N Wales 4 cyclist death crash. Driver to be charged.

[BadgerBenji]

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?

I am tempted to agree, for a change this appears to be a true accident, and not a collision that was completely avoidable. Unfortunately the press are going to get there claws into this and go first for trial by jury, then when he is convicted they will cry miscarriage of justice, well they have to reach targets of x amount of copies sold.

I can also see the case for investigating the polices handling of the area, did they put out any police slow signs, they could have deployed a traffic car to the area, and carried out a speed trap exercise. I was in wales the day this happened and remember being followed by a volvo traffic car, and i was no more than 30 miles from where this tragedy happened.

[deeps]

CommanderJameson said:

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.

We're all playing guessing games in this thread. The fact is the condition of his tyres played no part at all in the accident, though I accept he should get done for defective tyres as a seperate issue.

CommanderJameson, if it had been you driving along that stretch of road at that time, would you have slowed to 10 mph or less at that spot shadowed by the trees, as a precaution against black ice? You'll probably answer yes to that, in which case I wouldn't believe you.

If a simple "black ice" warning sign had been placed there by the police then maybe I would believe you.

I was caught out on black ice last February, luckily with no consequences. When it's frosty we're all aware of the possibilities, that's why I was only doing 30, but sometimes, very rarely there really is no warning. I've learnt that.

[LongQ]

A few random thoughts prompted by earlier comments in the thread.

Firstly I had not heard about the cyclist who came off on black ice shortly before the accident. One wonders if perhaps it was unwise to be out cycling on such a day sinc e the risk of personal injury, even without the intervention of a third party, seems quite high.

I say this as an independent comment unconnected with the accident as such, though something that maybe shouls be in people's minds when venturing out on two wheels.

Secondly the issues about tyres and treads. Tread wear is a problem only obvious in wet conditions and even then it can be well masked by other factors. Some of the time in this country it would be perfectly safe to drive without a treaded tyre - but mostly it is not safe to do so due to the unpredictable nature of our weather. Possibly a few other factors as well.

Thirdly - checking tyres. Sensible stuff has been commented BUT I rarely do a complete check of my tyres and I suspect most people do less than I do. In any case unless you are going to remove and inspect all four wheels (or more!) there can well be defects that no on-car inspection will show up. I have had them myself. The tyres looked fine but one front had very severe wear pattern on the inside edge. The rubber was worn through to the carcass in one spot but I had no indication that anything was wrong and the sharp champher that caused the wear was invisible until the wheel was removed.

So an inspection is not by any means a full proof and that is why tolerance in dealing with such ceses is highly desirable.

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

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

Thanks. But what's the legal basis?

[streaky]

BadgerBenji said:

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?

I am tempted to agree, for a change this appears to be a true accident, and not a collision that was completely avoidable. Unfortunately the press are going to get there [sic] claws into this and go first for trial by jury, ...

I rather think that might be "trial by media" rather than by jury - Streaky

[BadgerBenji]

streaky said:

BadgerBenji said:

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?

I am tempted to agree, for a change this appears to be a true accident, and not a collision that was completely avoidable. Unfortunately the press are going to get there [sic] claws into this and go first for trial by jury, ...

I rather think that might be "trial by media" rather than by jury - Streaky

oops yes, sorry my mistake.

[davidra]

bald tyres give better grip on ice. Try sliding two ice-cubes against each other. I can't imagine what tyre defect on 3 tyres caused an accident, therefore:

- driver could be charged for driving defective vehicle
- driver could be charged for DWDCA but not on evidence of defective tyres

[CommanderJameson]

deeps said:

CommanderJameson, if it had been you driving along that stretch of road at that time, would you have slowed to 10 mph or less at that spot shadowed by the trees, as a precaution against black ice? You'll probably answer yes to that, in which case I wouldn't believe you.

Probably not, and if it had been me driving that car, it's highly likely that events would have followed the same tragic course.

There's a number of large holes in my driving - adapting my speed to cope with potential hazards is one of them.

Edited by CommanderJameson on Sunday 25th June 08:48

[vonhosen]

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

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

Thanks. But what's the legal basis?

In the charge wording you have to also say which wheel had the defective tyre. Hence a seperate charge for each tyre, with a sentencing guideline for each of those seperate offences with endorsement.

[autismuk]

Observer2 said:

It's also possible that the driver was careless but there's not enough evidence to support a DWDCA charge. As far as I can see, this crash was not unavoidable. It was not avoidable by the cyclists so it must have been avoidable by the driver. Since it was not avoided, the driver was at fault. If a DWDCA charge is not supportable then I can't see the problem with using a defective tyres charge as a sanction. The driver could have been facing DDD so the lesser charge on three defective tyres doesn't appear unduly harsh.

... it is fairly easy to do it with hindsight, and this argument can be dredged up to prosecute anyone. Perhaps we should start jailing Police Officers who chase people the wrong way down dual carriageways.

That is surely "avoidable" isn't it ?

Yes, it may well be unreasonable.

But the Police seem to want it both ways. When they up, "it's a hard job" "there's a lot of pressure" "I was doing my best" etc. When someone else does, hang them.

[LongQ]

One thought I forgot to put in my previous post.

There is the implication that a defective tyre MIGHT be the charge applied if said tyre was at the wrong pressure. Fair enough, though how you know what the pressure was before an incident and at the ambient temperature I don't know. Presumably the amount of deviation from recommendation is fairly tolerant?

But how tolerant? And where do you draw the line?

My regular experience is that when I take a car to a main dealer for service, with tyres set to precisely the manufacturer's recommendations for pressure, I get it back with about 5 or 6 lbs less in each tyre. It happened with my Vauxhalls and the same with my Saab. The Saab is in for service next week so it will be interesting to see if the pattern repeats.

Secondly, if you regularly run with the car lightly loaded - pressures set accordingly - but once in a while run a few miles fully loaded without adusting the pressures, how would that be viewed?

And vice versa. If you normally carry quite a load and therefore run with higher pressure settings but undertake journeys lightly loaded but leaving the pressures set for your regular heavy load, how would that be interpreted in the event of a shunt?

[Tafia]

Mad Moggie said:

Cyclists themselves told "Cycling Weekly" that you could not even stand without falling at the crash site.

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.

Does anyone wonder why the cyclists who, from what you say, must have been even more aware than any driver of the horrendous road conditions, still carried on with the ride? Local paper said some had already turned back due to the conditions.

[Parrot of Doom]

davidra said:

bald tyres give better grip on ice. Try sliding two ice-cubes against each other. I can't imagine what tyre defect on 3 tyres caused an accident, therefore:

- driver could be charged for driving defective vehicle
- driver could be charged for DWDCA but not on evidence of defective tyres

Is that strictly correct? Bald tyres have a slightly bigger surface contact area than treaded tyres, which makes them less able to push through the ice and contact the tarmac? I know rally cars have studded tyres but they also have extremely narrow tyres on snow/ice.

[Parrot of Doom]

Tafia said:

Mad Moggie said:

Cyclists themselves told "Cycling Weekly" that you could not even stand without falling at the crash site.

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.

Does anyone wonder why the cyclists who, from what you say, must have been even more aware than any driver of the horrendous road conditions, still carried on with the ride? Local paper said some had already turned back due to the conditions.

I would imagine because you've gone to the trouble of putting your gear on and are really looking foward to the ride, its how I feel when I'm half a mile out the door and it starts chucking it down

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

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

Thanks. But what's the legal basis?

In the charge wording you have to also say which wheel had the defective tyre. Hence a seperate charge for each tyre, with a sentencing guideline for each of those seperate offences with endorsement.

I'm stepping well outside my own legal expertise here (trying very hard to remember all the details of a comprehensive conversation some years ago)...

But how does that gel with the legislation that requires continuous offences to be treated as a single offence?

[Tafia]

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

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

Thanks. But what's the legal basis?

In the charge wording you have to also say which wheel had the defective tyre. Hence a seperate charge for each tyre, with a sentencing guideline for each of those seperate offences with endorsement.

I'm stepping well outside my own legal expertise here (trying very hard to remember all the details of a comprehensive conversation some years ago)...

But how does that gel with the legislation that requires continuous offences to be treated as a single offence?

This is a local tyre station website. It says each tyre is a separate offence.

www.tyresave.co.uk/tyreinfo.html

Good info there on other tyre stuff too.

[7db]

safespeed said:

But how does that gel with the legislation that requires continuous offences to be treated as a single offence?

I don't think there is any legislation saying that -- it's at the discretion of the investigating body, I think, and is traditional that for example if you are speeding on a along the lenght of the M4 and get caught 3 times that they will be treated as one offence, but with the permission of the CC.

Three separate defective tyres, three separate houses burgled in one night, three separate offences.




Hey! Do you like my burglary / tyres comparison!

[V8 Archie]

Parrot of Doom said:

davidra said:

bald tyres give better grip on ice. Try sliding two ice-cubes against each other. I can't imagine what tyre defect on 3 tyres caused an accident, therefore:

- driver could be charged for driving defective vehicle
- driver could be charged for DWDCA but not on evidence of defective tyres

Is that strictly correct? Bald tyres have a slightly bigger surface contact area than treaded tyres, which makes them less able to push through the ice and contact the tarmac? I know rally cars have studded tyres but they also have extremely narrow tyres on snow/ice.

No it's completely wrong - unless the tyres are made of ice.

The ice-cubes are hard to slide against each other because the pressure of the contact melts the ice and then re-freezes fusing the two ice-cubes together.

With rubber on ice Pod is spot on. With rally cars the narrow tyres are intended to push through snow to something solid (ice) and the studs are there to grip the ice.

[WildCat]

CommanderJameson said:

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.

But that ist the issue.. we do not know und reason why we do not know ist because matter ist now sub-judice und may prejudice any defence he may have ...

He may have had one just below legal.. tracking und balancing might have been out which cause uneven wear ...he may have scuffed und torn tyre whilst parking or tear could have occured in incident - und he would have to prove that if so.

But as you know - we have hammered P O W E R as much as C O A S T. Und checking POWER mean being responsible car owner. Car ist member of family in way as we use to tranport selves und people we care about. Thus .. it require TLC as part of kitten care if you like if I look subjectively .. und objectively it ist part of my obligation not to cause bother und upset und harm to others.

However, ist bad luck that cyclists had reached the bend at that split second when he hit the black ice. Even if his tyres had been good - he would very possibly have lost it as people had done so earlier that day... so ist wrong to wag finger und say his allegedly poor car ownership skills were to blame for this.

I come from Switzlerland as you know. Grew up with snow, ice und black ice on some alpine roads. Ist not easy to spot in advance ....but Swiss normally place triangle warning of possibility on all these routes. They are now experimenting with electronic doo-dahs in one highest alpine Kanton. Have not read the article through yet.. in full.

[justinp1]

7db said:

safespeed said:

But how does that gel with the legislation that requires continuous offences to be treated as a single offence?

I don't think there is any legislation saying that -- it's at the discretion of the investigating body, I think, and is traditional that for example if you are speeding on a along the lenght of the M4 and get caught 3 times that they will be treated as one offence, but with the permission of the CC.

Three separate defective tyres, three separate houses burgled in one night, three separate offences.




Hey! Do you like my burglary / tyres comparison!

Yeah, except the burglar would get free representation to ask the court to look at all the offences as 'one night of madness', and consider the offences as one!