Interesting viewpoint

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Monz

*Bzzzzt*.

Sorry, your application fails the 'slow' criterion.

I'm slow. And you passed me on the 'Four countries before lunch' tour.
Several times. And *always* on one wheel.

Made Oi larf, it did.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer as featured in
Performance Bikes and Fast Bikes

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (Falling apart) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Honda ST1100 wiv trailer

 

Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote;

I'm beginning to wonder if you are suffering a bit of cabin fever
following your accident[1].
As I'm sure you're well aware, a coroners inquest does not apportion
blame, a jury does not decide whether a person should be prosecuted.
Foresight is not mandatory, Hindsight is not evidence. It was icy in
places, In other places it was not. It was not 'clearly dangerous'. As
you rightly say, 'shit happens', and yet you seem to be asking whether
the cyclists may have contributed to their own demise.
Is it reasonable for the cyclists to have foreseen that the likelihood
that someone would lose control of a vehicle at a time and place and in
such a manner that they would be killed, would be so great that they
should postpone their ride?

The short answer is no. There is no evidence that the driver of the car,
or the cyclists, did not take reasonable care. A lack of clairvoyance
and an inability to see black ice are not offences and, IMHO, should not
even provoke mild criticism.

The coroner saw clear evidence of a lack of communication between police
and councils, and dubious decision making by 'the men wot send the
gritters'. The coroner has to give a narrative verdict to make the
point, otherwise he can only say 'accident/misadventure/unlawful
killing', which doesn't address the role of third parties.
The comment about inappropriate driving is stupid. No charge could be
brought purely on that basis, so the comment is superfluous, unless it
was to induce feelings of guilt in the driver, which strikes me as
particularly vindictive, considering his already expressed remorse, and
stated desire to be prosecuted (as if that would somehow make it
better).

The decision to grit or not, is a cost/benefit analysis done on the fly,
and I very much doubt that 'the number of people likely to die' gets any
more consideration than 'how much grit is left for this year'.

There, now get another bike, and get out on it. Lots. (or possibly a
boat)
We're all going to die, so do it properly, with style.

[1]I don't like smileys, but you can imagine one here.

 

[1]
Do **** off you sanctimonious twat, where did I mention race, colour or
gender. I would seriously suggest you go get your HRT dosage checked.

Possibly, don't know or really GAF.

I don't hate all cyclists. Other road users have no cause to hate me
for the same reasons either, as I stop at red lights, obey road signs
and don't drive on the pavement.

****, this really is a fucking pointless discussion.

When driving, particularly in town (London) there are certain types of
road user who regularly really piss me off, that's all.

Bicycle couriers are the worst, they are selfish arseholes, and if I
have the misfortune of offing one, whatever the circumstances I just
know it would be bad for, and in no way am I an aggressive driver. Why
the **** should I have to bear responsibility for the outcome of a bike
/ car interface when the idiot on the bike can't be arsed to use the
road responsibly

[1] My list of "hated" other road users (when driving in London):
Cabs - I "hate" the way they have a nasty habit of stopping or
U-Turning in front of me with little or no warning.
Lorries - I "hate" the fact I can't see around them, particularly at
junctions.
White Vans - I "hate" the fact that they are invariably parked on
double yellows whilst unloading.

I don't "hate" the drivers, owners, operators, WAG's etc of these road
users, and yes, if I came across one injured or whatever I would stop
and help, I wold prolly do the same for a bicycle courier if necessary.

--
Dan L

http://thebikeshed.spaces.live.com/
1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr

BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005/6/7)
X-FOT#000
DIAABTCOD #26
BOMB#18 (slow)
OMF#11

 

Possibly nothing is wrong with his car, but the car driven by the man
who killed the four innocent cyclists had bald tyres.

 

Tony Raven () gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

It's a damn sight easier to drive a car on a truly slippery surface than it
is to ride a bike on the same surface. Perhaps the two sides of the road
were affected unequally?

 

Wicked Uncle Nigel () gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying :

Especially bearing in mind this was in North Wales...

 

Yes I do drive as well as ride! but not a lot.

 

My take on it completely. I have been surprised by black ice, bike and car.
I've dropped a bike a couple of times and slid a car off to the edge once.
The roads had been fine up to those points, even though it was cold.

I think very carefully about taking a bike out of town when it's icy/frosty.
I would dwell even longer on cycling out of town.

Where the driver gets a bit caught out is the state of his tyres. I haven't
read whether they were short of tread or under inflated but there are no
excuses. I do a regular walk round of my cars but many people don't bother.
In this case it appears the court deemed it was not a contributory factor.

 

<ducks>
**** me Dan you nearly had someone's head off with that rattle ;o)

 

That is indeed the nub of the case. Insufficient information in the news
report to come to a conclusion. Although one poster seems to have access
to the driver's evidence.

It appears that the cyclists had only just set off. I wonder how far the
car had already come?

Presumably one the Local Authorities involved also believed it was fine,
despite a forecast of frost, until they received the call about a
skidding incident. If the section of road in question runs through, or
even perhaps forms the boundary between, Conwy and Denbighshire I can
see plenty of potential for "not me" confusion. Another article
mentioning delays obtaining evidence about gritting records etc. makes
interesting reading.

--

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

 

Hog () gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

He was prosecuted for three of the four being bald - but they were deemed
not to have contributed to the crash.

 

Did the court quote this as the causal factor though?
We don't know whether they were completely bald, slightly low on tread or
just under inflated?
On severe black ice it would make **** all difference anyway.

 

Yet no more inane than the question, 'should the cyclists have been out on
the roads?'.

D.

 

Hint: the Coroner said in his official conclusion:

"The evidence shows classic signs that Robert Harris was driving without
due care and attention and to his credit he admitted his responsibility
in going too fast.

"I fail to understand why no proceedings were brought against him."

....or in other words, that particular CPS prosecutor will be getting his
P45 shortly.

Exactly. And the difference between that and what you wrote is...?

 

I don't think anyone's suggested it was unsafe to be out driving. It was
unsafe to be driving at 50 mph, which is a very different thing.

Someone is to blame. Someone who was driving too fast for the conditions.

 

This guy did not 'slide a car off to the edge'. He slid the car off to the
edge, across eight feet of grass verge, bounced off a wall, back across
the eight feet of verge again, right across the whole width of the road,
and ended on the other verge. If he had 'slid a car off to the edge' it's
unlikely anyone would have died. If you have reasonable reason to believe
there's ice about (hint: five minutes on his own evidence scraping it off
his windscreen), then you drive sufficiently slowly that losing control
isn't catastrophic. If you don't drive slowly, then you are criminally and
culpably negligent.

According to the police evidence, three of them were bald. Not a bit short
of tread, bald. It is said that this did not contribute to the crash, but
it is evidence of how responsible the driver was.

 

'Fine' and 'icy' are not opposites. They are perfectly compatible. I rode
last winter on several fine but icy days.

He scraped ice of his windscreen. He said so.

 

Because he knew it was icy, and he was travelling at a speed where, if
he did lose control, he was going fast enough to cross the road, cross a
verge, bounce off a wall, and back into the road.

Ho bloody ho.
http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/cut-out-and-stick-on-duty-prosecutors.html

Well done. Now try applying the same logic to the cyclists.

 

Bollocks. I've never fallen off a bike because of ice. You (obviously) have
to be more gentle with your braking and steering, but there's nothing
enormously difficult about it. I've certainly ridden across ice surfaces
which I would not have liked to drive across.

 

The police evidence is that they were completely bald, but that this did
not contribute to the crash. No evidence regarding the inflation was
given.