This pisses me off
Discussion
Why is he a maniac? according to this story. I am sad that someone died but I just dont get the headline.
www.prestontoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=839943
Killed by a maniac at 72mph
A former midwife was thrown in the air and killed by a speeding motorist as she walked her dog down a country lane.
The full horror of the Christmas tragedy emerged at an inquest yesterday when it was revealed that the death crash driver James Wood was speeding at 72mph when he hit Ann Lockyer, 51, at Lodge Lane, Claughton, near Garstang, on December 18 last year.
Today her shattered husband said his life has been torn apart.
Stuart Lockyer, 53, a nurse, was married to Ann, who volunteered as a brownie leader in Broughton, Preston, for 29 years. He said: "You can drive through St Michael's over 30mph and get a ticket. Nothing happened after the death of my wife so it puts things in perspective.
"It has been a nightmare. I have been off work sick since April and I fear I may never be able to get back into the nursing profession."
Mrs Lockyer, from The Parklands, Catterall, near Garstang, was walking a dog along Lodge Lane when she was hit by a Ford Focus on December 18 last year.
At Lancaster coroner's court yesterday, Wood admitted to driving between 67 and 72mph as he overtook a second car, when the speed limit on Lodge Lane is 60mph.
Jane Thompson, who lives in Bilsborrow, near Garstang, was driving her car from Garstang to Bilsborrow on December 18.
The accident happened as Woods tried to overtake Mrs Thompson.
She said: "I had not seen anything in the distance. It was only when I saw the lady that I looked in the mirror and saw he was going to overtake. Then I heard a bang from behind."
When she stopped and looked back she could see the Ford with smoke coming from the engine.
A post mortem examination carried out by pathologist Rob Blewett showed Mrs Lockyer died of multiple injuries, including fractures to the skull, neck, spine and pelvis.
In a police statement James Woods said he considered himself to be a careful, confident driver who had driven down Lodge Lane on several occasions.
But he admitted to driving between 67 and 72mph on the road when the speed limit is 60mph.
PC Richard Roberts, an accident investigation officer, said: "Mr Woods only saw the pedestrian as he started to overtake. His vehicle collided with the pedestrian , throwing her into the air."
PC Roberts indicated that a line of trees behind Mrs Lockyer could have have blotted out her silhouette and made her more difficult to see.
Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Howard McCann said: "It was a dark night. There were no lights and Mrs Lockyer was wearing dark clothes.
"The hedges and trees behind her would provide a sort of camouflage. She was also walking on the wrong side of the road in accordance with the highway code.
"On the other side of the coin the driver has admitted to driving in excess of 60mph. This was obviously a very tragic accident."
e-mail: david.hogg@lep.co.uk
17 August 2004
>>> Edited by k27 on Wednesday 18th August 03:16
www.prestontoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=839943
Killed by a maniac at 72mph
A former midwife was thrown in the air and killed by a speeding motorist as she walked her dog down a country lane.
The full horror of the Christmas tragedy emerged at an inquest yesterday when it was revealed that the death crash driver James Wood was speeding at 72mph when he hit Ann Lockyer, 51, at Lodge Lane, Claughton, near Garstang, on December 18 last year.
Today her shattered husband said his life has been torn apart.
Stuart Lockyer, 53, a nurse, was married to Ann, who volunteered as a brownie leader in Broughton, Preston, for 29 years. He said: "You can drive through St Michael's over 30mph and get a ticket. Nothing happened after the death of my wife so it puts things in perspective.
"It has been a nightmare. I have been off work sick since April and I fear I may never be able to get back into the nursing profession."
Mrs Lockyer, from The Parklands, Catterall, near Garstang, was walking a dog along Lodge Lane when she was hit by a Ford Focus on December 18 last year.
At Lancaster coroner's court yesterday, Wood admitted to driving between 67 and 72mph as he overtook a second car, when the speed limit on Lodge Lane is 60mph.
Jane Thompson, who lives in Bilsborrow, near Garstang, was driving her car from Garstang to Bilsborrow on December 18.
The accident happened as Woods tried to overtake Mrs Thompson.
She said: "I had not seen anything in the distance. It was only when I saw the lady that I looked in the mirror and saw he was going to overtake. Then I heard a bang from behind."
When she stopped and looked back she could see the Ford with smoke coming from the engine.
A post mortem examination carried out by pathologist Rob Blewett showed Mrs Lockyer died of multiple injuries, including fractures to the skull, neck, spine and pelvis.
In a police statement James Woods said he considered himself to be a careful, confident driver who had driven down Lodge Lane on several occasions.
But he admitted to driving between 67 and 72mph on the road when the speed limit is 60mph.
PC Richard Roberts, an accident investigation officer, said: "Mr Woods only saw the pedestrian as he started to overtake. His vehicle collided with the pedestrian , throwing her into the air."
PC Roberts indicated that a line of trees behind Mrs Lockyer could have have blotted out her silhouette and made her more difficult to see.
Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Howard McCann said: "It was a dark night. There were no lights and Mrs Lockyer was wearing dark clothes.
"The hedges and trees behind her would provide a sort of camouflage. She was also walking on the wrong side of the road in accordance with the highway code.
"On the other side of the coin the driver has admitted to driving in excess of 60mph. This was obviously a very tragic accident."
e-mail: david.hogg@lep.co.uk
17 August 2004
>>> Edited by k27 on Wednesday 18th August 03:16
Dare say the woman's husband is a little pissed off too.
Country lanes, as this seems to be, are shared, their are no pavements.
The fact that the women was walking on the wrong side probably made little difference to the outcome.
He was overtaking, so he was also on the wrong side.
He was probably driving beyond his caperbility, all his attention on getting past the car in front little regard for anyone else. Accidental death, I think is quite lucky to get that verdict.
Country lanes, as this seems to be, are shared, their are no pavements.
The fact that the women was walking on the wrong side probably made little difference to the outcome.
He was overtaking, so he was also on the wrong side.
He was probably driving beyond his caperbility, all his attention on getting past the car in front little regard for anyone else. Accidental death, I think is quite lucky to get that verdict.
jeff m said:
Dare say the woman's husband is a little pissed off too.
Country lanes, as this seems to be, are shared, their are no pavements.
The fact that the women was walking on the wrong side probably made little difference to the outcome.
He was overtaking, so he was also on the wrong side.
He was probably driving beyond his caperbility, all his attention on getting past the car in front little regard for anyone else. Accidental death, I think is quite lucky to get that verdict.
pedestrians if there is no path walk on the grass on the other side of the hedge. A car weighing 1 tonne is no match for you, get a life or save your's
>> Edited by niceguy1 on Wednesday 18th August 04:36
niceguy1 said:Around our village that'll be the ditch then. Have you ever tried walking on the grass in the dark? Grass is surprisingly uneven. You are just as likely to trip and fall into the path of a vehicle.
Personally, I think pedestrians walking on unlit country roads should be required to wear high vis vests.
niceguy1 said:
Dare say the woman's husband is a little pissed off too.
Country lanes, as this seems to be, are shared, their are no pavements.
The fact that the women was walking on the wrong side probably made little difference to the outcome.
He was overtaking, so he was also on the wrong side.
He was probably driving beyond his caperbility, all his attention on getting past the car in front little regard for anyone else. Accidental death, I think is quite lucky to get that verdict.
>> Edited by niceguy1 on Wednesday 18th August 04:36
Around here it is not always possible to walk on the other side of the hedge, and there may be no grass verge at the side of the road. All you might have is a steep grass bank such that the pedestrain simply can not get off the road.
Perhaps the pedestrian could have done more to protect herself, but based on what I have read, I am inclined to think the major problem was the driver's behaviour.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
It does have to be taken into consideration that the minor roads around Garstang are an utter nightmare. A lot of them are built on marsh land and subside regularly. Along most of them hovering around 60 or 70 is more than just dedication, it's asking for trouble.
I've only had 2 "near misses" in terms of at fault accidents thus far and both of them have come as a result of driving too fast for the conditions on roads no more than a few miles from this one.
It does sounds as though in this case the speed and conditions weren't being matched.
Phil
I've only had 2 "near misses" in terms of at fault accidents thus far and both of them have come as a result of driving too fast for the conditions on roads no more than a few miles from this one.
It does sounds as though in this case the speed and conditions weren't being matched.
Phil
Yes - the use of the word *maniac* is emotive and, quite possibly, unfair. We were not there, we do not know.
Tragic.
But, we must ask, why was the driver overtaking? Could he have been stuck behind someone doing 48mph for an age and frustration built up?
All sorts of factors. If the coroner recorded accidental death (and he was there, and he does know) then this guy most probably was not driving in such an irresposible manner as to warrant charges being brought against him.
Given that...labelling him a "maniac" seems excessive...to say the least.
Tragic.
But, we must ask, why was the driver overtaking? Could he have been stuck behind someone doing 48mph for an age and frustration built up?
All sorts of factors. If the coroner recorded accidental death (and he was there, and he does know) then this guy most probably was not driving in such an irresposible manner as to warrant charges being brought against him.
Given that...labelling him a "maniac" seems excessive...to say the least.
There used to be TV safety adverts for things like this. I'm sure there was one telling you which side of the road to walk on down a country lane. And at night to make yourself visible and carry a torch.
Nowadays, safety seems to be about penalising you after the event, rather than educating people in the first place.
Nowadays, safety seems to be about penalising you after the event, rather than educating people in the first place.
Yep - a well known series of Government Information Films in the sixties used to extoll pedestrians to "Wear Something Bright at Night".
Both parties were at fault - both were contravening either the law or recommendations in The Highway Code. Both could have done things to make life safer for themselves. Unfortunately (but expectedly), the pedestrian came off worse. Naturally, the media tends to place more blame on the motorist in these circumstances.
Both parties were at fault - both were contravening either the law or recommendations in The Highway Code. Both could have done things to make life safer for themselves. Unfortunately (but expectedly), the pedestrian came off worse. Naturally, the media tends to place more blame on the motorist in these circumstances.
k27 said:Personally, I'm inclined to believe the coroner. After all he had all the facts.
Recording a verdict of accidental death, coroner Howard McCann said: "It was a dark night. There were no lights and Mrs Lockyer was wearing dark clothes.
"The hedges and trees behind her would provide a sort of camouflage. She was also walking on the wrong side of the road in accordance with the highway code.
"On the other side of the coin the driver has admitted to driving in excess of 60mph. This was obviously a very tragic accident."
It does make the word "maniac" look a bit out of place though.
I work with someone who firmly believes that if a car is involved in an accident with a pushbike or a pedestrian then the blame should automatically fall on the car driver. Complete rubbish.
Several years ago I was driving through the town centre in my home town on a Saturday morning, doing about 15-20mph because it was busy, when a man dragging a small child by the hand from between 2 parked cars. He did NOT look before walking out. I had to slam on the anchors and then he had the cheek to yell at me as though I was at fault. The really annoying thing was that the child had pointed towards me as he dragged her into the road but he ignored her!
Several years ago I was driving through the town centre in my home town on a Saturday morning, doing about 15-20mph because it was busy, when a man dragging a small child by the hand from between 2 parked cars. He did NOT look before walking out. I had to slam on the anchors and then he had the cheek to yell at me as though I was at fault. The really annoying thing was that the child had pointed towards me as he dragged her into the road but he ignored her!
niceguy1.
your not, why should pedestrians have to clamber through wet grass verges tatty overgrown hedges etc
Get real, pedestrians haveevery right to be there, car drivers NEED to have more consideration for pedestrians on country roads, they are not your racetrack
Yes she should have been more safety concious too but your post annoys me to an extreme.Selfish?
your not, why should pedestrians have to clamber through wet grass verges tatty overgrown hedges etc
Get real, pedestrians haveevery right to be there, car drivers NEED to have more consideration for pedestrians on country roads, they are not your racetrack
Yes she should have been more safety concious too but your post annoys me to an extreme.Selfish?
This is a tragedy for all concerned.
The most annoying thing is that to have such emotive writing, including details such as former midwife, husbands occupation etc etc, tends to bias the reader against the coroners verdict, the one person who was presented with all the facts.
subjective. not
MoJo.
The most annoying thing is that to have such emotive writing, including details such as former midwife, husbands occupation etc etc, tends to bias the reader against the coroners verdict, the one person who was presented with all the facts.
subjective. not
MoJo.
For anyone (on here) to read what is accepted as being a possibly sensationalised report and then come to a judgement of who was to blame, driver, pedestrian or motorist being overtaken, makes us no better than the reporter who wrote it. (IMHO)
I often reflect on the fact that, I live in a rural area, and sometimes I'm the driver, sometimes a cyclist, sometimes a pedestrian. Most days my g/f is a horse rider on the same roads. Everyone has a right to be there, and we all have a responsibility to ourselves and each other to use the roads with regard for each other. Whether this means wearing light colours and walking / riding on the correct side of the road, or driving at appropriate speed makes no difference.
I agree the driver is not a maniac, just a guy who made a wrong decision for the circumstances, possibly excacerbated by someone else's poor judgement of their surroundings. All in all a sad case.
Take care everyone.
Kev
I often reflect on the fact that, I live in a rural area, and sometimes I'm the driver, sometimes a cyclist, sometimes a pedestrian. Most days my g/f is a horse rider on the same roads. Everyone has a right to be there, and we all have a responsibility to ourselves and each other to use the roads with regard for each other. Whether this means wearing light colours and walking / riding on the correct side of the road, or driving at appropriate speed makes no difference.
I agree the driver is not a maniac, just a guy who made a wrong decision for the circumstances, possibly excacerbated by someone else's poor judgement of their surroundings. All in all a sad case.
Take care everyone.
Kev
sagalout said:
niceguy1.
your not, why should pedestrians have to clamber through wet grass verges tatty overgrown hedges etc
Get real, pedestrians haveevery right to be there, car drivers NEED to have more consideration for pedestrians on country roads, they are not your racetrack
Yes she should have been more safety concious too but your post annoys me to an extreme.Selfish?
But he's not a nice guy at all! He's "maniacalMaster" posting under "NiceGuy1". As I said on another thread, compare the writings of the two profiles - identical styles, both have stated they are couriers and both drive broken Honda Concerto's.
Who ever this is, he really does drive me batshit and I really wish he'd kindly go back to the "Loony's Anonymous" Bulletin Board.
k27 said:
Stuart Lockyer, 53, a nurse, was married to Ann, who volunteered as a brownie leader in Broughton, Preston, for 29 years. He said: "You can drive through St Michael's over 30mph and get a ticket. Nothing happened after the death of my wife so it puts things in perspective.
Indeed it does. Which is the real hazardous blackspot here?
B-Road in question - as someone pointed out - typical rural NSL road. Not one you would do steady 60 mph as constant.... especially at twilight/night.
Lack of skill (despite fact he was used to road through frequent use - perhaps complacency through familiarity??) Just because you are used to doing something often and by habit - does not necessarily mean you are skilled
eh? TS She did not help herself by wearing dark clothes either.
Neither victim blameless here - but neither are "maniacs" either. Both - perhaps very foolish and each contributed in part to accident and overall outcome.
Tragic.
news said:
Jane Thompson, who lives in Bilsborrow, near Garstang, was driving her car from Garstang to Bilsborrow on December 18.
The accident happened as Woods tried to overtake Mrs Thompson.
She said: "I had not seen anything in the distance. It was only when I saw the lady that I looked in the mirror and saw he was going to overtake. Then I heard a bang from behind."
When she stopped and looked back she could see the Ford with smoke coming from the engine.
What's the betting that Mrs Thompson was travelling far too slowly in a 60 limit causing the overtake manoever in the first place?
And why do people go for walks on country lanes with 60 mph limits? You'd probably be safer on a f
ing motroway! 12 mph over the limit does not make him a maniac, and IMHO the accident would probably have happened if he was doing 60.Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff