Owner of Car With Bald Tryes Jailed After Death
Discussion
"Henry Reynolds, 31, a father of two, was warned that Mercedes’ rear tyres were near the legal limit but continued to drive a further 7,000 miles on them until the vehicle was involved in a fatal road collision in May 2018.
"You were not driving the vehicle, but you were allowing someone else to drive the car when it was unroadworthy and in a dangerous state."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/20/driver...
Owner who failed to replace worn tyres then drove 7000 miles was convicted of aiding and abetting causing death by dangerous driving when someone else driving the car caused a death.
Sentenced to 2 years 6 month.
A tragic case but the right result at court.
"You were not driving the vehicle, but you were allowing someone else to drive the car when it was unroadworthy and in a dangerous state."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/20/driver...
Owner who failed to replace worn tyres then drove 7000 miles was convicted of aiding and abetting causing death by dangerous driving when someone else driving the car caused a death.
Sentenced to 2 years 6 month.
A tragic case but the right result at court.
irc said:
"Henry Reynolds, 31, a father of two, was warned that Mercedes’ rear tyres were near the legal limit but continued to drive a further 7,000 miles on them until the vehicle was involved in a fatal road collision in May 2018.
"You were not driving the vehicle, but you were allowing someone else to drive the car when it was unroadworthy and in a dangerous state."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/20/driver...
Owner who failed to replace worn tyres then drove 7000 miles was convicted of aiding and abetting causing death by dangerous driving when someone else driving the car caused a death.
Sentenced to 2 years 6 month.
A tragic case but the right result at court.
I believe that it's correct in this case. Not only did he have prior knowledge that the car was in a dangerous condition, but he also allowed an intoxicated friend to drive it"You were not driving the vehicle, but you were allowing someone else to drive the car when it was unroadworthy and in a dangerous state."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/20/driver...
Owner who failed to replace worn tyres then drove 7000 miles was convicted of aiding and abetting causing death by dangerous driving when someone else driving the car caused a death.
Sentenced to 2 years 6 month.
A tragic case but the right result at court.
Question I would ask is when the Merc became a Honda (great proof-reading and journalism)
Pieman68 said:
I believe that it's correct in this case. Not only did he have prior knowledge that the car was in a dangerous condition, but he also allowed an intoxicated friend to drive it
Question I would ask is when the Merc became a Honda (great proof-reading and journalism)
Pains me to admit it, but the Daily Mail article is better written and has more detail, including a photo establishing it definitely was a Mercedes. Link here.Question I would ask is when the Merc became a Honda (great proof-reading and journalism)
MrMan001 said:
Pains me to admit it, but the Daily Mail article is better written and has more detail, including a photo establishing it definitely was a Mercedes. Link here.
Yeah, and seems pretty clear that the gent who was killed was in a Honda - just lazy journalism in the Telegraphirc said:
"Henry Reynolds, 31, a father of two, was warned that Mercedes’ rear tyres were near the legal limit but continued to drive a further 7,000 miles on them until the vehicle was involved in a fatal road collision in May 2018.
"You were not driving the vehicle, but you were allowing someone else to drive the car when it was unroadworthy and in a dangerous state."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/20/driver...
Owner who failed to replace worn tyres then drove 7000 miles was convicted of aiding and abetting causing death by dangerous driving when someone else driving the car caused a death.
Sentenced to 2 years 6 month.
A tragic case but the right result at court.
The offence is to use, cause or permit absolutely the correct result "You were not driving the vehicle, but you were allowing someone else to drive the car when it was unroadworthy and in a dangerous state."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/12/20/driver...
Owner who failed to replace worn tyres then drove 7000 miles was convicted of aiding and abetting causing death by dangerous driving when someone else driving the car caused a death.
Sentenced to 2 years 6 month.
A tragic case but the right result at court.
I'm as big a car nut as the rest of you ... enjoy a heavy right foot (or wrist for the BB Boys) in the appropriate time and place but
2 Years & 6 Months
Or this waste of oxygen
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/driver-jaile...
4 Years & 9 Months
Sometimes I despair at the lack of responsibility of others I share the road with
2 Years & 6 Months
Or this waste of oxygen
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/driver-jaile...
4 Years & 9 Months
Sometimes I despair at the lack of responsibility of others I share the road with
Earthdweller said:
The offence is to use, cause or permit absolutely the correct result
only if the cause of the accident is directly related to the bald tyres. I am unsure as to whether that was proven as it appears the driver was drunk and driving irresponsibly. Also bald tyres can actually stop you faster than treaded tyres in certain conditions ( i.e. dry tarmac) as there is more rubber on the road.
It sounds to me like someone is going after the money. Driver isn't insured and now in jail, car wasn't insured as driver was drunk and not owner so all that is left is to go after the driver and cite his poor upkeep of the car as a contributory factor in the accident.
BTW I am not suggesting that poor maintenance should be left unpunished, but in this instance I don't think it has been proved as the cause of death.
Also how accurate were the MOT testers observations? are we talking <2mm left or less than 3mm? It doesn't state how much tread was on the tyres at the time either.
Edited by Dynion Araf Uchaf on Tuesday 21st December 16:54
Edited by Dynion Araf Uchaf on Tuesday 21st December 16:54
Pair of utter hateful s
tbags, driving round pissed in the day, in a car that wasnt fit for the road.
Those tyres if they were an advisory at the MOT were definitely well knackered after another 7000 miles on a large RWD saloon car.
Spending money on booze rather than keeping the car roadworthy, should never be allowed to drive again. So called Professional driver over the limit.
tbags, driving round pissed in the day, in a car that wasnt fit for the road.Those tyres if they were an advisory at the MOT were definitely well knackered after another 7000 miles on a large RWD saloon car.
Spending money on booze rather than keeping the car roadworthy, should never be allowed to drive again. So called Professional driver over the limit.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
Also bald tyres can actually stop you faster than treaded tyres in certain conditions ( i.e. dry tarmac) as there is more rubber on the road.
Can we discuss this more? Are you suggesting tyres run down to the point where they have no tread are grippier on dry roads than normal tyres that aren't bald?Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
Also how accurate were the MOT testers observations? are we talking <2mm left or less than 3mm? It doesn't state how much tread was on the tyres at the time either.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-59728543BBC news article has more details:-
"The car was then driven more than 6,000 miles and witnesses described seeing it "fishtailing" on wet roads before the fatal crash."
"Judge Kay said the view of experts was that the Mercedes should not have been on the road and the state of the tyres contributed to the collision.
He told Reynolds at the sentencing on Friday: "You knew the effect the tyres were having on the vehicle in wet weather."
So he was seen driving like a t
t before the crash. It's not like him and matey got into the car sober, drove it normally before realising the MOT advisory on the tyres 6000 miles ago and spun accidentally. On balance of probabilities he's been getting away with it for a while i.e. whenever he was driving on slicks in the rain.Edited by fido on Tuesday 21st December 17:24
2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:
Smiljan said:
Can we discuss this more? Are you suggesting tyres run down to the point where they have no tread are grippier on dry roads than normal tyres that aren't bald?
Treaded tyres are a compromise.explained by Tiff
bangerhoarder said:
Smiljan said:
Can we discuss this more? Are you suggesting tyres run down to the point where they have no tread are grippier on dry roads than normal tyres that aren't bald?
That’s why slicks exist, the tread pattern is to dissipate water.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff