Rhyll inquest starts



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

> 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?

Another holocaust denier.

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

((DoctorWho)ChristopherEccleston).act();
uk.co.bbc.TypecastException: actor does not want to be typecast.
[adapted from autofile on /., 31/03/05]
 
On 6 Jun, 22:02, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Jun, 13:38, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > A number of drivers that morning had difficulty controlling their
> > > vehicles,
>
> > No other vehicle had such difficulty that they ran off the road,
> > bounced off a wall and then up the opposite bank. This driver did,
> > and was clearly driving with a much lower standard of care than the
> > other drivers.
>
> > regards, Ian SMith
> > --
> > |\ /| no .sig
> > |o o|
> > |/ \|
>
> I wonder if an of the riders had driven along that road on the way to
> the meet point earlier, with their bike in the back of their work van?

Work van! On the Sabbath? In North Wales!
 
The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
>
> Did the road users know there was black ice?
>
> Did anyone set off with any bad intentions?

I cannot answer that, but the driver concerned set off with a defective
vehicle. Lack of bad intentions do not absolve one of guilt.

> What should have been the speed, who would have set it, how long would
> it have lasted?

The driver should have set his speed based on the fact that there were
freezing conditions the night before. Instead he drove at the speed limit.

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

> Tony B wrote:
>> marc wrote:
>>> 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?

Bike, about 100-120psi, car about 30psi.

> 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.

It shouldn't be ignored, it's clear evidence of either gross negligence or
else wilful criminal behaviour. Either he didn't know the tyres were bald,
or he did know the tyres were bald. Either way, it was criminal of him to
operate the car that morning, and that is evidence of his responsibility
and care towards other road users.

> - if anyone should have stayed at home that
>> 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.

If a cyclist had lost control (which did not happen), the worst that might
have happened is he might have grazed his knees. That is not 'dangerous'.
If a cyclist had lost control and hit four cars, he might have dented a
panel and scratched a bit of paint. That is not 'dangerous'.

Vehicles are 'dangerous' in proportion to the amount of kinetic energy they
have. Kinetic energy scales with mass multiplied by the square of speed.
Bicycles do not normally have sufficient kinetic energy to represent a
danger to other road users. Motor vehicles almost always do. Consequently,
the duty of care on a motor vehicle driver must be vastly higher than on a
cyclist.

>> 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

The things he's claiming are irrelevant are not the least irrelevant:
they're key.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002
 
On 6 Jun, 22:08, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Jun, 15:34, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]>typed
>
> > > "Mr Hughes [the coroner] also said there had been another accident near the
> > > scene on the same morning, and the police had been in touch with the
> > > council
> > > about conditions on the road."
>
> > Indeed, but AFAIK there was no serious injury as a result. Losing it at
> > 5mph might have resulted in unintentional dismounts, possibly with
> > broken bones, but fatality would be unlikely.
>
> > Losing it at 50mph caused multiple fatalities.
>
> > There is a suitable speed for these sorts of driving conditions and IMO
> > it ain't 50mph.
>
> > --
> > Helen D. Vecht:
>
> Did the road users know there was black ice?

Did the motorist attempt to find out whether there was black ice
before driving too fast?

>
> Did anyone set off with any bad intentions?

Difficult to tell, but the motorist chose to drive at a speed which
would ensure that if he did have an accident with unarmoured road
users, they would almost certainly die, so, assuming that he intended
the consequences of his actions, yes he set out with bad intentions.
>
> What should have been the speed, who would have set it, how long would
> it have lasted?

Slower; the motorist; all the journey until he arrived safely at home,
without killing anyone. Not difficult is it, if you really care?
 
On 2007-06-06, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> The road wasn't dangerous. Roads never are dangerous. People in places like
> Finland and Sweden drive safely on roads in far icier conditions
> routinely.

That's completely different. It's the _slightly_ icy conditions we get
in Britain that are much more dangerous.

If there's proper snow or ice everywhere you put chains or winter tyres
on and go about your business. Ice that's just around its melting point,
especially if found in isolated patches, like we get in the UK, is not
the same at all.

I don't know if you've ever hit that stuff in a car yourself but it'll
spin you off at remarkably low speeds.

> It is the responsibility of all road users to ride or drive safely
> under the prevailing conditions. The cyclists did. The driver didn't.

Obviously the cyclists aren't to blame. Any other conditions-- fog, ice
everywhere or snow-- and I'd also blame the driver.
 
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:18:36 GMT, Martin Dann wrote:

> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>>
>>
>> Did the road users know there was black ice?
>>
>> Did anyone set off with any bad intentions?
>
> I cannot answer that, but the driver concerned set off with a defective
> vehicle. Lack of bad intentions do not absolve one of guilt.
>

Setting off with a defective vehicle *is* evidence of bad intention.
 
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:40:38 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, marc
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>> Too fast for what?
>
> Too fast for icy conditions.
>
> He should be being tried on four counts of culpable homicide.

That's manslaughter down here Simon. Culpable homicide is what
you Scots call it.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
"The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 5 Jun, 06:22, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > On 4 Jun, 07:45, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>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.
>
> *******.
>
> Tony B

you seem to think it was the drives fault, without the facts....



Seems so to me, sufficient facts are known to form a view.

If not the drivers fault for the numerous/multiple reasons noted in this
thread whose fault is it? Perhaps the Catholic Church or Chechen rebels
even?

Come off it, four blokes are dead and you're posting silly little
provocative notes like this one liner above. Pudding.

John Clayton
 
Quoting Daniel Barlow <[email protected]>:
>The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>>Was the driver not also a victim?
>Clearly not to the same extent. Don't come that "having to live with
>the guilt" ****; it's clearly a better outcome for him than not having
>the _choice_ of whether to live with the guilt.

And, frankly, it's a bit like complaining your hand hurts after punching
the victim.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corridor,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruit:eek:konomiyaki,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose:yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!sparkle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace
 
Ben C wrote on 06/06/2007 08:34 +0100:
>
> I don't know what difference tyre temperature makes with that stuff, it
> depends how thick the ice is I suppose.

None. At any speed at all the contact time is too short to do anything.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
marcwales wrote on 06/06/2007 12:23 +0100:
>
> Often but then you have a surface to grip, the idea of highpressure,
> narrow footprint it to cut through the snow to get more grip, and if
> you have a high pressure pootprint you melt the very thin layer of
> ice and get mechanical grip from the road surface
>

You've clearly never looked at the change of the melting point of ice
with pressure. Its about 0.02 degrees for a typical car tyre pressure.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote on 06/06/2007 15:34 +0100:
> "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]>typed
>
>> "Mr Hughes [the coroner] also said there had been another accident near the
>> scene on the same morning, and the police had been in touch with the
>> council
>> about conditions on the road."
>
> Indeed, but AFAIK there was no serious injury as a result. Losing it at
> 5mph might have resulted in unintentional dismounts, possibly with
> broken bones, but fatality would be unlikely.
>
> Losing it at 50mph caused multiple fatalities.
>
> There is a suitable speed for these sorts of driving conditions and IMO
> it ain't 50mph.
>

Indeed. One of the few times I've taken the cycle path was December
2005 in Oxfordshire. I set off for the station from the place I was
staying on my Brompton. When I got onto the road is was very slippery
and I had difficulty standing on it without slipping. Cars were passing
at about 60mph. I got off the road onto the cycle path where at least
the hoare frost was fresh and gave more grip although I took extreme
care on the journey. Meanwhile cars continued to barrel along on the
road as if it were a summer's day.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
In news:[email protected],
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> In this case, the evidence is clear, simple and plain. The car lost
> control.

Tsk, Simon, you of all people should know better than that! s/car/driver/

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
May you have an accident shaped like an umbrella.
 
On 2007-06-06, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Ben C
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> On 2007-06-06, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>>> 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.
>
> People from Alaska in the west all the way round the planet to Siberia in
> the east drive regularly and safely on black ice every winter.

Which kind of black ice are you talking about?

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define:black+ice

The last of those definitions is the sort we have in Wales, where it is
damp and where the temperature is often a few degrees either side of
zero. Do you really get that in Siberia and Alaska? I don't know, I
haven't driven there, but I imagine you get much more extensive much
colder ice which is a completely different kind of driving conditions.

> If you don't have appropriate skills and equipment to drive on ice,
> you should not drive a motor vehicle when the temperature is below
> zero. To do so is grossly negligent.

Was the temperature below zero?

It's easy for you to say "grossly negligent" but some people have to
drive to work in the winter and for all kinds of other reasons. There
are very many days of the year on which there is a possibility of black
ice. Road safety is a probability game. There is no certainty unless you
just don't go out on the roads at all.
 
On 6 Jun, 22:11, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
>
>
> > Was the driver not also a victim?
>
> My Troll-o-meter is flashing. Keep this up and you will join mattb and
> keep him company.
>
> Martin.

ohhhhhhwwwwwwww

Did he set off with what happened as his intention?

He will have to live with it for the rest of his life, terrible thing
a chain reaction.
 
On 6 Jun, 22:13, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Jun, 22:02, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 6 Jun, 13:38, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 05 Jun 2007, marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > A number of drivers that morning had difficulty controlling their
> > > > vehicles,
>
> > > No other vehicle had such difficulty that they ran off the road,
> > > bounced off a wall and then up the opposite bank. This driver did,
> > > and was clearly driving with a much lower standard of care than the
> > > other drivers.
>
> > > regards, Ian SMith
> > > --
> > > |\ /| no .sig
> > > |o o|
> > > |/ \|
>
> > I wonder if an of the riders had driven along that road on the way to
> > the meet point earlier, with their bike in the back of their work van?
>
> Work van! On the Sabbath? In North Wales!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Some here only have a work van...
 
On 6 Jun, 22:18, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
>
>
> > Did the road users know there was black ice?
>
> > Did anyone set off with any bad intentions?
>
> I cannot answer that, but the driver concerned set off with a defective
> vehicle. Lack of bad intentions do not absolve one of guilt.
>
> > What should have been the speed, who would have set it, how long would
> > it have lasted?
>
> The driver should have set his speed based on the fact that there were
> freezing conditions the night before. Instead he drove at the speed limit.
>
> Martin.

speed limit is 60mph on that road, was he doing 50mph
 
On 6 Jun, 22:24, Squashme <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Jun, 22:08, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 6 Jun, 15:34, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]>typed
>
> > > > "Mr Hughes [the coroner] also said there had been another accident near the
> > > > scene on the same morning, and the police had been in touch with the
> > > > council
> > > > about conditions on the road."
>
> > > Indeed, but AFAIK there was no serious injury as a result. Losing it at
> > > 5mph might have resulted in unintentional dismounts, possibly with
> > > broken bones, but fatality would be unlikely.
>
> > > Losing it at 50mph caused multiple fatalities.
>
> > > There is a suitable speed for these sorts of driving conditions and IMO
> > > it ain't 50mph.
>
> > > --
> > > Helen D. Vecht:
>
> > Did the road users know there was black ice?
>
> Did the motorist attempt to find out whether there was black ice
> before driving too fast?
>
>
>
> > Did anyone set off with any bad intentions?
>
> Difficult to tell, but the motorist chose to drive at a speed which
> would ensure that if he did have an accident with unarmoured road
> users, they would almost certainly die, so, assuming that he intended
> the consequences of his actions, yes he set out with bad intentions.
>
> > What should have been the speed, who would have set it, how long would
> > it have lasted?
>
> Slower; the motorist; all the journey until he arrived safely at home,
> without killing anyone. Not difficult is it, if you really care?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Don't think somehow thats how the real world revolves, do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_ice
 
On 6 Jun, 22:37, _ <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:18:36 GMT, Martin Dann wrote:
> > The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
> >> Did the road users know there was black ice?
>
> >> Did anyone set off with any bad intentions?
>
> > I cannot answer that, but the driver concerned set off with a defective
> > vehicle. Lack of bad intentions do not absolve one of guilt.
>
> Setting off with a defective vehicle *is* evidence of bad intention.

Did he know that his vehicle was defective?

Most people only check things when there is a issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Rhyll first anniversary today.
Replies
2
Views
455
UK and Europe
wafflycat
W
D
Rhyll - British Cycling speak out
Replies
1
Views
522
UK and Europe
elyob
E
H
Rhyl Inquest Continues...
Replies
64
Views
2K
UK and Europe
Helen Deborah Vecht
H
nes
I Bike MCR Festival 2008 starts THIS MONTH!!!!
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
nes
nes
T
Burns Night --- marginally OT -- but the diet starts tomorrow
Replies
6
Views
483
UK and Europe
Schrodinger's cat
S
Top Bottom Back