As previously stated we are getting 2000 speeding motorists a day through Penyffordd village centre where there are pensioners, children and horses.
The Head of Engineering has the data, knows what's happening for the last 3 months.
Should have known a few years previous that Chester Rd is open season for speeders, most probably did.
Flintshire Highways encourage HGV's by not banning them, The Head of Engineering's excuse lamentable considering we have a By - Pass.
Flintshire County Council gets a similar amount of money as Wrexham Council from the Welsh Assembly.
Wrexham has conquered speeding just about in local communities with creative and effective traffic calming techniques.
Raised platforms, Compulsory 20 mph speed limits, reducing village roads to single long lanes, etc. Rossett village is a good example of proper road calming.
Charles Hughes has limitations because we have black holes allegedly. We are however dealing with life and death here. Who is responsible for holding back on compulsory 20 mph in villages? Charles Hughes? County Councilors?
If someone is run over by a speeding motorcycle, car, lorry or Arriva Bus in a village such as Penyffordd or another undefended village in Flintshire , what is Flintshire County Council's position with regards Corporate Manslaughter?
Flintshire Highways know that speeding is taking place, they have currently done nothing, they will not give us a Compulsory 20 mph speed limit.
The Head of Engineering knows traffic is doing 50 mph on a route to school road from his data.
"We had no money your honour" might not wash with you having new vehicles and the Director for Environment and Regeneration spending money in Flint
Flintshire Highways current planned traffic calming strategy for Chester Rd Penyffordd looks woefully inadequate. Does nothing at all to the Rat Run.
Also grounds for negligence?
Could this be classed as "gross negligence"?
I give you the following :-
Local councils have been established as "corporate bodies" by legislation - section 2 of the Local Government Act 1972. As such, in relation to the offence of manslaughter, they can be treated just like any other company and the same principles of liability apply.
This means, in effect, that a Local Council can be prosecuted only if charges are first laid against:
| (a) | an individual person and |
| (b) | that individual is senior enough within the council to be deemed in law to be a 'controlling mind' of the council |
Is Charles Hughes the "controlling mind" denying Flintshire villages 20 mph compulsory zones?
Is there a Flintshire County Councilor who is a "controlling mind" denying 20 mph zones
Who is the "controlling mind" in Arrive Alive denying Chester Rd its service. We have a good a case as anywhere else in North Wales that does not have a killer road, its just that Colin Bithell isn't shouting.
Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom would be in the clear perhaps because he has called for 20 mph limits
Of course the reply would be"no one's been killed there before"
Reply. Yes but you had data to see there was a large risk.
Links
Corporate Manslaughter for Councils
Prosecution of Barrow Council for Manslaughter
CPS view on Corporate Manslaughter
Another Link
More on Barrow Council
Postscript
New legislation will make it easier to prosecute County Councils.
The Proposed New Test
An organisation will be guilty of corporate manslaughter if a gross management or organisational failing causes a person's death. The new offence will apply to management failings by an organisation's senior managers - either individually or collectively. The focus has therefore moved from the culpable individual to the aggregation of senior managerial responsibility. (i.e they all go down together)
Gross failure is defined as conduct which "falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances". In assessing whether there has been a gross failure, the proposed law will require a consideration of whether the organisation complied with health and safety legislation and guidance. If a health and safety breach is established, the jury must then consider (a) how serious was the failure, and (b) how much of a risk of death resulted from the failure. Furthermore, the jury will need to consider whether the attitudes, policies, systems or accepted practices within an organisation were likely to have encouraged or produced tolerance of non-compliance with health and safety law.
It will be for the jury to assess whether any breaches of health and safety law and guidance are sufficiently serious to warrant convicting for manslaughter. Unfortunately, with hindsight failures can often appear worse than they actually were. What is clear is that the line between a health and safety offence and a corporate manslaughter offence will not be one that is easy to draw.
Further Postscript removed, apologies CNH
No comments:
Post a Comment