It looks like the CPS tried pushing for causing death by having bald tyres (I suspect there proper sounding charge - death by dangerous probably) but the court has thrown it out saying that the state of the tyres had nothing to do with it.

They would have had to consider whether a correctly maintained vehicle in the same conditions would have avoided the situation - if it would have then there would have been a case to answer, if not then it was the wrong charge

If the car would have hit them at any speed, with good tyres etc, what charge would you expect to have seen???

Who said that? One of the cyclists the car missed. There was no suggestion of speed as a factor - the only quoted factor was the ice.

I doubt I would have seen it.

Surely you could argue that a car fitted with 4 good tyres stood a better chance of missing a group of cyclists than a car with 3 bald tyres on it.

Ice or no Ice. A bald car tyre is just that its not a F1 style slick. How on earth is that going to give you any grip on a dry road let alone an icy one.

Under those circumstances, in this case possibly none at all?

I do know that in cases where people have died then the circumstances will have been thoroughly investigated and the evidence weighed by the CPS in a manner not unlike what we are doing here. There will be those arguing one way, and different people arguing the other. They, the CPS, will have reached a concensus and made a decision accordingly. They must have thought that more serious charges will have been easily defended and a more than reasonable chance the case lost when taken to Court.

Like us, they are human beings and not infallible. I'm sure that sometimes they get it wrong. Those are the cases we hear about. We rarely hear them being praised in the many, many more cases where they get it right and justice is done, and seen to be done.

In this case, we do not know whether or not they got it right or wrong because we do not know all the evidence. We are discussing the case based on a few facts and outcome of the case.

If the police didn't think they could prove that then what chance do we have of doing so? I can't help thinking that they would have tried to do so; this incident occurred in Brunstrom territory, let's not forget.

Fizz I think you miss the point.

The car was on ice - black ice is so named because of it's near invisibility. Once on ice you have no control over direction, tread or no tread. Doesn't matter if you have the tread of a tractor or slicks of an F1 - you are sliding and awaiting to either stop sliding and run onto tarmac, or to hit something.

The most memorable moment of moutain biking for me was on mud plugging tyres on black ice - a slow (5mph) slide down a slope past a old granny. It took me an age to fall off - no control, no nothing, but an old granny offering to help (What did she think she could to to a 30 year old laughing his head off at the inevitability)

If i remember rightly there had been quite a few accidents at this junction before the accident with the cyclists because of the road conditions.

IMHO this was just a nasty accident but it was exactly that an accident due to the conditions of the road. I've hit black ice myself and ended up on a verge and this was at 20 mph, nothing you can do, the car goes whatever way it wants.

Prosecuting the driver and turning them into a criminal just so that someone is to blame would benefit no-one.

I know that. I've driven on ice plenty of times, I've also ridden in snow.

I was just thinking out loud. Personally I'd never ever go out with bald tyres car or bike. I dont understand how people can not notice that they have bald / illegal tyres.

The BBC report is here. Bit more full than the Sky one quoted at the start of the thread.

Living in Wales, I remember that the incident was reported very fully at the time on the local TV news. I don't recall anyone baying for blood at the time because, as has been poionted out, it occured at a well-known accident black-spot.

Personally, I think that the guy was unlucky that there were cyclists there at that exact moment.

However, I do take Fizz's point about setting off with dodgy tyres. For that he was culpable and he has been fined accordingly.

I've said a lot. I will post no more in this thread.

Not according to righteous.org :roll:

I agree.

To be honest the amount of the fine miff's me off. When is our legal system going to get it into their thick heads that until you start fining people more than in this instance the cost of 3 tyres. Then people will just not bother with up keep on their vehicles because its cheaper to take the risk of getting caught because the fine would be less than the price of fixing the defective vehicle.