Bill Posters Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 The moral is - Wear your seatbelt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 coming to rest 216 feet from the point of impact. I think that the rough speed could have been calculated! Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Shift Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 isnt all thsi a bit deuja vu?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-Drift.com Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 WTF??? ...not a shaker by any chance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 A lack of concrete evidence I feel. What I do find hard to accept though is how refusing to give a sample can prove beneficial. Really, the assumption should be that he drank and drove particularly when the was anecdotal evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Internet Posted September 28, 2004 Share Posted September 28, 2004 I wonder if this will influence anybody to refuse to give a sample because of 'shock'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted September 28, 2004 Author Share Posted September 28, 2004 That bit surprised me, the courts used to treat a refusal as if the persons was over the limit, no 'ifs' nor 'buts'. I wonder if Billy the Burglar could plead shock to get off breaking into your house! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 Whilst it's obviously a very touchy subject when a loss of life has been involved it sounds fairly convincing from the limited information available that the defendant would have very probably been over the limit. Bearing in mind that the limit is generally stipulated as 3 units (although cannot be stated 100%accurately because of how one person differs from the next) and a pint of 'normal strength' lager contains two, then the comments of 2, 3, or even 5 pints of budweiser (classed as a strong lager at 5%) doesn't leave a great deal of doubt as to whether they would have been over the limit or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 They started drinking at 8:30 pm and the crash happened at 12:45 am - over four hours later. If he only had two pints he was probably under the limit. Strange but I always thought a refusal meant immediately bang to rights as well. The poor womans husband did state he thought the driver was not at fault and that probably tipped the balance. However 216 feet is a long way. Two-thirds of a football pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted September 29, 2004 Share Posted September 29, 2004 They started drinking at 8:30 pm and the crash happened at 12:45 am - over four hours later. If he only had two pints he was probably under the limit. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quite possibly yeah but then his mate had thought he'd had five pints so it's all rather vague really. Plus it's obviously hard to say without knowing all the circumstances of course but that does seem like a really severe crash for a car that's not going excessively fast. A sad thing whatever the exact details were anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.