Parking in Laybys on main roads.

[Deleted member 29692]

I'm struggling to understand the application of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving to the circumstances in the OP.

As a few people have already posted for various reasons it's standard practice to arrest and bail the other driver in this sort of incident. They've got to be arrested for something and suspicion of this is as good as anything. There's a world of difference between being arrested on suspicion of something and actually being charged and convicted.

 

[Silver-Fox]

There's a world of difference between being arrested on suspicion of something and actually being charged and convicted.

And does this muddy the waters when you apply for a job and asked have you ever been arrested

 

[SpeedyDux]

Suspicion still has to be reasonable, surely. Otherwise it is possibly an unlawful arrest.

A policy that you have to arrest the driver for something would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

 

[Ivory55]

Soon be no need for lay bys as driverless trucks will soon be here, so no need for them to stop.

 

[Teuchter]

At what speed do you enter an empty roadside layby from a busy road in daylight? Do you drive at the Highway Code recommended speed at night (no faster than that which allows you to stop within the spread of your dipped headlights)? I'm not suggesting that other circumstances will not come to light (unreasonable speed, DUI, etc) but based on the information so far available l cannot see why the car driver is in any way at fault.

Entering a lay by in daylight or darkness then I would say that normally you would signal your intention to exit left from the main carriageway, slow down, pull into the lay by and come to a stop

At night I would have thought that if the car driver was driving "no faster than that which allows you to stop within the spread of your dipped headlights" then he should have seen the parked truck in his headlights and been able to stop in time

Just my opinion of course - if you wish to put all the blame on the stationary vehicle parked in a lay by then that of course is your prerogative

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Deleted member 29692]

Suspicion still has to be reasonable, surely. Otherwise it is possibly an unlawful arrest.

A policy that you have to arrest the driver for something would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.

As somebody has already posted I believe a big reason for it is to stop foreign drivers immediately leaving the country.

Obviously a policy of always arresting foreigners but not British drivers would be asking for trouble. The liberals and the PC brigade’s heads would explode.

 

[SpeedyDux]

As somebody has already posted I believe a big reason for it is to stop foreign drivers immediately leaving the country.

Obviously a policy of always arresting foreigners but not British drivers would be asking for trouble. The liberals and the PC brigade’s heads would explode.

Yes quite but if the circumstances don't provide enough grounds for reasonable suspicion, therefore no lawful arrest, then the bail conditions would also be flawed, so the foreign trucker wouldn't be prevented from leaving the country. You can't get round that just by arresting someone and scratching about for a valid reason afterwards. In the old days we would trot down to the High Court pronto to apply for Habeas Corpus.

 

[2657]

At what speed do you enter an empty roadside layby from a busy road in daylight? Do you drive at the Highway Code recommended speed at night (no faster than that which allows you to stop within the spread of your dipped headlights)? I'm not suggesting that other circumstances will not come to light (unreasonable speed, DUI, etc) but based on the information so far available l cannot see why the car driver is in any way at fault.

"]At what speed do you enter an empty roadside layby from a busy road in daylight?"

Not at up to 70 mph, slow down on the approach.

"Do you drive at the Highway Code recommended speed at night (no faster than that which allows you to stop within the spread of your dipped headlights)?"

YES!!

So driving at a speed that you cannot stop in the distance that you can see is OK? Or driving too close in fog or bad driving conditions, drivers are prosecuted, and rightly so, for causing accidents by driving too close.
I see no difference between this and driving at speed, essentially blind, into a layby.

All vehicles have highly efficient reflectors and most modern trucks have highly reflective strips around the bodywork, these alone should be enough to warn any alert driver as to a vehicle ahead.

Taken to it's logical conclusion then anyone parking a large vehicle in a layby in the dark without lights could be charged with dangerous driving regardless of whether an accident occurs!

 

[tacr2man]

Powers of arrest changed first with PACE 1984 and also with SOCPA 2005 , so reasonable sus isn't the be all and end all now .

 

[tonyidle]

Entering a lay by in daylight or darkness then I would say that normally you would signal your intention to exit left from the main carriageway, slow down, pull into the lay by and come to a stop

At night I would have thought that if the car driver was driving "no faster than that which allows you to stop within the spread of your dipped headlights" then he should have seen the parked truck in his headlights and been able to stop in time

Just my opinion of course - if you wish to put all the blame on the stationary vehicle parked in a lay by then that of course is your prerogative

There's a balance to be had between slowing down enough to turn safely and slowing so much that you cause traffic behind to slow excessively. I'd enter a totally clear and long enough layby (adjacent to the carriageway) at my existing speed then slow in the layby. I would normally park at tge far end anyway leaving room behind for others. But that's in daylight. I'd slow considerably more at night but still try to avoid inconveniencing anyone behind me. My point about 'dipped beam stopping distance' is that none of us would be travelling at that very reduced speed normally. Think motorways, dual carriageways, A road singles. Because of that none of us could guarantee seeing an unlit object in the road in time to stop. With oncoming lights entering the equation it would be invisible. What's the difference between an unlit wagon and an unlit skip? Would you consider the car driver to be at fault if it had been a skip, or a scrap car, or anything other than a vehicle?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

At what speed do you enter an empty roadside layby from a busy road in daylight? Do you drive at the Highway Code recommended speed at night (no faster than that which allows you to stop within the spread of your dipped headlights)? I'm not suggesting that other circumstances will not come to light (unreasonable speed, DUI, etc) but based on the information so far available l cannot see why the car driver is in any way at fault.

So let me get this straight. You cannot see why a driver that runs into a stationary object is at fault. Taking that as correct, if the car had hit a house or tree would that be the house or tree’s fault? If you seriously think that it is ok to drive into stationary objects then blame said stationary object for the collision please do not drive any where near me.

 

[busby]

How old are you....

Don't tell em PIKE,,BUSBY

 

[tonyidle]

So let me get this straight. You cannot see why a driver that runs into a stationary object is at fault. Taking that as correct, if the car had hit a house or tree would that be the house or tree’s fault? If you seriously think that it is ok to drive into stationary objects then blame said stationary object for the collision please do not drive any where near me.

Houses and trees are not found on the carriageway (apart from the ones that jump out and damage vehicles) and it is reasonable to assume that anything on the carriagewayvat night will be lit.

 

[busby]

On the basis of what little information there is (and considering the original arguments suggested no lights was normal and the car driver should have seen it) if there were no other factors at play the wagon driver is at fault. Hitting an immovable object requires only a relatively low speed to cause serious injury or death. I can't remember, or the op doesn't say whether the layby was separated from carriageway by much but if not entry speed would be reasonably high if the speed of the traffic passing was high. That combined with oncoming lights would hide the wagon until it was too late. No-one drives anticipating an unlit vehicle and no-one drives so they can stop within the distance lit by a dipped beam. We should - but modern traffic conditions dictate that we can't.

That statement is very worrying,,,do you actually drive? Please let me know when you are on the road and i will stay in,,,BUSBY

 

[EX51SSS]

Soon be no need for lay bys as driverless trucks will soon be here, so no need for them to stop.

Not in my lifetime I bet

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[busby]

Houses and trees are not found on the carriageway (apart from the ones that jump out and damage vehicles) and it is reasonable to assume that anything on the carriagewayvat night will be lit.

Where do you drive???BUSBY.

 

[GWAYGWAY]

Doesn't matter either way - the only vehicle at fault was the wagon. It's why vehicles, and anything else that is in the road at night, have lights.

As far as I could understand the care went into the parking area what was the situation with the driver of the car at 3 in the morning with three mates??? the blood alcohol level has not be mentioned.

 

[tonyidle]

As far as I could understand the care went into the parking area what was the situation with the driver of the car at 3 in the morning with three mates??? the blood alcohol level has not be mentioned.

I did say in a previous post that my opinion is only based on what's known at present. The BMW driver could have drinking, or high, or just the average BMW driver in which case he would have contributed somewhat to the accident. Doubt if that would get the wagon driver totally off the hook though.

 

[GWAYGWAY]

& there is the problem. You should never make it easier & safer for people to do anything. It encourages carelessness.



Just a slight clarification. It was a Mercedes apparently with 4 in & 3 died. 1 in hospital.

Correct the first report was aBMW as the car was not recognisable at first, Black and German??

 

[GWAYGWAY]

How old are you....

Careful most on here remember that one.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[glenn2926]

Houses and trees are not found on the carriageway (apart from the ones that jump out and damage vehicles) and it is reasonable to assume that anything on the carriagewayvat night will be lit.

There are numerous houses around the Yorkshire dales that are right at the edge of the road . No pavement, no verge, just road then house wall. Most of these are not lit. However that is not the point. If you hit a stationary object it is your fault. You should always be able to stop in the distance you can see. Inn the case being discussed it would appear the driver could not even stay in the correct position on the road. What if the truck driver had not been in his cab? Would he still be driving carelessly? Maybe he should have had lights on but that doesn’t excuse anyone that hits his stationary truck. What if the truck had broken down and lights would not work. Come on seriously. It is the car drivers fault alone.

 

[Ivory55]

Not in my lifetime I bet

I would like them to come next week. Haha . Preferably by tomorrow morning.

 

[EX51SSS]

Of course , i was driving down the road , when suddenly this tree jumped in front of me . Actual sentence's used on insurance claim form's , courtesy radio 2 via insurance company's , about 20 year's ago .

While i'm on the subject , another one for ya , the poor pedestrian didn't know which way to run , so i hit him .

Good old Jasper Carrot

 

[busby]

I would like them to come next week. Haha . Preferably by tomorrow morning.

We all ready have cars that you don't have to drive,,,they are called TAXIS,,BUSBY.

 

[EX51SSS]

I would like them to come next week. Haha . Preferably by tomorrow morning.

Why????????

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[tacr2man]

This scenario isn't an either or , it will probably end in both drivers being charged (that is if car driver is still alive ) relevant to their contribution to the holes in the cheese lining up .

 

[EX51SSS]

Sorry for shouting but
IF YOU DON'T WANT AS MANY WAGONS ON THE ROAD, STOP BUYING STUFF.
EVERYTHING YOU BUY COMES BY WAGONS.

 

[EX51SSS]

I would like them to come next week. Haha . Preferably by tomorrow morning.

Then we'll see loads of cars hitting driverless wagons. Who'll be to blame then????

 

[Ivory55]

Then we'll see loads of cars hitting driverless wagons. Who'll be to blame then????

At least I would be safe and sitting indoors reading about it, haha

 

[busby]

Then we'll see loads of cars hitting driverless wagons. Who'll be to blame then????

Its bound to be the TRUCKS,,should not be on the road,,,BUSBY

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}