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

[safespeed]

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!

Or alternatively three items stolen from one house is a single offence.

[7db]

safespeed said:

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!

Or alternatively three items stolen from one house is a single offence.

Or breaking down a door, stealing a painting, and selling it are three separate offences (and usefully so if you are having trouble proving one or two of them).

[WildCat]

7db said:

safespeed said:

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!

Or alternatively three items stolen from one house is a single offence.

Or breaking down a door, stealing a painting, and selling it are three separate offences (and usefully so if you are having trouble proving one or two of them).

The theft of all items from house count as one offence as would a shoplifting spree.. Winona whathername was only charged with one offence of shoplifting despite having a lot of items in her bag when stopped. As I recall - she hired a good lawyer und I think she got a community sentence... "as she was stressed" or something...

But lieber 7db ... breaking down door to enter the house und stealing the painting would be the burglary charge.. I think the breaking und entering bit are more or less included as you could not burgle without breaking und entering

As for selling the painting.. ist charge of handling stolen goods und I think there ist plea bargain if he "fingers the fence"

[GreenV8S]

jith said:

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.

Is there anyone here who thinks it is reasonable to treat each tyre as a separate offence?

It's a single mistake (failure to maintain the tyres) and one defective tyre is all it takes to kill you. It seems excessive that changing from all four tyres marginally legal to all four tyres marginally illegal is enough to result in an instant ban. Driving with no brakes, for example, strikes me as far more dangerous but would only merit three points.

[vonhosen]

GreenV8S said:

jith said:

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.

Is there anyone here who thinks it is reasonable to treat each tyre as a separate offence?

It's a single mistake (failure to maintain the tyres) and one defective tyre is all it takes to kill you. It seems excessive that changing from all four tyres marginally legal to all four tyres marginally illegal is enough to result in an instant ban. Driving with no brakes, for example, strikes me as far more dangerous but would only merit three points.

Driving with no brakes can result in imprisonment in some cases. If it can be shown that you knew they were defective & that driving them in such a conditions would obviously be dangerous, you can be charged with dangerous driving as a result.

[7db]

Hate to drag this up again, but had the opportunity to run the issue of four tyres / one offence past a pair of magistrates this morning.

I'm wrong.

It is a separate offence for each tyre, however the Sentencing Guidelines are to treat only the most serious offence in each area. For example no licence/tax/insurance is just sentenced as aggravated no insurance (6pts + higher fine). Four tyres bald, usually treated as one*.

Offences from different areas can be prosecuted together e.g. no insurance (document offence) + bald tyre (vehicle condition) + running a red light (driving standard offence) = walking home from court.

[deva link]

Driver was fined £180 and plus 6 points (why not 9) today for 3 defective tyres.

I think that's a heck of a lucky escape for the driver - even if the tyres didn't contribute to the accident, I can think of at least a couple of other cases where drivers have been jailed for little more than careless driving (Gary Hart springs to mind).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5241

[tigger1]

How do people feel about the judge / mag' (not sure) saying that the tyres were not a contributory factor because the tread is there solely to displace water in wet conditions? This doesn't ring true to me, as many a time I (think I) have found there to be much less grip with less tread depth.

I think this chap was very fortunate (and likewise the cyclists tragically unfortunate) in the circumstances, and it was probably the right result in the end - though I'm a little surprised by it.

[heebeegeetee]

It is generally true to say that tyre tread is only there to displace water, but a worn tyre is also an old one, and I've noticed tyres 'go 'off' as they get old and near the end of their life.
At the end of the day though, black ice is notoriusly difficult to deal with.

[Richard C]

It is reported that the CPS stated that the defective tyres were not a contributary cause and the magistrates re-iterated this in their summing up. I'd agree that with black ice tread depth is irrelevant.

It is fortunate that this chap seems to have been treated fairly by the system and not scapegoated like Gary Hart. However he will have to live with what happened that day as will everyone else

I work with someone who's son is from the cycle club involved.

[WildCat]

Richard C said:

It is reported that the CPS stated that the defective tyres were not a contributary cause and the magistrates re-iterated this in their summing up. I'd agree that with black ice tread depth is irrelevant.

It is fortunate that this chap seems to have been treated fairly by the system and not scapegoated like Gary Hart. However he will have to live with what happened that day as will everyone else

I work with someone who's son is from the cycle club involved.

Indeed he will. But the acid test was whether or not sound tyres would have prevented the incident .. und the sad fact ist that they would not. From the accounts I have read und one cousin, Marianna, also knows one of bereaved there - those involved accept that road was unusually, unexpectedly und atorciaciously und lethally slippeery under foot und under all rubber tyres.

But - he ist as much a "victim" in that he will suffer the horror of the incident und the burden of the guilt that his car skidded on this ice with very awful consequences. I do think in this rush to blame someone that the human suffering of person in whatever collided or catalysed collision ist never taken into account.

I believe the driver of the car who had accident which killed a 12 year old called Hayley in Kent .. as direct result of someone driving dangerously und causing him to collide with another .. with fatal consequences for Hayley has never driven since und was suffering badly. The parents appealed on "Crime Watch" but the really dangerous person und the car never traced. They do not blame the friend in whose car their daughter died either. A brave family.

[smeggy]

someone said:

The crown took the decision that in the circumstances, tyre tread is there to displace liquid debris from the road to give a better grip.

In this situation, the examination has found there was no liquid there - it was black ice, consequently the defective tyres couldn't have been a contributory factor to the collision.

From the extract, I can only deduce the tyres were low on tread, perhaps even bald.

Physics hat on:

Ice isn’t a frictionless surface; the fact that a car will eventually slide to a stop is proof of that. Kinetic friction between surfaces means that some kinetic energy is being converted at the interface between the surfaces – usually to the form of heat. This would have resulted with heating of the top layer of ice, perhaps enough to melt it, thereby creating the ‘liquid debris’ which in turn may lead to separation of the two surfaces, resulting with greatly reduced friction (like engine oil).

Ice is slippery but water on ice is far worse (I used to be great at powerslides on my push bike so you can take my word for it). I have to conclude that bald tyres could actually exacerbate the situation, therefore they potentially could have been a contributory factor. Fortunately (?) for the driver, the layer of ice might have melted away before any forensic examination could be done so there is no proof for - or against.
This is of course very dependant on the temperature of the ice; if close to 0C then the situation described may actually be quite likely.


I would like to point out that I’m speculating; my post is intended for discussion so don’t flame me.

[heebeegeetee]

There's some horrendous posts on various forums about this subject. One said:

"These people would still be alive if Mr Harris had not been driving that day. Therefore Mr Harris was the contributory factor in their deaths, so why hasn't he been properly punished?"

[Parrot of Doom]

Some people just can't accept that accidents happen.

I'm sure the unfortunate driver has suffered badly, even though the accident doesn't appear to have been his fault.

Edited by Parrot of Doom on Thursday 3rd August 21:19

[falcemob]

In what way were the tyres defective? It doesn't say how much or little tread was on the tyres so defective could mean anything from a faulty valve to running on canvas.
Maybe we shouldn't speculate on facts we don't have.

[Olivera]

What f*cks me off about this is the typical pathetic fine from the magistrate. £60 per tyre? What a bloody joke - I just paid £110 per tyre to adhere to the law and actually have some tread. Once again flouting the law and getting fined is actually cheaper than adhering to the law in the first place.

Edited by Olivera on Thursday 3rd August 22:24

[smeggy]

falcemob said:

In what way were the tyres defective? It doesn't say how much or little tread was on the tyres so defective could mean anything from a faulty valve to running on canvas.
Maybe we shouldn't speculate on facts we don't have.

We do have the quote from the prosecutor, given in my last post above (read the news link posted elsewhere in the thread). Judging from the quote this can only have been a tread issue

[shuvitupya]

Olivera said:

What f*cks me off about this is the typical pathetic fine from the magistrate. £60 per tyre? What a bloody joke - I just paid £110 per tyre to adhere to the law and actually have some tread. Once again flouting the law and getting fined is actually cheaper than adhering to the law in the first place.

Edited by Olivera on Thursday 3rd August 22:24

Actually, your insurance is invalid if your car is not in roadworthy condition, and that would include bald tyres.

If you have an accident, then don't expect a payout in your favour, plus you will have 3 points per tyre normally which will increase your insurance premium even further.

[WildCat]

Parrot of Doom said:

Some people just can't accept that accidents happen.

I'm sure the unfortunate driver has suffered badly, even though the accident doesn't appear to have been his fault.

Edited by Parrot of Doom on Thursday 3rd August 21:19

Agree. Some people write a lot of waffle. One should also be aware that same waffly person wrote to sensible cycling magazine und identified self as someone who "works for cyclists in case of accident."

I think this explain a bit more..

For the driver und admit I speculate. But am mindful of a story by bot Vine's R2 und "R4's "You und Yours" concerning the person who cause any death (road, domestic, work, garden..)

These people do suffer great trauma in same way as bereaved.

I also speak from experience. I posted this on Paul's site too when Vine broadcast this. It was topical.

You know the family's biggest trauma ever. We lost one in plane crash. Tow weeks later - his brother dies when defective truck (nothing legal at all) crashes through a central reserve because the driver cannot control because of these defects. Immediate death on impact. Operator prosecuted. Driver prosecuted. Both found guilty und dealt with per Statute book.

Driver tries to kill himself

Family try to forgive as feel more death result from incident. Also Ferdl alive in memory beyond his family. In mind of person und family who caused this. We also forgave him as a Christian act if you like.

Widow of man who caused me some serious upset. She ist full of turmoil. She think she should have foreseen, snatched car key, prevented her man.. a man she did love .. from going to work when he was clearly not well enough to do so. She also tried to take her life once. Again - we forgive und forge a bond or friendship. Ist not right to allow more death und tragedy from these enormous black holes of tragedy.

I would have felt really awful if she had succeeded. A nice lady really. She sends me a nice card at major events und I also send her similar cards of friendship. It was not her fault. I cannot blame her husband either.

Based on this - I would say that man ist going through a hell not so far different or even worse than the bereaved.

Ist really about time we distinguished between the joy/yob/drink/drugged/deliberately tired/ do not check P.O.W.E.R. or igniore COAST - who drive und the ones who cause a tragedy because of unforeseen black ice, potholes like an abyss, sudden illness or as result of stupidity or pedestrain or cyclist who never bothered to look or were themselves drunk und disorderly. Or the one who fixate on dash or rear view mirror for some reason - like the then kid on the Vine prog - und cause a horror.

[Olivera]

shuvitupya said:

Olivera said:

What f*cks me off about this is the typical pathetic fine from the magistrate. £60 per tyre? What a bloody joke - I just paid £110 per tyre to adhere to the law and actually have some tread. Once again flouting the law and getting fined is actually cheaper than adhering to the law in the first place.

Edited by Olivera on Thursday 3rd August 22:24

Actually, your insurance is invalid if your car is not in roadworthy condition, and that would include bald tyres.

If you have an accident, then don't expect a payout in your favour, plus you will have 3 points per tyre normally which will increase your insurance premium even further.

These are only valid points if you adhere to the laws of the land. The chav scum masses don't care one jot about their un-insured banger being written off, nor having to pay a paltry fine out of their of benefits.

Edited by Olivera on Thursday 3rd August 22:52

Edited by Olivera on Thursday 3rd August 22:52