Post hoc ergo propter hoc...
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 0
Partly.
B was the crash A was the drinks before the crash.
Friend of mine was crashed into at Christmas by a drink driver, head on crash, oncoming drunk driver was on the wrong side of the road, totally wrote her New Mondeo ST off, she said he got out of the car clearly mortal, shouted at her then ran away. He then handed himself in the next day, sober!
Think all he got was banned from driving for a year and leaving the scene of a accident. I saw the pics taken by the police of her ST, the front drivers side was missing, just crushed up, the Focus he was driving was even worse, the front of the car was completely missing, both very lucky to walk away, well he was lucky to run away, 4 months on and she is still back and forward to the doctors.
So in conclusion to your question if B is caused by A then you should get banned and more. In my opinion getting banned for 1 year and a slap for leaving the scene of the accident is nothing.
However if you do a A and a B follows but the accident was actually caused by C then what is the crack there??? :?:
Friend of mine was crashed into at Christmas by a drink driver, head on crash, oncoming drunk driver was on the wrong side of the road, totally wrote her New Mondeo ST off, she said he got out of the car clearly mortal, shouted at her then ran away. He then handed himself in the next day, sober!
Think all he got was banned from driving for a year and leaving the scene of a accident. I saw the pics taken by the police of her ST, the front drivers side was missing, just crushed up, the Focus he was driving was even worse, the front of the car was completely missing, both very lucky to walk away, well he was lucky to run away, 4 months on and she is still back and forward to the doctors.
So in conclusion to your question if B is caused by A then you should get banned and more. In my opinion getting banned for 1 year and a slap for leaving the scene of the accident is nothing.
However if you do a A and a B follows but the accident was actually caused by C then what is the crack there??? :?:
I guess it could be argued that whatever the circumstance, as a drunk driver, A could have reacted inappropriately in such a way as to present an unavoidable accident to B.