emmerson2:
We could stop this ever happening again by simply banning numpties from driving permanently. What purpose do the y serve, ffs?
FTFY.
tachograph:
Like most other people I agree that he should never have been prosecuted and I’m glad he got off, but I do question the wisdom of having large firework displays within 200 yards of a busy motorway.
+1. Glad he hasn’t got a prison sentence hanging over him for xmas. Like I’ve said before I’d question whoever allowed the event to go ahead higher up the food chain in the first place, probably without going to check the site and surrounding area out before granting the licence.
Does anyone local know how many years this event has been held at this location. I think I can remember the signs for it a good few years ago. In all the years it has taken place has there always been a crash on the motorway? I know it was very thick fog on that night but I’m wondering if the smoke actually made it that much worse.
Maybe it did but I do think that law should be very much weighted on “intent”. The bloke might have been slightly contributing toward the lack of visibility & maybe could have moved the display further from the motorway but sending a chap down for mights & maybe’s simply isn’t British.
mucker85:
Does anyone local know how many years this event has been held at this location. I think I can remember the signs for it a good few years ago. In all the years it has taken place has there always been a crash on the motorway? I know it was very thick fog on that night but I’m wondering if the smoke actually made it that much worse.
If memory serves the firework display is usually held at the football ground rather than the rugby club.
Here’s Mr Counsell’s statement made after the case ended:
"Before a final decision to go ahead with the display was taken, the Highways Agency, the Taunton Deane Borough Council and the Avon and Somerset Constabulary were consulted.
"All were informed of the fact and nature of the display. No objection of any kind was raised. As matters transpired, the Taunton Deane Borough Council and Avon and Somerset Constabulary were to be the agencies which prosecuted me in respect of that same display.
"The display was carried out without incident. It was a very foggy night and the fireworks produced some smoke, which would have mingled with the fog.
"However, I saw nothing to cause me to believe that any firework smoke would cause a hazard and I do not believe that it did so.
"As the judge noted in his ruling, the prosecution case was founded on criticism of me for ‘failing to take a step which had never been taken before’.
"It is perhaps relevant to note that there were around 1,000 people at the display, including serving police and fire officers. Not a single one of those people raised any concern at the time about the smoke or fog, whether during or after the display.
"Firework displays have taken placed in this country for centuries. The chemical composition of fireworks has not changed for hundreds of years. All fireworks produce smoke.
"However, nowhere in any training or guidance is it suggested that firework smoke presents an actual or potential danger of any kind.
"The current authoritative guidance from the Health and Safety Executive contains no reference to any risk posed by firework smoke, whether on its own or in combination with fog.
"The same applies to guidance produced by other official bodies and indeed current guidance provided by the Taunton Deane Borough Council.
"The prosecution experts spent two years investigating the possible causes of the crash, including the interaction between firework smoke and fog. There were unable to find a single example of a case in which firework smoke had previously been shown to pose a danger.
"The conclusion of the principal prosecution witness was only that the probability of any link between the display and the crash was ‘weak to moderate’.
“As Mr Justice Simon told the jury this morning, the prosecution case was based upon ‘hindsight and consequence rather than foresight and risk’.”
Mr Counsell continued: "The prosecution case against me was based on the suggestion that I should have recognised the risk of something occurring which has never been shown to have happened before, which probably did not happen, and risk of which was not recognised by anyone else.
"The judge noted when he ruled that there was no case to answer, the prosecution case was ‘heavily weighted with hindsight’.
"As many people will be aware, the assistant chief constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary Mr (Anthony) Bangham appeared on national television less than 48 hours after the crash to advance the police belief that smoke from the display had caused the crash.
"Hours before the pronouncement was made, officers from Avon and Somerset Constabulary had unlawfully obtained a warrant to search my home, as the judge found during the trial.
"The unlawful search of my home took place despite the fact that I had previously expressly confirmed to the police my willingness to co-operate with their inquiry in any way.
"The current proceedings were brought jointly by the Avon and Somerset Constabulary and Taunton Deane Borough Council. Prior to the proceedings being brought, those representing me wrote to Taunton Deane Borough Council highlighting the obvious flaws in the case.
"Those concerns were simply ignored. Again, in August of this year, those representing me set out in court documents the very issues which caused the case to come to a halt today. Nevertheless, the prosecution continued.
