Rhyl verdict out

[Tony Raven]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm


Criticisms from cycle deaths jury

An inquest jury has said a serious lack of communication between police
and councils contributed to the deaths of four cyclists killed by a car.

Thomas Harland, 14, Maurice Broadbent, 61, Dave Horrocks, 55, and Wayne
Wilkes, 42, died in icy conditions near Abergele, Conwy, on 8 January, 2006.

Robert Harris's "inappropriate" driving was also a factor, the jury said.

After more than three weeks' evidence, the jury had ruled out accidental
death and returned a narrative verdict.

A narrative verdict comprises factual statements on events leading to
the deaths.

On Wednesday, the jury, sitting at Abergele, highlighted failures by
officials from North Wales Police and Denbighshire and Conwy councils.

The jury concluded: "The four persons died as a direct result of an
out-of-control vehicle which skidded on ice and collided into the cyclists.

"There were contributing factors towards this happening.

"The vehicle was being driven in an inappropriate manner for the adverse
weather conditions."

Emotion and drama

The jury said there had been a "serious lack of communication," and
"co-ordination of critical information passed between key personnel".

It highlighted: "North Wales Police area control room; Conwy County
Council and Denbighshire County Council; Conwy duty officer and his
field staff."

A "lack of pro-active approach by Conwy County Council towards their
legal responsibilities in out-of-hours services," had also contributed
to the collision, the jury said.
--
Tony

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

 

[Martin Dann]

Tony Raven wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm

> An inquest jury has said a serious lack of communication between police
> and councils contributed to the deaths of four cyclists killed by a car.

> The jury concluded: "The four persons died as a direct result of an
> out-of-control vehicle which skidded on ice and collided into the cyclists.
>
> "There were contributing factors towards this happening.
>
> "The vehicle was being driven in an inappropriate manner for the adverse
> weather conditions."


So why was the driver not prosecuted for dangerous driving?
I understand that there were other factors involved, but
the decision to drive at that speed was a conscious decision.

 

[[email protected]]

>
> So why was the driver not prosecuted for dangerous driving?
> I understand that there were other factors involved, but
> the decision to drive at that speed was a conscious decision.

He was prosecuted - just not for the crime you would like him to be
found guilty of.

It is now crystal clear that it could have been either the car or the
cyclists that hit the ice first, and that perhaps if the road had been
gritted there would have been no ice and no accident, but no-one can
change the sequence or outcome of that tragic day now.

This was an awful outcome to what in other circumstances might have
been a nothing event - but it wasn't - but nor was the outcome the
result of malicious intent

 

[Matt B]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm
>
>> An inquest jury has said a serious lack of communication between
>> police and councils contributed to the deaths of four cyclists killed
>> by a car.
>
>> The jury concluded: "The four persons died as a direct result of an
>> out-of-control vehicle which skidded on ice and collided into the
>> cyclists.
>>
>> "There were contributing factors towards this happening.
>>
>> "The vehicle was being driven in an inappropriate manner for the
>> adverse weather conditions."
>
>
> So why was the driver not prosecuted for dangerous driving?

Presumably because the police didn't manage to gather enough evidence to
convince a prosecutor that there was a chance of conviction.

--
Matt B

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:20:08 -0700 someone who may be
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote
this:-

>It is now crystal clear that it could have been either the car or the
>cyclists that hit the ice first,

Is it? If it is crystal clear, would the cyclists have killed four
motorists after bouncing off the wall.

>and that perhaps if the road had been
>gritted there would have been no ice and no accident,

There was nothing accidental about the crash.

Note very carefully that does not mean that the motorist intended to
kill the four cyclists, no matter how some people may try and spin
what I typed.

>but no-one can change the sequence or outcome of that tragic day now.

No. However, one faces two choices in the aftermath. Choice 1 is to
wring one's hands, choice 2 is to minimise the chances of such a
crash happening again. The police inaction is them taking choice 1.



--
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

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:06:22 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>So why was the driver not prosecuted for dangerous driving?

Is that not because the police/government prosecution service
"accidentally" failed to bring such a charge in time?


--
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

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

David Hansen <[email protected]>typed


> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:06:22 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-

> >So why was the driver not prosecuted for dangerous driving?

> Is that not because the police/government prosecution service
> "accidentally" failed to bring such a charge in time?


I believe this to be the case.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[wafflycat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm

"In a damning statement, the coroner said police and officials had been
"most unprofessional"."

Hmmm... is that police officer, Chief Inspector Lyn Adams, who so *stupidly*
stood there on the road, whilst the scene was still being formally examined,
and spouted off to the media how speed was not a factor, going to be hauled
over the coals? His goolies ripped off at the very least? If not, why not?

Also in the article:-

"Marking the end of an emotional and dramatic three-week hearing at
Abergele, North East Wales Coroner John Hughes said: "The evidence shows
classic signs that Robert Harries 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." "

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:06:22 GMT, Martin Dann <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tony Raven wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm
>
>> An inquest jury has said a serious lack of communication between police
>> and councils contributed to the deaths of four cyclists killed by a car.
>
>> The jury concluded: "The four persons died as a direct result of an
>> out-of-control vehicle which skidded on ice and collided into the cyclists.
>>
>> "There were contributing factors towards this happening.
>>
>> "The vehicle was being driven in an inappropriate manner for the adverse
>> weather conditions."
>
>
>So why was the driver not prosecuted for dangerous driving?
>I understand that there were other factors involved, but
>the decision to drive at that speed was a conscious decision.

Because a police official had already stated that the driver and his
speed was in no way to blame for the accident.


Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion in this group, I feel
that the police and local authority are more culpable for the deaths
than the driver. The corner was clearly dangerous as there had
already been a crash, and the police left the scene while it was still
unsafe.

Clearly the driver was driving at an inappropriate speed, but the
fatalities would not have occurred if the police had stayed at the
scene warning motorists until it had been made safe by the local
authority.

 

[Matt B]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:06:22 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> So why was the driver not prosecuted for dangerous driving?
>
> Is that not because the police/government prosecution service
> "accidentally" failed to bring such a charge in time?

Do you have an opinion on why they might /want/ to ""accidentally"" fail
to bring the charge on time?

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

On Jun 27, 5:41 pm, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:06:22 GMT someone who may be Martin Dann
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >> So why was the driver not prosecuted for dangerous driving?
>
> > Is that not because the police/government prosecution service
> > "accidentally" failed to bring such a charge in time?
>
> Do you have an opinion on why they might /want/ to ""accidentally"" fail
> to bring the charge on time?

I wouldn't want to regard the police as any less professional than the
coroner, but the conspiracy theorists might get off on the driver
being an ex police officer.
So (or so the conspiracy theory would go) 1. bloke is one of us. 2.
Can we find something trivial to book him for instead of CDBDD/DD/CD?
And 'lose' the paperworkfor a bit as we are too busy doing XYZ and the
Inspector has not been chasing us to resolve this case. 3. Other
charges? Oops too late.

...d

 

[p.k.]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:20:08 -0700 someone who may be
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote
> this:-
>
>> It is now crystal clear that it could have been either the car or the
>> cyclists that hit the ice first,
>
> Is it? If it is crystal clear, would the cyclists have killed four
> motorists *after bouncing off the wall*.


I thought he hit the wall after the cyclists.

pk

 

[p.k.]

wafflycat wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm
>
> "In a damning statement, the coroner said police and officials had
> been "most unprofessional"."
>
> Hmmm... is that police officer, Chief Inspector Lyn Adams, who so
> *stupidly* stood there on the road, whilst the scene was still being
> formally examined, and spouted off to the media how speed was not a
> factor, going to be hauled over the coals? His goolies ripped off at
> the very least? If not, why not?


He did not say speed was not a factor, he said, as reported by the beeb at
the time:

#
Chief Inspector Lyn Adams, from North Wales Police, said the driver appeared
to have lost control on a gentle left-hand bend, striking a wall and
rebounding into the road.


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."

#

pk

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:26:25 +0100 someone who may be "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote this:-

>Hmmm... is that police officer, Chief Inspector Lyn Adams, who so *stupidly*
>stood there on the road, whilst the scene was still being formally examined,
>and spouted off to the media how speed was not a factor, going to be hauled
>over the coals? His goolies ripped off at the very least? If not, why not?

Of course not. Police officials retire early on "medical" grounds
rather than face action over their responsibilities. If the police
can get away with shooting a passenger on a train seven times in the
head then they will have no trouble getting away with failing to
take action over the death of four cyclists.

Presumably this bod was one of the bods whose inaction led to the
government prosecution service "accidentally" not doing things in
time.


--
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

 

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:54:44 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm
>
>
>Criticisms from cycle deaths jury
>
>An inquest jury has said a serious lack of communication between police
>and councils contributed to the deaths of four cyclists killed by a car.
>
>Thomas Harland, 14, Maurice Broadbent, 61, Dave Horrocks, 55, and Wayne
>Wilkes, 42, died in icy conditions near Abergele, Conwy, on 8 January, 2006.
>
>Robert Harris's "inappropriate" driving was also a factor, the jury said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246492.stm

Cycle death families 'let down'

The families of four cyclists mown down by an out-of-control car say
they feel badly let down that the driver had not faced more serious
criminal charges.

The coroner has also said he failed to understand why Mr Harris had not
been prosecuted for careless driving.

The families' barrister, William Hoskins, said: "Following 18 months of
unanswered questions and delays, which have added to the immense grief,
and suffering caused by the tragic deaths of Dave, Maurice, Thomas and
Wayne, the families are relieved that the coroner and jury have
conducted a thorough investigation into this tragic event.

"Our lawyers on our behalf, made clear to the chief crown prosecutor,
our disbelief at the decision not to prosecute Mr Harris for driving
offences.

"We remain unhappy with that decision in the light of the evidence heard
by the coroner.

"In fact we feel badly let down by this decision and that justice has
not been served."

 

[Martin Dann]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246492.stm

>
> Cycle death families 'let down'
>
> Damning verdict over 'worst cycling disaster'
> The families of four cyclists mown down by an out-of-control car say they feel badly let down that the driver had not faced more serious criminal charges.

 

[Roger Merriman]

wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm
>
> "In a damning statement, the coroner said police and officials had been
> "most unprofessional"."
>
> Hmmm... is that police officer, Chief Inspector Lyn Adams, who so *stupidly*
> stood there on the road, whilst the scene was still being formally examined,
> and spouted off to the media how speed was not a factor, going to be hauled
> over the coals? His goolies ripped off at the very least? If not, why not?
>
> Also in the article:-
>
> "Marking the end of an emotional and dramatic three-week hearing at
> Abergele, North East Wales Coroner John Hughes said: "The evidence shows
> classic signs that Robert Harries 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." "

yes damning is the word is it not.

roger

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> The jury concluded: "The four persons died as a direct result of an
> out-of-control vehicle which skidded on ice and collided into the
> cyclists.

Result!

What's the betting that, had the craven coroner not ruled it out, they
would have brought in 'unlawful killing'?

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


... a mild, inoffensive sadist...

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Martin Dann
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Tony Raven wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm
>
>> An inquest jury has said a serious lack of communication between police
>> and councils contributed to the deaths of four cyclists killed by a car.
>
>> The jury concluded: "The four persons died as a direct result of an
>> out-of-control vehicle which skidded on ice and collided into the
>> cyclists.
>>
>> "There were contributing factors towards this happening.
>>
>> "The vehicle was being driven in an inappropriate manner for the adverse
>> weather conditions."
>
> So why was the driver not prosecuted for dangerous driving?
> I understand that there were other factors involved, but
> the decision to drive at that speed was a conscious decision.

Yes, it was culpable homicide, or manslaughter if you prefer. But the
prosecuting authorities hadn't the balls to do their duty.

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

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Clearly the driver was driving at an inappropriate speed, but the
> fatalities would not have occurred if the police had stayed at the
> scene warning motorists until it had been made safe by the local
> authority.

Tom, I hear what you're saying but I don't agree. Motorists are responsible
for the vehicles they drive. Period. They cannot pass the blame onto
anyone else. In the real world there are always hazards on the road, and
motorists /must/ drive in a manner which takes into account reasonably
predictable hazards - such as ice on a frosty morning.

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

;; Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
;; do it from  religious conviction."          -- Pascal