Driving through the storm - history of dangerous driving Jun 8, 2019 17:13:51 GMT via mobile
Post by Administrator on Jun 8, 2019 17:13:51 GMT
(Note: I have now found the elusive Road Traffic act 1960, which was not showing up before in my searches)
So parts of this topic now seem silly as I thought the Dangerous driving charge was created in 1072) but that still does not change the law theory & actual fact of use, concerning the Criminal damage act 1971, and I still believe I am correct on those matters)
The Doors (album) The Doors is the debut album by the American rock band the Doors, recorded in 1966 at Sunset Sound Recorders, Hollywood, California, it was produced by Paul A. Rothchild and released on January 4, 1967
Jim Morrison (death 3rd July 1971)
Only 4 years between the release of their first album and Jim Morrisons death.
Their later work featured a song called "Riders on the storm"
Here, Manz-a-reck talks about the song.
I was lucky enough to see Manzarek & Kreager play Wolverhampton some years before Manzareks death.
What has this got to do with "Dangerous driving"?
Well, politically, everything.
Morrisons dad had connections in the Military. The band was huge at the time.. And a world wide phenomenon.
In 1967 we have the Road traffic act 1967 which includes the speeding laws. And speed limits for certain vehicles.
But we don't as yet have the Dangerous driving charge.
So you could be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit, but there was nothing specific to driving dangerously or unsafely in general.
But in 1971 is brought in the Criminal damage act 1971.
This is critical because it makes law that says if you cause damage to something or place people in danger (reckless in doing so also) you are guilty of an offence.
There is specifically a provision and section concerning "use of anything" or being "in control of anything" at the time.
This would clearly include a motor car. Seeing as the Dangerous driving act did not exist in 1971. So if you crashed a car into something or hurt someone.. While in control of a vehicle.. It would be an offence. Why doesn't it say "motor car" then? Well, it doesn't need to.
Because there are plenty more things you can be in control of, such as a motorcycle, bicycle, roller skates, or even people if you are controlling them!? Or any thing.. Like a hockey stick or football or baseball bat.
So use of a motor vehicle dangerously or threatening manner was an offence. (still is)
There is one exception to this that - if you have lawfull excuse you are not guilty of the offence. You have not committed the offence if you had a lawful reason to act.
And under this lawful excuse is included a "Right" and also an "interest".
So police have a right and interest to chase a burglar or speeding driver. Or a lawful reason to get to an emergency quickly. But this exemption is not only for police. Any person with a lawful "Right" or "interest" has lawful excuse not to be charged with the offence.
Now.. Shortly after this in 1972 we get the road traffic act 1972 and the first introduction of the Dangerous driving charge. This is very similar wording to the Provisions of the Criminal damage act offences. Particularly taking into account the circumstances and purpose. But in particular the Dangerous driving charge states "speed" and "reckless" which is also stated in the criminal damage act. And certainly if you crashed a car into something or somebody it would be criminal damage.
Now, there is no exception in the Dangerous driving charge itself. Not even for police.
But if we consider it to follow and be based around the criminal damage act 1971 sections 1 through 5.. They work together concerning "anything" under the control of a person which would include a motor vehicle.
Being dangerous or putting property at risk.
But the inclusion of the element of speed is in the Dangerous driving charge of the 1972 act.
Now, the Road traffic regulation act 1967 has the wording for the exemption of police vehicles.. Which was section. 79.
It is now in use still in the Road traffic regulation act 1984 section. 87
79. Exemption of fire engines, etc. from speed limits
No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when it is being used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes, if the observance of those provisions would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.
It includes the phrase..
No statutory provision imposing a speed limit.
This is important..
Although before the Dangerous driving offence is introduced in 1972, we have definitely got "lawful excuse" when danger or damage is at risk from "anything" under control of a person..(motor car)
Even when being reckless.. And this would cover not only police.. But anyone else with a lawful excuse, or Right, or interest..
When the 1972 act is brought in, a year afterwards.. It specifically says..
The wording of the 1972 act is as follows..
2 Reckless, and dangerous, driving generally
If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road recklessly, or at a speedor in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the nature, condition and use of the road, and the amount of traffic which is actually at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road, he shall be guilty of an offence
It is a provision imposing speed over a vehicle. That it imposes general speed control over a vehicle.
So.. Being a provision which imposes speed control over a vehicle.. You could argue that, by section 79 above, (later to become section .85 of the Road traffic regulation act 1984)…
The wording.. No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply ..
Could, and would also include that 1972 road traffic act, section 2 Reckless & dangerous driving. or at least in relation to any imposed speed.
So that.. There is... being no requirement for police to observe the speed limit (under section 87 road traffic regulation act 1984) no liability for the speed implied within the Dangerous driving charge either.
And that, also as "danger" itself.. and even "recklessness" in relation to being "in control of "anything" and use of "anything" might be dangerous to property or people... unless there is a lawful excuse..
