Death crash car 'had hit 100mph'
Discussion
More nonsense from the good old beeb today:
bbc said:
An inquest has heard how a car in which three young men died was travelling at 100mph on the A39 near Truro.
Ben Wartnaby, 23, from Perranwell, his cousin Paul Rostron, 19, from Veryan, and Christopher Heywood, 20, from Manchester, all died in the crash.
The black Vauxhall Astra they were travelling in swerved and crashed into a wall at Devoran in June last year.
Witness Barry Wright told an inquest in Truro that he estimated the car was travelling at about 100mph.
His wife Susan said the car spun "like a coin tossed into the air" after hitting a concrete kerb.
They go on to say: Ben Wartnaby, 23, from Perranwell, his cousin Paul Rostron, 19, from Veryan, and Christopher Heywood, 20, from Manchester, all died in the crash.
The black Vauxhall Astra they were travelling in swerved and crashed into a wall at Devoran in June last year.
Witness Barry Wright told an inquest in Truro that he estimated the car was travelling at about 100mph.
His wife Susan said the car spun "like a coin tossed into the air" after hitting a concrete kerb.
bbc said:
The inquest has also heard how the driver, Mr Wartnaby, suffered from a muscle wasting condition and was supposed to only drive cars with hand controls.
The Astra had no such controls fitted, although it had been supplied by the motor charity Motorbility.
So yes, of course, it was the speed that caused it, definitely, no shadow of a doubt. Arseholes.The Astra had no such controls fitted, although it had been supplied by the motor charity Motorbility.
Eyewitnesses are crap at guessing speeds, though. Remember that coach crash on the M4 where all the witness accounts said it was travelling "at least" 80mph, right up until someone from the industry pointed out that it was limited to 62mph at which point they all went very quiet and retired to a corner to wipe egg from face?
Can you link to the original article please?
Court reporters will usually report the most interesting parts of the case - the witness testament is one piece, and the lack of hand controls in that car another.
No doubt both played a part.
What did the police forensics say about impact speeds etc?
ETA, my dad works for the West Briton down there so might be able to find out some more info if needed....
Court reporters will usually report the most interesting parts of the case - the witness testament is one piece, and the lack of hand controls in that car another.
No doubt both played a part.
What did the police forensics say about impact speeds etc?
ETA, my dad works for the West Briton down there so might be able to find out some more info if needed....
Edited by Bing o on Tuesday 10th July 17:06
Bing o said:
Can you link to the original article please?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/6288512.stmBing o said:
What did the police forensics say about impact speeds etc?
Nothing at all. Pure eyewitness speculation according to the article as I see it.Edited by miniman on Tuesday 10th July 17:52
People simply cannot judge speed. OK - so I grew up at the trackside watching my Papa & his brother & my oldest cousins 
I got to "feel" or judge speed from that expeieince. Also from ski-ing, ice skating - I was more into speed skating than the twiddly frilly stuff 
Of course But this also helped "get feel" of velocity all the same. 
But people generally when observing or see a crash... It all happens so fast yet also in slow motion too when they replay back in shocked minds. Memory become subjective too as they try to make sense of what they saw too. So - the speed become exagerated. Like the drivers in any tragedy always "faster than forensics/video evidence prove".
I got to "feel" or judge speed from that expeieince. Also from ski-ing, ice skating - I was more into speed skating than the twiddly frilly stuff Of course But this also helped "get feel" of velocity all the same. But people generally when observing or see a crash... It all happens so fast yet also in slow motion too when they replay back in shocked minds. Memory become subjective too as they try to make sense of what they saw too. So - the speed become exagerated. Like the drivers in any tragedy always "faster than forensics/video evidence prove".
groomi said:
Why let good solid facts get in the way of an onlookers bias, unqualified opinion?
The guy that estimated his speed at 100mph was overtaken by this idiot, the speedo on the Astra was frozen at 70mph on impact, the dead mans mother said he always drove fast and had had a number of accidents.Perhaps if he had been doing 60mph ish he might not have lost control and even if he had the resulting impact would not have been as catastrophic, still what has speed got to do with it.
We need more people on the road like this, not.
Slowly Slowly said:
groomi said:
Why let good solid facts get in the way of an onlookers bias, unqualified opinion?
The guy that estimated his speed at 100mph was overtaken by this idiot, the speedo on the Astra was frozen at 70mph on impact, the dead mans mother said he always drove fast and had had a number of accidents.Perhaps if he had been doing 60mph ish he might not have lost control and even if he had the resulting impact would not have been as catastrophic, still what has speed got to do with it.
We need more people on the road like this, not.
Saying "the dead mans mother said he always drove fast" means nothing. Doubtless he did not drive at 100mph through town, and what is her opinion of "fast"? Accellerating quickly my mum would likely complain that I was going "too fast" regardless of my speed...just the accellerating.
There's no mention of braking, or anything like that from the witnesses - driver lost control, hit kerb, hit wall, with impact at (an INDICATED) 70mph, or thereabouts. The chap who was overtaken, estimating speed....was that overtake on a nice straight stretch? We don't know. Was it unsafe at that point? We don't know. Is 100mph unfeasible on a single-carriageway, not at all (it's illegal though, obviously).
One thing we do know was unsafe was to drive a car without physically being able to use the controls properly. And that for a mistake like that 3 young men have died. A sad loss.
What we need on the road is more people who can distiguish the difference between speed and safety. Yes, lower speeds mean slower impacts, but no impacts is a much better model to aim for IMHO.
tigger1 said:
Slowly Slowly said:
groomi said:
Why let good solid facts get in the way of an onlookers bias, unqualified opinion?
The guy that estimated his speed at 100mph was overtaken by this idiot, the speedo on the Astra was frozen at 70mph on impact, the dead mans mother said he always drove fast and had had a number of accidents.Perhaps if he had been doing 60mph ish he might not have lost control and even if he had the resulting impact would not have been as catastrophic, still what has speed got to do with it.
We need more people on the road like this, not.
Saying "the dead mans mother said he always drove fast" means nothing. Doubtless he did not drive at 100mph through town, and what is her opinion of "fast"? Accellerating quickly my mum would likely complain that I was going "too fast" regardless of my speed...just the accellerating.
There's no mention of braking, or anything like that from the witnesses - driver lost control, hit kerb, hit wall, with impact at (an INDICATED) 70mph, or thereabouts. The chap who was overtaken, estimating speed....was that overtake on a nice straight stretch? We don't know. Was it unsafe at that point? We don't know. Is 100mph unfeasible on a single-carriageway, not at all (it's illegal though, obviously).
One thing we do know was unsafe was to drive a car without physically being able to use the controls properly. And that for a mistake like that 3 young men have died. A sad loss.
What we need on the road is more people who can distiguish the difference between speed and safety. Yes, lower speeds mean slower impacts, but no impacts is a much better model to aim for IMHO.
Slowly Slowly - If the speed limit was reduced to 60 or 50 would that of made a blind bit of difference to him?
You cannot legislate against everyone to cover the insane actions of an individual.
If that were the case in the current climate we would be eating weedy little vegetables and sat at home with no transport as sales of fertiliser and petrol have been banned to stop them being used to damage by the individual with their own morality and rules.
tigger1 said:
Slowly Slowly said:
groomi said:
Why let good solid facts get in the way of an onlookers bias, unqualified opinion?
The guy that estimated his speed at 100mph was overtaken by this idiot, the speedo on the Astra was frozen at 70mph on impact, the dead mans mother said he always drove fast and had had a number of accidents.Perhaps if he had been doing 60mph ish he might not have lost control and even if he had the resulting impact would not have been as catastrophic, still what has speed got to do with it.
We need more people on the road like this, not.
Was it unsafe at that point? We don't know. Is 100mph unfeasible on a single-carriageway, not at all (it's illegal though, obviously).
The results speak for themselves.
Slowly Slowly said:
tigger1 said:
Slowly Slowly said:
groomi said:
Why let good solid facts get in the way of an onlookers bias, unqualified opinion?
The guy that estimated his speed at 100mph was overtaken by this idiot, the speedo on the Astra was frozen at 70mph on impact, the dead mans mother said he always drove fast and had had a number of accidents.Perhaps if he had been doing 60mph ish he might not have lost control and even if he had the resulting impact would not have been as catastrophic, still what has speed got to do with it.
We need more people on the road like this, not.
Was it unsafe at that point? We don't know. Is 100mph unfeasible on a single-carriageway, not at all (it's illegal though, obviously).
The results speak for themselves.
As does the mother who's opinion summises the driver always drives too fast.
As do the facts that the driver could not drive the car safely and should not have been driving it due to physical restrictions.
groomi said:
As does the witness who's opinion summises the car was travelling at 100mph.
As does the mother who's opinion summises the driver always drives too fast.
As do the facts that the driver could not drive the car safely and should not have been driving it due to physical restrictions.
Sense, at last. As does the mother who's opinion summises the driver always drives too fast.
As do the facts that the driver could not drive the car safely and should not have been driving it due to physical restrictions.
900T-R said:
groomi said:
As does the witness who's opinion summises the car was travelling at 100mph.
As does the mother who's opinion summises the driver always drives too fast.
As do the facts that the driver could not drive the car safely and should not have been driving it due to physical restrictions.
Sense, at last. As does the mother who's opinion summises the driver always drives too fast.
As do the facts that the driver could not drive the car safely and should not have been driving it due to physical restrictions.
Speed in itself does not cause a car to crash but using the wrong speed for the condtions the location etc does.
It does not say in the report above that he could not drive the car safely. Should is not a must. The fact appears to be he was not as good a driver as he thought he was.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
It doesn't actually say that was the cause of the crash. As the car appears upside down i'd suggest that the speed he travelled was a factor as much as not having the correct controls.
Speed in itself does not cause a car to crash but using the wrong speed for the condtions the location etc does.
It does not say in the report above that he could not drive the car safely. Should is not a must. The fact appears to be he was not as good a driver as he thought he was.
Um, they don't insist on you driving a car with hand controls for sh8ts and giggles, do they? And he did lose control of the car without anything pointing at an extraneous influence if I understand the situation correctly? I respectfully submit that an able-bodied person or a driver operating a vehicle correctly adapted to his/her disability is hardly likely to lose control of a modern passenger car in roadworthy condition at 100 mph on a straight(ish) road. That is, if he ever went that fast.Speed in itself does not cause a car to crash but using the wrong speed for the condtions the location etc does.
It does not say in the report above that he could not drive the car safely. Should is not a must. The fact appears to be he was not as good a driver as he thought he was.
Edited by 900T-R on Wednesday 11th July 12:23
Mr_annie_vxr said:
900T-R said:
groomi said:
As does the witness who's opinion summises the car was travelling at 100mph.
As does the mother who's opinion summises the driver always drives too fast.
As do the facts that the driver could not drive the car safely and should not have been driving it due to physical restrictions.
Sense, at last. As does the mother who's opinion summises the driver always drives too fast.
As do the facts that the driver could not drive the car safely and should not have been driving it due to physical restrictions.
Speed in itself does not cause a car to crash but using the wrong speed for the condtions the location etc does.
It does not say in the report above that he could not drive the car safely. Should is not a must. The fact appears to be he was not as good a driver as he thought he was.
I'm not saying that he wasn't speeding, merely that we do not know whether he was, whereas we do know he should not have been driving the car due to physical restrictions.
groomi said:
I'm not saying that he wasn't speeding, merely that we do not know whether he was,
I don't know what the speed limit is on the stretch of road where he crashed but I don't think it's 70 mph, his speedo was frozen at 70mph (impact speed).Even if you don't allow for some loss of speed before he hit the wall he was speeding, how can you say "we don't know whether he was" (speeding).
You are ignoring the facts, you might not agree with speed limits in general but please don't show support for this type of driving, which in my opinion you seem to be doing.
Edited by Slowly Slowly on Wednesday 11th July 13:20
I'm sure they did, and I'm equally sure that if it had been in excess of the posted limit then this would have merited a mention.
I'm not sure what purpose threads like this in response to press reports actually serve - you can't learn anything from press reports except, perhaps, that they are seldom impartial.
I'm not sure what purpose threads like this in response to press reports actually serve - you can't learn anything from press reports except, perhaps, that they are seldom impartial.
No one's pointed out that someone has been lying about a disability in order to get a free car.
It has to be true that : "If you crashed, then the speed you were travelling at was too fast (for YOU or your car) "
My daughter has a story book in which one of the stories involves a boy who gets a Bike for his birthday and takes it out on the raod and holds on to the back of a lorry up a hill and then crashes.
In it it says "and then suddenly everything all started to happen at once and very quickly as is the way with accidents" ain't that so true !!!
I nearly lost it yesterday because I was going too fast, and my attempts to slow and steer were quite farcical. I managed to regain control thank good.
It has to be true that : "If you crashed, then the speed you were travelling at was too fast (for YOU or your car) "
My daughter has a story book in which one of the stories involves a boy who gets a Bike for his birthday and takes it out on the raod and holds on to the back of a lorry up a hill and then crashes.
In it it says "and then suddenly everything all started to happen at once and very quickly as is the way with accidents" ain't that so true !!!
I nearly lost it yesterday because I was going too fast, and my attempts to slow and steer were quite farcical. I managed to regain control thank good.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff