Discussion
My apologies in advance to Ted and everyone reading this forum. This post must look as if I should change my login name to bogush; unfortunately it really is the only way to answer and make a series of points.
OK
Deep sigh..... Iolaire you make some good points, but you really do yourself no favours
with this constant supercilious stance of intellectual superiority and knocking of other forum readers.
Not the way to win friends and influence people.
however
a cheap shot on my part in a vain attempt to lighten the mood... regardless apologies are duly offered.
And your case is built on proof is it? Like this.....
a "fact" you presumably know is a fact because.....
Oh I see, it's a theory, not even an assumption yet. Oh dear.
So they are just postulating a theory too, no facts either. And let's suppose that you do see the components, and don't find any evidence of......
or there is no evidence of pre existing defects/ inappropriate material condition prior to the final damage, what is your next theory then?
The next assumption is that he couldn't remove it from the track solely because of the assumed steering failure.
Completely ignoring a series of other factors like topography, position of trailer, state of mind, competence to drive after such an incident, maybe he just decided the best course of action was to immediately phone the emergency services? Just guesses, but all ones your intellectual superiority has discounted.
And what have you got to say about....
Or are you back onto to your stance on police corruption.
So presumably one of the actions of this society you propose is to establish a fighting fund to clear Hart's name? Or??
I've got no disagreement with the position that anyone of us could find ourselves ranged up against the might of the State after a minor error ends up with disastrous circumstances. There are many more incidents where institutions (using the word in the widest possible sense) have got away with murder, literally. Now THAT is a national disgrace. Not the poor sods in some British Standards committee who agreed the design rules for protection of vehicles leaving the road near railway bridges.
That is my last word on this thread, rant all you want, nothing more from me.
Over and out.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 9th October 20:54
OK
Deep sigh..... Iolaire you make some good points, but you really do yourself no favours
with this constant supercilious stance of intellectual superiority and knocking of other forum readers. In one such example Iolaire said:
but I think it will be lost on most people
Not the way to win friends and influence people.
however
Iolaire said:
I am some sort of grease monkey that's done a bit with Land Rovers.
a cheap shot on my part in a vain attempt to lighten the mood... regardless apologies are duly offered.
Iolaire said:
The whole case for the prosecution is based on assumption, not material proof.
And your case is built on proof is it? Like this.....
Iolaire said:
is the fact that they were so badly damaged by the collision with the train
a "fact" you presumably know is a fact because.....
Iolaire said:
no one has offered to let me see the components from the Land Rover
Oh I see, it's a theory, not even an assumption yet. Oh dear.
Iolaire said:
whilst not an expert on Land Rovers, do know them sufficiently well to realise that they are desperately flawed in design in many departments.
I do however have two colleagues who are older than me and truly are experts; they are both utterly convinced that Hart's vehicle suffered steering failure, everything points to that. But what we would all like to see, especially in the light of the photographs of the vehicle, are the actual components and the appalling state that they MUST be in after the collision.
So they are just postulating a theory too, no facts either. And let's suppose that you do see the components, and don't find any evidence of......
Iolaire said:
They fill up with water and then simply corrode away until they pop; or the adjustment thread on the track rod corrodes away and the end pulls out of the tube.
or there is no evidence of pre existing defects/ inappropriate material condition prior to the final damage, what is your next theory then?
The next assumption is that he couldn't remove it from the track solely because of the assumed steering failure.
Completely ignoring a series of other factors like topography, position of trailer, state of mind, competence to drive after such an incident, maybe he just decided the best course of action was to immediately phone the emergency services? Just guesses, but all ones your intellectual superiority has discounted.
And what have you got to say about....
North Yorks Police Accident Investigation Unit said:
no signs of braking
Or are you back onto to your stance on police corruption.
Iolaire said:
put a highly experienced LandRover engineer on the stand and ask him if the accident was indicative of steering failure he would undoubtedly state that it was. This agrees precisely with the behaviour of the vehicle and Hart's testimony as to how it went out of control.
That is a far more plausible scenario than simply falling asleep.
So presumably one of the actions of this society you propose is to establish a fighting fund to clear Hart's name? Or??
I've got no disagreement with the position that anyone of us could find ourselves ranged up against the might of the State after a minor error ends up with disastrous circumstances. There are many more incidents where institutions (using the word in the widest possible sense) have got away with murder, literally. Now THAT is a national disgrace. Not the poor sods in some British Standards committee who agreed the design rules for protection of vehicles leaving the road near railway bridges.
That is my last word on this thread, rant all you want, nothing more from me.
Over and out.
FiF
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Saturday 9th October 20:54
At bloody last, well said FiF.....
FiF, I would really appreciate you giving me just one example where I am constantly knocking other readers on this forum.
If you think I come across as supercilious or intellectually superior, then I assume you feel threatened or intimidated by the manner in which I put my points across.
If you met me and knew me you would realise that I am simply not like that; I go to enormous lengths to ensure that I am as objective as possible when I state a case about any subject on here.
I NEVER personally attack or insult anyone or resort to the kind of abusive language that is used on here regularly, a great many times by the BiB.
My reference to the analogy being wasted on here was simply because I have found that a great many responses to points raised are from people who obviously haven't read the post or thread properly and have missed something or picked it up wrongly.
Using an analogy will tend to complicate that because it adds another parameter into the argument.
I did not raise a case against Gary Hart, the CPS did.
Unlike the CPS, I do not have to justify myself to the public, but what I will do is forward theories, based on a great deal of research and experience, that offer what I consider to be a much more likely scenario.
Unlike the CPS, I offer no threat to an accused person, I cannot perpetrate what they did to Gary Hart.
Whether or not he fell asleep, I still consider that the actions taken against him, and the fact that the matter is now considered settled, are an absolute, bloody disgrace.
You can print this out and stick it on your office wall if you like and when another disaster happens in similar circumstances, maybe you'll look at it and think more kindly of me.
If you think I come across as supercilious or intellectually superior, then I assume you feel threatened or intimidated by the manner in which I put my points across.
If you met me and knew me you would realise that I am simply not like that; I go to enormous lengths to ensure that I am as objective as possible when I state a case about any subject on here.
I NEVER personally attack or insult anyone or resort to the kind of abusive language that is used on here regularly, a great many times by the BiB.
My reference to the analogy being wasted on here was simply because I have found that a great many responses to points raised are from people who obviously haven't read the post or thread properly and have missed something or picked it up wrongly.
Using an analogy will tend to complicate that because it adds another parameter into the argument.
I did not raise a case against Gary Hart, the CPS did.
Unlike the CPS, I do not have to justify myself to the public, but what I will do is forward theories, based on a great deal of research and experience, that offer what I consider to be a much more likely scenario.
Unlike the CPS, I offer no threat to an accused person, I cannot perpetrate what they did to Gary Hart.
Whether or not he fell asleep, I still consider that the actions taken against him, and the fact that the matter is now considered settled, are an absolute, bloody disgrace.
You can print this out and stick it on your office wall if you like and when another disaster happens in similar circumstances, maybe you'll look at it and think more kindly of me.
mrmaggit said:
I was discussing this in the pub just after it happened. I was surprised (and said so) that he had some minutes on the track prior to the train hitting the Landrover. I wondered why he hadn't tried to stop the train by shorting out the rails. The signalling system flows a low voltage current along one rail, and back the other. Short across the rails (the wheels of a train also do this), the system thinks the track is occupied, all the signals go to red, train stops.
Apparently, I was the only one that knew this.
I think you will find it's only people who know anything about railways who know this. It's hard to imagine a conversation turning to track circuiting if non-railway people are participating
Probably a good thing overall that the knowledge isn't more widespread, or we'd see main lines constantly "blocked" by toerags with jump leads. Pigeon said:
I was discussing this in the pub just after it happened. I was surprised (and said so) that he had some minutes on the track prior to the train hitting the Landrover. I wondered why he hadn't tried to stop the train by shorting out the rails. The signalling system flows a low voltage current along one rail, and back the other. Short across the rails (the wheels of a train also do this), the system thinks the track is occupied, all the signals go to red, train stops.
Apparently, I was the only one that knew this.
I think you will find it's only people who know anything about railways who know this. It's hard to imagine a conversation turning to track circuiting if non-railway people are participating
Seriously - does that work? god help the daily commute if vandal monkeys get a hold of this idea!
IOLAIRE
Generally agree- having felt at the time that Gary Hart had been stiched up by the blame culture, establishment and Railtrack. And there given unfortunate circumstances go any of us, especially those deviants who mange on less that 7 hours 59 minutes of sleep per night.
It is unbelievabole and criminally negligent that the barriers have nor been extended. While the statistical probability is small then the next time a sleepy driver; faulty vehicle, or other leaves the DC at that place a repeat could occur.
And destroyer - you have my contempt........... troll
Generally agree- having felt at the time that Gary Hart had been stiched up by the blame culture, establishment and Railtrack. And there given unfortunate circumstances go any of us, especially those deviants who mange on less that 7 hours 59 minutes of sleep per night.
It is unbelievabole and criminally negligent that the barriers have nor been extended. While the statistical probability is small then the next time a sleepy driver; faulty vehicle, or other leaves the DC at that place a repeat could occur.
And destroyer - you have my contempt........... troll
David A said:
Seriously - does that work? god help the daily commute if vandal monkeys get a hold of this idea!
Yep. Guards carry jump lead type thingies specially for the purpose of protecting the line in case of an accident. They are the things on the wall between the fire extinguisher and the crowbar in this pic:
A link to The Scotsman, with an interesting article on the subject. It would appear I am not alone.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=30&id=1651552001
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=30&id=1651552001
This is getting spooky; ANOTHER main line and ANOTHER Land Rover!!
www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=143
www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=143
David A said:
mrmaggit said:
I was discussing this in the pub just after it happened. I was surprised (and said so) that he had some minutes on the track prior to the train hitting the Landrover. I wondered why he hadn't tried to stop the train by shorting out the rails. The signalling system flows a low voltage current along one rail, and back the other. Short across the rails (the wheels of a train also do this), the system thinks the track is occupied, all the signals go to red, train stops.
Apparently, I was the only one that knew this.
I think you will find it's only people who know anything about railways who know this. It's hard to imagine a conversation turning to track circuiting if non-railway people are participating
Seriously - does that work? god help the daily commute if vandal monkeys get a hold of this idea!
Yes, I did think carefully before posting this. On balance, I think the PH massive would be responsible and store this in the "might need this one day" file.
Having read through many replies to this thread it would appear that there are many who fail to address the judicial farce with the prosecutions evidence based on probibilities.
Among the many forensic science experts involved was there a expert mechanical engineer? If so was his evidence calculated as an expert witness?
Among the many forensic science experts involved was there a expert mechanical engineer? If so was his evidence calculated as an expert witness?
My office mate was intimately involved in the case - he's a materials scientist. Now as you may or may not be aware there's a huge overlap between the various engineering disciplines, but when it comes down to deciding whether something failed as a result of impact, fatigue, corrosion or some other defect, you really want a materials scientist, rather than a mechanical engineer. The failure of the steering system IOLAIRE described would have been perfectly evident to a materials scientist, irrespective of how many parts the steering ended up in after the crash. Metal doesn't vapourise that easily.
As for the whole matter of whether the 'punishment' matched the 'crime' of falling asleep - I leave it up to the jury and the appeal courts to decide whether a crime was committed and what punishment should be meted out. Not withstanding your feelings over the CPS's decision to bring a case, and in my experience they are readier to 'not run' with a case than 'run' with one, I note that Gary Hart has repeatedly attempted to appeal his conviction. I got this from the CCRC website:
As for the whole matter of whether the 'punishment' matched the 'crime' of falling asleep - I leave it up to the jury and the appeal courts to decide whether a crime was committed and what punishment should be meted out. Not withstanding your feelings over the CPS's decision to bring a case, and in my experience they are readier to 'not run' with a case than 'run' with one, I note that Gary Hart has repeatedly attempted to appeal his conviction. I got this from the CCRC website:
CCRC said:
The Criminal Cases Review Commission today confirmed that a decision has been taken not to refer the case of Gary Hart back to the Court of Appeal.
On 13th December 2001 at Leeds Crown Court Mr Hart was convicted of 10 counts of causing death by dangerous driving. On 11th January 2002 Mr Hart was sentenced to a total of 5 years imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 5 years.
The prosecution alleged that Mr Hart, aged 39, fell asleep at the wheel of his Land Rover on 28th February 2001, resulting in the Selby rail crash in which 10 people died. Mr Hart denied falling asleep and contended that a mechanical failure had caused him to lose control of his vehicle.
Mr Hart lodged an appeal against both conviction and sentence, and on 30th May 2002 a Single Judge at the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. Mr Hart renewed an appeal against conviction to the Full Court but this was dismissed on 14th April 2003.
The Commission received an application for a review of Mr Hart's conviction in August 2003. After a thorough review of the case, which took account of the applicants grounds of application, together with the evidence and relevant case law, the Commission has concluded that there is not a "real possibility" that the Court of Appeal would quash the conviction and therefore the case cannot be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
A Commission spokesman said: "The Commission came to a provisional view on this case in late December 2003. Mr Hart has not made any further representations in response to this, as he is entitled to do, and therefore a decision not to refer his case has now been made."
Dave, I understand your point about the capabilities of a materials scientist. I trained as a design engineer with Babcock in the days when they built nuclear power stations and enormous cranes.
I am fully aware of the concepts of stress and the metallurgic principles involved right down to atomic level. I am not implying however that this is a case where there was a molecular failure that would be difficult to detect, but rather the kind of failure that is common in Land Rovers could be masked by the collision with the train.
The vehicle was absolutely annihilated remember, so let's assume for sake of argument that your lads found the drop arm ball joint was separated from the track arm, and then assumed it had been done so by the train.
There is no absolutely no problem with this and their assumption is a fair one, but if it happened only two minutes before hand on the road then it was the cause of the Land Rover leaving the road and Hart having no steering control whatsoever.
I believe that it is impossible , beyond all reasonable doubt, to say which of these scenarios would be the correct one. I mean what scientific test or discipline are you going to apply to prove either?
I'll be perfectly honest Dave and say that if Hart had been driving a big, comfy BMW or Mercedes and cruising along with the heating on and some soft music on the audio, then the falling asleep theory becomes very powerful indeed; and the chance of steering failure so remote as to be acceptably discounted.
As we all know , that was not the case, and the point I have been trying to stress, and so has cen, who is a solicitor, in his submissions, is that the concept of reasonable doubt in this case seems to have been totally supressed.
If you go on to the Highways agency website you can download the photos of the accident site. The tracks of the Land Rover go straight down to the railway, there is no deviation whatsoever.
It is impossible to believe that a driver as experienced as Hart would make no attempt over a distance like this to swerve and avoid the railway.
If he had no steering it would be impossible for him to do so, this is what the tracks indicate.
But then I find this other accident last year, that is a virtual clone of Hart's except two people in the Land Rover were killed and it struck the mainline Virgin Express, fortunately on the side. Again fortunately, there was time to stop another goods train coming in the opposite direction before it hit the vehicle.
So what do we say this time?. Did this guy also fall asleep, was he speeding, or drunk maybe.
No hate campaign this time, in fact it hardly made the news, probably because the guy paid for the incident with his life.
There is only one thing to say; HOW DID HIS VEHICLE GET ON THE TRACK!!!!!!!
This is the last time I am going to say this, if we don't improve the safety standards of the road/rail network, many more people are going to get killed.
Please all note that in your diaries.
I am fully aware of the concepts of stress and the metallurgic principles involved right down to atomic level. I am not implying however that this is a case where there was a molecular failure that would be difficult to detect, but rather the kind of failure that is common in Land Rovers could be masked by the collision with the train.
The vehicle was absolutely annihilated remember, so let's assume for sake of argument that your lads found the drop arm ball joint was separated from the track arm, and then assumed it had been done so by the train.
There is no absolutely no problem with this and their assumption is a fair one, but if it happened only two minutes before hand on the road then it was the cause of the Land Rover leaving the road and Hart having no steering control whatsoever.
I believe that it is impossible , beyond all reasonable doubt, to say which of these scenarios would be the correct one. I mean what scientific test or discipline are you going to apply to prove either?
I'll be perfectly honest Dave and say that if Hart had been driving a big, comfy BMW or Mercedes and cruising along with the heating on and some soft music on the audio, then the falling asleep theory becomes very powerful indeed; and the chance of steering failure so remote as to be acceptably discounted.
As we all know , that was not the case, and the point I have been trying to stress, and so has cen, who is a solicitor, in his submissions, is that the concept of reasonable doubt in this case seems to have been totally supressed.
If you go on to the Highways agency website you can download the photos of the accident site. The tracks of the Land Rover go straight down to the railway, there is no deviation whatsoever.
It is impossible to believe that a driver as experienced as Hart would make no attempt over a distance like this to swerve and avoid the railway.
If he had no steering it would be impossible for him to do so, this is what the tracks indicate.
But then I find this other accident last year, that is a virtual clone of Hart's except two people in the Land Rover were killed and it struck the mainline Virgin Express, fortunately on the side. Again fortunately, there was time to stop another goods train coming in the opposite direction before it hit the vehicle.
So what do we say this time?. Did this guy also fall asleep, was he speeding, or drunk maybe.
No hate campaign this time, in fact it hardly made the news, probably because the guy paid for the incident with his life.
There is only one thing to say; HOW DID HIS VEHICLE GET ON THE TRACK!!!!!!!
This is the last time I am going to say this, if we don't improve the safety standards of the road/rail network, many more people are going to get killed.
Please all note that in your diaries.
IOLAIRE said:
There is only one thing to say; HOW DID HIS VEHICLE GET ON THE TRACK!!!!!!!
Mr Hart after managing only 5 hours sleep in the previous 48, drove 65 miles and probably fell asleep causing his vehicle to leave the road into the path of an oncoming train.
Or is that just what the jury believed?
destroyer said:
There is only one thing to say; HOW DID HIS VEHICLE GET ON THE TRACK!!!!!!!
Mr Hart after managing only 5 hours sleep in the previous 48, drove 65 miles and probably fell asleep causing his vehicle to leave the road into the path of an oncoming train.
Or is that just what the jury believed?
I wasn't talking about Hart's vehicle Destroyer. I was talking about the second LandRover in three years to go out of control and end up on a busy mainline railway track and almost cause yet another disaster.
I'll post the link for you again.
www.railnews.co.uk/displaynews.asp?ID=143
Iolaire,
I take your point, but it is very easy to cast doubt when you haven't seen the evidence with your own eyes. I'm presuming that if, for the sake of argument, you had been called in by the Police to assist with their investigation and seen that the steering joint in question was still intact, albeit geographically separated from the rest of the Land Rover due to blunt force trauma, you would discount steering failure as the cause of the incursion of the Land Rover on to the railway. Any self-respecting engineer would
It is impossible to base any conclusion on what you can turn up from press reports and the internet. In my experience the members of the press have great difficulty in conveying every fact. e.g. "The Land Rover was smashed into seven hundred pieces by the impact" sounds considerably better than "The Land Rover was broken into seven hundred pices by the impact. Every single piece was examined for signs of damage which could have caused the Land Rover to leave the motorway and trespass on the railway." Newspapers deal in news rather than absolute facts. Unless a case is particularly juicy, the press turn up for the opening argument of the prosecution barrister and then go and phone that in. No matter how much of the opening argument gets discounted during trial, only the prosecuter's remarks get reported.
I think the only way you could possibly set your mind at rest is to get hold of the court transcripts and see for yourself what the actual facts of the case are, rather than what the press reported.
As for railway safety - no argument there. If a vehicle leaves the motorway in the wrong place and could end up on the railway, barriers should be in place to stop it. Why haven't they done this on the motorway? Well the cynic in me suggests that if they did then the Highways Agency would suddenly become liable for the large claims of the estates of the deceased and injured. Much easier to blame it on a freak occurrence that won't be repeated and do nothing and hope that it doesn't happen again. Life is relatively cheap until someone loses it.
I take your point, but it is very easy to cast doubt when you haven't seen the evidence with your own eyes. I'm presuming that if, for the sake of argument, you had been called in by the Police to assist with their investigation and seen that the steering joint in question was still intact, albeit geographically separated from the rest of the Land Rover due to blunt force trauma, you would discount steering failure as the cause of the incursion of the Land Rover on to the railway. Any self-respecting engineer would
It is impossible to base any conclusion on what you can turn up from press reports and the internet. In my experience the members of the press have great difficulty in conveying every fact. e.g. "The Land Rover was smashed into seven hundred pieces by the impact" sounds considerably better than "The Land Rover was broken into seven hundred pices by the impact. Every single piece was examined for signs of damage which could have caused the Land Rover to leave the motorway and trespass on the railway." Newspapers deal in news rather than absolute facts. Unless a case is particularly juicy, the press turn up for the opening argument of the prosecution barrister and then go and phone that in. No matter how much of the opening argument gets discounted during trial, only the prosecuter's remarks get reported.
I think the only way you could possibly set your mind at rest is to get hold of the court transcripts and see for yourself what the actual facts of the case are, rather than what the press reported.
As for railway safety - no argument there. If a vehicle leaves the motorway in the wrong place and could end up on the railway, barriers should be in place to stop it. Why haven't they done this on the motorway? Well the cynic in me suggests that if they did then the Highways Agency would suddenly become liable for the large claims of the estates of the deceased and injured. Much easier to blame it on a freak occurrence that won't be repeated and do nothing and hope that it doesn't happen again. Life is relatively cheap until someone loses it.
Whether Gary Hart is guilty or not is moot, in my view. What crime was actually charged with? How many speeding, drunk, reckless, drugged, or police evading drivers end up killing another driver or pedestrian, end up in court, and get off with a relatively light sentence?
The judge, sherriff or magistrate will usually sya something along the lines of the fact that the courts will only allow such and such a sentence for speeding, drink driving, dangerous driving, whatever. and that the maximum allowed is 6 penalty points and a 1 year ban. The fact that one or twenty people died is not taken into consideration.
Now I know that I am broadly generalising to make my point, but what was Gary Hart guilty of any more than any other bloke who allegedly falls asleep and crashes into an empty bus shelter?
I don't really know enough about the case to judge the merits of his conviction, but I do feel that he has been severely punished for what would normally be considered a traffic offence, taking into account all the other horror stories that grace the pages of our tabloids and TV news every so often.
That being said, rather than reduce his sentence, I would rather that in the cases where drivers have been proved to have caused a fatality, more prison sentences should be imposed. I agree that the blame culture has taken a grip on this country, but equally so has a culture of "it wasn't my fault."
The judge, sherriff or magistrate will usually sya something along the lines of the fact that the courts will only allow such and such a sentence for speeding, drink driving, dangerous driving, whatever. and that the maximum allowed is 6 penalty points and a 1 year ban. The fact that one or twenty people died is not taken into consideration.
Now I know that I am broadly generalising to make my point, but what was Gary Hart guilty of any more than any other bloke who allegedly falls asleep and crashes into an empty bus shelter?
I don't really know enough about the case to judge the merits of his conviction, but I do feel that he has been severely punished for what would normally be considered a traffic offence, taking into account all the other horror stories that grace the pages of our tabloids and TV news every so often.
That being said, rather than reduce his sentence, I would rather that in the cases where drivers have been proved to have caused a fatality, more prison sentences should be imposed. I agree that the blame culture has taken a grip on this country, but equally so has a culture of "it wasn't my fault."
destroyer said:
Mr Hart after managing only 5 hours sleep in the previous 48, drove 65 miles and probably fell asleep causing his vehicle to leave the road into the path of an oncoming train.
Or is that just what the jury believed?
To answer your question - Yes, that is what the jury believed, however, I believe Iolaire makes a good point in that there IS reasonable cause to doubt this. Therefore the conviction should have been not guilty. Remember, for a guilty conviction of a criminal offence it must be 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
I find it hard to believe that somebody could fall asleep if driving a vehicle combination at that speed, the level of effort required keeps the concentration level sufficiently high to avoid sleep. I would say that if they estimated his average speed as around 30 there is much more likelyhood of him falling asleep.
If I read the material correctly he had been working with these levels of sleep for some time, therefore he may well be one of those few who do not need as much sleep as the average person.
If Gary Hart had not have been TIRED the accident would not have happened.
[david brent] FACT [david brent]
He was therefore driving dangerously and deserves to be tried accordingly.
The jury found him guilty. End of story.
Exactly the same would have happened if he had hit a van load of kids broken down on the hard shoulder....
[david brent] FACT [david brent]
He was therefore driving dangerously and deserves to be tried accordingly.
The jury found him guilty. End of story.
Exactly the same would have happened if he had hit a van load of kids broken down on the hard shoulder....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff