Rhyll inquest starts

[The other view point, there is one you know...]

On 6 Jun, 23:50, "John Clayton" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Chain reaction, it has an unknown ending.

IF.... the car had set off 2 mins earlier/later
IF....the bikes were not in a big bunch
IF....the were no black ice
IF....The risk assessment by the club had taken into account black ice
IF....cyclists were nor riding on 60mph roads
IF...the MOT was due the week before the incident
IF....
IF....

No one set off to do what happened, chain reaction.

After the inquest I will let you know what I think should happen to
prevent similar tragedies happening again

 

[John Hearns]

The other view point, there is one you know... wrote:
>
>
> speed limit is 60mph on that road, was he doing 50mph
>
CLAIMS to have been doing 50mph

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, _
('[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.

Or of gross negligence. He may simply not have known. Mind you, gross
negligence is no better than deliberate criminality.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Copyright (c) Simon Brooke; All rights reserved. Permission is
granted to transfer this message via UUCP or NNTP and to store it
for the purpose of archiving or further transfer. Permission is
explicitly denied to use this message as part of a 'Web Forum', or
to transfer it by HTTP.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> 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.

Obviously I have. I've also hit it on a push bike more than once - and,
indeed, hit it on a push bike and stayed up more than once (but one of
those was pure fluke). If you spin off at remarkably low speeds, you don't
damage your car, and you don't kill other people.

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

;; Good grief, I can remember when England won the Ashes.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

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

> > 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.

Do you have any evidence for that? My experience of travel in Russia was
that the roadsides in rural areas (and something like 99% of Russia is
rural) were littered with vehicle debris.

> 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.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

_ <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:18:36 GMT, Martin Dann wrote:

> > 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.

Is it not just evidence of idleness?

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Evidence I have seen (on the utterly impartial Michelin website, IIRC)
suggests that winter tyres are of significant benefit at temperatures
below around 6 degrees C. As far as I can tell, drivers in this country
ought really to be fitting winter tyres for several months of the year.

It's a pain, however, to find anywhere that sells them.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[_]

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 02:40:58 -0500, Ben C wrote:

> 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.

So that driver set off in a defective vehicle in weather conditions that
are common, drove at such speed that he killed four cyclists in two
collisions, having hit a wall in between.

Tell us, do you think a dangerous and malicious road was also the reason
that poor Carl Baxter was in a collision with two cyclists?

 

[Ekul Namsob]

The other view point, there is one you know...
<[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 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?

For tyres to be bald one does have to be quite negligent.

> Most people only check things when there is a issue.

Really? I check my tyre tread on a regular basis and change them before
the tread reaches the legal minimum.

Cheers,
Luke

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

 

[Ekul Namsob]

The other view point, there is one you know...
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Chain reaction, it has an unknown ending.
>
> IF.... the car had set off 2 mins earlier/later
> IF....the bikes were not in a big bunch
> IF....the were no black ice
> IF....The risk assessment by the club had taken into account black ice
> IF....cyclists were nor riding on 60mph roads

Are you suggesting that cyclists should not ride on roads with 60mph
limits?

Cheers,
Luke

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

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-06-07, _ <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 02:40:58 -0500, Ben C wrote:
[...]
>> 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.
>
> So that driver set off in a defective vehicle in weather conditions that
> are common, drove at such speed that he killed four cyclists in two
> collisions, having hit a wall in between.

Pretty much, although it is quite likely speed wasn't a factor.

On the one hand you could say this accident shows cars should be
abolished. Depending on your level of risk aversity that is a logical
position to take although obviously there will be knock-on effects that
would also have to be considered. On the other hand you could ask given
the world we're in was this driver driving dangerously compared to the
standard expected by society and the police.

> Tell us, do you think a dangerous and malicious road was also the reason
> that poor Carl Baxter was in a collision with two cyclists?

I'm not familiar with that case.

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 2:30 pm, David Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 05:38:12 -0700 someone who may be
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >Let us assume for a moment that it was forseeable that the road was
> >icy to the extent that a wheeled vehicle could expect to risk losing
> >traction at some point for soem distance. In that case then other
> >drivers who travelled at a speed that meant that if they loast
> >control, then their vehicle would represent a danger to other usets
> >are equally culpable regardless of the outcome.
>
> Feel free to indicate the number of other motorists that lost
> control of their motor vehicle and bounced it off a wall in the
> area. I suspect that you will find that the answer is a round
> number.

I don't know and I suspect you don't either although I would not be
surprised if your suspicions are accurate. Feel free to indicate
whether you think it acceptable to drive ****** as long as you don't
kill someone.

best wishes
james

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> 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.

No-one /has/ to drive to work. Even if there is no usable public transport
alternative you can do any of:

* Start earlier and drive slower;
* Start at your normal time, drive slower, and arrive late;
* Walk;
* Cycle (carefully);
* Work from home (not possible for everyone, but possible for far more than
do it);
* Take the day off.

Your 'need' to get to work does not over-ride other people's 'need' to go
on living. To put other people's lives needlessly at risk just so that you
can get to work. If you keep the speed below 20mph, you may still lose
control - but you are unlikely to kill people even if you do hit them.

> 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.

Agreed. But there is a big difference between not going out on the roads at
all, and hare-arsing around at 50mph on ice.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other
;; languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their
;; pockets for new vocabulary -- James D. Nicoll

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> 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/

Indeed, oh wise one. I shall now go out into the courtyard and thrash
myself soundly.

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

Morning had broken. I found a rather battered tube of Araldite
resin in the bottom of the toolbag.

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> On 2007-06-07, _ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 02:40:58 -0500, Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>>> 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.
>>
>> So that driver set off in a defective vehicle in weather conditions that
>> are common, drove at such speed that he killed four cyclists in two
>> collisions, having hit a wall in between.
>
> Pretty much, although it is quite likely speed wasn't a factor.

Tell me, on your planet what is the equation for kinetic energy?

> On the one hand you could say this accident shows cars should be
> abolished.

It was perfectly safe to drive a car on that road on that day. If the car
had been driven at an appropriate speed for the conditions, then, even if
the driver had lost control (which would have been less likely) he would
have killed no-one. It isn't the road that's the problem. It isn't the car
that's the problem. It's the /driver/ that's the problem.

>> Tell us, do you think a dangerous and malicious road was also the reason
>> that poor Carl Baxter was in a collision with two cyclists?
>
> I'm not familiar with that case.

Carl Baxter deliberately reversed a Range Rover over a cyclist towing a
child in a child trailer.

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorcarnage/baxter.html

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

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-06-07, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Ben C
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> No-one /has/ to drive to work. Even if there is no usable public transport
> alternative you can do any of:
>
> * Start earlier and drive slower;
> * Start at your normal time, drive slower, and arrive late;
> * Walk;
> * Cycle (carefully);
> * Work from home (not possible for everyone, but possible for far more than
> do it);

More incentives for employers to encourage that, like tax breaks or
something, would be good to see.

> * Take the day off.
>
> Your 'need' to get to work does not over-ride other people's 'need' to go
> on living. To put other people's lives needlessly at risk just so that you
> can get to work. If you keep the speed below 20mph, you may still lose
> control - but you are unlikely to kill people even if you do hit them.

But if you drive on an A road at 20mph, there's a real chance you'll
cause an accident because of someone driving into the back of you. They
shouldn't, and it should be chalked up as their fault if they do, but it
still might happen.

>> 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.
>
> Agreed. But there is a big difference between not going out on the roads at
> all, and hare-arsing around at 50mph on ice.

Yes, and another big difference between that and driving at 50mph on a
generally good A road containing unforseen patches of black ice.

 

[Alistair Gunn]

The other view point, there is one you know... twisted the electrons to say:
> He will have to live with it for the rest of his life, terrible thing
> a chain reaction.

Unlike the cyclist who he killed that don't get to live the rest of their
lives at all?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Martin Dann twisted the electrons to say:
> Marc Brett wrote:
> > "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. "
> Is that obstructing the course of justice?.

It's either that or police incompetence IMHO, and either way a complaint
should be made (again IMHO). Frankly, even if the drivers actions had
been reasonable in every other respect he should still have been done for
that.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2007-06-07, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Your 'need' to get to work does not over-ride other people's 'need' to go
> > on living. To put other people's lives needlessly at risk just so that you
> > can get to work. If you keep the speed below 20mph, you may still lose
> > control - but you are unlikely to kill people even if you do hit them.

> But if you drive on an A road at 20mph, there's a real chance you'll
> cause an accident because of someone driving into the back of you. They
> shouldn't, and it should be chalked up as their fault if they do, but it
> still might happen.

The driver travelling at 20 mph would not have caused the accident. The
accident would have been caused by the driver who was travelling too
close to the slower moving vehicle.

> > Agreed. But there is a big difference between not going out on the roads at
> > all, and hare-arsing around at 50mph on ice.
>
> Yes, and another big difference between that and driving at 50mph on a
> generally good A road containing unforseen patches of black ice.

Patches of black ice should always be foreseen in freezing conditions.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-06-07, Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-06-07, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Your 'need' to get to work does not over-ride other people's 'need' to go
>> > on living. To put other people's lives needlessly at risk just so that you
>> > can get to work. If you keep the speed below 20mph, you may still lose
>> > control - but you are unlikely to kill people even if you do hit them.
>
>> But if you drive on an A road at 20mph, there's a real chance you'll
>> cause an accident because of someone driving into the back of you. They
>> shouldn't, and it should be chalked up as their fault if they do, but it
>> still might happen.
>
> The driver travelling at 20 mph would not have caused the accident. The
> accident would have been caused by the driver who was travelling too
> close to the slower moving vehicle.

That's what I meant to say.