Seems a bit of a worrying development that something that happened off the motorway & drifted over the c/way possibly due to weather conditions can be used to possibly ‘defend’ someones ability to not drive to the conditions, what next a car has an accident as the driver cannot see due to spray thrown up by a truck so the truck driver is charged with manslaughter ?
Hmmm difficult one, depends how long he gets. When 7 people die though someone’s got to go to jail.
speedyguy:
Seems a bit of a worrying development that something that happened off the motorway & drifted over the c/way possibly due to weather conditions can be used to possibly ‘defend’ someones ability to not drive to the conditions, what next a car has an accident as the driver cannot see due to spray thrown up by a truck so the truck driver is charged with manslaughter ?
Very good comment
FarnboroughBoy11:
Hmmm difficult one, depends how long he gets. When 7 people die though someone’s got to go to jail.
Why 
could have just been 1 of those thing that happen called an " accident " & a sequence of events
animal:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Hmmm difficult one, depends how long he gets. When 7 people die though someone’s got to go to jail.Why
Dangerous situation to judge the event organiser.
Apologies as I have posted the same news links in another thread which was running.
But if 32 vehicles run into each other whilst travelling in the same direction on a three lane motorway then there was obviously an error in the driving of someone
FarnboroughBoy11:
Hmmm difficult one, depends how long he gets. When 7 people die though someone’s got to go to jail.
Why? Nobody set out to harm anybody that day it was just a terrible accident. I really don’t understand the obsession with the authorities to jail somebody for accidents. Don’t get me wrong if someone is doing 120mph or drinks a bottle of whiskey and has an accident of course they should be jailed but this seems a little severe to me.
What’s the difference between this display and farmers burning stuff beside main roads? Bloody great field yet they light fires near the road.
As the Taunton fireworks were an organised display, I bet they use the risk assessments (or lack of) to aid the prosecution…
sammy:
FarnboroughBoy11:
Hmmm difficult one, depends how long he gets. When 7 people die though someone’s got to go to jail.Why? Nobody set out to harm anybody that day it was just a terrible accident. I really don’t understand the obsession with the authorities to jail somebody for accidents. Don’t get me wrong if someone is doing 120mph or drinks a bottle of whiskey and has an accident of course they should be jailed but this seems a little severe to me.
Its mostly to do with culpability.
Not for one minute suggesting that he did not (that is for the court to decide), or what the conditions were like (I wasn’t there), but he supplied the event, authorised its go ahead, and MAY not have considered prevailing weather conditions, and/or the events location properly enough to ensure no incidents occurred, therefore in law he is or could be responsible in some form. Again that is for the court to decide.
The reason we have culpability rules is to ensure that, using this event as an example, a further event was held in the same or similar location then further consideration would be given to ensure the incident does not occur again.
Sadly, this involves lots of legislation to wade through but if it wasn’t in place then there is a good strong chance that these incidents would be more common.
Common sense hopefully prevails with regards to things like spray from vehicles, there is only so much you can legislate for but then in that instance you have to drive to the conditions.
I think it’s a ridiculous result. So if it wasn’t smoke but fog, who do we blame when there is a crash? Mother Nature? On the M6 today, the amount of tools driving past me at 80 tailgating in the fog with all fog lights blaring was stupid.
How exactly do these people think that a fog light will save them? Fronts fogs only work in the dark and rears are ok but if your doing 80 then it won’t help anyone. And where in the highway code dies it say as soon as there is a tiny bit of fog, wack em on, Then of course there were the idiots with no lights on and those that thought conditions were bad enough to put their fogs on but never thought it’d be an idea to check their main headlights or taillights worked before setting off.
People are so thick it’s quite scary.
FarnboroughBoy11:
Hmmm difficult one, depends how long he gets. When 7 people die though someone’s got to go to jail.
Could it not be that each of the drivers in the respective vehicles were driving too close. Even if something unexpected happens like a blow out or smoke across the road, it doesn’t matter what it is. You shouldn’t be too close ‘ever’ just incase something happens. There’s that video in Holland or Belgium on you tube in which multiple people die were the strut on the truck gave way forcing it to veer left and jump across the barrier into head on traffic. That is nobody’s fault at all, just horrendous luck but the car driver tailgaiting the other car (both doing about 90mph) have to take the blame for their own as they were speeding and would have had time to react if they weren’t and the tailgaiting driver was not only flying but riding the bumper of the car in front and left himself no chance.
It’s unbelievable that someone can be charged with manslaughter based on wind direction from a firework display. So now before you do anything you have to take into consideration that the may change direction or the rain may fall or whatever and affect something that is nowhere near.
speedyguy:
Seems a bit of a worrying development that something that happened off the motorway & drifted over the c/way possibly due to weather conditions can be used to possibly ‘defend’ someones ability to not drive to the conditions, what next a car has an accident as the driver cannot see due to spray thrown up by a truck so the truck driver is charged with manslaughter ?
Couldn’t agree more.
Of course it could be that the drivers most responsible have already paid with their lives.
That might be true but Jimmys being dragged through all this even though he is dead so why should any of the other drivers be any different?
Instead we’re going to blame this guy who tried to organise a fun spectacle that went wrong as he forgot to write to the wind gods asking for an easterly wind direction. All of those drivers were driving without due care and attention and it should be a warning to everyone that driving too fast too close in fog will kill you and you are not exempt from it, dead or alive.
These idiots I saw this morning obviously have a very short memory. If they crashed and caused 7 deaths, who would we blame then? The fog gods?
I just feel sorry for this Counsell chap.
…
alte hase:
This decision to prosecute this fella will surely have the no win no fee lawyers bidding to represent him, in law there is an ABSOLUTE obligation to drive at a speed at which you can stop in the distance seen to be clear, obviously drivers did just that, if following traffic doesn’t its the fault of a man in a field?, am I missing something here.
Is he not just being made the scape goat
speedyguy:
Seems a bit of a worrying development that something that happened off the motorway & drifted over the c/way possibly due to weather conditions can be used to possibly ‘defend’ someones ability to not drive to the conditions, what next a car has an accident as the driver cannot see due to spray thrown up by a truck so the truck driver is charged with manslaughter ?
Just make sure your spray suppression is in good order when you do your checks, it may not work very well but may be a defence in court.
Normally, I’m really not keen on these blame game scenarios but having a large fireworks display next to the motorway was a bloody stupid thing to do.
I see the immortal driving gods are on the thread. Never will they strike another vehicle, be involved in an accident or suffer a momentary concentration or judgement lapse for they are always driving perfectly for the conditions.
Mike-C:
speedyguy:
Seems a bit of a worrying development that something that happened off the motorway & drifted over the c/way possibly due to weather conditions can be used to possibly ‘defend’ someones ability to not drive to the conditions, what next a car has an accident as the driver cannot see due to spray thrown up by a truck so the truck driver is charged with manslaughter ?Couldn’t agree more.
Same as that^^^^
What a complete load of bollox!
What good is sending the guy to jail gona do or achieve?
The rate this country is going, no one will hold any event ever again!
How about the people who authorised it instead of the event organiser, like the the council for example. I dont know the in’s and out’s of public fireworks displays but i bet you need permission of the fire brigade, council all sorts.
Whilst I agree to some extent with the sentiment expressed, it is already in statute that you must take into account prevailing weather conditions before holding an event, even lighting a garden bonfire next to or near a road.
Assuming that this chap runs a company promoting/selling events, then he is the one that will be held accountable at the end of the day. I am not saying that gentleman concerned did not do this, and of course, if the wind changes there isn’t a great deal he can do about it UNLESS, the preceding weather forecast have warned of changeable patterns. But that is all for a court of law to decide.
As much as we may not like it, corporate responsibility is here to stay, and in most cases is a very useful piece of legislation to have around. Whilst this particular event may not fall directly into this area, any persons holding an event have a responsibility to those working within, those attending, and those directly and indirectly affected by the event.