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?

Well, from my limited knowledge of this area, if you kill someone, there can be only three outcomes : murder, manslaughter or nothing. My guess would be manslaughter as you hardly set out to murder them!

I know this isn't what you're asking, but I heard a story of a lad driving home in the middle of night through a small village, doing 36MPH in a 30MPH, a girl stepped out and he killed her. He did time for manslaughter.

Reply 61

mphysical

14

Original post by tinman1

LOL so you think you're allowed to walk in the lanes of a dual carriageway? A policeman would tell you to get off straight away and if you didn't, you'd be arrested. So it's not 'allowed', is it! How many people are arrested each year for knocking someone over on a dual carriageway I wonder?

I did say you could be arrested for causing an obstruction.
But it is allowed under traffic law.
The motor vehicle has no priority over any other form of transport on any road except a motorway.

Reply 62

DSCF0911.JPG

7

Original post by tinman1

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?

Involuntary manslaughter, though looking at the circumstances, probably not criminal negligence, so you'd be alright. Don't quote me on this, though.

Reply 63

rmhumphries

17

Original post by mphysical

A pedestrian has as much right to be on a dual carriageway as any other form of traffic!

Usually it is strongly recommended that you only cross a dual-carriageway at an authorised crossing point (e.g. traffic lights), and more and more dual-carriageways are putting barriers to prevent people crossing at other points.

Also, a good number of the faster dual-carriageways are pedestrian restricted.

Edit: Actually walking in the road when there is a pavement is just idiotic, and while not against the RTA, I am sure a policemen could find some reason to arrest you, making it most likely illegal. The exception is roads where pedestrians are allowed, but don't have a pavement (usually country-roads), where you should work on the opposite side of the road to cars (so you can see cars coming), and you should be prepared to move out of the way if cars do come. Brazenly working down the middle of the road again, I am sure a policemen could find some reason to arrest you.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 64

mphysical

14

Original post by rmhumphries

Usually it is strongly recommended that you only cross a dual-carriageway at an authorised crossing point (e.g. traffic lights), and more and more dual-carriageways are putting barriers to prevent people crossing at other points.

Also, a good number of the faster dual-carriageways are pedestrian restricted.

Edit: Actually walking in the road when there is a pavement is just idiotic, and while not against the RTA, I am sure a policemen could find some reason to arrest you, making it most likely illegal. The exception is roads where pedestrians are allowed, but don't have a pavement (usually country-roads), where you should work on the opposite side of the road to cars (so you can see cars coming), and you should be prepared to move out of the way if cars do come. Brazenly working down the middle of the road again, I am sure a policemen could find some reason to arrest you.

Idiotic I agree.
it may well be the case he is an escaped lunatic and he most probably would be moved on/arrested.
It could also be a small child, lost and confused.

if you mowed either one down, "they shouldn't have been there" is no defence.
Mitigating circumstances would be you didn't expect them to be there.

Reply 65

rmhumphries

17

Original post by mphysical

Idiotic I agree.
it may well be the case he is an escaped lunatic and he most probably would be moved on/arrested.
It could also be a small child, lost and confused.

if you mowed either one down, "they shouldn't have been there" is no defence.
Mitigating circumstances would be you didn't expect them to be there.

They shouldn't have been there can be a defence. If someone ran across a motorway trying to cross, and you hit then - they shouldn't have been there is a valid defence as your observations have changed, you don't look to the sides of the road on motorways, you are looking for cars and indicators, not people. So even if you saw someone at the side, you wouldn't expect them to run out, so you wouldn't be watching them to make sure they don't run out.

I used motorways as a concrete example, because as my last post, dual carriageways vary in what kind of pedestrians you get. But in a case such as going round a sharp corner, you slow down to a safe speed to take the corner, not a safe speed to hit someone at; because you don't expect someone there. And so if you did hit someone, then that would be a reasonable defence. With dual-carriageways, it does depends on what you might expect to encounter, instead of a clear-cut driver at fault/pedestrian at fault.

Definitely 3 points

Original post by rmhumphries

They shouldn't have been there can be a defence.... in a case such as going round a sharp corner, you slow down to a safe speed to take the corner, not a safe speed to hit someone at; because you don't expect someone there. And so if you did hit someone, then that would be a reasonable defence.

I think you are on thin ice with this one.
A bad example for a start - You MUST give way to pedestrians crossing at a corner
I will assume you mean bend, well there could be any form of slow moving traffic around that bend.
If you ploughed into the back of a horse drawn vehicle, is that any different to hitting a pedestrian?
No, they are both allowed to be there and neither is required to take evasive action from someone taking a bend too fast.

The driver has a duty of care to all forms of traffic

Reply 68

rmhumphries

17

Original post by mphysical

I think you are on thin ice with this one.
A bad example for a start - You MUST give way to pedestrians crossing at a corner
I will assume you mean bend, well there could be any form of slow moving traffic around that bend.
If you ploughed into the back of a horse drawn vehicle, is that any different to hitting a pedestrian?
No, they are both allowed to be there and neither is required to take evasive action from someone taking a bend too fast.

The driver has a duty of care to all forms of traffic

Yes, I mean bend, and generally if there is slow moving traffic directly after the bend, then you would have seen the traffic go round the bend the minute before. It is quite safe to go round bends at 40/50mph (dependant on how tight they are), as traffic will only join/exit at a junction (which would be signposted on a dual carriageway), and you would have slow moving traffic go around the bend before you take the bend yourself.

Reply 69

dtp_crossfade

1

in the uk u can start to learn driving before even passing the theory test so while i agree with ur premise, morally i cant agree.the instructor has his own brakes, and knowledge/experience, why wasnt he watching the pedestrian? unless the learner turned into the pedestrian or had passed his theory test, id find the instructor purely at fault.

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

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you