Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Apr 20, 2026 12:21

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 18:30 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 894898.stm

Quote:
Mother jailed over crash deaths

A mother who crammed seven boys into her car during a birthday outing before causing a pile-up in which four people died has been jailed for two years.

Nurse Angela Dublin, 46, of London Road, Headington, Oxford, pleaded guilty last month to four counts of causing death by dangerous driving.

Three of her seven passengers, Josh Bartlett, Liam Hastings, and Marshall Haynes, all 13, were killed last May.

Howard Hillsdon, 21, who was in another car, also died on Oxford's A4142.

Dublin, a nurse of 25 years, was disqualified from driving for six years.

She had been taking a party of her son Anton's friends out to dinner to celebrate his 13th birthday when the tragedy happened on 28 May.

Dublin was seen pulling into the fast lane, without indicating, as she approached a silver car in front at about 70mph.

It was then that Dublin lost control, the back of the car swerving first left and then right before ploughing across the grassed central reservation.

Mr Hillsdon, 21, of Oxford was killed when Dublin's car hit his vehicle and sent it into a spin.

As the two cars spun together each collided with another vehicle. A motorcyclist was also knocked off his bike in the chain of events.

Judge Mr Justice Crane said that although Dublin was driving within the limit, her speed in the circumstances was "excessive".

He said: "In my view, apart from taking the risk of multiple deaths and injuries, there were aggravating factors in driving when there were serious distractions and in driving at greatly excessive speed in those circumstances."

Dublin herself was left fighting for her life in hospital together with her son and his three surviving friends, Aiden Wood, 13, Jake Proper, 13, and Conor Hunt, 12.

On Monday, defence barrister Frank Burton told Oxford Crown Court "by her pleas of guilty to the four counts of causing death by dangerous driving, Mrs Dublin unequivocally accepts her responsibility for her fatal error.

"She wishes to apologise to the bereaved families and friends of Liam and Josh and Marshall and Howard Hillsdon.

"She knows that nothing that she can say and nothing that she can do will ease their pain, but she expresses her sincere condolences to the various families and friends for their losses.

"Like the bereaved, her thoughts over the last year have always been with the victims."

The court was told that only one of the boys in the car had been wearing a seat belt and at least one, possibly two, had been in the boot of the Citroen Xsara, when Dublin lost control of the car.

A witness recalled seeing children joking, laughing and making "childish gestures" through the back window before the accident.

Judge Crane said: "I have considered carefully whether I should reduce the sentence and whether, as I am asked to, I can suspend it.

"In my judgment it would not be appropriate to suspend the sentence."

This has apparently been used as an excuse to reduce the speed limit on the road in question from 70 mph to 50 mph - even though a crash barrier has been installed.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 20:50 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
That's because they are frightened she will go and do it again!

Ings is exactly alike - a group of locals asked for the limit, NOT the Authorities.
However, in concceeding to their requests, the CSCP have been presented with a golden opportunity to collect money for thier job creation project! :oops:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 07:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
I doubt it was anything to do with speed, the fact she had seven kids (and not small kids) crammed in the car. More probably down to distraction, started to drift and over corrected, with all that weight in the back lost control. The SCP’s will grab any possible chance to install a camera.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 08:01 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I can't see anything even remotely like dangerous driving in the BBC report.

Having 7 kids in the car might be stupid, but isn't likely to cause an accident.

Looks like a case of 'someone died - someone's got to pay'.

And I get the general impression that solicitors are giving terrible advice in these sorts of cases. Maybe they believe 'someone's got to pay' too.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 09:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
Had all vehicles on the road been driving at 20 mph, then it is unlikely that anybody would have been killed, so it is obvious the limit has to be reduced, because the only thing that they are being measured on is number of people killed (unless that looks bad, in which case we switch to KSI).

New Labour's obsession with targets, targets and more targets is destroying this country.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 09:25 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Having 7 kids in the car might be stupid, but isn't likely to cause an accident.

Wouldn't it be likely to upset the handling of the car if a less than skilled driver suddenly pulled out at 70 mph to overtake something?

Quote:
Looks like a case of 'someone died - someone's got to pay'.

Which is going to become even more commonplace when we get an offence of "causing death by careless driving" - something that it will be virtually impossible to mount a defence against.

Given that Ms Dublin's own son was left brain damaged by the accident, and she was very severely injured and still requires treatment, I would have thought in the circumstances it would have been appropriate to suspend the sentence.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
The thing is that she deliberately and without considering safety put more passengers into the car than it was designed to take, and they were not properly belted into the seats. The overloaded car, on which I seriously doubt that she had adjusted the tyre pressures for, was therefore an accident just waiting to happen. It would handle very badly, would struggle to stop, and if it did hit anything the passengers would be flying everywhere. Bad enough in a 30 limit where her braking distance would be dramatically increased, but lethal on a higher speed road. Never mind the distraction that the large number of excited teenagers on their way to a birthday treat would cause.

She had already broken the law several times before letting the handbrake off, and this is one case where I think that the prosecution is fully justified.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:25 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Quote:
The court was told that only one of the boys in the car had been wearing a seat belt and at least one, possibly two, had been in the boot of the Citroen Xsara, when Dublin lost control of the car.


I wonder which model of Xsara it was, one or possibly two in the boot!

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:43 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Rewolf wrote:
The thing is that she deliberately and without considering safety put more passengers into the car than it was designed to take, and they were not properly belted into the seats. The overloaded car, on which I seriously doubt that she had adjusted the tyre pressures for, was therefore an accident just waiting to happen.

She had already broken the law several times before letting the handbrake off, and this is one case where I think that the prosecution is fully justified.


The reason this prosecution is justified is that she was negligent as to her responsibilities - not careless. Negligence is an act of omission which has the same weight as a deliberately dangerous act. The fact she injured her own son and herself is irrelevant.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:46 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
PeterE wrote:
This has apparently been used as an excuse to reduce the speed limit on the road in question from 70 mph to 50 mph

So now all drivers have to suffer the consequences because one person illegally (and knowingly?) overloaded their car? (and likely drove in an aggressive manner)

PeterE wrote:
- even though a crash barrier has been installed.

The additional barrier will make the resulting statistics of the speed limit reduction appear to look very good.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
malcolmw wrote:
The reason this prosecution is justified is that she was negligent as to her responsibilities - not careless. Negligence is an act of omission which has the same weight as a deliberately dangerous act. The fact she injured her own son and herself is irrelevant.


That may be true, but as far as I understand it, would NOT fit 'dangerous driving'.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
PeterE wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Having 7 kids in the car might be stupid, but isn't likely to cause an accident.

Wouldn't it be likely to upset the handling of the car if a less than skilled driver suddenly pulled out at 70 mph to overtake something?


I guess that depends on the kids. 7 small babies would make no difference, but 7 fat teenagers could weigh three quarters of a ton.

I suppose the next question is: how much would a typical competent and careful driver understand about the effects on handling from heavy load. I'm guessing not very much. You don't find that sort of thing in the highway code.

Granted you do find information about overloading, but we don't even know if the car was overloaded (weight-wise).

And btw, I'm not trying to defend the stupid woman. I'm trying to defend the law.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:40 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
I posted the following on a parallel thread on PH SP&L.

Dangerous driving (legal definition) is that which "falls far short of the standard expected of the competent and careful driver". Putting aside the issue of the car being overloaded, it seems to me unlikely (46 years old mother, 25 years nursing vocation) that there was anything about this woman's driving (whether in general or on this occasion in particular) that fell far short of the standards actually found in a significant section (probably a majority) of the driving population. If that is true, it follows that a majority of the population are from time to time "driving dangerously" and, in the right (wrong) combination of circumstances (depending entirely on chance), may become responsible for a serious accident from which a DD or CDBDD charge will follow.

This is the fine line which the majority of drivers (those who do not really 'care' about driving and who do not see it as an activity worth striving to do better) unkowingly tread.

The lesson which the authorities should learn from this is that the path to improved road safety lies in improving driving standards. All they are actually interested in, apparently, is more speed enforcement, driven by the fools gold belief that 'slower speeds = safer drivers'. As is so spectularly demonstrated by this tragedy, that entirely misses the point.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:44 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
smeggy wrote:
So now all drivers have to suffer the consequences because one person illegally (and knowingly?) overloaded their car? (and likely drove in an aggressive manner)


46 year old nurse. I doubt she was driving aggressively. More likely didn't use her mirror before changing lane, saw something or thought she saw something behind and swerved back, provoked a tank slapper and ended up on t'other carriageway.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Daily Telegraph wrote:
As Dublin drove off from the lights, she was seen moving into the slow lane "suddenly and without indicating", then pulling back out into the fast lane as she approached a car in front at about 70mph.

She lost control, the back of the car swerving before ploughing across the central reservation into the path of a car driven by Howard Hillsdon, 21, from Oxford.


According to the article the children where all 12 to 13 years of age - depending on the model of the car, sounds as if it was overloaded.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 13:11 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
SafeSpeed wrote:
7 fat teenagers could weigh three quarters of a ton.


Seven teenagers at average 107kg? If they'd been that big, they just wouldn't have been able to fit in.

[edit]

According to the Citroen website, the current Xsara Picasso weighs in at ~1300kg unladen with max. laden weight 1850kg. 550kg payload (ave. 69kg for 8 occupants) means it probably wasn't overweight (and would a modest overloading dramatically affect handling anyway?). I'm not sure but is it a 7 seater? So possibly only one 'extra' passenger anyway?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 13:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Observer wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
7 fat teenagers could weigh three quarters of a ton.


Seven teenagers at average 107kg? If they'd been that big, they just wouldn't have been able to fit in.


Yeah. Horrible picture.

I was just trying to set some extreme limits.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 13:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
The article says 5 people, which is 3 more than designed for. The children were playing around, and she was driving at the limit and swerving to avoid other vehicles that were going slower on the road. Even after the trial they still don't know how many of the children were in the boot...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 17:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
Xsara Picasso is a people carrier, Xsara isn't - it's a medium size hatchback. Three in the back is a squash, if one is an adult.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 22:33 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 22:02
Posts: 91
my ex wife had a xsara and they are horrible pieces of crap to drive i would guess it was a 1400 petrol as citroen were doing all sorts of special offers on those to get rid of them

they have tiny boots so it would have been cramped with three kids stuffed in there.......

i reckon the weight at the back made the steering go very light (which she wouldnt have been used to) and she oversteered and lost it

in the end she made a decision to drive a vehicle in a very dodgy state and it was that decision that caused the deaths.....it seems no other vehicles were involved and there is no mention of mechanical failure of any sort.

If you drive whilst drunk no one believes that is acceptable as you have not got full control of your vehicle why is this different?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.083s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]