Ryhl driver charged.

[Andrew G]

[quote]Magistrates at Llandudno Court have fined the driver of the car that smashed into member's of Ryhl CC, killing four with three counts of driving with defective tyres, giving Robert Harris (47) a £180 fine.

The magistrates decided that defective tyres on the car did not cause the crash & that the incident was an accident.

More at - [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5241798.stm[/url]

[sid_day]

I saw this too and agree.

I can't undestand why a driver cannot be charged with Manslaughter in this sort of situation. Also I cannot see any justifcation for not giving a life ban.

When I learnt to drive about ten years ago my instructor made it plain that the speed limit was the <b>Maximum</b> speed you should travel.

At all times you should travel at a <b>"speed appropriate to the conditions"</b>.
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/12.htm
(see item 124: adapt your driving).

If the speed limit was 60 but there was ice on the roads then 60 is not a speed appropriate to the conditions.

Just as it is not appropriate to accellerate to a speed of 50 miles an hour between sets of red traffic lights in central London like it is a sodding drag race.

[sid_day]

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/21.htm

[David Lombari]

Agree with what you both say.

As one of the cyclists said (prior to knowing about the tyres I presume), I guess we have to accept it as an accident http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4601294.stm , but it does seem very unfair that no serious charges have been brought against the driver.

It has been explained that the bald tyres wouldn?t have stopped the accident, but surely the car travelling at a lower speed could have? I?m surprised the driver didn?t fall into the ?undue care and attention? bracket. "Our best estimate at the moment is that the car was driving at something like 50 miles per hour," Chief Inspector Lyn Adams from North Wales Police told British media. "And on a road like this, that isn't excessive speed??even if icy? ?Every road traffic collision is treated as a crime scene and tests have already been carried out. However, there is nothing to suggest the driver did anything but lose control and on the face of it this seems to be a terrible accident." Oh well, if all he did was lose control, that?s ok then??.

One relevant story was reported on Wednesday, regarding trying to get the speed limit reduced from 60 mph to 40 mph on rural roads. Whilst at first I thought this was a gimmick, as I believe educating road users should be a priority, maybe in this case the driver would have been travelling at a lower speed and the situation wouldn?t have been so severe. There?s a advert running on the radio at the moment quoting that ?if you hit a child at 40 mph there?s a 80% chance they?ll die, but hit them at 30 mph and there?s a 80% chance they?ll live?. Apart from the advert omitting the blindingly obvious message of ?don?t hit a child at all?, if the figures are correct then it shows the ?positive? effect just a 10 mph decrease in speed has on anything hit by a car.

An easy target I know, but unfortunately the country?s premier motoring TV show http://www.topgear.com/ is more concerned with setting fire to caravans than trying to educate it?s viewers on safer ways to drive. At the very least I?m sure The Stig (ex-F1 driver Perry McCarthy) could demonstrate how easy / difficult it is to control a skid at different speeds using a skid pan. Instead they?re more intent on glorifying a car?s speed and performance, using such descriptive terms such as ?loaded weapon??.tasteful!

Anyway, rant over.

[sid_day]

5th gear did a good piece on stopping distances.
They rounded it off with comparing worn tyres (within the legal limits) and tyres which were relatively fresh.

The results were pretty scary (from memory) a 30% increase in braking distance comparing tyres with 6mm of tread to those with 3mm of tread.

Real facts here:
http://www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advi ... _depth.htm

The test was on a wet surface.