Telegraph today on tragic deaths
Discussion
I read the article below this morning and thought it was an appalling series of events. It illustrates graphically a number of the concerns that many people have about behaviour on the road and policing/ government priorities, and I am sure we would like to see these kinds of horrible events eliminated.
In summary, two young drivers are alleged, one being significantly over the drink-drive limit, to have engaged in, if not racing on the public highway, at least dangerous driving. So two ticks in the throw-them-in-jail box even before one of them loses control and kills two pedestrians, then flees. The speeds being quoted, whilst high, are not wildly outside the national speed limit for a dual carriageway and if the highest speed was 80mph as one driver claims, the two would not have been stopped under the ACPO guidelines.
So why does the headline focus on speed?? That surely was not the primary cause here.
===========================
Girls walking at roadside 'killed by 100mph racers'
By Paul Stokes
(Filed: 16/12/2003)
A driver was three times over the drink-drive limit when he killed two girls on a footpath during a road race with a friend, a court was told yesterday.
The two cars were said to have sped along a dual carriageway at up to 100mph before James Hill lost control of his white Ford Mondeo which veered across the road and struck Amy Jones and Kayla Young on the footway.
Hill, 29, who fled the scene of the accident, has admitted causing their deaths by dangerous driving. David Priestley, 23, who was driving a red Vauxhall Astra he had just bought, denies the charge.
Grimsby Crown Court was told that witnesses saw the two men driving at excessive speeds on the A46 Laceby by-pass, near Grimsby, on May 18.
They were nose-to-tail with Priestley's Astra remaining in front, said Stephen Lowne, prosecuting. Hill was trying to pass but Priestley blocked his every move.
"All of a sudden Hill tried to make a dummy manoeuvre to the inside which caused Priestley to move to the left, then Hill swerved to the right but lost control of the vehicle," said Mr Lowne. "It went across the carriageway and across the pavement and took the two girls with it."
Mr Lowne said although Hill's car directly killed Amy and Kayla it was the actions of the two drivers together which caused their deaths.
Police investigators estimated that Hill's car had been travelling at 87mph at the time of the crash.
Priestley, a fast food store assistant, told police that Hill had called on him and asked if he wanted to go for drink. They went to a pub where he drank cola and Hill had three-and-a-half pints of lager.
When it was decided to visit a friend Priestley suggested they should take his car and that he would drive because he had more petrol and Hill had been drinking.
Priestley told officers Hill decided to follow in his Mondeo and they kept pretty much to the speed limits and accelerated to 70mph on the dual carriageway.
In a later police interview, he admitted that he might have been going faster than 70mph. Priestley is claimed to have said: "It could have been more, probably around 80 mph. I don't even know how fast I was going."
Mr Lowne told the jury: "These two were involved in competitive driving. They were being thoroughly stupid. There was blocking and manoeuvring.
"Careful watching of speed is utter nonsense. He was content to stay in the outside lane to stop Hill getting past. That was what caused the accident."
The hearing continues.
Edited slightly for clarity
>>> Edited by whoozit on Tuesday 16th December 10:25
In summary, two young drivers are alleged, one being significantly over the drink-drive limit, to have engaged in, if not racing on the public highway, at least dangerous driving. So two ticks in the throw-them-in-jail box even before one of them loses control and kills two pedestrians, then flees. The speeds being quoted, whilst high, are not wildly outside the national speed limit for a dual carriageway and if the highest speed was 80mph as one driver claims, the two would not have been stopped under the ACPO guidelines.
So why does the headline focus on speed?? That surely was not the primary cause here.
===========================
Girls walking at roadside 'killed by 100mph racers'
By Paul Stokes
(Filed: 16/12/2003)
A driver was three times over the drink-drive limit when he killed two girls on a footpath during a road race with a friend, a court was told yesterday.
The two cars were said to have sped along a dual carriageway at up to 100mph before James Hill lost control of his white Ford Mondeo which veered across the road and struck Amy Jones and Kayla Young on the footway.
Hill, 29, who fled the scene of the accident, has admitted causing their deaths by dangerous driving. David Priestley, 23, who was driving a red Vauxhall Astra he had just bought, denies the charge.
Grimsby Crown Court was told that witnesses saw the two men driving at excessive speeds on the A46 Laceby by-pass, near Grimsby, on May 18.
They were nose-to-tail with Priestley's Astra remaining in front, said Stephen Lowne, prosecuting. Hill was trying to pass but Priestley blocked his every move.
"All of a sudden Hill tried to make a dummy manoeuvre to the inside which caused Priestley to move to the left, then Hill swerved to the right but lost control of the vehicle," said Mr Lowne. "It went across the carriageway and across the pavement and took the two girls with it."
Mr Lowne said although Hill's car directly killed Amy and Kayla it was the actions of the two drivers together which caused their deaths.
Police investigators estimated that Hill's car had been travelling at 87mph at the time of the crash.
Priestley, a fast food store assistant, told police that Hill had called on him and asked if he wanted to go for drink. They went to a pub where he drank cola and Hill had three-and-a-half pints of lager.
When it was decided to visit a friend Priestley suggested they should take his car and that he would drive because he had more petrol and Hill had been drinking.
Priestley told officers Hill decided to follow in his Mondeo and they kept pretty much to the speed limits and accelerated to 70mph on the dual carriageway.
In a later police interview, he admitted that he might have been going faster than 70mph. Priestley is claimed to have said: "It could have been more, probably around 80 mph. I don't even know how fast I was going."
Mr Lowne told the jury: "These two were involved in competitive driving. They were being thoroughly stupid. There was blocking and manoeuvring.
"Careful watching of speed is utter nonsense. He was content to stay in the outside lane to stop Hill getting past. That was what caused the accident."
The hearing continues.
Edited slightly for clarity
>>> Edited by whoozit on Tuesday 16th December 10:25
all to do with speed. The speed aspect kicked in once the accident was HAPPENING!
whoozit said:
"Careful watching of speed is utter nonsense. He was content to stay in the outside lane to stop Hill getting past. That was what caused the accident."
Hmmm. When can we expect some widespread enforcement of this demonstrably dangerous, and increasingly prevalent, practice.
Firstly, let me say that nothing in my post below should be taken to suggest that I in any way condone actions that may lead to death or injury. My comments are about flawed, not to say biased, reporting, either by the newspaper or in the court-room - S
Interesting that the headline is about speed but the opening sentence is about drink-driving. A classic case of mixed messages - likely driven by the sub-editor's desire to economise on newsprint.
1) "Excessive speed" is a qualitative term. What were the witnesses' qualifications for judging that the speed was excessive? And 'excessive' in what context, for the time of day, the road conditions, the traffic load, what? That they might have been excessive in terms of how events unfolded is not the issue. The witnesses are reported to have spoken of speeds being 'excessive' prior to the fatal crash. The speed and actions of the driver who lost control clearly exceeded his ability, but the witnesses were in no position to assess that, before or in the immediate aftermath of the crash.
2) Where did the figure of 100mph come from? Who measured this? By what means? Were they qualified to measure it?
This sort of reporting does nothing to enhance/improve the reputation of the Press for being accurate and unbiased.
Streaky
Let me repeat that nothing in my post above should be taken to suggest that I in any way condone actions that may lead to death or injury. My comments are about flawed, not to say biased, reporting, either by the newspaper or in the court-room - S
whoozit said:
...
Girls walking at roadside 'killed by 100mph racers'
By Paul Stokes
(Filed: 16/12/2003)
A driver was three times over the drink-drive limit when he killed two girls on a footpath during a road race with a friend, a court was told yesterday. ...
Interesting that the headline is about speed but the opening sentence is about drink-driving. A classic case of mixed messages - likely driven by the sub-editor's desire to economise on newsprint.
whoozit said:
...
The two cars were said to have sped along a dual carriageway at up to 100mph before James Hill lost control of his white Ford Mondeo which veered across the road and struck Amy Jones and Kayla Young on the footway.
...
Grimsby Crown Court was told that witnesses saw the two men driving at excessive speeds on the A46 Laceby by-pass, near Grimsby, on May 18.
...
1) "Excessive speed" is a qualitative term. What were the witnesses' qualifications for judging that the speed was excessive? And 'excessive' in what context, for the time of day, the road conditions, the traffic load, what? That they might have been excessive in terms of how events unfolded is not the issue. The witnesses are reported to have spoken of speeds being 'excessive' prior to the fatal crash. The speed and actions of the driver who lost control clearly exceeded his ability, but the witnesses were in no position to assess that, before or in the immediate aftermath of the crash.
2) Where did the figure of 100mph come from? Who measured this? By what means? Were they qualified to measure it?
This sort of reporting does nothing to enhance/improve the reputation of the Press for being accurate and unbiased.
Streaky
Let me repeat that nothing in my post above should be taken to suggest that I in any way condone actions that may lead to death or injury. My comments are about flawed, not to say biased, reporting, either by the newspaper or in the court-room - S
I don't know the road concerned - is this a dual carriageway within a built up area? Seems that way if two pedestrians are so close to the road. If so, I am very surprised it's NSL - the ones around here where you get close to pedestrians are all 40/50 limits.
So, drinking, racing, definitely over the limit (I agree this is secondary to the actual cause of the accident)
Be prepared for some ridiculously low sentence for the pair of them .. bit like that uninsured asylum seeker from a couple of days ago
>> Edited by john_p on Tuesday 16th December 12:04
So, drinking, racing, definitely over the limit (I agree this is secondary to the actual cause of the accident)
Be prepared for some ridiculously low sentence for the pair of them .. bit like that uninsured asylum seeker from a couple of days ago
>> Edited by john_p on Tuesday 16th December 12:04
See the way the PC way of thinking pervades all?
The "williams" way of thinking......
Poor Streaky has just had to embolden his posting with disclaimers, to avoid being pilloried and attacked by the Pro Pc anti car brigade, even though he made a perfectly reasonable post.
Im not gonna hold off saying what i feel just cos of her. If she has any issues with my point of view, she can can come and say it to my face and ill tell her exactly what to go and do.
The "williams" way of thinking......
Poor Streaky has just had to embolden his posting with disclaimers, to avoid being pilloried and attacked by the Pro Pc anti car brigade, even though he made a perfectly reasonable post.
Im not gonna hold off saying what i feel just cos of her. If she has any issues with my point of view, she can can come and say it to my face and ill tell her exactly what to go and do.
deltaf said:
Poor Streaky has just had to embolden his posting with disclaimers . .. even though he made a perfectly reasonable post.
Which is a shame, as this is exactly the sort of reasonable PH debate that we are used to on these issues. Isn't that right, Ted?
john_p said:
is this a dual carriageway within a built up area?
I don't know, all I know are the facts as reported in the paper. I was careful to say NSL for a dual carriageway, but you're right to point out it may have had a lower speed limit.
>> Edited by whoozit on Tuesday 16th December 12:34
deltaf said:deltaf - many thanks, but you misunderstand. The bracketing of my post with emboldened disclaimers was nothing to do with any recent controversy over a particulat thread in PH, but because it could be construed from the body of my post that I was attempting in some perverse manner to justify the deaths. But I empathise with you in the concern that underpinned your reply - Streaky
See the way the PC way of thinking pervades all?
The "williams" way of thinking......
Poor Streaky has just had to embolden his posting with disclaimers, to avoid being pilloried and attacked by the Pro Pc anti car brigade, even though he made a perfectly reasonable post.
Im not gonna hold off saying what i feel just cos of her. If she has any issues with my point of view, she can can come and say it to my face and ill tell her exactly what to go and do.
whoozit said:
is this a dual carriageway within a built up area?
I don't know, all I know are the facts as reported in the paper. I was careful to say NSL for a dual carriageway, but you're right to point out it may have had a lower speed limit.
I'm not sure. I initially posted questioning whether it was a NSL or not, but this comment
Telegraph said:
Priestley told officers Hill decided to follow in his Mondeo and they kept pretty much to the speed limits and accelerated to 70mph on the dual carriageway.
So probably a NSL? But who knows. Idiots for racing though, and for driving drunk.
streaky said:
See the way the PC way of thinking pervades all?
The "williams" way of thinking......
Poor Streaky has just had to embolden his posting with disclaimers, to avoid being pilloried and attacked by the Pro Pc anti car brigade, even though he made a perfectly reasonable post.
Im not gonna hold off saying what i feel just cos of her. If she has any issues with my point of view, she can can come and say it to my face and ill tell her exactly what to go and do.
deltaf - many thanks, but you misunderstand. The bracketing of my post with emboldened disclaimers was nothing to do with any recent controversy over a particulat thread in PH, but because it could be construed from the body of my post that I was attempting in some perverse manner to justify the deaths. But I empathise with you in the concern that underpinned your reply - Streaky
Ah i know that Streaky me old chum. However, only a muppet with the stuffing knocked out of its head would have even dreamt of interpreting it otherwise. ( The big "W" for instance
)Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff