You couldn't make it up....

[normalbloke]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_...

[Hedders]

wierd!

I can't figure out why the guy that hit the 'pedestrian' felt the need to try and dispose of his car though.

Surely he would have have a good defense, in the circumstances!

[AndrewW-G]

Hedders said:

wierd!

I can't figure out why the guy that hit the 'pedestrian' felt the need to try and dispose of his car though.

Surely he would have have a good defense, in the circumstances!

He was pissed as a fart, 3 times over the limit according to the article

[turbobloke]

AndrewW-G said:

Hedders said:

wierd!

I can't figure out why the guy that hit the 'pedestrian' felt the need to try and dispose of his car though.

Surely he would have have a good defense, in the circumstances!

He was pissed as a fart, 3 times over the limit according to the article

That was Gilheaney not Edwards, who could still have saved himself the grief of a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice if he'd just stopped at the scene. Can't understand why people do otherwise.

[AndrewW-G]

turbobloke said:

AndrewW-G said:

Hedders said:

wierd!

I can't figure out why the guy that hit the 'pedestrian' felt the need to try and dispose of his car though.

Surely he would have have a good defense, in the circumstances!

He was pissed as a fart, 3 times over the limit according to the article

That was Gilheaney not Edwards, who could still have saved himself the grief of a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice if he'd just stopped at the scene. Can't understand why people do otherwise.

Sorry, yes you are right, having re-read it, would seem his deffence is that he panicked

[GreigM]

turbobloke said:

AndrewW-G said:

Hedders said:

wierd!

I can't figure out why the guy that hit the 'pedestrian' felt the need to try and dispose of his car though.

Surely he would have have a good defense, in the circumstances!

He was pissed as a fart, 3 times over the limit according to the article

That was Gilheaney not Edwards, who could still have saved himself the grief of a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice if he'd just stopped at the scene. Can't understand why people do otherwise.

Because the penalties for any car related offence are so disproportionately large that it forces an irrational response - murder a granny though and you'll get an ASBO

[glazbagun]

GreigM said:

turbobloke said:

AndrewW-G said:

Hedders said:

wierd!

I can't figure out why the guy that hit the 'pedestrian' felt the need to try and dispose of his car though.

Surely he would have have a good defense, in the circumstances!

He was pissed as a fart, 3 times over the limit according to the article

That was Gilheaney not Edwards, who could still have saved himself the grief of a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice if he'd just stopped at the scene. Can't understand why people do otherwise.

Because the penalties for any car related offence are so disproportionately large that it forces an irrational response - murder a granny though and you'll get an ASBO

Except that causing death by Careless Driving is one of the most sentence-light ways of killing someone possible.

Edited by glazbagun on Monday 31st August 20:55

[Hedders]

Is it really careless driving if you run someone over who is lying in the road?

I would have thought that was just bad luck for all involved!

[thinfourth2]

Hedders said:

Is it really careless driving if you run someone over who is lying in the road?

I would have thought that was just bad luck for all involved!

No good luck for the population as we are down a car thief

[hugo a gogo]

so the car thieves were on the wrong side of the road, and hit someone coming the other way

then the 4x4 fella was coming from 'the opposite direction' (opposite of whom?) and hit the ejected passenger

I can't work out if he was following the car thieves or the innocent guy's car

either way, he sees a massive smash and barrels right through the middle of it, running over scattered debris and chavs? sounds a bit careless to me

[Hedders]

I guess we don't know enough. He could have just been overtaken by the car and not had time to slow down as the crash was happening around him.

Or it could have been careless driving!

[normalbloke]

Hedders said:

Is it really careless driving if you run someone over who is lying in the road?

I would have thought that was just bad luck for all involved!

Well,unless the guy was ejected into the immediate path of the car,no.If he was already lying in the road, it's pretty pants driving from the guy in the 4x4, given that you should always be able to stop in the distance that you see to be clear.

[Hedders]

normalbloke said:

Hedders said:

Is it really careless driving if you run someone over who is lying in the road?

I would have thought that was just bad luck for all involved!

Well,unless the guy was ejected into the immediate path of the car,no.If he was already lying in the road, it's pretty pants driving from the guy in the 4x4, given that you should always be able to stop in the distance that you see to be clear.

These days you are not expected to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be lcear. You are expected to obey the speed limit, blindly.

Maybe he was busy checking his speedo, which is not careless, no sirree.

[MaxAndRuby]

Edwards was probably pissed too.

[shakotan]

hugo a gogo said:

so the car thieves were on the wrong side of the road, and hit someone coming the other way

There is no 'wrong' side of the road.

[Hedders]

shakotan said:

hugo a gogo said:

so the car thieves were on the wrong side of the road, and hit someone coming the other way

There is no 'wrong' side of the road.

Tell that to Edwards

Edited by Hedders on Tuesday 1st September 15:18

[hugo a gogo]

shakotan said:

hugo a gogo said:

so the car thieves were on the wrong side of the road, and hit someone coming the other way

There is no 'wrong' side of the road.

very zen

there is something of a convention for which side of the road one should normally drive though, i believe

[shakotan]

hugo a gogo said:

shakotan said:

hugo a gogo said:

so the car thieves were on the wrong side of the road, and hit someone coming the other way

There is no 'wrong' side of the road.

very zen

there is something of a convention for which side of the road one should normally drive though, i believe

You may use any part of the road, as long as safe to do so, and not restricted by road markings/signs.

Agreed that 'conventionally' we drive in the left most lane(s) of a carriageway though.

[hugo a gogo]

shakotan said:

hugo a gogo said:

shakotan said:

hugo a gogo said:

so the car thieves were on the wrong side of the road, and hit someone coming the other way

There is no 'wrong' side of the road.

very zen

there is something of a convention for which side of the road one should normally drive though, i believe

You may use any part of the road, as long as safe to do so, and not restricted by road markings/signs.

Agreed that 'conventionally' we drive in the left most lane(s) of a carriageway though.

that whole "100mph death crash" thing tends to undermine any claims that it was 'safe to do so' though, doesn't it?