Driver Who Caused Fatal Crash Was Council Road Safety Officer

I blame my astigmatism

 

And the bald tyres contributed in what way?

**** that, I've made enough mistakes I've got away with (and some I
haven't); I'm not joining anyones lynch mob.

 

Where could the sun have been?

 

Careful! he was driving a car and was employed by the council as a road
safety officer. Surely that's enough?

 

That's not the point at all.
If the road is clear as far as you can see, you can pull out,
and stop or stall in the middle of the road if you want, quite legally.

If someone then comes round the bend, 300 yards away,
"giving it beans", as the cannibal wrote, he will hit you,
and it will be his fault.

Reasonable doubt?
There is not enough information in the original post to apportion blame.

 

Not in the line of vision - c*r is heading either NE or E, depending on
which junction. The likely one is by Elm Farm, in centre of pic:

url:http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/output1/gam/gam_ordsvywat-sun-0217508692794.png

which also shows why I think it's that junction - and if he cut the
junction, he may not have seen the bike if he (the c*r driver) had
traffic in front of him and the bike was going fast enough.

I ride this road once or twice a week on the way to band practice - it's
fast but I do keep a watch on that junction, more particularly in the
other direction. It's a pleasantly curving few miles but there are the
usual dawdlers and you never know what they're going to do.

Much like any road, I guess! (Well, not all roads have had pikey horses
munching the verges in the last month, admittedly...)

Cheers,

 

Well, on the speed, let's say, without (evidently) traffic in front
of him, I'd expect just about anyone with a bike capable of it to be
doing at least eighty. But it's a wide road - someone turns a Vectra
across you and you go behind them, unless they do it when you're right
on top of them and you don't expect it because they simply haven't seen
you. It's so unobstructed you'd have to be myopic or well daft not ot
see the bike though, particularly as it'd be changing from slight lean
right to slightly bank left (to the onlooker).

I reckon the most likely cause is another c*r in front of the driver and
him cutting across into the wrong side of the side road suddenly,
thinking he could get in front of the bike and misjudging the approach
speed because of insufficient time to judge.

Cheers,

 

I need to reply to the court by Monday...

 

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:22:04 +0100, JP wrote:

Why do people make these dangerous mistakes? Surely in part because they
don't take the whole driving experience seriously enough and afford it the
concentration and care it deserves. Heavier punishment when people _do_
**** up might drive through the message that we must pay attention to what
we're doing.

 

Speaking for myself I don't believe that potential punishment stops me
breaking any laws.

Those laws that I chose to break I do, safe in the knowledge[1] that
there's no way I'm getting caught.

The current focus on excessive speeding=dangerous driving=speeding has
caused me to largely stop riding large sports bikes but something like
driving is essential to me so even if killing someone meant I'd go to
prison I doubt it would change my driving style one iota. Whether that
makes me irresponsible or not is another matter.

My point is people committing crimes on the whole don't expect to be
punished because they don't expect to be caught.

And, on another note, I doubt the subject of the original post really
cares too much about the fine he's been given since I'm sure the fact
his actions killed someone have caused him more grief than the fine.

[1] Yeah, right...

 

This is true for everyone. And this is why the right-wing's calls for
more punitive punishments for a whole range of crime is stupid.

 

I think you're correct. I heard that the scenario was this (this is only
what I've heard secondhand so I do stand to be corrected): Level crossing
was in use by goods train causing tailbacks in both directions in morning
rush-hour. Biker filters to the head of cue and gates open. Biker
accelerates from level crossing with nothing in front. Meanwhile in other
direction the car driver sees long, stationery queue and guesses its because
level crossing is in use. Local knowledge means car driver knows that you
can turn right and avoid level crossing as local road has a bridge over
railways line. Car driver turns right not expecting any oncoming traffic as
he thinks barriers are shut. He cannot see the actual crossing as it is
round a gentle bend in the road and the gates opened moments ago.

Whether he looked or not nobody except the driver knows.

 

Yep, that'd do it. (Crossing is just about visible from there but not
with a queue in front.)

In the above circs, my guess would be no. And if the biker was giving
it beans he wouldn't have been visible for long.

Cheers,

 

Fair comment, with emphasis on 'effectively'.

And don't forget the Milton Keynes One.

 

As I said at the time - they pleaded guilty to dangerous driving. A
mad thing to do under the circumstances and poor legal advice IMHO

 

Thanks. So, here's the next question - to your knowledge, has anyone
been convicted of dangerous driving, where the sole contributary
factor to the assessment of 'dangerous' was their speed.

Or, to put it another way - if these guys had pleaded not guilty to
dangerous, would the CPS have proceeded, and if they had, do you think
they'd have been convicted.

 

*waves*

 

Good point. OK, so I hadn't thought it all the way through. With road
safety, the rules seem to be on the side of "if you are going too
fast, you *might* kill someone, so we'll penalise whether you do or
not."

And with 'accidents' just because you didn't *mean* to kill someone,
shouldn't take away the fact that you *did*.

But then I agree with the earlier point that there'd be little gain in
sending someone down for 'life for a life' where it was an accident
and ...

agh. I give up. My brain hurts. I'll just concentrate on cooking
Will's tea... ;o)

 

Wouldn't the "consequences" in your case also have had an effect.

 

Legally speaking, no. In the minds of the jury, almost certainly, even
though it should not.