Gresham Family tragedy takes a twist

I seem to have stirred up a hornets' nest here, if the posts below are anything to go by. Sorry if I have misrepresented what I meant to say.

I was responding to Austin's comment that he could make a safe working motor from 5 vehicles. He can do this, I am sure. Anyone could have a try - and quite right too, in a country that still claims to be "free". But this wouldn't always result in a safe vehicle on the road, so the public interest is served by the requirement for a regular test of roadworthiness. The MoT isn't perfect by any means, and no-one would seriously argue that passing it meant a vehicle was "safe" in absolute terms, but it is a kind of minimum standard of vehicle function that we can all agree is desirable to have around. In other words, you can do what the hell you like in your own back yard, but if you want to take the results onto a public road, at least we want to check that the brakes work and it isn't about to fall apart. I think that is a good compromise between individual freedom and public safety.

I would much prefer that to the alternative, which would be to restrict all attempts at modification to those who have had "approved" training and received an "approved" qualification. It's a bit like the driving instructors issue - who cares what hoops the instructor has jumped through to "qualify" to be an "approved" instructor - surely the only real test is whether the candidate can drive well enough to pass the practical?

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:32:21 +0100, Austin Shackles wrote this gibberish:

I didn't know that, mine were both early models.

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:01:20 +0100, "William Black" wrote this gibberish:

As much as I hate to make guesses here, I did read on his blog that 'someone close to him' had dropped in him it ('betray' may have been the word but my memory is shaky), that would tie-in with the above connection to defective brakes and knowing about it connecting to the 'causing death by...' bit we've read about.

I just with this whole painful process was over with for the sake of all concerned. I'm sure the details will be with us soon and we will discuss them then I'm sure.

On or around Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:33:13 +0100, "William Black" enlightened us thusly:

depends on whether it's a station wagon. If it is, then technically, it's a minibus, since it has more than 9 seats including the driver.

Except, of course, that it's a 4x4 and therefore a dual-purpose vehicle, so all bets are off. This is why it doesn't get a class 5 MOT, I think.

On or around Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:42:51 +0100, MarkVarley - MVP enlightened us thusly:

Yes, I read that. Whether they dropped him in it by letting on that the vehicle was defective, or by alleging this when it wasn't in fact the case will doubtless become known eventually.

All being said, if he WAS driving with known defective brakes with all the kids on board, I rather think he should be prosecuted, PROVIDED that the circumstances are such, and are clearly shown to be such, that defective brakes were a factor in the accident, as for example, had they not been, he'd have been able to stop. I rather doubt that the vehicle had NO brakes, so that we're looking at a seriously compromised braking system that, for example, pulled the vehicle off the road, or that the brakes were seriously below minimum spec for braking force, meaning that instead of stopping he had to duck. All this will doubtless come out in court.

Those scenarios feature a seriously compromised braking system, not one that's just not working quite perfectly. There's also the question of whether, IF the brakes were faulty, the outcome could have been changed had they not been so. Having perfect brakes is no guarantee that you avoid collisions.

well, yeah. I still wonder how they're going to contrive any worse punishment: the more so if he IS in fact guilty as charged of driving a defective vehicle; in such case he knows that he bears a part of the blame for his childrens' deaths. That must be even worse than knowing that they died even though you did nothing obviously wrong.

I get the feeling you've misread what I think and what everyone else seems to think.

I also note that you're completely unable to defend anything you say. Every time someone asks you to do so, you just vanish for a while.

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

Is a 'Class 5 MoT' what is/was called a 'plate' or 'blue plate' by the HGV people?

It's over thirty years since I was involved in any of this stuff.

me neither - by whom was it reduced?

retrospectively I wonder?

I have read all the coments so far, and just thought I would say my few words.

In any incident / accident / tragedy everyone of us forms our own opinions of what we thought may or may not have happened, and apportion guilt accordingly.

My view is that a man's life is ruined, and nothing will ever change that. Any further sentences that the court may pass are minimal to the suffering that is already being endured (And in my view therefore pointless).

I cant believe that anyone would knowingly drive a vehicle with the family on board if the knew it was defective.

Lets give the family a break and give them some human justice, even if the actual legal system cant do the same.

Giles

On or around Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:58:16 +0100, "William Black" enlightened us thusly:

no, Class 5 is what my minibus would have if it had all its seats in but was still a private vehicle, not a PCV. As it is, because it's "constructed or adapted" to have 9 or fewer seats including the driver, it's Class 4 - technically, I think, it's a "heavy motor car", which is what the LR 110 CSW would be were it not 4WD.

I've an idea that 101s are class 5, too, due to being over the weight limit.

oh no they're not, they class 7:

wonder what class 6 is?

ah. PCVs.

On or around Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:25:58 +0100, "William Tasso" enlightened us thusly:

By LR, I believe, and not retro. At some point, they changed from 12 to 10 seats, although I wouldn't mind betting that nothing actually changed on the vehicle.

Austin Hi,

IIRC they have changed the design of the rearmost seats from benches to four individual side facing seats and reduced the seat belts from six to four. This reduced the number of occupants from 12 to 10.

Then they removed the front center seat (because EU regulations found it too small in width). This reduced the number of occupants from 10 to 9.

Then with the introduction of the 2007 model year the rearmost side facint seats were removed and replaced with just two (but HUGE) front facing seats. Those two seats also reduce the space available for loading the car. They are relatively comfortable bat squeak and squeal like chipmanks in heat... This reduced the number of occupants from 9 to 7.

The way it goes the 110 SW will be able to carry just its driver in a few years time.......

Take care Pantelis

In message , Giles Ayling writes

Without referring to this particular case in any way, I must disagree with that statement - it is precisely why the MOT test was introduced in the first place. To reduce the number of serious accidents arising as a result of major defects to brakes steering etc.

Mine has the 12 - claims to be built/registered around '91 - no belts for the rear 6. Not sure it even has fittings for belts in the back.

aside from the seating layout? I suspect you're right.

FFS if one wants merely 7 seats ... a Disco is arguably a much more attractive proposition.

A little body/chassis trimming, a few engine/suspension mods and we have .... a bowler :)

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:06:09 +0100, Austin Shackles wrote this gibberish:

just 2 less lap belts fitted at the factory I expect.