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

[Tafia]

Recall the 4 cyclists who were killed on an icy road in January in N Wales when a car skidded into them.

Daily Post says the driver is being being done for 3 defective tyres.

At the time, blame was flying all over the place. Suggestions were that the cylists should not have been out on icy roads, one having fallen off earlier on ice at a roundabout: the council should have gritted: police knew of 3 accidents at that spot an hour before and of the dangerous conditions but did not close the road, though they did ask the council to grit.

Wonder if others will be charged with anything.

[Richard C]

Don't think so Tafia.

The driver with the defective tyres has been identified as the demon here. Everyone else can don the self righteous mantle - same as the Gary hart case.

Of course it would not have mattered if the driver had brand new tyres on black ice though.........

[safespeed]

Anything in the Daily Post about the nature of the alleged defects?

I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes. Ten, no, five years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Now it's my best guess. What on earth went so wrong?

[jasandjules]

safespeed said:

What on earth went so wrong?

Senior Police Officers were replaced by lefties.

[minicity]

safespeed said:

Anything in the Daily Post about the nature of the alleged defects?

I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes. Ten, no, five years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Now it's my best guess. What on earth went so wrong?

Didn't a police spokesperson say something like "It was just an accident" straight after the event? Strange, with hindsight.

Perhaps the other people that slid off had defective tyres too. Haven't studies shown that about 25% of vehicles have at least one illegal tyre?

[justinp1]

safespeed said:

Anything in the Daily Post about the nature of the alleged defects?

I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes. Ten, no, five years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Now it's my best guess. What on earth went so wrong?

Call me a cynic but I completely agree. Am not saying that the driver was not at fault *if* he did have three defective tyres as alleged, however if accidents had already happened at the same place in the last few minutes or hours then this was not the cause it was a contributary factor.

The same level of blame should be laid on those with the knowledge that the accidents were taking place, but there is a fat chance of that methinks.

[Tafia]

safespeed said:

Anything in the Daily Post about the nature of the alleged defects?

I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes. Ten, no, five years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Now it's my best guess. What on earth went so wrong?

Just says 3 defective tyres. Story here.

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/n

[jith]

Tafia said:

safespeed said:

Anything in the Daily Post about the nature of the alleged defects?

I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes. Ten, no, five years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Now it's my best guess. What on earth went so wrong?

Just says 3 defective tyres. Story here.

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/n

I fully agree with you Paul, but as this is a newspaper article we have to be careful about specifics.
What is a certainty is that on ice it makes utterly no difference how much or little tread there is on a tyre, so that was clearly NOT the cause of the accident. The prosecution as a result is then pointless.
The only tyres that work on ice are studded.
I also find it difficult to believe that there were three defective tyres on one vehicle, although it can happen. On the same tack the definition of defective is wide; it could simply mean a bulge on the sidewall or a flat spot caused through panic braking.
Unless it is proven to be the cause of the accident it is immaterial, and deflects attention away from the true source.

[vonhosen]

jith said:

Tafia said:

safespeed said:

Anything in the Daily Post about the nature of the alleged defects?

I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes. Ten, no, five years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Now it's my best guess. What on earth went so wrong?

Just says 3 defective tyres. Story here.

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/n

I fully agree with you Paul, but as this is a newspaper article we have to be careful about specifics.
What is a certainty is that on ice it makes utterly no difference how much or little tread there is on a tyre, so that was clearly NOT the cause of the accident. The prosecution as a result is then pointless.
The only tyres that work on ice are studded.
I also find it difficult to believe that there were three defective tyres on one vehicle, although it can happen. On the same tack the definition of defective is wide; it could simply mean a bulge on the sidewall or a flat spot caused through panic braking.
Unless it is proven to be the cause of the accident it is immaterial, and deflects attention away from the true source.

The driver should be prosecuted for 3 defective tyres collision or not.

[BadgerBenji]

End of the day the driver was driving in an inappropriate manner for the conditions. Im sure other cars passed through that area without incident.

Roads dont kill people drivers do.

[apache]

BadgerBenji said:

End of the day the driver was driving in an inappropriate manner for the conditions. Im sure other cars passed through that area without incident.

Roads dont kill people drivers do.

"I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes"


apparently not, it's usually a good idea to read the thread before commenting

[jith]

vonhosen said:

jith said:

Tafia said:

safespeed said:

Anything in the Daily Post about the nature of the alleged defects?

I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes. Ten, no, five years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Now it's my best guess. What on earth went so wrong?

Just says 3 defective tyres. Story here.

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/n

I fully agree with you Paul, but as this is a newspaper article we have to be careful about specifics.
What is a certainty is that on ice it makes utterly no difference how much or little tread there is on a tyre, so that was clearly NOT the cause of the accident. The prosecution as a result is then pointless.
The only tyres that work on ice are studded.
I also find it difficult to believe that there were three defective tyres on one vehicle, although it can happen. On the same tack the definition of defective is wide; it could simply mean a bulge on the sidewall or a flat spot caused through panic braking.
Unless it is proven to be the cause of the accident it is immaterial, and deflects attention away from the true source.

The driver should be prosecuted for 3 defective tyres collision or not.

Well Mr. Pedantic,
I would have thought it obvious to anyone reading the post that the point I was making was that the defective tyres only deflect from the true reason for the accident and as such are a pointless prosecution, in that it is not in the public interest if it is being carried out to satisfy the accident inquiry and the current lust of the blame culture.
I fully agree that defective tyres are highly dangerous, but I feel prosecution is not the cure unless the driver was shown to be excessively negligent, i.e. knew about the state of they tyres and kept on driving.

[r5gttgaz]

If the police had shyed away from the spot after previous accidents and mishaps surely they should be accountable for neglegence at the least, although as previously said this looks like a move to deflect attention.

Edited by r5gttgaz on Friday 23 June 16:11

[BadgerBenji]

apache said:

BadgerBenji said:

End of the day the driver was driving in an inappropriate manner for the conditions. Im sure other cars passed through that area without incident.

Roads dont kill people drivers do.

"I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes"


apparently not, it's usually a good idea to read the thread before commenting

Yes I read the previous posts.
Im sorry this is conspiracy theory, without knowing what other calls were received that the officers had to deal with you are making a massive assumption, that they fled and trying to cover up. It was a cold winters day, surely that should indicate to you as a driver that it might be slippery in places. I was in wales the day this happened, and there was still snow on the verge, the roads were clear of snow, but it still indicated to me that caution was required.

[vonhosen]

jith said:

vonhosen said:

jith said:

Tafia said:

safespeed said:

Anything in the Daily Post about the nature of the alleged defects?

I fear that the Police are trying to deflect the heat away from themselves having abandoned the scene after earlier crashes. Ten, no, five years ago I wouldn't have believed it. Now it's my best guess. What on earth went so wrong?

Just says 3 defective tyres. Story here.

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/n

I fully agree with you Paul, but as this is a newspaper article we have to be careful about specifics.
What is a certainty is that on ice it makes utterly no difference how much or little tread there is on a tyre, so that was clearly NOT the cause of the accident. The prosecution as a result is then pointless.
The only tyres that work on ice are studded.
I also find it difficult to believe that there were three defective tyres on one vehicle, although it can happen. On the same tack the definition of defective is wide; it could simply mean a bulge on the sidewall or a flat spot caused through panic braking.
Unless it is proven to be the cause of the accident it is immaterial, and deflects attention away from the true source.

The driver should be prosecuted for 3 defective tyres collision or not.

Well Mr. Pedantic,
I would have thought it obvious to anyone reading the post that the point I was making was that the defective tyres only deflect from the true reason for the accident and as such are a pointless prosecution, in that it is not in the public interest if it is being carried out to satisfy the accident inquiry and the current lust of the blame culture.
I fully agree that defective tyres are highly dangerous, but I feel prosecution is not the cure unless the driver was shown to be excessively negligent, i.e. knew about the state of they tyres and kept on driving.

Guess it's another one we disagree on then

One defective tyre = VDRS (unless contributory to the collision in which case prosecute).
Three defective tyres = Tell it to the magistrate, collision or not.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 23 June 16:12

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

The driver should be prosecuted for 3 defective tyres collision or not.

If and only if the tyres were defective, of course.
If and only if to do so is somehow in the public interest.
If and only if the defects are defects in the spirit of the law.

Don't you suspect even a tiny little bit of the arse-covering smell here?

I have a feeling that the 'defects' will have been applied after or during the crash, perhaps as the vehicle was uplifted or stored, something like that. I have a feeling that the cops are clutching at straws.

And if they are prosecuting ONLY for tyres, 5 months (is it?) after that horrible horrible crash, then I think that they are scraping the barrel. And I fear that they are scraping the barrel as a filthy PR exercise.

[vonhosen]

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

The driver should be prosecuted for 3 defective tyres collision or not.

If and only if the tyres were defective, of course.

Of course the tyres would have to be defective to prosecute OR are you sugeesting the Police changed 3 good tyres for 3 dodgy ones ?

safespeed said:

If and only if to do so is somehow in the public interest.

For me 3 defective tyres on a vehicle is always in the public interest.

safespeed said:

If and only if the defects are defects in the spirit of the law.

What's your definition of "the spirit of the law" where defctive tyres are concerned ?

safespeed said:

Don't you suspect even a tiny little bit of the arse-covering smell here?

Is there some evidence of that, or is it paranoia that the nasty Police are going after the poor hard done by motorist ?

safespeed said:

I have a feeling that the 'defects' will have been applied after or during the crash, perhaps as the vehicle was uplifted or stored, something like that. I have a feeling that the cops are clutching at straws.

What was defective about the tyres then as you seem to know so much about it ?
Or is it just an unsubstantiated "feeling" ?

safespeed said:

And if they are prosecuting ONLY for tyres, 5 months (is it?) after that horrible horrible crash, then I think that they are scraping the barrel. And I fear that they are scraping the barrel as a filthy PR exercise.

Any summonses are rarely sent out quickly from what I've seen in such matters.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 23 June 17:11

[Heebeegeetee]

Thing is, if ice was to blame, how come there weren't a small collection of crashed cars at that bend? I'd be surprised if other cars hadn't already passed that corner beforehand without a problem.

Ice is funny stuff of course, but its rare that you don't know its there. As others have said, the frozen verges are a bit of a giveaway.

Mind you, there but for the grace of god go I. If I'd killed 5 people with a car on defective tyres though, I'd expect to be prosecuted.

[Observer2]

safespeed said:

vonhosen said:

The driver should be prosecuted for 3 defective tyres collision or not.

If and only if the tyres were defective, of course.
If and only if to do so is somehow in the public interest.
If and only if the defects are defects in the spirit of the law.

Don't you suspect even a tiny little bit of the arse-covering smell here?

I have a feeling that the 'defects' will have been applied after or during the crash, perhaps as the vehicle was uplifted or stored, something like that. I have a feeling that the cops are clutching at straws.

And if they are prosecuting ONLY for tyres, 5 months (is it?) after that horrible horrible crash, then I think that they are scraping the barrel. And I fear that they are scraping the barrel as a filthy PR exercise.

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.

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

safespeed said:

I have a feeling that the 'defects' will have been applied after or during the crash, perhaps as the vehicle was uplifted or stored, something like that. I have a feeling that the cops are clutching at straws.

What was defective about the tyres then as you seem to know so much about it ?
Or is it just an unsubstantiated "feeling" ?

More or less entirely unsubstantiated. Otherwise I would not have used the words: "I have a feeling."