“I am obviously extremely relieved that today I have been cleared of any blame for this terrible crash. So, whilst I am very relieved that, more than two years later, my ordeal is over, I continue to feel that my prosecution was motivated by a desire to find someone to blame for this terrible accident, simply for the sake of doing so.”
surely the only cause of this tragic event was the poor standard of driving practised by some of the drivers involved?
From the very outcome I sad that the organiser was not to blame for this incident and should never have been prosecuted, lets hope that he gets fair recompense and enough money to compensate his family.
At the end of the evening it was a road accident that claimed several lives, it wasn’t because of a bonfire as the reports said, there wasn’t a bonfire.
When someone is killed by hitting a tree, the police do not try to prosecute the owner of that tree, it is normally put down to bad driving, inattention or substance abuse. Someone has driven into heavy fog and braked, the other people were looking at the fireworks and hit them, the rest was well documented.
NewLad:
If you can’t see where your going you stop! Mot continue to drive at 70, 80, 90 or 120 what some lunatics do in bad conditions. It’s a speed limit not a target.
Someone stopping is probably what caused this accident.
emmerson2:
We could stop this ever happening again by simply banning fireworks. What purpose do the y serve, ffs?
If we banned everything which could be a danger in life we would never leave the house.
Wheel Nut:
From the very outcome I sad that the organiser was not to blame for this incident and should never have been prosecuted, lets hope that he gets fair recompense and enough money to compensate his family.
I suspect that the most he will get a a contribution towards his costs.
At one point he had to leave his own home because of threats made against him. What he says about the police conduct of the case is pretty shocking, if true.
mucker85:
Does anyone local know how many years this event has been held at this location. I think I can remember the signs for it a good few years ago. In all the years it has taken place has there always been a crash on the motorway? I know it was very thick fog on that night but I’m wondering if the smoke actually made it that much worse.
I was actually travelling southbound on the m5 that night and went past just after it had happened, I remember coming past langdons (if it is still that) with the tow truck in the field and thinking it was strange that I hadn’t seen anything going north for about a minute. Also not being able to see anything coming up.
The fog was patchy, but I don’t think visibility was reduced by the smoke, to be honest I didn’t even notice the bonfire.
Very, very eerie (sp) going past the scene, only one truck was on fire at the time.
Feel awful since then, as I took the decision that I would put myself and others on the southbound in more danger if I stopped on the hard shoulder and tried to run across to help as traffic was still going south at the same speed it usually does, apart from people jamming on brakes for a look.
I did call police and give this information.
The monkeys:
mucker85:
Does anyone local know how many years this event has been held at this location. I think I can remember the signs for it a good few years ago. In all the years it has taken place has there always been a crash on the motorway? I know it was very thick fog on that night but I’m wondering if the smoke actually made it that much worse.I was actually travelling southbound on the m5 that night and went past just after it had happened, I remember coming past langdons (if it is still that) with the tow truck in the field and thinking it was strange that I hadn’t seen anything going north for about a minute. Also not being able to see anything coming up.
The fog was patchy, but I don’t think visibility was reduced by the smoke, to be honest I didn’t even notice the bonfire.
Very, very eerie (sp) going past the scene, only one truck was on fire at the time.
Feel awful since then, as I took the decision that I would put myself and others on the southbound in more danger if I stopped on the hard shoulder and tried to run across to help as traffic was still going south at the same speed it usually does, apart from people jamming on brakes for a look.
I did call police and give this information.
You didn’t notice the bonfire, because there wasn’t one, they did not light a bonfire…
ajt:
emmerson2:
We could stop this ever happening again by simply banning fireworks. What purpose do the y serve, ffs?If we banned everything which could be a danger in life we would never leave the house.
i seem to remember reading somewhere that the domestic house was where the vast majority of injury accidents occur and therefore a very dangerous place to be
You didn’t notice the bonfire, because there wasn’t one, they did not light a bonfire…
[/quote]
My mistake with that, the point I was trying to make was that I didn’t see the smoke as a contributing factor.
The bonfire was a wrong assumption on my part ( I know assume makes an a*** out of you and me), but going past a few days later when it was reopened, there looked like a patch of earth on the motorway side of the grandstand that was quite scorched, as would look with a bonfire.