CANADA MILITARY NEWS-Wheelchair Rights in Canada/Disabled have great sex lives and always have-global (July 11, 2015)Disability Rights in Canada March 25-2015/Disabilities- Know it 2 own it-Advocating your Rights on Campus... #Disability /Disabilities are abilities in disguise baby!
BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: Disabled have
great sex lives folks and always have/CHINA teaching disabled children
and youth about embracing their sexuality and it's healthy/ SEXTING-
what it means global articles/ PLATO - Asexual- Platonic love and
friendships work and millions and millions like the honesty of
asexality/ MASTERBATION is healthy folks- get used 2 it
As we approach the
end of the school year, most high school seniors are preparing for graduation
and their future. At this time, I’m reminded that each passing year, more and
more students with autism and other disabilities are attending college with
their peers. For many of them this will be their first time away from home, a
time for excitement and a time for independence. It will also be the first time
where they will be responsible to advocate for their own needs at school.
The transition from
high school to college can be tough, especially for students with disabilities;
however, when students know their rights and where to get help, the transition
can be made a little easier. Some students, such as Elijah a high school senior
from Jacksonville, Florida, learn the importance of advocating for themselves
and their needs for accommodations while still in high school. Here is his
story and his wish for all students with disabilities.
A student’s ability to advocate for himself is important to succeed at the
college level. Every year, I have an opportunity to meet and work with a group
of about 15 autistic college students from various backgrounds and ranging in
age. Some of them are traditional college students, others are accessing
college through aTPSID programor a modified course of study. All of
them say the same thing – it can be hard.
Part of my job at theAutistic Self Advocacy Networkis to provide incoming students with
training in self-advocacy through our Autism Campus Inclusion program and give
them the tools and resources they need in order to effectively advocate for
themselves and get the most out of their college experience.
Under the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, colleges and
universities are required to remove any barriers impeding the student, whether
these are architectural, communication related, or transportation and to provide
reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices. It is, however,
the student’s responsibility to know his or her rights and how to advocate for
appropriate accommodations. These accommodations could include:
Wearing
noise-cancelling headphones in class,
Using
laptops for note-taking
A place
to doodle, fidget, pace, or sit on the floor in order to focus and learn.
Live in a
single dorm room, even as a freshman if needed
A quiet
testing space
Alternative
formats of classroom materials, textbooks, and tests
In addition to getting the word out about self-advocacy,
we’ve created resources such asNavigating CollegeandACIto
assist students with disabilities as they navigate through higher education.
Autistic and other
students with disabilities will often face barriers from the day they set foot
on campus. In order for these students to succeed in college, we say,
self-advocacy is needed. You have to know your rights, have a plan for getting
the accommodations and modifications that are appropriate and needed, and be
prepared to face an array of challenges. However, by creating a community on
campus and bringing students together to share their experiences we remind one
another that self-advocacy is easiest when we know we aren’t alone.
The opinions expressed and materials contained in this blog are
not an endorsement by the U.S Department of Education and herein do not
necessarily reflect the position or policy of the United States Department of
Education.
Julia Bascom is the Deputy Executive Director of the Autistic
Self Advocacy Network.
A Dalhousie University group that studies transportation
recently published a study that looked at 74,000 collisions in Nova Scotia
between 2007 and 2011.
As traffic engineers await better information, pedestrians should take
steps to protect their safety, he said.
“Just because there’s two white lines … doesn’t necessarily mean a
vehicle will stop for you. Make sure a vehicle has stopped for you before you
cross the street,” said Koutroulakis.
“If it’s
between you and a vehicle, the pedestrian is almost always going to lose.”
Over the course of the past century, Canadians with disabilities have
had to overcome many obstacles. They have had to overcome accessibility
issues in the workplace, accessibility of schools, access to public
buildings and in many other manners. Persons with disabilities have had
to combat difficulties because of vision, mobility, mental health and
other issues.
The disabled have had to endure many physical
obstacles, and also problems with the public not understanding the
difficulties that the disabled have had to face. For many years, the
disabled were faced with environmental obstacles such as stairs, written
notices and signs, and other similar physical difficulties. In
addition, because the public did not know about the disabled and the
problems that they faced, the disabled were often discriminated against.
The
disabled faced a number of issues through the years and in the 1970’s,
the Canadian Government realized the difficulties that the disabled
faced. The government enacted the first law that gave the disabled
specific rights. The Canadian Human Rights Act gave all Canadians equal
rights on the basis of sex, race, nationality and disability. This
legislature gave all Canadians the same rights under the law, which was a
needed step.
In 1977 to address the needs of all people the
Canadian Human Rights Act was passed. It brought to light the need for
all Canadian citizens to be treated equally, but it did not specifically
address the needs of the disabled. In the 1970’s the American
government started to address the needs of the disabled, and because of
this, the Canadian government also began to help the disabled.
In
the subsequent years, several significant developments occurred which
led to positive changes for the disabled. Some of the notable
developments include the formation of the Coalition of Provincial
Organizations of the Handicapped, which gave the disabled a central
voice in helping the disabled, and act as a spokesman with the
government. Another key date was in 1981, when the International Year of
the Disabled was established. This helped get the word out about the
problems that are facing disabled persons. And, another key moment in
the battle to get the disabled help was the creation of the Obstacles
Report, which was based on an investigation into the troubles that
people with disabilities faced. From the investigations a list of
problem areas were identified.
Based on the findings of these
reports, the Canadian Government introduced legislation aimed at helping
the disabled. These include the Blind Persons Act and the Employment
Equity Act among others.
While the struggles of the disabled is a
continuing effort, the Canadian Government has taken steps in ensuring
that the disabled are treated fairly, and that they are given every
legal opportunity to have the same life as non-disabled. While the
disabled still need to overcome their disabilities, the laws in effect
can help them achieve their goals.
MARCH 24- look at this... look at this... a DRUNK DRIVER HITS A PEDESTRIAN IN A CROSSWALK WITH SERIOUS INJURIES... AND ALLOWED OUT ON BAIL ...WTF??? Man gets bail in case of hurt pedestrian
A young man from Dartmouth has been granted bail on charges of running over a woman with his vehicle in a bar parking lot Saturday night. Tyler Hubert Rose, 20, appeared in Dartmouth provincial court Monday on indictable charges of impaired driving causing bodily harm, having a blood alcohol level above the legal limit of .08 and dangerous driving.
The Crown consented to Rose’s release on a $3,000 recognizance.
Judge Alanna Murphy prohibited Rose from operating a motor vehicle while he’s on bail. He also is not allowed to possess or consume alcohol or drugs and can’t have any contact with victim Melissa MacLean and four other potential Crown witnesses.
On Saturday at about 6:15 p.m., Halifax Regional Police responded to a report of an impaired driver in the parking lot at Angie’s Bar & Grill on Akerley Boulevard in Dartmouth. While en route, the officers learned that the vehicle in question had struck a pedestrian outside the bar.
Several people attempted to stop the vehicle from leaving the scene, police said. The driver was arrested in the parking lot.
The victim, a 31-year-old Cole Harbour woman, was taken to hospital with injuries that police said were serious but not lifethreatening.
Rose’s charges will be back in court May 1.
AND...
MARCH 23RD...WTF???
Pedestrian injured when struck by car in crosswalk
A Halifax pedestrian was taken to hospital by ambulance Monday after being hit in a marked crosswalk.
The 18-year-old woman was hit as she was crossing the intersection of Robie Street and Coburg Road at 12:01 p.m. Her injuries were not believed to be lifethreatening.The vehicle involved was turning left from Coburg Road onto Robie Street.
The 35-year-old female driver was given a summary offence ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. If convicted, the fine is $693.95 and the driver loses four points on her driver’s licence.
4. Pedestrian deaths. ... I was told that every taxpayer in Nova Scotia may be ... I was almost struck 3 times in one crosswalk, all based upon drivers not paying ...
29 Sep 2014 ... It
hasn't been a good season to be a walker in Canada's largest city. The weather's been mild and
welcoming, but the motorists – not so much. Last week, a woman was killed as
she attempted to cross the street at a crosswalk. ... The number of pedestrians killed
by vehicles in Toronto in 2014 now stands at ...
Interactive map: Vehicle-pedestrian collisions in
the Halifax area ... This happens all over Halifax and Dartmouth
at many many stop signs. ... http://www.cbc.ca/ news/canada/nova-scotia/zebra-stripe-crosswalks-approved-in-halifax- 1.2550263 ... 'Absolutely
tragic:' Woman dies in hospital after being hit by truck in crosswalk.
CANADA WHEELCHAIR RIGHTS- whatever happened 2 LEO... equal league of opportunities 4 disabled and mental health issues- IT WAS A HUGE VOTING BLOC IN CANADA AT ONE TIME... HUGE...
Interactive map: Vehicle-pedestrian collisions in the Halifax area
By Patrick Odell Web Producer Global News
It’s been a busy year for police in the Halifax Regional Municipality dealing with pedestrians being struck by vehicles.
The map below includes the dates and locations of more than 100 incidents, and will be updated regularly. For the latest information, check the websites of the Halifax Regional Police and Halifax District RCMP. Areas where multiple collisions have occurred may only display a single marker.
A Halifax Transit Bus, and 4 cars fail to yield to a pedestrian crossing the road
Published on Oct 25, 2014
Bus # 732
Route #10
Victoria Road, Dartmouth Nova Scotia Canada
Video shot on October 25th, 2014.
Original file started filming at 13:53 in the afternoon. Clip taken from 8:35 in the video.
Bad Halifax Drivers un
see bus driver go through crosswalk while people crossing.
Published on Apr 2, 2014
No one is perfect but come on people were trying to have a society here eh. enjoy number 1 or number UN! There could be more.
If the video seems bad and you would like to send me a better dash cam or go pro just let me know. We can set that up no problem.
UPDATE: Woman on motorized scooter dies after crosswalk accident
By Rebecca Lau Reporter/Weekend Anchor May 3, 2014
DARTMOUTH – A woman who was hit by a truck at a Dartmouth intersection on Saturday morning has died in hospital from her injuries.
The accident happened at around 11 a.m. on Saturday at a marked crosswalk on the corner of Victoria Road and Thistle Street. Halifax Regional Police say the pick-up truck, which was driven by a 50-year-old man, was travelling south on Victoria Road and making a left-hand turn. The 57-year-old pedestrian was on a motorized three-wheeled scooter and crossing Thistle Street. “She was struck by the pick-up truck and they rushed her to the QE2 hospital,” said Sgt. Gordon Graham. “The injuries are fairly serious.” The incident remains under investigation and no charges have been laid so far.
————————–
FAIL Drivers in Metro Halifax/Dartmouth
Published on Apr 21, 2012
So I decided to watch traffic as I have MANY friends who complain about the drivers here in Halifax and in Dartmouth who FAIL to stop at stop signs or cross walks… while watching in an hour I noticed only 11 people out of 211 actually stopped at the stop sign with a cross walk… and I mean STOP… fully… out of that (this video is shortened BTW) 4 cops cars failed to compleatly stop, 3 buses, and 1 by law personell…. this is SHAMEFUL!! These people KNOW BETTER!!! It’s no wonder why we have so many damn cross walk fatalities here… People PAY ATTENTION follow the rules!!!
COMMENTS;
John van Gurp
This happens all over Halifax and Dartmouth at many many stop signs. There seems to be no enforcement effort at all. Car drivers are being conditioned that they just do not have to stop at stop signs.
Asuna4x4
You do know that this happens everywhere there is pavement…. right? Don’t put Halifax/Dartmouth when its friggin Highfield Park. No one stops at that corner cause you’d get shot or raped. How were you able stand outside in Highfield for an hour and not get shot or mugged???
Lilaj378
I can stand outside in Dartmouth Highfeild area for HOURS and not get bothered…I use to live in the area and never in my 40 years have I been bothered by anyone on the streets, now I’m in Spryfeild and I don’t get bothered there either; and you’re right it does happen EVERYWHERE in Halifax/Dartmouth it is after all called HRM… or AKA “Metro” the drivers here are HORRIBLE…
Wheelchair Cam – Driver Almost Runs Me Over At Crosswalk
CBC NewsPosted: Feb 25, 2014 Halifax council has approved new markings for crosswalks without lights. The city plans to paint zebra crossings at all crosswalks that do not have flashing lights or are not part of major intersections. The bold, white painted lines have been popular in larger cities and the city’s report argues it could make Halifax intersections safer for pedestrians. The crosswalk changes will cost the city $155,000 and an additional $85,000 to maintain. Painting zebra lines is just one part of a comprehensive plan to crack down on crosswalk accidents.
Police interviewed witnesses at the scene of another car-pedestrian collision. This one happened on Robie Street near Duffus Street on Tuesday morning. (Angela MacIvor/CBC)
City council is also looking at police enforcement, pedestrian education, and the use of crosswalk flags and reflective tape at crossing
4 pedestrians hit in 24 hours
The council meeting started after four pedestrians were struck by cars in the last 24 hours. A 32-year-old man was hit at an intersection of Victoria Road and Thistle Street at about 6:46 p.m. Monday in Dartmouth. Police said the man wasn’t seriously hurt. The 49-year-old woman driving the car was given a ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. At 7 a.m. Tuesday morning, RCMP were called to the intersection of Pinehill Drive and Skyridge Avenue in Lower Sackville, where a 25-year-old woman was struck by a vehicle as she was crossing the road. About 30 minutes later, a 60-year-old man crossing Lady Hammond Road in Halifax was struck by an SUV at Robie Street. The drivers involved in each collision have been handed $700 fines for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Earlier that morning a 41-year old man was hit on the sidewalk as a vehicle backed out of a driveway on Mayo Street. Police are looking for the driver. Halifax Const. Pierre Bourdages said there have been 46 car-pedestrian crashes so far this year. Council is set to discuss the idea of zebra crossing paint markings for crosswalks and other changes to try to reduce the number of collisions at a meeting on Tuesday.
Car drives through crosswalk in Halifax.
Published on Dec 4, 2013
Car drives through crosswalk. Nova Scotia tag ELU-155. Happened on my way to work Friday 08 February 2013. This happens at least once or twice a week at various crosswalks and intersections. This one was near the Herring Cove and Purcells Cove intersection.
Three more people struck in Halifax-area crosswalks, including two 30 minutes apart
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/952614/another-pedestrian-hit-in-halifax/ February 25, 2014 Halifax police say there have now been 45 pedestrians hit by vehicles since Jan. 1, including four from Monday evening to Tuesday morning. Three of the pedestrians were hit in crosswalks, while the other was struck in a sidewalk from a vehicle backing out of a driveway. No one was badly injured.
‘Absolutely tragic:’ Woman dies in hospital after being hit by truck in crosswalk
Jeff Harper/Metro Flowers were left at the scene of a fatal car pedestrian accident at the corner of Victoria Road and Thistle Street in Dartmouth. Halifax police are investigating the death of a 57-year-old woman who was hit in a crosswalk. The accident happened at the intersection of Thistle Street and Victoria Road in Dartmouth on Saturday around 11 a.m. The victim, who uses a three-wheeled scooter as her mode of transportation, was crossing the intersection when a 50-year-old man hit her with his truck.
More pedestrians hit by vehicles in the Halifax area
By Staff Global News and The Canadian Press February 25, 2014
HALIFAX – The number of pedestrians hit by vehicles in the Halifax Regional Municipality continues to climb. Two people were struck in separate incidents Tuesday morning, while another person was hit about 12 hours earlier on Monday night. A 60-year-old man was struck around 7:45 a.m. crossing Lady Hammond Road at Robie Street in Halifax. Halifax Regional Police say the man suffered lower body injuries, but they weren’t serious. A 45-year-old woman was charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Around 7 a.m., a 25-year-old woman was struck near Pine Hill Drive and Skyridge Avenue in Lower Sackville. Police said the woman was shaken up, but otherwise uninjured. The 43-year-old male driver reportedly stopped after the collision to ask if the woman was OK, then drove away. Police later charged him with failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Police have not identified the driver. On Monday, a man crossing Victoria Road at Thistle Street in Dartmouth was struck just before 7 p.m. The 32-year-old suffered minor injuries, and paramedics treated him at the scene. The driver of the vehicle, a 49-year-old woman, was handed a fine for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. There have been more than 40 similar accidents in the Halifax area so far this year. A new municipal report says crosswalks should be painted with so-called zebra lines to make them more visible
Pedestrians hit in two separate crosswalk incidents in north-end Halifax on Friday
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/905118/charges-laid-after-halifax-pedestrian-hit-in-crosswalk/ January 10, 2014 Police are laying charges after two separate incidents of pedestrians being struck while using crosswalks in Halifax’s north end on Friday. A 51-year-old woman was crossing the intersection at Robie and Young streets shortly after 7 a.m. when she was hit by a driver turning left onto Robie. Emergency responders took the woman to hospital where she was treated for non-life-threatening injuries. The driver — a 42-year-old man from Lower Sackville — was charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Then, shortly before noon, a 65-year-old woman was hit by a vehicle turning right from North Street onto Agricola. She was treated on scene. The 44-year-old driver also faces the charge of not stopping for a pedestrian using a crosswalk. Police are reminding drivers of the nearly $700 fine and four demerit points for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
—————————————
Halifax police look for driver of car that struck woman and toddler
HALIFAX – Police are looking for the driver of a vehicle that struck a woman and a young boy in an unmarked crosswalk on Friday morning. Just before noon, a 65-year-old woman pushing a two-year-old boy in a stroller was struck crossing Aldergrove Drive along Herring Cove Road by a vehicle making a right-hand turn. The woman later reported the incident to police. She suffered minor injuries, but the child was not hurt. The driver of the car allegedly stopped, but did not get out of the vehicle, which left the area travelling inbound on Herring Cove Road. The vehicle is described as a light-burgundy sedan driven by an elderly man accompanied by an elderly woman. Police are asking anybody with information about the incident to contact them at 490-5016 or send an anonymous tip to Crime Stoppers.
CBC NewsPosted: Mar 21, 2014 Three drivers were ticketed for failing to yield to someone in a marked crosswalk after four pedestrians crossing in crosswalks were struck by vehicles in the Halifax region Thursday. The most recent incident happened Thursday night in Dartmouth at 7:45 p.m. at Mount Edward Road and Woodlawn Road The woman struck was not seriously hurt. At 5 p.m., a 45 year-old woman was ticketed after she ran over someone’s foot in the crosswalk at Spring Garden Road and Brenton Street. The investigation continues for the case of a 24-year-old woman who was hit by the side of a vehicle in the crosswalk at Upper Water and Duke streets at 3:15 p.m. The 62-year-old man driving the car stopped and identified himself to the woman struck. She was not injured. The earliest incident happened Thursday morning, when a 56-year-old man was hit just before 5 a.m., near Citadel High School. The pedestrian was taken to hospital as a precaution.
—————————————–
Friends and family members gathered Sunday afternoon at a Dartmouth intersection where Judy MacIsaac-Davis was struck in her motorized scooter a day earlier. “She had a wide circle of friends,” said a man who identified himself as…
Boy struck by teacher’s vehicle outside Dartmouth school
April 23, 2014
Paramedics took an elementary school student to Halifax’s IWK Health Centre after a car-pedestrian collision near his school Wednesday morning. His injuries are not considered serious, but he was transported to the hospital as a precaution,…
Driver sought in crash involving pedestrian pushing stroller
April 4, 2014
Halifax police are looking for a driver who didn’t remain at the scene Friday after his vehicle struck a stroller-pushing pedestrian. Police said the incident happened at 11:45 a.m. on Herring Cove Road, when a 65-year-old woman was on the…
Woman hospitalized after hit in Dartmouth crosswalk
March 24, 2014
A woman was taken to hospital with injuries that were not life-threatening after she was struck in a Dartmouth crosswalk Monday afternoon. Shortly after 2 p.m., a left-turning vehicle hit the woman, 48, as she crossed the intersection of Portland…
Four pedestrians hit in one day in Halifax area
March 21, 2014
A woman walking across a Dartmouth road last night was the fourth person struck in a crosswalk in one day in HRM. Halifax Regional Police say a 40-year-old woman was assessed by paramedics at the scene after she was hit crossing Woodlawn Road by a…
Driver ticketed after man, 56, hit in Halifax crosswalk
March 20, 2014
A man was struck in a Halifax crosswalk early Thursday morning. Just before 5 a.m., a 66-year-old man called Halifax Regional Police to say he had struck a pedestrian at the intersection of Bell Road and Ahern Avenue. A 56-year-old man was taken to…
Council passes pedestrian safety plan
March 18, 2014
Halifax regional council passed a pedestrian safety plan Tuesday that essentially piggybacks on the one passed two weeks ago aimed at cutting the number of crashes in municipal crosswalks. Although the two plans are separate — this week’s was drawn…
Pedestrian hit by car as she crossed Bayview Road
March 16, 2014
A 35-year-old woman was taken to hospital and released after being struck by a vehicle Saturday night in Halifax. Police say the woman was crossing Bayview Road at Trillium Terrace at 11:15 p.m. when she was struck by a car driving up Bayview. The…
Two pedestrians hit by van in grocery store parking lot
March 2, 2014
Two more pedestrians were struck by a vehicle in Halifax Regional Municipality Saturday afternoon. Police say an 18-year-old man and 21-year-old woman were crossing in a marked crosswalk in the Bedford Superstore parking lot when they were hit by…
Halifax car-pedestrian collisions continue to climb
February 25, 2014
Tuesday saw the 47th, 48th and 49th car-pedestrian collisions in Halifax since the new year, while regional council decided to make the crosswalks more visible. Halifax-area police ticketed two drivers and are seeking a third after the three…
Woman gets ticket after man struck in Dartmouth crosswalk
February 25, 2014
A 49-year-old woman was ticketed for failing to yield to a pedestrian after a man was struck in a Dartmouth crosswalk Monday night . At about 6:44 p.m., the woman was turning left off Victoria Road and onto Thistle Street when her vehicle bumped the…
Two pedestrians hit in separate crosswalk mishaps, drivers ticketed
February 23, 2014
An elderly woman and a woman in a wheelchair were struck by vehicles on crosswalks in two separate incidents in Halifax on Saturday evening. The victims both suffered non-life threatening injuries and were transported by ambulance to hospital. At…
Woman pedestrian in critical condition after accident
February 13, 2014
A young woman remains in critical condition in a Halifax hospital following a car-pedestrian collision Wednesday night in Dartmouth. The 22-year-old was walking alone in the area of Pleasant Street and Belmont Avenue at 8:40 p.m. when she was hit…
Metro Transit bus hits teen in crosswalk
February 9, 2014
A 17-year-old girl was struck in a marked crosswalk by a Metro Transit bus near a mall Saturday night in Halifax.
Woman hit in Dartmouth crosswalk
February 1, 2014
A 19-year-old woman was struck by a car in Dartmouth on Friday afternoon. At about 4:30 p.m., the pedestrian stepped into the crosswalk at the intersection of Portland Street and Eisener Boulevard when a black car making a right turn hit her with…
Woman hit in crosswalk at Quinpool Road intersection
January 28, 2014
A left-turning vehicle hit a woman in a Halifax crosswalk Monday night. The collision happened at about 7:40 p.m. at the Quinpool Road-Monastery Lane intersection. Paramedics were called and checked the victim, 32, but she was not hurt, said Halifax…
Pedestrian hit by car on Willett Street
January 27, 2014
A man was taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries after he was hit by a car as he crossed Willett Street early Sunday evening. The 23-year-old had just got off of a Metro Transit bus in the 200 block of Willett Street and was crossing…
Driver ticketed in crash with pedestrian
January 23, 2014
Halifax Regional Police issued a ticket Wednesday to a driver involved in a car-pedestrian collision last December. The pedestrian, a girl, 17, suffered minor injuries after she got hit in a crosswalk while crossing Charles Street at Agricola…
HRM committee: Toughen penalties in car-pedestrian incidents
January 23, 2014
A municipal committee hopes Halifax regional council will call on the province for stiffer penalties against drivers who hit pedestrians in a crosswalk. It is one of about a dozen recommendations going to council once the group polishes its…
Pedestrian hit in Dartmouth
January 22, 2014
A pedestrian-vehicle collision occurred in Dartmouth on Tuesday night, police said Wednesday. The incident happened at about 8:15 p.m. at Pleasant and Atlantic streets. Halifax Regional Police said a 31-year-old woman attempted to cross the street…
Man ticketed after hitting pedestrian in Dartmouth crosswalk
January 21, 2014
A 30-year-old man was ticketed for failing to yield to a pedestrian after a woman was hit in a crosswalk Tuesday night in Dartmouth. At about 6:50 p.m, the driver was travelling on Main Street and turned right onto Major Street when he struck the…
Expert: Drivers need heads-up
January 17, 2014
As pedestrian-vehicle collisions continue to make headlines, Haligonians are still scratching their heads about what’s causing the perceived spike in accidents. “If you can figure it out, can you let the rest of us know?” said Mike Tops, a man with…
Man struck in Dartmouth mall crosswalk
January 16, 2014
The third local car-pedestrian collision in two days sent a man to hospital Thursday. At 10:53 a.m., a 55-year-old man was struck in a marked crosswalk in the parking lot of Dartmouth’s Mic Mac Mall. The victim was transported to hospital with non-…
City adds two more vehicle-pedestrian incidents in less than 24 hours
January 15, 2014
The number of pedestrians struck by vehicles in Halifax Regional Municipality rose again after two more people were hit this week. “There have been six so far (in 2014),” Const. Pierre Bourdages, spokesman for Halifax Regional Police, said Wednesday…
Two pedestrians hit crossing Halifax streets
January 10, 2014
Two women were hit while crossing Halifax streets Friday morning. The first incident sent a 51-year-old woman to hospital with what police believed were minor injuries. The woman was in a marked crosswalk on Robie Street at 7:19 a.m. when she was…
Pedestrian hit by truck in Clayton Park
January 8, 2014
A woman walking on Lacewood Drive went to hospital with minor injuries Tuesday after being hit by a truck, said Halifax Regional Police. Police responded at 4:53 p.m. to the incident at the corner of Sumac Lane, said Staff Sgt. Barb Saunders. The…
Crosswalks in the crosshairs
December 31, 2013
Norm Collins steps into a crosswalk in Halifax and for an instant, his body is hidden from oncoming traffic. Throwing his hands into the air, he points to a spot a few metres ahead of a pole where he says crosswalk lines should have been painted. “A…
Woman injured in car-pedestrian collision in Clayton Park crosswalk
December 18, 2013
Halifax Regional Police are investigating a car-pedestrian collision that left the female victim with minor injuries in Clayton Park on Wednesday morning. The incident took place in a crosswalk outside a Goodlife Fitness gym at Lacewood Drive and…
Police seek car in hit and run involving pedestrian
December 17, 2013
Halifax Regional Police say a pedestrian reported he was struck by a car and knocked to the ground early Monday evening. The 24-year-old man told officers he was crossing Davison St. in central Halifax, not in a crosswalk, when the vehicle him hit…
LETHBRIDGE: Two feet vs. four wheels — a shared responsibility
December 13, 2013
I used to think the scariest thing about my children growing up was giving them the keys to car. But lately, I’m thinking the scariest thing is letting them walk to school, or anywhere. The recent spate of “vehicle-pedestrian collisions” is…
LOWE: Cars matter most on our roads, but they shouldn’t
December 12, 2013
Ten car-pedestrian accidents in Halifax in a little over a week. Got an appetite for more?
Another pedestrian injured in Halifax crosswalk
December 7, 2013
A pedestrian was taken to hospital with minor injuries after being hit by a vehicle at a marked crosswalk in Halifax on Friday night. The pedestrian was crossing at the intersection of Dunbrack Street and Main Avenue at about 11:30 p.m. when an…
Police checking video of Metro Transit supervisor’s crosswalk collision with teenager
December 5, 2013
Halifax police have yet to decide if they will write up a Metro Transit worker after a teenager suffered leg injuries in a car-pedestrian collision Wednesday evening. The 19-year-old was in a marked crosswalk on South Street when a Metro Transit…
Driver ticketed after man hit by car in south-end Halifax
December 4, 2013
A driver received a ticket Tuesday for hitting a pedestrian in an unmarked crosswalk. A car turned right from University Avenue to LeMarchant Street in south-end Halifax at about 9:45 p.m. and hit a man crossing the street in an unmarked crosswalk,…
Pedestrian hit by car in Robie Street crosswalk
December 2, 2013
A woman was taken to hospital after a car-pedestrian accident in Halifax on Monday morning. A 27-year-old woman was walking in a crosswalk on Robie Street near Cunard Street at 6:05 a.m. when a car turning left from Cunard onto Robie hit the woman,…
Woman hit in crosswalk on Dunbrack Street
November 27, 2013
A woman was taken to hospital after she was hit by a car in Halifax. The 60-year-old woman was in a crosswalk on Dunbrack Street near Main Avenue at about 7:30 p.m. Tuesday when she was struck, Halifax Regional Police said. She was taken to hospital…
Pedestrian crossing Oxford Street hit by vehicle
November 20, 2013
A woman was taken to hospital after a pedestrian accident in south-end Halifax. A 20-year-old woman was trying to cross Oxford Street at Waegwoltic Avenue at 5:05 p.m. Tuesday when she was hit by a vehicle. She was taken to hospital with what are…
Girl hit in crosswalk
November 12, 2013
Halifax police are looking for a silver Hyundai after a car-pedestrian collision injured a 12-year-old girl in Dartmouth Tuesday afternoon. The girl and her mother were in a marked crosswalk at Akerley Boulevard near Windmill Road at 3:12 p.m. The…
Woman, child hit in downtown crosswalk
October 26, 2013
A six-year-old child and a woman were taken to hospital with minor injuries after being struck by a vehicle in a Halifax crosswalk late Friday afternoon. Police say the 27-year-old woman and the child were crossing Salter Street at about 5:20 p.m…
Driver charged after pedestrian struck
October 22, 2013
Halifax Regional Police charged a 21-year-old male driver after a car-pedestrian collision late Tuesday morning. The incident took place at Robie and Inglis streets around 11:34 a.m. A 26-year-old man was in a marked crosswalk when he was hit. He…
Driver ticketed after woman hit in Halifax crosswalk
October 2, 2013
A driver was ticketed after a woman was hit by a vehicle in a Halifax crosswalk. The 77-year-old woman was crossing the street at the intersection of Queen and Green streets when she was struck at 8:13 p.m. Tuesday night. She was treated by…
Bus hits woman in downtown Halifax crosswalk
September 23, 2013
A 62-year-old male Metro Transit bus driver has been charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk after a woman was struck in downtown Halifax this morning. At 6:55 a.m., police responded to a bus-pedestrian collision at the…
Metro Transit driver ticketed after pedestrian hit by bus
September 17, 2013
A Metro Transit driver was ticketed after a woman was struck by a bus in a Dartmouth crosswalk. A 26-year-old woman was in a marked crosswalk on Wyse Road at 7:53 a.m. when she was hit by a bus turning from Thistle Street onto Wyse Road. The…
Crosswalk safety advocate hopes website will spread word
July 22, 2013
The Dartmouth man who helped bring crosswalk flags to Waverley Road is now promoting — he hopes — crosswalk safety to the masses.
Norm Collins, a retired actuary, launched his http://crosswalksafety.ca/ website almost two weeks ago in hopes of getting city hall moving on the issue.
He said the city’s crosswalk safety advisory committee, created earlier this year, has the potential to do some good things, but he wants to give them a sense of urgency.
“I sat back and I said, ‘you know, I’m going to show the world that we can do something, and we can do it in a prompt, quick timeframe,’ ” Collins said Sunday.
Collins and his wife Gayle worked to set up a flag pilot project in 2008. Pedestrians carried bright orange flags when walking through crosswalks along Waverley Road. The city’s traffic authority rejected continuing the program in 2009.
They were moved to act after teenager Mary Beth Chaulk was killed in a marked crosswalk on Portland Street in Dartmouth in 2006. Chaulk, 16, was the same age as the Collins’s younger son, and the two teens had a friend in common.
The website includes details about crosswalk rules for motorists and pedestrians, adult and youth quizzes, and ideas for safety improvements.
Girl, 14, hurt when struck in crosswalk
July 18, 2013
A 14-year-old girl was sent to hospital with minor injuries after she was struck in a Dartmouth crosswalk early Wednesday evening. The girl was crossing at the intersection of Pleasant and Crawford streets when she was hit, said Staff Sgt. Reid…
Senior hit by truck fined $400 for jaywalking
July 2, 2013
Halifax Regional Police fined a 75-year-old man who was hit by a pickup truck in the city Tuesday morning. Officers were called to Windsor Street near Strawberry Hill Street at 9:29 a.m. The victim, who was not in a crosswalk, suffered minor…
Halifax police charge man, 84, after pedestrian struck
June 27, 2013
Halifax Regional Police charged an 84-year-old male driver after a pedestrian was struck in a marked crosswalk in Dartmouth on Thursday. The 33-year-old male victim was walking with his five-year-old daughter at Boland and Wyse roads at 11:11 a.m.,…
Halifax police charge driver after woman hit in crosswalk
June 3, 2013
A 73-year-old woman suffered serious injuries after being hit in a marked crosswalk at Almon and Robie streets on Monday afternoon. “Halifax Regional Police is urging motorists to slow down and pedestrians to pay extra attention to their…
Car-pedestrian crashes result in charges
April 23, 2013
Halifax police laid charges in two separate car-pedestrian collisions Tuesday. In the first, which took place at Hartlen and Main streets in Dartmouth at 11:32 a.m., a 57-year-old man suffered minor injuries after he was struck in a crosswalk. A 52-…
Pedestrian hit in Dartmouth crosswalk
April 2, 2013
Police are investigating a car pedestrian accident in Dartmouth. A person was walking in a crosswalk at the intersection of Portland Street and Spring Avenue at about 6 a.m. Tuesday when a vehicle struck the person, said Sgt. Rob Lowther of Halifax…
Report: Cops need better car-pedestrian crash data
March 23, 2013
The ability of police to examine information about collisions involving pedestrians and vehicles is being hampered by a deficient record-keeping system, a Halifax city hall report says. It says Halifax Regional Police are reviewing options “…
MOMBOURQUETTE: Pedestrians, press that button to cross — or risk a $400 fine
February 18, 2013
‘I’M NOT a media person,” admits Const. Ray Quesnel. “I enjoy being a traffic officer and being out there doing my job — but I do like to voice my concerns about what I see.” Quesnel is a member of the…
Police launch pedestrian safety campaign
February 7, 2013
Halifax police are launching a safety blitz in the hopes of preventing another deadly year for local pedestrians. Four people died in car-pedestrian accidents in 2012 and at least 32 suffered injuries. There were two fatal car-pedestrian accidents…
Woman unhurt after being hit in Halifax crosswalk
February 7, 2013
Hours after police launched a public awareness campaign to prevent injuries and deaths at Halifax crosswalks, a woman was hit and knocked to the ground as she crossed a city street. Halifax Police say the 23-year-old woman was in the crosswalk on…
Halifax teen struck in crosswalk
January 24, 2013
A teenager was taken to hospital after a car-pedestrian accident in Halifax. The 16-year-old boy was in a crosswalk on Bell Road at 9 a.m. Thursday when he was hit by a vehicle travelling eastbound, Halifax Regional Police said. The teen was taken…
Councillor seeks action on crosswalk safety
January 21, 2013
Voters would not have heard much from Steve Craig about crosswalks when he was knocking on doors in Lower Sackville during the municipal election. But in November, the issue cut starkly through the heart of that community when 34-year-old William…
Snowplow driver charged with striking pedestrian in Bible Hill
January 18, 2013
TRURO — A 41-year-old Nova Scotia man has been charged hitting a pedestrian with a snowplow in a crosswalk. The man from Truro Heights was charged with failing to yield to a pedestrian, driving with a revoked licence and having no insurance. Police…
Pedestrian-motorist collisions continue in 2013
January 3, 2013
The new year is starting out like the old one in Halifax Regional Municipality, with pedestrians being hit by cars and police warning motorists and people on foot to pay attention.
Pedestrian-vehicle accidents continue to pile up
December 28, 2012
Halifax Regional Police are again calling on motorists and pedestrians to be careful on roadways after another person was hit in a marked crosswalk. A 23-year-old woman was crossing Main Street at Caledonia Road in Dartmouth at about 11: 41 a.m….
Another pedestrian hit in crosswalk
December 20, 2012
A man suffered minor injuries after a car hit him in a marked crosswalk Wednesday night in Dartmouth.
Man seriously injured while jaywalking
December 9, 2012
A pedestrian suffered injuries described as serious after jaywalking in downtown Halifax Saturday night.
Two more pedestrians hit by cars in Halifax region
November 27, 2012
Less than a week after a man was killed in a car pedestrian accident in Lower Sackville, two more people were hit by cars in Dartmouth on Monday.
Driver ticketed after pedestrian killed in Lower Sackville crosswalk
November 22, 2012
A Beaver Bank man was killed in a car-pedestrian collision Wednesday in Lower Sackville, the sixth such incident in Halifax Regional Municipality in the last two years.
Two pedestrians struck on same night prompts warning from police
November 15, 2012
Halifax bad drivers
Published on Dec 7, 2013
With the recent cases of car drivers striking pedestrians in crosswalk I thought it might be interesting to share just a tiny sample of what I see each and every day as I walk between home and work.
The clips show cars rolling through stop signs and turning through the Bell / Sackville intersection right on the toes of pedestrians who have the right of way.
It doesn’t show any of the many close calls I witness on a regular basis. I put very little effort into this, there’s no need.
The police just don’t enforce these violations and they seem to not give a shit about the intersection.
As a result of this lack of enforcement Halifax drivers just get worse each year. 4 people hit in crosswalks so far this year.
Rau’s film traces Parsons’ case from the alleged sexual assault to her
suicide and the media storm that followed.
“The film really is an
indictment of Canadian law and all of us, really, because it (was) about
victim-blaming,” says the 47-year-old, Toronto-based Rau.
Film about Rehtaeh Parsons heads to Hot Docs festival
CASSANDRA SZKLARSKI THE CANADIAN PRESS
March 22, 2015 - 9:52am
"Are
there more car-pedestrian collisions than usual in Halifax?"
I was
having this discussion with mySenior
Associate Mark Raftusrecently.
He had been doing some research on the topic and I thought his findings were
interesting, so I asked him to post about it on this blog.
Take it
away Mark...
If you
have formed an impression that there are more pedestrian - car collisions
happening now than in the past you are correct. Despite significant media
coverage and calls for action from politicians, pedestrian-car collision
numbers continue to rise in Nova Scotia.
What is
truly unfortunate is that most of these incidents are entirely preventable with
more awareness and attention to their surroundings being paid by car drivers
and pedestrians alike.
How
often as drivers have we watched a pedestrian step off a curb nowhere near a
crosswalk without looking or witnessed a pedestrian briskly step into a
crosswalk without ensuring the approaching vehicles have stopped?
On the
flip side, how often as pedestrians have we activated the amber crosswalk light
only to watch an absentminded driver blast by talking on their phone?
All too
often is the appropriate reply for all of these questions.
Police
statistics
In a
December 5, 2014articleHRM
police advised there were 18 more car-pedestrian collisions in October, 2014
than in October, 2013 and 15 more in November, 2014 than November, 2013.
An HRM
police spokesperson Const. Pierre Bourdages was quoted with some frustration as
saying:
“We keep
trying to educate as much as possible, enforcing every time we have a report of
these collisions, but they keep happening,”
Cst
Bourdages advised that seventeen of the November accidents happened in bad
weather, compared to six in October. Twenty-nine of the accidents happened in
darkness and eight in daylight, compared to eight in darkness and 11 in
daylight in October.
Visibility
and paying attention
It is
apparent there is a relationship between bad weather, dark lighting conditions
and these collisions. Visibility is a key factor. Whether as driver or
pedestrian we all have to pay more attention to prevent these collisions from
taking place. Further, these statistics have been collected before the onset of
the winter season which will carry its own further inherent dangers of slippery
conditions and even more reduced visibility. Pedestrians and drivers alike will
have to be even more vigilant of each other as the winter weather arrives.
Is more
ticketing the answer?
Paying
attention and being aware of each other is the key. How can both pedestrian and
driver alike be motivated to pay more attention beyond self-commitment?
Consumer
safety advocateshave been
quotedas saying
that when ticket issuance goes up then collisions go down.
Speaking
at the city’s Crosswalk Safety Advisory Committee, Norm Collins said a
dedicated enforcement unit in other cities has led to more tickets and fewer
collisions:
“There
is data out of Montreal that shows that the number of tickets has gone up
considerably, the number of collisions that have involved injury or fatality
has gone down,” said Collins.
It may
be that Nova Scotians will have to be ticketed more in order to become more
safety conscious.
What are
the rules?
Pedestrians
and drivers owe each other duties at law. Many of these laws are based on
common sense such as pedestrians activating crosswalk lights before crossing
the street, pedestrians not leaving a curb if a car is so close that it cannot
stop or cars stopping to allow pedestrians already in a crosswalk to finish
crossing.
There
are a number of sections of the Motor Vehicle Act that are relevant to
car-pedestrian accident claims.
Section
100 of theMotor Vehicle Actimposes a duty on drivers to drive
carefully. Section 100(1) reads:
Every
person driving or operating a motor vehicle on a highway or any place
ordinarily accessible to the public shall drive or operate the same in a
careful and prudent manner having regard to all the circumstances.
Section 101 of theMotor Vehicle Actstates:
A person
operating or driving a vehicle on a highway shall operate or drive the same at
a careful and prudent rate of speed not greater than is reasonable and proper,
having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and of all
other conditions at the time existing, and a person shall not operate or drive
a vehicle upon a highway at such a speed or in such a manner as to endanger the
life, limb or property of any person.
These
sections of theMotor Vehicle Actplace a positive responsibility on a
driver of a motor vehicle to operate the vehicle with due care and
consideration to all the circumstances.
Section
125 of theActdeals specifically with pedestrians:
Pedestrian
and vehicle rights of way
125 (1)
Where pedestrian movements are not controlled by traffic signals,
(a) the
driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian lawfully
within a crosswalk or stopped facing a crosswalk;
(b)
where the traffic on a highway is divided into separate roadways by a median,
the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian lawfully
within a crosswalk or stopped facing the crosswalk on the roadway on which the
vehicle is travelling.
(2)
Where a vehicle has stopped at a crosswalk to yield to a pedestrian pursuant to
subsection (1), it is an offence for the driver of any other vehicle
approaching from the rear to overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
(3) A
pedestrian shall not leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into
the path of a vehicle that is so closely approaching that it is impractical for
the driver of the vehicle to stop.
(4)
Where a pedestrian is crossing a roadway at a crosswalk that has a
pedestrian-activated beacon, the pedestrian shall not leave a curb or other
place of safety unless the pedestrian-activated beacon has been activated.
(5) A
pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a crosswalk shall
yield the right of way to vehicles upon the roadway.
(6) This
Section does not relieve a pedestrian or a driver of a vehicle from the duty to
exercise due care. 2007, c. 45, s. 9
.
“What if
I am hit by a car when I’m not in a cross walk?”
We get
asked that question a lot. Many people assume if they aren’t in a cross walk
and they get hit by a car they are not entitled to make a claim for
compensation for their injuries.
But that
may not be the case. Every claim depends on it’s own facts and the court will
consider all of the circumstances before deciding if a pedestrian is entitled
to compensation.
InSimpson Estate v. Cox, the Court assessed
fault for an accident that happened on a residential street at approximately
9:30pm. The street was dark with streetlights on every second utility pole. The
pavement was dry and the weather was clear.
The
81-year-old plaintiff was crossing the street but she was not in a crosswalk.
She made it approximately 70% of the way across the street when she was struck
by the defendant's car.
The
plaintiff and defendant both hired accident reconstruction experts. Both
experts agreed had the plaintiff been exercising due care, she should have seen
the defendant's vehicle and stopped so as to avoid the collision.
But the
experts disagreed as to when the plaintiff would have been visible to the
defendant driver. The court also noted the evidence of a witness who was
driving immediately behind the defendant driver. This witness saw movement of a
person in front of the defendant's vehicle, which supported the plaintiff's
position that the defendant driver should have also seen this movement in time
to stop.
The
court attributed 40% liability (fault) to the defendant and 60% contributory
negligence to the plaintiff.
InBond
v. Chisholm, the court considered liability for an accident
where two pedestrians were crossing a street (in an area other than a
crosswalk) at night in poor visibility and heavy rain. The defendant testified
that he did not see the plaintiffs until they appeared in front of his car at
which time they were 10 to 15 feet in front of him.
The
first pedestrian saw the oncoming lights of the defendant's vehicle and could
have stopped crossing the street and thus avoid the accident. The second
pedestrian did not make any check for oncoming traffic as he crossed the
street. It was a dark evening and raining very hard, therefore, visibility was
poor. The plaintiffs were wearing light coloured clothing. The plaintiffs were
found to be 70% at fault but the driver was still found to be 30% at fault.
InRedden
v. Hector, the plaintiff was struck by a car while crossing a
busy street at night in a rainstorm in an area other than on a crosswalk. The
plaintiff testified she first became aware of the car when she was approximately
half way across the street. The driver said that when he was 75 to 100 feet
from the accident scene, he noticed a number of girls running across the street
so he put his foot on the brake so that he could stop if it became necessary.
While these girls crossed the street safely, all of a sudden and out of
nowhere, a person dashed off of the boulevard and into his path. He braked but
was unable to avoid the collision.
The
court found the plaintiff was negligent in not crossing at the crosswalk but stated
that the
driver, particularly at a very busy intersection, is under a greater
responsibility to see that he doesn't injure any pedestrian. The court found
that if he was going at the speed he says and he had seen the plaintiff dash
off of the boulevard, it could not see why he could not have taken evasive
action or braked to prevent hitting the plaintiff.
The
court divided fault 55% against the plaintiff and 45% against the defendant.
Pedestrian
usually (mostly) at fault if they aren’t in a cross walk
These
cases, and others, tell us that in most cases the courts will not look
favourably on pedestrians who are hit when they are crossing the street other
than in a cross walk.
But as
we can see from the reported cases, the courts will also look at the drivers
conduct to ensure that the driver was exercising due care considering all of
the circumstances.
Conclusion
The
increasing numbers of pedestrian vs car collisions is alarming. As stated above
both pedestrians and drivers have duties and responsibilities to each other.
Only through increased vigilance on the part of both driver and pedestrian
alike will these preventable collisions and injuries be reduced.
CANADA AND NOVA SCOTIA- please stop pimping booze, gambling
and tobacco 4 ur profit- ur killing us...ur killing us...(UVE CREATED HORRIFIC
HOMELESSNESS) . Every Political Party in Canada and Nova Scotia PROMISED 2
ELIMINATE- GAMBLING.... every one.... and ...u ...doubled...it...Seriously....
/CANADA HAS A RACISM PROBLEM (Well don't all Nations) -love u Winnipeg 4
stepping up 2 this and First Nations needs 2 protect their women and children
and $$$$ goes 2 their First People instead of Chiefs and Band Councils-/Canada
and Nova Scotia pls. fix the underbelly of booze, gambling and tobacco...and by
the by First Nations own their lands and their taxes
F**kING DRUNK DRIVERS- kill u by day or night and the
mourning after- Nova Scotia Canada- Stop It!- Natasha Hope-Simpson- the face of
damage by drunk hit and run driver- watch this be proven/NATASHA HOPE-SIMPSON
MIRACLES UPDATES
blogged: HEY
CANADA- Is it about time Bicycle Riders over 16 get a licence (taxes fix roads)
and Insurance in our Canada? …4 safety reasons/BLUEBERRY GRUNT RECIPE/NOVA
SCOTIA BICYCLE-WALKING TRAILS- Getcha Nova Scotia on/Vitamins saved us in the
70s VD times/DIGBY BIKER WHARF RAT RALLY – Canada’s Motorcycle Grandest Rally http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2014/08/hey-canada-is-it-about-time-bicycle.html
and...
BLOGGED:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: Nov22- DRUNK MAYORS/DRUGGIE PM
CONTENDERS/238 folks murdered by drunk-drugged drivers this year Nova Scotia-
how canCanada Leaders push drugs and booze, n smoking 2 our kids???? WTF CANADA
don't become USA???
Radley Balko points to yet another
case of prosecutorial overreach:
Enter the Marietta, Georgia, case
of 30-year-old Raquel Nelson, which has been bandied about in the comments
section the last few days. Last April, Nelson was crossing a street with her
three children when her 4-year-old was struck and killed by a car. She was
crossing at an intersection, but was apparently not in a designated crosswalk.
The driver who killed her had been drinking, taking painkillers, and was blind
in one eye. He also has two prior hit-and-run convictions. Nelson and her
daughter were also struck and injured. Residents of Nelson’s apartment building
have
complained to the city about the intersection. The nearest crosswalk is a
half mile away.
If we have as little to fear from overly aggressive
prosecutors as supporters of Caylee’s Law claim, we could expect the prosecutor
in this case to show some discretion and mercy for Nelson, right? Yes, she
admits to jaywalking. Yes, she erred, and subjected her kids to unnecessary
risk. But she just lost her son. It’s hard to fathom a more punishing,
heartbreaking sentence. Moreover, the underlying “crime” here was a
misdemeanor, one most of us commit every day. So mercy, right?
Of course not. Nelson was charged with second-degree
vehicular homicide. Which is insane. She was convicted last week. When she’s
sentenced later this month, she could spend more time in jail than the man who
struck and killed her son.
I can’t even imagine how horrible it would be to lose a child.
But to be prosecuted for their death for the crime of jaywalking – something
countless Americans do every day – when the real culprit, the man who killed
your child while drunk and on painkillers, is charged with a lesser crime… I
simply can’t fathom it, I can’t wrap my brain around the horror of it all. I
really can’t. It makes me angry just thinking about it. The death of a child is
sadness enough. Now Nelson’s surviving children will be without a mother as
well. More to the point, this reveals just how broadly laws can
be interpreted if prosecutors want to push the case. It would have been simple
enough to view what happened, take into account the fact that complaints had
been made about the intersection, that the driver was high, and so forth and decide
to just let the case go. Or fine the mother for jaywalking. Or put in a
crosswalk. Instead the state spends countless dollars intensifying a
tragedy. This isn’t justice. And the intersection remains a danger to the
community. Now we have a push to write new laws, such as Caylee’s
Law, which gives prosecutors more power in child death cases. As Balko notes,
“Prosecutors don’t need more “tools” in these cases. They have plenty. They
need more discretion. And empathy. And a more complete understanding of
justice.” This is the fallback for all failed prosecutions. The
right “tools” weren’t in place. More laws are needed. If prosecutors simply had
more ways to bend and manipulate the law themselves, surely justice would be
done. But that’s not at all true. When a bad guy gets off on a technicality,
that’s a problem. But it’s much worse when an innocent person is convicted on a
technicality. More often than not, a wrongful conviction just leaves the actual
criminal out on the streets. In cases like the Nelson case, it rips up an
already shattered family. Update. I have a
follow-up to this post in which I note that Nelson may not have been guilty of
jaywalking to begin with, which puts a pretty big hole in the
prosecution’s case.
A licence suspension is
mandatory, and will be for a minimum of 12 months if the person has no prior
Criminal Code driving convictions on his or her record. Anyone with a prior
conviction, for a Criminal Code driving offence, will receive a longer licence
suspension, but will also receive a prison sentence. Some provinces count
equivalents, to Criminal Code driving convictions, if such convictions occur in
certain American states. The OntarioMinistry of
Transportation counts equivalents, to Criminal Code driving
convictions, if they occur in New York or Michigan. Those equivalent to dangerous
driving are included.
The above types of dangerous
driving charges can only be tried on indictment. Custodial sentences will
almost always be given as a result of a conviction for either type of dangerous
driving charge. Anyone convicted of (or who
pleads guilty to) Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle Causing Bodily Harm is
subject to a maximum prison sentence of 10 years (14 years if the conviction or
guilty plea is for a related street
racing offence). The Criminal Code defines bodily
harm as "any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with
the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or
trifling in nature." Anyone convicted of (or who
pleads guilty to) Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle Causing Death is
subject to a maximum term of 14 years, but can be sentenced to up to life imprisonment if the
related offence is a street racing one. A sentence of greater than 14 years, on
the death-by-dangerous-driving charge, can only otherwise be imposed if any of
the remaining charges of which the offender is convicted carry a maximum prison
sentence of more than 14 years (e.g. a conviction for Causing death by criminal negligence,
as in R
v Smith, because that charge carries a maximum sentence of life
imprisonment) or the judge decides to sentence the offender to serve a
sentence, on a different charge (e.g. hit
and run), consecutively to the death-by-dangerous-driving sentence. Although the minimum driving
prohibition of 12 months (or more, if the conviction or guilty plea is to a 2nd
or subsequent Criminal Code offence) applies to any conviction of causing death
or grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving, driving prohibitions, in these
cases, are often
longer than 12 months. Some provinces, such as Ontario,
Alberta and Nova
Scotia, require the resitting of all theory and practical driving
tests if the licence suspension is longer than a prescribed time period.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) recognises that being open and
transparent about how our practices and procedures are applied by prosecutors
when reaching charging and other casework decisions is vital to increasing
public confidence in the way we operate.
This guidance deals with a number of the most serious offences that directly
result from or relate to a driving incident and the way in which a motor
vehicle has been driven. The guidance replaces the two previous documents
published in 2007 which set out how the CPS would approach driving related
incidents: "Guidance on Prosecuting Cases of Bad Driving" and the
"Policy for Prosecuting Cases of Bad Driving". We have consolidated,
updated and amended these two documents into this latest guidance.
The guidance is designed to help prosecutors when charging and reviewing
cases. In doing so, it outlines the charging standards and factors for
consideration when prosecution decisions are taken.
This guidance must always be read in conjunction with the Code for Crown
Prosecutors (the Code) when taking prosecution decisions.
Application of the Code for Crown Prosecutors
Prosecutors are reminded that each individual case must be considered on its
own facts and on its own merits when applying the Full Code Test as contained
in the Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code). The Full Code Test has two
stages. The first is the consideration of whether there is sufficient evidence
to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each
charge (the evidential stage). If there is sufficient evidence, the prosecutor
must then go on to consider the second stage, namely whether a prosecution is
in the public interest (the public interest stage).
The relevant considerations are set out in detail in the
Code.
Given the serious nature of many of the offences covered by this guidance,
especially those cases involving the death of another, or where serious injury
has occurred, the public interest will usually be in favour of
prosecution. However, there will be cases where we decide that it is not
in the public interest to prosecute.
Death in driving cases where the victim is a close friend or relative of
the driver ("Close friends and family" cases)
Any case which involves the death of another will inevitably be one of the
most serious matters that will be dealt with by prosecutors. Whilst the serious
nature of these cases usually means that a prosecution will be in the public
interest, prosecutors must acknowledge the greater emotional impact likely to
be felt by a driver where the death he or she has caused is that of a relative
or someone with whom they share a close personal relationship. These types of
cases will now be referred to as "close friends and family" cases,
(formerly "nearest and dearest" cases).
When reviewing such cases, prosecutors must balance the circumstances of
each individual case with the consequences to the driver, who is likely to have
suffered significant personal loss from the bereavement. Whilst there may be
sufficient evidence to prosecute, we recognise that in some instances such
prosecutions would be inappropriate and it would not be in the public interest
to proceed because of the likely life-long consequences of losing a loved one
and being responsible for that loss.
However, this must always be balanced against the need to ensure the safety
of other road users including motorists, passengers, those on public transport,
cyclists and pedestrians. If there is evidence to suggest that an individual
may present a continuing danger to other road users, the proper course will be
to prosecute that individual. Evidence that someone may present a continuing
danger to other road users may exist, for example, if they have previous
relevant convictions or a medical condition.
In cases where the degree of culpability of the driver is low and there is
no evidence they may present a continuing danger to other road users, it is
unlikely that a prosecution will be in the public interest. Examples of lower
culpability on the part of the driver may include errors of judgement such as
failure to look properly before turning at a junction due to a momentary lapse
of attention; or where the illegality arose as a result of a genuine mistake on
the part of the driver for example, a mistaken belief that he or she was
insured to drive the car.
The same conclusion may be appropriate sometimes if a driver demonstrated a
higher degree of culpability but there was no evidence they may be a continuing
danger to others. For instance, where an individual is tuning a car radio and
is distracted by this and a fatality ensues.
However, where both high culpability and evidence the driver may be a
continuing danger are apparent, the proper course will be to prosecute. For
example, where an individual demonstrated a prolonged course of dangerous
driving; drove whilst over the prescribed alcohol limit; or drove whilst never
having had motor insurance or having been previously disqualified from driving
or never having passed a driving test. See Att. Gen's Reference No
65 of 2008 [2008] EWCA Crim 3135 (Daltery Roger Pearson) for an
illustration of where high culpability and a continuing danger to others are
both present.
This is a non-exhaustive set of examples and prosecutors are reminded that
each individual case must be considered on its own particular set of facts and
its own merits when determining the level of culpability and whether or not
there is evidence to show an individual presents a continuing danger.
If a person other than a close friend or family member is also killed as a
result of the manner of an individuals driving it may well be that a
prosecution for offences relating to each of the deaths is appropriate.
Prosecutors will have to consider each case on its own facts and its own
merits.
Drivers of emergency service vehicles and drivers in emergencies
In the course of their duties, police officers, ambulance staff and
fire-fighters may need to drive a vehicle in response to an emergency in a
manner which would otherwise be considered unacceptable. Our starting point is
that it is very unlikely to be appropriate to proceed with a prosecution on
public interest grounds if a police officer, member of ambulance staff or
fire-fighter commits a driving offence while responding to an emergency call.
However, every individual case must be considered on its own facts and
merits, and when considering whether it is in the public interest to proceed
with the case, prosecutors should have regard to the following factors:
The
nature of the emergency known to or reasonably perceived by the driver.
For example, whether the driver was responding to a 999 call in compliance
with the agreed operating practice in that service;
The
level of culpability of the driver (including the nature of the driving);
and
Whether
there is evidence the driver may be a continuing danger to others. For
example, such evidence may include relevant convictions or internal
disciplinary proceedings against the driver.
In all cases involving emergency vehicles or drivers in emergencies which
are referred by the investigator to the CPS for a prosecution decision,
prosecutors will need to check that the following is provided by the
investigator:
evidence
in the form of any police collision reports;
advice
provided by the ACPO pursuits lead where applicable;
statements
regarding the manner of the driving.
It is essential that the investigator provides these items when referring
the case to the CPS for review or to make a charging decision and they should
be requested if they are not provided.
When considering the standard of driving in any particular case and
potential defences that might arise, prosecutors should be aware of the case of
R v Bannister
[2009] EWCA Crim 1571. The basic facts in this case were
that a police officer drove in the dark with no road lighting, in conditions of
torrential rain with a lot of surface water on the motorway at speeds of up to
120mph, and the police officers car spun out of control and crashed. The
police officer was prosecuted, and in his defence it was argued that as the
officer had successfully completed an advanced training course he was able to
drive safely at very high speeds. It was contended that the training had
enabled him, because of that special skill, to drive at speeds in adverse road
and weather conditions safely, even if that would not be the case for the
ordinary competent and careful driver. The police officer was convicted and
appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeal in its judgment in the appeal against conviction held
that special skill (or lack of skill) of a driver is irrelevant when
considering whether driving is dangerous. The test to be applied is the
objective test of the competent and careful driver as set out in statute.
The Court of Appeal also stated clearly that police officers were not
entitled to drive dangerously when on duty or responding to an emergency. It is
therefore apparent from the Bannister case that members
of the emergency services when responding to emergency calls owe the same duty
of care to other road users as ordinary members of the general public.
This is relevant to the evidential stage of the Full Code Test. Public interest
considerations with regards to emergency vehicle drivers are set out earlier.
Prosecutors should also be aware that there will sometimes be cases when a
person who is not a member of the emergency services will have to drive in
response to an emergency for example, a parent taking a very sick child to
hospital. As with members of the emergency services responding to emergency
calls, the public considerations outlined above (for example, the nature of the
emergency, the level of culpability) will also apply in these cases.
Other public interest considerations when charging offences arising from
driving incidents
The following is not exhaustive but it indicates some further public
interest considerations that prosecutors should keep in mind with driving
offences:
The
level of culpability of a driver is likely to be relevant. The greater the
degree of culpability, the greater the public interest in favour of
prosecution;
If the
driver has caused harm, annoyance or distress to other road users, it is
more likely to be in the public interest to prosecute; see the section on
Driving without reasonable consideration;
If a
person drives below the required standard and they have not passed a
driving test, are unfit to drive because of a medical condition, or are
driving otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of a provisional
licence, it is more likely to be in the public interest to
prosecute;
It will not necessarily be appropriate to prosecute every case where a minor
collision occurs e.g. where the incident is of a type that involves minimal
carelessness which may occur when parking a vehicle or in traffic queues. The
extent of any damage does not matter in such cases; it is the extent of the
driving error. Prosecutors should ensure that proceedings are not conducted for
the sake of settling questions of liability for the benefit of individual
drivers or insurance companies.
To ensure consistency of approach, charging decisions in all fatal collision
cases should be approved by a Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP), Deputy Chief Crown
Prosecutor (DCCP) or nominated senior decision maker (who will have been
nominated for this role by their CCP/DCCP).
Where there is evidence that points towards an organisation to which the
terms of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 might
apply, prosecutors must refer these cases to the Special Crime and Counter
Terrorism Division.
Where a prosecutor is of the view that there may be sufficient evidence to
warrant full consideration of a charge of gross negligence manslaughter, these
cases should be referred to the relevant Complex Casework Unit (see the
Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter Guidance).
When a suspects/defendants manner of driving has resulted in death or
serious injury to a victim, the term "fatal collision" or
"collision" should be used in all correspondence, conversations at
court and in meetings when dealing with these cases. The term
"accident" should not be used.
The CPS offers a direct service to bereaved families in a number of
qualifying offences including all the fatal collision offences outlined in this
guidance. Prosecutors are referred to the Homicide Cases Guidance on CPS
service to bereaved families and to the Direct Communication with Victims
policy which includes specific reference to the practicalities of arranging and
conducting meetings with bereaved families.
Allocation (Mode of Trial) in Cases Involving a Death
All Allocation (Mode of Trial) decisions in cases involving a death should
be agreed and approved by the CCP/DCCP or nominated senior decision maker (who
will have been nominated for this role by their CCP/DCCP). In such cases the
bereaved family should be advised of the decision and the reasons for reaching
it, well in advance of the hearing at which Allocation (Mode of Trial) will be
considered.
Prosecutors should make themselves known to members of the bereaved family
where they are present at the Allocation (Mode of Trial) hearing and be alert
to the need for sensitivity when addressing the issue during the
hearing.
In order to inform the representations at the Allocation (Mode of Trial)
hearing, prosecutors should compare the circumstances of the particular case
they are reviewing with those in the Sentencing Guidelines Councils Causing
Death by Driving Definitive Guideline (SGC Definitive Guidelines) especially in
respect of the aggravating and mitigating factors set out for the offence in
the SGC Definitive Guidelines. See the section of this guidance entitled
Sentencing for more information.
Prosecutors should also make explicit reference at the Allocation (Mode of
Trial) hearing to relevant factors in the SGC Definitive Guideline.
Prosecutors are reminded of the importance of recording clearly and
thoroughly the reasons for their Allocation (Mode of Trial) decisions.
Where bail is applied for in cases involving serious driving offences and
especially in cases involving fatal collisions, prosecutors are reminded that
the relevant considerations under the Bail Act 1976 apply. Where there are
substantial grounds for believing there is a risk of the defendant committing
further offences on bail, failing to surrender or interfering with witnesses,
prosecutors should give careful consideration to asking the court to impose
conditions on bail or remand the defendant in custody. However, prosecutors are
reminded that bail conditions or a remand in custody should never be requested
as a punitive measure, despite the strength of the evidence in the case, or
seeming lack of defence available to a defendant. Each case must be
assessed on its own facts and its own merits and bail conditions sought that
are proportionate and necessary.
Whilst the imposition of some or no bail conditions, or a remand in custody
are always a decision for the court, prosecutors must ensure that appropriate
representations are made to assist the court to address the issue.
In fatal collision cases or cases where serious harm or injury has occurred,
a bail condition that the defendant should not drive a motor vehicle will often
be appropriate having regard to the overall circumstances of the case and the
need to protect the public from drivers who may cause future harm and are a
danger to other road users. For example, where a defendant has previous
convictions for relevant driving offences, or was on bail for a driving offence
and a subsequent serious driving offence has been committed.
Prosecutors are reminded of the following in relation to acceptance of
pleas:
Any
decision to accept a plea to a lesser offence in fatal collision cases
must be approved by the CCP/DCCP or nominated senior decision maker (who
will have been nominated for this role by their CCP/DCCP).
Prosecutors
should consult the victim or the bereaved family before any decision to
accept a plea to a less serious offence is made. This also applies
to circumstances where the defendant indicates a guilty plea on the basis
of certain specified facts. However, the final decision in this regard
rests with the prosecution.
Prosecutors
must also follow the Attorney Generals Guidelines on the Acceptance of
Pleas and the Prosecutors Role in the Sentencing Exercise.See also the
chapter entitled Sentencing Overview elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.
The Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) Definitive Guideline covers four
offences:
Section
1 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA)1988 (causing death by dangerous driving);
Section
2B of the RTA 1988 (causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving);
Section
3A of the RTA 1988 (causing death by careless driving whilst under the
influence of drink/drugs); and
Section
3ZB of the RTA 1988 (causing death by driving while unlicensed,
disqualified or uninsured).
The SGC Definitive Guideline is an essential reference point for
prosecutors, especially when deciding upon the most suitable venue for trial in
offences triable either way. The SGC Definitive Guideline supersedes guidelines
set out in case law.
Prosecutors should make sure that the court has all the information it needs
to sentence appropriately including any representations concerning mandatory
disqualification and retesting. Prosecutors should also remind the court of its
power to impose an interim disqualification on a defendant where it is lawful
to do so and supply any information contained in the Victims Personal
Statement.
Section 16 of the Coroners Act 1988 (as amended by section 20(5) of the Road
Safety Act 2006 - RSA 2006) stipulates that a Coroner must adjourn an inquest
where a person is charged with any of the offences below:
causing
death by dangerous driving;
causing
death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs;
causing
death by driving while unlicensed/disqualified or uninsured;
causing
death by careless driving.
The inquest should not take place until the conclusion of the criminal
proceedings unless there is a reason to proceed with it.
Section 16 of the Coroners Act 1988 does not apply to fatal collisions where
section 3 of the RTA 1988 (driving without due care and attention - careless
driving) has been charged because in such cases it cannot be shown that the
driving caused the death.
Summary trials for careless driving offences should be adjourned until after
the inquest has taken place. Smith v DPP [2000]
R.T.R.36, R v Beresford (1952)116 JP Jo 194
Where it is considered beneficial to do so, prosecutors should attend an
inquest where the related criminal proceedings have still to be concluded.
Prosecutors should ensure that cases involving a suspects manner of driving
relating to a workplace are reviewed not only to establish whether the driver
should be prosecuted for any offence or offences, but also to determine whether
there is evidence to show that an offence or offences have been committed by
the drivers employer.
The CPS has a protocol with the Health and Safety Executive, the Local
Government Association and the police for the investigation and prosecution of
work related deaths and prosecutors should ensure that there is early liaison
in appropriate cases where such a death has been caused as a result of a
driving offence. See Legal Guidance chapter entitled Relations with
Other Prosecuting Agencies.
In cases where the evidence shows a course of conduct which involves the
commission of a number of statutory or regulatory offences that are very close
in time with one another, there may well be an overlap between careless driving
and other offences such as driving with excess alcohol or a Construction and
Use offence. In such cases, prosecutors should decide whether a separate charge
of careless driving adds anything to the case, and whether any additional
penalty is likely to result on conviction, before deciding to charge this
offence as well.
On the other hand, a driver may drive through a red traffic light, ignore a
pelican crossing and fail to give way at a junction within the same course of
driving. The court needs to be made aware of the link between what might
otherwise appear as isolated incidents, which in reality form part of a more
serious course of conduct. Where this type of situation arises, the
manner of driving has, in reality, fallen far below that expected of a
competent and careful driver because of the drivers systematic failure to obey
the relevant traffic directions. In such circumstances, prosecutors should
consider charges under section 2 RTA 1988 (dangerous driving) where the
evidence supports these charges, rather than a number of individual statutory
or regulatory offences.
Seizure of Vehicles Fatality or Serious Injury cases
In cases where a fatality or serious injury results, consideration should be
given to the seizure and retention of the vehicle in its post-collision
condition until the conclusion of the case, and any periods for an appeal. This
allows an opportunity for expert examination of the vehicle.
This is because the condition of the vehicle involved in a road collision
may be relevant in explaining why the collision happened, for example, a
mechanical defect. In this respect, the Court of Appeal has stated in the case
of R v Beckford [1996] 1 Cr.App. R 94 that the police
should have established procedures to ensure that no car involved in a
collision could be scrapped without their express permission. The police should
not allow a car to be destroyed where serious criminal charges are to be
brought, which might involve the possibility of some mechanical defect to the
vehicle becoming a potential issue in the case.
However, in some circumstances it may be appropriate for the police to seize
specific defective parts of a vehicle or provide photographic or laser scanned
records. It is desirable if consultation takes place with those representing
the suspect/defendant before such a course of action is taken.
Factors that are not relevant in deciding whether an act is dangerous or
careless
The following factors are not relevant when deciding whether an act of
driving is dangerous or careless:
the
injury or death of one or more persons involved in a road traffic
collision. Importantly, injury or death does not, by itself,
turn a collision into careless driving or turn careless driving into
dangerous driving. Multiple deaths are however an aggravating factor for
sentencing purposes (Sentencing Guidelines Council: Causing Death by
Driving Guideline, page 5, paragraph 19);
the
skill or lack of skill of the driver - R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571
the
commission of other driving offences at the same time (such as driving
whilst disqualified or driving without a certificate of insurance or a
driving licence);
the
fact that the defendant has previous convictions for road traffic
offences; and
the
mere disability of a driver caused by mental illness or by physical injury
or illness, except where there is evidence that the disability adversely
affected the manner of the driving.
There are a number of offences which can arise from driving incidents. The
elements of each of the identified offences and the levels of possible sentence
are set out below.
If the vehicle was intentionally used as a weapon to kill or commit grievous
bodily harm, a charge of murder may be considered. If the killing was
involuntary, that is to say, where it was not intended, manslaughter may be
considered. Manslaughter may arise as unlawful act manslaughter and gross
negligence manslaughter. In addition, the charge of corporate manslaughter is
also available.
Manslaughter is an obligatorily disqualifiable offence - Part II of Schedule
2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA 1988). An extended retest
is also mandatory (section 36 of the RTOA 1988).
Manslaughter should also be considered where the driving has occurred
"off road" i.e. other than on a road or other public place, or when
the vehicle driven was not mechanically propelled, and death has been caused.
In these cases the statutory offences such as causing death by dangerous
driving or causing death by careless driving do not apply.
Prosecutors should also see the chapter on Homicide: Murder and Manslaughter
in our Legal Guidance.
Unlawful act manslaughter
It must be proved that:
The
suspects act caused the death of another;
The
suspects act constituted a criminal offence in itself;
The
suspect had the mens rea appropriate to the unlawful act which caused the
death of another; and
The
suspects unlawful act is objectively recognised as subjecting another to
the risk of some physical harm, albeit not necessarily serious harm.
Unlawful act manslaughter will be the most appropriate charge when there is
evidence that a vehicle was used as an instrument of attack or to cause fright,
(but where the necessary intent for murder is absent), and death occurs as a
result.
In the context of driving offences, it is important to remember that there
is a difference between cases where there is a specific unlawful act which
relates to the manner and standard of the driving, and those where a death has
occurred as a result of driving that is unlawful only because of the negligent
manner of its performance.
Driving carelessly or driving dangerously do not, on their own, amount to
unlawful acts for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter. Andrews
v DPP [1937] A.C. 576
Unlawful act manslaughter should, therefore, only be charged instead of
causing death by dangerous driving where there is evidence that the driver
either intended to cause injury to the victim or was reckless as to whether
injury would be caused.
In cases where a death has occurred as a result of the manner of driving,
and it is clear from the available evidence that the standard of driving has
been grossly negligent on the part of the driver, a charge of gross negligence
manslaughter will be the correct charge.
The prosecution must prove the following:
The
suspect owed the deceased a duty of care;
The
suspect was in breach of that duty;
The
suspect caused the death of the deceased;
The
driving fell far below the minimum acceptable standard of driving such
that there was an obvious and serious risk of death; and
The
conduct of the suspect was so bad in all the circumstances as, in the
opinion of the jury, to amount to a crime (R v Adomako [1993] 3 All ER 79).
The ordinary principles of the law of negligence apply when considering
whether there is such a duty. There is a general duty of care on all
persons not to do acts imperilling the lives of others. This may mean
that a "hit and run" driver might be guilty of manslaughter in
certain circumstances. For instance, where a driver fails to stop or to report
a collision where he or she knows or ought reasonably to have known that there
is a risk of death if no medical assistance is provided to the person who has
been hit, it could be argued that the deliberate failure to stop at the scene
or report the incident may amount to manslaughter by omission. Consideration
should be given to this in appropriate cases where there is clear evidence to
satisfy all the above elements. See Wilkinsons Road Traffic Offences for
further information.
The examples of driving which fall far below the minimum acceptable standard
of driving are also applicable here. See examples listed under Dangerous
Driving elsewhere in this guidance.
Gross negligence manslaughter should not be charged unless there is
something to set the case apart from those cases where a statutory offence such
as causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving
could be proved. This will normally be evidence to show a very high risk of
death, making the case one of the utmost gravity. This is in contrast to the
statutory offences where all that is required is evidence that the driving was
dangerous and that the manner of driving caused the death of another person.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 established this
particular offence and covers the way in which activities of corporate bodies
etc are managed and organised.
On occasion it will be apparent that working regimes, dangerous or illegal
practices, or negligence have contributed to a death. In these circumstances
liability may arise either in respect of organisations such as corporations,
certain government departments/bodies, police forces, partnerships or trade
unions etc.
The normal principles of "gross negligence manslaughter" must be
followed to determine liability. The prosecution must prove the
following:
The
organisation is one to which the provisions of the Act apply (a qualifying
organisation) and caused the death of the deceased;
There
was a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased and
the organisation was in gross breach of that duty; and
A
substantial element of the breach involved the way the activities of the
organisation were managed or organised by senior management.
Prosecutors should refer to the chapter on Corporate Manslaughter elsewhere
in the Legal Guidance for more information.
Prosecutors are reminded that where there is evidence that indicates the
possibility of charging corporate manslaughter, such cases must be referred to
the Special Crime and Counter-Terrorism Division.
The offence of causing death by dangerous driving is committed under section
1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) when the suspects driving is a cause
or factor in the death of another person and the driving was dangerous. By
"dangerous" we mean within the meaning of section 2A of the RTA 1988
i.e. the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful
driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
The examples given in relation to dangerous driving also apply to this
offence. See examples listed under the Dangerous Driving section.
It is an offence triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of
14 years imprisonment, by virtue of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and/or an
unlimited fine.
The court must disqualify the driver from driving for at least 2 years,
unless special reasons are found for not disqualifying (in which case it must
endorse the drivers licence with 3 11 penalty points, again, unless there are
special reasons not to do so). An extended retest is also mandatory.
Level of Decision-Making
Charging decisions in all fatal collision cases should be approved by a
Chief Crown Prosecutor (CCP), Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor (DCCP) or other
nominated senior decision maker (who will have been nominated for this role by
their CCP/DCCP). See the section entitled Referral of Fatal
Collision/Manslaughter Cases.
Causation
The manner of the defendants driving must have been a cause of the death.
The defendants driving need not be the sole, principal or even a substantial
cause of the death. It need only be beyond a negligible cause of the death. The
leading authorities are R v Hennigan [1971] 55 Cr App R 262, R v
Skelton [1995] Crim LR 635 and R v Barnes [2008] EWCA Crim 2726.
These cases were cited in R v L [2011] RTR 19 where the
following principles were set out:
The
defendants driving must have played a part not simply in creating the
occasion for the fatal accident, i.e. causation in the "but for"
sense, but in bringing it about;
No
particular degree of contribution is required beyond a negligible one;
There
may be cases in which the judge should rule that the driving is too remote
from the later event to have been the cause of it, and should accordingly
withdraw the case from the jury.
The Court of Appeal in R v Kimsey [1996] Crim LR 35 approved the expression
more than a slight or trifling link as a useful way of explaining de minimis to
the jury.
In R v L [2011] Toulson LJ said "..it is ultimately for the jury to decide whether,
considering all the evidence, they are sure that the defendant should fairly be
regarded as having brought about the death of the victim by his careless
driving. That is a question of fact for them. As in so many areas,
this part of the criminal law depends on the collective good sense and fairness
of the jury."
The court in this case also acknowledged that establishing when dangerous
driving is actually the cause of death may not be a particularly easy concept.
Although proving causation in fatal collision cases can, on occasion, be
straightforward, prosecutors should be alive to the fact that it is possible,
(though this is likely to be extremely rare), for a vehicle to be driven
carelessly or dangerously without the careless or dangerous act or omission
being causative of death. For example, causation may not be made out
where a driver was avoidably distracted by something in the car, and suddenly a
pedestrian stepped out into the road and was so close to the drivers car that a
collision was inevitable, even if the driver had been paying full attention.
Here, the death that occurred was unavoidable, irrespective of the manner of
the driving.
Another example where causation may be difficult to prove could occur where
there has been a collision between two cars, whereupon a third vehicle, being
driven by a driver who was momentarily distracted or who failed to react
sufficiently to the situation, ploughed into the crash scene. If the drivers of
the first or second vehicles suffer fatal injuries, it might not be clear
whether the subsequent dangerous or careless driving by the driver of the third
vehicle was a cause of death.
Prosecutors will need to have regard to relevant case law on this subject
and as always bear in mind that any decision to proceed will ultimately depend
on the facts and merits in any given individual case.
Acceptance of pleas
Prosecutors are reminded that the section on Acceptance of Pleas in the General
Issues section of this guidance must be adhered to.
Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving
The offence of causing death by careless driving under section 2B of the RTA
1988 is committed when the manner of the suspects driving causes the death of
another person.
The definition of this offence is linked to the provisions of section 3ZA of
the RTA 1988. The section stipulates that a person is to be regarded as
driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he or she
drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful
driver.
The clear difference between this offence and an offence of causing death by
dangerous driving is the standard of driving. For causing death by dangerous
driving, the standard of driving must fall far below what would be expected of
a competent and careful driver; whereas for this offence the standard of
driving must merely fall below what would be expected of a competent and
careful driver.
Although also covered by section 2B of the RTA 1988, the offence of causing
death by inconsiderate driving is a separate offence. In this instance,
prosecutors must show that inconvenience has been caused to other persons in
order to prove this offence. Section 3ZA(4) of the RTA 1988 defines
inconsiderate driving and states that a person is to be regarded as driving
without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are
inconvenienced by his driving. Again the standard of driving must fall
below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. See the section
entitled Inconsiderate driving for further information.
The offence can be tried either in a magistrates court or in the Crown
Court. The maximum penalty for the offence on indictment is five years
imprisonment with a mandatory minimum period of disqualification of twelve
months (or 3 -11 points where special reasons are found not to disqualify).
The examples given in this guidance to illustrate careless and inconsiderate
driving also apply to this offence. See examples set out in the Careless
Driving/Driving without reasonable consideration sections.
In either offence whilst the driving does not have to be the sole cause of
death, it does have to be a cause R v Hennigan [1971] 55
Cr App R 262 and R v Barnes [2008] EWCA Crim 2726
See Causing death by dangerous driving elsewhere in this guidance.
Charging Practice
A charge or count on an indictment should not usually contain both offences.
Prosecutors should either charge causing death by careless driving or causing
death by driving without due consideration to others.
Where drugs or alcohol are involved in the commission of a driving offence,
there will be increased culpability and this must be reflected in the
appropriate charge if these additional elements can be proved.
In these circumstances, an offence under section 3A of the RTA 1988 (causing
death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs) should be
charged rather than the section 2B of the RTA 1988 offence.
Allocation (Mode of Trial)
The Allocation (Mode of Trial decision) must be agreed and approved by the
CCP/DCCP or other nominated senior decision maker (who will have been nominated
for this role by their CCP/DCCP). See the section entitled Allocation (Mode of
Trial).
The SGC Definitive Guideline sets out the starting points for the either way
offences together with typical aggravating and mitigating factors.
Examples of aggravating factors specific to this offence include:
Other
offences committed at the same time;
Previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly those that relate to
the manner of driving;
Causing
the death of more than one person;
Serious
injury caused to others, in addition to any death caused;
Irresponsible
behaviour (failing to stop or falsely blaming a victim for the collision).
Examples of mitigating factors include:
Serious
injury to the suspect as a result of the collision. However, the
severity of any injuries should not have any influence on the decision to
charge and the general principles set out in the Code should be applied;
If the
deceased was a close friend or relative of the driver;
The
actions of the victim or a third party contributed to the commission of
the offence;
The
driving was in response to a proven and genuine emergency which did not
provide a defence;
The
lack of driving experience of the offender contributed significantly to
the likelihood of the collision and/or death;
Personal
mitigation such as a good driving record, conduct after the offence (e.g.
providing assistance at the scene or showing remorse).
Acceptance of pleas
With charges of causing death by careless/inconsiderate driving, it will not
normally be appropriate to accept a plea to an offence of careless or
inconsiderate driving.
Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or
drugs
The offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of
drink or drugs under section 3A of the RTA 1988 is defined as being committed
when a mechanically propelled motor vehicle is driven on a road or other public
place and:
the
driving has caused the death of another person; and
the
driving was without due care and attention or without reasonable
consideration for other road users; and
the
driver is either unfit through drink or drugs, or the alcohol
concentration is over the prescribed limited, or there has been a failure
to provide a specimen in pursuance of the RTA 1988.
The suspects driving must have been a cause of death. See the section on
causing death by dangerous driving - R v Hennigan [1971] 55
Cr App R 262 and R v Barnes [2008] EWCA Crim 2726
The examples given in relation to driving without due care and attention
(careless driving) also apply to this offence. See examples listed under
the Careless driving section.
The offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of
14 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
The court must disqualify the driver from driving for at least 2 years (3
years if there is a relevant previous conviction), unless special reasons are
found for not disqualifying (in which case it must endorse the drivers licence
with 3 11 penalty points, again, unless there are special reasons not to do
so). An extended retest is also mandatory.
Charging Practice
Proper procedures must be adopted and applied in the requesting and/or
obtaining of any sample of breath, blood or urine. In cases where the
procedures are flawed, there is a risk that the evidence may be excluded. R
v Coe [2009] EWCA Crim 1452
Where possible, careful consideration must be given to whether the remaining
evidence will support an alternative allegation of causing death by careless
driving while unfit to drive through drink/drugs, in which case, evidence other
than that from an intoximeter machine can be relied upon to demonstrate the
defendants unfitness to drive.
It is not necessary to add a further charge relating to drink/driving when
the defendant is charged with causing death by careless driving when under the
influence of drink/drugs, because a guilty verdict to the relevant drink/drive
offence can be returned by the jury under the statutory provisions.
This is also true of the offence of causing death by careless or
inconsiderate driving. See the section on Alternative verdicts.
There may be rare occasions where the only issue to be decided is the degree
to which the driving fell below the required standard and there is a genuine
triable factual issue between the prosecution and the defence. As section
3A of the RTA 1988 (causing death by careless driving when under the influence
of drink/drugs) is not an available alternative verdict to section 1 of the RTA
1988 (causing death by dangerous driving), it may be necessary to put both
counts on the indictment to give effect to the ability of a jury to reach a
verdict.
Such situations will be rare and must be capable of justification,
especially since section 2B RTA of the 1988 (causing death by careless driving)
is a statutory alternative verdict to section 1 of the RTA 1988 (causing death
by dangerous driving). See the section on Alternative verdicts.
Consumption of alcohol or drugs
Assessing the relevance of the consumption of alcohol or drugs is a
difficult area. In R v McBride (James) (1961) 45 Cr. App.
R. 262, two principles were set out in relation to alcohol
consumption:
the
mere fact that the driver has consumed alcohol is not of itself relevant
to or admissible on the question of whether his driving is careless or
dangerous. For such evidence to be admissible, it must tend to show
that the amount of alcohol taken was such as would adversely affect a
reasonable driver or alternatively that the driver was in fact adversely
affected; and
the
court retains an overriding discretion to exclude such evidence if its
prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
The principles were applied in R v Woodward (Terence)
[1995] 1 WLR 375 (CA)
A similar approach should be followed with drugs.
Relationship between section 1 and section 3A of the RTA 1988
Offences under section 1 of the RTA 1988 (causing death by dangerous
driving) and section 3A of the RTA 1988 (causing death by careless driving when
under the influence of drink/drugs) carry the same maximum penalty, so the
choice of either charge will not inhibit the courts sentencing powers.
The courts have made it clear that for sentencing purposes the two offences
are to be regarded on an equal basis (Attorney Generals
Reference (No.39 of 1993); R v Brown [1994] Crim LR 337; R v Locke [1994] Crim
LR 338) although the SGC Definitive Guideline gives a greater range
of sentences for section 3A of the RTA offences, depending upon the amount of
alcohol or drugs consumed.
The consumption of alcohol is an aggravating feature within the definition
of section 3A. The consumption of alcohol is not part of the definition
of section 1 but may be treated as an aggravating feature in appropriate cases.
See the SGC Definitive Guideline.
Where the offence of causing death by dangerous driving (section 1 of the
RTA 1988) can be proved, it should be charged.
However prosecutors may, on occasion, make the decision to charge both
section 1 and section 3A offences in the alternative. This will usually be when
the manner of the driving is on the borderline between careless and dangerous.
Where this is the case, a plea may be offered to either one of the charges.
Prosecutors are reminded that they must adhere to the Attorney Generals
Guidelines on the Acceptance of Pleas and the Prosecutors Role in the
Sentencing exercise when considering accepting a plea in this circumstance.
However, given that the courts view both section 1 and section 3A offences on a
similar basis for sentencing, any plea accepted will enable the court to impose
a sentence that reflects the full criminality of the offence.
Causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured
The offence of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or
uninsured under section 3ZB of the RTA 1988 is committed when the suspect
causes the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road and, at
the time of driving, one of the following offences is being committed:
section
87(1) of the RTA 1988 (driving otherwise than in accordance with a
licence);
section
103(1)(b) of the RTA 1988 (driving while disqualified); or
section
143 of the RTA 1988 (using motor vehicle while uninsured or unsecured
against third party risks).
It is an offence triable either way with a maximum sentence of two years
imprisonment and a minimum disqualification of 12 months.
Following the judment of the Surpreme Court in the case of R v Hughes [2013] UKSC 56 the
standard of driving does have some relevance. The Supreme Court held (at paragraph
36) that there has to be "some act or omission in the control of
the car, which involves some element of fault, whether amounting to careless or
inconsiderate driving or not, and which contributes in some more than minimal
way to the death of an individual." The word
"causing" involves more than simply placing a car on a road.
Charging Practice
In the normal course of events, where there is sufficient evidence under
section 3ZB of the RTA 1988 (causing death by driving while unlicensed,
disqualified or uninsured), a prosecution for these offences should follow. Any
consideration of culpability is for the court when deciding whether the
offence is made out. However, given the judgment of the Supreme Court in R
v Hughes, there has to be some element of causation arising from
the driving of the accused (see previous section). It can not be simply that
the accused had not obtained the appropriate documents, even if, as will
usually be the case, there was some level of culpability in not having those
documents.
Where there is clear evidence that the driving fell below the required
standard and was a cause of death, the appropriate offence incorporating
dangerous or careless driving should also be charged.
Prosecutors should set out each limb of the offence in separate charges or
counts on an indictment as a charge/count alleging multiple aspects of the
offence may be deemed bad for duplicity. It is suggested here that
section 3ZB creates three separate offences.
Prosecutors should note that offences under section 3ZB of the RTA 1988
(causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured) can only
be committed on a road. Contrast this with section 143 of the RTA 1988 (using
motor vehicle while uninsured) which can be committed on a road or other public
place.
Similarly, for causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified etc a
person must be driving a motor vehicle,
whereas for using a motor vehicle while uninsured a person may also be using
a motor vehicle Elliott v Grey [1959] a vehicle
is in use on the road even when it is stationary and unattended.
Causation
In R v Hughes (see above), the Supreme Court clarified the position re
causation. The Court concluded that Parliament could not have intended a double
strict liability offence which, by removing the cause element with regard to
the driving, it would de facto have created. It was
accepted that when road traffic collisions occur, there are often a number of
contributory factors, but for the section 3ZB offence the accused's driving
must have some link to the collision, even if this is less than what would be
required in an inconsiderate driving/due care case.
The Supreme Court gave the notional examples of a driver driving safely and
well at 34mph in a 30mph limit or at 68mph in a 60mph limit as
circumstances where the driving was at fault but not necessarily so far below
the required standard so as to amount to careless driving. Driving with an
underinflated tyre or one which had fallen below the prescribed tread limit -
something which could have been discovered by checking the tyre - was another
example of a situation where the section 3ZB offence might arise.
The 'but for' principle with regard to the fact that the car was on the road
illegally was dismissed, as it was decided that without any causation linked to
the driving, the outcome would be disproportionate. It was felt that the
accused would not be being punished for what they had done wrong, but rather
for something much more serious.
Allocation (Mode of Trial)
The (Allocation) Mode of Trial decision must be agreed and approved by the
CCP/DCCP or other nominated senior decision maker (who will have been nominated
for this role by their CCP/DCCP). See the section entitled Allocation
(Mode of Trial).
The SGC Definitive Guideline sets out the starting points for the either way
offences together with typical aggravating and mitigating factors.
Examples of aggravating factors specific to this offence include:
Previous
convictions for motoring offences, either involving the manner of driving
or involving driving while disqualified, unlicensed or uninsured;
Causing
the death of more than one person;
Serious
injury caused to others, in addition to any death caused;
Irresponsible
behaviour (failing to stop or falsely claiming that someone else was
driving).
Examples of mitigating factors include:
The
decision to drive was brought about by a proven and genuine emergency
falling short of a defence;
Suspect
believed he or she was insured or licensed to drive;
Serious
injury to the suspect as a result of the collision. However, the severity
of any injuries should not have any influence on the decision to charge
and the general principles set out in the Code should be applied;
The
deceased was a close friend or relative of the driver;
Personal
mitigation such as a good driving record, conduct after the offence
(providing assistance at the scene, showing remorse).
Acceptance of Pleas
With a charges under section 3ZB (causing death by driving while
disqualified, uninsured etc), it will not normally be appropriate to accept a
plea to an offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence
and/or while disqualified and/or uninsured. Where there are multiple
charges/counts on an indictment to reflect the different limbs of the offence,
(for example where a defendant is facing one charge/count of causing death by
driving while unlicensed and another charge/count of causing death while
uninsured) it may be appropriate to accept a plea to one of those
offences.
This will only apply in cases where there are no charges/counts of causing
death by dangerous/careless driving, causing death by careless driving while
under the influence of drink/drugs or any other offence where the driving fell
below the required standard and was a cause of death.
The offence of wanton and furious driving under section 35 of the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861 is committed when bodily harm (i.e. injury) is
caused to any person as a result of the manner of driving of a suspect and is
not limited to motor vehicles but covers any kind of vehicle or carriage
including bicycles.
It is an offence triable only on indictment (except when committed by a
youth).
The offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment and/or an
unlimited fine. Penalty points and discretionary disqualification can be
imposed by the courts under section 28 of the Road Safety Act 2006.
The offence can only be committed if the driver has a degree of subjective
recklessness so far as the foreseeabilty of causing injury is concerned. In
other words, he or she must appreciate that harm was possible or probable as a
result of the manner of driving: see R v Okosi [1996] CLR
666.
Charging Practice
Prosecutors should only prosecute this offence when it is not possible to
prosecute for an offence under the RTA 1988, for example:
when
the driving was not on a road or other public place;
when
the vehicle used was not a mechanically propelled vehicle (such as a
bicycle or horse drawn vehicle);
when a
Notice of Intended Prosecution has not been given (unless such a course
might be regarded by the courts as amounting to an abuse of process).
When a vehicle has been deliberately used as a weapon and has caused injury
prosecutors should normally prosecute for the offence of dangerous driving or a
specific assault under other provisions in the Offences Against the Person Act
1861, subject to there being sufficient evidence to provide a realistic
prospect of conviction, for one of those offences.
Section 143 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act
2012 created an offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving by
amending the RTA 1988 and inserting a new section 1A. This amendment came into
force on 3 December 2012.
The offence is committed when the manner of the defendants driving is dangerous
and results in another person suffering a serious physical injury.
Under Section 1A(2) of the RTA 1988 dangerous driving has the same meaning as
set out in Section 1 of the RTA 1988 and "serious injury" is
defined as "physical harm which amounts to
grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861".
The offence is an either way offence carrying a level 5 fine and/or 6 months
custody in the magistrates court with a mandatory disqualification period of at
least 2 years (unless special reasons are found not to disqualify) and
endorsement. An extended retest is also mandatory.
In the Crown Court, the maximum penalty is 5 years imprisonment and/or a
fine with a mandatory 2 year minimum period of disqualification (unless special
reasons are found not to disqualify) and endorsement. An extended retest
is also mandatory.
Charging Practice
The charge should only be used in cases where the level of injury is most
serious and has occurred as a result of an incident involving a mechanically
propelled vehicle being driven on a road or other public place.
Whilst previously, offences resulting in serious injury which occurred as a
result of a driving offence could be charged under section 20 or section 35 of
the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861), Parliament has decided
that a more focused approach which targets offences with this specific set of
circumstances is more appropriate.
In addition, Parliament has responded to road safety campaign groups and
victims and their representatives who have called for the gap in sentences
between the current 2 year maximum for dangerous driving and the 14 year maximum
for causing death by dangerous driving to be addressed. The 5 years
imprisonment maximum for this offence addresses that concern.
Where a person is found not guilty of manslaughter in England and Wales,
they may instead be convicted of the offence of causing serious injury by
dangerous driving.
Where a person is found not guilty of this offence they may be convicted of
dangerous driving (section 2 of the RTA 1988) or careless, or inconsiderate
driving (section 3 of the RTA 1988) in the alternative. See the section
on Alternative verdicts.
Injury that falls short of serious in cases of Dangerous Driving
There may be cases where the injuries are such that they do not evidentially
satisfy the offence under section 1A RTA 1988 causing serious injury by dangerous
driving. In these cases it may be appropriate to consider an additional assault
charge of section 47, applying the CPS charging standards. The prosecution must
be able to prove under section 47 that the defendant subjectively foresaw that
a person would be subjected to unlawful force, however slight, and that the
defendant took the risk (alternatively, that the defendant foresaw the
possibility that a person would apprehend immediate and unlawful violence and
took the risk). If the evidential criteria are satisfied for the dangerous
driving then it will often be the case that the mens rea will be made out for a
section 47 assault.
It is to be noted that there is nothing wrong in principle in charging an
assualt with a driving offence, R v Bain [2005] EWCA Crim 7.
However it is wrong to impose consecutive sentences.
Injury and Driving without Due Care and Attention
There is no similar legislative provision for the prevalent situation where
the victim sustains an injury and the driving does not meet the evidential
criteria of Dangerous driving. In some cases it may be appropriate to consider
an additional assault charge. This may offer more options in sentencing. In
considering any ancillary assault charge, the level of seriousness of the Due
Care would have to be one that would ordinarily fit within the level 1 bracket
within the sentencing guidelines. However, this should not be too prescriptive
and each case will have to be considered on its own merits, considering all the
evidence.
Depending on the level of seriousness of the injury (in accordance with the
charging standard), prosecutors will consider offences contrary to section 47
or section 20.
For the section 20 offence, the Prosecution must prove that either the
defendant intended or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some injury,
albeit it may be of a more minor nature than the actual one sustained R
v Savage; DPP v Parmenter [1992] 1 AC 669. The driver must have
held that knowledge, but it is not necessary to prove that the identity of that
person was someone that the driver foresaw.
For the section 47 offence, the prosecution must prove that the defendant
subjectively foresaw that a person would be subjected to unlawful force,
however slight, and that the defendant took the risk (alternatively, that the
defendant foresaw the pssibility that a person would apprehend immediate and
unlawful violence and took the risk).
It would be likely that if a section 18 was considered then the intent would
already have been within the Dangerous driving bracket, so the specific charges
of serious injury and Dangerous driving would be appropriate under section1A
Road Traffic Act 1988.
The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the RTA 1988 is
committed when a persons standard of driving falls far below what would be
expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent
and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Dangerous driving is an either way offence carrying a level 5 fine and/or 6
months custody in the magistrates court.
In the Crown Court, the maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment and/or an
unlimited fine.
Wherever the case is dealt with, the court must disqualify the driver from
driving for at least a year and order an extended retest (section 36 of the
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988). Where "special reasons" are
found for not disqualifying the court must endorse the drivers licence with
3-11 penalty points unless there are, again, "special reasons" for
not doing so.
Prosecutors should note the following relevant factors:
Both
parts of the definition must be satisfied for the driving to be
"dangerous" within the meaning of the Act - Section 2A(1) of the
RTA 1988.
There
is no statutory definition of what is meant by "far below" but
"dangerous" must refer to danger of personal injury or of
serious damage to property - Section 2A(3) of the RTA 1988.
Section
2A(2) of the RTA 1988 provides that a person is to be regarded as driving
dangerously if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that
driving the vehicle in its current state would be dangerous.
Skill
(or indeed lack of skill) of a driver is an irrelevant circumstance when
considering whether the driving is dangerous. R v Bannister [2009] EWCA Crim 1571
Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own
free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a
substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to
driving falling far below the required standard. If the driving that
caused the danger was taken as a deliberate decision, this would be an
aggravating feature of the offence.
It is important to remember that the manner of the driving must be seen in
the context of the surrounding circumstances in which the driving took place
(for example amount of traffic, visibility, weather conditions, excess speed
etc) and these unique factors will be relevant in reaching an appropriate
charging decision in each case.
The test for "dangerousness" is an objective one: persistent
disregard of, say, traffic directions (be they "stop", "give
way" or traffic lights) may be evidence that the manner of the driving has
fallen far below the standard required, thus making a charge of dangerous
driving appropriate.
The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised
as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive
Guideline:
racing
or competitive driving;
failing
to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as
cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or when
in the vicinity of a pedestrian crossing, hospital, school or residential
home;
speed,
which is particularly inappropriate for the prevailing road or traffic
conditions;
aggressive
driving, such as sudden lane changes, cutting into a line of vehicles or
driving much too close to the vehicle in front;
disregard
of traffic lights and other road signs, which, on an objective analysis,
would appear to be deliberate;
disregard
of warnings from fellow passengers;
overtaking
which could not have been carried out safely;
driving
when knowingly suffering from a medical or physical condition that
significantly and dangerously impairs the offenders driving skills such as
having an arm or leg in plaster, or impaired eyesight. It can include the
failure to take prescribed medication;
driving
when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest;
driving
a vehicle knowing it has a dangerous defect or is poorly maintained or is
dangerously loaded;
using a
hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment whether as
a phone or to compose or read text messages when the driver was avoidably
and dangerously distracted by that use; R v
Browning (2001) EWCA Crim 1831, R v Payne [2007] EWCA Crim 157
driving
whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a
newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and
lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment
such as a radio, hands-free mobile phone or satellite navigation
equipment;
a brief
but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre. This
covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of
judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be
dangerous even for only a short time. Cases that illustrate this principle
include:
Att.Gens Reference No 32 of 2001 (2002) 1
Cr.App.R. (S) 121 (offender failed to stop at a junction where
there was a give way sign, failing to see a taxi that was being driven
across the junction perfectly properly and colliding with it);
Att.Gens Reference No 4 of 2000 2000])
EWCA Crim 780 (offender unintentionally pressed the
accelerator instead of the brake);
Att.Gens Reference No.76 of 2002 (Hodges)
(2003) 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 100 (offender drove across a junction
marked by a give way sign and collided with a car that was being driven
along the major road and had no explanation for his failure to see the other
car) "this was a single misjudgement. It
was a bad misjudgement but nevertheless a single one" (p.423).
It is not necessary to consider what the driver thought about the possible
consequences of his actions: simply whether or not a competent and careful
driver would have observed, appreciated and guarded against obvious and
material dangers.
In the case of a vehicle in such a state of disrepair as to be dangerous,
consideration should be given to whether the vehicle should have been driven at
all, as well as to how it was driven in the particular circumstances.
The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving)
under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendants driving falls
below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver - section 3ZA(2)
of the RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either
endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there
are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a
fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed.
In determining what is to be expected of a competent and careful driver, the
prosecutor must take into account not only the circumstances of which the
driver could be expected to be aware, but also any circumstances shown to have
been within the drivers knowledge.
The test of whether the standard of driving has fallen below the required
standard is objective. It applies both when the manner of driving in
question is deliberate and when it occurs as a result of incompetence,
inadvertence or inexperience.
Occasionally, a collision may occur but there is no evidence of any
mechanical defect, illness of the driver, or other explanation to account for
why the collision happened. In these cases, a charge of careless driving may be
appropriate, but prosecutors should exercise caution.
If the evidence is capable of proving how an incident occurred (e.g. a
collision), the case can be put on the basis that there is a very strong
inference that the defendant was driving below the standard expected of a
competent and careful driver.
In the absence of any explanation by the defendant as to the cause of the
collision, a court may infer that the offence was committed, but where the
defendant does provide an explanation for the collision, however unlikely, you
will have to consider whether to proceed.
The civil law doctrine of res ipsa loquitur [the thing
speaks for itself] has no direct application to the criminal law. (But
see Wilkinsons at para 5.52): "the fact that res ipsa loquitor has no application to
criminal law does not mean that the prosecution have to negative every possible
explanation of a defendant before he can be convicted of careless driving where
the facts at the scene of an accident are such that, in the absence of any
explanation by the defendant, a court can have no alternative but to
convict"
See also R v Warwickshire Police Ex p. Manjit
Singh Mundi [2001] EWHC Admin 448 (the court held that
crossing a central white line without explanation was, in itself, evidence of
careless driving).
In some cases, particularly where there has been a collision, the evidence
will show that more than one driver was at fault. It will be necessary to
establish that there is evidence from an independent source against any driver
who is to be charged, but the possibility of charging more than one driver
remains if both have failed to comply with the statutory standard.
There are decided cases that provide some guidance as to the driving that
courts will regard as careless or inconsiderate and the following examples are
typical of what we are likely to regard as careless driving:
overtaking
on the inside;
driving
inappropriately close to another vehicle;
inadvertently
driving through a red light;
emerging
from a side road into the path of another vehicle;
tuning
a car radio; when the driver was avoidably distracted by this action;
using
a hand-held mobile phone or other hand-held electronic equipment when the
driver was avoidably distracted by that use (note that this is an offence
itself under Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
(Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003). If this is the only relevant
aspect of the case it is more appropriate to use the specific offence;
selecting
and lighting a cigarette or similar when the driver was avoidably distracted
by that use.
These examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving.
In addition, prosecutors should note that some of these examples also fall
within the examples of dangerous driving.
Charging Practice
Prosecutors must note that the same factors must be taken into consideration
as those outlined for the charging practice in respect of dangerous driving
offences under section 2 of the RTA 1988. The manner of the driving must be
seen in the context of the surrounding circumstances in which they took place
(for example; amount of traffic, visibility, weather conditions, excess speed
etc). The circumstances in every case will be unique and must be
considered in each case before reaching a decision as to the appropriate charge.
It is necessary to put the facts into context, decide the degree to which
the standard of driving fell below that required, and consider whether the
particular facts of the case warrant a charge under section 3 of the RTA 1988
(careless driving) or under section 2 of the RTA 1988 (dangerous
driving). See the section on Commission of a number of offences for
additional guidance.
Prosecutors should also consider whether a driver has failed to observe a
provision of the Highway Code. This does not itself render that person
liable to criminal proceedings, but a failure, particularly a serious one, may
constitute evidence of careless or even dangerous driving; see section 38(7) of
the RTA 1988.
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of
the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the
manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse
the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are
"special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a
fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is
the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the
inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of
the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show
that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving,
there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was
actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
Charging Practice
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of
incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some
other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of
actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing
of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse
of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other
advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily
remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily
slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving
with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or
pedestrians;
driving
through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving
a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the
section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict
provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex
parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.
Section 24 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (RTOA 1988) allows for the
return of alternative verdicts where the allegations in the indictment amount
to, or include an allegation of an offence specified in the table set out in
that section.
The section applies to magistrates courts as well as to juries, provided the
magistrates court has jurisdiction to try the "Offence charged". The
alternatives are set out in the table below. Section 33 of the Road
Safety Act 2006 (RSA 2006) is also relevant here. It allows for a jury to
return an alternative verdict to a charge of manslaughter. However,
prosecutors should note that section 33 of the RSA 2006 has not overturned the
decision in the case of R v Seymour [1983] RTR 455
and it remains the case that alternative charges may not be put on the
indictment.
OFFENCE CHARGED
ALTERNATIVE
VERDICTS
Manslaughter
Section 1 of the RTA 1988 causing death by dangerous
driving
Section 2 of the RTA 1988: dangerous driving
Section 3A of the RTA 1988: causing death by careless driving while under the
influence of drink or drugs
Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861: wanton & furious
driving
Section 1A of the RTA 1988: causing serious injury by dangerous driving
Section 1 of the RTA 1988: death by dangerous driving
Section 2 of the RTA 1988: dangerous driving
Section 2B of the RTA 1988: causing death by careless or inconsiderate
driving
Section 3 of the RTA 1988: careless or inconsiderate driving
Section 1A of the RTA 1988: causing serious injury by
dangerous driving
Section 2 of the RTA 1988: dangerous driving
Section 3 of the RTA 1988: careless or inconsiderate driving
Section 2 of the RTA 1988: dangerous driving
Section 3 of the RTA 1988: careless or inconsiderate
driving
Section 2B of the RTA 1988: causing death by careless or
inconsiderate driving
Section 3 of the RTA 1988: careless or inconsiderate
driving
Section 3A of the RTA 1988: causing death by careless
driving while under the influence of drink or drugs
Section 2B of the RTA 1988: causing death by careless or
inconsiderate driving
Section 3 of the RTA 1988: careless or inconsiderate driving
and/or the relevant offence from:
Section 4(1) of the RTA 1988: driving whilst unfit
Section 5(1)(a) of the RTA 1988: driving with excess alcohol
Section 7(6) of the RTA 1988: failing to provide a specimen
Section 7A(6) of the RTA 1988: failing to give permission for laboratory
test.
Where the accused is charged with an offence under Section 3A of the RTA
1988 he or she may not be convicted as an alternative with any offence of
attempting to drive: section 24(2) of the RTOA 1988.
Driver Kills Elderly Pedestrian,
Found Not Guilty of Careless Driving
It is
hard to build a safe transportation infrastructure for pedestrians when the
courts interpret the laws in a way that makes it clear there is no real
deterrent for not driving safely around pedestrians.
This is just appalling: according to aSpectatorarticle, the driver who struck and killed 87-year-old
Kitty MacLeod on Governor's Road in December 2012 has been found not guilty of
careless driving.
The Crown prosecutor argued: "It's an area where pedestrians
can be expected. The claim, 'I didn't see her' is proof of a lack of due care
and attention and reason for conviction."
Unfortunately for pedestrians, the judge disagreed. The article
doesn't give the judge's reasons for rejecting the Crown's commonsense argument
that if you didn't see an old lady slowly crossing the road until you hear her
hit your car, then you obviously weren't paying attention!
It seems it is enough for the driver to simply claim that they
were paying attention, without even giving a reason for not seeing the
pedestrian.
That sort of argument just wouldn't fly in any other case where
one person kills another. Imagine a backyard archer hitting and killing a
family member who happened to walk in front of the target. Would "I just
didn't see them, I don't know why, because I was really being careful"
fly?
As usual, unless a driver can be proved to be speeding or drunk or
to have deliberately targeted someone, simply saying "I didn't see the
crossing pedestrian", is enough to get off a charge of "careless
driving" - let alone a more serious charge, like dangerous operation of a
motor vehicle causing death.
And because the other person involved is dead, we only have the
motorist's word that he wasn't speeding and was paying attention, and not
changing channels on the radio, fumbling for his coffee or distracted in some
other way.
Remember, this was an elderly pedestrian walking near a retirement
home. She obviously didn't just dart into traffic like a child chasing a ball!
As the bookCarjackedshows, motorists who kill pedestrians are almost never charged
with a serious offence and they are almost never convicted even if they are.
Unlike most other incidents causing death, killing someone with a motor vehicle
is treated as a normal, although regrettable, event that no one is really
responsible for.
In fact, the tendency is to try to find ways to blame the
pedestrian. It is the pedestrian who must not have been paying attention,
didn't dress in reflective clothing, or was reckless in walking around in
dangerous conditions.
It really is a strange blind spot in our generally very
risk-averse and litigious society, one where someone injured when deliberately
tobogganing in an area marked "no tobogganing" by the City can still
be awarded thousands of dollars in damages, and deaths in the workplace are
treated very seriously indeed (it is likely that killing someone with a
bulldozer on a construction site would attract very serious penalties).
This death didn't occur at a crosswalk (though a crosswalk had
already been planned and has since been installed), but even killing a
pedestrian in a crosswalk only attracts a $500 fine in Ontario.
It is hard to build a safe transportation infrastructure for pedestrians
when the courts interpret the laws in a way that makes it clear there is no
real deterrent for not driving safely around pedestrians.
It doesn't have to be this way, and in rich countries outside
North America it isn't.
icholas Kevlahan was born and raised in Vancouver, and then spent
eight years in England and France before returning to Canada in 1998. He has
been a Hamiltonian since then, and is a strong believer in the potential of
this city. Although he spends most of his time as a mathematician, he is also a
passionateamateur
urbanistand a fan of good design. You can often spot him strolling the
streets of the downtown, shopping at the Market. Nicholas is the spokesperson
forHamilton Light Rail.
By kevlahan (registered) | Posted March 14, 2014 at 18:15:13 in
reply toComment 98444
I accept that in certain extreme circumstances it is impossible to
avoid a collision (e.g. a child darting out from between parked cars just in
front of the vehicle). This is not at all the case we have here: a testifying
police officer said that the pedestrian would have been easy to see and that
the driver should have had at least 6 seconds to stop. Drivers are supposed to
be alert and in control of their vehicles at all times.
I never claimed that it isalwaysthe driver's fault, but the statistics show that drivers are
almostneverconvicted of a serious
offence even when commonsense would indicate that they are obviously at fault
(e.g. running down a pedestrian crossing legally in a crosswalk). And in this
case the driver claims that he did not notice the pedestrian until he heard her
hit the car. Surely that shows an insufficient level of attention for someone
engaged in an activity as potentially lethal as driving!
And, in any case, dismissing the death of an 87 year old as
"an unfortunate accident" is just not good enough. It is not
acceptable in other spheres of life, and it shouldn't be acceptable here.
In workplace safety, e.g. WSIB, the slogan is "there is no
such thing as an accident"http://www.advantagepcm.com/article-wsib...("all accidents are
preventable"). The goal in traffic safety should be zero deaths and injuries,
and indeed that is the official goal in Sweden.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_ZeroSweden managed to reduce traffic
deaths by 35% in 12 years.
And don't forget that Hamilton is bad even by Ontario standards:
we are the second worst in the province!
Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-03-14 18:31:59
Comment:
By KevinLove (registered) | Posted March 15, 2014 at 16:17:11 in
reply toComment 98445
A child running around is perfectly normal and reasonable child
behaviour. A car driver in a residential area should not drive so fast by any
obstacle behind which a child may be concealed that the car driver cannot
safely stop if a child runs out.
Any car driver who is so criminally negligent should be charged
with Dangerous Driving and receive serious jail time.
If the pedestrian is a slow-moving senior citizen, then the
criminal negligence is even more glaring and extreme.
Comment edited by KevinLove on 2014-03-15 16:18:31
-------------
comment: By Brandon (registered) |
Posted March 17, 2014 at 08:56:15 in reply toComment 98444
Right, because 87 year olds frequently dart out into traffic,
absolving the driver of responsibility?
I drive a lot, frequently at higher than posted speeds (on
highways), yet in the city I'm often at lower than the posted speed because I
drive based on my visibility. If there are a lot of parked cars close to the
driving lane, slow down. If there are kids playing in the area, slow down.
It's not a complicated process once you understand that, as a
driver, you are in control of close to 2 tons of weight and need to be able to
control that. If you can't or won't accept that responsibility, you shouldn't
be behind the wheel.
---------------
A Dalhousie University group that studies transportation
recently published a study that looked at 74,000 collisions in Nova Scotia
between 2007 and 2011.
As traffic engineers await better information, pedestrians should take
steps to protect their safety, he said.
“Just because there’s two white lines … doesn’t necessarily mean a
vehicle will stop for you. Make sure a vehicle has stopped for you before you
cross the street,” said Koutroulakis.
“If it’s
between you and a vehicle, the pedestrian is almost always going to lose.”
Mar
21, 2013 ... In other words, the penalty for killing a pedestrian
in a crosswalk is a $500 fine ... part of driving, and drivers
can't be expected to pay attention all the time. ... Driver
pleads guilty to lesser charge in death of pedestrian
(Mississauga.com) ... Although he spends most of his time as a
mathematician, he is als...
---------------
It’s been a busy year for police in the Halifax Regional Municipality dealing with pedestrians being struck by vehicles.
The map below includes the dates and locations of more than 100 incidents, and will be updated regularly. For the latest information, check the websites of the Halifax Regional Police and Halifax District RCMP. Areas where multiple collisions have occurred may only display a single marker.
A Halifax Transit Bus, and 4 cars fail to yield to
a pedestrian crossing the road
Published on Oct 25, 2014
Bus #
732
Route #10
Victoria Road, Dartmouth Nova Scotia Canada
Video shot on October 25th, 2014.
Original file started filming at 13:53 in the afternoon. Clip taken from 8:35
in the video.
Bad Halifax Drivers un
see bus
driver go through crosswalk while people crossing.
Published on Apr 2, 2014
No one
is perfect but come on people were trying to have a society here eh. enjoy
number 1 or number UN! There could be more.
If the video seems bad and you would like to send me a better dash cam or go
pro just let me know. We can set that up no problem.
UPDATE:
Woman on motorized scooter dies after crosswalk accident
By Rebecca Lau Reporter/Weekend
Anchor May 3, 2014
.jpg)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.