Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Hummer driver guilty of causing death by dangerous driving

He was remanded in custody at Maidstone Crown Court for sentencing next month.

A sad case, but dangerous driving and a prison sentence? I'm not sure what purpose this will serve on top of the death of a child. I'm sure if he could turn the clock back he would do it in a heart beat.

Skull wrote:

It may perhaps serve as a deterrant and remind drivers that due care and attention on the roads is needed 100% of the time. However I don't believe that justice will be done in this case as in so many others before it. The courts will of course take into consideration any time already spent in remand and I will be surprised if this individual will spend anymore than that in custody. There may be a driving ban for a few years but lets not forget that whilst he his has life to regret what happened he took the life of a child that never even had a chance at life let alone actions they may later regret.

So he will get done for drive with due care & attention, but what about the company was the H2 Limousine Hummer to blame in the accident in any way or form & if so should there not be in court as well for cooperate man slaughter.

As this driver worked for them so they should take some part of the blame in the accident.

This is a sad case of company greed as normal with drivers who have done a long day job then to do a late night driving for long hours in a limousine as per normal.

remanded in custody ?

So he will get done for drive with due care & attention,

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Hummer driver guilty of causing death by dangerous driving
Limo driver caused toddler death A limousine driver has been found guilty of causing the death of a two-year-old boy in a motorway crash. Danyal Razzaq, from Middlesex, died when John James Woolston's Hummer stretch limousine drove over his family's car on the M25 in Kent. Woolston, 40, of Windham Road, East Ham, east London, was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving over the crash in Crockenhill in July 2007. He was remanded in custody at Maidstone Crown Court for sentencing next month. The court heard Woolston drove into vehicles which were slowing for roadworks. Danyal died at the scene and his parents and brother were injured in the eight-car crash. They were travelling in a Renault Clio from their home in Hampton to visit relatives in Gravesend when the crash happened between junctions four and five. Eight other people, including a pregnant woman, were injured. The jury reached a majority verdict after the seven-day trial. Sgt Lorraine Silvester, from Kent Police's Serious Collision Investigation Unit, welcomed the verdict. She said: "I have no doubt that Danyal's family will never forget that day last year when their family was torn apart, however I hope that today's verdict brings some closure to the incident and they are able to start moving forward with their lives." She added: "I cannot stress enough to all motorists the importance of driving carefully and being aware of their surroundings at all times, particularly at this time of year."

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Hummer driver guilty of causing death by dangerous drivi
Sussex wrote: He was remanded in custody at Maidstone Crown Court for sentencing next month. I reckon 30 months.

Author:	Skull [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:30 am ]
Post subject:
A sad case, but dangerous driving and a prison sentence? I'm not sure what purpose this will serve on top of the death of a child. I'm sure if he could turn the clock back he would do it in a heart beat.

Author:	toots [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:
Skull wrote: A sad case, but dangerous driving and a prison sentence? I'm not sure what purpose this will serve on top of the death of a child. I'm sure if he could turn the clock back he would do it in a heart beat. It may perhaps serve as a deterrant and remind drivers that due care and attention on the roads is needed 100% of the time. However I don't believe that justice will be done in this case as in so many others before it. The courts will of course take into consideration any time already spent in remand and I will be surprised if this individual will spend anymore than that in custody. There may be a driving ban for a few years but lets not forget that whilst he his has life to regret what happened he took the life of a child that never even had a chance at life let alone actions they may later regret.

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:
Edmund Fowler, prosecuting, said Woolston was a London bus driver who also worked for a car hire firm, driving the luxury left-hand drive car with the registration BIG 9202, weighing more than five tonnes. On July 14 last year, he had gone to Dagenham-based Just Limos and was due to collect a group of men to go to Brighton.

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Hummer driver guilty of causing death by dangerous driving http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9791	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Skull [ Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:57 pm ]
Post subject:
toots wrote: Skull wrote: A sad case, but dangerous driving and a prison sentence? I'm not sure what purpose this will serve on top of the death of a child. I'm sure if he could turn the clock back he would do it in a heart beat. It may perhaps serve as a deterrant and remind drivers that due care and attention on the roads is needed 100% of the time. However I don't believe that justice will be done in this case as in so many others before it. The courts will of course take into consideration any time already spent in remand and I will be surprised if this individual will spend anymore than that in custody. There may be a driving ban for a few years but lets not forget that whilst he his has life to regret what happened he took the life of a child that never even had a chance at life let alone actions they may later regret. Good point. But life doesn't come with a manual of how to get it right every time, we all make mistakes . . . . I just don't see the intent to do harm but I do see the suffering . . . . No one gets justice this time around . . . .

Author:	toots [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:04 am ]
Post subject:
Whilst I agree that there was no intent this man obviously was not paying attention to the road. Perhaps he was a little tired, he is also a London bus driver. Bus drivers are only suppose spend a certain amount of hours driving a bus and probably for a good reason, they may get tired. Again whilst I don't dissagree to people having more than one job (sometimes needs must) taking a 2nd driving job seems a little foolish to me. One can't justify accidents by saying there was no intent that's why they are accidents because there was no intent but we have to draw the line somewhere as to what is an unavoidable accident and what could have been prevented with a little commonsense and observation.

Author:	skippy41 [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:10 am ]
Post subject:
If your a bus driver your not allowed to drive a cab or PH not with first bus anyway

Author:	grandad [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:27 am ]
Post subject:
I know it is a little late for this chap but since, I think it was July, hummers and other limos that carry over 8 passengers are require to be fitted with speed limiters and tacho's. I think that not all require both yet depending on the year of manufacture. Where no tacho has yet been fitted the company is required to keep a log book of drivers hours and obviously a bus or lorry drivers hours from their main job must be taken into account. I don't know what the penalties for exceeding drivers hours are but I am sure someone on here will know.

Author:	edders23 [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:40 am ]
Post subject:
remanded in custody ? that doesn't happen round here there is a very high profile case round here where a drink driver crashed a jag into three people whose car had broken down at 113 MPH she has been told she faces jail but not remanded in custody and there is the local cabby who killed a motorcyclist whilst racing on the A1 at over 100 mph ( covered in a another thread) he is still driving taxis !

Author:	limo man [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:30 am ]
Post subject:
So he will get done for drive with due care & attention, but what about the company was the H2 Limousine Hummer to blame in the accident in any way or form & if so should there not be in court as well for cooperate man slaughter. As this driver worked for them so they should take some part of the blame in the accident. This is a sad case of company greed as normal with drivers who have done a long day job then to do a late night driving for long hours in a limousine as per normal.

Author:	Tulsablue [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:41 am ]
Post subject:
limo man wrote: So he will get done for drive with due care & attention, but what about the company was the H2 Limousine Hummer to blame in the accident in any way or form & if so should there not be in court as well for cooperate man slaughter. As this driver worked for them so they should take some part of the blame in the accident. This is a sad case of company greed as normal with drivers who have done a long day job then to do a late night driving for long hours in a limousine as per normal. Please can you quote the source of your info or are you just slightly biased against the limo trade.

Author:	no tips [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:
If i remember correctly the limo firm had a serious fire a day after the accident that distroyed all there office and records..

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:
edders23 wrote: remanded in custody ? I think the remand is only until the probation report is ready for the judge. I doubt he was remanded in custody prior to the court case, but once found guilty everything has changed.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:
limo man wrote: So he will get done for drive with due care & attention, I would imagine he would love to have been done for driving without due care or attention. Usually three points and a fine.