"Train Collision on level crossing, Newquay"

[Captain Chaos]

Looking up Google Maps and asking it for driving directions from her location to Newquay it suggests going across the railway line using a level crossing.

Newquay appears to be the nearest town and even assuming only one trip a week would mean she would encounter a level crossing twice a week.

Sounds like a lame excuse and she has got off very lightly. Surely if you admit not knowing something that is in the Highway Code, something you should know as a driver, then surely you should automatically be ordered to re-take your test? Very surprised.

 

[GB]

I'd be interested to see how the CPS successfully prosecute her intent to do that, rather than her being a crap driver

Pretty sure it would be endangering the safety of the railway and for that I'm pretty sure fore thought is not required.

 

[KA4C]

Pretty sure it would be endangering the safety of the railway and for that I'm pretty sure fore thought is not required.

I think that, generally, intent is required, I think that the only one where it is not is Sec 36 Malicious Damage act 1861. However, look at what occurred in the commission of the offence. What was the actual offence? It was one of careless driving, was it not? the collision with the side of the train being as a consequence of the original act

 

[the sniper]

Pretty sure it would be endangering the safety of the railway and for that I'm pretty sure fore thought is not required.

There are two separate offences (well, three technically) for endangering the safety of people on the railway, they cover with intent and without intent. There's also two offences for obstructing a train, one with intent, one without.

 

[KA4C]

£375 in fines and costs plus a 56 day ban. She's got off pretty lightly in my opinion.

No points, no (extended) driving test, and luckily for her, she was convicted for careless driving, which is a lesser offence than driving without due care and attention. She could have also been convicted for "failing to comply with traffic light signals", which in my opinion, would have been an open and shut case as well.

As I say, the sitting magistrate has been very lenient, or the CPS did not provide enough evidence.

No they weren't lenient. She was charged with careless driving and she pleaded guilty to that (and so is entitled to a discount on her sentence for the early guilty plea). A quick look at sentencing guidelines will show that, by applying a discretionary disqualification, the magistrates set the offence at a high level careless driving offence and they heard all of the evidence, we haven't. The reason that she got no points was that she was disqualified instead. Why would the CPS charge a lesser traffic light offence when it is clearly a careless driving offence
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are two separate offences (well, three technically) for endangering the safety of people on the railway, they cover with intent and without intent. There's also two offences for obstructing a train, one with intent, one without.

Out of interest, what legislation is the under?

 

[Donny Dave]

No they weren't lenient. She was charged with careless driving and she pleaded guilty to that (and so is entitled to a discount on her sentence for the early guilty plea). A quick look at sentencing guidelines will show that, by applying a discretionary disqualification, the magistrates set the offence at a high level careless driving offence and they heard all of the evidence, we haven't. The reason that she got no points was that she was disqualified instead. Why would the CPS charge a lesser traffic light offence when it is clearly a careless driving offence

Both "Driving without due care and attention" and "Failing to comply with traffic light signals" both carry 3 points, and a ban can be applied as well at the sitting magistrates discretion. These are both endorsable offences.

"Careless driving" carries no points, and is a non-endorsable offence. It is upto the sitting magistrates discretion if a ban is applied.

If she was convicted of either of the first 2 offences, then she would have recieved the points irrespective of the ban.

 

[the sniper]

Out of interest, what legislation is the under?

Intent to Endanger - Section 32 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Endanger without intent - Section 34 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Obstruct with intent - Section 35 Malicious Damage Act 1861
Obstruct without intent - Section 36 Malicious Damage Act 1861

 

[KA4C]

Intent to Endanger - Section 32 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Endanger without intent - Section 34 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Obstruct with intent - Section 35 Malicious Damage Act 1861
Obstruct without intent - Section 36 Malicious Damage Act 1861

thankyou
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Both "Driving without due care and attention" and "Failing to comply with traffic light signals" both carry 3 points, and a ban can be applied as well at the sitting magistrates discretion. These are both endorsable offences.

"Careless driving" carries no points, and is a non-endorsable offence. It is upto the sitting magistrates discretion if a ban is applied.

If she was convicted of either of the first 2 offences, then she would have recieved the points irrespective of the ban.

Sorry, you are wrong there, Careless driving and driving without due care and attention are effectively the same offence (Section 3 road traffic act 1988). Depending on seriousness, this is punishable by 3 - 9 points or a discretionary disqualification, plus a fine in the A to C range and is max level 5 fine. Fail to comply with traffic sign (red light), is punishable by maximum level 3 fine and is endorsable by three points only. So the former is the more serious offence. If magistrates give a discretionary disqualification, they do not give the points, it is an either / or situation