Rhyl Inquest Continues...

[Matt B]

Andrew Price wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
>> anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
> Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
> "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> tyres."
>
> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?


--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Andrew Price wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
>> anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
> Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
> "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> tyres."
>
> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?

The penalty to which you refer was for committing a technical tyre
offence - nothing else.

You can be sure that the police will have left no stone unturned in
their search for evidence to sustain more serious charges to do with the
collisions and the deaths. They are obliged to investigate road deaths
as rigorously as they do homicides. Police policies insist that every
road death is treated as "‘UNLAWFUL KILLINGS’ until the contrary is
proved". If no further charges are applied it is because there is not
enough evidence to support any, especially givent that several offences
have been made available specifically to deal with road deaths and
injuries, to make it far easier to find at least one that will fit the
level of evidence available.

--
Matt B

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Andrew Price wrote:
> >
> > As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> > judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>
> The penalty to which you refer was for committing a technical tyre
> offence - nothing else.
>
> You can be sure that the police will have left no stone unturned in
> their search for evidence to sustain more serious charges to do with the
> collisions and the deaths.

Bollocks. In this case the police spokesman was exonerating the
driver even before the crash examination team had done their stuff on
site, let alone thought about it or reached a conclusion.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Matt B]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Price wrote:
>>> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
>>> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>> The penalty to which you refer was for committing a technical tyre
>> offence - nothing else.
>>
>> You can be sure that the police will have left no stone unturned in
>> their search for evidence to sustain more serious charges to do with the
>> collisions and the deaths.
>
> Bollocks. In this case the police spokesman was exonerating the
> driver even before the crash examination team had done their stuff on
> site, let alone thought about it or reached a conclusion.

It's not within his power to "exonerate" anybody, so even if he
expressed a view it would have no weight. Have you read the report -
did it say "our spokesman exonerated him so we didn't bother to look any
further"?

--
Matt B

 

[p.k.]

Ian Smith wrote:
>>>
>> You can be sure that the police will have left no stone unturned in
>> their search for evidence to sustain more serious charges to do
>> with the collisions and the deaths.
>
> Bollocks. In this case the police spokesman was exonerating the
> driver even before the crash examination team had done their stuff on
> site, let alone thought about it or reached a conclusion.


No he wasn't.

He said that there was no indication of "excessive speed": accident
investigation code for being well over the speed limit. It was the cycling
lobby that interpreted that as exonerating. He said nothing about whether
the speed was "appropriate for the conditions"

pk

 

[Tony Raven]

p.k. wrote on 24/06/2007 17:50 +0100:
>
> No he wasn't.
>
> He said that there was no indication of "excessive speed": accident
> investigation code for being well over the speed limit. It was the cycling
> lobby that interpreted that as exonerating. He said nothing about whether
> the speed was "appropriate for the conditions"
>

He said " "The driver has lost control because of the ice on the road.
There is no indication to suggest that this is down to something like
excessive speed.

"Our best estimate at the moment is that the car is driving at something
like 50 miles per hour. And on a road like this, that isn't excessive speed.

"Every road traffic collision is treated as a crime scene and tests have
already been carried out.

"However there is nothing to suggest the driver did anything but lose
control and on the face of it this seems to be a terrible accident."

However the inquest heard he may have been doing 60-70mph and Inspector
Adams seems not to be able to distinguish been excessive speed compared
to the norm versus excessive speed for the conditions. It was clearly
excessive speed for the conditions or the driver would not have lost
control.


--
Tony

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

 

[p.k.]

