my instructor?
- Can you take driving lessons in a different area to where you live?
- After how many lessons were you allowed to drive home?
- Wrongly failed driving test
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 34 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 46 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 1 hour ago
Virgin/O2 Technology Placement - Virtual Assessment and embarrassing questionLast reply 1 hour ago
What games did everybody play on their computers at school or when they were youngerGaming
11
Trending
Last reply 5 months ago
Where is my car parked during the day? Advice for first car insuranceLast reply 7 months ago
Will paying £1,900 a year for insurance as a new 21 year old driver be a lot?Trending
Last reply 5 months ago
Where is my car parked during the day? Advice for first car insuranceLast reply 7 months ago
Will paying £1,900 a year for insurance as a new 21 year old driver be a lot?
