This isn't 'dangerous driving'.. apparently

One useful thing that could be done, at least, is to make causing an incident when driving under the influence of drink or drugs de facto dangerous driving (as it is, obviously). At the moment the driver gets charged for drunk/drug driving but their driving can still be assessed as careless rather than dangerous, implying that getting behind the wheel bombed does not necessarily fall "far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver", which is patently absurd.

Careless and dangerous definitions always seem to me as arbitrary and subjective as a questioning the length of a short vs. long piece of string.

I suspect that the law likes this kind of thing as appropriate flexibility to cope with human circumstances. Equally where I see the remarkable variation in punishments (if any) applied as evidence for further subjectivity and human bias there are of course guidelines there and presumably that would be evidence of the system taking into account all factors.

My belief in that view is lessened since - as far as I know there is no legal impediment (cost though...) to introducing a driving test examiner as an expert witness and yet we've never read of this. Of course perhaps the prosecutors know their business and that this would be a right turn-off for any jury - or even judge?

This thread ain't going to be as fun as "car crashes into building"

Couple of reasons though, easy acceptance of plea bargaining down to careless, and juries made up of drivers.

This one was
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67959162

There's quite a history of case law around the definition of dangerous driving.

Here for example is an awful interview with Thomas Davies who claimed he did JOGLE at an average speed of 89 mph in his tuned Audi with a long-range tank he had cobbled together, then said he had been lying when he got to Court, got off the charges and is proud of himself.

(All the statements about law in the interview are not correct, but it illustrates the point.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwfJEcrEaik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsl_S3lS-Ok&t

I think the principle problem is that dangerous (and careless) driving is defined in law as relative to "the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver". So you are asking a bunch of other drivers in the jury to assess whether this driver was much worse than them. Given the number of drivers you see on their phone, or parked dangerously, or whatever, the standard of competence and care is very, very low.

I would favour a move that would define careless and dangerous driving as driving that would constitute a major fault in a driving test.