Safe Speed Forums

I've wondered this as well - what would happen had the boot been on the other foot. Something else that came out in the trial was the the 807's driver's mother wanted her daughter to stop so she could take some photos of the lake, hence she must have communicated this verbally in order for her daughter to attempt to pull over to the verge on the right hand side of the road. Except Gordon Dyche was in the middle of trying to overtake her at the time, and the rest is now well-known.

Oh yes, while I remember to do it, I don't think the weather conditions have so far been mentioned. From TV footage and photos I've seen of the rescue operation immediately after the crash, it was a dry, sunny afternoon and the road was dry. All in all, pretty much perfect driving conditions.

Any competent driver would have noticed the absence of P signs at the "layby" and immediately realised their mistake.

If you advance on Google streetview from the point where the P sign is to the strip off land she was trying to park on, there actually isn't that much of a view of it until you are nearly on it, as you approach it from a slight bend. I would guess that from the time of her noticing it to the point of her being able to pull onto it, if she was travelling at 35-40MPH, she would have had to make a quick decision and start to pull over almost immediately, which begs the question if she had time to signal and look in her mirror or if it was a bit of a knee jerk reaction that we all know can go terribly wrong if your luck's against you.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

My experience of something like this:

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=9669

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Precisely. Any competent barrister would have gone out and measured the time it took from first observing the strip of land to the moment indicators went on to the moment a driver would have had to move over to park on it. Because of the short sighting time involved, it could only have a matter of a few seconds from the moment of sighting to finally parking. Thus it was a very much spur-of-the-moment decision. Then again, a competent barrister would have made sure the case never reached court in the first place.

The barrister's name is Geraint Jones. Unfortunately, there's more than one barrister with that name, and I don't know which law firm he practices from. If any of you find you need a defence barrister and one with that name pops up, ask him if he represented Gordon Dyche in this case. If he confirms it, run a mile!

Also note that the 807's driver stated in evidence that her car spun anti-clockwise. Now, the only way this could have happened was if it was hit on or near the nearside rear.

If you look through the windscreen of your car, surely you would notice the forward view is a huge improvement on the tiny back to front view in the drivers mirror, and so would take into account that the driver might not have seen you?

Also, if I am overtaking someone, and they suddenly signal and pull out, it would be wrong to simply ram them and say "You shouldn't have done that". If you do collide with ANYTHING in front of you, then you have not been driving with due care and attention.

He was found guilty of causing a death due to careless driving, and not guilty of death by dangerous driving.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Ernest,

Taking the logic of your post, the driver of the people carrier has a restricted rearwards view. It thus behoves them to take extra time to look carefully before pulling to the right. The driver probably did not do this as the Mondeo would have been clearly visible as he began his 2 car overtake. Thus the MPV driver is equally culpable - but not charged with any offence.

Your point about "simply ramming them" just because you are in the right is a little silly as everyone would brake and take avoiding action which might not be enough to avoid a collision.

The Gog,

Following from above, IMO the avoiding action taken was to swerve to the left (right is the lake) which explains the damage location on the cars.


Interestingly, on a straw poll in my office, most people thought that the MPV driver was at fault as well as the Mondeo man.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

It's possible that the mondeo man was going to overtake the car behind the woman and pull in behind her, only to find her braking and pulling over to the right which might account for the fact that he clipped her nearside or as Malcom suggests it might have been due to a swerve to the left in an attempt to avoid ramming her square on. Either way, whether she signalled, looked in her mirror or not, this doesn't give you any rights to change lane or pull in front of another car without consequences.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

That's not strictly true, I can think of many instances where a car can put itself in a position in front of you with no chance of avoiding it.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

+1

Pulling out to a different lane/turning right or left when doing so will cause a collision (because they haven't checked for traffic) is DWDC&A. A different scenario but equally as valid. Just imagine that a cyclist was following this 807 in a town, on the nearside rear (possibly just after the 807 having overtaken him), and the 807's driver decided to pull in to a parking space on the left and did so without checking her mirrors and possibly only indicating at the last possible moment. The cyclist would go straight into the side of her car as he has nowhere else to go. Are you seriously suggesting that the cyclist would be at fault? It's a common way of turning cyclists into strawberry jam, and drivers rightly get the book thrown at them.

it would seem that the high and mighty of Shropshire would like to see this guy, hung , drawn and quartered. Is it just me or does 4 years seem a bit excessive for this case, unless they are taking into account his previous driving without insurance case.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/lifestyle ... reservoir/

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

That's to be expected of the regional press - sensationalism rules, regardless of the facts. The Shropshire Star is particularly "thick". Read their editorials and letters pages and weep - proof, if any were needed, of regressive evolution. Mind, Montgomeryshire's County Liar, sorry, County Times, is just as bad. Quite recently their front page splash was that a man was convicted of having "child p0rn" on his computer. Except he didn't. If you read the article inside, it made clear the images were of category 1 only, ie the least serious, and most definitely not p0rn. "Child p0rn" is category 5. The regional and local press makes the likes of The Sun and Daily Mail look like the pillars of respectable and responsible, impartial and accurate journalism.

I've no idea if/when Gordon Dyche plans to appeal, but if he does, and the conviction is overturned, the Shropshire Star (among others) will have to eat their words. Or newsprint. Naturally, they'll conveniently forget they wanted him lynched, and instead run a story about "this victim of a miscarriage of justice," instead putting the boot in to the criminal justice system. The regional and local press likes nothing better than hypocrisy.

I was thinking more along the comments left so far are typically over the top anti young driver. I do like this bit though....

"Many drivers guilty of inattention and carelessness get away with it through luck............. On that day, the dice did not roll in Dyche’s favour. Lady luck was not on his side, nor on the side of those he inadvertently killed, and as a result he too has seen his life torn apart."

This first bit seems more appropriate to describe the woman's possible driving error than Dyche's.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

He could have got up to five years, but has previous convictions for multiple offences.
With good behaviour and early release with a tag, he could be out in a little over two years.

I'm puzzled by the description given - spinning the vehicle ANTI clockwise. He has basically performed a pit manouvre on a vehicle bearing right - which has gone into the reservoir on the right - anti clockwise??

Not much collision damage on the rear quarter?


Goes on to say:

I think he is sunk on that last point, sine the witness stated the indicator was on.
His speed has been such that he has pushed her vehicle off the road, despite her indication... resulting in fatalities, and the death by careless charge.
Her error was in watching the road ahead more than her mirror.... while being passed by an impatient driver - who apparently admitted to this in court.
Would she get a careless charge for that, given the CPS have to be nearly certain of a conviction?
Very doubtful... especially as she has lost family members.
Public interest will have played a big part in charting the prosecution course.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I have gone through this and added my thoughts below so forgive my long post please ! :


All of the above thoughts are what occurred to me too as I have imagined this scenario.

I am also concerned with the papers reporting that the overtake was 'impatient', how can they possibly establish that? Are all 'overakers' now classed as 'impatient' how outrageous ! Overtaking is a perfectly legal manoeuvre !

I to think that the lady pulling across a road into a dirt area (as this is no official 'layby' but a patch of makeshift gravel where a vehicle might consider pulling in to!) did need to ensure that all around her was safe before her manoeuvre. She failed to do so.
The overtaker should too have ensured why the vehicles were either stopped, braking, slowing or otherwise recognising some developing hazard. He showed a lack of attention to reading the road conditions.

Doing a 'right pull out' after the left bend should make one highly cautious indeed, but I don't think that she thought through this from what she says. She seems to think that none of it is her fault which is a shame but understandable when it is all so very tragic.
Why didn't she check others before exiting the vehicle? Did she turn on her lights before exiting ? I appreciate not everyone remains calm when in shock and after an unexpected event like this.

It does make me wonder if she simply slowed - (even more than the 40mph that she claims that she was doing on what looks like a 60mph road) and then simply pulled out ... as others have said like and overtake ... NOT like a right turn, no one would make a right turn move into this parking area, it would be more like a gentle angle across the road - did the overtake think she might have been overtaking something, but then realises just how slow (and slowing and even braking) her vehicle is going? Many only indicate as they take the move so she might have only indicated as she went across the road. Many 'see' intentional moves before they are indicated and so witnesses might be confusing things. She was going very slowly for this road already - implying lots including 'tourist' so expect stops or slows etc ... !
This doesn't excuse the overtakers actions !

From overtakers angle (now looking at Google - thanks for the links ), her car may have been pretty obscured by the others and he will have had (given good weather / daylight conditions), vision to see that the road ahead was potentially free from oncoming vehicles. Could the road curve and hill prevented him seeing her vehicle pulling out until very late ? The vehicles behind her braking he might have mistaken for corner braking too..
I do not 'get' her car going 'ANTI-clockwise' either ... did she hit the throttle ?

All previous driving offences are never meant to be 'known to the Court' until AFTER a case is heard as it should never influence any new case !

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Baring in mind the minimal damage visible on the vehicle in the piccy, on the n/s one is left to assume that the damage is on the offside, in which case she would have spun clockwise, although after hitting the verge other factors will be in play ... but what if she hit the throttle (seeing the overtaking vehicle) and also created a secondary skid ? I tend to think that a shunt would negate a 2ndary skid and that force take over the other...
Just a thought?

Clearly his vehicle has front end damage ...

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

It is simple - he admitted this at the scene, and it was quickly brought up in court.

From what we can see, I am presuming that the vehicle SPUN clockwise, and on reaching the top of the bank, ROLLED anticlockwise into the water - that way it makes sense, and the passenger side door panels show damage you would expect from it hitting the water on that side.

Evidence said the vehicle came to rest below the surface in an upright position - I suspect it is incredibly difficult to aid occupants on the opposite side to get out - finding belt, operating door catches while leaning across etc. while underwater must be nearly impossible.

Unfortunately, you cannot open the doors until the cabin has filled with water and equalised the pressure - open windows as soon as possible will help - but is often the last thing occupants want to do, as they prefer to keep the water out as long as possible.

http://www.wikihow.com/Escape-from-a-Sinking-Car

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!