Rhyll CC inquest

Brightsparkcp · June 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6722523.stm

On the second day of the inquest at Abergele, the jury heard how drivers had passed police at the scene of an accident in which a car had left the road.

A former administrator in the highways department of the old Clwyd County Council told the inquest he felt the road was in immediate need of gritting.

On Monday, coroner for North East Wales, John Hughes, told the jury the route was not gritted by Conwy Council on the morning of 8 January 2006, despite frost having been forecast.

Drivers have recalled the icy conditions on the A547

Mr Hughes 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.

Two police officers contacted their control room after briefly losing control of their Ford Galaxy that morning, the inquest heard.

The inquest, which continues, is expected to last up to six weeks, and will hear from around 200 witnesses.

rothbook · June 2007

And more police manipulation, regarding the bald tyres:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ?in_arti...

"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. "

chuckles · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

And more police manipulation, regarding the bald tyres:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/
news.html?in_arti...

"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. "

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not sure that the bald tyres were relevant in this case. Tread is only there to aid water dispersion from underneath the tyres aiding grip in wet conditions. The driver was going too fast for the conditions and should have been dealt with because of this. The council are also culpable through neglecting their duty of care by failing to grit the road.

Chuckles

The Endorser · June 2007

The link doesn't work mate.

Odds are the dibble were simply following CPS advice (which they have to do) on whether or not to charge with any particular offences or non compliances. There is a timetable (usually 3 to 6 weeks) for the OIC to deliver the facts requested to the CPS lawyer advising, so they (the Criminal Protection Service)can dictate how the investigation then progresses with a view to charging or not. The CPS then set 'milestones' in time for certain tasks to be completed - if something has not been done, or a charge not proffered, you should be directing your ire towards the ametuers overseeing the prosection and not the poor schmucks who simply do their best to gather the evidence. The police have not been the charging body since 1984, and have not made charging decisions since 2003!

The dibble are also banned from publically pointing this out, leaving the old bill to take it on the chin when the charging decision in almost all cases (except those involving children, or minor offences with an offender eligible for a caution) it is the CPS's ball to run with.

Perhaps a more thoruough understanding of how our creaking criminal justice system works is required before making judgements.

Taking the moral high ground since 1969

Jaded · June 2007

The bald tyres may not have been relevant in relation to sliding on ice, however they do indicate how seriously the driver took his responsibilities.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Bokonon · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by chuckles
...

Not sure that the bald tyres were relevant in this case. Tread is only there to aid water dispersion from underneath the tyres aiding grip in wet conditions.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You are confusing tread and tread pattern. The outer rubber of a tyre is the tread, and will be of a softish compound that allows the tyre to grip. When a tyre goes bald, a harder rubber underneath (which gives structural support) is left. This doesn't provide grip. Even a slick tyre (as found on racing cars of old) has tread - if you examine one closely you will find small stepped holes that indicate how much tread is left.

If you don't have tread, the tyre doesn't grip. Tread is very much relevant in how a car will behave under cornering and braking.

The tread pattern is the groves or other features moulded into the tread and aids water dissipation. It is the gradual disappearance of this that is used to assess wear to the tread.

Mr Celine · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by chuckles

Not sure that the bald tyres were relevant in this case. Tread is only there to aid water dispersion from underneath the tyres aiding grip in wet conditions. The driver was going too fast for the conditions and should have been dealt with because of this. The council are also culpable through neglecting their duty of care by failing to grit the road.

Chuckles
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ice melts under pressure. Just watch a game of curling. The sweepers brush the ice in front of a curling stone to produce a layer of water on which the stone will slide faster.

yenrodcp · June 2007

At the end of the day - it was just a jerk in a car and sadly...

[;)] 'tuono nel mio cuore...[:)]

spen666 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Endorser

The link doesn't work mate.

Odds are the dibble were simply following CPS advice (which they have to do) on whether or not to charge with any particular offences or non compliances. There is a timetable (usually 3 to 6 weeks) for the OIC to deliver the facts requested to the CPS lawyer advising, so they (the Criminal Protection Service)can dictate how the investigation then progresses with a view to charging or not. The CPS then set 'milestones' in time for certain tasks to be completed - if something has not been done, or a charge not proffered, you should be directing your ire towards the ametuers overseeing the prosection and not the poor schmucks who simply do their best to gather the evidence. The police have not been the charging body since 1984, and have not made charging decisions since 2003!
The dibble are also banned from publically pointing this out, leaving the old bill to take it on the chin when the charging decision in almost all cases (except those involving children, or minor offences with an offender eligible for a caution) it is the CPS's ball to run with.

Perhaps a more thoruough understanding of how our creaking criminal justice system works is required before making judgements.

Taking the moral high ground since 1969
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How many more false "statements do you want to get into one post?

Perhaps a more thoruough understanding of how our creaking criminal justice system works is required before making judgements.

22nd March can't come soon enough, neither can 26th May 2007

Carbon Footprint what Carbon Footprint?

Howardcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by chuckles

Not sure that the bald tyres were relevant in this case. Tread is only there to aid water dispersion from underneath the tyres aiding grip in wet conditions. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have serious doubts about this. On the Continent the use of winter-specific tyres is widespread, and you may be held to be liable if you don't have them fitted and have a crash on an icy or snowy road. I am not talking about studded tyres, rather rubber ones which give more grip on snow and ice due to the additional sipes which are cut into the blocks of treads. These extra edges grip any rugosities in the ice and help to clear that layer of melt-water which makes ice so slippery out of the way. Now if such an extra tread pattern can give significantly more grip on ice than a normal summer tyre (the Continental winter tyres I have on my car are supposed to reduce one's braking distance on ice by 16%) does it not make sense to assume that the treaded surface of a summer tyre provides at least some more grip than a totally bald one, even on ice?

That said, the main factor almost undoubtedly was driving on a bendy road in the middle of winter when it was quite predictable that ice was around at a speed that was only just legal (if we believe the driver that is...) on a straight road on a perfect summers day.

Cretin · June 2007

Winter tyres are tyres that have a compound which performs better at lower temperatures than standard all season tyres. The also have a deeper tread pattern for displacing water and snow. They offer no extra grip on black ice.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The man could have been doing 35mph and may still have lost control on the same patch of ice.

Howardcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Winter tyres are tyres that have a compound which performs better at lower temperatures than standard all season tyres. The also have a deeper tread pattern for displacing water and snow. They offer no extra grip on black ice. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's not what the manufacturers claim. Do a bit of research into 'winter' tyre technology...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The man could have been doing 35mph and may still have lost control on the same patch of ice.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So how come of all the motorists to drive along that 'A' road that morning, only this driver and one other crashed? If black ice were wholly to blame I would have expected every car to have skidded off the road.

In addition, there are already conflicting claims as to how bad the conditions were, with several witnesses at the inquest saying that there was no problem with ice, so it is not even established that he actually did hit black ice, despite the police effectively excusing the driver even before an proper inquest had been held. Worst of all when the crash was first reported the idiot in charge of the investigation was saying that the driver was not to blame even though his offices could clearly be seen in the background still marking up the road and gathering data! I suspect there will be rather a lot of back-covering going on in this inquest.

Howardcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The man could have been doing 35mph and may still have lost control on the same patch of ice.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is not about hindsight it is about foresight.

What is the correct response when a driver sets off on a winters day when ice could well be around?

1) Drive along as though it were a summers day at an almost certainly lethal speed just trusting to luck that they won't skid off the road and kill someone?

2) Take into account the conditions, even reducing their speed to, say no more than 30 Mph, so that if they do skid off the road, at least they have a good chance of avoiding killing anyone they hit outright?

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Howard

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Winter tyres are tyres that have a compound which performs better at lower temperatures than standard all season tyres. The also have a deeper tread pattern for displacing water and snow. They offer no extra grip on black ice. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's not what the manufacturers claim. Do a bit of research into 'winter' tyre technology...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have. Between what manufacturers claim and what actually happens can often be a very wide gulf, but I haven't seen any winter tyre manufacturer claim that their tyre can increase traction on black ice. You need studs for that.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Howard
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The man could have been doing 35mph and may still have lost control on the same patch of ice.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So how come of all the motorists to drive along that 'A' road that morning, only this driver and one other crashed? If black ice were wholly to blame I would have expected every car to have skidded off the road.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You would expect that but only if the ice was covering the entirety of the lane. What none of us know is how many vehicles lost traction but managed to retrain control, and indeed how many vehicles used that road that morning. You would also only expect every vehicle of similar weight, track, speed and angle of attack with identical tyres and identical driver skid skills to also crash. Not just 'all vehicles'. Most drivers have no experience in dealing with skids, no training is given (a mistake IMO).

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Howard
In addition, there are already conflicting claims as to how bad the conditions were, with several witnesses at the inquest saying that there was no problem with ice, so it is not even established that he actually did hit black ice, despite the police effectively excusing the driver even before an proper inquest had been held. Worst of all when the crash was first reported the idiot in charge of the investigation was saying that the driver was not to blame even though his offices could clearly be seen in the background still marking up the road and gathering data! I suspect there will be rather a lot of back-covering going on in this inquest. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You do not need an inquest to determine what happened. This is why we have police officers trained in accident investigation, officers who would make their recommendation to the CPS based on the evidence they collect. It wouldn't be difficult to gauge the speed of a vehicle in such an incident, thats probably what happened, some member of the press asks if the crash was related to speeding, the officer says in his opinion no. I see no problem with that. The police are asked questions all the time, they're not obliged to keep quiet, such statements hardly prejudice the investigation.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Howard

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The man could have been doing 35mph and may still have lost control on the same patch of ice.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is not about hindsight it is about foresight.

What is the correct response when a driver sets off on a winters day when ice could well be around?

1) Drive along as though it were a summers day at an almost certainly lethal speed just trusting to luck that they won't skid off the road and kill someone?

2) Take into account the conditions, even reducing their speed to, say no more than 30 Mph, so that if they do skid off the road, at least they have a good chance of avoiding killing anyone they hit outright?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You really think that such accidents are foreseeable? I've never heard of such a thing happening before now. I wouldn't call 50mph in such conditions excessive. Its just a number, it means nothing to me since I haven't visited the road in question. Perhaps the driver was taking care. Perhaps he saw the cyclists in the distance, applied the brakes gently, and the back end slipped out of his control - do any of us know what really happened?

Sometimes you have to accept that accidents can happen, and I think in the truest sense of the word, this was an accident - an event that occurs unexpectedly and unintentionally.

rothbook · June 2007

Travelling at an lethal speed in an unmaintained car on an icy day and killing 4 people is not an "accident".There is a suitable speed for these sorts of driving conditions and IMO it ain't 50mph.

The cops behaviour throughout has been appalling.

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.

Howardcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

You really think that such accidents are foreseeable? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, it is quite foreseeable that on a day when temperatures are below zero there may be icy patches around.

Some are saying that the cyclists were at fault for being out on such a day. I would say given that it was a motor vehicle that hit them, rather then the cyclists falling off and skidding under an oncoming truck, perhaps anyone who ventures out in a motor vehicle on such a day must be held liable in the event of a crash as well...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin I've never heard of such a thing happening before now. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What? You have never head of a vehicle skidding off a road because the driver was going too fast for the conditions?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin I wouldn't call 50mph in such conditions excessive. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Neither did the driver in this case- assuming he was going at 50Mph and not faster. Result: four dead cyclists.

Howardcp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

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. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I lived in the Vosges last winter when it was down to minus 10 and only the motorways were being gritted. I drove to the local cross-country skiing areas every weekend and once off the motorway almost all drivers were doing no more than 20- 30 Mph.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Howard

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

You really think that such accidents are foreseeable? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, it is quite foreseeable that on a day when temperatures are below zero there may be icy patches around.

Some are saying that the cyclists were at fault for being out on such a day. I would say given that it was a motor vehicle that hit them, rather then the cyclists falling off and skidding under an oncoming truck, perhaps anyone who ventures out in a motor vehicle on such a day must be held liable in the event of a crash as well...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin I've never heard of such a thing happening before now. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What? You have never head of a vehicle skidding off a road because the driver was going too fast for the conditions?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin I wouldn't call 50mph in such conditions excessive. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Neither did the driver in this case- assuming he was going at 50Mph and not faster. Result: four dead cyclists.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Its forseeable you might lose control and leave the road, is it forseeable that a group of cyclists would be approaching just as that happened? I say not.

I wouldn't blame the cyclists for anything.

Why do you say 'assuming he was going at 50mph and not faster'? For all you know he could have been doing less than the estimated speed.

Blaming the motorist for this accident is just silly. Not even the cyclists involved blamed him, and unlike you, they were there as it happened. Why aren't you willing to accept their version of events?

Tom Butcher · June 2007

It's a road with lanes in either direction so of course it's forseeable there will be traffic coming in the other direction. I think it's very likely the driver is to blame - most cars do drive too fast and as plenty had got round this bend OK it makes me wonder why this one didn't.

Warning about well known bike shop removed at request of moderators.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spen666

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Endorser

The link doesn't work mate.

Odds are the dibble were simply following CPS advice (which they have to do) on whether or not to charge with any particular offences or non compliances. There is a timetable (usually 3 to 6 weeks) for the OIC to deliver the facts requested to the CPS lawyer advising, so they (the Criminal Protection Service)can dictate how the investigation then progresses with a view to charging or not. The CPS then set 'milestones' in time for certain tasks to be completed - if something has not been done, or a charge not proffered, you should be directing your ire towards the ametuers overseeing the prosection and not the poor schmucks who simply do their best to gather the evidence. The police have not been the charging body since 1984, and have not made charging decisions since 2003!
The dibble are also banned from publically pointing this out, leaving the old bill to take it on the chin when the charging decision in almost all cases (except those involving children, or minor offences with an offender eligible for a caution) it is the CPS's ball to run with.

Perhaps a more thoruough understanding of how our creaking criminal justice system works is required before making judgements.

Taking the moral high ground since 1969
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How many more false "statements do you want to get into one post?

Perhaps a more thoruough understanding of how our creaking criminal justice system works is required before making judgements.

22nd March can't come soon enough, neither can 26th May 2007

Carbon Footprint what Carbon Footprint?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You beat me to it, Spen. What a complete load of cobblers.
I would suggest a look at PCEA 1984 for starters.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> is it forseeable that a group of cyclists would be approaching just as that happened? I say not. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Cretin never anticipates any other traffic on the roads he drives on.

Time to hand your licence in old boy.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tom Butcher

It's a road with lanes in either direction so of course it's forseeable there will be traffic coming in the other direction. I think it's very likely the driver is to blame - most cars do drive too fast and as plenty had got round this bend OK it makes me wonder why this one didn't.

Warning about well known bike shop removed at request of moderators.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The police and courts do not think the driver is to blame. The cyclists involved do not think he is to blame.

Why do you think he is to blame?

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The police and courts do not think the driver is to blame. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Harris pleaded guilty. He was found guilty. You don't know what you are talking about.

rothbook · June 2007

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.

andy_wrx · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by rothbook

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The police and courts do not think the driver is to blame. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Harris pleaded guilty. He was found guilty. You don't know what you are talking about.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Pleaded guilty to what ?
To driving with bald tyres
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5241798.stm
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
He admitted three counts of driving with defective tyres and was fined œ180 at Llandudno Magistrates' Court.
Magistrates said the defective tyres "were not a contributory factor".
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

He hasn't been found guilty of manslaughter of the cyclists if I remember rightly, because he hasn't been tried.
The police & CPS have either decided he isn't guilty of that or that they haven't the evidence to secure conviction if he is.

And 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Let's wait and see what the inquest concludes.
That's why there is an inquest, rather than allowing this forum to have jurisdiction !

Howardcp · June 2007

Interesting how so many on here have attacked those who argued that there must have been something particular about the way that motorist who killed those 4 cyclists was driving, or possibly something wrong with his car which contributed to the crash. (Such as 3 bald tyres...). After all only that car and one other crashes along that section of road all morning.

Anyhow, it seems those who said he might well have been driving at a speed that was not just not excessive for the conditions but also above the legal limit may well have been right. Latest news is that the driver may have been doing as much as 70 Mph...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6730543.stm

Thing is, given the failure of the police to bring charges, it seems this person may escape prosecution, no matter what the inquest discovers. That is assuming that it does reveal everything that is known and doesn't just become one big white-wash job...

rothbook · June 2007

More humiliation for the police.

Complaints about Chief Inspector Adams were made to the Police Complaints Authority. One wonders how he sleeps at night, let alone Harris himself.

Scott Eccles, secretary of Rhyl Cycling Club, said: "There was a car coming
the other way. There was a kink in the road and it was icy.

"Apparently there had been an accident on the same stretch earlier.

"The car lost control, went up the grass verge, and then it came across the
road and into them. They were dead straight away."

'Terrible news'

Mr Eccles said the section of road, which is generally straight but has one
area with sharp bends, was known to be "dangerous".

In September last year, the A547 in the Abergele area was named among the 11
most deadly roads in north Wales by police.

Abergele councillor Richard Waters said: "Seeing cyclists on the road is
quite a common sight here because it is a lovely area.

Cretin claims you cannot possibly expect oncoming traffic on a road popular with cyclists. Typical crapspeed ignorance.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The police and courts do not think the driver is to blame. The cyclists involved do not think he is to blame.

Why do you think he is to blame? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

More lies:

"In a statement issued through their solicitor, Sue Bence, the families
said they were disappointed Harris had not faced a more serious charge.
They said: "The families of the cyclists killed and injured in the
fatal road traffic collision near Abergele on January 8, 2006 and their
solicitor, are very disappointed and surprised at the decision of the
Chief Crown Prosecutor to prosecute only, for the offence of using a
vehicle with three defective tyres."

So a crapspeed poster decides to visit a cycling forum, post lies about a so-called "anti-car sentiment" here and then tells lies about the families of the victims of the Rhyl cycling tragedy. It's the old, old story of victim-blaming by a driiver who refuses to accept that speeding is bad driving.

At the time of the collision, the police reported that the driver was
within the speed limit and had not been drinking; hence the fatalities
were simply a tragic accident. Following protests from cycling
organisations, the police apologised for these comments. Yet the courts
have still had no opportunity to consider whether or not the speed was
appropriate to the conditions.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Howard
Anyhow, it seems those who said he might well have been driving at a speed that was not just not excessive for the conditions but also above the legal limit may well have been right. Latest news is that the driver may have been doing as much as 70 Mph...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6730543.stm

Thing is, given the failure of the police to bring charges, it seems this person may escape prosecution, no matter what the inquest discovers. That is assuming that it does reveal everything that is known and doesn't just become one big white-wash job...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Given the choice between eyewitness accounts of a vehicle's speed (50mph or 70mph - a difference which is very difficult to gauge by anybody but a following vehicle), and a police report from an incident investigation officer, I know which I'd trust.

I guess most sensible people (yourself included I hope) will choose to wait and see what the outcome of this inquest is before jumping to conclusions,

andy_wrx · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by HowardLatest news is that the driver may have been doing as much as 70 Mph...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6730543.stm<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm reading this as it being one of the other cyclists who said the driver may have been doing 70mph.
But another witness, a driver following the cyclists, estimated the car's speed at 50mph.

Can't see anyone's guess as to the speed of an oncoming vehicle holding-up in court.

If someone had had a radar speed-gun it would be a differnt matter, or even a witness who was a driver following him who was doing about the same speed.

Time to dig-out the Summer bike (why's it just started raining ? Is it something I said ?)

Rhyll CC inquest

Comments

Categories