Four cyclists killed in car crash
Discussion
News link here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4592412. So sad, my thoughts go to the familys. Derek.
Discussed here: www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=233510
Jaglover's post on page 3 of the thread above prompts me to reopen it here.
Chief Inspector Lyn Adams of North Wales Police said: "The driver had lost control (on a gentle left hand bend) because of the ice on the road. There is no indication that this is down to excessive speed. Our best estimate at the moment is that the car was driving at something like 50 miles per hour. On a road like this, that isn't excessive."
So let's restate that: "Driving at 50mph round a bend on an icy road is not excessive speed." And this from the force that believes that driving at 71 mph in light traffic on a straight, three-lane, dual-carriageway is excessive!
Funny old world, isn't it?
Streaky
Chief Inspector Lyn Adams of North Wales Police said: "The driver had lost control (on a gentle left hand bend) because of the ice on the road. There is no indication that this is down to excessive speed. Our best estimate at the moment is that the car was driving at something like 50 miles per hour. On a road like this, that isn't excessive."
So let's restate that: "Driving at 50mph round a bend on an icy road is not excessive speed." And this from the force that believes that driving at 71 mph in light traffic on a straight, three-lane, dual-carriageway is excessive!
Funny old world, isn't it?
Streaky
streaky said:
Jaglover's post on page 3 of the thread above prompts me to reopen it here.
Chief Inspector Lyn Adams of North Wales Police said: "The driver had lost control (on a gentle left hand bend) because of the ice on the road. There is no indication that this is down to excessive speed. Our best estimate at the moment is that the car was driving at something like 50 miles per hour. On a road like this, that isn't excessive."
So let's restate that: "Driving at 50mph round a bend on an icy road is not excessive speed." And this from the force that believes that driving at 71 mph in light traffic on a straight, three-lane, dual-carriageway is excessive!
Funny old world, isn't it?
Streaky
I have been following the discussion about this accident on PH, SafeSpeed as well as on C plus forums. A lot of people have commented on the issue of "excessive speed" and have got worked up about what the police have said. Personally I think that some people have misunderstood the police quote and this is down to the definition of what is "excessive speed".
The term "excessive" has been used for a long time to describe a speed that is above the posted speed limit, immaterial of whether the speed is appropriate for the conditions. If this definition is held true, then in the context of this accident, the speed of the car was not indeed excessive, as it was travelling at 10mph below the posted NSL limit.
Similarly, as Streaky points out, ".....driving at 71 mph in light traffic on a straight, three-lane, dual-carriageway is excessive" only because it is technically above the speed limit for that read.
The issue of whether 50mph was appropriate for the conditions is a completely separate matter and one that I am sure will be debated over for a long time to come.
Was going to post this comment myself.
This cuts right to the core of current road policy and policing - no one understands the difference anymore between excessive speed and exceeding the statutory limit; worse they think that there is no difference.
By definition, this drivers speed was excessive for the conditions, his car or his competance. We cannot say whether it was recklessly so because we weren't there.
However, because he was under the posted speed limit its OK to kill 4 people and ice is considered by Police and now the press an acceptable mishap of which the driver cannot be aware (Were the wet road and low temperature not a hint ??) However, if he had been doing 65 on a dry summers day and hit a diesel spill (somewhat less predicable than ice), with the same result, I suspect he would end up in the clink.
I would not mind betting this driver does 50 round that bend every time he travels that way, rain or shine and every other bend he negotiates - he's the kind of driver this government loves. I don't intend to villify him (without the full facts its pointless), but it continues to bother me what a lame attitude this country is taking to road safety.
Turn on the radio & the cruise control and switch off your brain, you know its what they want.
This cuts right to the core of current road policy and policing - no one understands the difference anymore between excessive speed and exceeding the statutory limit; worse they think that there is no difference.
By definition, this drivers speed was excessive for the conditions, his car or his competance. We cannot say whether it was recklessly so because we weren't there.
However, because he was under the posted speed limit its OK to kill 4 people and ice is considered by Police and now the press an acceptable mishap of which the driver cannot be aware (Were the wet road and low temperature not a hint ??) However, if he had been doing 65 on a dry summers day and hit a diesel spill (somewhat less predicable than ice), with the same result, I suspect he would end up in the clink.
I would not mind betting this driver does 50 round that bend every time he travels that way, rain or shine and every other bend he negotiates - he's the kind of driver this government loves. I don't intend to villify him (without the full facts its pointless), but it continues to bother me what a lame attitude this country is taking to road safety.
Turn on the radio & the cruise control and switch off your brain, you know its what they want.
volvos70t5 said:
Personally, I use the terms "inappropriate" to describe a speed which is too fast but ignores what the limit is and "excessive" to mean over the limit.
So any speed under the limit is never excessive? Doing 60 through a village with a May Day parade of children in the street and no pavements would be pretty excessive in my view, regardless of a natinal speed limit in force.
thirsty33 said:
Personally, I use the terms "inappropriate" to describe a speed which is too fast but ignores what the limit is and "excessive" to mean over the limit.
So any speed under the limit is never excessive? Doing 60 through a village with a May Day parade of children in the street and no pavements would be pretty excessive in my view, regardless of a natinal speed limit in force.
or pretty inappropriate?
thirsty33 said:
Personally, I use the terms "inappropriate" to describe a speed which is too fast but ignores what the limit is and "excessive" to mean over the limit.
So any speed under the limit is never excessive? Doing 60 through a village with a May Day parade of children in the street and no pavements would be pretty excessive in my view, regardless of a natinal speed limit in force.
Exactly!
The term excessive is used by Police to mean above the posted speed limit.
In the example that you have given, the speed would be inappropriate or dangerous, but not excessive if the speed limit was not broken.
As I said before, the confusion has arisen because people do not understand the definition of excessive.
A tragic event.
My issue with the Police response is that they are effectively removing responsibility from the driver. There is obviously the confusion about "appropriate" and "excessive" speed. By saying that 50mph is ok for a certain road removes all responsibility for a driver to observe and act on the road conditions as they develop. True, maybe the road should have been gritted - but maybe the road gritter was elsewhere gritting a road that hadn't been done for a longer period that the road in question? Maybe the road gritter was due to grit that stretch of road in the next hour? We can't expect every single piece of road to be freshly maintained so that we can drive at the posted speed limit everywhere. We are in danger of getting more into a 'blame' culture where we don't take any responsibility for our own actions.
Driving isn't black and white, there are grey areas. Sometimes it is perfectly safe to drive at 80 on a motorway on a clear day with light traffic. Othertimes it is dangerous to drive above 20 in a 30 limit. However recent campaigns seem to have brainwashed people into thinking that as long as they don't go over the speed limit they're perfectly safe.
My issue with the Police response is that they are effectively removing responsibility from the driver. There is obviously the confusion about "appropriate" and "excessive" speed. By saying that 50mph is ok for a certain road removes all responsibility for a driver to observe and act on the road conditions as they develop. True, maybe the road should have been gritted - but maybe the road gritter was elsewhere gritting a road that hadn't been done for a longer period that the road in question? Maybe the road gritter was due to grit that stretch of road in the next hour? We can't expect every single piece of road to be freshly maintained so that we can drive at the posted speed limit everywhere. We are in danger of getting more into a 'blame' culture where we don't take any responsibility for our own actions.
Driving isn't black and white, there are grey areas. Sometimes it is perfectly safe to drive at 80 on a motorway on a clear day with light traffic. Othertimes it is dangerous to drive above 20 in a 30 limit. However recent campaigns seem to have brainwashed people into thinking that as long as they don't go over the speed limit they're perfectly safe.
jon_w said:
A tragic event.
My issue with the Police response is that they are effectively removing responsibility from the driver. There is obviously the confusion about "appropriate" and "excessive" speed. By saying that 50mph is ok for a certain road removes all responsibility for a driver to observe and act on the road conditions as they develop. True, maybe the road should have been gritted - but maybe the road gritter was elsewhere gritting a road that hadn't been done for a longer period that the road in question? Maybe the road gritter was due to grit that stretch of road in the next hour? We can't expect every single piece of road to be freshly maintained so that we can drive at the posted speed limit everywhere. We are in danger of getting more into a 'blame' culture where we don't take any responsibility for our own actions.
Driving isn't black and white, there are grey areas. Sometimes it is perfectly safe to drive at 80 on a motorway on a clear day with light traffic. Othertimes it is dangerous to drive above 20 in a 30 limit. However recent campaigns seem to have brainwashed people into thinking that as long as they don't go over the speed limit they're perfectly safe.
My views exactly. How ironic is it that the one police area accused more than any other of relying too much on a blanket 'speed and safety' policy has a chief who does not know the difference between inappropriate and excessive. All this does is put the idea in the mind of the public as as long as you dont break the limit you will be ok. If you do break the limit you kill people.
This is a tragedy and whilst as a reader of the report I do not know exactly what happened, but for a car to lose control in icy conditions, by definition their speed was excessive. Unfortunately I put these deaths down to the speeding policy, the money spent on useless cameras which do not promote safety and a basic lack of driver education.
In North Wales you can drive 20mph over the limit on a bright sunny day on a dead straight dual carriageway and get given 6 points and a £300 fine for driving perfectly within the road conditions, the weather conditions and the abilities of the driver and the car.
Then in the winter, you can lose control of your vehiclce driving at a speed beyond your own ability, your cars ability and faster than the weather allows and kill four people, and you get a thumbs up and support from the chief of police because you were not breaking the limit.
The saddest part of this is I do not think that this is the first or the last tragedy that will happen before the policy is changed.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 9th January 14:05
jon_w said:
A tragic event.
My issue with the Police response is that they are effectively removing responsibility from the driver. There is obviously the confusion about "appropriate" and "excessive" speed. By saying that 50mph is ok for a certain road removes all responsibility for a driver to observe and act on the road conditions as they develop. True, maybe the road should have been gritted - but maybe the road gritter was elsewhere gritting a road that hadn't been done for a longer period that the road in question? Maybe the road gritter was due to grit that stretch of road in the next hour? We can't expect every single piece of road to be freshly maintained so that we can drive at the posted speed limit everywhere. We are in danger of getting more into a 'blame' culture where we don't take any responsibility for our own actions.
Driving isn't black and white, there are grey areas. Sometimes it is perfectly safe to drive at 80 on a motorway on a clear day with light traffic. Othertimes it is dangerous to drive above 20 in a 30 limit. However recent campaigns seem to have brainwashed people into thinking that as long as they don't go over the speed limit they're perfectly safe.
Tragic indeed. I have travelled this road on many occasions. It links Abergele with Rhuddlan and used to have a horrendous black-spot known as Borth Crossroads not far from this tragedy. A roundabout has now been built to stop drivers assuming all was clear and charging straight across.
For information, the road is reported to have been gritted the night before the accident. I guess, even if we see grit on a road and it appears wet, it does not mean it has de-iced.
Also reported is that local folks had heard other vehicles skidding there just before the accident.
Ahh, the good old PH Accident investigation board have already found the driver guilty, beating the regional police force to the verdict. How about a bit less jumping to conclusions before all the facts are known?
The police force responsible for the most draconian speed enforcment in the UK has already stated that the driver did not appear to be travelling at excessive speed. If the road was visibly icy and/or was slippery for a considerable distance either side of the accident spot, then mutterings of "too fast" might be somewhat more justifiable. The fact that other cars had apparently lost control at the same point would suggest that it was localised "black" ice, and not visible to road users.
The police force responsible for the most draconian speed enforcment in the UK has already stated that the driver did not appear to be travelling at excessive speed. If the road was visibly icy and/or was slippery for a considerable distance either side of the accident spot, then mutterings of "too fast" might be somewhat more justifiable. The fact that other cars had apparently lost control at the same point would suggest that it was localised "black" ice, and not visible to road users.
Quite agree with MR2Mike.
Also by any stretch of the imagination it was stunningly bad luck to lose control as he happened to be passing a tight bunch of cyclists. A minute earlier, a minute later and all that would have happened is the driver would have had one hell of a scare and bent his car.
Also by any stretch of the imagination it was stunningly bad luck to lose control as he happened to be passing a tight bunch of cyclists. A minute earlier, a minute later and all that would have happened is the driver would have had one hell of a scare and bent his car.
My first post here and yes, I'm distressed and angry at yesterdays events in N Wales.
I would like contributors to accept I am not anti-car, I am anti bad driving, but I am, like most bike riders, fed up with being shoved all over the road by drivers and being descibed as an obstruction, something a serious bike-rider will never accept. Believe me, yanking drivers out of cars for a serious piece of re-education can become addictive.
Further, I do own a car, a high spec 1.8 Focus, with all the gizmos. I do drive it fast and it goes quick enough for me. I also drive my business partner's Impretza, so I am not some greenie with an axe to grind. I ride a bicycle for the healthy pleasure, did race seriously and would ride rather than drive. "Cars are a wonderful invention, you can attach them to a bike rack".
The events in North Wales may prove to be a watershed, a turning point for all road users. If not, those four guys will have died for nothing. I am not talking about speed, I am engaging attitudes. There is a serious need to establish the position of all road users relative to each other. Firstly the car is not pre-eminent, it has a place, not a priority. Pedestrians, horses, cyclists and motorised vehicles use the roads and it is in that order the priorities lie. Cars don't shove pedestrians out of the way, horses demand respect because of their size, so why try to intimidate bike-riders.
The contributors to Cycling Plus are angry, however some of the attitudes exhibited here are disgraceful.
To suggest bike riders be removed from the road is not so much outrageous as laughable.
Cyclists of all description are TRAFFIC. They have a right to use the road. As a car driver, I require a license, insurance, etc. No one has a free right to use a car on the road, it is conditional.
If cyclists ride wide and make it difficult to overtake, sometimes that is deliberate. Blocking the road prevents some buffoon from trying to squeeze past when it is inappropriate. It is up to the guy in front to decide when he wishes to be over taken not those behind. If you have to wait - tough.
Continental drivers are better educated regarding the needs of other road users, bike riders are given the consideration they require. This may have something to do with the fact that pro bike riding is the leading sport on mainland Europe.
Both parties had better come to some sort of accomodation. Frankly, I don't hold out much hope of Mr Fud in his car getting the message, it really needs a properly funded programme of public education.
I would like contributors to accept I am not anti-car, I am anti bad driving, but I am, like most bike riders, fed up with being shoved all over the road by drivers and being descibed as an obstruction, something a serious bike-rider will never accept. Believe me, yanking drivers out of cars for a serious piece of re-education can become addictive.
Further, I do own a car, a high spec 1.8 Focus, with all the gizmos. I do drive it fast and it goes quick enough for me. I also drive my business partner's Impretza, so I am not some greenie with an axe to grind. I ride a bicycle for the healthy pleasure, did race seriously and would ride rather than drive. "Cars are a wonderful invention, you can attach them to a bike rack".
The events in North Wales may prove to be a watershed, a turning point for all road users. If not, those four guys will have died for nothing. I am not talking about speed, I am engaging attitudes. There is a serious need to establish the position of all road users relative to each other. Firstly the car is not pre-eminent, it has a place, not a priority. Pedestrians, horses, cyclists and motorised vehicles use the roads and it is in that order the priorities lie. Cars don't shove pedestrians out of the way, horses demand respect because of their size, so why try to intimidate bike-riders.
The contributors to Cycling Plus are angry, however some of the attitudes exhibited here are disgraceful.
To suggest bike riders be removed from the road is not so much outrageous as laughable.
Cyclists of all description are TRAFFIC. They have a right to use the road. As a car driver, I require a license, insurance, etc. No one has a free right to use a car on the road, it is conditional.
If cyclists ride wide and make it difficult to overtake, sometimes that is deliberate. Blocking the road prevents some buffoon from trying to squeeze past when it is inappropriate. It is up to the guy in front to decide when he wishes to be over taken not those behind. If you have to wait - tough.
Continental drivers are better educated regarding the needs of other road users, bike riders are given the consideration they require. This may have something to do with the fact that pro bike riding is the leading sport on mainland Europe.
Both parties had better come to some sort of accomodation. Frankly, I don't hold out much hope of Mr Fud in his car getting the message, it really needs a properly funded programme of public education.
"it really needs a properly funded programme of public education."
Quite:
"not ride more than two abreast"
"ride in single file on narrow or busy roads"
"Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass"
>> Edited by cuneus on Monday 9th January 15:49
Quite:
"not ride more than two abreast"
"ride in single file on narrow or busy roads"
"Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass"
>> Edited by cuneus on Monday 9th January 15:49
Saddle bum said:
Firstly the car is not pre-eminent, it has a place, not a priority. Pedestrians, horses, cyclists and motorised vehicles use the roads and it is in that order the priorities lie. Cars don't shove pedestrians out of the way, horses demand respect because of their size, so why try to intimidate bike-riders.
I think you are in danger of having an accident youself if that is your order of priorities.
I am a motorist and a pedestrian and when on foot I keep as far away from traffic as possible and show it a great deal of respect, because it's big, ugly and deadly. Whether it is more important than cyclists, pedestrians or horses is irrelevant.
Motorised vehicles have the greatest potential to kill and thus demand the most respect, so they will always be king of the road.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff