N Wales 4 cyclist death crash. Driver to be charged.
Discussion
apache said:
Enough speculation, there's plenty of factual info.
It was cold
the road had black ice at a spot where some vehicles inc a police car had already come off
the car was not speeding or driving dangerously (he wasn't charged)
a cyclist had fallen on the ice previously
black ice is difficult to see
Is it not just an accident?
It was cold
the road had black ice at a spot where some vehicles inc a police car had already come off
the car was not speeding or driving dangerously (he wasn't charged)
a cyclist had fallen on the ice previously
black ice is difficult to see
Is it not just an accident?
I haven't said anything criticising the drivers driving, because what matters on that is what the investigation throws up.
I have merely commented on the fact that the driver (as confirmed by those investigating) had 3 defective tyres. My comment being that IMHO with 3 defective tyres the driver should be summonsed for those offences. Whether they were a contributory factor in the collision or not doesn't matter at all in that decision for me. If he'd been stopped without being involved in a collision I'd have expected him to get reported for it.
If he'd been stopped and a check made, I'd only expect a single tyre offence to be reported (unless he had a really terrible attitude. Is he facing three separate ones?
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
7db said:
If he'd been stopped and a check made, I'd only expect a single tyre offence to be reported (unless he had a really terrible attitude. Is he facing three separate ones?
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
I wonder.
It is 3 seperate offences & a mandatory 3 points on each count.
vonhosen said:
It is 3 seperate offences & a mandatory 3 points on each count.
You can't have that one VH. You said yourself that you'd offer VRDS for one tyre - keeping things in proportion would therefore mean not going for three offences for three tyres. That said, if he had a history of such offences I'd say three offences would be fine.
V8 Archie said:
vonhosen said:
It is 3 seperate offences & a mandatory 3 points on each count.
You can't have that one VH. You said yourself that you'd offer VRDS for one tyre - keeping things in proportion would therefore mean not going for three offences for three tyres. That said, if he had a history of such offences I'd say three offences would be fine.
I meant I'd offer VDRS for one tyre as an offence in isolation.
For 3 I wouldn't offer VDRS for 1 & report for 2, it would be report for 3. Car would probably get PG9'd as well.
vonhosen said:
7db said:
If he'd been stopped and a check made, I'd only expect a single tyre offence to be reported (unless he had a really terrible attitude. Is he facing three separate ones?
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
I wonder.
It is 3 seperate offences & a mandatory 3 points on each count.
No. That's frequent misinformation circulated by the tyre industry.
It's just three points irrespective of the number of defective tyres. I can't point at the legislation offhand.
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
7db said:
If he'd been stopped and a check made, I'd only expect a single tyre offence to be reported (unless he had a really terrible attitude. Is he facing three separate ones?
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
I wonder.
It is 3 seperate offences & a mandatory 3 points on each count.
No. That's frequent misinformation circulated by the tyre industry.
It's just three points irrespective of the number of defective tyres. I can't point at the legislation offhand.
Disagree, Paul. Guidance for magistrates sentencing is:-
Brakes/Steering/Tyres (each) 3pts
7db said:
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
7db said:
If he'd been stopped and a check made, I'd only expect a single tyre offence to be reported (unless he had a really terrible attitude. Is he facing three separate ones?
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
I wonder.
It is 3 seperate offences & a mandatory 3 points on each count.
No. That's frequent misinformation circulated by the tyre industry.
It's just three points irrespective of the number of defective tyres. I can't point at the legislation offhand.
Disagree, Paul. Guidance for magistrates sentencing is:-
Brakes/Steering/Tyres (each) 3pts
Damn. I was afraid someone would say that. Anyone got Wilkinsons?
vonhosen said:
I meant I'd offer VDRS for one tyre as an offence in isolation.
For 3 I wouldn't offer VDRS for 1 & report for 2, it would be report for 3. Car would probably get PG9'd as well.
I know what you meant, but I don't think your approach is proportionate. 9 points is the sort of penalty you get for unbelievably careless driving which I don't think 3 tyres necessarily is - after all, if you've noticed that one tyre is too low on tread you'll check the rest at the same time. In my opinion it should be dealt with as one offence unless there is some history to suggest that a stiffer punishment is required - such as a repeat offender or other lack of attention to vehicle roadworthiness.For 3 I wouldn't offer VDRS for 1 & report for 2, it would be report for 3. Car would probably get PG9'd as well.
Always a little suspicious of this sort of thing. I once had to 'drop' a bike due to an horrendous tank-slapper. Slid down the road for some distance and required some medical treatment afterwards. The police took the bike away and several weeks later tried to do me for low tyre pressure (no way, I checked tyre pressures religiously, if you had ridden an H2 Kwacker so would you)Basically the plod couldnt think of anything else to do me for, so they made it up. (or waited several weeks before taking the pressure).
safespeed said:
7db said:
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
7db said:
If he'd been stopped and a check made, I'd only expect a single tyre offence to be reported (unless he had a really terrible attitude. Is he facing three separate ones?
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
Bear in mind that tyres are significantly worse below 3mm, and the legal limit is 1.6mm. Someone failing the legal limit has truly shoddy tyres...
I wonder.
It is 3 seperate offences & a mandatory 3 points on each count.
No. That's frequent misinformation circulated by the tyre industry.
It's just three points irrespective of the number of defective tyres. I can't point at the legislation offhand.
Disagree, Paul. Guidance for magistrates sentencing is:-
Brakes/Steering/Tyres (each) 3pts
Damn. I was afraid someone would say that. Anyone got Wilkinsons?
Sorry Paul, 'fraid I'd have to go along with that.
It's actually possible to go into court with a clean licence and come out with a ban for a full set of illegal tyres.
I must say I don't condone draconian prosecution, but with bad tyres I have seen some utterly horrendous prangs, all for the sake of a decent set when required.
Not often you're wrong Paul, but it happens to the best of us!
Already said we do not know what the defect ist.. ist sub judice so to give this information at this point may jeopardise any defence or mitigating explanation he may have.
It may not be down to tread .. as I understand from what my cousin tell me in conversation about Rubber on cars - und he tell me to look up section 41A of the Road Traffic Act - which can be viewed on line.
ist a breach if tyre ist not correctly inflated so as to make it fit for use to which vehicle ist being put.
(I always look at the spec if intending to drive car with full load of kittens und their clutter.. you have different pressures listed in hand book which give the pressures required for the make und model.)
Ist not a defense if inflated for future use. und there ist a precedent for this but I cannot recall it.. defendant had tried this und failed.
If tyre has a cut in excess of 10% or 25 mm of the section width of tyre - whcihever ist greater - measure in any direction on outide of tyre und deep enough to reach the ply or cord.
such a tear could have occurred in this accident if this ist accounting for one of the defects.. you would have to prove beyond doubt. May not be so easy to do so und prove whether pre or post incident - und if he drive on this road a lot - forensics may not be able to prove for sure.
Tyre could have had a bump or bulge or tear from either the incident or kerbing during a parking manoeuvre or even a severe pot hole.
I think average driver in general make error in not checking tyre for these. They mostly think tyre maintenance ist about tread und pressure.
Ist not to denigrate .. but I do think a lot of people do not check further than pressure und tread. Enthusiasts like most on here will think such checks to be as normal as cleaning teeth in morning.
If tyre has any of ply or cord exposed .. if trye ist so badly maintained as to be dangerous und if tread ist less than 1.6 mm of continuous band across the central 3/4 section of tyre und around entire cicumferance.
Offence I think ist a CU30 und has 3 points und I am under impression that ist per tyre too. Ist certainly case back home in Switzerland, Austria und Germany .. but then ist high alpine.. lot of nasty weather und on one Austrian motorway - ist legal to do the ton.. in Germany ... ist legal to go over the ton.. und in Switzerland .. you look for wheely bins in funny places..
It may not be down to tread .. as I understand from what my cousin tell me in conversation about Rubber on cars - und he tell me to look up section 41A of the Road Traffic Act - which can be viewed on line.
ist a breach if tyre ist not correctly inflated so as to make it fit for use to which vehicle ist being put.
(I always look at the spec if intending to drive car with full load of kittens und their clutter.. you have different pressures listed in hand book which give the pressures required for the make und model.
) Ist not a defense if inflated for future use. und there ist a precedent for this but I cannot recall it.. defendant had tried this und failed.
If tyre has a cut in excess of 10% or 25 mm of the section width of tyre - whcihever ist greater - measure in any direction on outide of tyre und deep enough to reach the ply or cord.
such a tear could have occurred in this accident if this ist accounting for one of the defects.. you would have to prove beyond doubt. May not be so easy to do so und prove whether pre or post incident - und if he drive on this road a lot - forensics may not be able to prove for sure.
Tyre could have had a bump or bulge or tear from either the incident or kerbing during a parking manoeuvre or even a severe pot hole.
I think average driver in general make error in not checking tyre for these. They mostly think tyre maintenance ist about tread und pressure.
Ist not to denigrate .. but I do think a lot of people do not check further than pressure und tread. Enthusiasts like most on here will think such checks to be as normal as cleaning teeth in morning. If tyre has any of ply or cord exposed .. if trye ist so badly maintained as to be dangerous und if tread ist less than 1.6 mm of continuous band across the central 3/4 section of tyre und around entire cicumferance.
Offence I think ist a CU30 und has 3 points und I am under impression that ist per tyre too. Ist certainly case back home in Switzerland, Austria und Germany .. but then ist high alpine.. lot of nasty weather und on one Austrian motorway - ist legal to do the ton.. in Germany ... ist legal to go over the ton.. und in Switzerland .. you look for wheely bins in funny places..
A number of points come to mind here.
Firstly, this was a horrendous tragedy for all involved - from the victims families to the driver. To all go my sympathies.
Secondly, 3 tyres below the legal limit is, in my opinion, worth 9 points because it is almost certainly going to degrade the stopping ability of the car to a point where it is dangerous. If people aren't checking their tyres, well, that's just tough. They should be - keeping your vehicle in a suitable condition for the road is part of the responsibility of owning one.
Thirdly, while I'm not discounting the possibility that the police in this instance have been under some considerable pressure (from the media, in no small measure) to produce a conviction, I think it's fairly pointless to don one's tinfoil helmet and wheel out the conspiracy theories.
I have read with interest the hypotheses that the local conditions were unpredictable. I disagree. I think that if it's a cold day, and there's snow at the side of the road, and one sees in the distance (limit point analysis, properly applied, will produce an appropriate speed for the bend assuming perfect conditions) a tree overhanging the road, one should surmise that it might be icy in the shadows.
I do believe that the driver in this case has been incredibly unlucky - after all, most of the time he'd have just had a bit of a moment and maybe parked it backwards on the verge - but the consequences are due to inadequate driver training and hazard perception. Whether this can be used to level full responsibility for the accident at the driver, I wouldn't like to say.
What is true, though, is that the families of the deceased will say "He was at the wheel and should have had full control of his vehicle" - although maybe not in such detached terms.
Firstly, this was a horrendous tragedy for all involved - from the victims families to the driver. To all go my sympathies.
Secondly, 3 tyres below the legal limit is, in my opinion, worth 9 points because it is almost certainly going to degrade the stopping ability of the car to a point where it is dangerous. If people aren't checking their tyres, well, that's just tough. They should be - keeping your vehicle in a suitable condition for the road is part of the responsibility of owning one.
Thirdly, while I'm not discounting the possibility that the police in this instance have been under some considerable pressure (from the media, in no small measure) to produce a conviction, I think it's fairly pointless to don one's tinfoil helmet and wheel out the conspiracy theories.
I have read with interest the hypotheses that the local conditions were unpredictable. I disagree. I think that if it's a cold day, and there's snow at the side of the road, and one sees in the distance (limit point analysis, properly applied, will produce an appropriate speed for the bend assuming perfect conditions) a tree overhanging the road, one should surmise that it might be icy in the shadows.
I do believe that the driver in this case has been incredibly unlucky - after all, most of the time he'd have just had a bit of a moment and maybe parked it backwards on the verge - but the consequences are due to inadequate driver training and hazard perception. Whether this can be used to level full responsibility for the accident at the driver, I wouldn't like to say.
What is true, though, is that the families of the deceased will say "He was at the wheel and should have had full control of his vehicle" - although maybe not in such detached terms.
CommanderJameson said:
A number of points come to mind here.
Firstly, this was a horrendous tragedy for all involved - from the victims families to the driver. To all go my sympathies.
Secondly, 3 tyres below the legal limit is, in my opinion, worth 9 points because it is almost certainly going to degrade the stopping ability of the car to a point where it is dangerous. If people aren't checking their tyres, well, that's just tough. They should be - keeping your vehicle in a suitable condition for the road is part of the responsibility of owning one.
Firstly, this was a horrendous tragedy for all involved - from the victims families to the driver. To all go my sympathies.
Secondly, 3 tyres below the legal limit is, in my opinion, worth 9 points because it is almost certainly going to degrade the stopping ability of the car to a point where it is dangerous. If people aren't checking their tyres, well, that's just tough. They should be - keeping your vehicle in a suitable condition for the road is part of the responsibility of owning one.
True - why this family also shouts POWER as well as COAST. But we still do not know what these defects were and we will not know that until after the court case has been decided in any case. We do not know whether or not one defect was caused during the incident not do we know the extent of the defects. I thus think it wrong to speculate that the tyres were the cause of this.
I would like to know why gritters did not regrit after the earlier accident - same as some riders in the Bolton area (Lancs Road Club) want answers regarding the fail to grit on a road which caused 30 riders to crash - resulting in one very serious head injury (he survived but is still a bit poorly) and two others to incur serious fractures.
I would like to know how far this failure to grit led to the tragedy - and this is still being investigated. Thus I think it incorrect to leap on the defective tyres as the sole causal factor until all enquiries are complete.
I think the families concerned - including the driver and his family - would also prefer this .. I speak of course as someone who has been through all this with Wildy and the two cousins who died - one in a road crash and the other in a plane crash.
For record
I personally would not drive a car with tread at legal minimum. I'm fussy about tyres anyway.
Commander Jameson said:
Thirdly, while I'm not discounting the possibility that the police in this instance have been under some considerable pressure (from the media, in no small measure) to produce a conviction, I think it's fairly pointless to don one's tinfoil helmet and wheel out the conspiracy theories.
I have read with interest the hypotheses that the local conditions were unpredictable. I disagree. I think that if it's a cold day, and there's snow at the side of the road, and one sees in the distance (limit point analysis, properly applied, will produce an appropriate speed for the bend assuming perfect conditions) a tree overhanging the road, one should surmise that it might be icy in the shadows.
Ah.. but how many are aware of this. Besides this was winter - no leaves on tree to creat a shadow. Road .. I think from a drive along ages ago .. cops the cold from the hills.
Cyclists themselves told "Cycling Weekly" that you could not even stand without falling at the crash site. It was not shock. This was the guy who commendably kept composed througout and tended to the injured and deceased as well as getting help there. He also tended to the driver and made sure he was OK and safe as well. Guy should be included in the nex Honours List in my opinion.
Commander Jameson said:
I do believe that the driver in this case has been incredibly unlucky - after all, most of the time he'd have just had a bit of a moment and maybe parked it backwards on the verge - but the consequences are due to inadequate driver training and hazard perception. Whether this can be used to level full responsibility for the accident at the driver, I wouldn't like to say.
I don't think it could be. Black Ice is black ice. His bad luck and the cyclists' horrendously awful luck was that both were on this bend at the same split second when he hit the ice. Tyres apart.. I think he'd still have lost it. My own son reported to us last week - about an hour before the head-on at Plumpton that he could discern grease on the road after the dry spell - he mentioned it to the twins - asking what they thought safe practice would be if they had been behind a wheel of a car - since they start to learn in a couple of weeks' time.
Now this young chap of mine has been on skid and brake courses - and is IAM trained.
The lad driving on that fatal was a learner.
The chap in Wales.. clearly not an enthusiastic driver - one of the A to B brigade who fails to see the point of constant training perhaps. One of millions and why we should be promoting good practice skill enhancers instead of harping on about speed.
Commander Jameson said:
What is true, though, is that the families of the deceased will say "He was at the wheel and should have had full control of his vehicle" - although maybe not in such detached terms.
Oddly enough - the bereaveds' initial reactions were one of "tragic accident" per the tribute one of them made to Maurice in CW magazine for example.
CommanderJameson said:
Secondly, 3 tyres below the legal limit is, in my opinion, worth 9 points because it is almost certainly going to degrade the stopping ability of the car to a point where it is dangerous.
In extreme cases, yes. In mild cases no - not least because one's driving would adapt with the changing grip of the tyres.V8 Archie said:
CommanderJameson said:
Secondly, 3 tyres below the legal limit is, in my opinion, worth 9 points because it is almost certainly going to degrade the stopping ability of the car to a point where it is dangerous.
In extreme cases, yes. In mild cases no - not least because one's driving would adapt with the changing grip of the tyres.I'd say less than 1.6mm of tread across 75% of the tyre on 3 corners is an extreme case.
Assuming, of course, that tread depth is the reason the tyres were considered unacceptable.
jith said:
Not often you're wrong Paul, but it happens to the best of us!
Kind of you to say so.
I was involved in a detailed discussion on the same subject a few years ago, and I'm really very sure we eventually reached an authoritive answer: 3 points, irrespective of the number of tyres. Trouble is I'm not sure what the reason or the authority was any longer (nor even where the discussion was!).
safespeed said:
jith said:
Not often you're wrong Paul, but it happens to the best of us!
Kind of you to say so.
I was involved in a detailed discussion on the same subject a few years ago, and I'm really very sure we eventually reached an authoritive answer: 3 points, irrespective of the number of tyres. Trouble is I'm not sure what the reason or the authority was any longer (nor even where the discussion was!).
www.jsboard.co.uk/downloads/acbb/section2a.pdf
Look at page 77
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 25th June 00:31
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff