- M5 fireworks deaths – Organiser cleared
Or should he have gone to prison?
Not sure what you mean by “genuine accident”. Did he deliberately make smoke drift over the motoroway with the intention of causing the crash? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean he can’t be at fault or responsible.
But then the drivers who ploughed into the back of other vehicles should have slowed down when they saw the smoke up ahead. To have found the organiser guilty could have had the effect of saying “If you can’t see where you’re going then just put your foot down because it’s not your fault if you hit something”.Posted 4 years ago
Not nice that its happened but lots of people could learn from it to prevent it happening again – even when theres not fireworks.
natural selection at work really.
bit like the fog on the bridge down south as well ….
if you cant see slow the **** down.
infact – just slow the **** down could be applied to most folk most of the time….Posted 4 years ago
wwaswas – if that was the case – id be asking “do your lights and eyes and windscreen work?” it didnt just appear – yes it was infront of them – beyond their bonnets at a guess .. but given most people only look where their bonnet ends im not at all surprised they were shocked when it appeared like a wall at their bonnet.Posted 4 years agobailsSubscriber
I thought that it happened almost instantaneously? Described as paint been thrown across the windscreen.
Hmm, surely it was almost instantaneous once they drove into the fog, but they should have been looking up the road and slowed down based on the big cloud of fog they were approaching. Like slowing down before a red light rather than getting level with it and then slamming the brakes on.
As for ‘natural selection’, it’s more like survival of the biggest. You’re in your fiesta and you slow down. The HGV keeps going at 60mph. Who’s going to survive when he crushes you?Posted 4 years ago
I’m walking away from this.
There’s been enough evidence from the court case, and before, that the drivers had insufficient time to react to the conditions they were faced with.
If people on here want to blame them for dying I’m not going to be able to change that with pages of ‘he said/she said/but what about/no but you said’ arguing.Posted 4 years agofootflapsSubscriber
Why he was found not guilty:Posted 4 years ago
He said the prosecution’s case was “heavily weighted” on “hindsight” and there was not sufficient evidence to show that Mr Counsell ought to have foreseen that smoke from the display could have drifted and mixed with fog to create thick smog.thisisnotaspoonMember
The right result IMHO.
I’m doing dispersion modeling for a chemicals plants flue gasses at the moment, even throwing £10k’s at it we’re still doing little more than a best guess, it’ll still get enveloped in a fog, on a still day, with high pressure, whilst firing on high (but within the limit) sulphur fuel, and someone will ask why we didn’t model for it.
However if it happens again now the risk is widely known and can be assessed, then it would be guilty.Posted 4 years agolukeMember
The reporting on the case from the beginning has been inaccurate and contradictory.
Fog was reported in the area prior to the accident, did the fireworks have an impact or where they just a useful scapegoat for what was a tragic accident?
The actions of the police have come in to question with the statement by the legal team of a searches on the home and also failure to return seized items, and a witch hunt ensued.
It will roll and roll, but based on what I have read and heard the right decision was reached in courtPosted 4 years ago
The topic ‘M5 fireworks deaths – Organiser cleared’ is closed to new replies.