Cyclone   10 #121 Posted May 16, 2018 Accelerating to get through the lights yet, not to run over a row of ducks. And swerving to join the left hand lane and not the right, both lanes you are entitled to join at that junction. Hope this helps.  If you have to swerve to change lanes, you're probably doing it wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
EmmaJones76 Â Â 10 #122 Posted May 16, 2018 If you have to swerve to change lanes, you're probably doing it wrong. Â "swerve" was probably the wrong word. All the cars in front of him join the right hand lane. "Duck Killer" joins the left hand one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
alsatian   10 #123 Posted May 16, 2018 I don’t think they’ll be able to prosecute for driving without due care and attention for running over a duck crossing a dual carriageway do you?  I do.  You don't take evasive action for animals in the road if doing so would cause a collision with another vehicle. Video quite clearly shows he/she could've stopped well in advance with no risk to anyone else. It's quite clearly an RTA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
EmmaJones76 Â Â 10 #124 Posted May 16, 2018 The video doesnt show that whatsoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #125 Posted May 16, 2018 I do. You don't take evasive action for animals in the road if doing so would cause a collision with another vehicle. Video quite clearly shows he/she could've stopped well in advance with no risk to anyone else. It's quite clearly an RTA.  The video doesn’t show that they could’ve stopped at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
monkey104   10 #126 Posted May 16, 2018 I do. You don't take evasive action for animals in the road if doing so would cause a collision with another vehicle. Video quite clearly shows he/she could've stopped well in advance with no risk to anyone else. It's quite clearly an RTA.  It is not an RTA! Look at the definition, ducks not included neither are mice, rabbits, voles,pigeons,cats( yes,cats) ants and a plethora of other tiny creatures for obvious reasons, one of which the police would overwhelmed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
EmmaJones76 Â Â 10 #127 Posted May 16, 2018 Some posters typing through laughter. An RTA involving a few ducklings :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
alsatian   10 #128 Posted May 16, 2018 The video doesnt show that whatsoever.  Yes it does. There's quite clearly a decent amount of time for the driver to have seen the animals and performed an emergency stop, which was perfectly REASONABLE given no car was following close behind.  https://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/injury-lawyers-blog/2013/03/19/rules-for-emergency-stop-for-an-animal/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
EmmaJones76   10 #129 Posted May 16, 2018 (edited) Yes it does. There's quite clearly a decent amount of time for the driver to have seen the animals and performed an emergency stop, which was perfectly REASONABLE given no car was following close behind. https://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/injury-lawyers-blog/2013/03/19/rules-for-emergency-stop-for-an-animal/  You are, yet again, assuming he/she could even see them in the first place. Edited May 16, 2018 by EmmaJones76 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
monkey104   10 #130 Posted May 16, 2018 Yes it does. There's quite clearly a decent amount of time for the driver to have seen the animals and performed an emergency stop, which was perfectly REASONABLE given no car was following close behind. https://www.theinjurylawyers.co.uk/injury-lawyers-blog/2013/03/19/rules-for-emergency-stop-for-an-animal/  In what alternate dimension do you think this would ever get to court, never mind being looked at by police? How would you prove he didn’t see them? How are you going to prove careless and inconsiderate driving based on a video of a few seconds. How would you prove that the driver even did it on purpose? Look at the definition of RTA, look at the definition of careless and inconsiderate driving. I would suggest you look at the following website on cps charging standards and not a paid advert by an injury lawyer. Look specifically at the points to prove and come back with a charging decision based on evidence and points to prove. If you can I will bare my arse in Burtons window.  https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-offences-guidance-charging-offences-arising-driving-incidents Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #131 Posted May 16, 2018 Surely the "driving without due care" would be because they DIDN'T do it on purpose, but were not driving safely for the conditions (ie how far they could see). If they did it on purpose then an animal cruelty charge would be more appropriate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
alsatian   10 #132 Posted May 16, 2018 (edited) You are, yet again, assuming he/she could even see them in the first place.  So they were driving with their eyes closed? Or do you think it's more likely they were staring up at the lights with their foot down doing an amber gamble. I know which I would hedge my bets on.  In what alternate dimension do you think this would ever get to court, never mind being looked at by police?  I never mentioned anything going to court? I'm positing that an RTA was commited which you disagree with. I doubt this will end up in court. There's no information available that it was even reported to the police? At this point, will just have to wait and see if the article is ever updated. Edited May 16, 2018 by alsatian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...