www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19421724
No problem with the verdict in this case. But in general, if you want to turn right into a lay-by on the other side of the road, should you check that nothing is in the process of overtaking you? Or should the overtaker have spotted the lay-by and not attempted the overtake?
Ok it might always be wise to check 'just in case', but I mean hypothetically, assuming everyone is following the rules of the road.
Last edited by: Focus on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 16:45
|
|
He's got form which suggests he isn't one of the worlds most careful drivers, but I do have a bit of sympathy for him. If he had already begun the overtake and was alongside the first car when the other one turned into his path I don't see how the blame could be his, unless you believe that passing more than one car at a time is in itself dangerous. When I had the bike I've zoomed past six in one go a few times.
|
>>But in general, if you want to turn right into a lay-by on the other side of the road, should you check that nothing is in the process of overtaking you? <<
Of course you should, and I feel that some of the responsibility for this accident lies with the survivor.
Pat
|
>> When I had the bike I've zoomed past six in one go a few times.
>>
Kicking off the mirror of which one?? (0:-:0)
|
>> Kicking off the mirror of which one?? (0:-:0)
>>
All the BMWs.
|
Interesting. Until I read the article, I assumed that the person convicted of dangerous driving was the person who had pulled out into the path of an oncoming (rearcoming?) car in order to enter the layby.
This seems like the wrong person jailed to me.
The woman pulled out directly in front of another car without having looked.
That said, overtaking multiple cars at once is quite hairy!
What was the case a year ago when somebody reading a map pulled in to the side of an A road to stop to read the map and caused a prang?
|
|
It does seem a bit odd that there's no mention of mirror checking in the report. Of course we don't know exactly what was said in the courtroom.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19421724
>>
>> No problem with the verdict in this case. But in general, if you want to
>> turn right into a lay-by on the other side of the road, should you check
>> that nothing is in the process of overtaking you? Or should the overtaker have spotted
>> the lay-by and not attempted the overtake?
>>
>> Ok it might always be wise to check 'just in case', but I mean hypothetically,
>> assuming everyone is following the rules of the road.
>>
Both. Scenic roads and laybays are magnets for sudden turns. No mention of her checking mirrors or an over the shoulder life saver which may have prevented it. Two people being less than careful is a dangerous combination.
The woman driver only mentions about indicating. Not about whether she looked. Bearing in mind she's killed her husband and mother and two foster sons it's probably punishment enough for one moment's less than perfect driving.
The fact it was dropped to death by careless driving not dangerous driving suggests they thought the woman driver shared some culpability.
|
Another example of over reaction of the court based on the outcome rather than his actions? Under normal circumstances, if no-one had died would he have been prosecuted? On the facts presented from the news report surely she was the most culpable?
He does seem to have done himself no favors with his comments at the time.
|
>>Another example of over reaction of the court based on the outcome rather than his actions
Absolutely. And the punishment would have been even worse if they'd hit a bunch of school kids
No sense, no logic.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 18:09
|
>>
>> The fact it was dropped to death by careless driving not dangerous driving suggests they
>> thought the woman driver shared some culpability.
>>
This has nothing to do with culpability of the other driver, more an indication of what they thought of the convicted driver and his motives for what he did.
|
speculation on this forum at the time of the incident:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=6099&v=f
|
Hmm. Difficult one.
Part of me thinks the mechanic is hard done by, in that he's overtaken at a time someone else has veered right into a lay by and that other person should have to take some responsibility for that...but...he has a poor record of driving and seemingly a cavalier attitude to life in general.
Makes me wonder if there's more to it than what has been reported.
Dangerous driving is notoriously difficult to prosecute, so the conviction on the lesser charge should not have too much read in to it.
|
...Dangerous driving is notoriously difficult to prosecute...
Not sure about that.
'Driving far below the standard of a competent driver' or 'a prolonged period of inattention' are relatively simple concepts for a jury to grapple with.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-19420354
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 19:24
|
Reservoir car crash - Westpig Fri 13 May 11
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=6099&m=141455&v=e
".... If the lady that survived ended up turning when someone else was overtaking, she'll have that on her shoulders as well. Isn't life unpleasant at times. I can't even state I hope it wasn't her fault, because then that's lumbering the mechanic. .. "
Last edited by: John H on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 19:28
|
The report says ha "clipped" the car as he was passing it. If that is the case it indicates that she turned into him and in my book that would be her fault, though you could put some of the blame on him if she was signalling before he commenced the overtake. His previous record, though bad should have no bearing on the verdict.
It shows the sense in keeping your mouth shut in the immediate aftermath when your emotions are controlling your words. I would certainly appeal if I were him.
|
>> I would certainly appeal if I were him
I'm sure he will, he must be familiar with the legal system.
As I see it, careless driving is the correct description for what he did - similar instances of such behaviour can be seen on the roads all the time, unfortunately in this instance there were fatal consequences.
|
If you listen to the news clip you will note that the victim was infront of another vehicle. So any indication may well have been masked by the vehicle behind. Dyche was therefore attempting to overtake two vehicles on the approach and entry to a slight right hand bend (admittedly with a view). If the victims vehicle slowed or was travelling slowly anticipating the turn into the layby it and the vehicle may well have been displaying brake lights. The overtaking vehicle should have assessed the situation, even from the offside of the road, and acted accordingly by aborting the overtake instead of ploughing on.
At the least a Death by Careless.
Have a play with Google maps and Street View you can almost put yourself in Dyche's position:
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 30 Aug 12 at 20:54
|
>> Have a play with Google maps and Street View you can almost put yourself in
>> Dyche's position:
>>
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=6099&m=135279&v=e
|
|
Type in Llyn Clywedog and you can soon find it. Sorry I cant link to the exact view :-( If someone knows how please enlighten me.
|
It's an interesting point about the relative rights and wrongs of people overtaking when others are already or about to indicate or move.
If the conclusion is that he was in the wrong because someone in the row of cars was already indicating but possibly invisibly, then the conclusion must be that it is always wrong to conduct a multiple overtake. That must be stupid because it would mean that once a queue has two cars in it you are not allowed to overtake them.
On the other hand if the woman was at fault it implies that someone commencing a long overtake of a row of slower cars can in effect bag the rights to the whole stretch of road, thus preventing people ahead from carrying out their manoeuvres. What was she supposed to do, supposing she had seen him starting to overtake? Stopped and held up all the traffic? Or carried straight on and missed her turn? That would mean if you have an impatient driver behind you you are never allowed to turn right.
Perhaps the Highway Code advice is the most helpful - Do not overtake when approaching a road junction - and treat a layby on the opposite side as a junction.
|
This has seriously made me think about my favourite overtaking place on a regular commute.
Almost one mile of visibility, with higher elevations at both ends of the straight. Many times you are stuck behind mimsers, HGV's, caravaners etc so I approach that stretch of road in third gear, and taking into account the types of vehicle in front, pull out and begin to overtake. Often before other vehicles have even recognised it is safe to so.
Driving a fairly powerful car I can often blast past 10 or 12 who are driving nose to tail, but am always very wary of someone pulling out without checking their o/s mirror.
Ther are no junctions or farm entrances on this stretch of road.
And the majority of cars coming in the opposite direction are exceeding the NSL, so anything visible means I block change back to 6th and continue as was.
Hmmm...I must admit to exceeding the NSL by some margin so if some numpty did pull out at 40, directly in front of me, then blame would have to be apportioned.
|
>> always very wary of someone pulling out without checking their o/s mirror.
Air horn and full beam when you are doing that. Not all the time of course, just when necessary.
A stretch of fast road without junctions is a precious thing. But you can't count on other drivers. They can pull out without looking in their mirrors.
I remember this case. The gung-ho driver who hit the lady doing the slightly careless layby manoeuvre was going too fast I think. A bit reckless. I agree with the court. But anyone stretching the law gets the blame when there is a death or injury, not always entirely justly it seems to me. It's similar to the inevitable blame attached to a car tailending another: usually just but not always.
|
Have overtaken lines of cars int he past but . .
Doesn't a layby count as a junction,
Where the line of cars is slowing you should understand why before overtaking - farm gate?
My sympathy is with the lady - she may have looked in her mirror and seen the cars immediately behind slowing, the other car involved would be travelling fast to push hers into the lake and so well back from her when (if) she looked.
We don't know all the facts.
|
Had a look at the google street view for the accident site.
Bend on approach to layby. Bend immediately after layby. Centre road markings indicate hazard. Over take at this point, in my view, should not have been attempted. Hence the sentence.
|
>> Centre road markings indicate hazard.
Had to look that up. Highway Code rule 127: "A broken white line. This marks the centre of the road. When this line lengthens and the gaps shorten, it means that there is a hazard ahead. Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off."
|
>> "... Do not cross it unless you can see the road is clear ..."
Perhaps that was true when he started the manoeuvre.
|
>> My sympathy is with the lady - she may have looked in her mirror and
>> seen the cars immediately behind slowing, the other car involved would be travelling fast to
>> push hers into the lake and so well back from her when (if) she looked.
>>
>> We don't know all the facts.
>>
I agree with you. We're all taught to check our mirrors before a manouvre so its entirely possible in the time it took her to check and turn her eyes back to the road and a few seconds later make her turn, Dyche could have appeared and WHAM!
Another factor is the speed difference. She was doing 40mph, possibly even slower in order to make her turn. If he was gearing up to blast past at say 50mph he could cover over 70 feet in a second. She'd have had to be looking in her mirrors constantly in order to have seen him and no-one can drive looking where they've been. We'd all be crashing otherwise!
Last edited by: TheManWithNoName on Fri 31 Aug 12 at 14:05
|
Seems to me, based on the reported facts, that it could well be a 30/70% blame split.
Certainly no-one is going to prosecute a widow under such tragic circumstances, and the other driver with pretty bad previous is fair game. As mentioned above, the fact the charge was dropped to careless would go some way to support the apportion of blame.
At the end of the day, if you are overtaking you have to be pretty sure its done in a safe manner, ditto turning right (in what appears to be a snap badly timed last minute choice), and when the two bad choices meet you have a bag load of trouble.
|
|
This case looks similar to a crash which nearly cost the ski superstar Hermann Maier one of his legs and his career. Maier on his motorbike overtook a car which turned left in front of him (equivalent to turning right in the UK). Initially, it was the driver of the car who was prosecuted and found guilty of driving without due care for not looking in his mirror. The verdict was overturned on appeal.
Last edited by: Biggles on Fri 31 Aug 12 at 16:07
|
Gordon Dyche trial: Sentence upheld for Llyn Clywedog crash that killed family
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-20801799
|
Careless overtaking - Robin O'Reliant
