Driver Andrew Nay jailed for paralysing sisters in 'road rage' crash

by Guest Fri May 27, 2016 7:56 pm

A driving instructor who left two young sisters paralysed after a "road rage" crash in Northamptonshire has been jailed for four-and-a-half years.
Andrew Nay, 39, crashed his Land Rover into the girls' family car as he made a right turn across oncoming traffic on the A509 near Wellingborough.
Katrina Raiba, now eight, and her sister Karlina, six, were left paralysed from the waist down.
The girls' parents said they would "never be able to forgive" Nay.
Northampton Crown Court was told Nay, a Jaguar Land Rover manager and off-road driving instructor, was tailgating and "bullying" a woman who had been driving a Mazda.

To get away from him during his pursuit in October last year, she safely turned right onto the B547 towards Little Harrowden.
Nay, who was seen laughing with his male passenger, undertook a Mercedes and then, in an attempt to follow the Mazda, made an "absolutely ridiculous" turn, the court heard. He hit the family's Vauxhall Signum that was travelling along the A509 in the opposite direction.
The girls' parents, Roberts Raibais and Renate Raiba, released a statement saying: "Andrew Nay's reckless actions had devastating consequences for our two beautiful daughters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36396341

by Syl Fri May 27, 2016 8:12 pm

Nay even lied in court, so obviously he has no shame.
It's heartbreaking that two young girls have ended up crippled because this bully couldn't control his temper.

Four and a half years ...and he will be out a lot sooner, that's a small sentence for such devastation.

by eddie Fri May 27, 2016 8:14 pm

It is a small sentence.
I hope the family got some financial help from this.

by Major Fri May 27, 2016 9:57 pm

Shoulda bin at least 20 years hard labour.

Maybe twaz all the judge could give though.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 28, 2016 12:12 am

Clearly this was a totally avoidable accident... if the twat in range rover had not tried to make the manoeuvre then it would definitely not have happened...

But having just watched the video in link... it does appear that the other vehicle was going much too fast for the layout of the road and much too fast for what would be safe for the approach to the junction...

Now don't get me wrong... the range rover driver is clearly driving like a twat... but how fast was the other driver going that it appears that there wasnt even enough time for the brakes to be applied...?

If I was driving with 2 young children on board, I would not have been going that fast... I wouldn't have been going that fast even if it was just me in the car!

by Syl Sat May 28, 2016 12:52 pm

I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on the driver of the car that was hit.
He has in no way been criticised for driving too fast.
There was NOTHING he could have done to avoid the devastating impact.
The fault was 100% the road rage idiot who obviously saw red mist in his haste to harass the female driver he was chasing.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 28, 2016 12:59 pm

The range rover made a turn... albeit a stupid manoeuvre round another car... but it was the range rover that was hit by the oncoming car that the girls were in...

Watch the clip on link... he was definitely going you fast!!!

Was going so fast that he didn't even have a chance to hit brakes... and only had time to just start to swerve as reaction just a millisecond before impact!

The injuries would have been such because of the speed of impact.

How fast do you think he was driving?

by Syl Sat May 28, 2016 1:11 pm

I saw the video...a longer one on last nights TV news.
It must have happened so fast, the range rover undertook the car in front of him and swerved round it to make the manoeuvre that caused the impact. He was driving so fast I doubt the car he hit had more than a second to react.
After the car that was being chased had safely made the turn he(the dad of the girls) had an open road in front of him.

It's hard to say how fast he was going or if he braked......he was obviously keeping within the speed limit though.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 28, 2016 1:20 pm

Looked like he was going very fast... and too fast for that section of road with the junction etc...

Have a look at clip on link and play the first bit up to crash a few times...

He is definitely travelling at high speed...

And injuries sustained would support this...

by Syl Sat May 28, 2016 1:43 pm

It's impossible to tell how fast he was going, even when the video is slowed down it all happens so fast there is absolutely nothing he could have done to avoid the full impact.
The injuries sustained are because Nay was driving fast and recklessly in a powerful car.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 28, 2016 1:49 pm

Watch at normal speed... he is going too fast.

Speed of impact is cause of injuries

Range rover was turning .. the speed of impact was primarily coming from other vehicle.

I would not have been going that fast... and I reckon that the speed limit for that section of road with junction was lower than the speed the camera car was travelling.

by Syl Sat May 28, 2016 3:49 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Watch at normal speed... he is going too fast.

Speed of impact is cause of injuries

Range rover was turning .. the speed of impact was primarily coming from other vehicle.

I would not have been going that fast... and I reckon that the speed limit for that section of road with junction was lower than the speed the camera car was travelling.

I have watched it at normal speed...several times...and it's impossible to tell how many mph he was travelling..
But don't you think that if the car was travelling over the speed limit that would have been brought up in court?

I think it's unfair that you cast any blame on the victim....this man has seen both daughters crippled, he and his wife were hurt, and both have had to give up their jobs....like he says their lives have been changed 200% by one mans road rage.

by Guest Sat May 28, 2016 4:32 pm

Syl wrote:I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on the driver of the car that was hit.
He has in no way been criticised for driving too fast.
There was NOTHING he could have done to avoid the devastating impact.
The fault was 100% the road rage idiot who obviously saw red mist in his haste to harass the female driver he was chasing.

Driver Andrew Nay jailed for paralysing sisters in 'road rage' crash Used_Land_Rover_Discovery_2011_White_4x4_Diesel_Automatic_for_Sale_in_Cornwall_UK

VS

Driver Andrew Nay jailed for paralysing sisters in 'road rage' crash Vauxhall%20Signum%20(5)

The very height and style of a Land Rover 4x4 VS the shorter and lighter weight Vauxdall Signum would have made a great advantage to the Land Rover in any type of wreck ...the family in that smaller family sedan were lucky they weren't all killed.

But once again it appears that the punishment doesn't fit the vehicle crime that was committed

those parents will have life altering medical/physical therapy/house hold modification costs and wheel chair upgrades to make for those two young girls for the rest of their lives --- who pays for all of that?

by Syl Sat May 28, 2016 4:43 pm

For Tommy...here's a longer video of the crash. See the road markings as he drives, he is obviously going at a responsible speed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/land-rover-driver-who-paralysed-two-young-sisters-in-road-rage-is-jailed-a7052211.html

by Miffs2 Sat May 28, 2016 4:49 pm

Y

4EVER2 wrote:
Syl wrote:I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on the driver of the car that was hit.
He has in no way been criticised for driving too fast.
There was NOTHING he could have done to avoid the devastating impact.
The fault was 100% the road rage idiot who obviously saw red mist in his haste to harass the female driver he was chasing.
VS
The very height and style of a Land Rover 4x4 VS the shorter and lighter weight Vauxdall Signum would have made a great advantage to the Land Rover in any type of wreck ...the family in that smaller family sedan were lucky they weren't all killed.

But once again it appears that the punishment doesn't fit the vehicle crime that was committed those parents will have life altering medical/physical therapy/house hold modification costs and wheel chair upgrades to make for those two young girls for the rest of their lives --- who pays for all of that?

Hope the bastards insurance will.

by Tommy Monk Sat May 28, 2016 6:13 pm

I have watched the short clip... looks like he was going very fast...

I will watch the longer clip in a while...

There are many stupid drivers on the road and many dangerous junctions... it is up to the driver to be going at a slow enough speed to be able to brake and avoid trouble..

I have already do said man in range rover was a twat and the cause...

But any driver could have turned there in a legal manner and been hit by the car going too fast...

by Tommy Monk Sat May 28, 2016 8:47 pm

Syl wrote:For Tommy...here's a longer video of the crash. See the road markings as he drives, he is obviously going at a responsible speed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/land-rover-driver-who-paralysed-two-young-sisters-in-road-rage-is-jailed-a7052211.html

Watched the clip in link (thanks for posting)...

And as I said before... it is clear the range rover driver turned in front of them and had gone round another car waiting to turn to do so... clearly driving dangerously, making an illegal manoeuvre and caused the crash by turning into the path of the oncoming car...

However... I still think the other car was going too fast!

You can see the white lines in centre of road whizzing by at speed... I reckon he was doing near to 60mph...

Now that may have been the max allowed speed on that road... so technically he wouldn't have been speeding or breaking any law...

But you're not supposed to be bombing along at the max permissible speed all the time and hope for the best!!!

We all know there are plenty of idiots on the road... so it's not about going as fast as you are allowed all the time and then saying it was all someone else's fault when you are involved in a crash... because technically you weren't doing anything wrong in the law...

It is your life and your passengers lives in the balance!!!

Having a crash and waking up in hospital permanently injured and/or the same (or even worse) for your passengers is obviously going to be a terrible thing... but if the whole thing would have been avoided or injuries would have been totally minimal if you were going a bit slower and being more careful yourself... it is not worth anything to be able to say that you were going within the speed limit etc so it was not your fault at all... that is not going to change the injuries sustained etc after the accident has already happened...!

It is about being careful enough to be able to have a chance to avoid potential idiots all the time... as they are everywhere on our roads!

There are plenty of country roads about with a max permissible speed of 60mph... but to try to drive along the whole length of most of them at a constant speed of 60mph would be suicidal...!!!

So... what I'm saying is... it looks to me that he was going much too fast for that part of the road with the junction being there... if he was going within the allowed speed limit for that bit, then the speed limit is too high and for that bit should be set at 30mph...

Also... if I was driving a small car like that and had two small children on board... I would not have been going that fast approaching any junction!!!

I'm not saying it's his fault... as the other driver is to blame for turning into his path... but he and his family would have been OK if he was not going so fast!

by Victorismyhero Sat May 28, 2016 10:46 pm

right ...lets "kill off tommmy's attempt at victim blaming

within the limits of error........

in the two seconds BEFORE the impact the signum travels 45 m...

(I know this becasue he travels 5 units of "marking plus gap" on the road center line...each "dash" is 6m and each space is 3m)

that equates ot a total of 45/2 X 3600 +81,000m per hopur or 81km/hr

that is 51.3mph... so not even at the limit for this road

(allowing for error between 50 and 60mph) so actually below or AT the set limit....certainly NOT over

at that point the A509 is a 60mph road, with reasonable visibility of the junction BOTH ways.

the driver of the rover carried out a totally incompetant and unexpected manouver, impossible to predict and avoid.

the driver of the rover failed...utterly to demonstrate the actions of a reasonably competant and considerate driver, he fell Below the expectations that are required of all...

he SHOULD...be facing 20 years and a lifetime ban...

NOW tommy...I worked this out ....properly....

not some uneducated "guess" as you made

merely watching such a video does NOT give you a "feel" for the speed....it is highly deceptive...

ask any cop...the WORST witness for speed ..is a pedestrian followed by another driver....

ALSO...as an engineer on such things I can tell you for a fact that on playback over 99% of these video cameras
play back somewhat faster (how much varies from "slightly to ridiculously") than they record....

whatever it is clear that the signum driver was totally innocent of ANY wrongdoing....

by Guest Sat May 28, 2016 10:57 pm

Lol, not only was that a master class in how to destroy and annihilate, a weak argument. It also showed the difference in intelligence between two people. Tommy thinks he is intelligent and brags that he is. Victor on the other hand, is very intelligent and you would be very rare to see him, state that he was.
One is led by reason, the other by emotions.
The one emotional, just got shown and provided with an A class lesson, he will never learn from.

+1

by Tommy Monk Sat May 28, 2016 11:28 pm

Although Victor has undermined the validity of his own calculations by his own claim that the speed of footage may not be actual time... plus his measurement of 2 seconds may not be exactly 2 seconds...

Also... the white lines in middle of roads are of varying length and width and spaces in between also vary in distance...

I have said all along that the twat in range rover was the cause of crash...

The other driver may not have technically done anything wrong outside of the law... however it is apparent that he was driving at considerable high speed... and although maybe technically within the law... I personally think it was too fast for that section of road... while being on a bend approaching a junction and also while passing a large hgv that obscures the view of both junction and of those at junction to be able to see him...

The highway code instructs care and caution... not go as fast as the speed limit says at all times!!!

Plus... I personally would never be bombing along at max speed limit in a small car with 2 small children on board anyway!!!

by Guest Sat May 28, 2016 11:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Although Victor has undermined the validity of his own calculations by his own claim that the speed of footage may not be actual time (based on not rational evidence?? You stated it without disproving??? Doh}... plus his measurement of 2 seconds may not be exactly 2 seconds...
And you really think that a differnce in millieseconds is going to make your point look at all rational?
Seriously?

Also... the white lines in middle of roads are of varying length and width and spaces in between also vary in distance...
Gibberish and a deflection as there is again no reason behind the point.

I have said all along that the twat in range rover was the cause of crash...
But argued and defended as if he should be seen as a lesser criminal.
There is no reason to do so, when the facts are so clear, unless something else outisde this motivated you?
Conspiracvy by any chance Tommy?

The other driver may not have technically done anything wrong outside of the law... however it is apparent that he was driving at considerable high speed... and although maybe technically within the law... I personally think it was too fast for that section of road... while being on a bend approaching a junction and also while passing a large hgv that obscures the view of both junction and of those at junction to be able to see him...
Prove my point above

The highway code instructs care and caution... not go as fast as the speed limit says at all times!!!
Where is your evidence he was going too fast?
A video, you have no comprehension to state how fast the car was going?
Your answer is based on your own opinion and not any real facts
If the reasoning has no merit from the start, then you are flogging a dead horse.
You failed to counter any point here, claimed you knew better, proving the point you think you are clever.

Plus... I personally would never be bombing along at max speed limit in a small car with 2 small children on board anyway!!!

Flawed, what you claim can never ever state what will actually happen.
If you now base your reasoning off what you want others to believe off you. Then your whole argument is based off faith.
Your desperation led you to make the worst defeatest point at the end.
Noboy can varify your claim, so hope instead that people will trust you.
That is a massive insecurity.

by Victorismyhero Sat May 28, 2016 11:58 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Although Victor has undermined the validity of his own calculations by his own claim that the speed of footage may not be actual time... plus his measurement of 2 seconds may not be exactly 2 seconds...

both of which factors in fact would act to reduce the speed of the signum....the replay is "faster" hence the "real" speed is slower....

and my estimation of 2 seconds is more likely than not to be low...thus again pushing the real speed down...

DOH!!!...you really dont understand "science2 even in its simplest form do you....

Also... the white lines in middle of roads are of varying length and width and spaces in between also vary in distance...

now I know you are an idiot...the spaces and lines are of a set size....for each allowed road speed...those for use on a road over 40mph are 6m long for the dash and 3m long for the space...this is set down in traffic law.

I have said all along that the twat in range rover was the cause of crash...

The other driver may not have technically done anything wrong outside of the law... however it is apparent that he was driving at considerable high speed... and although maybe technically within the law... I personally think it was too fast for that section of road... while being on a bend approaching a junction and also while passing a large hgv that obscures the view of both junction and of those at junction to be able to see him...

all of which goes to prove that you know nowt.......

the simple fact is ...the driver of the signum acted absolutely in the manner expected of a reasonably competant and skilled driver.....

the signums vision of the junction was NOT obscured....the view of the rovers driver was.....
the HGV was past when the rover made the turn.......in fact it was past when the rover driver BEGAN the turn.......

Given the traffic on the road...it would be logical and sensible for the rover driver to EXPECT that another vehicle was incomming.

The highway code instructs care and caution... not go as fast as the speed limit says at all times!!!

Plus... I personally would never be bombing along at max speed limit in a small car with 2 small children on board anyway!!!

I bet you are one of those incompetant twerps that drive down a 50 mph road at 30mph on the bendy bits and accelerate to 40 on the straight bits...but only if someone tries to over take...

FLAT CAP DRIVER ALERT...

WARNING.......WARNING......FOSSIL ALERT.....FOSSIL ALERT (said in your best "robbie the robot" voice)

by Tommy Monk Sun May 29, 2016 12:00 am

Dodge...

Victor said the speed of playback from dash cams is variable...

If you are going to look at 2 seconds to try to calculate mph then a few milliseconds either side of exactly 2 seconds will affect the accuracy of calculations...

Victor stated that he was measuring distance by the white lines in the centre of road... he claimed they were of a set distance... this is not correct as the length of lines and distances vary depending on road conditions... as they are themselves an indicator of road conditions... and they appear on roads as being larger and more frequent when road conditions are more hazardous and smaller and less frequent in parts of roads where hazards are of lesser extent...

All the variables in Victor's calculations are... well... VARIABLE!!!

So... although his basic calculation formula is correct... the variables are not!!!

I don't expect you to understand this dodge... but I'm sure Victor will admit what I say is true...

by Victorismyhero Sun May 29, 2016 12:08 am

Tommy....bull shit....

as always you know nothing.....

by Tommy Monk Sun May 29, 2016 12:16 am

Lord Foul wrote:Tommy....bull shit....

as always you know nothing.....

Really...!?

Which bit of what I said is bullshit...!?

Do you stand by your calculation as being accurate...?

And do you stand by your claims of accuracy over the variables you used...?

by Victorismyhero Sun May 29, 2016 12:19 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge...

Victor said the speed of playback from dash cams is variable... and acts to mean that the signum is actually going slower than calculated....

If you are going to look at 2 seconds to try to calculate mph then a few milliseconds either side of exactly 2 seconds will affect the accuracy of calculations...

and I said my estimation was more likely than not to be an under estimate and therfor ALSO act to mean the signum is going slower than calculated...

Victor stated that he was measuring distance by the white lines in the centre of road... he claimed they were of a set distance... this is not correct as the length of lines and distances vary depending on road conditions... as they are themselves an indicator of road conditions... and they appear on roads as being larger and more frequent when road conditions are more hazardous and smaller and less frequent in parts of roads where hazards are of lesser extent...

you havnt taken the time to check them ......they are of a FIXED SIZE ...the ones here ARE the size I stated....

All the variables in Victor's calculations are... well... VARIABLE!!!

So... although his basic calculation formula is correct... the variables are not!!!

I don't expect you to understand this dodge... but I'm sure Victor will admit what I say is true...

by Victorismyhero Sun May 29, 2016 12:22 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:Tommy....bull shit....

as always you know nothing.....

Really...!?

Which bit of what I said is bullshit...!?

Do you stand by your calculation as being accurate...?

to within +/- 10mph yes.....

And do you stand by your claims of accuracy over the variables you used...?

as an OVERESTIMATE of the signums speed...yes

by Tommy Monk Sun May 29, 2016 12:53 am

Victor... you are mistaken about the centre white line road markings...

Next time you are out and about... you can check what I say is true...

The white lines along roads vary in length and width and distance between each other as well as overall frequency depending on the perceived hazard/danger/navigational difficulty level of each bit of road...

Completely intentionally painted to act as an indicator of upcoming bends and junctions etc...

The more lines and wider the lines means more danger and to slow down and be more cautious etc... the less and smaller and thinner etc means less hazardous conditions, less bends and can speed up a bit etc...

Take notice of this next time you're driving about and you will see it is correct!!!

But anyway...

You stand by your calculations... yes...?

And you say that if anything... they were going much slower than you calculated because you over estimated...!?

Have a look at this link again...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36396341

You will see that in the bottom right corner of video clip screen... before you even play it... the speed of travel is shown by the camera device!!!

Looks to me that it says 57mph...!!!

And this is just before impact and maybe after the brakes had been applied ... so this suggests that they may have been going even faster than that...!!!

I await your apology...!!!

Laughing

by Victorismyhero Sun May 29, 2016 1:03 am

well you wont get one...

as I said +/- 10 mph

well within the admitted error....

AND try googling uk road markings....

AT THAT POINT on THAT road......being as its a 60mph road.....

the markings are 6m for the dash and 3 m for the gap.....

thanks for the video clip proving my point that...whatever...the signum driver was within the speed limit....

and as the video proves......his view of the junction was NOT restricted....

the rovers divers view was...and conditions were such that he should reasonable have expected that such a manouver was likey dangerous....

are you suggesting everyone should drive in a manner that accepts that folks will randomly turn across your path with no warning at such a late stage???

erm...thats why we have RULES....

the ONLY ONE at fault was the idiot in the rover.....

by Victorismyhero Sun May 29, 2016 1:09 am

I calculated 51.3.....

with an error of +/- 10mph

it appears he was at just over 5mph faster than I calculated.....

not bad considering that the available data is so restricted......

lets face it tommy...your "opinion" on the signum driver is as valid as your "opinion" on every other subject that involves anything remotely scientific....that is to say ...worthless....

by Tommy Monk Sun May 29, 2016 1:09 am

One minute you are saying that your calculation was accurate... and if anything... you have overestimated their speed!!!

Now it was a plus or minus 10mph estimation...!!!

Inaccurate by a factor of +/- 20%...!!!

I said earlier that I thought they were going at speed near 60mph!!!

And that was without any calculation... but by just watching footage... which you said was impossible...!!!

And you have the cheek to say I talk bullshit...!!!???

lol!

by Victorismyhero Sun May 29, 2016 1:21 am

Tommy Monk wrote:One minute you are saying that your calculation was accurate... and if anything... you have overestimated their speed!!!

Now it was a plus or minus 10mph estimation...!!!

Inaccurate by a factor of +/- 20%...!!!

I said earlier that I thought they were going at speed near 60mph!!!

And that was without any calculation... but by just watching footage... which you said was impossible...!!!

And you have the cheek to say I talk bullshit...!!!???

no tommy...I said that there was "error" limits ....

three or four posts back...

still...not my problem id you cant read...or only read what you wish to see....

and the whole point stiil escapes you doesnt it...

by Tommy Monk Sun May 29, 2016 1:31 am

The whole point escapes you...

The max permissible speed was 60 mph...

That would be an acceptable speed to be travelling in dry bright conditions and when there were no other vehicles in vicinity and when no other vehicles were at junction...

Speed should be reduced when any other potential hazards are present.

by Tommy Monk Sun May 29, 2016 1:47 am

Lord Foul wrote:right ...lets "kill off tommmy's attempt at victim blaming

within the limits of error........

in the two seconds BEFORE the impact the signum travels 45 m...

(I know this becasue he travels 5 units of "marking plus gap" on the road center line...each "dash" is 6m and each space is 3m)

that equates ot a total of 45/2 X 3600 +81,000m per hopur or 81km/hr

that is 51.3mph... so not even at the limit for this road

(allowing for error between 50 and 60mph) so actually below or AT the set limit....certainly NOT over

at that point the A509 is a 60mph road, with reasonable visibility of the junction BOTH ways.

the driver of the rover carried out a totally incompetant and unexpected manouver, impossible to predict and avoid.

the driver of the rover failed...utterly to demonstrate the actions of a reasonably competant and considerate driver, he fell Below the expectations that are required of all...

he SHOULD...be facing 20 years and a lifetime ban...

NOW tommy...I worked this out ....properly....

not some uneducated "guess" as you made

merely watching such a video does NOT give you a "feel" for the speed....it is highly deceptive...

ask any cop...the WORST witness for speed ..is a pedestrian followed by another driver....

ALSO...as an engineer on such things I can tell you for a fact that on playback over 99% of these video cameras
play back somewhat faster (how much varies from "slightly to ridiculously") than they record....

whatever it is clear that the signum driver was totally innocent of ANY wrongdoing....

But I said I thought he was going nearly 60mph...

So my 'uneducated guess' was much more accurate than the 'educated idiots proper calculation'...!

by Tommy Monk Sun May 29, 2016 4:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The whole point escapes you...

The max permissible speed was 60 mph...

That would be an acceptable speed to be travelling in dry bright conditions and when there were no other vehicles in vicinity and when no other vehicles were at junction...

Speed should be reduced when any other potential hazards are present.

Do you not agree...?

If the driver had slowed down while passing the junction... it wouldn't have mattered what anyone else had done as he would have had time to brake and avoid a crash... and if a crash had have still happened then it would have been at such a low speed as to have avoided any serious injuries!

He was going too fast for my liking... and especially with two young children on board...

by Tommy Monk Mon May 30, 2016 4:47 pm

Nobody is disagreeing... so shall I take that as everyone is agreeing...?

by Guest Mon May 30, 2016 4:51 pm

You have been disagreed, with, people just get bored having to go around in circles trying to explain the same thing over and over again because you simply did not get it the first time

by Tommy Monk Mon May 30, 2016 5:16 pm

People only go round in circular arguments when they run out of any valid arguments as all their arguments are successfully countered... and they then start to try using all the same defunct arguments all over again...

by Guest Mon May 30, 2016 5:22 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:People only go round in circular arguments when they run out of any valid arguments as all their arguments are successfully countered... and they then start to try using all the same defunct arguments all over again...

Incorrect, you simply failed to understand at the beginning the points made, hence the redundency to then further continue with you, as you just simply do not get it.
Then it allows others to then see for themselves who makes sense

You never made any sense

by Syl Mon May 30, 2016 5:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Nobody is disagreeing... so shall I take that as everyone is agreeing...?

I disagreed with you from the start. Twisted Evil

That family have been devastated. The driver was innocent. Had he been driving too fast for the road conditions it would have been mentioned in Nays defence.
Fact is it wasn't because there was no defence.....Nay was 100% in the wrong, dad in car on link was 100% correct in the way he was driving.

by Tommy Monk Mon May 30, 2016 5:43 pm

Syl... I have explained my point...

Would you be driving at max possible speed limit allowed for that road if...

a) the junction was clearly busy on your approach?

And

b) you had 2 young children on board?

I would rather have been going a bit slower approaching that junction... and have then been able to either have time to brake or swerve to avoid an accident... or at least be going so much slower so as to not have suffered any serious injuries to myself but more importantly my passengers... than to have received serious injury but be able to say that I was going at allowed speed limit so technically I hadn't done anything wrong!

Do you not see my point?

by Tommy Monk Mon May 30, 2016 5:51 pm

Syl wrote:I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on the driver of the car that was hit.
He has in no way been criticised for driving too fast.
There was NOTHING he could have done to avoid the devastating impact.
The fault was 100% the road rage idiot who obviously saw red mist in his haste to harass the female driver he was chasing.

Yes there was... he could have been going a bit slower while approaching the clearly busy junction, and been in a position to avoid any possible stupidity of any other driver, instead of bombing along at max permissible speed allowed and hoping for the best!

by Syl Mon May 30, 2016 5:56 pm

I do see your point Tommy, but I don't agree that the dad was in any way at fault.
Some people drive slower than others, keeping up with the speed limit doesn't make someone a bad driver. I am not technical enough to work out the exact speed he was travelling at the time of the impact, but no one could have forseen what Nay was going to do, so I just don't see how the dad could be blamed.
Looking at the longer link, it's amazing the car he undertook managed to avoid hitting into him too.

by Tommy Monk Mon May 30, 2016 6:00 pm

Read the whole thread... Victor worked out the speed he was going by doing some 'proper science'...

After telling me that my 'uneducated guess' of speed was totally wrong!!!

Trust me... well worth reading... it is most amusing!!!

lol!

by Syl Mon May 30, 2016 6:15 pm

I read it...it was bit too technical for me. Laughing

I looked at the road markings (in the longer vid)they didn't look to me like he was tear arsing along....just doing a normal speed for the road conditions.
There was nothing coming out of the junction on the left, and the car that was being chased had already made a safe and clear turn, the conditions were clear...not sure what else to say...to me it's obvious that the devastating crash was inevitable because Nay acted like a mindless moron...it was his speed, his driving, and the size and weight of HIS car that caused such devastation to that family.

by Tommy Monk Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

I have said all along that the range rover drivers stupid manoeuvre was the direct cause of the crash.

However... the other driver would have either avoided the crash altogether or at least ensured that minimal injuries had occurred if he was driving a bit slower than the 57 mph he was going...

The max speed allowed was 60 mph.

This would be acceptable speed of travel if conditions were dry and bright... AND ALSO IF THERE WAS NO OTHER VISIBLE TRAFFIC AROUND!!!

Given that there WAS other traffic at junction... potential danger DID exist... therefore speed should have been reduced upon their approach, way below max permissible speed otherwise allowed in dry/bright and CLEAR conditions!!!

Failing to moderate your speed to that which is safe depending on road/weather/traffic conditions etc... is defined as 'failing to drive with due care and attention'...!

Consider this... most roads in built up residential areas have a 30mph speed limit...

However... if I was whipping around everywhere at 30mph... and round corners and turnings at this speed... and I whipped round a turning at 30mph and ran over a couple of children crossing the road... can I claim to be totally innocent because I was not going over the speed limit...!?

by Guest Mon May 30, 2016 9:52 pm

Consider this ...that you just can't accept the FACTS presented in the linked court case - the opinions stated by the majority of the members and that you'd rather just keep creating a F'd UP ---WHAT IF scenario then just walk away from yet another topic that you can't grasp Driver Andrew Nay jailed for paralysing sisters in 'road rage' crash 2023022481

Driver Andrew Nay jailed for paralysing sisters in 'road rage' crash 2023022481

by Tommy Monk Mon May 30, 2016 9:54 pm

I see the subtleties are too complex for your limited intellect...

by Tommy Monk Mon May 30, 2016 10:28 pm

Syl wrote:I read it...it was bit too technical for me.

I looked at the road markings (in the longer vid)they didn't look to me like he was tear arsing along....just doing a normal speed for the road conditions.
There was nothing coming out of the junction on the left, and the car that was being chased had already made a safe and clear turn, the conditions were clear...not sure what else to say...to me it's obvious that the devastating crash was inevitable because Nay acted like a mindless moron...it was his speed, his driving, and the size and weight of HIS car that caused such devastation to that family.

This car had only just completed the turn upon the high speed arrival of the camera car...

Had the turning car stopped before completing the turn, through mechanical failure of some sort, then it would have remained in the direct path of high speed camera car...

The driver of approaching camera car should have reduced speed to that which would have allowed safe stopping/safe passage had this very real possibility arisen.

by Sponsored content