Tony Raven wrote:
> p.k. wrote on 24/06/2007 17:50 +0100:
>
> However the inquest heard he may have been doing 60-70mph and


There are different estimates:

"Motorist Robert Scott Cotton who had been travelling behind the cyclists
also recalled seeing the car approaching out of control from the Abergele
direction - he estimated it was travelling at 50mph."

and

One of the injured: "The first he knew something was wrong was when he saw a
car heading for the cyclists sideways on, he said. He estimated its speed at
60mph or more."

pk

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:

> Andrew Price wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
>>> anyone that matters. ;-^(
>>
>> Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>>
>> "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
>> given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
>> tyres."
>>
>> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
>> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>
> The penalty to which you refer was for committing a technical tyre
> offence - nothing else.
>
> You can be sure that the police will have left no stone unturned in
> their search for evidence to sustain more serious charges to do with the
> collisions and the deaths.

The police inspector responsible told the press within four hours of the
accident, before he had even been to the scene, that there was no question
of speeding. Any suggestion that there had been a full investigation by
that time is ludicrous - the forensics people were just arriving. So
you're (as usual) just plain wrong.

(Sorry, responding to a troll.)

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Wannabe a Web designer?
<URL:http://userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/97dec/19971206.html>

 

[Tony Raven]

p.k. wrote on 24/06/2007 18:32 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> p.k. wrote on 24/06/2007 17:50 +0100:
>>
>> However the inquest heard he may have been doing 60-70mph and
>
>
> There are different estimates:
>
> "Motorist Robert Scott Cotton who had been travelling behind the cyclists
> also recalled seeing the car approaching out of control from the Abergele
> direction - he estimated it was travelling at 50mph."
>
> and
>
> One of the injured: "The first he knew something was wrong was when he saw a
> car heading for the cyclists sideways on, he said. He estimated its speed at
> 60mph or more."
>

And according to the BBC, although no further detail is given, "An
inquest jury has heard how a car which struck and killed four cycling
club members may have been travelling at between 60 and 70mph." That
speed was estimated by one of the cyclists while the driver following
the car described it as travelling at "at least 50mph".

The driver himself admits he was going too fast:

"Mr Harris said he noticed frosty conditions, but thought the roads were
safe. He did, however, admit he briefly considered whether he should
take possible road conditions into account.

When asked if he was travelling too quickly for the conditions, he said:
“Obviously, in hindsight, yes – but at the time I didn’t think I was.”

William Hoskins, representing the families, told Mr Harris: “On an icy,
clear day, this is not the kind of road you should be driving anywhere
near the kind of speed you were driving at, is it?”

Mr Harris replied: “That is correct.”

He admitted doing between 50mph and 55mph before the crash – below the
speed limit – but denied speeding."
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33wgkw



--
Tony

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

 

[Matt B]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>
>> Andrew Price wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he killed
>>>> anyone that matters. ;-^(
>>> Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>>>
>>> "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
>>> given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
>>> tyres."
>>>
>>> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
>>> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>> The penalty to which you refer was for committing a technical tyre
>> offence - nothing else.
>>
>> You can be sure that the police will have left no stone unturned in
>> their search for evidence to sustain more serious charges to do with the
>> collisions and the deaths.
>
> The police inspector responsible told the press within four hours of the
> accident, before he had even been to the scene, that there was no question
> of speeding.

Perhaps he had been told by officers /at/ the scene.

> Any suggestion that there had been a full investigation by
> that time is ludicrous - the forensics people were just arriving. So
> you're (as usual) just plain wrong.

I never suggested that there /had/ been one by then, but that there
/would/ be one (and probably has been by now).

--
Matt B

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:57:09 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

>Andrew Price wrote:

>> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
>> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>

>You can be sure that the police will have left no stone unturned in
>their search for evidence to sustain more serious charges to do with the
>collisions and the deaths. They are obliged to investigate road deaths
>as rigorously as they do homicides. Police policies insist that every
>road death is treated as "‘UNLAWFUL KILLINGS’ until the contrary is
>proved". If no further charges are applied it is because there is not
>enough evidence to support any, especially givent that several offences
>have been made available specifically to deal with road deaths and
>injuries, to make it far easier to find at least one that will fit the
>level of evidence available.

This is pretty twaddleifferous, even by your standards.

The evidence points to an investigation and cover-up that falls far
short of the "no stone unturned" standard in which you have such a naive
faith.

Even the milquetoast charge of Careless Driving was rendered impossible
by the police suppression of the bald tyre evidence until it was too
late to charge Harris. So far, no suggestion of a crash reconstruction
has been reported, meaning unreliable witnesses are supplying the only
speed estimates. If Harris was driving at an illegal speed, it could
merit a more serious charge, but without physical evidence it would
likely fail. Again, the police seem quite unenthusiastic about pursuing
this approach.

"If no ... charges are applied it is because there is not enough
evidence to support any". You're bang on there, sport. If the police
can't be bothered (or willfully refuse) to gather enough evidence, well,
you know the rest.

 

[p.k.]

Marc Brett wrote:
> Even the milquetoast charge of Careless Driving was rendered
> impossible by the police suppression of the bald tyre evidence until
> it was too late to charge Harris.

Eh? He was prosecuted for that.

>So far, no suggestion of a crash
> reconstruction has been reported, meaning unreliable witnesses are
> supplying the only speed estimates. If Harris was driving at an
> illegal speed, it could merit a more serious charge, but without
> physical evidence it would likely fail. Again, the police seem quite
> unenthusiastic about pursuing this approach.


Skid marks on tarmac are often used to estimate speeds - not much use in
this case!


pk

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 21:58:34 +0100, "p.k." <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Marc Brett wrote:
>> Even the milquetoast charge of Careless Driving was rendered
>> impossible by the police suppression of the bald tyre evidence until
>> it was too late to charge Harris.
>
>Eh? He was prosecuted for that.

Not for Careless Driving, he wasn't. Six months after the crash is too
late for that. If that's not blatant manipulation, what is?

>>So far, no suggestion of a crash
>> reconstruction has been reported, meaning unreliable witnesses are
>> supplying the only speed estimates. If Harris was driving at an
>> illegal speed, it could merit a more serious charge, but without
>> physical evidence it would likely fail. Again, the police seem quite
>> unenthusiastic about pursuing this approach.
>
>Skid marks on tarmac are often used to estimate speeds - not much use in
>this case!

Skid marks aren't needed here. The energy involved in demolishing a
wall, and the energy involved in rebounding across a field of grass, and
across the road into the opposite ditch might be of some assistance.

 

[Matt B]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:57:09 +0100, Matt B
> <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Price wrote:
>
>>> As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
>>> judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>
>> You can be sure that the police will have left no stone unturned in
>> their search for evidence to sustain more serious charges to do with the
>> collisions and the deaths. They are obliged to investigate road deaths
>> as rigorously as they do homicides. Police policies insist that every
>> road death is treated as "‘UNLAWFUL KILLINGS’ until the contrary is
>> proved". If no further charges are applied it is because there is not
>> enough evidence to support any, especially givent that several offences
>> have been made available specifically to deal with road deaths and
>> injuries, to make it far easier to find at least one that will fit the
>> level of evidence available.
>
> This is pretty twaddleifferous, even by your standards.

It's as it is. They have policies - are accountable.

> The evidence points to an investigation and cover-up that falls far
> short of the "no stone unturned" standard in which you have such a naive
> faith.

Which piece of evidence in particular?

> Even the milquetoast charge of Careless Driving was rendered impossible
> by the police suppression of the bald tyre evidence until it was too
> late to charge Harris.

The police would have brought the dangerous or careless driving charge
if they thought there was evidence enough. Why wouldn't they?

> So far, no suggestion of a crash reconstruction
> has been reported, meaning unreliable witnesses are supplying the only
> speed estimates.

The inquest jury has already heard from an accident investigator and
collision reconstruction expert. They heard that the car hit the first
victim at 43 mph.

> If Harris was driving at an illegal speed, it could
> merit a more serious charge, but without physical evidence it would
> likely fail. Again, the police seem quite unenthusiastic about pursuing
> this approach.

The expert said the car could have been travelling at a maximum speed of
60 mph before losing control.

> "If no ... charges are applied it is because there is not enough
> evidence to support any". You're bang on there, sport. If the police
> can't be bothered (or willfully refuse) to gather enough evidence, well,
> you know the rest.

They've gathered all the available evidence. There were several reports
of crashes, cars spinning, and drivers, including at least three police
officers, losing control on that road that morning - the conditions were
exceptional and unexpected. What do you want them to do - do you want
them to fabricate some evidence to fit you preconception of what must
have happened?

--
Matt B

 

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 24 Jun, 13:10, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, The
> other view point, there is one you know...
>

> >> >> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 15:24:23 +0100, Tony Raven
> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>Cummon, its only a minor misdemeanor after all. Its not like he
> >> >> >>killed anyone that matters. ;-^(
>
> >> >> > Which is what the court would appear to confirm:
>
> >> >> > "Driver Robert Harris was fined £180 with £35 costs last August and
> >> >> > given six points on his licence after admitting having defective
> >> >> > tyres."
>
> >> >> > As a foreign observer, I'm just amazed by the leniency of that
> >> >> > judgement. Is it typical of UK courts?
>
> >> >> It's done with a car, see? You're allowed to kill people in Britain,
> >> >> so long as you do it with a car.
>
> >> > it's all a bit strange with cars.
>
> >> > It's not what you ended up doing, but what you did to start the
> >> > event.
>
> >> > Law is changing etc to end or rather suitably punish drivers for the
> >> > end result of their actions.
>
> >> I don't think he should be punished for the end results of his actions.
> >> I think he should see jail time for three bald tyres, and more jail time
> >> for losing control on ice, and I think he should never be allowed a
> >> driving licence again, regardless of whether he actually hit anything.
> >> People drive much too casually; we need sentences which underline the
> >> fact that controlling a ton of metal at 60mph is a serious business.
>
- Show quoted text -
>
> > Ah right, with you now, anti car...tut
>
> Not in the least anti-car. I drive at least as much as I ride. I'm anti bad
> and careless drivers, which is different.
>
> > You think the system is going to jail people for border line tyre
> > threads, you don't read many papers do you!
> > Do you also think that the other people who lost control that morning,
> > should also be jailed?
>
> Of course. Or any other morning.
>
> > I would have though that; testing, licencing, identifying, insured,
> > covers the requirements to drive a car, don't you?
>
> Clearly not. As many people die on the roads of Britain each year as in the
> war in Afghanistan, for example; in the past month more people have died
> on Britain's roads than in the conflict between Hamas and Fatah in
> Palestine. This level of carnage is not and should not be acceptable,
> whether you are a car driver or a cyclist or a pedestrian.
>
> > If you wanted regular retesting or a licence that only lasts 10 years
> > and you have to retake the test, then I would support the notion.
>
> It's no good passing a test if you drive dangerously the next day (as most
> do). The penalty for driving dangerously has to be at minimum a long ban,
> and the penalty for driving while disqualified has to be both prison and
> an automatic life time ban.
>
> --
> [email protected] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; Good grief, I can remember when England won the Ashes.- Hide quoted text -
>
Show quoted text -

I can accept a little of your logic.

Would it not be better to try and get more traffic police to actually
be out and about to spot dangerous/uninsured/untaxed motorists,
prevention better than cure etc.
The risk of getting caught is too low, and as we know the punishment
is not a deterrent. see is it Law Abiding - Myth

 

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 24 Jun, 19:03, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> p.k. wrote on 24/06/2007 18:32 +0100:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >> p.k. wrote on 24/06/2007 17:50 +0100:
>
> >> However the inquest heard he may have been doing 60-70mph and
>
> > There are different estimates:
>
> > "Motorist Robert Scott Cotton who had been travelling behind the cyclists
> > also recalled seeing the car approaching out of control from the Abergele
> > direction - he estimated it was travelling at 50mph."
>
> > and
>
> > One of the injured: "The first he knew something was wrong was when he saw a
> > car heading for the cyclists sideways on, he said. He estimated its speed at
> > 60mph or more."
>
> And according to the BBC, although no further detail is given, "An
> inquest jury has heard how a car which struck and killed four cycling
> club members may have been travelling at between 60 and 70mph." That
> speed was estimated by one of the cyclists while the driver following
> the car described it as travelling at "at least 50mph".
>
> The driver himself admits he was going too fast:
>
> "Mr Harris said he noticed frosty conditions, but thought the roads were
> safe. He did, however, admit he briefly considered whether he should
> take possible road conditions into account.
>
> When asked if he was travelling too quickly for the conditions, he said:
> "Obviously, in hindsight, yes - but at the time I didn't think I was."
>
> William Hoskins, representing the families, told Mr Harris: "On an icy,
> clear day, this is not the kind of road you should be driving anywhere
> near the kind of speed you were driving at, is it?"
>
> Mr Harris replied: "That is correct."
>
> He admitted doing between 50mph and 55mph before the crash - below the
> speed limit - but denied speeding."http://preview.tinyurl.com/33wgkw
>
> --
> Tony
>
> "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
> is no good evidence either way."
> - Bertrand Russell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ok, if he had skidded and only ended up on the grass with no damage
only a fright, would he have driven the rest of the journey with extra
care, as probably the others who skidded there did?

 

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 24 Jun, 21:47, Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:57:09 +0100, Matt B
>
> The evidence points to an investigation and cover-up that falls far
> short of the "no stone unturned" standard in which you have such a naive
> faith.

cover up, to protect who?

It would have sorted everything out if it was 100% the drivers fault,
blame, claim, punishment, sorted (I know the familes will grive, but
for the rest of the world it's done)

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 12:42:21 +0100 someone who may be John Hearns
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Another point - the driver was not interviewed till three days after the
>event. Three days? If you killed four people, accidentally or not, by
>any other means you would be interviewed a darn sight faster than that.

Not if you are a police officer who has murdered a passenger on a
train. Then you will be allowed to go on holiday or sent on holiday
and only interviewed when you return.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Would it not be better to try and get more traffic police to actually
> be out and about to spot dangerous/uninsured/untaxed motorists,
> prevention better than cure etc.
> The risk of getting caught is too low, and as we know the punishment
> is not a deterrent.

You're absolutely right about (all) of that. But before we can get a
crackdown on motor crime, we need to change public attitudes. Which is why
I keep banging on about the fact that British motorists kill more people
every single year than Al Quaeda ever have, worldwide, in any year. And
that motorists in Northern Ireland alone kill more people every single
year than the IRA and the Loyalists put together ever did in any year of
the 'troubles'. That drivers in Britain in the last month alone killed
more people than died in the civil war in Palestine.

The carnage on our roads is equal in deaths, injuries, damage to property
and damage to people's lives to a major war. Your parents and family are
no less bereaved if you are killed by an idiot's car than if you are
killed by a terrorist's bomb or a soldier's bullet. This isn't acceptable.
It has to stop.

Which means that we, as electors, have to tell our politicians to tell our
police chiefs that it has to stop.

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

Do not sail on uphill water.
- Bill Lee

 

[p.k.]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Which means that we, as electors, have to tell our politicians to
> tell our police chiefs that it has to stop.

Simon:

You said yesterday:

"It's no good passing a test if you drive dangerously the next day (as most
do). The penalty for driving dangerously has to be at minimum a long ban,
....."

And in reply to a question:

"> Have you ever driven dangerously?

Yes."


Have you done to yourself what you ask politicians and the law to do to
others and forsworn driving as you are a dangerous driver?

pk