Driver smashes traffic light in Dulwich Village

[malumbu]

If you have crashed a car and then run away then if you are caught in all likeliness you will get a ban which you will most likely deserve.  That is what most people will think.  Why can we not express an opinion? 

[ed_pete]

Hey I'm no Leeming apologist. I'm just trying to understand Rockets ", in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case " comment. I get that he's not Leeming's biggest cheerleader but this all feels a bit Daily Fail to me.

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Could Cllr Leeming been accused of exerting political pressure on the police to influence a decision?

Oh come on. This is beginning to look like an ITV drama. A crap one.

[Rockets]

20 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Why can we not express an opinion? 

Because your opinion seems to default to car accident = dangerous driving. But then you whine about a culture war when someone complains about bad cycling.

12 minutes ago, ed_pete said:

I'm just trying to understand Rockets ", in his position as an elected official, could he be prejudicing a future case " comment. I get that he's not Leeming's biggest cheerleader but this all feels a bit Daily Fail to me.

I am just wondering why, as an elected official, Cllr Leeming feels it is his place to pass judgement on whether someone should receive a driving ban. As far as I am aware local councillors can't issue driving bans and he's hardly presuming innocence until someone is found guilty and if an arrest was made then I just wonder if it could be interpeted as political pressure to influence a decision - what was the name of that lawyer that used to get celebs off driving bans on technicalities - I bet he would have had a field day with something like this.

Cllr Leeming has a history of putting his foot in it and, like so many others when posting about car accidents, really needs to engage brain before posting.

[malumbu]

Because most collisions involving drivers are due to driver error.  That is a fact.  Therefore the probability is very high that in this case it was due to driver error.  And as stated if you do a runner, there is also a high probability that you have done something very wrong. And similarly highly likely if you get caught you will be banned.  And in Lee Hughes case he got a six years prison sentence.

I have given the stats on cyclists going to court.  Prosecutions happen but on a far lower number than drivers.  The likelihood of harm to the individual from poor cycling to humans and to property etc are much lower due to physics.  That is why society focuses on bad driving.  That does not excuse bad cycling.

I've thought about 'accidents'.  My only no blame collision is when a deer ran out in front of me whilst driving and a cat whilst cycling - I came off worse in the latter and was quite upset about the former.  As it was a black cat I assume that I had upset a witch,  I've also had a pigeon and a bat (really? I thought they had such good radar) hit me whilst cycling but that resulted in no harm.  Perhaps a bit of satellite coming to ground or a meteorite would be classed as a no fault incident.  Can't think of any no fault collisions other than these.

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

That is the assumption that any normal person would make upon coming across a smashed up abandoned car that's been driven on the wrong side of the road and flattened a traffic light, yes.

Perhaps that, or possibly, since this happened in the very early morning, that this was a car stolen by an individual and, certainly, badly driven but perhaps by someone intent on reckless driving. Throw the book at them certainly, but perhaps don't add them to your 'all car drivers are careless b*rstards' list.

[first mate]

9 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

That is the assumption that any normal person would make upon coming across a smashed up abandoned car that's been driven on the wrong side of the road and flattened a traffic light, yes.

Except most people are not ward councillors. You'd hope your local rep wouldn't be so ready to take to social media before being crystal about the facts, but it seems that is what you Dulwich Roads lot do.

 

[ed_pete]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

I just wonder if it could be interpeted as political pressure to influence a decision

I'm sure that they be more subtle - I'm imagining the head of the Met meeting with the leader of the council in a dark room, probably a private members club, brandies in hand a councillor with an agenda walks in with some blackmail material...meanwhile it turns out the driver was a paediatrician who'd been working all night to save a set of twins from near certain death having been called into the hospital from an anniversary dinner with her husband and skidded to avoid a family of foxes crossing the road on her way home...(Ad Break).

[Rockets]

The left don't meet with the Met - they don't like them, unless they need them for something of course!!! 😉

Bottom-line is unless Cllr Leeming knows exactly what happened and that the driver is guilty of an offence worthy of a ban  there is no way he should be saying they should be banned - but, like Dulwich Roads, it seems Cllr Leeming also does not engage brain before posting and his posts are based on hope rather than reality!

 

[Kathleen Olander]

21 hours ago, malumbu said:

If you have crashed a car and then run away then if you are caught in all likeliness you will get a ban which you will most likely deserve.  That is what most people will think.  Why can we not express an opinion? 

If you have crashed a car and then run away then if you are caught in all likeliness you will not have a full licence or any insurance, so you won't get a ban or a prison sentence which you will most likely deserve, as the prisons are full.  Opinion expressed. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Kathleen Olander
Punctuation