BTCC's Frank Wrathall in court after cyclist collision
Discussion
Grenoble said:
REALIST123 said:
Well you are obviously superior to the rest of us and have ever, or will ever have, transgressed so what can we say?
I am happy to take responsibilities for my actions. And no, I never use my phone whilst driving (I don't even use hands free)Sorry, sore point for me as a friend was killed in similar circumstances. Hands up, I'm not the most objective of commentators.
Obviously, the courts will make the final decision as to guilt or innocence in this specific case.
In more general terms, I am convinced that using a mobile phone (including a hands free device) is one of the most dangerous distractions one can experience when driving. The evidence for this has been getting stronger and stronger as proper scientific studies produce incontrovertible more and more evidence on this topic.
The law should deal with cases where phone usage have been found to be a significant factor in an accident with all seriousness.
In more general terms, I am convinced that using a mobile phone (including a hands free device) is one of the most dangerous distractions one can experience when driving. The evidence for this has been getting stronger and stronger as proper scientific studies produce incontrovertible more and more evidence on this topic.
The law should deal with cases where phone usage have been found to be a significant factor in an accident with all seriousness.
REALIST123 said:
You aren't alone in your situation, and who knows that Wrathall isn't happy to take responsibility for his actions? As I said, let the court decide what they were and decide accordingly.
I agree. I said "if guilty". My point was that my personally beliefs are that causing death by dangerous through selfishness, especially by someone who was better informed than most of driving/concentration/etc should be dealt with at the upper end of the scale.He seems unwilling to face up to his actions given a not guilty plea - based on the evidence presented and published so far seems damning.
I may be wrong. There may be other factors. I am happy for the courts to decide.
McClure said:
We were involved in a fairly high profile case a couple of years ago with a young lady who caused a death in an accident shortly after using her phone (not on the phone at the time of the accident). The judge basically said where there has been a death and there was use of a mobile phone involved (even if not at the time - it showed a general lack of attention apparently), you can expect a prison term. It'll probably just be a battle to minimise the sentence. That case is why I never use my phone unless it's bluetoothed any more, even on a deserted motorway.
^ This is very interesting! That using a mobile phone displays a general lack of care in your driving attitude even if you have finished the call, there's some truth to it, or at least that you think you are above the law.My condolences to the family of the deceased, it is a tragedy to die in an accident, wrong place at the wrong time.
MG511 said:
Reardy Mister said:
made a silly mistake
A silly mistake? You sure that's all it was? Some people on PH need a reality check.There is a trial here because before a judgement, the evidence of the case is assessed. I'm not saying he is innocent of causing the chap's death (because I know nothing of the case or evidence) or that he deserves leniency for being in our sport of preference. But he didn't mean to kill anyone, did he? It was a mistake and it was a silly one because anyone who competes in that level in that sport ought to be able to negotiate a roundabout at 30mph without killing anyone, phone or not.
If I was in his position, I would be:
- very very remorseful
- very very regretful
- using every resource within my grasp to stay out of jail
I don't think anyone believes Frank is inherently a bad person, or that he set out to endanger anyone deliberately and I don' believe a judge will find that either. More likely he will present well, from a good background, with good prospects for the future and a judge will weigh up putting an essentially good person who made a terrible mistake into the overcrowded prison system, most likely creating a bad person and taking up a space that a gang member or rapist could be using, against giving a very severe driving ban, a suspended sentence, a very large fine etc etc and hoping he has learned his lesson.
The bereaved family will likely not feel justice has been done, as no doubt they want an eye for an eye, Frank will likely not drive again (in a domestic series), someone will lodge with the FIA that his race license be revoked etc etc and his life will be miserable for the short to medium term and affected by his actions for the long term, though not to the same extent as the family of the deceased.
And the world will keep on turning and you lot will wonder why you attached so much impotent rage to a incident you know so little about involving you people you really don't know, whilst ignoring the 30 other similar situations that have occurred in Britain this month.
Reality check indeed.
Edited by Reardy Mister on Thursday 4th July 11:29
Reardy Mister said:
And the world will keep on turning and you lot will wonder why you attached so much impotent rage to a incident you know so little about involving you people you really don't know, whilst ignoring the 30 other similar situations that have occurred in Britain this month.
Personally I get annoyed at everyone I hear about, as it's such a senseless loss. But as also noted, I am not objective in this. So I take issue with "impotent rage" and would phrase it as "deep and tragic concern as to why it keeps happening" - we managed to reduce road deaths through seat belts usage. We managed it through drink driving (mostly). But mobile phone usage seems to be perceived differently.
Perhaps we should stop the 3 points malarkey and treat it in the same way we treat drink driving. The impacts on concentration seem similar for some people. 3 points is certainly not much of a deterrent, and there is zero need to hold a phone to your head whilst driving - if you can afford a car and a phone, you can afford hands free, or you can afford to stop.
Grenoble said:
Reardy Mister said:
And the world will keep on turning and you lot will wonder why you attached so much impotent rage to a incident you know so little about involving you people you really don't know, whilst ignoring the 30 other similar situations that have occurred in Britain this month.
Personally I get annoyed at everyone I hear about, as it's such a senseless loss. But as also noted, I am not objective in this. So I take issue with "impotent rage" and would phrase it as "deep and tragic concern as to why it keeps happening" - we managed to reduce road deaths through seat belts usage. We managed it through drink driving (mostly). But mobile phone usage seems to be perceived differently.
Perhaps we should stop the 3 points malarkey and treat it in the same way we treat drink driving. The impacts on concentration seem similar for some people. 3 points is certainly not much of a deterrent, and there is zero need to hold a phone to your head whilst driving - if you can afford a car and a phone, you can afford hands free, or you can afford to stop.
People die every day as a result of other people's mistakes. No doubt it is a tragedy, but screaming "burn him" doesn't solve the problem, doesn't bring the chap back and in all probability a long custodial sentence would result in this story having two victims instead of one.
How many people advocating a maximum jail term would still be if their wife or mother had turned around to look at one of the kids who was playing up in the back of the car and accidently side-swiped and killed a cyclist?
Don't forget, the law applies to everyone equally, so if Frank goes, your wife is off to Her Majesty's lesbian crystal-meth farm for 5 years and presumably you all would help her pack for her out and out stupidity.
Reardy Mister said:
Don't forget, the law applies to everyone equally, so if Frank goes, your wife is off to Her Majesty's lesbian crystal-meth farm for 5 years and presumably you all would help her pack for her out and out stupidity.
As I said twice, I am not the most objective of commentators. As I also said, I am happy for the courts to decide. I would excuse myself from any jury as I could not be impartial.With respect, I find your choice of language unnecessarily provocative, "your wife is off to Her Majesty's lesbian crystal-meth farm" for a constructive debate, and in my experience threads are locked when people seek to provoke.
Grenoble said:
Reardy Mister said:
Don't forget, the law applies to everyone equally, so if Frank goes, your wife is off to Her Majesty's lesbian crystal-meth farm for 5 years and presumably you all would help her pack for her out and out stupidity.
As I said twice, I am not the most objective of commentators. As I also said, I am happy for the courts to decide. I would excuse myself from any jury as I could not be impartial.With respect, I find your choice of language unnecessarily provocative, "your wife is off to Her Majesty's lesbian crystal-meth farm" for a constructive debate, and in my experience threads are locked when people seek to provoke.
Reardy Mister said:
How many people advocating a maximum jail term would still be if their wife or mother had turned around to look at one of the kids who was playing up in the back of the car and accidently side-swiped and killed a cyclist?
Turning around to look at a child is an instinctive act, having an 8 minute conversation on a mobile 'phone is not. A typo is a silly mistake, breaking the law and ending someones life is not.Riding a motorbike in London I am regularly on the receiving end of people driving whilst using their mobile. No synmpthey for the guy, he serves all the punishment he gets; I reserve all my sympathy entirely for the widow and now fatherless daughter. I do not see how any can do otherwise.
Reardy Mister said:
People die every day as a result of other people's mistakes. No doubt it is a tragedy, but screaming "burn him" doesn't solve the problem, doesn't bring the chap back and in all probability a long custodial sentence would result in this story having two victims instead of one.
This is true."That old law which says an eye-for-an eye and a tooth-for-a-tooth will eventually leave everybody blind and toothless."
At what point does an accident become an intent? At what point are they treated the same? Irrespective of the recklessness of it all, there was never an intent. Given the severity and frequency of crimes with intent to kill, maim and harm, should not "the book" be thrown at those offenders?
It is a tragedy, but not nothing will bring this father back to life - the damage is done, now it would be wise to try and correct without further damage. For example, as mentioned before, increase the severity with which mobile phone use (without hands free) is treated, to the same level as drink driving - which is now socially unacceptable.
Bit stunned to hear this really, and very surprised he's carried on racing with this hanging over him - that seems a strange decision, given it's not likely to enhance either his reputation or that of the BTCC; regardless of the outcome, I'd suspect that his car (should it return) will be missing a few sponsor logos in the future. Not that I really expect to see it again anytime soon; if he's found guilty I'd guess he's thrown his racing career away pretty well..
Sympathy to the victim and his family. I can only agree with those who want mobile phones to become as socially unacceptable as drink driving; at the moment it's far too common, and too dangerous - assuming the reported facts are accurate, then it seems even a relatively high level racing driver can't drive safely using one, which proves the point rather well. Frankly, he's an idiot, and with his experience ought to know much better. I wouldn't feel it undeserved if he ends up with a year or two in prison.
Sympathy to the victim and his family. I can only agree with those who want mobile phones to become as socially unacceptable as drink driving; at the moment it's far too common, and too dangerous - assuming the reported facts are accurate, then it seems even a relatively high level racing driver can't drive safely using one, which proves the point rather well. Frankly, he's an idiot, and with his experience ought to know much better. I wouldn't feel it undeserved if he ends up with a year or two in prison.
The question is why is tslking on a mobile phone so dangerous whilst driving and so much more dangerous than talking to someone in the car? The second question is why if it is so dangerous are hands free kits allowed?
As regards this case I dont know the facts but it doesnt look great if the cyclist was originally ahead of him and he never saw him.
Sympathies with the family of the cyclist.
As regards this case I dont know the facts but it doesnt look great if the cyclist was originally ahead of him and he never saw him.
Sympathies with the family of the cyclist.
Chrisgr31 said:
The question is why is tslking on a mobile phone so dangerous whilst driving and so much more dangerous than talking to someone in the car? The second question is why if it is so dangerous are hands free kits allowed?
As regards this case I dont know the facts but it doesnt look great if the cyclist was originally ahead of him and he never saw him.
Sympathies with the family of the cyclist.
Have you ever told a passenger to button it as it was distracting and disturbing your concentration? I have and will do so again when necessary. As regards this case I dont know the facts but it doesnt look great if the cyclist was originally ahead of him and he never saw him.
Sympathies with the family of the cyclist.
That and mobile phone use need attention and that takes the focus away from the more important task.
Even hands free can be a dangerous distraction. Failure to appreciate the negative aspects of mobile phone use whilst driving is ... failure ... and asking for trouble. Pulled up behind a White van Man in narrow lane who simply had not seen me as he attempted a three point turn in a restricted area. This he did single handed, the other hand holding phone to ear. He also took his one free hand off the wheel to wave a "sorry" whilst still continuing his call. Maybe his boss was chewing his ear off for being late or whatever.
Had my inherent distrust of light commercial drivers not been deployed a collision would have been a near certainty.
Now retired, praise be I do not cover large mileages now but every journey I see numerous drivers hand to ear on the phone. OK, 999 times out of 1000 no harm done.
I DO NOT WANT TO BE THAT 1000-1 STATISTIC!! Also, consider this :~
It could be YOUR turn next!
Marc W said:
doogz said:
I didn't realise BTCC drivers towed their own race cars about on trailers, behind vans.
Just assumed they'd have transporters and drivers for them.
There isn't as much money in the BTCC as a lot of people think. Lots of the drivers are involved in there own transportation. Just assumed they'd have transporters and drivers for them.
The race car he was towing may not even have been his, it's just the Daily Mail reporting after all.
VictoriaYorks said:
Honest question - presumably if he's in court they've already ruled out any fault being with the cyclist?
Not necessarily - depending upon the circumstances even if the cyclist was partially to blame for the collision (which there's no suggestion of from the reported facts), it wouldn't automatically be a reason not to persue the prosecution against Wrathall. And quite rightly so.Many - maybe most - collisions are not entirely the fault of just one of the parties involved. It's not unusual for more than one party involved in a collision to be prosecuted for Careless or Dangerous Driving. Someone's bad driving/riding/cycling/pedestrianing doesn't excuse another person's bad driving.
Wrathall is being charged with Causing Death By Dangerous Driving - this means that based upon the investigation following the incident the Police and CPS believe that there's a case to answer that his driving fell far below the expected standard and that someone died as a result - and that a prosecution would both stand a reasonable change of success and would be in the public interest. Clearly the actions of the deceased are a factor for the court to consider in determining whether the alleged bad driving caused the death, but they're not a get out of jail free card (quite literally in this instance).
Edited by Seight_Returns on Thursday 4th July 18:34
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff