Rhyl verdict out

[Simon Brooke]

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

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:31:55 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Both of those things were very clearly proven in the evidence.
>
> It was a coroner's court, so they weren't there to 'prove' anything.

But they did, as the jury made clear in their verdict.

>>A competent and careful driver does not drive with three bald tyres,
>
> You've clearly not understood the difference between driving
> dangerously and driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition.

It is dangerous to drive a vehicle that is in a dangerous condition.

> And you
> also conveniently forget that the verdict agreed that the bald tyres
> were not a factor in this case.

Irrelevant. It was dangerous to drive on bald tyres, even if it did not
contribute to this specific accident.

>>and a competend and careful driver does not drive at 50mph on ice.
>
> The problem being that it's far from certain that he _knowningly_ did
> so.

He personally gave evidence that he knew there was ice about that morning.

> If he didn't realise it was icy he might be guilty of careless
> driving, but nothing more.

But he did realise - he said so.

>>And, in any case, you don't even need to own a car to be found guilty of
>>manslaughter.
>
> You're clearly unable to even understand the rules applying to
> dangerous driving - the burden of proof for manslaughter is _way_ more
> onerous, and in the first place relies on an intention to do harm,
> which is clearly not the case here, nor in 99.9% of road deaths.

Not at all. Manslaughter does not require any intention, merely gross
negligence. This case was gross negligence.

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

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

 

[p.k.]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Not at all. Manslaughter does not require any intention, merely gross
> negligence. This case was gross negligence.

From the CPS web site:

###
GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER
In order to determine whether an act constitutes the offence of gross
negligence
manslaughter, the Crown must establish that:
.. There was a duty of care owned by the accused to the deceased.
.. There was a breach of the duty of care by the accused.
.. Death of the deceased was caused by breach of the duty of care by the
accused
.. The breach of the duty of care by the accused was so great as to be
characterised as
gross negligence and therefore a crime.



Gross Negligence
If a breach of the duty of care by the accused has occurred, and it is
established that death
of the deceased was caused by that breach, it is necessary to establish
whether the breach
was so great as to be classified a gross negligence. The main consideration
is the extent to
which the accused's conduct departed from the standard expected of *any*
reasonable person
in that position.

###

The key word, is *any* in the last sentence.

The fact that others has skidded at the same position on the same day would
seem to suggest that the *any* test would fail.



pk

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 01:40:54 +0100, "p.k." <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The main consideration is the extent to
>which the accused's conduct departed from the standard expected of *any*
>reasonable person in that position.
>
>###
>
>The key word, is *any* in the last sentence.
>
>The fact that others has skidded at the same position on the same day would
>seem to suggest that the *any* test would fail.

The fact that they didn't skid into a stone wall and rebound across the
carriageway seems to suggest that the *any* test would succeed.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> Not at all. Manslaughter does not require any intention, merely gross
>> negligence. This case was gross negligence.
>
> From the CPS web site:
>
> ###
> GROSS NEGLIGENCE MANSLAUGHTER
> In order to determine whether an act constitutes the offence of gross
> negligence
> manslaughter, the Crown must establish that:
> . There was a duty of care owned by the accused to the deceased.
> . There was a breach of the duty of care by the accused.
> . Death of the deceased was caused by breach of the duty of care by the
> accused
> . The breach of the duty of care by the accused was so great as to be
> characterised as
> gross negligence and therefore a crime.
>
> Gross Negligence
> If a breach of the duty of care by the accused has occurred, and it is
> established that death
> of the deceased was caused by that breach, it is necessary to establish
> whether the breach
> was so great as to be classified a gross negligence. The main
> consideration is the extent to
> which the accused's conduct departed from the standard expected of *any*
> reasonable person
> in that position.

Exactly. Three bald tyres.

> The key word, is *any* in the last sentence.

Exactly. Three bald tyres.

> The fact that others has skidded at the same position on the same day
> would seem to suggest that the *any* test would fail.

How many of them had three bald tyres?

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

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out
of copper roove nails.

 

[David Lloyd]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>, Marc Brett
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:47:20 +0200, Ace <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:36:08 +0100, Marc Brett
>>>>
>>>>The CPS is frustratingly coy about /why/ there were no realistic
>>>>prospects for a conviction -- what evidence was missing?
>>>
>>>They're not being coy at all, and anyone who's familiar with the areas
>>>of the RTAs that would have been concerned would probably understand
>>>quite well.
>>>
>>>The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
>>>Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
>>>driving must saitisfy the following:
>>
>> Careless Driving would have been a reasonable charge, with much lower
>> hurdles, but also with embarrassingly lenient sentences which is
>> frequently seen as a trivial and insulting charge, adding inslult to
>> injury and death.
>
> There was nothing remotely 'careless' about this. Either he knew his tyres
> were bald and drove on them regardless, in which case 'manslaughter' is
> the only reasonable charge, or he didn't know, in which case his
> negligence is so gross than manslaughter is the only reasonable charge.
>

It was decided that the condition of the tyres on the car had no bearing on
the incident. We don't know who advised the police and the CPS that this was
the case, but it strikes me that it is something that cannot be so easily
dismissed. With defective tyres, the car should not have been on the road -
full stop, therefore there would have been no incident, whether or not the
tyres actually had any effect.

Tread on tyres allows water to be displaced to avoid aquaplaning. When ice
is run over by tyres it melts slightly. If this melt water is not displaced
by the tread, it will lead to skidding. Tread is more important in wet and
icy conditions than in dry conditions, so I'm at a loss as to why the
condition of the tyres was ruled out as a factor. IMHO, the CPS seem to have
been keen to avoid prosecution and, as such, are not fit to protect our
rights or uphold the law.

David Lloyd

 

[Tony Raven]

David Lloyd wrote on 01/07/2007 09:41 +0100:
>
> Tread on tyres allows water to be displaced to avoid aquaplaning. When ice
> is run over by tyres it melts slightly. If this melt water is not displaced
> by the tread, it will lead to skidding. Tread is more important in wet and
> icy conditions than in dry conditions, so I'm at a loss as to why the
> condition of the tyres was ruled out as a factor.

As much as I'd like to agree with this, and I agree with the rest of
what you said, its not true. Tyre pressure is insignificant in lowering
the melting point of the ice and has no effect and the tyre is in
contact with the road for too brief a time for any thermal transfer
melting. Remember at 50mph the tyre is in contact with any one piece of
tarmac/ice for no more than 5ms.

--
Tony

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

 

[p.k.]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Exactly. Three bald tyres.
>
>> The fact that others has skidded at the same position on the same day
>> would seem to suggest that the *any* test would fail.
>
> How many of them had three bald tyres?

The evidence presented and accepted at the inquest was the the defective
tyres were not a contibutory cause.

pk

 

[JNugent]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Ace ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

>><snip>

>>>Both of those things were very clearly proven in the evidence.

>>It was a coroner's court, so they weren't there to 'prove' anything.

> But they did, as the jury made clear in their verdict.

Courts don't prove things. They decide whether other people have
proved things.

>>>A competent and careful driver does not drive with three bald tyres,

>>You've clearly not understood the difference between driving
>>dangerously and driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition.

> It is dangerous to drive a vehicle that is in a dangerous condition.

>>And you
>>also conveniently forget that the verdict agreed that the bald tyres
>>were not a factor in this case.

> Irrelevant. It was dangerous to drive on bald tyres, even if it did not
> contribute to this specific accident.

So as far as you are concerned, any C&U offence should have a
"dangerous driving" charge attached to it, irrespective of whether any
danger was caused?

Are you serious?

>>>and a competend and careful driver does not drive at 50mph on ice.

>>The problem being that it's far from certain that he _knowningly_ did
>>so.

> He personally gave evidence that he knew there was ice about that morning.

Is that the same as driving on ice?

There is "ice about" every day. There is "ice about" *today*, 1st
July. Luckily, it's nowhere near where you or I will (probably) travel
during the day, so it's irrelevant to us. It was irrelevant to that
unfortunate driver as well - until he encountered it.

Perhaps every vehicle in the world should be driven at 10mph max - on
the basis that there "ice about" (no matter how absent it may seem)?

>>If he didn't realise it was icy he might be guilty of careless
>>driving, but nothing more.

> But he did realise - he said so.

He didn't. At least, not in any reports posted here. He did say he
scraped frost (which he might well have called "ice") off his car.
Frost on a car does not equal ice on the road, except in the minds of
obsessives.

> Not at all. Manslaughter does not require any intention, merely gross
> negligence. This case was gross negligence.

There was no need for a coroner or jury. You had your mind made up as
soon as you heard about the case.

 

[JNugent]

David Lloyd wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Marc Brett ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>Ace <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Marc Brett

>>>>>The CPS is frustratingly coy about /why/ there were no realistic
>>>>>prospects for a conviction -- what evidence was missing?

>>>>They're not being coy at all, and anyone who's familiar with the areas
>>>>of the RTAs that would have been concerned would probably understand
>>>>quite well.
>>>>The fact is that to be convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous
>>>>Driving, which is the only possible relevany offence, his or her
>>>>driving must saitisfy the following:

>>>Careless Driving would have been a reasonable charge, with much lower
>>>hurdles, but also with embarrassingly lenient sentences which is
>>>frequently seen as a trivial and insulting charge, adding inslult to
>>>injury and death.

>>There was nothing remotely 'careless' about this. Either he knew his tyres
>>were bald and drove on them regardless, in which case 'manslaughter' is
>>the only reasonable charge, or he didn't know, in which case his
>>negligence is so gross than manslaughter is the only reasonable charge.

> It was decided that the condition of the tyres on the car had no bearing on
> the incident. We don't know who advised the police and the CPS that this was
> the case, but it strikes me that it is something that cannot be so easily
> dismissed. With defective tyres, the car should not have been on the road -
> full stop, therefore there would have been no incident, whether or not the
> tyres actually had any effect.

A car shouldn't be on the road without road tax and insurance, but the
absence of those does not make accidents more (or less) likely (and
where an untaxed or uninsured car is involved in an accident, one
rarely hears the argument "It shouldn't have been there in the first
place".

A car shouldn't be on the road without a working horn, but its absence
does not make accidents more (or less) likely (unlikely far-fetched
scenarios notwithstanding - please don't bother with one). Tyres are
different, in that any defects can make an accident more likely - but
in the instant case, the experts who apparently know about these
things says that the tyres did not contribute to this accident.

I have to admit to some surprise that the experts concluded what they
did conclude - because it's instinctively counter-intuitive and I
claim no expertise in the detail of such things. But given the
explanation, it sounds credible in the exact circumstances (the car
was on a patch of ice, a surface on which tyre condition is far less
relevant than in normal circumstances). Had the accident occurred on a
stretch of dry, clean, road, I don't think it would have been so easy
to come to the same conclusion.

> Tread on tyres allows water to be displaced to avoid aquaplaning. When ice
> is run over by tyres it melts slightly. If this melt water is not displaced
> by the tread, it will lead to skidding. Tread is more important in wet and
> icy conditions than in dry conditions, so I'm at a loss as to why the
> condition of the tyres was ruled out as a factor.

What you are saying there is contrary to what other, acknowledged,
experts have said (I am assuming that you too are an expert).

Which expert should the courts take more notice of?

> IMHO, the CPS seem to have
> been keen to avoid prosecution and, as such, are not fit to protect our
> rights or uphold the law.

Is that just because you had your mind made up from the start: "two
wheels good, four wheels bad"?

 

[p.k.]

JNugent wrote:
> I have to admit to some surprise that the experts concluded what they
> did conclude - because it's instinctively counter-intuitive and I
> claim no expertise in the detail of such things.

He was prosecuted for defective tyres which has been interpreted here as
"bald".

does any one *know* the condition of the tyres?

pk

 

On 1 Jul,
"p.k." <[email protected]> wrote:

> The key word, is *any* in the last sentence.
>
> The fact that others has skidded at the same position on the same day would
> seem to suggest that the *any* test would fail.
>
>
How far had the others skidded? In frosty weather I always skid(under
controlled conditions), on the road near the house, in order to see how
slippy the road is. None of the others seem to have skidded enough to have
hit the wall, never mind bounced off it into other road users.


--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

 

[JNugent]

p.k. wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>
>>I have to admit to some surprise that the experts concluded what they
>>did conclude - because it's instinctively counter-intuitive and I
>>claim no expertise in the detail of such things.
>
>
> He was prosecuted for defective tyres which has been interpreted here as
> "bald".
>
> does any one *know* the condition of the tyres?

I certainly don't.

But in order for a driver to be prosecuted, a tyre doesn't have to be
devoid of tread. Under- or over-inflation will do just as nicely.

Not necessarily anything to do with the instance case (though the
usual suspects are foaming at the mouth about "dangerous" tyres), but
let's think about the question of tread depth.

I assume that the legal minimum represents a tread depth at which the
vehicle is safe (WTMM). Clearly, there is no point in having the legal
minimum set such that a vehicle is "dangerous" when just above it.
Equally, the cost to the vehicle's owner of scrapping worn tyres and
buying new ones is a factor which, reasonably, has to be taken into
account. This must mean that the legal minimum has to be set as close
as possible to some sort of recognised point at which there is not
necessarily any real danger, but beyond which it would not be prudent
to go (IYSWIM). Given that background, it is not logically possible to
conclude that a tyre which is legally defective is "dangerous" merely
because it does not meet a legal minimum which itself has to be set
somewhere above the "danger" level. I am not saying (and neither
should the above be taken as meaning) that a tyre cannot be
"dangerous". I am merely saying that that has to be established as an
empirical fact, rather than by reference to a regulation. In the
absence of such a (reasoned and challengeable) proper conclusion, only
the administratively-defined offence can be charged.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 01/07/2007 12:51 +0100:
>
> A car shouldn't be on the road without road tax and insurance, but the
> absence of those does not make accidents more (or less) likely.
>

IIRC uninsured drivers have an accident rate nine time higher than
insured drivers.

--
Tony

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

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote on 01/07/2007 12:51 +0100:
>
>>
>> A car shouldn't be on the road without road tax and insurance, but the
>> absence of those does not make accidents more (or less) likely.
>>
>
> IIRC uninsured drivers have an accident rate nine time higher than
> insured drivers.

That may be true and I'll take your word for it.

It doesn't militate against what I wrote.

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent wrote on 01/07/2007 12:56 +0100:
> David Lloyd wrote:
>
> And presumably, you, as the professional expert you no doubt are, will
> be able to point out (to the court, not to me) the exact published
> papers and the general body of scientific knowledge (within which, of
> course, you will be well-qualified, to at least doctorate level) that
> lead you to that conclusion.
>
> After all, it can't possibly just be wishful thinking on your part,
> and/or a conclusion you have come to on the basis of prejudice. So why
> didn't you make those scientific studies known to the court and jury?
> They appear to have been influenced by an opinion so radically different
> from your own that you must surely regard those other, so-called,
> "experts" as charlatans?

I'm glad you defer to experts and so will agree also with another expert:

"THE driver of a car who killed four members of Rhyl Cycling Club when
he lost control on ice "could have avoided them" – an expert claimed
yesterday.

A collision investigator told the inquest into the deaths of the
cyclists on the A547 near Abergele that Robert Harris should have had
full control of his car after the initial skid.

PC George Skinner also blamed Mr Harris, of Abergele, for failing to
drive at an appropriate speed for the road conditions and said that had
he done so, the accident could have been avoided.

PC Skinner arrived on the scene within half an hour of the tragedy and
confirmed some ice on the road.

But he said yesterday that the ice was on the road only in patches, and
that there were enough dry patches on the road for Mr Harris to regain
control of his vehicle."
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk...objectid=19356834&siteid=50142-name_page.html



--
Tony

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. Three bald tyres.
>>
>>> The fact that others has skidded at the same position on the same day
>>> would seem to suggest that the *any* test would fail.
>>
>> How many of them had three bald tyres?
>
> The evidence presented and accepted at the inquest was the the defective
> tyres were not a contibutory cause.

That's irrelevant. It was still grossly negligent to drive a car with three
bald tyres, whether or not they contributed to this actual crash. The bald
tyres are evidence of gross negligence. Taking a bend at 50mph on ice is
also, in my opinion, evidence of gross negligence, but I'd expect it would
be easier to get a conviction on the tyres.

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

;; Woz: 'All the best people in life seem to like LINUX.'
;; <URL:http://www.woz.org/woz/cresponses/response03.html>

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> A car shouldn't be on the road without a working horn, but its absence
> does not make accidents more (or less) likely (unlikely far-fetched
> scenarios notwithstanding - please don't bother with one). Tyres are
> different, in that any defects can make an accident more likely - but
> in the instant case, the experts who apparently know about these
> things says that the tyres did not contribute to this accident.

Strictly, not so. The /police/ said the tyres did not contribute. As far as
I know, no expert witnesses were called with regard to the tyres.

I admit I too am surprised by the confidence with which three bald tyres
are dismissed.

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

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, p.k.
('[email protected]') wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
>> I have to admit to some surprise that the experts concluded what they
>> did conclude - because it's instinctively counter-intuitive and I
>> claim no expertise in the detail of such things.
>
> He was prosecuted for defective tyres which has been interpreted here as
> "bald".
>
> does any one *know* the condition of the tyres?

The police evidence to the inquest was that they were 'bald'.

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

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> Ace ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>>You've clearly not understood the difference between driving
>>>dangerously and driving a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
>
>> It is dangerous to drive a vehicle that is in a dangerous condition.
>
>>>And you
>>>also conveniently forget that the verdict agreed that the bald tyres
>>>were not a factor in this case.
>
>> Irrelevant. It was dangerous to drive on bald tyres, even if it did not
>> contribute to this specific accident.
>
> So as far as you are concerned, any C&U offence should have a
> "dangerous driving" charge attached to it, irrespective of whether any
> danger was caused?

That isn't what I said. There are plenty of construction and use violations
which present little or no danger to the public. Three bald tyres,
however, present a very considerable danger.

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

;; For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth
;; knowledge increaseth sorrow.." - Ecclesiastes 1:18

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:
> JNugent wrote on 01/07/2007 12:56 +0100:
>
>> David Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> And presumably, you, as the professional expert you no doubt are, will
>> be able to point out (to the court, not to me) the exact published
>> papers and the general body of scientific knowledge (within which, of
>> course, you will be well-qualified, to at least doctorate level) that
>> lead you to that conclusion.
>>
>> After all, it can't possibly just be wishful thinking on your part,
>> and/or a conclusion you have come to on the basis of prejudice. So why
>> didn't you make those scientific studies known to the court and jury?
>> They appear to have been influenced by an opinion so radically
>> different from your own that you must surely regard those other,
>> so-called, "experts" as charlatans?
>
>
> I'm glad you defer to experts and so will agree also with another expert:
>
> "THE driver of a car who killed four members of Rhyl Cycling Club when
> he lost control on ice "could have avoided them" – an expert claimed
> yesterday.
>
> A collision investigator told the inquest into the deaths of the
> cyclists on the A547 near Abergele that Robert Harris should have had
> full control of his car after the initial skid.
>
> PC George Skinner also blamed Mr Harris, of Abergele, for failing to
> drive at an appropriate speed for the road conditions and said that had
> he done so, the accident could have been avoided.
>
> PC Skinner arrived on the scene within half an hour of the tragedy and
> confirmed some ice on the road.
>
> But he said yesterday that the ice was on the road only in patches, and
> that there were enough dry patches on the road for Mr Harris to regain
> control of his vehicle."
> http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk...objectid=19356834&siteid=50142-name_page.html

You could certainly have done it, magnificently.

I might have just got away with it.

That other driver was negligent.

(a new irregular verb for polite people with 20:20 hindsight).