Anyone seen this yet? Gresham found guilty

But why would worn pads (alone) increase pedal travel? Still doesn't account for the plural pedals, of course. Unless the brakes were tractor-type.

We are not seeing court documents though only some journos interpretation of what he thinks he heard said.

"Mr Spencer told the jury that the brake pedals were worn and that, as a result, the brake pedal had to be pressed "pretty much down to the floor" before it began to stop the car."

The writer of this piece (in _The Times_ FFS) has misheard. 'Pads' for 'pedals' would make perfect sense, given the second half of the sentence.

Except that worn pads don't put the pedal to the floor. Worn linings might but only if not adjusted.

You don't get let off because of a typo, besides this is a journo reporting what a lawyer said.

On or around Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:35:38 +0000, Ian Rawlings enlightened us thusly:

they've been trying to do that though.

Although I see there is now legalisation that outlaws the thing where having servicing done other than at the franchised dealer invalidates the warranty, so it's not all bad, also you don't have to use manufacturers own parts to maintain the warranty either.

So your summons says one thing, 'oh sorry we meant something else'? No case to answer!

On or around Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:48:53 +0000, Dougal enlightened us thusly:

The sort of bloke who fits mismatched front calipers ain't necessarily going to adjust his rear brakes, and only later defenders have discs on the rear.

On the SIII with drums all round, it's very easy to have it take about 1.5 pedal strokes to get to full braking. The 110 with disc/drum is less prone to that of course.

Then the master cylinder could be shagged or out of adjustment, there could be wear in the pivots etc. which mean that the first bit of pedal movement effectively does nothing.

However, I shall cherry-pick this bit from another report:

"In February last year the Land Rover was passed an MOT test as safe to drive despite the defective bracket, which would have been in a similar state at the time, the court heard.

Mr Latham said his client, who had fitted the bracket as a series of modifications, said after the crash he had been aware of the corrosion. "

1) is a load of bollocks. The corrosion could be within acceptable limits (or even subject to an advisory) in February, yet by September it could be broken. I've had exactly that on the front chassis leg of Edward II the series III - had a valid MOT on it at the point when the leg cracked and as good-as detached the front mount of one of the front springs. 2) if he knew it was corroded, and unsafe, why the f*ck didn't he fix it? Same thing applies to the brake calipers - I would only ever fit a mismatched caliper as an emergency fox to make the vehicle moveable, I'd not leave it on there a day more than I had to to get the correct caliper and I'd be bloody careful how I drove while it had the wrong part on it. Yet there's no suggestion that I've seen that he said anything about it being a short-term stopgap repair.

If you watch the video report the dibble talks about the condition of the motor when they took it to be examined, and points out that the examiners refused to drive it initially as it was unsafe.

I carry children in a private hire vehicle as a job, and if anything like this came to light on my motor, you can bet there'd be hell to pay, and I'd lose my licence and contract etc etc, so I don't see why private vehicles should be any different. It's not like the children had any choice in the matter - they get in the motor 'cos they're told to and they trust the bloke driving not to kill them.

Sorry, I know that Gresh has been through hell for the fact that he lost 4 kids and I feel very much for him on that score, and further, it must be worse that he obviously knows that stuff on the motor was not up to spec. However, he's the one who used the motor to carry multiple kids knowing that it wasn't up to spec., and now it's gone pear-shaped, he's the one who has to carry the can. The dibble in the video clip says that sometimes you have to stand up and be counted, and I feel in this case that he should, hence I agree with the verdict.

As for punishment, I hope that the court has the decency to see that he's been punished enough for this and to make it lenient. I'm not after seeing him banged up, I think the fact that he knows it was his fault (in part) is enough punishment for anyone.

Trying to blame the MOT is a non-starter anyway: unless it's a very dodgy MOT place, they're not going to pass anything that's seriously risky. I have a good relationship with my local MOT bod, and in days past before the advent of all the computers and checking that go on now, he's put stuff through and given me the ticket on the assumption that I'll fix the dud tail light or whatever - But he's never let me get away with anything serious like dodgy chassis or brakes, and I wouldn't expect him to. an MOT 7 months ago is, as we all know, no proof of roadworthiness.

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Austin, where is the video to be found?

It would be interesting to see the official transcription of this part of the court record of this case.

Having seen reports of events I've later found out the truth about from those concerned, I'd put very little faith in the reliability of a reporter's later transcription under time pressure of the hurried shorthand notes he made while sitting in the public gallery, especially after it's been through a spellchecker and the sub-editor on a provincial paper. Then the nationals take the local report more or less verbatim and it becomes "common knowledge".

Just my 2 penn'orth.

try

Andy

Yes they've done nothing but bad. And they're not subject to scare stories from media moguls with vested interests like the Barlclays brothers or Rupert Murdoch. The EU also isn't used as a scapegoat for national policiticians who have to make unpopular decisions but don't want to be unpopular themselves. None of that at all!

In truth, good in parts, bad in others, but gets a very bad press that makes it seem a lot worse than it is.

Eh?

I suspect you'd have a hard time matching it up to the paper's account so might never find the transcript for "that part" ;-)

Having been on the BBC 6 O'Clock national news as part of the announcement about HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray battle ending, I've seen their total lack of care for accuracy first-hand..

BBC news website had some chunks.

Steve

I do wish the police wouldn't get involved in amateur dramatics, that whole video piece was ridiculous. Statements like that from a police officer tend to get taken as credible and people don't think about the detail, e.g. what condition was it in when the examiners got it, was it like that before the crash (e.g. was the back axle still hanging off), and was an examiner's offhand comment like "Well I wouldn't drive it like that" turned into "refused to drive it", and if not then what kind of nancy was the examiner given that the vehicle was good enough to be driven and pass an MOT previously so was hardly going to present a danger on a short test-run on private property. Police should police and not mug it up for the cameras.

All the waffle in the press about the driver being responsible for the safety of the vehicle is also OTT, tell that to arthritic old grannies who have to trust mechanics and can't go over the vehicles themselves. How can you tell if a vehicle is safe anyway? He worked on his own vehicle and was also the driver, that's two roles he filled, driver and mechanic, and confusing the two just puts those who can only fill one in a bad situation.

Maybe an unmodified truck would also have broken in a similar way. What's more telling is that he himself said he had the choice of hitting the other vehicle or swerving out of the way, so that shows someone was driving too fast, and it seems it was him.

It's all right it's only a typo!

I thought Austin was referring to the video/DVD of the vehicle analysis, not the officer responsible? justifying his stance. Somebody said it was 'interesting'. I'd like to make my own judgement of that.

Not substantiated! That just says he tried to avoid the collision, suggesting the other driver didn't!