Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

If you killed someone when learning with a proper instructor, what would happen? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/case-s...-car-manoeuvre
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    ...It's a bit different. Zebra crossing you're supposed to stop. But if you just cross the road where there are no road markings or traffic lights it's different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well either way I doubt he'll be recommending you take your test any time soon...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    i don't understand people posting saying that you'd still get charged if they walked out in front of you- as long as you weren't driving through a red light or a crossing, speeding or drink driving then i don't see what you would be charged for-its not your fault if someone decides to throw themselves in front of your car at the last minute, you can't magically grind the car to an absolute halt.

    to your point about learners and careless driving, learners can still be charged for careless driving and be given speeding penalties-in the eyes of the law a learner should be extra careful and should never be going over the speed limit if they don't even know how to handle a car properly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Well either way I doubt he'll be recommending you take your test any time soon...
    I've had 2 lessons, hence the near assassination. Just wondered if a learner could get done when they have a qualified instructor next to them with dual controls.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    i don't understand people posting saying that you'd still get charged if they walked out in front of you- as long as you weren't driving through a red light or a crossing, speeding or drink driving then i don't see what you would be charged for-its not your fault if someone decides to throw themselves in front of your car at the last minute, you can't magically grind the car to an absolute halt.

    to your point about learners and careless driving, learners can still be charged for careless driving and be given speeding penalties-in the eyes of the law a learner should be extra careful and should never be going over the speed limit if they don't even know how to handle a car properly.
    Speeding limit is obvious, I'm talking about hazards that you might not be as aware of as someone on their first lesson, compared to an instructor who should have their full wits about them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    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.
    There is no rule that states you must stop if a pedestrian is waiting.
    It is simple courtesy to do so
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    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.
    Again it is only courtesy on the pedestrians part to wait for cars to stop (and safety).
    Once a pedestrian steps onto a crossing they have absolute priority.
    If you cannot stop in time that is your fault entirely for not anticipating that happening.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinman1)
    Speeding limit is obvious, I'm talking about hazards that you might not be as aware of as someone on their first lesson, compared to an instructor who should have their full wits about them.
    i would think it would be such a rare case that it would be at the prosecutors discretion, i'm not expert but i don't think theres any set penalty for "learner drivers who murder on their first lesson"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    i would think it would be such a rare case that it would be at the prosecutors discretion, i'm not expert but i don't think theres any set penalty for "learner drivers who murder on their first lesson"
    Ha second but your potential fate does cross your mind when you whistle past a human. I need to learn in a field man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tinman1)
    Ha second but your potential fate does cross your mind when you whistle past a human. I need to learn in a field man.
    Or in a quiet street with no pedestrians...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    i don't understand people posting saying that you'd still get charged if they walked out in front of you- as long as you weren't driving through a red light or a crossing, speeding or drink driving then i don't see what you would be charged for-its not your fault if someone decides to throw themselves in front of your car at the last minute, you can't magically grind the car to an absolute halt.

    to your point about learners and careless driving, learners can still be charged for careless driving and be given speeding penalties-in the eyes of the law a learner should be extra careful and should never be going over the speed limit if they don't even know how to handle a car properly.
    The police still need to investigate and so still need to arrest you. The person driving the car is 99% of the time held more responsible. Same reason if a cyclist gets hit down then the driver will be held liable, guaranteed though that the cyclist was cycling like a moron.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mphysical)
    There is no rule that states you must stop if a pedestrian is waiting.
    It is simple courtesy to do soAgain it is only courtesy on the pedestrians part to wait for cars to stop (and safety).
    Once a pedestrian steps onto a crossing they have absolute priority.
    If you cannot stop in time that is your fault entirely for not anticipating that happening.
    Wrong and you'll fail your driving test and maybe get penalty points if you just drive through when a pedestrian intends to cross.

    https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-15...ngs-191-to-199
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michaelj)
    The police still need to investigate and so still need to arrest you. The person driving the car is 99% of the time held more responsible. Same reason if a cyclist gets hit down then the driver will be held liable, guaranteed though that the cyclist was cycling like a moron.
    i just saw this clip here on another thread: *Video Removed*

    watch from 00:10

    would the drivers of those cars be arrested?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I always wondered this!
    I'm still not completely sure.. I guess it would depend on the circumstances.
    You and the instructor would probably be in trouble, cuz if you've only just started driving, your instructor should be prepared to use the dual controls


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    i just saw this clip here on another thread: *Video removed*

    watch from 00:10

    would the drivers of those cars be arrested?
    Not watching the video, the names enough. But yes, if the drivers knocked them over and almost/potentially killed them then yes they will get arrested. The police will need to investigate it before they release them. Because there's a video of them attempting suicide then the chances of the police charging them are low but in many cases where there is no video evidence they may get charged until proven innocent.

