Rhyll inquest starts

Tony Raven said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6716199.stm

"He also told the jury they would have to consider whether it was safe
for cyclists to be out."

Excuse me? It wasn't the poor cyclists who caused the accident. It
wasn't the cyclists who skidded on the ice so why should the jury even
need to consider whether it was safe for them to be out. Another
'protect cyclists by keeping them off the road' view.

Andrew

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:43:22 -0700 someone who may be Andrew
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

"He also told the jury they would have to consider whether it was safe
for cyclists to be out."

Excuse me? It wasn't the poor cyclists who caused the accident. It
wasn't the cyclists who skidded on the ice so why should the jury even
need to consider whether it was safe for them to be out. Another
'protect cyclists by keeping them off the road' view.

Indeed. Another cretin promoted way beyond his level of competence.

--
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 said:

On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:43:22 -0700 someone who may be Andrew
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

"He also told the jury they would have to consider whether it was safe
for cyclists to be out."

Quoted message said:

Excuse me? It wasn't the poor cyclists who caused the accident. It
wasn't the cyclists who skidded on the ice so why should the jury even
need to consider whether it was safe for them to be out. Another
'protect cyclists by keeping them off the road' view.

Indeed. Another cretin promoted way beyond his level of competence.

--
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

snip
"Coroner John Hughes warned the jury the hearing at Abergele would be
emotional, but added: "No one is on trial here". "

snip
"He then warned them: "This is going to be a case of high emotion. You
must remain aloof from the emotion." "

Andrew said:

Tony Raven said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6716199.stm

"He also told the jury they would have to consider whether it was safe
for cyclists to be out."

When will he be telling them they will have to consider whether it was
safe for the driver to be out?

I see now he's also highlighting expert witness testimony that removes
all reason for one to have legal tyres on one's vehicle:

"Motorist Robert Harris, 47, from Abergele, was fined £180 with £35
costs last August and given six points on his licence after admitting
having defective tyres.

The court heard that the defective tyres were not a factor in the accident.

The coroner said: "Experts say it matters not whether the tyres were
bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."

It's looking very shoddy so far, day one of a four-person inquest and
he's already directing the jury toward accidental death with
contributory negligence to the victims for having the temerity to go out.

[censored].

Tony B

Tony B said:

Andrew said:

Tony Raven said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6716199.stm

Quoted message said:

"He also told the jury they would have to consider whether it was safe
for cyclists to be out."

When will he be telling them they will have to consider whether it was
safe for the driver to be out?

I see now he's also highlighting expert witness testimony that removes
all reason for one to have legal tyres on one's vehicle:

"Motorist Robert Harris, 47, from Abergele, was fined £180 with £35
costs last August and given six points on his licence after admitting
having defective tyres.

The court heard that the defective tyres were not a factor in the accident.

The coroner said: "Experts say it matters not whether the tyres were
bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."

It's looking very shoddy so far, day one of a four-person inquest and
he's already directing the jury toward accidental death with
contributory negligence to the victims for having the temerity to go out.

[censored].

Tony B

Agreed, blatant leading. A defective car travelling too fast kills
four people and the authorities imply blame on the victims
for....being there.

Tony B said:

Andrew said:

Tony Raven said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6716199.stm

Quoted message said:

"Motorist Robert Harris, 47, from Abergele, was fined £180 with £35
costs last August and given six points on his licence after admitting
having defective tyres.

The court heard that the defective tyres were not a factor in the accident.

The coroner said: "Experts say it matters not whether the tyres were
bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."

One wonders who these experts are. I'm guessing they're not employed by,
for example, Michelin or Continental.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob said:

Tony B said:

Andrew said:

On 4 Jun, 07:45, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6716199.stm

Quoted message said:

"Motorist Robert Harris, 47, from Abergele, was fined £180 with £35
costs last August and given six points on his licence after admitting
having defective tyres.

The court heard that the defective tyres were not a factor in the accident.

The coroner said: "Experts say it matters not whether the tyres were
bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."

One wonders who these experts are. I'm guessing they're not employed by,
for example, Michelin or Continental.

Cheers,
Luke

quite, though i suspect that on black ice, tread or bald/slick makes
very little differance. though it does rather sugest a less than high
standard of care.

roger

tyres were

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."

It's looking very shoddy so far, day one of a four-person inquest and
he's already directing the jury toward accidental death with
contributory negligence to the victims for having the temerity to go out.

[censored].

Tony B

Agreed, blatant leading. A defective car travelling too fast kills
four people and the authorities imply blame on the victims
for....being there.

Too fast for what?

In article <[email hidden]>, marc
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

tyres were

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."

It's looking very shoddy so far, day one of a four-person inquest and
he's already directing the jury toward accidental death with
contributory negligence to the victims for having the temerity to go out.

[censored].

Tony B

Agreed, blatant leading. A defective car travelling too fast kills
four people and the authorities imply blame on the victims
for....being there.

Too fast for what?

Too fast for a road that was likely to have patches of ice on corners,
obviously.

marc <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

tyres were

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."

It's looking very shoddy so far, day one of a four-person inquest and
he's already directing the jury toward accidental death with
contributory negligence to the victims for having the temerity to go out.

[censored].

Tony B

Agreed, blatant leading. A defective car travelling too fast kills
four people and the authorities imply blame on the victims
for....being there.

Quoted message said:

Too fast for what?

Too fast to hold the road on a frosty morning, with fatal results.

It is hardly surprising thay ice forms when temperatures drop below
freezing point. Travelling at 50mph on a bendy road in ice, then blame
the victims or the council. This attitude STINKS!

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

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

Quoted message said:

Andrew said:

Tony Raven said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6716199.stm

"He also told the jury they would have to consider whether it was safe
for cyclists to be out."

When will he be telling them they will have to consider whether it was
safe for the driver to be out?

I see now he's also highlighting expert witness testimony that removes all
reason for one to have legal tyres on one's vehicle:

"Motorist Robert Harris, 47, from Abergele, was fined £180 with £35 costs
last August and given six points on his licence after admitting having
defective tyres.

The court heard that the defective tyres were not a factor in the
accident.

The coroner said: "Experts say it matters not whether the tyres were bald
or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."

It's looking very shoddy so far, day one of a four-person inquest and he's
already directing the jury toward accidental death with contributory
negligence to the victims for having the temerity to go out.

[censored].

Tony B

Lot's of bad stuff here. Starting with the idiot copper at the site
appearing to absolve this driver of blame - before his own investigators
were finished, through the ridiculous long length of time to this inquest
and the fact this driver was not even required to attend court when in truth
his car should not have been on the road at all.

That last truth is what this jury should be considering, not whether the
Rhyl Club should have set out. If that is a possibility we ought to
consider only going out in summer to avoid contributory negligence
assertions.

This really does seem to me to represent grossly biased directions, even
misconduct by this coroner.

Four dead, perfectly blameless men and all road users deserve an even
handed, unbiased hearing, not this bunch of tripe.

John
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

marc <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

tyres were

Quoted message said:

> bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."
>
> It's looking very shoddy so far, day one of a four-person inquest and
> he's already directing the jury toward accidental death with
> contributory negligence to the victims for having the temerity to go out.
>
> [censored].
>
> Tony B
Agreed, blatant leading. A defective car travelling too fast kills
four people and the authorities imply blame on the victims
for....being there.

Quoted message said:

Too fast for what?

Too fast to hold the road on a frosty morning, with fatal results.

It is hardly surprising thay ice forms when temperatures drop below
freezing point. Travelling at 50mph on a bendy road in ice, then blame
the victims or the council. This attitude STINKS!

So eveyone agrees that the road was icy, dangerous, it wasn't
suprising that there was ice on the road? Would it be fair then to ask
, why was a club using a dangerous road, covered in ice?
The inquest is to find out what happened, not to crucify drivers or
salve concsiences.

What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal processes
are finished.

marc said:

Would it be fair then to ask why was a club using a dangerous road, covered in ice?

It's a pertinent question. However, the fact is narrow tyres are better
on icy roads than wide ones - if anyone should have stayed at home that
day, it was the driver. I'm sure he (and all the relatives) wish he had.

What a ghastly business.

Quoted message said:

What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal processes
are finished.

The real travesty is the blatant leading. It's just wrong. The coroner
has hardly distinguished himself by his reported comments.

I'm not sure what the inquest is supposed to accomplish, but it won't
get to the truth like this.

Tony B

"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:BaWdnSLe-

Quoted message said:

So eveyone agrees that the road was icy, dangerous, it wasn't suprising
that there was ice on the road? Would it be fair then to ask , why was a
club using a dangerous road, covered in ice?
The inquest is to find out what happened, not to crucify drivers or salve
concsiences.

What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal processes
are finished.

This is possibly not even a proper legal process, not in the way most
reasonable people would understand. The conduct of this inquest appears
to be biased against the victims in the drivers favour.

The whole tragic, terrible business really deserves better than this. Much
better.

John

Tony B said:

marc said:

Would it be fair then to ask why was a club using a dangerous road,
covered in ice?

It's a pertinent question. However, the fact is narrow tyres are better
on icy roads than wide ones

Not necessarily narrow better than wide, but higher pressure/sq mm is
better that lower, which has the higher bike or car?
Also don't forget that warm tyres are better than cold , would the car
tyres have been hot? how far had the car travelled? The tread pattern on
any tyre is to shift water not for grip, a bald tyre has more grip from
both friction and mechanical interaction than a treaded tyre, so the
coroner was right to say it should be ignored.

- if anyone should have stayed at home that

Quoted message said:

day, it was the driver.

I'm not saying that anyone should have stayed home, but if it was as cut
and dried as "the road was unsafe" or " ice was to be expected" then
that should apply to everyone or not, you can't in all fairness say "
they driver should have known" and not apply the same to the club captain.

I'm sure he (and all the relatives) wish he had.
I'm sure,

Quoted message said:

What a ghastly business.

Quoted message said:

What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal
processes are finished.

The real travesty is the blatant leading. It's just wrong. The coroner
has hardly distinguished himself by his reported comments.

He's not IMHO leading he's pointin out irrelevancies and opening
oportunities

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what the inquest is supposed to accomplish, but it won't
get to the truth like this.

The truth is not arrived at by saying "victims can't be to blame" or "
if it was you driving you MUST be to blame"

marc <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

marc <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

tyres were
>> bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."
>>
>> It's looking very shoddy so far, day one of a four-person inquest and
>> he's already directing the jury toward accidental death with
>> contributory negligence to the victims for having the temerity to
>> go out.
>>
>> [censored].
>>
>> Tony B
> Agreed, blatant leading. A defective car travelling too fast kills
> four people and the authorities imply blame on the victims
> for....being there.
>

Quoted message said:

Too fast for what?

Too fast to hold the road on a frosty morning, with fatal results.

It is hardly surprising thay ice forms when temperatures drop below
freezing point. Travelling at 50mph on a bendy road in ice, then blame
the victims or the council. This attitude STINKS!

So eveyone agrees that the road was icy, dangerous, it wasn't
suprising that there was ice on the road? Would it be fair then to ask
, why was a club using a dangerous road, covered in ice?
The inquest is to find out what happened, not to crucify drivers or
salve concsiences.

Quoted message said:

What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal processes
are finished.

The victims did not fail to control their vehicles. The driver did.
Please do not blame the victims.

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

Tony B <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

The real travesty is the blatant leading. It's just wrong. The coroner
has hardly distinguished himself by his reported comments.

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure what the inquest is supposed to accomplish, but it won't
get to the truth like this.

AIUI inquests are merely to determine a mode of death; the list is very
limited, vis,

natural causes
accidental death
misadventure
suicide
unlawfully killed

A narrative verdict may also be issued.

I might have missed something from the list; evidently natural causes
and suicide will not apply and given the way proceedings have gone so
far, unlawfully killed will not happen. Remaining options are
shrinking...

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

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

marc <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

marc <[email hidden]>typed

> tyres were
>>> bald or brand new. It's a question of ice on the road."
>>>
>>> It's looking very shoddy so far, day one of a four-person inquest and
>>> he's already directing the jury toward accidental death with
>>> contributory negligence to the victims for having the temerity to
>>> go out.
>>>
>>> [censored].
>>>
>>> Tony B
>> Agreed, blatant leading. A defective car travelling too fast kills
>> four people and the authorities imply blame on the victims
>> for....being there.
>>
> Too fast for what?
Too fast to hold the road on a frosty morning, with fatal results.

It is hardly surprising thay ice forms when temperatures drop below
freezing point. Travelling at 50mph on a bendy road in ice, then blame
the victims or the council. This attitude STINKS!

So eveyone agrees that the road was icy, dangerous, it wasn't
suprising that there was ice on the road? Would it be fair then to ask
, why was a club using a dangerous road, covered in ice?
The inquest is to find out what happened, not to crucify drivers or
salve concsiences.

Quoted message said:

What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal processes
are finished.

The victims did not fail to control their vehicles. The driver did.
Please do not blame the victims.

A number of drivers that morning had difficulty controlling their
vehicles, if the club run had reached the same spot, Im sure that they
would have done also, the only difference that I can see is that one
driver lost control at the same time that the space that was needed to
regain control was occupied.

If the road was dangerous, every road user was as much to "blame" for
using it, or was not to blame because they coudn't have known, that
includes the police driver , the club captain, and Robert Harris.

What hasn't been decided is , was the road dangerous?

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:03:15 +0100,

marc said:

So eveyone agrees that the road was icy, dangerous, it wasn't
suprising that there was ice on the road? Would it be fair then to ask
, why was a club using a dangerous road, covered in ice?

Because the law allows them to.

The driver, on the other hand, was illegally using the road and should
never have set out at all. The fact that he did anyway, and then killed
four people, ought to be enough to have the book thrown at him.

Quoted message said:

The inquest is to find out what happened, not to crucify drivers or
salve concsiences.

No the point of the inquest is to find a verdict of accidental death.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/