On 25/03/2024 09:46, Spike wrote:
> Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
>
> […]
>
>> BTW, if I appear to be ignoring any posts, it is because Giganews is not
>> finding all the available posts. I can see more on a different viewer,
>> but that does not allow me to post replies.
>
> Try this site as a reader, although you can post if you set up an account
> (which is very easy to do). It seems to get all the messages:
>
> <https://news.novabbs.org/aus+uk/thread.php?group=uk.legal.moderated>
>
> HTH
>

Thanks. I have EasyNews, which gives me all the messages. It is supposed
to let me post, but I've only had it a couple of days and have yet to
work out why it doesn't. Meanwhile, I am raising a ticket with Giganews
about the missing posts. Past experience is that they will sort out most
problems, although it may take several attempts to find out which
solution works for my setup.

--
Colin Bignell

On 24/03/2024 11:23, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:
>> On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking at
>>> the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may have
>>> been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously fast
>>> when the car came around the bend.
>>>
>>
>> You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the
>> corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but
>> it can be done.
>
> Do you have an estimate and can you provide the reasoning behind it, as
> I did?
>

The map says it is about 50m from the corner to the second bike rack.
The time is 2-3 seconds. So the average speed is > 30mph, probably
nearer 40mph max. Also, the handling of the car, and impact give an
impression the car was going well over 20mph.

The point isn't that mine is a good calculation, but that yours is
flawed from the get-go. Some people will cherry-pick any old nonsense to
re-enforce their prejudice.

>>
>> []
>>
>>>>
>>>> For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
>>>> 30mph zone.
>>>
>>> Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
>>> furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable to
>>> that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost grip.
>>>
>>
>> The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double standard
>> that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to excuse a
>> car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and stop
>> astonishingly quickly.
>>
>> A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
>
> I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
> minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for the
> safety of both himself and others.
>

He was riding on a 30mph road at 18mph, in the dry, he had seconds to
react to someone stepping into his path, he couldn't brake in time. The
“total disregard for safety” is your hyperbolic spin, in objective terms
he was riding quite averagely.

Alliston, had 7m in which to react and stop. The Ferrari was out of
control 50m before the collision, but people are searching for excuses.
It was wet, there may have been oil on the road, the tyres might not
have tread.

>> A motorist speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be
>> proved 100%, and is totally excusable if it is only a little over the
>> limit.
>
> That last would be in line with the Road Research Laboratories
> recommendation, later adopted as policy by the Department of Transport,
> that speed limits should not be viewed as a means to get all traffic to
> drive at or below the set limit, but as a way to significantly reduce
> the number of vehicles that grossly exceed it. The RRL did not define
> grossly exceed, but the examples they gave in their report would match
> the ACPO recommendations that, where speeding is the only offence,
> prosecution is not usually appropriate, unless the speed is the limit +
> 10% + 2mph or higher (with 25mph in a 20mph limit added later).
>

Yes, yes, I know, although it is technically a crime, it isn't really,
because the police don't prosecute. On the other-hand, the fact the
police don't normally prosecute cyclists either, for pretty much
anything, is an outrage. Do you see the double standard?

>>  From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was not
>> driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just one of
>> those accidents that could happen to anyone. That his level of
>> premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
>
> Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
> doubt that he was driving carelessly.

We were discussing culpability. Using outcome is just a pragmatic device
to compensate for the court's inability to judge risk/recklessness
accurately.

If the conditional probability of being prosecuted after a pedestrian
death was the same for a cyclist and motorist, I would say fair enough.
But it isn't, normally a motorist is excused: “nothing you could do
mate”, “could happen to anyone”, “he came out of nowhere”. Whereas a
cyclist is normally riding “with a total disregard for the safety of
others”.

> However, taking somebody to Court
> is expensive, so the CPS will not prosecute unless it is in the public
> interest to do so and there is sufficient evidence to get a conviction.
> I am not sure that the video alone is sufficient to get a conviction, as
> it gives no indication of why the car came around the bend slightly
> sideways. It could have been the mythical diesel spill on a wet road,
> mentioned in this thread, or swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian, or
> something else the defence comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
>

That is because you appear to believe it is acceptable for motorists to
drive with a disregard for the safety of others.

On 24/03/2024 17:04, Owen Rees wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 08:56:43 +0000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
> wrote in <utoq9q$8l7e$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> On 24/03/2024 00:55, Owen Rees wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Random bloggers on the internet have a lot to say about the handling of the
>>> various configurations. One suggests that the smaller polar moment of
>>> inertia for a mid engine car means that they are easier to spin and harder
>>> to correct if they start to spin.
>>
>> What is a polar moment of inertia, how is it different from a moment of
>> inertia? Why would having a low one make it harder to correct a spin.
>>
>> I'll admit my skill at mechanics is surprisingly poor, but my BS
>> detector is ringing.
>
> I may have been mixing up two terms found in this blog:
> https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/mid-engine-handling-dynamics-what-do-you-know.31628/
>

Mixing the terms is one thing, but a low moment of inertia means it is
easier to spin, but easier to correct a spin, not harder.

> The posters there are generally discussing faster speeds than the
> Norwich incident but there are several mentions of spinning a mid-engine
> car.

Well quite, I have no experience driving a super car. I have a lot of
experience driving at 20mph in town.

> The BBC Norwich video (at 10s) shows the car having turned too far
> anti-clockwise - is that the start of a minor spin or something else?
> Either way I think it indicates a lack of ability to control the
> direction the car is pointing.
>
> https://www.leithcars.com/blogs/1421/lifestyle/front-vs-mid-vs-rear-engines/
> also has some interesting comparisons.
>
> As for 'polar moment of inertia' - it is a real thing but I am not sure
> that it applies in this case. Here is one of the descriptions I found:
> https://pediaa.com/difference-between-moment-of-inertia-and-polar-moment-of-inertia/
>

Presumably, something to do with the frame/suspension twisting, which F1
cars probably do, but isn't really relevant in this case.

On 25/03/2024 11:23, Pancho wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 11:23, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking
>>>> at the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may
>>>> have been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously
>>>> fast when the car came around the bend.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the
>>> corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but
>>> it can be done.
>>
>> Do you have an estimate and can you provide the reasoning behind it,
>> as I did?
>>
>
> The map says it is about 50m from the corner to the second bike rack.
> The time is 2-3 seconds. So the average speed is > 30mph, probably
> nearer 40mph max. Also, the handling of the car, and impact give an
> impression the car was going well over 20mph.
>
> The point isn't that mine is a good calculation, but that yours is
> flawed from the get-go.

Only if you erroneously think I was trying to do anything more than I
stated: estimate the speed as it crossed the end of the road. I did
state that I thought that the car was probably above the limit when it
first came into view, but that I did not think it was grossly above it.
IOW, I doubt it was doing 50-60mph in a 20mph limit.

> Some people will cherry-pick any old nonsense to
> re-enforce their prejudice.
>
>>>
>>> []
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
>>>>> 30mph zone.
>>>>
>>>> Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
>>>> furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable
>>>> to that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost
>>>> grip.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double
>>> standard that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to
>>> excuse a car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and
>>> stop astonishingly quickly.
>>>
>>> A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
>>
>> I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
>> minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for
>> the safety of both himself and others.
>>
>
> He was riding on a 30mph road at 18mph, in the dry,

On a bicycle that was dangerously illegal to use on the roads.

> he had seconds to
> react to someone stepping into his path, he couldn't brake in time. The
> “total disregard for safety” is your hyperbolic spin,

It is the view of the Court:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/sentencing-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

> in objective terms
> he was riding quite averagely.

I don't get that from the judge's summary.

> Alliston, had 7m in which to react and stop.

Yet all he did was to slow slightly, shout for the woman to get out of
his way and then ride into her.

> The Ferrari was out of
> control 50m before the collision, but people are searching for excuses.
> It was wet, there may have been oil on the road, the tyres might not
> have tread.

As I have side before, IMO the accident was caused by applying too much
power on a damp road while on a bend. I think that he could be found
guilty of careless driving.

>>> A motorist speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be
>>> proved 100%, and is totally excusable if it is only a little over the
>>> limit.
>>
>> That last would be in line with the Road Research Laboratories
>> recommendation, later adopted as policy by the Department of
>> Transport, that speed limits should not be viewed as a means to get
>> all traffic to drive at or below the set limit, but as a way to
>> significantly reduce the number of vehicles that grossly exceed it.
>> The RRL did not define grossly exceed, but the examples they gave in
>> their report would match the ACPO recommendations that, where speeding
>> is the only offence, prosecution is not usually appropriate, unless
>> the speed is the limit + 10% + 2mph or higher (with 25mph in a 20mph
>> limit added later).
>>
>
> Yes, yes, I know, although it is technically a crime, it isn't really,
> because the police don't prosecute.

I was pointing out what the government's own advisory body said about
the purpose of speed limits, which is often misunderstood. The police I
knew in London, before the days of radar guns, would nick anybody who
exceeded the speed limit on the basis that, if they had not seen they
were being followed by a police car, then they were not paying enough
attention to their driving.

> On the other-hand, the fact the
> police don't normally prosecute cyclists either, for pretty much
> anything, is an outrage.

Who says so?

> Do you see the double standard?
>
>
>>>  From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was
>>> not driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just
>>> one of those accidents that could happen to anyone. That his level of
>>> premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
>>
>> Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
>> doubt that he was driving carelessly.
>
> We were discussing culpability. Using outcome is just a pragmatic device
> to compensate for the court's inability to judge risk/recklessness
> accurately.
>
> If the conditional probability of being prosecuted after a pedestrian
> death was the same for a cyclist and motorist, I would say fair enough.
> But it isn't, normally a motorist is excused: “nothing you could do
> mate”, “could happen to anyone”, “he came out of nowhere”. Whereas a
> cyclist is normally riding “with a total disregard for the safety of
> others”.

The police will investigate any death due to a road traffic accident. If
a motorist, with a history of driving around looking for thrills and
driving a vehicle with ineffective brakes ploughed into a pedestrian
they would be charged with a much more serious offence that wanton and
furious driving. If there is an inequality, it is that cyclists cannot
be tried for causing death by careless or dangerous cycling.

>
>> However, taking somebody to Court is expensive, so the CPS will not
>> prosecute unless it is in the public interest to do so and there is
>> sufficient evidence to get a conviction. I am not sure that the video
>> alone is sufficient to get a conviction, as it gives no indication of
>> why the car came around the bend slightly sideways. It could have been
>> the mythical diesel spill on a wet road, mentioned in this thread, or
>> swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian, or something else the defence
>> comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
>>
>
> That is because you appear to believe it is acceptable for motorists to
> drive with a disregard for the safety of others.

I have never claimed that, nor have I ever intended to imply it.

--
Colin Bignell

--
Colin Bignell

On 21/03/2024 14:55, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 02:45 pm, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 12:37, Clive Page wrote:
>>> Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
>>> 20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly
>>> damaged.   A video and various stills can be seen here:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
>>>
>>> The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action
>>> would be taken".   I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
>>> there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
>>> after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have
>>> been badly injured or perhaps killed.
>>>
>>> It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
>>>
>>> but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
>>
>> Police CBA to do the paperwork.
>>
>> It is a clear example of total loss of control at speed.
>
> That much must be true (FCVA "speed"). But put as simply as that, that
> is some way short of allowing one to reasonably conclude that an offence
> has been committed.

Short of it being caused by a mechanical failure of the steering system
it is *entirely* responsibility of the nut behind the wheel that the
vehicle was completely out of control on the bend and mounted the kerb.

> I have held a driving licence - continuously - for in excess of fifty
> years. Most vehicles I have driven over that time has been fairly easy
> to get to grips with. But on the few occasions when I have had the
> chance to drive very powerful cars (not in the Ferrari's class, but much
> more pokey than my usual cars and powered at maybe 3,000cc and more),
> controlling the accelerator and brakes needed a fair bit of practice.
> Anyone who said they didn't is over-estimating their own capabilities.

Indeed - which is why supercars in particular tend to come with some
training for the driver to avoid them smashing into something as a
result of the rapid acceleration it is capable of doing.

>> The road isn't even particularly bendy. All the "too fast" exit points
>> on our twisty country roads have gaps where someone didn't make it
>> around the corner.
>>
>> On the plus side his insurance premium will now be extortionate!
>
> According to reports, he wasn't the owner.

More fool the owner then.

--
Martin Brown

On 23/03/2024 20:23, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <Tv6dnTYBie70N2P4nZ2dnZeNn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>, at 10:09:51
> on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> remarked:
>> On 23/03/2024 08:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <nqCcneKbt5fdE2P4nZ2dnZeNn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com>, at
>>> 08:09:40  on Sat, 23 Mar 2024, Colin Bignell
>>> <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> remarked:
>>>> On 23/03/2024 07:25, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <l65hf6F9t59U1@mid.individual.net>, at 14:04:22 on Fri,
>>>>> 22  Mar 2024, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever tried stopping on a rain/diesel mixture on the roads, in a
>>>>>> car  with  wide tyres?
>>>
>>>>>  No, because diesel spills like that are extremely rare.
>>>>>  ps Was it raining in Norwich?
>>>>
>>>> Puddles in the side road suggest that it had been.
>
>>>  So the road surface in the vicinity of this mythical diesel spill
>>> could  have dried out.
>>
>> Insufficient information to speculate about any part of that scenario.
>> However, IMO, a damp road and the application of too much power in a
>> bend is, by itself, enough to explain the attitude of the car as it
>> comes into view in the later part of the BBC video, which shows a
>> longer shot down Rose Lane.
>
> I have already described in some detail the "steer the back with the
> accelerator, the front with the steering wheel" mode of driving, but
> it's only safe if you have enough road to accommodate a not
> insignificantly sideways car.

In the 1960s, I used to take part in motoring events. Nothing around
then in the same power class as a modern Ferrari, but it was impressive
to see somebody getting a Fiat 500 sliding sideways. It is a pity the
airfield had raised joints between the large concrete slabs. Hitting one
of those turned a sideways slide into a sideways roll, which left only
the bonnet undented. :-)

--
Colin Bignell

On 25/03/2024 11:23 am, Pancho wrote:

> On 24/03/2024 11:23, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:

[ ... ]

[in response to:]
>>>>> For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
>>>>> 30mph zone.
>
[and:]
>>>> Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
>>>> furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable
>>>> to that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost
>>>> grip.
>
>>> The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double
>>> standard that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to
>>> excuse a car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and
>>> stop astonishingly quickly.
>>> A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
>
>> I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
>> minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for
>> the safety of both himself and others.

> He was riding on a 30mph road at 18mph, in the dry, he had seconds to
> react to someone stepping into his path, he couldn't brake in time. The
> “total disregard for safety” is your hyperbolic spin, in objective terms
> he was riding quite averagely.

You are quite right in saying that Alliston couldn't brake in time.

In fact, he couldn't brake at all - his chav-cycle wasn't fitted with
brakes. Whether it had never had brakes or whether he'd removed them, I
can't recall offhand.

But no brakes - a clear premeditated offence before considering anything
else in his appalling behaviour.

> Alliston, had 7m in which to react and stop. The Ferrari was out of
> control 50m before the collision, but people are searching for excuses.
> It was wet, there may have been oil on the road, the tyres might not
> have tread.
>
I expect that there is a reason for the search for alternative
explanations - loss of control has to be in there somewhere because it
is simply not credible that the driver crashed into that street
furniture on purpose - is it?
>
>>> A motorist speeding is: we all do it, didn't happen unless it can be
>>> proved 100%, and is totally excusable if it is only a little over the
>>> limit.
>
>> That last would be in line with the Road Research Laboratories
>> recommendation, later adopted as policy by the Department of
>> Transport, that speed limits should not be viewed as a means to get
>> all traffic to drive at or below the set limit, but as a way to
>> significantly reduce the number of vehicles that grossly exceed it.
>> The RRL did not define grossly exceed, but the examples they gave in
>> their report would match the ACPO recommendations that, where speeding
>> is the only offence, prosecution is not usually appropriate, unless
>> the speed is the limit + 10% + 2mph or higher (with 25mph in a 20mph
>> limit added later).
>
> Yes, yes, I know, although it is technically a crime, it isn't really,
> because the police don't prosecute. On the other-hand, the fact the
> police don't normally prosecute cyclists either, for pretty much
> anything, is an outrage. Do you see the double standard?
>
>>>  From the video, there is no doubt in my mind that this driver was
>>> not driving safely and should be prosecuted. That this was not just
>>> one of those accidents that could happen to anyone. That his level of
>>> premeditated culpability was at least as great as Alliston's.
>
>> Big difference: nobody got injured, much less killed. I have little
>> doubt that he was driving carelessly.
>
> We were discussing culpability. Using outcome is just a pragmatic device
> to compensate for the court's inability to judge risk/recklessness
> accurately.
> If the conditional probability of being prosecuted after a pedestrian
> death was the same for a cyclist and motorist, I would say fair enough.
> But it isn't, normally a motorist is excused: “nothing you could do
> mate”, “could happen to anyone”, “he came out of nowhere”. Whereas a
> cyclist is normally riding “with a total disregard for the safety of
> others”.

They could disarm that widespread criticism by riding more safely and
more lawfully, surely? You know, like the weekly collection "man from
the Pru" used to do, with his cycle clips and everything?

Or is behaving lawfully and courteously just too unkewl for them?

I mean, is it really too much to ask to expect chav-cyclists to stop at
red traffic lights? To give way at pedestrian crossings? Not to ride
along footways or through pedestrian zones? To obey "No Entry" signs?
Not to abuse one-way streets?
>
>> However, taking somebody to Court is expensive, so the CPS will not
>> prosecute unless it is in the public interest to do so and there is
>> sufficient evidence to get a conviction. I am not sure that the video
>> alone is sufficient to get a conviction, as it gives no indication of
>> why the car came around the bend slightly sideways. It could have been
>> the mythical diesel spill on a wet road, mentioned in this thread, or
>> swerving to avoid a careless pedestrian, or something else the defence
>> comes up with to create reasonable doubt.
>
> That is because you appear to believe it is acceptable for motorists to
> drive with a disregard for the safety of others.

God, I hope not.

I am one of those "others". So is every one of my family and every one
of my friends and colleagues.

On 2024-03-25, Pancho wrote:

> On 24/03/2024 11:23, Colin Bignell wrote:
>> On 24/03/2024 08:58, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 23/03/2024 11:19, Colin Bignell wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is the only point at which it is measurable. However, looking at
>>>> the long view of the accident, it is my view that, while he may have
>>>> been exceeding the speed limit, he wasn't travelling enormously fast
>>>> when the car came around the bend.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can estimate speed from the moment it comes into view around the
>>> corner to the point it hits the bike rack. It's a little tricky, but
>>> it can be done.
>>
>> Do you have an estimate and can you provide the reasoning behind it, as
>> I did?
>>
>
> The map says it is about 50m from the corner to the second bike rack.
> The time is 2-3 seconds. So the average speed is > 30mph, probably
> nearer 40mph max. Also, the handling of the car, and impact give an
> impression the car was going well over 20mph.
>
> The point isn't that mine is a good calculation, but that yours is
> flawed from the get-go. Some people will cherry-pick any old nonsense to
> re-enforce their prejudice.
>
>>>
>>> []
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For a reminder, this was a 20mph zone. Charlie Alliston was in a
>>>>> 30mph zone.
>>>>
>>>> Which is irrelevant both to this case and to a charge of wanton and
>>>> furious driving. The stopping distance of a bike is not comparable to
>>>> that of a car on a damp road when it has obviously already lost grip.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The point of the comparison is to show the astonishing double standard
>>> that exists. People will jump through all sorts of hoops to excuse a
>>> car crash, but a cyclist is expected to be able to react and stop
>>> astonishingly quickly.
>>>
>>> A cyclist breaking a minor law is homicidal premeditation.
>>
>> I think it was less about his breaking a a law that you consider to be
>> minor than about the way he was cycling, with a total disregard for the
>> safety of both himself and others.
>>
>
> He was riding on a 30mph road at 18mph, in the dry, he had seconds to
> react to someone stepping into his path, he couldn't brake in time. The
> “total disregard for safety” is your hyperbolic spin, in objective terms
> he was riding quite averagely.
>
> Alliston, had 7m in which to react and stop.

Wasn't he using an illegal (for public road use) bike without brakes?

On 13:37 21 Mar 2024, Clive Page said:
>
> Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
> 20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged.
> A video and various stills can be seen here:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
>
> The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
> be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
> there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
> after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been
> badly injured or perhaps killed.
>
> It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o

This page is now missing.

> but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
>

Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
> On 13:37 21 Mar 2024, Clive Page said:
>>
>> Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
>> 20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged.
>> A video and various stills can be seen here:
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
>>
>> The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
>> be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
>> there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
>> after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been
>> badly injured or perhaps killed.
>>
>> It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
>
> This page is now missing.

The link worked for me just now.

>
>> but can anyone think of an explanation for what was said initially?
>

On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 15:50:16 -0000 (UTC), Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
>> On 13:37 21 Mar 2024, Clive Page said:
>>>
>>> Another astonishing decision: a Ferrari crashed into bike racks in a
>>> 20 mph area of Norwich and both car and bike racks were badly damaged.
>>> A video and various stills can be seen here:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-68598455
>>>
>>> The initial reaction of the local police was: "no further action would
>>> be taken". I'm astonished by this - I would have thought that
>>> there's easily enough evidence for a charge of dangerous driving -
>>> after all anyone on the pavement or near the bike rack would have been
>>> badly injured or perhaps killed.
>>>
>>> It does appear that someone has had second thoughts:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8v3ryp9052o
>>
>> This page is now missing.
>
>The link worked for me just now.

Me, er, too.

Mark

In message <8vj00j15cskupbst7ni851gq730bo7g6l5@4ax.com>, at 16:45:22 on
Sun, 24 Mar 2024, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> remarked:

>>If driven at what we might call "normal" speeds, a mid-engined car
>>feels like it's on railway lines.
>
>That may be an unfortunate analogy. Coming off the rails tends to be
>catastrophic.

But trains very rarely come off the rails because they've taken a curve
too quickly.

>My point is that most drivers in the UK have no experience of driving a
>mid-engine rear wheel drive car. It may be that under normal
>circumstances it is easer to handle but under less than ideal
>conditions, when the car has not done what the driver intended, that
>lack of experience can have serious consequences.

But less so than other cars with conventional engine and transmission
locations.

--
Roland Perry