The Police having both a "lawful excuse" AND no requirement to observe the speed limit... do have therefore all aspects covered of legal liability to being charged with Dangerous driving... Providing the other aspects of those provisions are met.. where there are requirements..
only if it would hinder the progress of the vehicle for the purpose it is being used.... And there is a lawful excuse for using the vehicle as well.
So.. I believe that, as police rarely charge themselves with dangerous driving (when their driving is clearly dangerous generally) having many accidents that I know of involving police vehicles on a number of occasions...
I believe the police senior officers are aware of this law & use it. But care not to disclose that legal principle to anyone. Unless they have forgotten it.
And the only reason they are not charged with dangerous driving is... because like with their parking & traffic wardens.. being no legislation in place to exempt the police from parking as they please outside of an emergency...
There is a "agreement" of "policy" in place and understanding between the local council authority & the police that "police will not be issued with parking tickets" though no such law exists to exempt them.
And I worry that this "agreement" or "policy" is the true reason behind why the police are currently refusing to investigate & prosecute the local councils & Highways England for placing & planning illegal & unlawful road signage around the UK. Particularly at Enforcement sites. Which is what I have found to be the case. & a large problem.
On the Dangerous driving issue also,
I find the recent "proposal" for a new legislation amendment put forward by Sir Henry Bellingham - MP for North West Norfolk (which is the same area of Sandringham Castle & Prince Phillip, who recently had a motor car accident & was not prosecuted) The name "Bellingham" and his middle name "Campbell" all seem poetically to convenient a gesture at the ringing or bell-like sirens of emergency vehicles themselves...
But I don't believe that is required.
And in light of the theory of my Legal representation above... I see the new proposal pointless.. as Police vehicles are already covered by the aforementioned legislation.
Unless this new Bill proposal is passed and the government are look at wanting to prosecute police, ambulance and fire engines for dangerous driving & instead of having total exemption - instead "reduced sentencing".
The fact that, in my own case...
I have not been driving "at speed" because the vehicle has a speed limiter fitted & I cannot reach high speeds that emergency vehicle drivers are trained for -
And I certainly have not been driving recklessly...
The "Criminal damage act 1971" which was, before the Dangerous driving act.. the only legislation in effect which held a person liable for placing people, or property in danger even (when using, or in control of) "any thing" (motor car or bicycle included) must mean that it is absolutely relevant.
To the point where - the Lawful excuse for acting, or being in control of (anything) must exempt a person from a charge concerning any danger to people or property (even Recklessly) Must have applied to motor vehicles & been partly for that purpose in 1971. It has to have been.
As the creating of both laws within 2 years of each other and a cross over of effects, principle, cause & effect & legal premises.. are clear.
There can be lawful excuse as well as Police purposes, and in addition a "Right" or even a genuine "interest" to act.. in relation to these things.
And therefore.. because in law there are instances where it is acceptable - clearly...
Then.. The Active Legislation of the 1866 Bill of Rights - The Right to petition - www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
Right to petition.
That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall.
and the fact this law is up to date with no outstanding changes to be applied.. and that...
Act declared to be a Statute by Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 (c. 1)
King and Queen recognized. The Acts of the said Parliament were and are Laws and Statutes, and to be obeyed. in relation to that Bill of Rights..
It is perfectly within the law, even without the Bill of Rights to have a lawful interest in road signage - to be able to investigate them, survey them and inspect and collect evidence on them while using (anything) and having anything (under your control) as to have lawful excuse not to be charged with, or guilty of an offence relating to possible risk of danger or damage while doing so. (which covers the dangerous driving charge...
And further to that.. if the specific right itself IS the Bill of Rights & the signage is being investigated or surveyed as part of a petitioning to HM Government (Her Majesty's government) Then ALL prosecutions for doing so, are illegal.
And, there is in fact in place more protection from the Chief police officer when investigating such road signage.. than the Chief police officer has himself when using a police car - only if it would hinder the progress of the vehicle for the purpose it is being used & if he has lawful excuse for doing so.
And consequently, I find the Political timing of the introduction of the dangerous driving charge - of significance with the release of the "Doors" Riders of the Storm song at around the exact same time.. particularly with "Morrisons" dad having connections in the Military and the Governments wanting to promote road safety - being more than co-incidence of the songs content of Graphic road accident references. And the name of "Ray" Manzarek..
being almost as "poetic" in
reference to a "Ray gun" Police laser... and a "man is a wreck" Manzarek… as much as Sir Henry Campbell Bellingham and his "fire alarm" like "police siren" buzzer name.
I believe that again.. as it is today with Police & celebrity stunts & politics... Its of significance to the introduction of the Dangerous driving offence in 1972 and there is no doubt that it is in direct connection to the 1971 Criminal damage act which shares cause & effect when in control of (anything).
And the exemption is valid.