£45 - the value of a cyclist's life

[Pyromancer]

Paul - *** wrote:
> David Hansen came up with the following;:

> > Incorrect. The consequences of driving a motor car into a group of
> > cyclists are perfectly foreseeable.

> The car wasn't driven into any cyclists, it was out of control.
> Or do you think he purposelyy drove it at the cyclists?

There seems to be a tendancy on this NG for posters to always expect
every driver of every vehicle to be an absolute paragon of perfect
driving at all times. This is silly, and life is never going to be
like that.

This particular incident was indeed tragic, but to expect every driver
to creep about at a speed which would enable them to stop perfectly
regardless of the conditions, even if they encounter a sheet of black
ice on an adverse bend or slope, is to live in cloud cuckoo land. Yes,
it would be lovely if no motorised vehicle ever went over 20mph on
country roads, and it would do the nations' health no end of good to
have far more cyclists and fewer drivers. But people have cars to get
from A to B, and generally tend to have deadlines (even if just
personal, "need to do X, Y and Z today" ones) to meet.

Campaign for things that really will make a difference, like lower
speeds (and better enforcement) in towns, or cyclists rights to be on
the road as traffic, not marginalised into horrific "farcilities" like
the mess outside my office.

But accept that in a shared world, there will always be some genuine
accidents. The sort of fanatical totalitarian state that would attempt
to enforce "perfect safety" is not one I'd want to live in or cycle in.

 

[Ian Smith]

On 3 Aug 2006, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:

> This poor guy suddenly went from a perfect dry road surface onto black
> ice.

This 'poor guy' (oh my heart bleeds) drove at speed round a bend on an
icy day in a car which had more illegaly dangerous tyres than legal
ones.

> Encountering black ice is not amatter of "fault"

No, it is something entirely to be expetced on icy days, and
consequently that requiresyou to drive accordingly.

If he'd encountered black ice on a blazing hot August day, he may have
some justification for claiming an unexpected set of circumstances.
As it is, he does not.

> perspective. The consequences were truly awful but unforeseeable

The likely consequences of driving a car with only one legal tyre are
not unforeseeable.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Paul Weaver]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> And it it been driven with due care and attention, at a speed
> appropriate to the prevailing conditions, it wouldn't have been.

Either the CPS or court, who have a lot more information than us, have
decided that he was driving with due care and attention, at a speed
appropriate to the prevailing conditions, otherwise he would be facing
a jail sentance for driving without due care and attention, and killing
people in the process.

 

[James Hill]

"Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 3 Aug 2006, [email protected] <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Encountering black ice is not amatter of "fault"
>
> No, it is something entirely to be expetced on icy days, and
> consequently that requiresyou to drive accordingly.
>
> If he'd encountered black ice on a blazing hot August day, he may have
> some justification for claiming an unexpected set of circumstances.
> As it is, he does not.
>
>> perspective. The consequences were truly awful but unforeseeable
>
> The likely consequences of driving a car with only one legal tyre are
> not unforeseeable.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

I hit black ice once at a speed of 10mph as I was slowing down for a
roundabout. I traveled sideways for 20m into the roundabout. *Nothing* I did
could cause the vehicle to retain gip. I ended up slowly pulling away from
the roundabout to drive down a side road to inspect the damage, only to be
joined by a police car five minutes later that had suffered the same fate.
The only way to avoid losing control on black ice is to leave the brakes,
accelerator and steering wheel alone, either that or not venture out. If you
hit black ice while braking, turning or accelerating you run the risk of
losing control. ABS will not save you, nor will any amount of
Electrical/Computerised braking.

Black ice is not normal ice. You only know *when* you've encountered it, by
then it's too late to do anything to avoid it and there is no safe speed for
driving on it.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

> All that having been said - the facts are still, that on the awful day
> in question it would not have mattered one jot if he had just driven
> away from NTS with a full set of new rubber all round - Any car at
> normal road speed would still have gone out of control when all four
> wheels suddenly encountered ice from a dry surface because of the
> natural consequences of rural drainage flowing across a country road on
> an icy morning.

Oh, so there was a crash every 2 minutes was there? Hardly surprising
some people got killed then.

It seems to me that a large proportion of "accidents" involve drivers
who have some history of them. This makes their "randomness" seem
unlikely.

James

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:

>
> This last paragraph of yours confuses me. Rememeber the Selby train
> crash a couple years ago or so. A driver fell asleep at the wheel of
> his Land Rover and drove off the road. If that had have been that, it
> wouldn't even have got into the news and he probably wouldn't have even
> been prosecuted for anything. However he ended up on a railway track.
> Unfortunately he didn't have time to alert the authorities before a
> passenger train hit his Land Rover. That would still probably have
> resulted in just a damaged train were it not for the unfortunate
> coincidence of a freight train coming the other way at the same time,
> which the passenger train ploughed into, resulting in the tragic loss
> of life of the train driver and some passengers. The driver of the Land
> Rover is now in prison - but what for? For falling asleep at the wheel
> of his vehicle or for the consequences which followed? You say that
> "the law is correct in that it recognises intentions - not
> consequences". However it wasn't the driver's intention to fall asleep
> and kill train passengers. Now translate the justice involved in this
> incident onto the cycling accident. At the end of the day every driver
> is supposed to drive at the correct speed for the prevailing road
> conditions. He lost control on ice and the consequence of this is that
> a number of cyclists are dead. It obviously was this driver's intention
> to drive at an inappropriate speed for the prevailing road conditions.
>
> Maybe someone well versed in our baffling justice system could shed
> light on this intention/consequences situation.

In the one case, driving in a state that is likely to result in falling
asleep is considered to be below an acceptable standard. In the other,
driving in a manner that is liable to result in a high-speed crash on
an icy road is simply what modern drivers are expected to do, and tough
**** on anyone who gets in their way.

James

 

[Ian Smith]

On 3 Aug 2006, [email protected] <> wrote:

> All that having been said - the facts are still, that on the awful day
> in question it would not have mattered one jot if he had just driven
> away from NTS with a full set of new rubber all round - Any car at
> normal road speed would still have gone out of control when all four
> wheels suddenly encountered ice from a dry surface because of the
> natural consequences of rural drainage flowing across a country road on
> an icy morning.

Oh. I hadn't realised every single car going round the bend that
morning had crossed the road, bounced up the bank, ricocheted across
the wall and wedged into the opposite verge. Funny the news reports
hadn't included that, and only saw fit to mention that some other
vehicles had been heard to skid a bit.

But obviously, since you've pointed out that it's fact that any and
every vehicle completely lost all control at that point, obviously
it's not his fault.

I was wondering, however, why they removed all the other cars embedded
in the verges from the scene before taking all the news report
footage? Why was that? Please explain.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On 3 Aug 2006, [email protected] <> wrote:

> Maybe someone well versed in our baffling justice system could shed
> light on this intention/consequences situation.

I can't explain with specific reference to Selby, but it is NOT the
case that the UK legal system universally considers only the
intention. Flippantly, it's mighty hard to prosecute someone for
murder if they didn't actually kill someone (but only intended to).

More relevantly, some areas of law _do_ explicitly consider the
consequences, and the sentencing guidelines require that the
particular consequences be considered. Health and safety breaches,
for example. When a H&S breach gets to trial, the sentence is
supposed to consider the consequences, and sentence more seriously for
fatalities than for injuries or near misses. I don't fundamentally
understand why this could not be applied to driving, other (obviously)
than that the establishment is made up of well-to-do drivers.

Besides which, even if you accept the principle of sentencing drivers
according to intention not consequence, there's no reason why you
can't have a sentencing structure that treats driving with three dodgy
tyres equivalently to killing several people. If you did so, you'd
have an entirely coherent system - the action is risking the killing
of several people, so sentence accordingly.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[John Clayton]

This makes perfectly understandable logic.
However, driving is a craft, one that needs continual practice and conscious
effort.
Unfortunately too many drivers don't apply much of either. Many are,
frankly absolute pigs to other road users.
This driver here, it seems to me probably hasn't checked the condition of
his tyres for weeks or even months. Additionally he's been "caught out" on
a frosty morning going round a bend at (I believe) the maximum permissible
speed for midday in summer - with the consequences we all now know of.
He cannot possibly have imagined this to be safe behaviour.

Few of us manage safe driving or cycling at all times. But we all ought
to try.


--
John Clayton
www.calder-clarion.co.uk




"Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> There seems to be a tendancy on this NG for posters to always expect
> every driver of every vehicle to be an absolute paragon of perfect
> driving at all times. This is silly, and life is never going to be
> like that.
>
> This particular incident was indeed tragic, but to expect every driver
> to creep about at a speed which would enable them to stop perfectly
> regardless of the conditions, even if they encounter a sheet of black
> ice on an adverse bend or slope, is to live in cloud cuckoo land. Yes,
> it would be lovely if no motorised vehicle ever went over 20mph on
> country roads, and it would do the nations' health no end of good to
> have far more cyclists and fewer drivers. But people have cars to get
> from A to B, and generally tend to have deadlines (even if just
> personal, "need to do X, Y and Z today" ones) to meet.
>
> Campaign for things that really will make a difference, like lower
> speeds (and better enforcement) in towns, or cyclists rights to be on
> the road as traffic, not marginalised into horrific "farcilities" like
> the mess outside my office.
>
> But accept that in a shared world, there will always be some genuine
> accidents. The sort of fanatical totalitarian state that would attempt
> to enforce "perfect safety" is not one I'd want to live in or cycle in.
>

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:40:58 +0100, "wafflycat"
<w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> said in
<[email protected]>:

>"A driver of a car which skidded on black ice and ploughed into a group of
>cyclists killing four of them, has been fined for having defective tyres."

Is that concurrent with shooting him and burning the body or
consecutive?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Mike Causer]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:40:58 +0100, wafflycat quoted the Beeb:

> "A driver of a car which skidded on black ice and ploughed into a group of
> cyclists killing four of them, has been fined for having defective tyres."

If it /was/ black ice why did no other car go off on the bend earlier in
the day? If it was not black ice, the state of the tyres would have been
crucial in the "loss" of control.

A very badly flawed decision IMO.



Mike

 

[Gareth A.]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:43:54 +0100, Mike Causer
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:40:58 +0100, wafflycat quoted the Beeb:
>
>> "A driver of a car which skidded on black ice and ploughed into a group of
>> cyclists killing four of them, has been fined for having defective tyres."
>
>If it /was/ black ice why did no other car go off on the bend earlier in
>the day? If it was not black ice, the state of the tyres would have been
>crucial in the "loss" of control.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4596500.stm

"Police wanted crash road gritted
....
North Wales Police Chief Inspector Martyn Schlangen said there had
been a minor accident at the same spot about an hour before the fatal
collision and that the police had made a request for the council to
re-grit the road.
....
It was gritted at approximately 6.20 on Saturday evening and had been
the subject of similar treatment on the three days prior to Saturday."

 

[[email protected]]

Gareth A. wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:43:54 +0100, Mike Causer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:40:58 +0100, wafflycat quoted the Beeb:
> >
> >> "A driver of a car which skidded on black ice and ploughed into a group of
> >> cyclists killing four of them, has been fined for having defective tyres."
> >
> >If it /was/ black ice why did no other car go off on the bend earlier in
> >the day? If it was not black ice, the state of the tyres would have been
> >crucial in the "loss" of control.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4596500.stm
>
> "Police wanted crash road gritted
> ...
> North Wales Police Chief Inspector Martyn Schlangen said there had
> been a minor accident at the same spot about an hour before the fatal
> collision and that the police had made a request for the council to
> re-grit the road.
> ...
> It was gritted at approximately 6.20 on Saturday evening and had been
> the subject of similar treatment on the three days prior to Saturday."

This case is very interesting and brings up a number of
road safety issues. I have every sympathy for the families
involved.

It seems to me to be the case that numerous hazerdous driving
practices are accepted in some strange unwritten-law way. I find
that entirely un-acceptable. If we are to accept certain
clearly dangerous practices then it needs to be explained so that
everyone can take the appropriate actions.

What the outcome of this case says to me is that it was the cyclists'
responsibility as vulnerable road users to assess the conditions
and if they considered it possible that a driver would, when dirving
as if there could be no ice, encounter ice then they should avoid
the area or accept the consequences.

This for some reason is not though stated. The highway code
states that drivers are responsible for assessing the conditions
and driving appropriately however as this case highlights, the
reality is that drivers are not in fact held so accountable.

The same applies in many facets of road use. For example it
is clear that on any motorway in the south east for example
hazerdous driving practices are the norm. All day every day.

Closer to the topic of this group it is my view that
hazerdous driving is also the norm in the way that
bus drivers manoeuver close to cyclists in central London.
Following distances that are a tiny fraction of those
recommended in the highway code and yet
the authorities turn a blind eye to what seems to me
to be flagrant intimidatatory pratices that in non motor
vehicle circumstances would I believe be considered
as worthy of police attention.

Going back to the case it appears to me that the Police were
negligent. They have apparently stated that the road was
dangerous and yet they failed to do anything about it.
Apparently road safety is not part of their remit.

Many many years ago I experienced a similar situation.
I encountered ice when I did not expect it. I had considered
the possibility that it was cold enough for ice and had done my
usual check of looking at a few parked cars and at the road
surface before I set off on a <10 mile trip across the city
late at night in the winter. All looked clear, it had rained recently.

It turned out though that there was a very small area (say 1/2 mile)
in diameter where the roads were heavily frosted.

I went off the road across the pavement and onto some grass.
There was no damage.

I dropped off my passenger and went back to have a look since
I had never encountered anything like it before, or subsequently.
Today we could call it a microclimate I guess.

Quite a few cars were spinning and sliding and I went to a call box
and called the police.

They turned up, had a look and went away. Not their problem it seems.
In those days the roads were pretty quiet at that time of night
(midnight)
however nearly every vehicle that passed had a big slide.

I watched a few more rotations then went home. I have no idea
if anyone was injured or worse.

I too am baffled by the difference in treatment of this driver
and of the Land-rover and train driver.

It appears that it is responsible not to consider whether
the road might be icy to the extent of not even bothering to maintain
the vehicle and yet the Land Rover driver was found to be
irresponsible even though as I understand it there was no direct
evidence that he fell asleep.

I have doubts as to whether the bald tyres could be
said to make no difference. For example I have not noticed any
competitior in the Swedish Rally driving on slicks.
I don't think that ice is slippery. It is the lubricating film of
water on the top of it that is, the EXACT issue that tyre tread
is designed to deal with. It is also possible to buy tyres that
work a LOT better than other black round things on ice. Should
we expect drivers to equip themselves appropriately for the weather
or to stay at home? Well it seems not.


The authorities it would seem have bent over backwards to exonerate
this driver and have bent over their law books with equal vigour to
convict the Land-Rover-man. (Was it Garry Hart?)

I don't understand it.

Maybe it's simple, train passengers are more valuable that
cyclists?

Alternatively, cyclists go on the roads 'knowing' that
drivers have little or no responsibility to drive safely,
however train passengers need to be looked after since
they expect a safe journey?

I still don't understand it.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Gareth A. wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:43:54 +0100, Mike Causer
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:40:58 +0100, wafflycat quoted the Beeb:
> > >
> > >> "A driver of a car which skidded on black ice and ploughed into a group of
> > >> cyclists killing four of them, has been fined for having defective tyres."
> > >
> > >If it /was/ black ice why did no other car go off on the bend earlier in
> > >the day? If it was not black ice, the state of the tyres would have been
> > >crucial in the "loss" of control.
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4596500.stm
> >
> > "Police wanted crash road gritted
> > ...
> > North Wales Police Chief Inspector Martyn Schlangen said there had
> > been a minor accident at the same spot about an hour before the fatal
> > collision and that the police had made a request for the council to
> > re-grit the road.
> > ...
> > It was gritted at approximately 6.20 on Saturday evening and had been
> > the subject of similar treatment on the three days prior to Saturday."
>
> This case is very interesting and brings up a number of
> road safety issues. I have every sympathy for the families
> involved.
>
> It seems to me to be the case that numerous hazerdous driving
> practices are accepted in some strange unwritten-law way.

I think it's plainly written in the law - something to do with falling
below an acceptable standard,
or similar. I don't recall the precise wording. The point is, if
everyone does it, it is ipso facto considered acceptable.

> Going back to the case it appears to me that the Police were
> negligent. They have apparently stated that the road was
> dangerous and yet they failed to do anything about it.
> Apparently road safety is not part of their remit.

There is an interesting case in Japan at the moment. The cover came off
an outlet
pipe in a swimming pool, and before anyone did anything about it (but
after the problem
was noticed) a small girl was sucked down the pipe and died. Everyone
seems to be
blaming the lifeguards for not doing anything much, or the maintenance
company for
not fixing the cover properly. Yet the lifeguards seem to have done
much the same as
the police in this case (ie, they had spotted the problem and were
initiating action, but did not immediately shut the pool/road due to
the obvious hazard).

James

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Ian Smith wrote:
>On 3 Aug 2006, [email protected] <> wrote:
>
>> Maybe someone well versed in our baffling justice system could shed
>> light on this intention/consequences situation.
>
>I can't explain with specific reference to Selby, but it is NOT the
>case that the UK legal system universally considers only the
>intention. Flippantly, it's mighty hard to prosecute someone for
>murder if they didn't actually kill someone (but only intended to).

On the other hand we do have the crime of attempted murder. So while
it doesn't _only_ consider intention, intention is important.
Similarly murder is considered a worse crime than manslaughter, even
though the victim is just as dead in both cases.


>More relevantly, some areas of law _do_ explicitly consider the
>consequences, and the sentencing guidelines require that the
>particular consequences be considered. Health and safety breaches,
>for example. When a H&S breach gets to trial, the sentence is
>supposed to consider the consequences, and sentence more seriously for
>fatalities than for injuries or near misses. I don't fundamentally
>understand why this could not be applied to driving, other (obviously)
>than that the establishment is made up of well-to-do drivers.

There are the offences of causing death by dangerous driving, and causing
death by careless driving when under the influence, which are more severe
just because of the fatal consequences.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Paul Weaver wrote:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>> And it it been driven with due care and attention, at a speed
>> appropriate to the prevailing conditions, it wouldn't have been.
>
> Either the CPS or court, who have a lot more information than us, have
> decided that he was driving with due care and attention, at a speed
> appropriate to the prevailing conditions, otherwise he would be facing
> a jail sentance for driving without due care and attention, and
> killing people in the process.

Not necessarily true. All the CPS have decided is that there is insufficient
evidence for them to be able to secure a decision from (a) selected
member(s) of the general public that he was driving without due care and
attention.

That's quite a long way short of deciding he was applying due care and
attention.

A

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting <[email protected]>:
>of life of the train driver and some passengers. The driver of the Land
>Rover is now in prison - but what for? For falling asleep at the wheel
>of his vehicle or for the consequences which followed? You say that
>"the law is correct in that it recognises intentions - not
>consequences".

Manslaughter (and murder, where the intent may just have been GBH) are
special cases where the law does recognise consequences.

However in this case the deaths were not a consequence of the motorist's
negligence in having defective tyres and as such that would not be
relevant.

The problem here isn't that he was fined 180 quid for defective tyres that
didn't contribute to the accident. The problem is that he isn't facing
consequences for neeming around full speed on an icy day.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Wednesday, July.

 

[thrawn]

[email protected] wrote; -A very good post

Incidentally theres a far better report in todays Times than yesterdays
one from BBC.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-2298597,00.html providing
a CTC and Brake angle:

''CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, has been critical of the
way the case has been handled, particularly that the question of the
appropriate speed had not been considered.

Roger Geffen, CTC's campaigns and policy manager, said: "Time and
again when people are killed and seriously injured, the message given
out by the legal system is that these incidents are nothing more than
tragic accidents.

"The victims are disproportionately pedestrians and cyclists, the
very forms of transport we most need to encourage for health and
environmental reasons."

Mary Williams, chief executive of the road safety charity Brake, said:
"This is a tragic case where four innocent cyclists were killed and
their families' lives were devastated. It is an outrage that Robert
Harris has not even lost his licence, yet four people have lost their
lives.

"Drivers should ensure their vehicles are regularly serviced and
maintained to the highest standards. Driving with defective tyres puts
lives at risk and kills."

Provisional figures from the Department of Transport show that the
number of pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured from January to
March - 440 - was 20 per cent higher than the same period last
year.''

B

 

[wafflycat]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:40:58 +0100, "wafflycat"
> <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>"A driver of a car which skidded on black ice and ploughed into a group of
>>cyclists killing four of them, has been fined for having defective tyres."
>
> Is that concurrent with shooting him and burning the body or
> consecutive?
>
> Guy

Another one..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/5245458.stm

Huntsman guilty of breaking the foxhunting ban. Fined £500

Four innocent people dead - you get done for three defective tyres. Fined
£180

Priorities?

 

[Alistair Gunn]

Pyromancer twisted the electrons to say:
> This particular incident was indeed tragic, but to expect every driver
> to creep about at a speed which would enable them to stop perfectly
> regardless of the conditions, even if they encounter a sheet of black
> ice on an adverse bend or slope, is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

.... and yet rule 206 of the Highway Code includes the following :-

206 Drive extremely carefully when the roads are icy.
Drive particularly slowly on bends when skids are more likely.

IMHO given that the driver was (apparently) going at the same sort of
speed you'd expect for a dry summer afternoon, he was hardly inline with
rule 206.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...