Rhyll inquest starts

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

"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: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 14:42:15 +0100 someone who may be "Dave
Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> 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.
>
>"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."

AFAIR that did not involve bouncing the car off a wall.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[_]

On 06 Jun 2007 12:43:23 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:35:44 +0100, Matt B wrote:

[ Troll and response snipped ]

> regards, Ian SMith

Something broken in your filters, Ian?

 

[John Clayton]

"Marc Brett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> And more police manipulation, regarding the bald tyres:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...1&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true
>
> "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. "
>
>

This is just too damn stupid to be true. However I actually believe it.

If three out of four tyres fitted to the instrument of death were unfit for
use / illegal on the day this bloke set out in his car and available for
inspection at the site of multiple deaths / injuries why on earth was this
crucial deadline for prosecution missed?

This story becomes more daft by the day / revelation. Was the driver the
lover of someone in CPS or something? Remember this is in addition to the
other reported inadequacies.

It's still a bunch of tripe - and becoming worse.

John
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

 

[Ekul Namsob]

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.

That is irrelevant. Indeed, if five people had already lost control of
their motor vehicle on that road then surely the driver would have been
more culpable.

Cheers,
Luke


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

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> 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.
>>
>> 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 for icy conditions.

He should be being tried on four counts of culpable homicide.

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

[ This .sig subject to change without notice ]

 

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

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....

 

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

On 5 Jun, 21:29, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
> marc <[email protected]>typed
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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?
> > The inquest is to find out what happened, not to crucify drivers or
> > salve concsiences.
> > What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal processes
> > are finished.
>
> The victims did not fail to control their vehicles. The driver did.
> Please do not blame the victims.
>
> --
> Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
> Edgware.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Was the driver not also a victim?

 

[Simon Brooke]

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.

 

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

On 6 Jun, 01:57, Rob Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, marc
> [email protected] says...
>
> > 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.
>
> So how much damage are you likely to cause other people by falling off
> your bike on a patch of ice, and how much by skidding into them in an
> out-of-control car?

It the chain reaction, that is the problem.

If the car just skidded and no one there, well so what. On this
occasion the skid path included something else, hence the chain
reaction of the tragedy.

What if the a bike slipped and fell with a vehicle traveling behind
and they braked to avoid the cyclist but, ice on the road, skid.....

Who knows how things would have turned out if...., if...., if.....,
if.......

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>> marc <[email protected]>typed
>>
>>
>>> 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?
>>> The inquest is to find out what happened, not to crucify drivers or
>>> salve concsiences.
>>
>>> What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal processes
>>> are finished.
>>
>> The victims did not fail to control their vehicles. The driver did.
>> Please do not blame the victims.
>>
> A number of drivers that morning had difficulty controlling their
> vehicles, if the club run had reached the same spot, Im sure that they
> would have done also, the only difference that I can see is that one
> driver lost control at the same time that the space that was needed to
> regain control was occupied.
>
> If the road was dangerous, every road user was as much to "blame" for
> using it, or was not to blame because they coudn't have known, that
> includes the police driver , the club captain, and Robert Harris.
>
> What hasn't been decided is , was the road dangerous?

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

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

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

 

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

On 6 Jun, 07:48, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-06-06, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > marc wrote:
>
> >> I would suggest that most here who have replied would be unable to sit
> >> on that jury and follow the instructions of the coroner regarding emotion.
>
> > That may or may not be true, but then the "jury" won't be deciding
> > guilt, just cause of death AIUI.
>
> > The pisser is not that the killing of four cyclists is an emotive
> > subject but the implied "oh well, what can you do, car is king" attitude
> > of the coroner.
>
> > It would be nice if for once the whole underlying "car culture is beyond
> > criticism" **** were absented from proceedings.
>
> > Cars are in fact ****. I should know, I've got two and had dozens.
>
> "Cars" and "Car Culture" are not what's on trial in that hearing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, but it would suite the 'bike is king' group (can't use gang any
more)

 

[Daniel Barlow]

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.


-dan

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-06-06, The other view point, there is one you know... <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Jun, 07:48, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2007-06-06, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > marc wrote:
>>
>> >> I would suggest that most here who have replied would be unable to sit
>> >> on that jury and follow the instructions of the coroner regarding emotion.
>>
>> > That may or may not be true, but then the "jury" won't be deciding
>> > guilt, just cause of death AIUI.
>>
>> > The pisser is not that the killing of four cyclists is an emotive
>> > subject but the implied "oh well, what can you do, car is king" attitude
>> > of the coroner.
>>
>> > It would be nice if for once the whole underlying "car culture is beyond
>> > criticism" **** were absented from proceedings.
>>
>> > Cars are in fact ****. I should know, I've got two and had dozens.
>>
>> "Cars" and "Car Culture" are not what's on trial in that hearing.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No, but it would suite the 'bike is king' group (can't use gang any
> more)

Bike is king, I'm not going to argue with that.

 

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

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?

 

[Squashme]

On 6 Jun, 21:48, "The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 Jun, 21:29, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > marc <[email protected]>typed
>
> > > 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?
> > > The inquest is to find out what happened, not to crucify drivers or
> > > salve concsiences.
> > > What does stink is people forming lynch mobs before the legal processes
> > > are finished.
>
> > The victims did not fail to control their vehicles. The driver did.
> > Please do not blame the victims.
>
> > --
> > Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
> > Edgware.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Was the driver not also a victim?

Yes, poor love, he was a victim of the wicked Authorities who failed
to grit the road. We should be free to drive at whatever speed we
judge to be safe, and the Authorities should ensure that we can do
this and all for a low council tax too.

 

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

On 6 Jun, 14:30, 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.
>
> --
> David Hansen,

Maybe at a later stage of the inquest the figure might be mentioned,
and who they were...

Thats who also skidded on that bit of road and needed assistance to
recover the car...

Maybe, just maybe, the driver over reacted during the skid to avoid
other road users hence being all over the place, chain reaction, who
knows where the end of the chain is....

 

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

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 anyone set off with any bad intentions?

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

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> On 2007-06-06, Tony B <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>
>>> "Cars" and "Car Culture" are not what's on trial in that hearing.
>>
>> There is no trial; it's an inquest not a court of law. No-one will be
>> found guilty or innocent. That's not what it's all about - rather, the
>> inquest is supposed to determine a reason for the death under
>> consideration.
>
> I know, I should have said "not on trial", not "not what's on trial".
>
> [...]
>> 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. 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.

> Accepting a certain level of risk does go with car culture, I agree,
> since using the roads is probably the most dangerous thing many people
> do in their everyday lives.

That isn't acceptable: there is absolutely no reason why using the roads
should be dangerous. We wouldn't accept this sort of deathtoll on the
railways, the airlines, or shipping. We wouldn't accept it in any
industry. We should not accept it on the roads.

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

[ This mind intentionally left blank ]

 

[Martin Dann]

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.