    Hey, I've been falsely arrested before without a shed of evidence. 18 hours in the cell and then I got released no charge.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Just to clear something up, a driver hitting a pedestrian is NOT (repeat not) automatically liable in the case of a collision. There was a petition a while ago to make that presumption, but it was pretty substantially slapped down. To quote part of the response:

    "It would not be appropriate to change the law to provide that motorists should automatically be liable for any accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. This would lead to unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the pedestrian or cyclist. The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly."

    There's legal precedent on the matter as well, but I'm not in the mood to dig that out right now. Pedestrians still have a duty of care to act with due care and attention, as do drivers - though the damage a car can do does mean the level of due care is proportionally higher.

    (Original post by Michaelj)
    The police still need to investigate and so still need to arrest you.
    This is wrong as well. The Police will arrest you if they have a reasonable suspicion you broke the law, but (as an example) if someone was to throw themselves off an overpass onto the motorway there's no possible way you could be liable and you wouldn't be arrested.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    Just to clear something up, a driver hitting a pedestrian is NOT (repeat not) automatically liable in the case of a collision. There was a petition a while ago to make that presumption, but it was pretty substantially slapped down. To quote part of the response:

    "It would not be appropriate to change the law to provide that motorists should automatically be liable for any accident involving a motor vehicle and a pedestrian or cyclist. This would lead to unfair results in cases where the motorist is driving entirely responsibly and the accident is caused by the irresponsible behaviour of the pedestrian or cyclist. The current law enables the court to decide where responsibility for the accident lies and to award damages accordingly."

    There's legal precedent on the matter as well, but I'm not in the mood to dig that out right now. Pedestrians still have a duty of care to act with due care and attention, as do drivers - though the damage a car can do does mean the level of due care is proportionally higher.


    This is wrong as well. The Police will arrest you if they have a reasonable suspicion you broke the law, but (as an example) if someone was to throw themselves off an overpass onto the motorway there's no possible way you could be liable and you wouldn't be arrested.
    If that's the case why did I get arrested on suspicion of assault without a shed of evidence? It was just a whorebags mouth and bam I spent the whole day and night in a cell.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michaelj)
    If that's the case why did I get arrested on suspicion of assault without a shed of evidence? It was just a whorebags mouth and bam I spent the whole day and night in a cell.
    The Police don't need evidence to arrest - it's not a court - they just need to have reasonable grounds to suspect you committed or were about to commit an offence. Obviously I don't know what happened in your case, but it's not really relevant - the point I was making was that being arrested is not automatic after a road traffic accident, even a fatal one. Nothing to do with assault.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    The Police don't need evidence to arrest - it's not a court - they just need to have reasonable grounds to suspect you committed or were about to commit an offence. Obviously I don't know what happened in your case, but it's not really relevant - the point I was making was that being arrested is not automatic after a road traffic accident, even a fatal one. Nothing to do with assault.
    Exactly, they need reasonable grounds to suspect. If a person got knocked down by a car, you don't automatically presume.. "my god, I bet the poor fella ran out in front of the car..", so the police are likely to presume the driver was being reckless. Obviously, if somebody can prove the police wrong on the spot, i.e. a video of people attempting to commit suicide then it's totally different.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michaelj)
    Exactly, they need reasonable grounds to suspect. If a person got knocked down by a car, you don't automatically presume.. "my god, I bet the poor fella ran out in front of the car..", so the police are likely to presume the driver was being reckless. Obviously, if somebody can prove the police wrong on the spot, i.e. a video of people attempting to commit suicide then it's totally different.
    That's simply not true. The priorities, more or less, will be 1) attending to the injured person, 2) sorting out the scene of the accident and 3) establishing what happened. Once the Police have a reasonable idea as to what happened they can make a judgement as to whether the driver was committing an offence and, if necessary, arrest. They won't turn up and jump out of the car with the handcuffs at the ready to immediately arrest the driver.
    Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you about it - you've clearly got a chip on your shoulder as far as the Police are concerned.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.