HoggyN Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I'm not sure how I feel about this... A 45-year-old man from Kent has been charged with causing the death by dangerous driving of a teenager who died during floods in September 2008.Louise Ferreira, 17, from Thamesmead, south east London died when the 4x4 she was in overturned into a swollen river. She was with a group who were travelling off-road on a holiday to celebrate her exam results. The vehicle left a flooded forestry track near the Llyn Brianne reservoir in mid Wales. Dyfed-Powys Police said the man who has been charged will appear in court at Llandrindod Wells on 2 December. BBC Wales Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBMUD Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 (edited) I'm not sure how I feel about this... BBC Wales With a bit of luck he will put up a proper defense at court rather than just rolling over. Chris Edited to say: No pun intended. Edited November 8, 2009 by GBMUD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bishbosh Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 From what I know about the incident (limited media info, nothing more), I wouldn't think that the Police have much choice do they? After all, a green lane is a public highway. If he had rolled it on the M4 becasue he was driving inappropriately the same charge would probably be brought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil610 Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 1st don't blame the police , they do not charge people the CPS do ( like the police officer charged with assualt at the G20 , that was the CPS appeasing the minority as always), if he was driving dangerously and someone died then he must face the music public highway or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat_pending Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Causing death by dangerous driving is pretty serious. I sincerely hope that the authorities have sufficient reason to bring this charge and it's not just a knee jerk reaction prompted by another recent similar accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiWhite Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Interesting charge to be bought. The standard of driving has to 'fall far below the standard expected of a reasonable and competent driver.' Must have been difficult to provide evidence for that, I'd have thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Humphreys Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Interesting charge to be bought. The standard of driving has to 'fall far below the standard expected of a reasonable and competent driver.' Must have been difficult to provide evidence for that, I'd have thought. I can see that would be easy to prove as others in the group crossed the river without tipping over. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbocharger Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 But a reasonable, competent driver (eg my Mum) can keep a car between kerbs and maybe even control a skid on the road, but managing a car in heavy flowing water is surely a special skill - and one you only learn by practice? He should have kept out if he thought the car would tip, but that's pretty obvious afterwards. It depends what he did (if anything) to aggravate the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q-rover Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Personally I don't see the problem. He was driving on a public highway, and his (lack of) driving skills caused the death of another person. Doesn't matter if he was in a 4x4 on a 'greenlane' or a sportscar on the A1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbocharger Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I suppose the question is, would my mother as a "reasonable" person drive into a swollen river? I suspect the answer is no, but a judgment along these lines could affect our hobby and many others - my mother doesn't think its reasonable to dress up in a human condom, tie yourself to a piece of fibreglass and head out to sea in a storm but plenty of people go windsurfing and there are civilians in the lifeboat service who'll risk their lives to retrieve you if it all goes wrong. The crux of the question for me is, does a 17-year old understand that a river crossing is dangerous? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Humphreys Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 The crux of the question for me is, does a 17-year old understand that a river crossing is dangerous? The driver was 48. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treebloke Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Difficult to comment without knowing the facts but how would he know if the river was swollen or at its normal level. If he is from Kent I guess he would not have prior knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 The driver has three main options:- Plead guilty Plead not Guilty Enter no plea The CPS will only prosecute if they believe there is enough evidence to secure a guilty verdict. If this case goes to trial by Jury the chances are that the jury will believe the hard facts presented by the prosecution and verified by the police and so called expert witnesses. We have seen how someone can be vilified in the way evidence is presented and by subsequent press reporting in such cases. We do not truly know what happened in detail or the sequence of events and decisions made during this incident, so it is difficult to predict the outcome. There is rarely a right or wrong in these cases, the driver did not set out that day to have an accident (who does) however certain of his actions/decisions lead to a death which I am sure he will be fully remorseful for. We have to let "justice' run it's course, a lot will depend on the plea entered, as to what evidence/facts are revealed. Please be mindful when posting that this case is current and as such this topic is not open to wild speculation or unsubstantiated comments. I am sure we will all follow this case with keen interest especially in the context of our 'sport', however let's not lose sight of the fact that this was a tragic incident and hopefully learn from the outcome, helping ensure there is not a repeat occurrence. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bull Bar Cowboy Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I am sorry John but I cannot agree with your post…………. If this case goes to trial by Jury the chances are that the jury will believe the hard facts presented by the prosecution and verified by the police and so called expert witnesses. Perhaps, in your position, the pre judging or speculation of the final outcome should NOT be encouraged We have seen how someone can be vilified in the way evidence is presented and by subsequent press reporting in such cases. I think the case to which you are probably referencing has been documented reasonably well enough and I am not so sure that all would agree with your comments and choice of words. One would assume from your postings on another message board that the vilified individual is a friend and therefore your comments may or may not be biased. As a moderator I would have expected more caution with this type of posting as it could (and probably will) cause heated debate. Whilst I respect those that give their time freely to undertake these tasks, a certain amount of continuity, seamless consistency, and unambiguous clarity is required ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white90 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 John is a Moderator Ian not the Judge/barrister addressing the jury his role as moderator has no bearing on allowed to express his opinions, moderating is to try and keep the flow running, this does not mean he/admins aren't allowed to post, they are not directing. debate is allowed within the forum guidelines as long as it doesn't degenerate into a slanging match. The above is to clarify I won't be entering the debate as I have no real opinion on this sad episode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bull Bar Cowboy Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 The above is to clarify I won't be entering the debate as I have no real opinion on this sad episode. Tony, No, I don’t either, however, I felt it necessary to comment that ‘one sentence paragraphs’ (which refers to both of my quotes) are designed as a tool to send a powerful message for dramatic effect. Whilst I am not being critical of the English used, I am being critical of the writing style and would hazard a guess that the use of the one sentence paragraph style was deliberate as a high impact tool to cause a perhaps unwanted and unnecessary debate. The outcome, as in the previous case, is for our legal system to decide and once the ruling has been made it remains in force unless any new and compelling evidence can be brought before the courts that may influence the original ruling I would have thought a more considered approach was required……….. (notice – one sentence paragraph’s) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad_pete Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Oops read replies rather than the story ( looks like some of the posters should try that ) - they weren't crossing the river, they were near it on a flooded lane and fell in. Is driving on flooded lanes near swollen rivers dangerous - yes Did someone die - yes Therefore Death by dangerous driving seems to fit. Driver has a duty of care to the passengers. Driving the lanes when flooded is dangerous as you can't see any hazards under the water. The reasonable and competent approach would be not to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean f Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I am not going to pretend to know the details of the case but. Some one died in a road accident, with some one else possible to blame. The court system is supposed to be the way of presenting the evidence and deciding the facts of the case, it is then up to the jury to decide if some one is guilty based on the information presented to them from BOTH sides of the debate. With any serious case particularly a fatality there is always pressure for a court case as in many cases this is the only way all the facts will be revealed. This is also a place where the driver can PROVE he was not to blame and hopefully remove any stigma they may be subject to (particularly important in other cases such as abuse etc). If no crime has taken place then we would all hope some one would be cleared and we can trust the jury system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cipx2 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Here's what the local police said it happened: On the afternoon of Friday 5th September 2008, three 4x4 off road vehicles were travelling in convoy enjoying touring the various forestry roads above Llyn Brianne Reservoir, Powys. The occupants were all from the Thamesmead area of London and Kent. During this time the area was experiencing torrential downfalls of rain and river levels rose dramatically in a very short time. The vehicles encountered a river crossing/ford on a track and two of the vehicles crossed without incident. The third vehicle, a Blue Landrover Discovery, driven by a male from Kent, started to cross the ford, apparently got into difficulties and turned on to its roof in the river. Both the driver and the front seat passenger managed to get out of the vehicle and were helped to safety by the occupants of the other vehicles. The rear seat passenger of the vehicle was trapped and efforts were taken to steady the vehicle by using a tow line and rescue the occupant. Emergency first aid was administered by two off duty paramedics who had been in the convoy. One of the parties went for help (in a vehicle, previous information that he had walked are incorrect) ...... Source and the rest of the report: http://www.dyfed-powys.police.uk/en/news/2008/9/3/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat_pending Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Interesting charge to be bought. The standard of driving has to 'fall far below the standard expected of a reasonable and competent driver.' Must have been difficult to provide evidence for that, I'd have thought. I wonder how the courts would define "reasonable and competent" in this situation. Driving on unsurfaced roads surely requires skills the "average reasonably competent" driver is not expected to possess. Therefore the level of competence of the accused has to be judged on this basis. As there is no defined level of skill required to drive off tarmac, what will they use as a bench mark? Whatever the outcome of this case, there's the danger that local authorities will decide that "Green lanes" are just too dangerous to let people drive on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mad_pete Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 Alright so they were crossing a river then (I apologise for my previous comment, although it's still a dangerous thing to do). I don't see any problem with going through the process of court. If I was the driver maybe I would want 12 of my peers to rule that it wasn't my fault. I can still see the case centering on the decision to cross a river during heavy rain as the grounds for failing to make a reasonable driver choice. The fact the other vehicles made it doesn't really matter as river crossing in heavy rain is risky any way you look at it. The fact the other cars took a risk without consequence doesn't mean it wasn't a risk. I think the road traffic deaths is about 2500 a year so driving cars generally is pretty dangerous. Apparently horse riding is about 100. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.