Rhyll inquest starts

[Tim Woodall]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:56:58 +0100,
marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> one
> driver lost control at the same time that the space that was needed to
> regain control was occupied.

The "space that was needed to regain control" included running off the
road, into a wall and then bouncing back into the road did it?

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/

 

[marc]

Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:56:58 +0100,
> marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> one
>> driver lost control at the same time that the space that was needed to
>> regain control was occupied.
>
> The "space that was needed to regain control" included running off the
> road, into a wall and then bouncing back into the road did it?
>
> Tim.
>
Obviously, your point is?

 

[marc]

Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:03:15 +0100,
> marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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.

Not an answer to the question.
>
> The driver, on the other hand, was illegally using the road and should
> never have set out at all.

Would you have prefered the cyclists to be killed by another driver?



The fact that he did anyway, and then killed
> four people, ought to be enough to have the book thrown at him.

Not the job of an inquest.

 

[Squashme]

On 5 Jun, 22:59, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Woodall wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:03:15 +0100,
> > marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Not an answer to the question.
>
>
>
> > The driver, on the other hand, was illegally using the road and should
> > never have set out at all.
>
> Would you have prefered the cyclists to be killed by another driver?
>
> The fact that he did anyway, and then killed
>
> > four people, ought to be enough to have the book thrown at him.
>
> Not the job of an inquest.


Interesting report from April which I had not seen:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6529309.stm

"The families of four members of Rhyl Cycling Club killed in a road
accident near Abergele may be compensated, it has been revealed.
Thomas Harland, 14, Maurice Broadbent, 61, Dave Horrocks, 55, and
Wayne Wilkes, 42, died on 8 January 2006.

Conwy Council and the insurance company of the driver involved have
agreed a deal which could pave the way for payouts to those affected.

Conwy Council said it did not admit "liability or apportionment of
blame".

Coroner for north east Wales John Hughes revealed there had been
admissions of civil liability at a preliminary inquest hearing at
Flint on Thursday."

 

[_]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:56:58 +0100, marc wrote:

> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>> marc <[email protected]>typed
>>
>>
>>> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>>>> marc <[email protected]>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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *******.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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?

It wasn't for the cyclists until that fool driving a defective motorcar
plowed into them.

Oh, it's the road's fault. Poor driver, he must be so traumatised, and now
we have this bloddy inquest. Mustn't let him feel any blame, must we...

 

[Rob Morley]

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

> 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.
>
So how much damage are you likely to cause other people by falling off
your bike on a patch of ice, and how much by skidding into them in an
out-of-control car?

 

[marc]

_ wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:56:58 +0100, marc wrote:
>
>> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>>> marc <[email protected]>typed
>>>
>>>
>>>> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>>>>> marc <[email protected]>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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *******.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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?
>
> It wasn't for the cyclists until that fool driving a defective motorcar
> plowed into them.
>
> Oh, it's the road's fault. Poor driver, he must be so traumatised, and now
> we have this bloddy inquest. Mustn't let him feel any blame, must we...

I would suggest that most here who have replied would be unable to sit
on that jury and follow the instructions of the coroner regarding emotion.

 

[Tony B]

marc wrote:

> I would suggest that most here who have replied would be unable to sit
> on that jury and follow the instructions of the coroner regarding emotion.

That may or may not be true, but then the "jury" won't be deciding
guilt, just cause of death AIUI.

The pisser is not that the killing of four cyclists is an emotive
subject but the implied "oh well, what can you do, car is king" attitude
of the coroner.

It would be nice if for once the whole underlying "car culture is beyond
criticism" **** were absented from proceedings.

Cars are in fact ****. I should know, I've got two and had dozens.

hth,

T

 

[Tony B]

marc wrote:

>> higher pressure/sq mm is better that lower, which has the higher bike or car?

Are you sure that's right? When riding on mud lower tyre pressures
increase traction. Ever seen trials riders? Also, narrow tyred cars (eg
my old 106) drive better on snow than wide tyres (eg my rather larger
307). Cycle tyres are very narrow and do well on snow, notwithstanding
the single-track vehicle aspect. I am informed the old Model T was great
on icy roads with it's pram wheels...

T

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-06-06, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> marc wrote:
>
>> I would suggest that most here who have replied would be unable to sit
>> on that jury and follow the instructions of the coroner regarding emotion.
>
> That may or may not be true, but then the "jury" won't be deciding
> guilt, just cause of death AIUI.
>
> The pisser is not that the killing of four cyclists is an emotive
> subject but the implied "oh well, what can you do, car is king" attitude
> of the coroner.
>
> It would be nice if for once the whole underlying "car culture is beyond
> criticism" **** were absented from proceedings.
>
> Cars are in fact ****. I should know, I've got two and had dozens.

"Cars" and "Car Culture" are not what's on trial in that hearing.

 

[Tony Raven]

marc wrote on 06/06/2007 06:56 +0100:
>
> I would suggest that most here who have replied would be unable to sit
> on that jury and follow the instructions of the coroner regarding emotion.

Perhaps the coroner needs to park his emotional attachment to cars as well.

--
Tony

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

 

[Marc Brett]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:27:27 +0100, marc
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Also don't forget that warm tyres are better than cold , would the car
>tyres have been hot? how far had the car travelled?

Wouldn't a warm tyre be prone to melting a thin layer of ice under it,
thus making the situation worse than with a cold tyre?

 

[Marc Brett]

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 19:55:55 GMT, "John Clayton"
<[email protected]> wrote:


>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.

And more police manipulation, regarding the bald tyres:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...1&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true

"RoadPeace agreed and said Harris could have been charged with driving
without due care and attention in relation to the bald tyres.

"Such charges, however, must be laid down within six months of an
accident but the police failed to announce the tyres were defective
until 26 weeks after the crash, by which time it was too late, Miss
Aeron-Thomas said. "

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-06-06, Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:27:27 +0100, marc
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Also don't forget that warm tyres are better than cold , would the car
>>tyres have been hot? how far had the car travelled?
>
> Wouldn't a warm tyre be prone to melting a thin layer of ice under it,
> thus making the situation worse than with a cold tyre?

It depends how much ice. If there's ice everywhere you can hardly get
out of your front drive and so slither around very slowly and not all
that dangerously or call it a day and leave the car at home. So called
"black ice" though is very unpredictable (and also practically
invisible). The road is fine everywhere until you hit a patch and then
slide off. This isn't a myth it has happened to me.

I don't know what difference tyre temperature makes with that stuff, it
depends how thick the ice is I suppose.

 

[Tony B]

Ben C wrote:

> "Cars" and "Car Culture" are not what's on trial in that hearing.

There is no trial; it's an inquest not a court of law. No-one will be
found guilty or innocent. That's not what it's all about - rather, the
inquest is supposed to determine a reason for the death under
consideration. Following on from the inquest, there may be coroner's
recommendations that criminal charges should be made if appropriate, or
that gritting policy should be changed. I don't know if the
CPS/Police/council are obliged to abide by such recommendations, I would
assume they are duty bound to do so?

But it doesn't matter anyway; it will be recorded as accidental death,
along with much wringing of hands along the lines of "..well, what are
you gonna do?". An endemic attitude in our car centric world, and one
that otherwise rational people get legged up in as well. It's the same
ethos that sees people overtaking in fog at 100mph, a kind of fatalistic
detatchment of action and consequence. These people, they are not evil
car driving maniacs. They are just easily led by the promise of motoring
nirvana and it's complex feelings of essentialness, safety and
invincibility. The reality is we have all (mostly) become so blasé about
driving resulting in death that we accept it as inevitable and indeed as
"a price worth paying" to quote Madeline Albright on something else that
caused a lot of suffering. To think otherwise is heresy and attracts
comments of the wrong sort. That does not make car culture right.

To be honest, most of the driving I see daily is so poor I'm amazed
there are not dozens killed every day, rather than the mere 3201 for
whom latest info is available:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistic...casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain2005



Tony B

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, marc wrote:
>>
>> 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?

Bike, obviously. Have you never pumped up (road) bike and car tyres?

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-06-06, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>
>> "Cars" and "Car Culture" are not what's on trial in that hearing.
>
> There is no trial; it's an inquest not a court of law. No-one will be
> found guilty or innocent. That's not what it's all about - rather, the
> inquest is supposed to determine a reason for the death under
> consideration.

I know, I should have said "not on trial", not "not what's on trial".

[...]
> But it doesn't matter anyway; it will be recorded as accidental death,
> along with much wringing of hands along the lines of "..well, what are
> you gonna do?". An endemic attitude in our car centric world, and one
> that otherwise rational people get legged up in as well. It's the same
> ethos that sees people overtaking in fog at 100mph, a kind of fatalistic
> detatchment of action and consequence.

I'm not sure it is. Patches of black ice on the road _is_ different from
fog. Fog is everywhere, you know it's there, and you choose a speed
based on how much you can see. It's possible to drive safely in fog and
many people do. There honestly isn't much the driver can do about black
ice, if that's what it was in this particular accident.

> These people, they are not evil car driving maniacs. They are just
> easily led by the promise of motoring nirvana and it's complex
> feelings of essentialness, safety and invincibility. The reality is we
> have all (mostly) become so blasé about driving resulting in death
> that we accept it as inevitable and indeed as "a price worth paying"
> to quote Madeline Albright on something else that caused a lot of
> suffering. To think otherwise is heresy and attracts comments of the
> wrong sort. That does not make car culture right.

Accepting a certain level of risk does go with car culture, I agree,
since using the roads is probably the most dangerous thing many people
do in their everyday lives.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:

> And more police manipulation, regarding the bald tyres:
>
> <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_articl
> e_id=398901&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true>
>
> "RoadPeace agreed and said Harris could have been charged with driving
> without due care and attention in relation to the bald tyres.
>
> "Such charges, however, must be laid down within six months of an
> accident but the police failed to announce the tyres were defective
> until 26 weeks after the crash, by which time it was too late, Miss
> Aeron-Thomas said. "

That will be 6 months and a day or two then.

Luke


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

 

[Tony B]

Ben C wrote:

> I'm not sure it is. Patches of black ice on the road _is_ different from
> fog.

Yeah, agreed - but I was trying to say the /ethos/ is the same. People
are far too detached from the link between action and (potential)
consequence. The "it won't happen to me" mindset, that sees people happy
to drive around on a winter's morning, peering through a peep-hole a
thumb's width across for the first ten minutes of their journey, or
driving while tired, or reading the newspaper in the outside lane of the
motorway... or in this case, driving in such a manner that they end up
bouncing around a road and killing four people because the road is icy.
There is no thought whatsoever that something tragic could happen as a
result of poor behaviour. I know that the actual behaviour of the driver
in question is unknown, however if the road was truly drivable there
would have been cars stuffed in the wall already.

Tony B

 

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-06-05, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not necessarily narrow better than wide, but higher pressure/sq mm is
> better that lower, which has the higher bike or car?

The bike, by a staggering margin. My car exerts a pressure of around 35
lbs/sq. on its ground contact area with properly inflated tyres. My bike
on the other hand exerts a pressure on the ground of around 110 lbs
sq.in on the rear and 90 lbs sq in. on the front tyre.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de