The first 30 years of my life existed in the UK, and from when I can remember, there has been US air bases there, a couple that were near to where I lived, I knew and partied with many of the family's that lived off-base.
They of course brought their US auto's with them, which at that time were of a size that just about took up the whole of small English country roads.
During that time, I never heard of any of them reported driving on the wrong side or any accidents due to it.
I had the same driving experience when I came to Canada and soon got the hang of it. Driving on the right, that is.

On several occasions I have been behind a Chevrolet Corvette which was stuck behind a tractor because the Corvette driver couldn't see to overtake. Road accident rates around US airbases are quite a lot higher than the national average.

 

I am sure the parents are not seeing it as a "small" one !

I'm sure they aren't, but it is "small" compared to an armed conflict between nations.

 

I'm sure they aren't, but it is "small" compared to an armed conflict between nations.

It's always a messy business. We just exchanged the 'lord of war' for a US citizen. I understand why it happened but for the people in Africa he helped to kill it's a big pill to swallow and to justify for one NBA player who IMO acted like a moron.

 

How many lives could be saved if they'd just fix the roads so everyone drives on the "right" side?

Oh, and it's soccer, not football.

Football is the fun game.

 

It's always a messy business. We just exchanged the 'lord of war' for a US citizen. I understand why it happened but for the people in Africa he helped to kill it's a big pill to swallow and justify for one NBA player who IMO acted like a moron.

I really don't understand why it happened -- oh, I understand the domestic politics involved in the decision, but I'm not going to go there.

In general, my position is that if we believe that a U.S. citizen has been wrongfully detained by another government, then negative pressure should be brought to bear, such as appropriately-scaled economic sanctions, that are relieved when the citizen is repatriated. I don't think the other government should benefit from that action as I believe it just encourages more of that type of behavior, either by that government or others. I don't have a problem with prisoner exchanges of comparable prisoners in cases of agents acting on behalf of their governments (e.g., spies).

 

I really don't understand why it happened -- oh, I understand the domestic politics involved in the decision, but I'm not going to go there.

In general, my position is that if we believe that a U.S. citizen has been wrongfully detained by another government, then negative pressure should be brought to bear, such as appropriately-scaled economic sanctions, that are relieved when the citizen is repatriated. I don't think the other government should benefit from that action as I believe it just encourages more of that type of behavior, either by that government or others. I don't have a problem with prisoner exchanges of comparable prisoners in cases of agents acting on behalf of their governments (e.g., spies).

I hear what you're saying but during my short tour we rescued idiots in an Africa war zone because rule #1 is we take care of our own even (with at least the threat of force) when they are guilty of stupidity if the holding country fails the most basic rules and rights of international law. Russia currently falls in that category IMO. If OP subject person was leaving a bar drunk and killed a local I would be protesting but that was a accident leaving from a host protected area. A different kettle of fish.

 

In general, my position is that if we believe that a U.S. citizen has been wrongfully detained by another government, then negative pressure should be brought to bear, such as appropriately-scaled economic sanctions, that are relieved when the citizen is repatriated. I don't think the other government should benefit from that action as I believe it just encourages more of that type of behavior, either by that government or others. I don't have a problem with prisoner exchanges of comparable prisoners in cases of agents acting on behalf of their governments (e.g., spies).

If she had been arrested in 2019 and sentenced to a year in a British jail for "causing death by dangerous driving" then that would not have been "wrongful detention".

 

If she had been arrested in 2019 and sentenced to a year in a British jail for "causing death by dangerous driving" then that would not have been "wrongful detention".

So? As explicitly noted, I was making a general statement about prisoner exchanges. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this case didn't involve any prisoner exchange, did it?

If she had not had diplomatic immunity, then being arrested and, upon conviction, sentenced in accordance with the laws of the host country would have been perfectly fine and I don't think the government should have or would have done anything to help her. But the simple fact is that she DID have diplomatic immunity and, under a host of multilateral treaties and agreements, ANY detention would have been wrongful as a result.

The proper thing for our government to do, in my opinion, when they are not going to waive immunity as a matter of policy, is to levy comparable sanctions or charges against her here in this country. This is the proper thing to do for a few reasons. First, it is consistent with the notion that people should be subject to appropriate justice for their actions. Second, it is consistent with the spirit of these diplomatic immunity agreements that the home country accepts responsibility and authority for the accountability of diplomats when the host country is precluded from doing so. Third, it is in the interest of good relations between the countries if both know that the other's diplomats will be held accountable.

 

Changes have been made with the approval of the UK government.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/world/europe/diplomatic-immunity-harry-dunn.html
The waiver arrangement had been restricted to the base, and the changes will not affect broader agreements on immunity for diplomatic staff. American personnel and their families posted elsewhere in Britain will continue to enjoy diplomatic immunity.

I recognize that these changes will not bring Harry back.”

In a written statement to Parliament, Mr. Raab said that the loophole “could not in future be used in the same way as in the tragic case of Harry Dunn.”

 

This is what I got from historical texts: US=UK+territorial immunity
As a Darwinist it's roots on territorial immunity indeed.
and it still depends on your standing position on pyramid :--/ :--p

 

this incident made headlines but not much in terms of details was revealed. no time of the incident was mentioned, only date. one report stated it was the night but that does not make much sense. there is even no mention of exact spot where the incident occurred. browsing google map one can find the make shift memorial few hundred meters from the base entrance suggesting she turned right... the speed limit at that place is just 40kph, equivalent to just 25mph. and they met head on so both knew (or at least had chance to know) that collision is imminent. after three years finally there was sentencing - for mere 8 months only and IF she returns to UK and reports to police station. but Interpol also has her on red notice so she should be arrested anywhere if she steps outside US.

:

 

Wikipedia gives the time of the incident at both 20:25 BST and 20:25 GMT. I assume it's BST. Sunset is at 20:02 BST, so it would have been dusk.
One minor correction - British speed limit signs are in miles per hour.

 

Wikipedia gives the time of the incident at both 20:25 BST and 20:25 GMT. I assume it's BST. Sunset is at 20:02 BST, so it would have been dusk. (Some text removed for clarity)

Greenwich is in England.

 

Greenwich is in England.

I know where the Greenwich meridian is - it runs through the car-park at work.

BST = British Summer Time which lasts from last Sunday in March to last Sunday in October, so is what the clocks would be reading at the time of the incident, so it is unlikely that anyone would subtract an hour to convert it to GMT.

 

A question to the Brits here. In the US, if you see a car heading directly at you, the normal reaction is to turn to the right to avoid the collision. Would a Brit turn to the left? This could explain why they collided even if they saw each other and both executed the normal avoidance maneuver.

I still maintain that there should be no criminal liability here. During my 3 months on a grand jury, we heard a a vehicular homicide case, so I am well aware of the Massachusetts law. If no alcohol or drugs are involved, there must be either reckless driving or gross negligence. The legal definitions if those terms and the facts of this case do not support that. I don’t think she would have been indicted here.

On the other hand, the case we heard was about a drunk driver passing on a blind curve who hit a motorcycle coming around in his proper lane. Not much deliberation was required in that one.

 

A question to the Brits here. In the US, if you see a car heading directly at you, the normal reaction is to turn to the right to avoid the collision. Would a Brit turn to the left? This could explain why they collided even if they saw each other and both executed the normal avoidance maneuver.

I still maintain that there should be no criminal liability here. During my 3 months on a grand jury, we heard a a vehicular homicide case, so I am well aware of the Massachusetts law. If no alcohol or drugs are involved, there must be either reckless driving or gross negligence. The legal definitions if those terms and the facts of this case do not support that. I don’t think she would have been indicted here.

On the other hand, the case we heard was about a drunk driver passing on a blind curve who hit a motorcycle coming around in his proper lane. Not much deliberation was required in that one.

One would instinctively head for the verge on the left-hand side.
Though, having driven many thousands of miles in France, Belgium and Germany, if faced with the same situations I would instinctively head for the verge on my right-hand side.
This situation was different - normally, if there is a car heading directly towards you, it is one of two cars - one overtaking the other. This situation, which looks for all the world like someone overtaking a car that doesn't exist, and making no attempt to return to the correct side, would create a brief moment of confusion - probably long enough to be fatal.

Personally, I think that 5 years' imprisonment would be a fitting sentence. Compare it to a death in the workplace caused by someone operating machinery in a situation that they were not trained to use it. Driving directly at oncoming traffic fits my definition of gross negligence.

 

...
Personally, I think that 5 years' imprisonment would be a fitting sentence. Compare it to a death in the workplace caused by someone operating machinery in a situation that they were not trained to use it. Driving directly at oncoming traffic fits my definition of gross negligence.

This is exactly why immunity exists, to prevent excessive cultural penalties, it works both ways.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2018-DipConImm_v5_Web.pdf

Notwithstanding the antiquity of the concept
of diplomatic immunity, its purpose is
often misunderstood by the citizens of this
and other countries. Occasional abuses of
diplomatic immunity, which are brought to
public attention, have also served to prejudice
public attitudes toward this practice. Dealing
with the concept of immunity poses particular
problems for law enforcement officers who,
by virtue of their oath and training, are
unaccustomed to granting special privileges
or concessions to individuals who break the
law.

U.S. law regarding diplomatic immunity has its
roots in England. In 1708, the British Parliament
formally recognized diplomatic immunity and
banned the arrest of foreign envoys. In 1790,
the United States passed similar legislation that
provided absolute immunity for diplomats and
their families and servants, as well as for lower
ranking diplomatic mission personnel. This
1790 law remained in force until 1978, when the
present Diplomatic Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 254)
was enacted to replace it.

 

One would instinctively head for the verge on the left-hand side.
Though, having driven many thousands of miles in France, Belgium and Germany…

The point is, she had not driven thousands of miles in the UK, she had been there for 2 weeks.

Driving directly at oncoming traffic fits my definition of gross negligence.

Only if you do so knowingly.

Sorry, but this is beginning to sound like anti- American sentiment.

 

What if she rigged up a makeshift adapter to plug her 120v heater into a UK outlet and burned down her apartment building and killed a person. Would that be an accident? Should charges be pressed? If so, which charges.
Would it just be lack of cultural understanding? A mistake?

She was cold and she had a heater. No different than, she had a car and wanted to get somewhere.

 

On the other hand, the case we heard was about a drunk driver passing on a blind curve who hit a motorcycle coming around in his proper lane. Not much deliberation was required in that one.

Do we know if she claimed to make a mistake and drive the whole way on the wrong side of the road vs checked her phone and drifted to the wrong side of the road and killed the guy?