Jump to content

Hillsborough - Who drove through mother duck and 7 ducklings?

Recommended Posts

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. :suspect:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have to swerve to change lanes, you're probably doing it wrong. :suspect:

 

"swerve" was probably the wrong word. All the cars in front of him join the right hand lane. "Duck Killer" :rolleyes: joins the left hand one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Guest makapaka
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
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

Some posters typing through laughter. An RTA involving a few ducklings :D :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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 by EmmaJones76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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
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 by alsatian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.