Sisters died in road sign 'prank'
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/4560055.stm
Two young half-sisters died in a car crash after a road sign was placed in the middle of a carriageway as part of a prank, a court has heard.
Lucy and Catherine Breakwell, aged 21 and 15, were killed when Lucy was forced to swerve her car in Easton Lane in Portland, Dorset, in September 2004.
A 17-year-old boy who admits putting a sign in the road on a night out with friends, denies endangering road users.
Weymouth Youth Court also heard Lucy Breakwell was driving too fast.
The girls were on their way home to Easton, Portland, in Lucy's silver Ford Fiesta after working at the nearby Riviera Hotel in Weymouth.
Lucy was forced to swerve to avoid a sign in the road which read "site closed" - causing the car to hit a tree on the opposite side of the carriageway, the court heard.
Catherine Breakwell was in the front seat of the car at the time. Both girls suffered serious injuries and were pronounced dead at the scene.
Prosecuting counsel Michael Tomlinson told Weymouth Youth Court that the defendant had been out with three friends in Weymouth on the night of the crash.
On their way back to Portland, they engaged in "horseplay" he said.
"They initially made their way back to the Portland House Hotel and to Easton Lane.
He continued: "It was there that they engaged in horseplay. The defendant lifted up that sign and placed it on to Easton Lane on the left-hand carriageway.
"The Crown says Lucy's vehicle swerved to avoid the sign," he added.
"It's clear the defendant accepts he placed the traffic sign in Easton Lane.
"The issue before the court is, in the circumstances, was it obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous?"
The court also heard that Lucy Breakwell's friend, who was travelling in the car in front of her, said she was driving badly during the journey.
James Dowley, 20, who worked with the sisters at the Riviera Hotel, said that Lucy was driving too close behind him, and, in a statement to the police, said: "I don't think Lucy probably realised that it was so dangerous to drive so close to the car in front."
The court also heard how she lifted her hand off the steering wheel to wave at him while negotiating a roundabout and that he had sworn at how fast she was driving.
Mr Dowley estimated she was driving at between 70 and 80mph.
His police statement said: "I think this accident happened because of a mixture of speed, lack of concentration and the road sign.
"It (the sign) didn't present a problem to me. I saw it and steered round it."
The trial continues.
Two young half-sisters died in a car crash after a road sign was placed in the middle of a carriageway as part of a prank, a court has heard.
Lucy and Catherine Breakwell, aged 21 and 15, were killed when Lucy was forced to swerve her car in Easton Lane in Portland, Dorset, in September 2004.
A 17-year-old boy who admits putting a sign in the road on a night out with friends, denies endangering road users.
Weymouth Youth Court also heard Lucy Breakwell was driving too fast.
The girls were on their way home to Easton, Portland, in Lucy's silver Ford Fiesta after working at the nearby Riviera Hotel in Weymouth.
Lucy was forced to swerve to avoid a sign in the road which read "site closed" - causing the car to hit a tree on the opposite side of the carriageway, the court heard.
Catherine Breakwell was in the front seat of the car at the time. Both girls suffered serious injuries and were pronounced dead at the scene.
Prosecuting counsel Michael Tomlinson told Weymouth Youth Court that the defendant had been out with three friends in Weymouth on the night of the crash.
On their way back to Portland, they engaged in "horseplay" he said.
"They initially made their way back to the Portland House Hotel and to Easton Lane.
He continued: "It was there that they engaged in horseplay. The defendant lifted up that sign and placed it on to Easton Lane on the left-hand carriageway.
"The Crown says Lucy's vehicle swerved to avoid the sign," he added.
"It's clear the defendant accepts he placed the traffic sign in Easton Lane.
"The issue before the court is, in the circumstances, was it obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous?"
The court also heard that Lucy Breakwell's friend, who was travelling in the car in front of her, said she was driving badly during the journey.
James Dowley, 20, who worked with the sisters at the Riviera Hotel, said that Lucy was driving too close behind him, and, in a statement to the police, said: "I don't think Lucy probably realised that it was so dangerous to drive so close to the car in front."
The court also heard how she lifted her hand off the steering wheel to wave at him while negotiating a roundabout and that he had sworn at how fast she was driving.
Mr Dowley estimated she was driving at between 70 and 80mph.
His police statement said: "I think this accident happened because of a mixture of speed, lack of concentration and the road sign.
"It (the sign) didn't present a problem to me. I saw it and steered round it."
The trial continues.
kevinday said:
To me it is obvious that he must be guilty as charged. It is irrelevant how well/badly the victim was driving. The only relevance would be in an award for damages (civil case) where contributary negligence comes in.
Exactly - und if she was too close to the other lad at that speed - why did he not slow or pull in? Perhaps if they were travelling together - she would also have stopped.
What happened to being able to stop safely within the distance you can see?
I had to re-calibrate on that score a few years ago when a tree blew down in a storm and blocked a road completely. On coming around the corner and finding it blocking the road, I stopped gently nudging the branches - I guess I was 6ft out in judgement, seems she was much further out....
I guess we were all young once, and most of us had lucky escapes at some point.
I had to re-calibrate on that score a few years ago when a tree blew down in a storm and blocked a road completely. On coming around the corner and finding it blocking the road, I stopped gently nudging the branches - I guess I was 6ft out in judgement, seems she was much further out....
I guess we were all young once, and most of us had lucky escapes at some point.
leosayer said:
If the sign wasn't in the road then they wouldn't have crashed - I don't see what's up for debate here.
We weren't there. We don't know. She might have come off at the next roundabout due to her poor driving skills. Deliberately placing an obstacle on the carriageway is illegal (I believe) but that's the offence. Not sure the lad's intent was to cause harm - merely to inconvenience a few drivers....
leosayer said:
Her driving skills may not have been very good but that doesn't mean they deserved to die.
No. But it did mean that they did die. They certainly didn't deserve to. But with better skills two lasses might well be alive today...despite the foolish behaviour of a young twit.
scoule said:
What happened to being able to stop safely within the distance you can see?
I had to re-calibrate on that score a few years ago when a tree blew down in a storm and blocked a road completely. On coming around the corner and finding it blocking the road, I stopped gently nudging the branches - I guess I was 6ft out in judgement, seems she was much further out....
A salutory tale. Its always worth really knowing how quickly you can stop - in the dry, in the wet, with leaves and nasty etc etc. Lots of people seem to have trouble judging the distance required to stop...
scoule said:
I guess we were all young once, and most of us had lucky escapes at some point.
Didn't we just.
Agree with Scoule.
The car in front avoided the sign "It wasn't a problem for me, I steered round it" (or something like that). The other car was going too fast to stop in the distance they could see.
What if the road had actually been closed and the sign was genuine? Councils' fault? Probably not. (Maybe it would have been further over to the side but the general principle is the same)
The car in front avoided the sign "It wasn't a problem for me, I steered round it" (or something like that). The other car was going too fast to stop in the distance they could see.
What if the road had actually been closed and the sign was genuine? Councils' fault? Probably not. (Maybe it would have been further over to the side but the general principle is the same)
WildCat said:
To me it is obvious that he must be guilty as charged. It is irrelevant how well/badly the victim was driving. The only relevance would be in an award for damages (civil case) where contributary negligence comes in.
Exactly - und if she was too close to the other lad at that speed - why did he not slow or pull in? Perhaps if they were travelling together - she would also have stopped.
But if she was close behind someone doing 70 or 80 the guy in front most of been doing that speed as well. So perhaps the other driver should be charged with racing?
Don said:
If the sign wasn't in the road then they wouldn't have crashed - I don't see what's up for debate here.
We weren't there. We don't know. She might have come off at the next roundabout due to her poor driving skills. Deliberately placing an obstacle on the carriageway is illegal (I believe) but that's the offence. Not sure the lad's intent was to cause harm - merely to inconvenience a few drivers....
Aber Don - roundabout signs appear in good time - und she would have reacted to the brake lights (hopefully) of person she appeared to be "racing" with...(for want of better word).
Und we could say this about people who chuck things off bridges... "we did not intend to cause harm" or of the idiot who plays chicken or chucks things at fire engines or makes hoax 999 calls for a "bit of a larf"
Ist foreseeable that sign in middle of carriageway would present a danger ... und ist like action of militant car hating cyclist who let down car tyres as "prank to annoy or inconvenience drivers"
Ist an offence which can cause harm to another - und this idiot should receive a whopping fine und be locked up so that he cannot have any more little "larfs" in the future. Except that this will not happen - his fine will be based on his dole cheque und he may even be let off mit a commmunity sevice which involves making hanging floral baskets...
Don said:
Her driving skills may not have been very good but that doesn't mean they deserved to die.
No. But it did mean that they did die. They certainly didn't deserve to. But with better skills two lasses might well be alive today...despite the foolish behaviour of a young twit.
True - we need to improve the L-test. She would not have been tailgating nor trying to keep up mit the equally naff driver in front who at least had a better view of this rogue sign than she did as result of being too close behind.
But this lad should be locked up just the same. Ist not a "bit of larf" to do these things.
I can't see how it can be the prankster's fault?
If you can't avoid a large stationary object that has been in the road for some time (i.e. it hasn't suddenly appeared infront of you) other than by swerving uncontrollably off the road then by definition you must be driving without due care and attention.
The fact that it caused no problem at all for at least one other driver is a significant fact here.
The driver must have been going too fast to stop within the distance they could see.
If you can't avoid a large stationary object that has been in the road for some time (i.e. it hasn't suddenly appeared infront of you) other than by swerving uncontrollably off the road then by definition you must be driving without due care and attention.
The fact that it caused no problem at all for at least one other driver is a significant fact here.
The driver must have been going too fast to stop within the distance they could see.
the t boy said:
I can't see how it can be the prankster's fault?
If you can't avoid a large stationary object that has been in the road for some time (i.e. it hasn't suddenly appeared infront of you) other than by swerving uncontrollably off the road then by definition you must be driving without due care and attention.
The fact that it caused no problem at all for at least one other driver is a significant fact here.
The driver must have been going too fast to stop within the distance they could see.
Ja - Liebchen - she did not see it because she was stupid enough to tailgate her friend. He could have ended the tailgating himself by slowing down to reasonable speed anyway. She missed it because of sitting on his bumper at speed. A policeman worth his salt would have pulled und charged both of them according to the account as posted - as it reads like "racing on highway" to me anyway.
She missed it because she did not apply any COAST element.
He only avoided it in real terms because he had a longer und fuller view to avoid - und why did he not slow at this point - which would have bought her that extra second reaction time?
She missed it because she was having a larf herself mit her equally idiotic "pal" in front of her - who was also driving like a twazak by encouraging her to some extent.
Neither driver in this sorry tale shows any real skill or even talent whatsoever und would deserve the bans und the points on licences over this. Both would have benfitted from better training und encouragement to train. One hopes this 20 year old will seek further lessons before he drives like twazak again. Just because he avoided does not mean there ist any skill here.
But even so, Liebchen - this object had been left positioned in a road which created a hazard - and it only takes one numpty driver to meet this. Just because all other drivers avoided it does not diminish the seriousness of deliberately placing an object on the carriageway. Und it should be on his conscience forever more - his actions was catalyst in death of driver - however talentless - und her young sister.
The accident was caused by bad car control, BUT, the tw@t that put the sign in the road still needs to be punished as what he did was illegal.
If he gets off, what's to stop any pikey or student putting stuff in the road, throwing stuff off bridges or just walking out into the road with total imunity from prosecution?
If he gets off, what's to stop any pikey or student putting stuff in the road, throwing stuff off bridges or just walking out into the road with total imunity from prosecution?
rich-uk said:
The accident was caused by bad car control, BUT, the tw@t that put the sign in the road still needs to be punished as what he did was illegal.
If he gets off, what's to stop any pikey or student putting stuff in the road, throwing stuff off bridges or just walking out into the road with total imunity from prosecution?
Sorry Rich, I disagree, the accident was caused by the sign being placed in the road, no sign, no accident. The poor driving was a contributory factor to the result, not the causation.
kevinday said:
The accident was caused by bad car control, BUT, the tw@t that put the sign in the road still needs to be punished as what he did was illegal.
If he gets off, what's to stop any pikey or student putting stuff in the road, throwing stuff off bridges or just walking out into the road with total imunity from prosecution?
Sorry Rich, I disagree, the accident was caused by the sign being placed in the road, no sign, no accident. The poor driving was a contributory factor to the result, not the causation.
But what if the sign had been there with good reason? Protecting a broken manhole cover? Would the sign then be the cause of the accident?
As I mentioned earlier, I nudged a fallen tree blocking the road. I don't blame the tree or the storm, it was my fault for not being able to stop in the distance I could see. I had to cadence brake on a wet, cambered corner, the car was a Griffith 500 with no ABS. With ABS I would probably have stopped in time, with older tyres I wouldn't have nudged the tree but would've done some damage to the car.
It still comes back to driving at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see in the current conditions.
I'm not saying there are never "accidents", but I do not believe a stationary object is not one of them.
It still comes back to driving at a speed at which you can stop in the distance you can see in the current conditions.
I'm not saying there are never "accidents", but I do not believe a stationary object is not one of them.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff