Rhyl Cycling Club Deaths - Driver Charged

[Paul Boyd]

Sniper8052(L96A1) said the following on 22/06/2006 07:31:

> Whilst I hate to say this the article may just be poorly written. The
> article seems to suggest that the two incidents are connected but
> doesn't actually say so

Hmmm.... You are right of course - there is no direct connection
mentioned in the article. It is just written in such a way that the
connection is implied. Dodgy journalism it seems, and from the BBC!
(Dodgy because it should be implicitly clear as to whether there is a
connection or not.)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[dkahn400]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:

> Whilst I hate to say this the article may just be poorly written. The
> article seems to suggest that the two incidents are connected but
> doesn't actually say so and lacks the bite I would expect if they were.
> It may be the case that at the time of incident one there was no defect
> with the tyres and now six months later he has been stopped and found
> with three defective tyres assuming this is the same vehicle which it
> may not be as that is not stated either. Of course if one can then
> print the chap was the same fellow who killed four cyclists one has a
> news article. Not that I don't think the guy should be banned for life
> and jailed.

Sniper will be able to confirm this but I understand that it is
standard procedure to impound a vehicle after it has been involved in a
fatal crash and give it a thorough inspection as well as a record
check. Any defects or other irregularities found could lead to action
against the driver and/or owner.

It may be in this case that 3 tyres had less than the legal minimum
depth of tread, or maybe other defects, and the driver is being
prosecuted on this alone, without regard to the crash. Even if the
tyres were defective they may not have contributed to the driver's loss
of control. Tyre tread is there to displace water. On a dry, icy road
there may be virtually no difference in the break-away point between
the defective tyres found and brand new ones.

IOW I'm surmising that the prosection is simply over defective tyres,
and a police or CPS expert may have judged that these tyres, while
potentially dangerous in wet conditions, were unlikely to have
contributed to the driver's loss of control in the conditions on that
day.

I still think that excessive speed for the road conditions is the
immediate cause of the crash. It's possible, I suppose, but IMV
unlikely that the conditions were so unusual that a reasonable driver
could have lost control, but I agree with Tony and others that Chief
Inspector Adams's comments have made any prosecution relating to
dangerous driving extremely difficult.

--
Dave...

 

[dkahn400]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:

> Whilst I hate to say this the article may just be poorly written. The
> article seems to suggest that the two incidents are connected but
> doesn't actually say so and lacks the bite I would expect if they were.
> It may be the case that at the time of incident one there was no defect
> with the tyres and now six months later he has been stopped and found
> with three defective tyres assuming this is the same vehicle which it
> may not be as that is not stated either. Of course if one can then
> print the chap was the same fellow who killed four cyclists one has a
> news article. Not that I don't think the guy should be banned for life
> and jailed.

Sniper will be able to confirm this but I understand that it is
standard procedure to impound a vehicle after it has been involved in a
fatal crash and give it a thorough inspection as well as a record
check. Any defects or other irregularities found could lead to action
against the driver and/or owner.

It may be in this case that 3 tyres had less than the legal minimum
depth of tread, or maybe other defects, and the driver is being
prosecuted on this alone, without regard to the crash. Even if the
tyres were defective they may not have contributed to the driver's loss
of control. Tyre tread is there to displace water. On a dry, icy road
there may be virtually no difference in the break-away point between
the defective tyres found and brand new ones.

IOW I'm surmising that the prosection is simply over defective tyres,
and a police or CPS expert may have judged that these tyres, while
potentially dangerous in wet conditions, were unlikely to have
contributed to the driver's loss of control in the conditions on that
day.

I still think that excessive speed for the road conditions is the
immediate cause of the crash. It's possible, I suppose, but IMV
unlikely that the conditions were so unusual that a reasonable driver
could have lost control, but I agree with Tony and others that Chief
Inspector Adams's comments have made any prosecution relating to
dangerous driving extremely difficult.

--
Dave...

 

[[email protected]]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> p.k. said the following on 21/06/2006 21:14:
>
> > The next to last is relevant. : Driving with actual knowledge of a dangerous
> > defect on a vehicle.
>
> Surely in law it's the driver's responsibility to ensure his car isn't
> dangerous. You can't get away with ignorance of the law in other areas,
> so why should you be able to get away with ignorance of the state of
> your car?
>
Unfortunately, it's ignorance of the law, not ignorance of the facts
that cannot be used as a defence.

However, I would have thought that, for driving with defective tyres, a
reasonable person would be expected to check the state of their tyres
regularly enough to not get caught out.

Tim.

 

[[email protected]]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> p.k. said the following on 21/06/2006 21:14:
>
> > The next to last is relevant. : Driving with actual knowledge of a dangerous
> > defect on a vehicle.
>
> Surely in law it's the driver's responsibility to ensure his car isn't
> dangerous. You can't get away with ignorance of the law in other areas,
> so why should you be able to get away with ignorance of the state of
> your car?
>
Unfortunately, it's ignorance of the law, not ignorance of the facts
that cannot be used as a defence.

However, I would have thought that, for driving with defective tyres, a
reasonable person would be expected to check the state of their tyres
regularly enough to not get caught out.

Tim.

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

dkahn400 wrote:

>>
>> Sniper will be able to confirm this but I understand that it is
>> standard procedure to impound a vehicle after it has been involved in a
>> fatal crash and give it a thorough inspection as well as a record
>> check. Any defects or other irregularities found could lead to action
>> against the driver and/or owner.
>>
>> It may be in this case that 3 tyres had less than the legal minimum
>> depth of tread, or maybe other defects, and the driver is being
>> prosecuted on this alone, without regard to the crash. Even if the
>> tyres were defective they may not have contributed to the driver's loss
>> of control. Tyre tread is there to displace water. On a dry, icy road
>> there may be virtually no difference in the break-away point between
>> the defective tyres found and brand new ones.
>>
>> IOW I'm surmising that the prosection is simply over defective tyres,
>> and a police or CPS expert may have judged that these tyres, while
>> potentially dangerous in wet conditions, were unlikely to have
>> contributed to the driver's loss of control in the conditions on that
>> day.
>>
>> I still think that excessive speed for the road conditions is the
>> immediate cause of the crash. It's possible, I suppose, but IMV
>> unlikely that the conditions were so unusual that a reasonable driver
>> could have lost control, but I agree with Tony and others that Chief
>> Inspector Adams's comments have made any prosecution relating to
>> dangerous driving extremely difficult.
>>


I am not an expert on this area and would normally refer to Traffic in
the case of a fatal collision but as far as I understand it would be
normal for a vehicle involved in such an incident to be seized and for
it to be given a thorough examination. That examination would be used
to assess if any defects found on the vehicle contributed to the
incident or made the outcome of the incident worse. After such
examination the vehicle might be kept as an article to be produced in
evidence or returned to the owner - dependent on circumstances.
My opinion is as yours, careless driving in the form of excess speed for
the conditions at the time. Mr Adams should IMV be officially
reprimanded for commenting in such a way as he reported to have done on
an investigation that had not, to my knowledge, been completed or in my
view even started.

Sniper8052

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

dkahn400 wrote:

>>
>> Sniper will be able to confirm this but I understand that it is
>> standard procedure to impound a vehicle after it has been involved in a
>> fatal crash and give it a thorough inspection as well as a record
>> check. Any defects or other irregularities found could lead to action
>> against the driver and/or owner.
>>
>> It may be in this case that 3 tyres had less than the legal minimum
>> depth of tread, or maybe other defects, and the driver is being
>> prosecuted on this alone, without regard to the crash. Even if the
>> tyres were defective they may not have contributed to the driver's loss
>> of control. Tyre tread is there to displace water. On a dry, icy road
>> there may be virtually no difference in the break-away point between
>> the defective tyres found and brand new ones.
>>
>> IOW I'm surmising that the prosection is simply over defective tyres,
>> and a police or CPS expert may have judged that these tyres, while
>> potentially dangerous in wet conditions, were unlikely to have
>> contributed to the driver's loss of control in the conditions on that
>> day.
>>
>> I still think that excessive speed for the road conditions is the
>> immediate cause of the crash. It's possible, I suppose, but IMV
>> unlikely that the conditions were so unusual that a reasonable driver
>> could have lost control, but I agree with Tony and others that Chief
>> Inspector Adams's comments have made any prosecution relating to
>> dangerous driving extremely difficult.
>>


I am not an expert on this area and would normally refer to Traffic in
the case of a fatal collision but as far as I understand it would be
normal for a vehicle involved in such an incident to be seized and for
it to be given a thorough examination. That examination would be used
to assess if any defects found on the vehicle contributed to the
incident or made the outcome of the incident worse. After such
examination the vehicle might be kept as an article to be produced in
evidence or returned to the owner - dependent on circumstances.
My opinion is as yours, careless driving in the form of excess speed for
the conditions at the time. Mr Adams should IMV be officially
reprimanded for commenting in such a way as he reported to have done on
an investigation that had not, to my knowledge, been completed or in my
view even started.

Sniper8052

 

[naked_draughtsman]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Squashme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Does this mean that being ignorant can mean that you are innocent?
> >
> > Is someone too stupid to know that he should check his tyres less
> > culpable in law than a smarter guy, who knows but is too lazy or too
> > cheap to do anything about it?
> >
>
> The "defect" is unchecked tyres. Stupid vs. smart & lazy is moot.

One of the questions you need to be able to answer ot pass your driving
test is how to check the tyres and what the minimum depth is.
Therefore, if you didn't know they were defective, you shouldn't be
allowed to drrive!
OTOH, the majority of drivers didn't need to know this to pass their
driving test so ignorance may lead to leniance.

peter