Harrogate Road Fatal Crash
Discussion
Anybody know anything about this? Hopefully the prosecution had more evidence than has been disclosed here?
www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=39&ArticleID=969798
www.leedstoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=39&ArticleID=969798
I have no wish to belittle the tragedy, nor to condone the actions of the accused, but reports such as this leave many questions unanswered. For example:
I have a concern that the 'facts' as reported are those given in court. Of course, it is up to the defence to challenge witness statements, but I've seen some advocates who couldn't argue their way out of an open field.
Anyway, I hope justice was and continues to be done.
Streaky
leedstoday said:What was the evidence for this statement? Was it from an expert witness?
The court was told Ardolino ... topped speeds of 70mph as he raced along the A61 Harrogate Road ...
leedstoday said:Were any witnesses called to substantiate the prosecutor's statement?
Prosecutor Andrew Dallas said he was in competition with an Audi TT driven by a mystery motorist who has never been traced.
leedstoday said:How "little" was the gap? How many seconds before the crash? I suspect these were subjective statements from non-expert witnesses.
Witnesses reported seeing the two cars flash past them, with little gap between them, seconds before the fatal crash.
I have a concern that the 'facts' as reported are those given in court. Of course, it is up to the defence to challenge witness statements, but I've seen some advocates who couldn't argue their way out of an open field.
Anyway, I hope justice was and continues to be done.
Streaky
streaky said:
leedstoday said:
The court was told Ardolino ... topped speeds of 70mph as he raced along the A61 Harrogate Road ...
What was the evidence for this statement? Was it from an expert witness?
I would imagine that was derived from the collision data gathered by the accident investigator at the scene?
>> Edited by parrot of doom on Sunday 13th March 16:00
parrot of doom said:
The court was told Ardolino ... topped speeds of 70mph as he raced along the A61 Harrogate Road ...
What was the evidence for this statement? Was it from an expert witness?
I would imagine that was derived from the collision data gathered by the accident investigator at the scene?[/quote]
But no matter what the Investigator can only work from Physical Evidence. The only Physical evidence would be from braking which given the car would be masked by ABS and the power of the system. Previous reports asked the jury to DISREGARD the carelessness of the driver entering the dual carriageway. I drive this road as well. Even at 40 the stupidity of drivers turning onto this road and then going across the carriageway with no regard for oncoming traffic has to be seen to be believed. I still would like to know if anybody has any more info on this as the driver "appears" to have been railroaded.
gemini said:
Having driven this road loads of times there are some right arses who insist on driving on the 40mph dual carriage way at 70
Why?
Agreed. I know this section of road well, too. If the guy was doing 70, and especially if he was racing a TT, then he deserves to pay for the consequences. Lets not forget that someone has lost their life as a result.
parrot of doom said:
The court was told Ardolino ... topped speeds of 70mph as he raced along the A61 Harrogate Road ...
What was the evidence for this statement? Was it from an expert witness?
I would imagine that was derived from the collision data gathered by the accident investigator at the scene?[/quote]
The investigator would come up with a good estimate of the speed at the time of the impact and a pretty good estimate of the speed at the point of losing control / applying brakes. With the exception of a possible VMax in the ECU they will be able to tell nothing about the speed in the preceding minutes unless they have witnesses.
It's only a newspaper report, not a stenographer's minute of court proceedings! Who knows what evidence was or wasn't led?
Imagine (and I know nothing about this case, but just imagine) a witness was driving along in a 40 limit at 45-ish and a car comes flying past at warp 1 - he has a fair idea that it's not crawling past at 50 ot 55, it's going a lot faster... car disappears over crest.
a minute later you come across an accident involving that same car. What are you goung to say? That it passed you at speed further back.
What you don't know was that the driver might have been a PHer who might have known what he was doing and slowed right down to 40mph just after he passed you, because he knew there was a junction there. What you don't know is that despite that fact, somebody still pulled out seconds in front and was killed. What you don't know is that the accident was totally the other driver's fault and speed was nothing to do with it.
Nevertheless your witness statement says that at the point he passed you, he was blootering along, in close company with an Audi TT. The automatic assumption is that that is the same situation that prevailed at the time of impact.
If that were the case, then this is not fair justice.
All of the above (ie from post no 1 and including this one) is pure speculation, and I am not blaming or condoning the actions of anybody involved.
I am merely making the point that, even although you might know what you are doing and think you know the best speed for that road etc, and drive according to conditions, and slow down at more dangerous bits, you do leave yourself open to misguided "witness" statements that could land you in deep doo-dah. Every person you pass could be your "prosecution witness" if it all goes wrong at any point further up the road. It only takes one ill-informed do-gooder...
Apologies if I sound like a doom-merchant, or a "stick to speed limits at all times and never overtake" preacher - I most definitely am not!
Imagine (and I know nothing about this case, but just imagine) a witness was driving along in a 40 limit at 45-ish and a car comes flying past at warp 1 - he has a fair idea that it's not crawling past at 50 ot 55, it's going a lot faster... car disappears over crest.
a minute later you come across an accident involving that same car. What are you goung to say? That it passed you at speed further back.
What you don't know was that the driver might have been a PHer who might have known what he was doing and slowed right down to 40mph just after he passed you, because he knew there was a junction there. What you don't know is that despite that fact, somebody still pulled out seconds in front and was killed. What you don't know is that the accident was totally the other driver's fault and speed was nothing to do with it.
Nevertheless your witness statement says that at the point he passed you, he was blootering along, in close company with an Audi TT. The automatic assumption is that that is the same situation that prevailed at the time of impact.
If that were the case, then this is not fair justice.
All of the above (ie from post no 1 and including this one) is pure speculation, and I am not blaming or condoning the actions of anybody involved.
I am merely making the point that, even although you might know what you are doing and think you know the best speed for that road etc, and drive according to conditions, and slow down at more dangerous bits, you do leave yourself open to misguided "witness" statements that could land you in deep doo-dah. Every person you pass could be your "prosecution witness" if it all goes wrong at any point further up the road. It only takes one ill-informed do-gooder...
Apologies if I sound like a doom-merchant, or a "stick to speed limits at all times and never overtake" preacher - I most definitely am not!
Tvrgit, you're quite right. Who knows what actually happened? We'll not know from some reconstruction result - God help us and save us from computer models and fag packet calculations by 'experts' - nor the imperfect testimony all witnesses are prone to as a result of human error and so on. However there is a well known tendency for Court profceedings to veer off into the weeds of sanctimoniious, self-righteous preaching, where anything over 5 mph on an empty motorway is seen as lethal. Very sad outcome but press coverage won't tell us much of use.
Two things have made me bring this back up. One the thread about the racing driver and two the fact that I believe the stretch of road was relaid about the time of the accident with SMA. I cannot find any reference to this but the roadworks were in place before the accident. and the latest thinking is that it can give the impression vehicles are "out of control".
bryan35 said:
you can stick to the speed limit and still be 'hammering it' in the opinion of a do gooder.
60MPH in second gear, how does that appear?
Quite right, some people think any faster than them is too fast. I overtook a chap today, didn' need to go above 60mph (limit on that road) but because I was in the Dax he didn't seem very happy and took a picture of me on his mobile 'phone ! Dax is a bit noisey and accelerates very quickly, obviously very dangerous and should be banned and me made to drive a 2CV for the next 5 years.
busa_rush said:
you can stick to the speed limit and still be 'hammering it' in the opinion of a do gooder.
60MPH in second gear, how does that appear?
Quite right, some people think any faster than them is too fast. I overtook a chap today, didn' need to go above 60mph (limit on that road) but because I was in the Dax he didn't seem very happy and took a picture of me on his mobile 'phone ! Dax is a bit noisey and accelerates very quickly, obviously very dangerous and should be banned and me made to drive a 2CV for the next 5 years.
So the guy you overtook used a mobile phone camera to take a picture of your car, while driving at about 60mph because he thought you were speeding.
Priceless bit of idiot, holy-than-thou behaviour.
Maybe you should've took a picture of him taking a picture of you so you can show that to the police?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff