Quad bike crash four dead
Discussion
Vaud said:
AyBee said:
Given that the damage caused in those photos shows the quad still in the road and reports have already said the Nissan hit the quad from behind, the closing speed must have been large - what redeeming features are there to not make a scapegoat out of the driver?
Because we don't know all the circumstances?Society now seems too eager to try to make forests without trees, especially where deaths are involved.
doogz said:
One riding. One immediately behind. One sitting on the front rack, one sitting backwards on the back rack with their legs dangling off the back.
When you've been down in the field for hours, mixing concrete by hand in a rubble bucket, and digging holes, and concreting in gate posts, and it's 300m back uphill to the house, in your wellies in the wet mud, everyone is getting on the bike!
4 people, and a trailer with quarter of a tonne of building supplies on the back, my little quad used to work hard!
Which is fine down the farm. On a NSL bit of road after midnight - not so much.When you've been down in the field for hours, mixing concrete by hand in a rubble bucket, and digging holes, and concreting in gate posts, and it's 300m back uphill to the house, in your wellies in the wet mud, everyone is getting on the bike!
4 people, and a trailer with quarter of a tonne of building supplies on the back, my little quad used to work hard!
AyBee said:
Agreed, I was merely pointing out that nobody is likely to be made a scapegoat of - if the driver of the Nissan is found to be at fault, he'll quite rightly have the book thrown at him for the deaths of 4 people.
If it were a dog in the road, at night, then we would have people wanting the Nissan driver executed for driving far too fast to stop in the distance he could see. But because it was kids on a quad then the chav card can be played and their pecking order for execution under the PH Final Solution proposal is higher than a Nissan driver (just) and a fluffy wuffy animal wouldn't even be on the list. 
We don't actually know they were four up. It could equally have been two up and two on the side of the road got caught by the shrapnel.
One possible scenario is two on the quad stopped to talk to two on the side of the road and the 350z came along and cleaned them all out.
Tragic however it happened.
One possible scenario is two on the quad stopped to talk to two on the side of the road and the 350z came along and cleaned them all out.
Tragic however it happened.
No helmets etc etc etc.According to the Guardian's report http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/27/thr... the quadbike was unregistered. Even if helmets were made a legal requirement for quadbike users, the type of person who'd use an unlicensed vehicle on the road may not be too hot on complying with any helmet usage laws anyway.
AyBee said:
Given that the damage caused in those photos shows the quad still in the road and reports have already said the Nissan hit the quad from behind, the closing speed must have been large - what redeeming features are there to not make a scapegoat out of the driver?
Not sure why quad in road = high closing speed? I would have thought that 40 vs. 0 would do it. Car well below speed limit clips quad bike losing front bumper. Quad spins round and round throwing passengers off, serious head injuries cause fatalities.Thermobaric said:
I wonder if the driver of the Nissan wouldn't identify themselves hence both arrested. I can't see another reason.
Perhaps this will be the kick up the arse the government need to reclassify them to need helmets e.t.c. I mean, the clue is on the name Quad bike.
In this instance I doubt if a helmet would have saved them. Even if it was law I doubt if it would have helped here as from what I have read it was not even a street legal Quad and therefore I doubt if the people involved would have stopped to think,"ooh, hold on, let me grab a helmet". Sad and tragic as it is, sometimes these things just happen and laws and posts on the internet will not stop them. Some people just have little thought or regard for their own safety. I am sure we all recall the local lunatic who was always charging about on a motorbike when we were kids......They usually ended up dead or maimed.Perhaps this will be the kick up the arse the government need to reclassify them to need helmets e.t.c. I mean, the clue is on the name Quad bike.
doogz said:
And what do you think motorbikes means?
The "Bi" part refers to the number of wheels, that being 2.
Quad bikes don't require helmets to be worn when riding on the road, they're not the same as 2 wheeled bikes, they're heavy quadricycles, like a G-Wiz or Renault Twizy.
I'm not sure how you're not getting this...The "Bi" part refers to the number of wheels, that being 2.
Quad bikes don't require helmets to be worn when riding on the road, they're not the same as 2 wheeled bikes, they're heavy quadricycles, like a G-Wiz or Renault Twizy.
Young people make dumb mistakes as they (often) feel invincible. I remember some daft overtaking I did in my Dad's company car. With few exceptions everything seems different when you're young and driving, particularly when trying to impress girls. I don't think it's fair to say stuff like "Darwin at work", etc particularly as we don't know how big a component the Nissan was in the equation.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff