4 ms·
Gets hundreds of poor devils to confess to "running somebody over cause i was frozzen up" in court, meanwhile its simply you were driving to fast for your visua
by qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Gets hundreds of poor devils to confess to "running somebody over cause i was frozzen up" in court, meanwhile its simply you were driving to fast for your visual system and it made up a plausible story after your drove into a poor guy.
Guilttrip included.
Here be privatpersons posting about how actions must have consequences.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- corobo 4y agoI think that'd be called driving with undue care and attention here in the UK. Generally it's on you when you crash into someone without some super specific exception. If you want to read more on this though it looks like there's been a study specifically on saccades while driving: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6536025/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6536025/
- rlpb 4y agohttps://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Whoolley.php https://e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Whoolley.php "The defendant lorry driver, was travelling on the M62 in a queue of slow moving traffic. He suffered a sneezing fit, losing control of his vehicle he knocked into the car in front. This car in turn knocked into the car in front causing a domino effect involving 7 cars. The Magistrates allowed the defence of automatism. The appeal court held that the Magistrates were right to do so and that an attack of sneezing could amount to an involuntary action for the purposes of the defence of non-insane automatism."