in message <
[email protected]>, marc
('
[email protected]') wrote:
> 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?
No member of the club lost control of their bikes, until the car ploughed
into them. They were not travelling excessively fast under the conditions.
> What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal processes
> are finished.
In this case, the evidence is clear, simple and plain. The car lost
control. It crossed the road, striking and killing at least one cyclist,
possibly two. It then travelled eight feet across the grass verge, hit a
stone wall bounced off it, travelled eight feet back across the grass
verge, struck several more cyclists killing two or three (depending on
whether it was one or two who were killed in the first impact), crossed
both lanes of the road, and ended up on the grass verge on the side of the
road away from the wall. No-one contests this. The temperature was below
freezing and had been below freezing continuously since before dawn.
No-one contests this. Three of the cars tyres were bald. No-one contests
this - some argue that it didn't make any difference to the actual impact,
but it is certainly further evidence of the negligence of the driver.
That isn't 'slightly' too fast. A car travelling 'slightly' too fast
doesn't bounce off a wall and continue on for another twenty or thirty
yards, over grass and human bodies. No possible additional evidence can
excuse that driver of gross negligence and culpability.
--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke)
http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.