Crossing-abuse driver banned for two months

[jopsuk]

Good to see some strong action being taken against this driver. I'm guessing his collection of unrelated excuses may not have helped in sentencing.

Am I right in thinking that at the end of the ban, he has to start from scratch with regards getting a driving licence?

(also, retro photo! How long is it since the 365s all lost their NSE livery?)

 

[Geezertronic]

On the very rare occasions when I have been blinded by the sun to the extent I cannot see in front of me, I have stopped the car and proceed with caution. I don't fancy a pedestrian as a bonnet ornament or changing the colour of my car to red

 

[Nick W]

Does anyone here also think that this may have been a subconscious suicide attempt and that the magistrate has possibly failed to see that act accordingly?

 

[Metroland]

Possibly, there has been a lot of those sorts of attempts since ufton. Suicide is selfish anyway, but that sort of suicide is criminal.

Personally I think any driver that is involved in a collision with a train should be banned for life if its proven it's their fault.

Anyone running red-lights should get a 6 month instant ban.

Truck drivers that collide with railway bridges should also lose their license for good.

 

[Nick W]

But seeking suicide is often a physiological condition, not a conscious desire. People who live to tell the tale of a suicide attempt often claim that suicide wasn't even on their conscious mind up until even the point when the act was committed. It is immoral to treat a person guilty through temporary insanity as a criminal since they did not make a rational decision.

Let's look at the facts: two people very close to him had died that day, so he would have been under immense grief and stress. Moreover, he was both a local and a rail enthusiast so would have almost certainly known the crossing was there and that there was a high chance of train going past.

My guess is that he found himself not stopping at the level crossing barriers, but then consciously wondered what on Earth he was doing and possibly couldn't puzzle it through himself, so assumed it must have been the sun. IF this is correct, the poor bloke didn't need a criminal record or driving ban - he needed counselling and the state has failed him.

 

[Metroland]

Some would argue that criminals tend to suffer mental illness/problems: Lack of empathy with others is the chief reason anyone commits moral and criminal offences, to varying degrees of seriousness.

At some level there is usually justification in someone's mind why they should be doing what they are doing - this even applies to paedophiles, rapists and murderers. Hence courts usually decide if something is pre-meditated or not.

Should we make excuses for all criminals for their deeds because of their personal circumstances, place in society and their justification? That's another debate in itself.

In this particular case, I can understand why someone might became suicidal, but what I cannot understand (or excuse) is people driving out in front of trains knowing there could be a more serious accident - assuming that is the case. It's probably more likely his mind wandered.

Most current efforts to fight crime focus on sociological approaches: counseling and rehabilitation for offenders, tougher laws intended to discourage criminal acts, and better parenting and better education to prevent at-risk children from becoming delinquents and criminals.

These well-intentioned approaches have one thing in common: they frequently fail. Why? Because they fail to acknowledge that many criminals suffer from brain malfunctions which prevent them from benefiting from sociological or psychological interventions. Research shows that chronic offenders exhibit brain dysfunction leading to extreme "dyslogic." Many exhibit a lack of insight and foresight, a lack of empathy for animals and people, a low anger threshold, poor abstract thinking and social skills, a lack of fear and remorse, impulsivity, and an inability to realize the consequences of their actions or to learn from experience.

The more we learn about the brain dysfunction that underlies much delinquency and criminality, the more successful we will be in truly rehabilitating offenders, and preventing "at risk" children and adults

http://www.crimetimes.org/

 

[Greenback]

But seeking suicide is often a physiological condition, not a conscious desire. People who live to tell the tale of a suicide attempt often claim that suicide wasn't even on their conscious mind up until even the point when the act was committed. It is immoral to treat a person guilty through temporary insanity as a criminal since they did not make a rational decision.

Let's look at the facts: two people very close to him had died that day, so he would have been under immense grief and stress. Moreover, he was both a local and a rail enthusiast so would have almost certainly known the crossing was there and that there was a high chance of train going past.

My guess is that he found himself not stopping at the level crossing barriers, but then consciously wondered what on Earth he was doing and possibly couldn't puzzle it through himself, so assumed it must have been the sun. IF this is correct, the poor bloke didn't need a criminal record or driving ban - he needed counselling and the state has failed him.

You are incorrect - his mother and brothe rhad not died that day, but last year, according to the story. You have also assumed that the person involved was subconsciously trying to kill themselves, and have decided, as a result, that he is a victim of sorts?

Sorry, but I cannot agree with this hypothesis. It is far more likely that he was not concentrating and simply did not see the barriers before it was too late. A car is a dangerous weapon, and people who are in control of one must be aware of the consequences of slips in concentration. As has been said, we can find reasons to excuse all foolish or criminal behaviour but we also have a duty as a society to protect the majority.

 

[mumrar]

Am I right in thinking that at the end of the ban, he has to start from scratch with regards getting a driving licence?

The judgement would list a retest, as that can be a specific condition of the ban, such as 6 month ban plus alcohol awareness course for a drink driving offence. So, as it makes no mention of retests, he's free to resume after two months........assuming he'll stop.

 

[GB]

There is a stipulation though that if the ban exceeds 56 days you have to re apply for you licence with the DVLA, alot of people assume your licence gets automatically reinstated when it does not.

 

[MCR247]

(also, retro photo! How long is it since the 365s all lost their NSE livery?)

About 3 years :?

 

[Nick W]

You are incorrect - his mother and brothe rhad not died that day, but last year, according to the story. You have also assumed that the person involved was subconsciously trying to kill themselves, and have decided, as a result, that he is a victim of sorts?

My apologies, thanks for pointing this out, I replied early (for me) in the morning. I should have mentioned that he had visited their graves that day, and hence it was obviously on his mind. I haven't assumed it, but suggested it may have been the case. If this is the case, he is indeed a victim of circumstance.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with this hypothesis. It is far more likely that he was not concentrating and simply did not see the barriers before it was too late. A car is a dangerous weapon, and people who are in control of one must be aware of the consequences of slips in concentration. As has been said, we can find reasons to excuse all foolish or criminal behaviour but we also have a duty as a society to protect the majority.

I find it hard to believe that a local and a rail enthusiast who would have known very well about the level crossing would simply not have seen them for long enough to drive straight through. We'd be talking about him not concentrating or being blinded for a good 15 seconds, and yet not veering off the road.

 

[rail-britain]

Am I right in thinking that at the end of the ban, he has to start from scratch with regards getting a driving licence?

As mentioned earlier, it depends on if a SPD was issued
However, since it mentions "two months" then it would not be (as those are always issued in number of days, up to 56)
Where a SPD is issued, the driving licence is simply endorsed and returned to the driver

Where a disqualification applies, the driving licence is returned back to provisional status (on ALL categories)

A court can also impose an extended retest and it is mandatory for some offences / endorsements

This is why some people drive without a licence, as they are completely unaware they have to reapply for their licence
Sadly some people just think they are entitled to it and don't have to actually have it in their possession!

I suspect the disqualification was issued as the driver already had points on the licence, as a result at the end of the disqualification they will still be present
Had points been issued then Totting Up may have applied (resulting in automatic disqualification), after which the points are nul and void
This is commonly used where this may happen

 

[Greenback]

My apologies, thanks for pointing this out, I replied early (for me) in the morning. I should have mentioned that he had visited their graves that day, and hence it was obviously on his mind. I haven't assumed it, but suggested it may have been the case. If this is the case, he is indeed a victim of circumstance.



I find it hard to believe that a local and a rail enthusiast who would have known very well about the level crossing would simply not have seen them for long enough to drive straight through. We'd be talking about him not concentrating or being blinded for a good 15 seconds, and yet not veering off the road.

I've seen some strange things, both from inside the car and as a pedestrian! I just think it's stretching things to put it down to a subconscious suicide attempt. If there was any evidence of depression or anything similar, it would probably have been used in mitigation. I can accept, that, with his mind elsewhere, the sun in his eyes, and perhaps not usually having to stop at the crossing, he just didn't realise that the barriers were down. I'm no expert, but I think more serious charges could have been brought, rather than driving without due care and attention, if the CPS had felt the case warranted it. I feel that he has been treated fairly, based on the circumstances of the incident and the consequences.

 

[boing_uk]

I find it hard to believe that a local and a rail enthusiast who would have known very well about the level crossing would simply not have seen them for long enough to drive straight through. We'd be talking about him not concentrating or being blinded for a good 15 seconds, and yet not veering off the road.

Why is it so hard to beleive? Im sure many of us on here have on that rare occasion been driving along and thought "was that traffic light I just drove through on green?", because I know I have; and I am a traffic signals engineer!

I have seen drivers go through a junction at normal speed against a red signal - a red signal thats been red for some time - and just keep on going as though nothing in the world has fazed them.

And its all through lack of concentration.

Emotional and psychological distress is just as dangerous behind the wheel and drink and tiredness. And collisions or other misdemeanours because of it should be punished accordingly.

 

[Aictos]

(also, retro photo! How long is it since the 365s all lost their NSE livery?)

Try 2007 as I joined FCC in late 2006 and they were re-livering the 365s at Hornsey and I don't think they finished until mid 2007.

 

[jopsuk]

On the other hand 3 points, £170 fine and £45 costs for a deliberately reckless bit of driving.

(some high-class journalism from the Cambridge News there- "sticky cargo")

 

[Geezertronic]

(some high-class journalism from the Cambridge News there- "sticky cargo")

Stinky Cargo, not sticky cargo

Should have been banned

 

[mindfeeder]

Pretty poor fine there IMO.

 

[ungreat]

But seeking suicide is often a physiological condition .

Physiological? I think you mean Psychological....I have hit two people and it aint nice..whats worse is the inquest

Direct suicide attempt,with a hint of "Look at me"

 

[GB]

On the other hand 3 points, £170 fine and £45 costs for a deliberately reckless bit of driving.

(some high-class journalism from the Cambridge News there- "sticky cargo")

All I will say on this case is what a pathetic punishment!