BTCC's Frank Wrathall in court after cyclist collision
Discussion
1 said:
Breadvan72 said:
A few people seem keen to find excuses for the driver. Is this simply because he was a racing driver (PH says racing drivers good) and some here don't approve of cyclists (PH says cyclists bad)?
I am not saying that the driver should be hanged in the public square, as he did not intend to harm anyone, but his selfish behaviour has to have consequences, and if this cases serves as an exemplar to those who still drive holding their phones (and sadly I see such people almost every day), then so much the better.
I agree with the points above about two way radio. A radio conversation is in my experience much less situationally distracting than a phone conversation, even one conducted hands free. For some reason also, talking on the phone is more distracting than talking to someone who is in the car with you.
It's all the same really. Lots of things distract us, adjusting the radio/sat nav, crying children a heated conversation with a passenger can all be far more distracting than a mobile phone and I suspect we have all been there and lost concentration for a second, unfortunately in this case someone died. Sad for everyone concerned. I am not saying that the driver should be hanged in the public square, as he did not intend to harm anyone, but his selfish behaviour has to have consequences, and if this cases serves as an exemplar to those who still drive holding their phones (and sadly I see such people almost every day), then so much the better.
I agree with the points above about two way radio. A radio conversation is in my experience much less situationally distracting than a phone conversation, even one conducted hands free. For some reason also, talking on the phone is more distracting than talking to someone who is in the car with you.
king phone. If they can't even stay in a wide motorway lane on a straight road, what else would they not notice? Absolute s IMHO.1 said:
It's all the same really. Lots of things distract us, adjusting the radio/sat nav, crying children a heated conversation with a passenger can all be far more distracting than a mobile phone and I suspect we have all been there and lost concentration for a second, unfortunately in this case someone died. Sad for everyone concerned.
That is not true.http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technolo...
As might be expected, listening to the radio or to a book were the least distracting activities (with scores of 1.21 and 1.75). Talking to a passenger (2.33) and talking on the phone (2.27 if hands-free and 2.45 if hand-held) were intermediate. The most distracting, at 3.06, was hands-free texting. On a scale where 5.0 is the most distracted it is possible to be, that is worryingly high.
Inattention to the road is not the only cause of traffic accidents, but it is an important one. In America, various studies have suggested that it contributes to between a quarter and a half of accidents. Those who think that hands-free texting is low on the list of potential driving hazards might therefore wish to think again.
Mr_Thyroid said:
Given that most cyclist will live to be more than 60 years old does that mean 1 in 3 will have a serious incident in their life time?
I think you are wrong to think that 2% is an insignificant amount. The other 98% will include all other sports including contact sports such as rugby and football, all bat and club sports such as golf, cricket and squash where head injuries are common. Then there's horse riding, and there's skateboarding where I'm not sure I've see someone stay on one for more than about 15 seconds. Also consider DIY, general tom-foolery and foolhardiness, criminal injuries, and finally, probably largest of all, being drunk. The proportion of injuries that come from people going about their ordinary day-to-day business will be tiny.
The 2% will also include sports cyclists - mtbers, bmxers, racers, time triallers, kids dicking about on bikes, the lot of it. The proportion of ordinary cyclists hospitalised while going about ordinary business might also be tiny, and indeed I wonder if there's any statistic at all that covers these people or whether all cyclists are lumped in together.I think you are wrong to think that 2% is an insignificant amount. The other 98% will include all other sports including contact sports such as rugby and football, all bat and club sports such as golf, cricket and squash where head injuries are common. Then there's horse riding, and there's skateboarding where I'm not sure I've see someone stay on one for more than about 15 seconds. Also consider DIY, general tom-foolery and foolhardiness, criminal injuries, and finally, probably largest of all, being drunk. The proportion of injuries that come from people going about their ordinary day-to-day business will be tiny.
I'm really not sure about your last sentence, as accidents in the home and workplace are commonplace, and of course cars a re still today a significant source of head injuries.
The reason I make reference to the magical properties of the cycling helmet is that given how low the remit is of the helmet (designed only to protect from a straight drop at 12.1mph IIRC and designed to play no part in a collision with a vehicle etc) the claims made about them here on PH is that they'll protect against being hit by cars at speed, hgvs running over legs, chest, spinal (see this case) and all sorts.
I don't think I've ever come across any other piece of equipment that apparently excels so wildly beyond its design remit.
LiamM45 said:
It was a fair few years ago. Backflip on a BMX went wrong and landed on the back of his head. I was told he would've been ok if wearing a decent helmet, not coming from a Doctor I don't know how true that is.
BMX and downhill MTB helmets are nothing like the kind of helmets suitable for road cycling.
Reardy Mister said:
I have questioned this with a few law-men. Apparently the difference is that a two-way or CB can only transmit OR receive at one time, therefore a true conversation is not taking place and it isn't considered a distraction. Its basically a technicality to allow emergency services and utilities companies etc, to carry on as normal.
I use a two-way a lot. I don't think its as distracting as a phone, the incoming transmission is on a loud speaker so in that way is no different from a hands free phone. But the outgoing transmission still requires me to press and hold a button down and speak to a specific device, which requires more effort than a hands free microphone.
I think if you think about a phone conversation, you're constantly concentrating on the call and caller, to know where and how to respond or interject to maintain a normal exchange. With a two-way, you have no choice but to wait until the incoming transmission has finished before you respond and then you can do that at your leisure.
This was the official explanation given in 2003 by the DoT:I use a two-way a lot. I don't think its as distracting as a phone, the incoming transmission is on a loud speaker so in that way is no different from a hands free phone. But the outgoing transmission still requires me to press and hold a button down and speak to a specific device, which requires more effort than a hands free microphone.
I think if you think about a phone conversation, you're constantly concentrating on the call and caller, to know where and how to respond or interject to maintain a normal exchange. With a two-way, you have no choice but to wait until the incoming transmission has finished before you respond and then you can do that at your leisure.
"14. The consultation document also suggested that 2-way radio microphones should be included
within the proposed ban. However, some responses requested exemption for radio systems, pointing
out that these have been used over many years without giving rise to road safety concerns. Amateur
radio operators, some commercial drivers such as taxi drivers and hauliers, and some of the
emergency services use them to communicate with a base station. We accept that such "press to talk"
devices keep conversations short and are likely to have a lower risk. Furthermore permitting their use
will not open up a loophole because the vast majority of drivers are unlikely to use them as substitutes
for mobile phones. They are far less convenient, generally require a dedicated frequency and permit
only one-way conversations while a button is held. While the details of the extent of the exemption
remain to be determined, the new offence will exempt the use of such devices."
OTBC said:
1 said:
It's all the same really. Lots of things distract us, adjusting the radio/sat nav, crying children a heated conversation with a passenger can all be far more distracting than a mobile phone and I suspect we have all been there and lost concentration for a second, unfortunately in this case someone died. Sad for everyone concerned.
That is not true.http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technolo...
As might be expected, listening to the radio or to a book were the least distracting activities (with scores of 1.21 and 1.75). Talking to a passenger (2.33) and talking on the phone (2.27 if hands-free and 2.45 if hand-held) were intermediate. The most distracting, at 3.06, was hands-free texting. On a scale where 5.0 is the most distracted it is possible to be, that is worryingly high.
Inattention to the road is not the only cause of traffic accidents, but it is an important one. In America, various studies have suggested that it contributes to between a quarter and a half of accidents. Those who think that hands-free texting is low on the list of potential driving hazards might therefore wish to think again.
Distractions are distractions.
Some distractions are worse than others.
When you have a conversation with someone in the same vehicle you have a lot of non-verbal indicators, posture, body language etc. Ypu do not have these clues with a conversation on a mobile, so you have to concentrate more. Of course, a passenger in the same vehicle can see the road and also potentially alert the driver to an impending danger.
Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publicat...
Driving whilst fannying about with a mobile is distracting to the same degree as driving over the drink-drive limit, the penalty should be the same for both offences, in my opinion.
When you have a conversation with someone in the same vehicle you have a lot of non-verbal indicators, posture, body language etc. Ypu do not have these clues with a conversation on a mobile, so you have to concentrate more. Of course, a passenger in the same vehicle can see the road and also potentially alert the driver to an impending danger.
Comparison was made between the conversations held over the carphone and with the front seat passenger. There was a clear difference on all conversation measures showing that performance was worse when the response was via the handsfree carphone. It is concluded that hands-free phone conversations impair driving performance more than these other common in-vehicle distractions.
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publicat...
Driving whilst fannying about with a mobile is distracting to the same degree as driving over the drink-drive limit, the penalty should be the same for both offences, in my opinion.
woof said:
Wonder of this thread should be closed and moved to another forum.
It's no longer motorsport related
There is already a separate thread in S, P & L about this case. The relationship to motorsport was always, perhaps, a bit tenuous, as "racing driver in nasty road traffic incident" is only very lightly connected to the sport, much like (a very different subject) "racing diver in nasty skiing accident". It's no longer motorsport related
I'm wondering, is it reasonable the girlfriend be charged? Eight minutes, she knew he was driving. Accessory, common purpose, whatever. It seems Wrathall's lawyers successfully argued the charge down from dangerous to Careless, which is baffling. Wrathall killed a husband and father, that's pretty convincing evidence that his driving was dangerous.
Because he killed someone.
Because he killed someone.
OTBC said:
I'm wondering, is it reasonable the girlfriend be charged? Eight minutes, she knew he was driving. Accessory, common purpose, whatever. It seems Wrathall's lawyers successfully argued the charge down from dangerous to Careless, which is baffling. Wrathall killed a husband and father, that's pretty convincing evidence that his driving was dangerous.
Because he killed someone.
I have had a dangerous charge downgraded to careless (no third parties involved). Generally, the difference between dangerous and careless is that dangerous is willful, isn't it? The outcome can be the same, its the intent that is distinguished. Because he killed someone.
Frank may have been negligent (careless in his actions) but did he set out with an intention to endanger someone's life? Of course not.
Reardy Mister said:
I have had a dangerous charge downgraded to careless (no third parties involved). Generally, the difference between dangerous and careless is that dangerous is willful, isn't it? The outcome can be the same, its the intent that is distinguished.
No. Intention irrelevant.OTBC said:
I've been following the Wrathall case, it's worth noting that he originally lied to the police and tried to blame the man he killed, it was only when police discovered the cctv footage that they found what Wrathall was telling them was a pack of lies:
There is a distinct difference between getting it wrong/making a mistake (even through negligence/carelessness) and deliberately lying to cover up a wilful action as you seem to be suggesting.Out of interest, do you have a personal involvement in the case? I notice that you seem to have joined PH solely to comment on this thread.
LiamM45 said:
As for cyclists and wearing helmets, it's not irrelevant. Cyclists wearing a helmet should be the law, like wearing a seatbelt is the law in a car. It may not always save your life but it will go a long way to helping save your life. I say this from having a friend killed while riding a bike with no helmet, he would've walked away from his accident if he had a helmet on.
...but it isn't the law. And an expert surgeon in the case said it would have made not difference. Ie Wrathall would have killed this man even if he had been wearing a helmet. Therefore, it is utterly irrelevant in this case. Wrathall did cause this man to die. Whether you have sympathy for Wrathall is unimportant, but you should have sympathy for the victim.
An accident is something unintended. This was an accident and the tragic consequence does not mean that his bad driving was necessarily any worse than careless.
Wrathall was lucky that the case never went to a jury. If convicted of death by dangerous driving then he would have been sent down for about 4 years.
Wrathall was lucky that the case never went to a jury. If convicted of death by dangerous driving then he would have been sent down for about 4 years.
agtlaw said:
An accident is something unintended.
I do struggle with this a bit. If you drive at 80 mph down a busy high street and have the crash that anyone would expect, whilst the driver may say he didn't intend to have a collision, clearly his intention to not have an accident was very weak.Similarly Wrathall's driving may have fell to a standard where again, his intention to stay safe and keep others safe was not very strong at all. He may not have intended to move over onto the cyclist and wipe him out but that's what he did, and his movements of the steering wheel would not have been unintentional.
Is there any recognition of this in law?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff