Re: Interesting viewpoint

Wicked Uncle Nigel said:

Not to mention that if it was so clearly icy, it was a little
irresponsible to cycle in a large group on a road with traffic on it,
no?

In what way was it irresponsible? Who was at risk? Was it
irresponsible for any other road user to be out that morning?

Quoted message said:

If it was (or should have been) obvious to the car driver that the road
was in a hazardous condition, then it should have been at *least* as
obvious to the cyclists. And yet, there's no mention of this in the
verdict.

But, the cyclists, like most other road users that morning, didn't
crash and kill anyone. And, if they had crashed, they still wouldn't
have killed anyone.

Or are you of the view that they should have stayed off the road "for
their own good"?
--
Champ

ZX10R | GPz750turbo | GSX-R 600 racer
My advice as your attorney is to buy a motorcycle
To email me, neal at my domain should work.

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ
<[email hidden]> typed

Quoted message said:

Wicked Uncle Nigel said:

Not to mention that if it was so clearly icy, it was a little
irresponsible to cycle in a large group on a road with traffic on it,
no?

In what way was it irresponsible? Who was at risk? Was it
irresponsible for any other road user to be out that morning?

I fear I'm not expressing my point well (no change there, then...)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it was (or should have been) obvious to the car driver that the road
was in a hazardous condition, then it should have been at *least* as
obvious to the cyclists. And yet, there's no mention of this in the
verdict.

But, the cyclists, like most other road users that morning, didn't
crash and kill anyone. And, if they had crashed, they still wouldn't
have killed anyone.

Or are you of the view that they should have stayed off the road "for
their own good"?

What I'm *trying* to say, is that *if* it was clearly dangerous to be
out driving, then it could be argued that the cyclists could be said to
have been unwise to be on the road at all.

I would argue that it was *not* clearly unsafe to be out and about. I'd
file this one under "[censored] happens". But, no. Someone has to be "to
blame", hence the narrative verdict.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer as featured in
Performance Bikes and Fast Bikes

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (Falling apart) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Honda ST1100 wiv trailer

Hog wrote on 27/06/2007 19:20 +0100:

Quoted message said:

The ice wasn't the motorists fault, more tyre tread doesn't help on ice, his
speed was not excessive on the road, how would he know ice was around.
Anyone could have been caught out. I feel sympathy for the cyclists and the
driver.

That's not what the coroner and jury found. They found he had driven at
excessive speed and without proper care and expressed strong surprise he
had not been prosecuted for it. As for how he would know ice was around
his own admission that he spent five minutes scrapping it off his car
before setting off should perhaps have given the numpty a clue.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In communiqué <[email hidden]>, Wicked Uncle Nigel
<[email hidden]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom

Quoted message said:

What I'm *trying* to say, is that *if* it was clearly dangerous to be
out driving, then it could be argued that the cyclists could be said to
have been unwise to be on the road at all.

Or even a pedestrian unwise to be on the pavement? Presumably no
pavement along the road in this case, but if there was the car could
possibly have ended up on it and mown down anyone walking. Even someone
wearing crampons.

Quoted message said:

I would argue that it was *not* clearly unsafe to be out and about. I'd
file this one under "[censored] happens". But, no. Someone has to be "to
blame", hence the narrative verdict.

One can only wonder what clues there were to the iciness of the road
which might have alerted a more conscientious driver to the danger of
skidding. Was it an isolated patch of 'black ice' or had he got away
with other slides before the incident? What lead the coroner to say "The
evidence shows classic signs that Robert Harris was driving without due
care and attention and to his credit he admitted his responsibility in
going too fast."?

--

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: [email hidden] |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

in message <[email hidden]>, Wicked Uncle Nigel

(') said:

If it was (or should have been) obvious to the car driver that the road
was in a hazardous condition, then it should have been at *least* as
obvious to the cyclists.

The cyclists didn't lose control, didn't crash. They were crashed into.
That's a fact. The road was safe to use; it just wasn't safe to use at an
unreasonable speed for the conditions.

Just like any other road at any other time.

Quoted message said:

And yet, there's no mention of this in the
verdict.

Why should there be? What would you say to someone who wrote:

"The motorcyclist was using the road on a fine summers day when the artic
driven by a drunken fourteen-year-old joy rider went over the top of him.
This was clearly the motorcyclists fault as he shouldn't have been on the
road during the school holidays"

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Pete Fisher
<[email hidden]> typed

Quoted message said:

In communiqué <[email hidden]>, Wicked Uncle Nigel
<[email hidden]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom

Quoted message said:

I would argue that it was *not* clearly unsafe to be out and about.
I'd file this one under "[censored] happens". But, no. Someone has to be "to
blame", hence the narrative verdict.

One can only wonder what clues there were to the iciness of the road
which might have alerted a more conscientious driver to the danger of
skidding. Was it an isolated patch of 'black ice' or had he got away
with other slides before the incident? What lead the coroner to say
"The evidence shows classic signs that Robert Harris was driving
without due care and attention and to his credit he admitted his
responsibility in going too fast."?

Who knows? It's interesting to note that the same news report says "The
cyclists had set out on a 60-mile trip between Great Orme and Llanrwst,
in what they believed was fine weather."

Now, the cyclists believed the weather was fine. And they're out in the
open air. And yet, a car driver (in a heated cabin) is supposed to have
been able to detect that things were a bit iffy in the ice department.
As to the driver "going too fast", this refers to one recorded comment
from the driver where he stated that he was "very possibly" going too
fast. Given that he skidded on black ice, it's easy to conclude that he
was "going too fast" for the conditions. The question is *could and
should he have known that?*

If we accept the evidence that the cyclists believed the weather was
fine, why should the same not be true of the car driver?

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer as featured in
Performance Bikes and Fast Bikes

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (Falling apart) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Honda ST1100 wiv trailer

Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote on 27/06/2007 23:58 +0100:

Quoted message said:

If we accept the evidence that the cyclists believed the weather was
fine, why should the same not be true of the car driver?

You seem to assume that riding a bike on an icy road is the same as
driving a car. It isn't. Note the cyclists did not slip and slide and
fall over. The car did. That is because riding a bike on a frost road
is not much of a problem. Driving a car as events have shown is.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> typed

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Wicked Uncle Nigel

(') said:

If it was (or should have been) obvious to the car driver that the road
was in a hazardous condition, then it should have been at *least* as
obvious to the cyclists.

The cyclists didn't lose control, didn't crash. They were crashed into.
That's a fact. The road was safe to use; it just wasn't safe to use at an
unreasonable speed for the conditions.

And the driver could tell that his speed was 'unreasonable' because...?

(Hint: The CPS, not noted for their reticence in these matters, decided
not to prosecute).

Quoted message said:

Just like any other road at any other time.

Quoted message said:

And yet, there's no mention of this in the
verdict.

Why should there be? What would you say to someone who wrote:

"The motorcyclist was using the road on a fine summers day when the artic
driven by a drunken fourteen-year-old joy rider went over the top of him.
This was clearly the motorcyclists fault as he shouldn't have been on the
road during the school holidays"

I'd say "Well done, have the 'Non-sequitur of the Year Award'".

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer as featured in
Performance Bikes and Fast Bikes

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (Falling apart) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Honda ST1100 wiv trailer

Champ said:

Dan L said:

They are pretty much at the top of my most hated other road users
list.

This statement is about as bigoted as you can get.

Firstly, how on earth can you have a "list of hated road users"? I
guess you group everybody by what vehicle they're in/on? Do you
include the colour of their skin, or their gender? No? Why not?

And what about the people who use more than one form of transport? Do
they actually change as they move from one to the other?

Remember that for all the unthinking reasons that you "hate cyclists",
plenty of other road users hate *you*.

Your on form!

--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400

"Hog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ginge said:

Hog said:

Thinking about it, there are no practical barriers, time any bicycle
used on the road had to wear a small rear number plate. They should
pay a road tax and carry 3rd party liability insurance. Helmets
should deffo be compulsory. Traffic violations, pavements/lights etc
should carry the same financial penalty as other vehicles.

I think the law should be waived for really slow, perfectly controlled
wheelies through any pedestrianised area.

on any two wheeled appliance, agreed

woohoo!

--
Monz
Suzuki GSXR1000 K6
[insert nickname here] @gsxr1000.co.uk
ANORAK#16 | BOTAFOT #135 | BREast#2 | MIRTTH#25 | BoB#16 | IBB#11

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Monz
<[email hidden]> typed

Quoted message said:

"Hog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ginge said:

Hog wrote:
> Thinking about it, there are no practical barriers, time any bicycle
> used on the road had to wear a small rear number plate. They should
> pay a road tax and carry 3rd party liability insurance. Helmets
> should deffo be compulsory. Traffic violations, pavements/lights etc
> should carry the same financial penalty as other vehicles.

I think the law should be waived for really slow, perfectly controlled
wheelies through any pedestrianised area.

on any two wheeled appliance, agreed

woohoo!

*Bzzzzt*.

Sorry, your application fails the 'slow' criterion.

I'm slow. And you passed me on the 'Four countries before lunch' tour.
Several times. And *always* on one wheel.

Made Oi larf, it did.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer as featured in
Performance Bikes and Fast Bikes

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (Falling apart) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Honda ST1100 wiv trailer

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

If we accept the evidence that the cyclists believed the weather was
fine, why should the same not be true of the car driver?

You seem to assume that riding a bike on an icy road is the same as
driving a car. It isn't. Note the cyclists did not slip and slide and
fall over. The car did. That is because riding a bike on a frost road
is not much of a problem. Driving a car as events have shown is.

I've never had problems driving a car or riding a motorcycle on an icy
road. What's wrong with your car?
--
-- Nick ICQ: 9235201 EMAIL & MSN: [email hidden]
-- LOTR#4 SKOGA#8 DS#7 BOTAFOT#159 BOTM#2 FBOTY#06 PM#11
-- GSF600n www.bgn.me.uk - Drive until you lose the road

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:44:23 +0100, BGN <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

If we accept the evidence that the cyclists believed the weather was
fine, why should the same not be true of the car driver?

You seem to assume that riding a bike on an icy road is the same as
driving a car. It isn't. Note the cyclists did not slip and slide and
fall over. The car did. That is because riding a bike on a frost road
is not much of a problem. Driving a car as events have shown is.

I've never had problems driving a car or riding a motorcycle on an icy
road. What's wrong with your car?

Possibly nothing is wrong with his car, but the car driven by the man
who killed the four innocent cyclists had bald tyres.

Tony Raven ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If we accept the evidence that the cyclists believed the weather was
fine, why should the same not be true of the car driver?

Quoted message said:

You seem to assume that riding a bike on an icy road is the same as
driving a car. It isn't. Note the cyclists did not slip and slide and
fall over. The car did. That is because riding a bike on a frost road
is not much of a problem. Driving a car as events have shown is.

It's a damn sight easier to drive a car on a truly slippery surface than it
is to ride a bike on the same surface. Perhaps the two sides of the road
were affected unequally?

Wicked Uncle Nigel ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Quoted message said:

(Hint: The CPS, not noted for their reticence in these matters, decided
not to prosecute).

Especially bearing in mind this was in North Wales...

Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote on 28/06/2007 00:17 +0100:

Quoted message said:

And the driver could tell that his speed was 'unreasonable' because...?

(Hint: The CPS, not noted for their reticence in these matters, decided
not to prosecute).

And the Coroner said after weeks reviewing the evidence:

"The evidence shows classic signs that Robert Harris was driving without
due care and attention and to his credit he admitted his responsibility
in going too fast.

"I fail to understand why no proceedings were brought against him."

"I sat here biting my tongue during the inquest of this most
unprofessional state of affairs and I will be writing to the chief
constable recommending a fundamental examination of the way they receive
and disseminate information and a general re-training of those involved."

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

Dentist said:

The short answer is no. There is no evidence that the driver of the
car, or the cyclists, did not take reasonable care. A lack of
clairvoyance and an inability to see black ice are not offences and,
IMHO, should not even provoke mild criticism.

My take on it completely. I have been surprised by black ice, bike and car.
I've dropped a bike a couple of times and slid a car off to the edge once.
The roads had been fine up to those points, even though it was cold.

I think very carefully about taking a bike out of town when it's icy/frosty.
I would dwell even longer on cycling out of town.

Where the driver gets a bit caught out is the state of his tyres. I haven't
read whether they were short of tread or under inflated but there are no
excuses. I do a regular walk round of my cars but many people don't bother.
In this case it appears the court deemed it was not a contributory factor.

--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400

In communiqué <[email hidden]>, Wicked Uncle Nigel
<[email hidden]> cast forth these pearls of wisdom

Quoted message said:

Now, the cyclists believed the weather was fine. And they're out in the
open air. And yet, a car driver (in a heated cabin) is supposed to have
been able to detect that things were a bit iffy in the ice department.
As to the driver "going too fast", this refers to one recorded comment
from the driver where he stated that he was "very possibly" going too
fast. Given that he skidded on black ice, it's easy to conclude that he
was "going too fast" for the conditions. The question is *could and
should he have known that?*

That is indeed the nub of the case. Insufficient information in the news
report to come to a conclusion. Although one poster seems to have access
to the driver's evidence.

Quoted message said:

If we accept the evidence that the cyclists believed the weather was
fine, why should the same not be true of the car driver?

It appears that the cyclists had only just set off. I wonder how far the
car had already come?

Presumably one the Local Authorities involved also believed it was fine,
despite a forecast of frost, until they received the call about a
skidding incident. If the section of road in question runs through, or
even perhaps forms the boundary between, Conwy and Denbighshire I can
see plenty of potential for "not me" confusion. Another article
mentioning delays obtaining evidence about gritting records etc. makes
interesting reading.

--

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: [email hidden] |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

Hog ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Where the driver gets a bit caught out is the state of his tyres. I
haven't read whether they were short of tread

He was prosecuted for three of the four being bald - but they were deemed
not to have contributed to the crash.

Simon Brooke said:

Why should there be? What would you say to someone who wrote:

"The motorcyclist was using the road on a fine summers day when the
artic driven by a drunken fourteen-year-old joy rider went over the
top of him. This was clearly the motorcyclists fault as he shouldn't
have been on the road during the school holidays"

Congratulations: The best example of a straw man I have seen in years!

pk