Drive Kill Walk Away

[nipper]

o/t

I hope this doesn't trivialise the matter but,

Someone stole a laptop computer and money from a neighbour's house in an opportunist moment. We actually knew who did it and the police were told by our neighbour. Apparently the policeman showed absolute relief when he found out the front door wasn't locked. It was as if the houseowner was himself guilty for what had happened.

 

But back on thread just a little. Death by dangerous driving is death by dangerous driving. Once you start to introduce seemingly extraneous factors such as has happened then you can argue just about anything.

 

(or in another case: prescription sunglasses glasses falling off, 'nice' boy, fab car having 'under-spec' brake pads, cars=good bikes=bad etc.)

 

___________________________________________________

Off thread again but can I just say that this point has been made:

 

What was posted about a similar incident resulted in the closure of a previous Manx based forum after goons intimidated the site owners family in case you've forgotten so you'll forgive us if we're a touch sensitive about it.

 

I would just like to point out that if I was responsible for carrying out such an action then I would not consider myself to be a suitable person to become one of the driving force of a group that is entering Manx politics. No sir.

____________________________________________________

 

 

Back on thread:

 

I find it hard to put my feelings on an internet forum but I would like to say that my thoughts and condolences are very much with Mr & Mrs Beattie at this time.

[Ripsaw]

Slightly off thread...

 

One thing that bugs me about accident reporting in general is the lack of information that is made publicly available.

 

All accidents are (supposed to be) thoroughly investiged in order that a clear and concise report can be generated that looks at all factors. Such reports are then made available to the courts for judgements.

 

I would like to see them also made available more readily to the public.

 

My reasoning is that lots of us hear and remember snippets of information and we do our best to repeat them accurately when cases such as this generate threads. Loads of times opinions have been formed or swayed on emotive arguements based on a chat down the pub, an attention grabbing headline in the paper, a 20 second report on the radio, or even a thread on a public forum.

 

At a time when the Government themselves have been accused of biased persuasion in relation to the statistics that they band about why not simply trust us the public to see the factual and legaly prepared reports?

 

I realise that there will still be plenty of people ready to shout out without being in full knowledge of the facts but at least those of us who do post with our heads would be better armed to nip the rumours and hearsay in the bud.

 

Gossip and rumour may make the world turn in some eyes, but undesputable information exists and it should be easily refered to by those who wish to know the truth.

 

Air accidents are documented, reported and used to help prevent such events occuring again. Not only the big ones that make the worldwide news, but all accidents.

 

An example:

 

On 23d December 1990 a Manx Airlines flight from Luton to IOM landed badly damaging its nose gear and ended up with its nose on the tarmac. No deaths, no injuries, but the Air Accidents Investigation Branch published a report that looked at every aspect of the plane, the crew, the airport, the emergency crews... the lot.

 

It then made a number of recomendations based on these facts and we, the public are able to freely read the report (if we are inclined) and even use the report to see if our lives are worth the measures recommended, and if not, why not.

 

In this case as stated, luckily there were no injuries or fatalities, the Investigators recomendations didn't cause worldwide rethinking about flying, but they did make our lives a bit safer and caused a rethink locally on after accident care. The report also goes towards overall statistics that are used when future legislation on airraft and passenger safety is being drafted.

 

We on the Island are soley at the mercy of snippets, rumours and newspaper clippings. The DOTs "Speed Kills" campaign, the "All Island Stratigic Plan" and many other campaigns are a joke simply because they too use soundbites to put their aims across or are based on single statements as opposed to mulyiple proven statistics. Yes there are lies, lies and statistics, but we the public have the right to demand factual reporting and we have the right to be supplied with it.

 

In the Galka/Beattie accident the deemsters have to look beyond emotions. They have to look at mitigating circumstances, conditions, driver's intent, etc. and they do have to think about a punishment suitable for the crime and its effect on all concerned.

 

It would appear that there were factors that may have saved the life of Laura Mae, they may not have. We can not say either way and it would be irresponsible to blindly make one claim or another.

 

When road accidents are publicly reported in the same way that Air accidents are then we may be in a better position to learn about the causes, form better opinions about them and use the information to go forward in safety matters.

 

For reference, the Air investigation report is a 45 page PDF which can be downloaded here (6Mb)

[Watch With Mother]

Slightly off thread...

 

One thing that bugs me about accident reporting in general is the lack of information that is made publicly available.

 

All accidents are (supposed to be) thoroughly investiged in order that a clear and concise report can be generated that looks at all factors. Such reports are then made available to the courts for judgements.

 

I would like to see them also made available more readily to the public.

 

My reasoning is that lots of us hear and remember snippets of information and we do our best to repeat them accurately when cases such as this generate threads. Loads of times opinions have been formed or swayed on emotive arguements based on a chat down the pub, an attention grabbing headline in the paper, a 20 second report on the radio, or even a thread on a public forum.

 

At a time when the Government themselves have been accused of biased persuasion in relation to the statistics that they band about why not simply trust us the public to see the factual and legaly prepared reports?

 

I realise that there will still be plenty of people ready to shout out without being in full knowledge of the facts but at least those of us who do post with our heads would be better armed to nip the rumours and hearsay in the bud.

 

Gossip and rumour may make the world turn in some eyes, but undesputable information exists and it should be easily refered to by those who wish to know the truth.

 

Air accidents are documented, reported and used to help prevent such events occuring again. Not only the big ones that make the worldwide news, but all accidents.

 

An example:

 

On 23d December 1990 a Manx Airlines flight from Luton to IOM landed badly damaging its nose gear and ended up with its nose on the tarmac. No deaths, no injuries, but the Air Accidents Investigation Branch published a report that looked at every aspect of the plane, the crew, the airport, the emergency crews... the lot.

 

It then made a number of recomendations based on these facts and we, the public are able to freely read the report (if we are inclined) and even use the report to see if our lives are worth the measures recommended, and if not, why not.

 

In this case as stated, luckily there were no injuries or fatalities, the Investigators recomendations didn't cause worldwide rethinking about flying, but they did make our lives a bit safer and caused a rethink locally on after accident care. The report also goes towards overall statistics that are used when future legislation on airraft and passenger safety is being drafted.

 

We on the Island are soley at the mercy of snippets, rumours and newspaper clippings. The DOTs "Speed Kills" campaign, the "All Island Stratigic Plan" and many other campaigns are a joke simply because they too use soundbites to put their aims across or are based on single statements as opposed to mulyiple proven statistics. Yes there are lies, lies and statistics, but we the public have the right to demand factual reporting and we have the right to be supplied with it.

 

In the Galka/Beattie accident the deemsters have to look beyond emotions. They have to look at mitigating circumstances, conditions, driver's intent, etc. and they do have to think about a punishment suitable for the crime and its effect on all concerned.

 

It would appear that there were factors that may have saved the life of Laura Mae, they may not have. We can not say either way and it would be irresponsible to blindly make one claim or another.

 

When road accidents are publicly reported in the same way that Air accidents are then we may be in a better position to learn about the causes, form better opinions about them and use the information to go forward in safety matters.

 

For reference, the Air investigation report is a 45 page PDF which can be downloaded here (6Mb)

 

 

I seem to have put my point across a bit wrong. I never intended to suggest that the issue of not wearing seat belts wasn't important. We all know that this is an issue that causes many avoidable deaths, I was jsut making the point that he caused the impact.

 

Following on from the reporting issue, I may be wrong but it may be the case that some reporting is limited to save families of victims having to have painful details printed in the local papers.

 

It's clear that we all won't agree on this, but in my personal opinion, if you directly cause the death of another person I cannot see how jail cannot be expected. You are correct in saying that in sentencing there are factors in the case that have to be taken into consideration to decide on the level of sentence. In UK guidelines there are three levels of culpability. It's basically a tick list to decide which level the driver was on ranging from low, as is the Galka case, to high which covers showing off, excessive and prolonged speed and pleas from passengers to stop/slow down. If you read these you will find that the starting point for the lowest end of culpability is a short jail term (3 months). Yet again the Isle of Man lags behind.

[ade]

ChopleyTurnip,

 

Just a note about what you said. The point of collision was just before the slight outward bend on the Ramsey side of the mountain mile. Travelling from Douglas, and reaching about 2 thirds down the mile, there is a blind spot on the other side of the road where you cannot briefly see any oncoming traffic, where I have personally witnessed cars begin to overtake believing it was clear ahead, only to move swiftly back into their own lane when a car appeared coming from Ramsey out of this 'kink' in the road. The collision was reported to have occured at 46mph (after braking). It really hits home when you realise that it MAY make a world of difference owning a car which is rated 5 stars for safety. I watched a 40mph head on collision (on fifth gear?) with a scenic or megane, and the driver was able to walk away without any significant injury. We have a scenic, and it's only after hearing about this that you think that the advertising that Renault does is not just hype.

[asitis]

Although prison sentences cannot redress the balance of the loss of a life, it does make you wonder how some people walk free when others do not, the lady on the motorbike for instance. I have never felt the island has taken causing death by dangerous driving charges seriously enough, and maybe harsher penalties for the minority would mean that the majority do not need to be overregulated.

[lisner]

Take the seatbelt thing a bit further.

 

Had the lady at Hilberry who was hit by a car driven by D**** not been on a motorcycle but in a big 'safe' car and safely seatbelted up, perhaps she would not have been killed.

 

It really would not surprise me if this particular deemster believed she was partly to blame because she was on a motorcycle.

 

Twisted logic??

 

Yeah, probably.

[The Old Git]

I seem to have put my point across a bit wrong. I never intended to suggest that the issue of not wearing seat belts wasn't important. We all know that this is an issue that causes many avoidable deaths, I was jsut making the point that he caused the impact.

 

....

 

It's clear that we all won't agree on this, but in my personal opinion, if you directly cause the death of another person I cannot see how jail cannot be expected.

 

Galka directly caused the impact.

 

The poor girl's head hit the airbag, which may have saved her life, had not her unbelted mother in the back seat come forward and broke her neck, causing her instant death.

 

It's tragic, but it does show that a head on collision under 50 mph can kill if the occupants aren't belted in. A 70 mph limit over the mountain wouldn't have made any difference in this fatality

[Ripsaw]

I seem to have put my point across a bit wrong. I never intended to suggest that the issue of not wearing seat belts wasn't important. We all know that this is an issue that causes many avoidable deaths, I was just making the point that he caused the impact.

I can not speak for others, but I took no offence at your post and the point you were trying to make. My post was aimed generally not at any specific point raised by any person.

 

In court all the witness tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (honestly, they do), and judgements are made on facts.

 

In the case of this accident, if the death was deemed to be avoidable by the wearing of a seatbelt then although Galka caused the accident through bad driving technique, he didn't cause the death. Rightly or wrongly, the cause of the accident and the cause of death have to be judged seperately.

 

There have been cases (not so many on these shores, thankfully) where elderly person have been assaulted and then died after the event from heart conditions.

 

Prosecution may well try and obtain a charge of murder, but unless there is a watertight link that is provable, the assailant will face a charge of Assault.

 

There was no intent to harm other road users in the manouvre that resulted in the crash, as oppsed to assualt cases. There has to be a clear difference between those who cause death by accident and those who act with intent, a difference which has definition.

 

Following on from the reporting issue, I may be wrong but it may be the case that some reporting is limited to save families of victims having to have painful details printed in the local papers.

I agree entirely that the newspaper should limit reports to a summary and the feelings of family should be respected.

 

My suggestion for the publishing of a full report would be in document form that is readily available for statistical and factual reporting instances. I refered to Air Accidents because they clearly and concisely aim to report the reason for accidents the names of the people is secondary. In the link provided to JE884. I don't recall the names of those being mentioned, just the facts relevent to the accident eg, pilot experience, duration of previous rest, time since last rest, etc..

 

Of course those personal factors are logged which isn't the case of car drivers, but there are 1,001 factors that cause accidents and determine the end results. To sum up with one or two word definitions is ridiculous, but this is what we are trusted to hear.

 

...Mr Beattie said that is wife always wore a seatbelt and although she could remember nothing about the accident, there was no reason to believe she was not wearing it...

 

Source: IOM Newspapers

The details that the court had (darn well should have) at it disposal would include scientific reasoning for the belief that the seatbelt was or wasn't being worn. This 'variable' appears to be relevent, but we (the public) are not privy to the scientific evidence as the current system stands. Thus my comment about gossip and rumour prevailing when some/most of us would prefer to know the facts before commenting on a scenario.

 

My sympathies goes to the Beattie family for their loss and based on the information available I also have sympathy for Galka and his family.

 

Comments like "Money talks" (Post #1) have no place in discussions such as this thread. There are no winners in cases like this, only losers. That sort of sensationalising of a post deserved to be shouted down.

[Alias]

I watched a 40mph head on collision (on fifth gear?) with a scenic or megane, and the driver was able to walk away without any significant injury. We have a scenic, and it's only after hearing about this that you think that the advertising that Renault does is not just hype.

In a test collision into a wall it would have just been 40mph, but for a crash like this it would have been the combined speed that counted, and you'd be very lucky to survive much above 70.

[Nitro]

It probably was a combined speed of 70 or more as if he crashed at 46mph then it only took the other driver to be driving at the same speed to make it 92mph.

[lisner]

There was no intent to harm other road users in the manouvre that resulted in the crash

 

But isn't that the case in all road accidents?

 

When you get behind that wheel you are responsible for that vehicle and your actions.

[Ripsaw]

Me:There was no intent to harm other road users in the manouvre that resulted in the crash

 

Lisner: But isn't that the case in all road accidents?

 

When you get behind that wheel you are responsible for that vehicle and your actions.

Of course we are all responsible for our actions. When commenting on anothers' driving we have the choice to believe that the driver was attempting to perform a legal manouver and was erronous in judgement, or was acting in a reckless manner. Again, access to evidence is paramount if wishing to compare instances.

 

Remember the Crash at Cronk Y Voddy?

 

Uninsured, unlicenced, 100+ mph* heading into a cross roads, previous convictions... Jailed.

 

Mountain Road crash was judged to be an accident in which the cause of death may not have been directly attributed to the actions of the accused.

 

I'm not going to apologise for playing Devil's Advocate.

 

* I know that the speed limit on the road was recently changed, but I concede that I don't know if the actual position of the crash was within or without a speed restriced area at the time.

[lisner]

It seems that comparing the two recently reported serious crashes at 100+ miles per hour on the Ballamodha straight with this case of overtaking a stream of cars who were doing in excess of 60mph, it seems a bit tame relatively. But 60mph+ is still one helluva speed to be overtaking isn't it? And then causing a particularly nasty accident. And yet apparently other mororists 'praised his patience' - what? for wanting to overtake a line of traffic doing 55-60mph and who were actually speeding up! What patience?

 

The chap was described in the paper as a 'home boy' who enjoyed outdoor pursuits and a shy young man who spent his time helping young people. This description must have had an effect on our sensitive deemster, although when talking about the girl who died the deemster said " . . . . . but I am bound as a deemster to sentence on legal grounds. Sentences must be based on law and not sympathy".

 

Well yes, showed no sympathy for a dead teenage girl and her parents, but loads for the 'nice boy' in front of him.

 

I remember the D**** case when he was described as a haidresser (although he is apparently back to calling himself an accountant now) and had a 'nice boy' reference from the postman (one Milky Quayle no less!!). He was saved prison too. No sympathy whatsoever for the dead lady biker and her family though.

 

I would agree with Diane Chreseson's mother when she said that she does not necessarily want to see D**** stewing in jail, but she just felt justice for her daughter had not been done.

 

Deja Vu

 

There have been too many decisions which show this deemster's lack of experience. He went straight from being an Athol Street Advocate to Second Deemster and the advocates love it because they can play him like a fish.

 

It is usual to do a few years as Attorney General before being elevated to Second Deemster.

[LoneWolf]

It is usual to do a few years as Attorney General before being elevated to Second Deemster.

 

Not so. There have been numerous second deemsters who have never been Attorney General.

Henry Callow springs to mind. Amongst the best of recent Deemsters he was never Attorney General although he did serve a long time as High Bailiff.

[lisner]

hmm, notice how I said 'it is usual'. I could easily have been more specific and wrote an essay but I think you get my point.

 

I am well aware of Henry Callow being High Bailiff prior to becoming second deemster. 17 years as High Bailiff is not a bad induction though is it?