jessicas dad:
i was queing for the yard a couple of weeks ago and had my laptop on. so i left it open while i went into the yard to drop of a box. it frightened me at the blindspot it created so much so even for a few yards i quickly shut it. there is no way i could imagine driving on open roads with it stuck on the dash board.
I couldn’t have mine on the dash, I tried it but I couldn’t see a bloody thing, I had to move it before I got out of the yard.
At first when i read this i thought you guys where joking. But it is really true, if you put a laptop on your dash and open it up it does actually block your view. I tried it myself in an off road situation of course, and sure enough i couldn’t see a thing. So, not being happy with this anecdotal evidence i decidedo take examples t to do some research upon it. And what did i find? This is going to be hard to believe but its true…the size of the laptop dictates how much of the view (from the drivers view point) it blocks out. I.E. the larger the screen the more the drivers view point is restricted. So to take examples to the extreme, if you have a small 14" type TV screen on the dash you will have a small blindspot. If you have a 42" LCD lasma screen on the dash the chances are that you won’t actually be able to see anything other than the screen. I’m actually starting to think that no matter what the law says …that screens on the dash are a big no no. I’m not sure what other people think■■?
Hi Mike-C, I think you need to do a bit more research with about 10 different screen sizes, write it up and then submit it to a leading ‘road safety journal/organisation’ requesting your work to be ‘peer reviewed’ by them and before you know it you will be listed on Google and probably invited to be a consultant on ‘Road Safety’ to the DfT.
Good luck with your ongoing research project
Regards
Dave Penn;
If he was using his lap top as a SatNav, then I dont see what the problem is. If he was trying to enter a different destination or find a new route as he was driving then thats a differant matter of course.
As other have said though he piled into the back of stationary traffic when he should of had at least a mile’s notice or around 70 seconds to react. So there is a lot he can say to defend himself.
Personaly I think he was probably falling asleep.
The fact that six people were killed is also irrelevant to the offense. Say the car contained for example a sales rep rather than a family. His offense is the same.
If he was messing around with his software or watching a DVD whilst driving then he should be severly punished but thats reckless negligence.
If however he was nodding off, well TBH there but by the Grace of God go us all. We all can get drowsy when driving especially during night driving, so I for one wont be calling for him to be “strung up”.
arronls:
I don’t think his defence is up to much though - they’re claiming the Stathams had already crashed. What, does that mean it’s ok to drive into the back of someone? It would appear he hasn’t got a leg to stand on, but lets point the blame in the right direction, it’s the driver at fault NOT the laptop
The point of his defence is not to get him off all charges (unlikely), but to get him off the most serious charge of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, which is punishable by up to 14 years inside. If they can show “reasonable doubt” that his dangerous driving caused the deaths, then the jury would be obliged to convict for the lesser offence of simple Dangerous Driving, for which the max penalty is only two years imprisonment. If they can get it down to Careless Driving, then it’s only punishable by a fine.
How would you feel if same thing happened to you in Spain or Portugal.A translator would have to brief you.Strange how when UK drivers get nicked in Europe,no translator at the roadside,but when foreign trucks get tugged,allways a translator available on the phone or at the police station.Fair rules in Europe.Like getting fine for not having credit card,to pay for a call out for tyre breakdowns,when no spare tyre is carried on your vehicle.Basque copper did me for that,he had whiskey breath,then went in to a bar bragging to his mates,in Sunbilla.Pais Vasco.And 2001 euro fine for a hand written employer letter to cover new employment,to show last 28 days tacho`s.Stuck there for 7 days,to get £250 a day from ATM,to pay fine,the rest came from the running money.Too much coffee today,sorry to go on off at a tangent.Ultavox on tour,book at livenation.com.Remember “Vienna”.Good tune.
It has just been announced that the driver has been found guilty on 6 counts of “causing death by careless driving” - and a custodial sentence of 3 years has been imposed.
arronls:
I don’t think his defence is up to much though - they’re claiming the Stathams had already crashed. What, does that mean it’s ok to drive into the back of someone? It would appear he hasn’t got a leg to stand on, but lets point the blame in the right direction, it’s the driver at fault NOT the laptop
The point of his defence is not to get him off all charges (unlikely), but to get him off the most serious charge of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, which is punishable by up to 14 years inside. If they can show “reasonable doubt” that his dangerous driving caused the deaths, then the jury would be obliged to convict for the lesser offence of simple Dangerous Driving, for which the max penalty is only two years imprisonment. If they can get it down to Careless Driving, then it’s only punishable by a fine.
Fair point, I was thinking a bit more black and white than that
edtheshark:
It has just been announced that the driver has been found guilty on 6 counts of “causing death by careless driving” - and a custodial sentence of 3 years has been imposed.
He’s only been done for 1, as they all happened at the same time, I think he can consider himself pretty lucky on that one
edtheshark:
It has just been announced that the driver has been found guilty on 6 counts of “causing death by careless driving” - and a custodial sentence of 3 years has been imposed.
He’s only been done for 1, as they all happened at the same time, I think he can consider himself pretty lucky on that one
no he’s not, he’s been found guilty of 6 counts, he got 6 x 3 years, but the judge let them run concurrent which as you obviously don’t know how it works means he only does the longest one.
edtheshark:
It has just been announced that the driver has been found guilty on 6 counts of “causing death by careless driving” - and a custodial sentence of 3 years has been imposed.
He’s only been done for 1, as they all happened at the same time, I think he can consider himself pretty lucky on that one
no he’s not, he’s been found guilty of 6 counts, he got 6 x 3 years, but the judge let them run concurrent which as you obviously don’t know how it works means he only does the longest one.
Sorry, I was posting on another site at the same time, I got my quotes mixed up cutting and pasting between tabs.
Thanks for pointing that out, I really should check before I hit the submit button, apologies to edtheshark
The one that should have been here was just the “I think he can consider himself pretty lucky on that one” bit.
pecjam23:
they can examine the hard drive to see what activity (if any) was happening at the time of the accident, e.g computer saving files background stuff that the computer does when using it not human intervention stuff if that makes sense.
Makes a lot of sense Morph.
Makes more sense than the archaic laptop arronls spoke about that still uses a “mouse”.
I myself don’t have Sat Nav, I use what the old-hands refer to as a “map book”. I do use a laptop whilst I’m parked up but I have never used one whilst driving and I would resent the suggestion that I had been doing so if the police merely caught sight of one in the cab.
That’s the problem with this case.
If road conditions were “Excellent” as Cheshire Police have stated and he didn’t see the car slow down then that’s the issue, not the bloody laptop.
Other people has stated that around the area of the crash the road conditions were far from good.
But then again, he IS foreign.
I agree with davepenn & biggusdickusgb, this is sensationalism just to sell newspapers.
i’ve taken to mounting my sat nav on the dash, all i had to do was destroy tomtom bracket and super glue it a blank switch much safe plus ■■■■■■ can’t see it from outside so hopefully it won’t get stolen.
da silvas defense was that the strathams car had already crashed into a stationary truck if this was the case guilty of the lesser charge is the right result and his sentence is fair.
