A friends 17 yr old daughter had a nasty accident in May.

She had left home to pick up 5 friends in the local town at the end of their evening, she had been in all night watching TV. Her larger group of friends had an arrangement to give lifts home to each other as the taxi companies really do take the piss fare wise after 2:00am

On the way home she had what turned out to be a nasty accident.

3 had broken bones but they will mend.

One was sat in the boot (it was a VW golf)

On a long straight on a unlit B road out of town she swerved to miss "an animal" (the police acknowledge that this was probably the case)

The car spun of the road and was a total wreck.

The police investigation deemed her speed (from skid marks etc) to be between 69 and 80mph (the limit was 60)

The kids in the car have said that they didn't think she was driving too fast

The police found the nearside rear tyre to have only 18psi and stated that this probably contributed to the extent of the accident (but could of the tyre lost air when it was crashing against lerbs/trees etc?)

Her solicitor was hopeful that they could plead guilty to driving without due care and that would be accepted by the prosecution. However they have pressed to go ahead with the charge of dangerous driving which will give her a criminal conviction at 17 years old

Was this really dangerous driving? When does driving without due care become dangerous driving?

Cheers Bigwizz

I'd recommend they find good legal representation, what the coppers say and the truth are not always the same and the legal system tends to believe the cops unless carefully challenged. Jury service January last year showed me that.

Did plod weigh every occupant in order to factor in the extra weight and inertia before making their calculations? Also, having someone in the boot will have an effect on how the car loses traction and behaves once traction is lost.

They can usually tell with tyres if they've taken enough of a knock to lose air (leaves marks on tyre, and corresponding tyre marks on kerbs etc).

In my opinion as a pleb and not a copper:

Not seeing an animal at night, swerving and losing control isn't as much 'dangerous' as unlucky.
Driving illegally fast isn't necessarily dangerous, depending on conditions, but if she wasn't aware she was doing it then it's careless.
Driving poorly maintained car(unknowingly one would assume), and with an illegal passenger in the boot (knowingly - and nobody forced her to drive as such) is dangerous.

I'd say it's a little unfortunate, but a fair call.

She doesn't have a leg to stand on, she was over the limit, had an illegal number of folk in the car and a defective tyre.

She probably hadn't a clue about the tyre, but as far as the law is concerned, it's her problem, and the passenger in the boot is a real no no!

Originally Posted by protoborg

I'd recommend they find good legal representation, what the coppers say and the truth are not always the same and the legal system tends to believe the cops unless carefully challenged. Jury service January last year showed me that.

Good advice .
As soon as the court hears the vehicle had 6 occupants when its designed for 5 and the 6th occupant was in the boot .
as zanx said did they take into account the inertia because if they did with the car being over loaded the speed estimate goes UP
she needs VERY good advice as just "plead giulty if they give us a without due care " is not very good advice

Originally Posted by Bigjawa

She doesn't have a leg to stand on, she was over the limit, had an illegal number of folk in the car and a defective tyre.

She probably hadn't a clue about the tyre, but as far as the law is concerned, it's her problem, and the passenger in the boot is a real no no!

I doubt any 17 year old girls could tell the difference between a tyre valve and a mackerel.

We've all done stupid things as kids, it's unfortunate that this girl has done her stupid thing in an age where stuff like this attracts disproportionate punishment.

She needs some tip top legal representation because this moment of stupidity could affect her for the rest of her life. Having someone in the boot is right off my personal stupidity radar.

Originally Posted by Bigjawa

She doesn't have a leg to stand on, she was over the limit, had an illegal number of folk in the car and a defective tyre.

She probably hadn't a clue about the tyre, but as far as the law is concerned, it's her problem, and the passenger in the boot is a real no no!

Over the limit of what? She had not been drinking.

I'm finding it hard to understand how having a person in the boot and a defective tyre makes it dangerous driving. Guilty of overloading a car and a defective tyre, obviously yes but dangerous driving Her actual driving wasn't dangerous by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally Posted by Bigwizz

Over the limit of what? She had not been drinking.

I'm finding it hard to understand how having a person in the boot and a defective tyre makes it dangerous driving. Guilty of overloading a car and a defective tyre, obviously yes but dangerous driving Her actual driving wasn't dangerous by any stretch of the imagination.

You have made the mistake that law and logic inhabit the same universe.

Originally Posted by MrTack

Good advice .
As soon as the court hears the vehicle had 6 occupants when its designed for 5 and the 6th occupant was in the boot .
as zanx said did they take into account the inertia because if they did with the car being over loaded the speed estimate goes UP
she needs VERY good advice as just "plead giulty if they give us a without due care " is not very good advice

Whether she pleads guilty or not is a separate issue. Not so long ago a young boxer (Khan, I think) killed a pedestrian with his car whilst speeding and kept his licence. My son's pal got done speeding and had his licence taken away so he had to start from the beginning again. Both drivers the same age and licences held less than a year, son's pal was doing 63 in a 40 in the early evening and had no legal representation, the boxer had a guy famous for beating driving convictions.

Originally Posted by MrTack

Good advice .
As soon as the court hears the vehicle had 6 occupants when its designed for 5 and the 6th occupant was in the boot .
as zanx said did they take into account the inertia because if they did with the car being over loaded the speed estimate goes UP
she needs VERY good advice as just "plead giulty if they give us a without due care " is not very good advice

The prosecution have not accepted the guilty to due care and are pressing ahead with dangerous driving. As it stands she will plead guilty as she can't face a trial by jury at crown court.

Originally Posted by Screwdriver

Sounds very much like it is worth contesting, you'll need a specialist solicitor though and be prepared to throw a fair few quid at them. For what it's worth, it doesn't sound like a straightforwards "dangerous"; straight road, sober driver, faulty vehicle, "reasonable" speed. Personally I'd push the inexperience angle and hope the CPS back down. A dangerous conviction will ruin her early driving career for sure. Heck, you'd save the cost of a solicitor on the first insurance premium...

Screwd.

This is true, if she just lies down they will walk all over her just to improve their conviction stats.