Five dead in Buncrana accident

Quackster

embraer170 wrote: »

I know nothing about inquests but I am amazed at how this ends up as death by “misadventure”.

Driving a car with your entire family when you are 3 times above the legal limit is no misadventure.

Accidental death or suicide would have been the only other options for the driver and it certainly was no accident.

Unlawful killing for the others in the car would have required proof that it was murder or manslaughter and the evidence obviously didn't support that.

Penfailed

embraer170 wrote: »

http://www.80mg.org.uk/guide.html

3 times the 80mg limit would be 240mg. If the above link is to be believed, that would probably be 6 or more pints.

The limit in the south is 50mg...he was at 159mg.

gctest50

embraer170 wrote: »

The root cause was whatever caused him to decide that driving on the slip was a good idea. A contributory factor might have been the state of the slip.

Edit - The legal limit is 80mg. The inquest was told he was three times above the legal limit. That is 240mg or the equivalent of 6 pints for a normal sized male (not even accounting for the alcohol the body processes while drinking). http://www.80mg.org.uk/guide.html

He had a level of 159

embraer170

My mistake re the 240mg.

159mg is still 4 pints. That is not much better.

tayto lover

embraer170 wrote: »

My mistake re the 240mg.

159mg is still 4 pints. That is not much better.

I don't believe it goes by the actual amount you drank.
4 pints to one man is a lot but to another is very little.
The amount of sleep, food, body weight etc also comes into it.

John_Rambo

embraer170 wrote: »

The root cause was whatever caused him to decide that driving on the slip was a good idea. A contributory factor might have been the state of the slip.

Edit - The legal limit is 80mg. The inquest was told he was three times above the legal limit. That is 240mg or the equivalent of 6 pints for a normal sized male (not even accounting for the alcohol the body processes while drinking). http://www.80mg.org.uk/guide.html

It's not. Go away and learn all about slipways, algae and the legal drink driving limit before furiously typing in indignation.

anewme wrote: »

Without any alcohol would Mr. mcGrotty haven driven onto the slipway at all? We did not know, but it would certainly be considered when reaching the verdict.

That's the question. And you make a good point (rare on this thread lately). I'm sure it was taken in to consideration.

A few weeks after the accident I was in Mullaghmore and four cars drove down the slip to get the view. From their windscreens, before executing ridiculous 20 point turns and reversing through surfers, jetskis and trailers. The mind boggles.

Hannibal_Smith

Nevermind...delete post

embraer170

John_Rambo wrote: »

It's not. Go away and learn all about slipways, algae and the legal drink driving limit before furiously typing in indignation.

And keep sticking your head in the sand about how alcohol impairs judgement.

He might have had 1 pint or he might have 5 but he got behind the wheel 3 times above the legal limit.

gctest50

anewme wrote: »

Without any alcohol would Mr. mcGrotty haven driven onto the slipway at all? We did not know, but it would certainly be considered when reaching the verdict.

If he had 4 more drinks he might have went to bed for the evening

embraer170

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't believe it goes by the actual amount you drank.
4 pints to one man is a lot but to another is very little.
The amount of sleep, food, body weight etc also comes into it.

Quote from the Irish Times:

A doctor who conducted the postmortem into the five deaths said that there were indications of “elements of intoxication” in the blood and urine of Mr McGrotty.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/buncrana-tragedy-driver-three-times-over-alcohol-limit-inquest-told-1.3300894

John_Rambo

tayto lover wrote: »

Who told you he only had three?

An educated guess to be honest Tayto lover. One drink would usually mean 50mg or thereabouts. The deceased was 159mg. I'm saying three drinks or less as apposed to the drama knee jerk six pints guess. But... I know you have a point I could be wrong.

John_Rambo

embraer170 wrote: »

And keep sticking your head in the sand about how alcohol impairs judgement.

No, I'm not advocating drink driving or how it affects us. Believe me, I'm one of those people that can't drive after a small glass of wine.

But I'm very aware and have seen the results of untreated slipways covered in a couple of years of algae and the traction they offer to even the best of off-road vehicles. I was one of the first to point it out on this thread when scant details of the accident were breaking. I've rescued people from them in the past on two occasions.

tayto lover

John_Rambo wrote: »

An educated guess to be honest Tayto lover. One drink would usually mean 50mg or thereabouts. The deceased was 159mg. I'm saying three drinks or less as apposed to the drama knee jerk six pints guess. But... I know you have a point I could be wrong.

If you are not used to drinking 2 pints might have you on your ear. If you have not slept the same thing could happen after 2 pints no matter how big a drinker you are. Food is another factor, Body weight, regularity of drinking, humour etc. There are so many factors. I don't believe it goes by the amount of drink as two people could drink the same amount but act considerably differently.
I won't even have one pint and drive nowadays.

JCX BXC

As someone who had to attend a harrowing inquest in regards to a close friend who died in 'tragic' self inflicted circumstances a few years ago, I feel as if lessons must be learned and in order for this to happen, discussion must happen.

Many close to the victims will take value in the lives not been taken in complete vain, at least it may prevent similar deaths in future if lessons are learned.

Allinall

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

As soon as that vehicle started sliding the doors should have been opening

Unless you were comatose the natural reaction is to get out

How do you know the natural reaction would be to get out?

Have you been in that situation?

I haven't , but before this tragedy, I would think my natural reaction would be to try and reverse back up the slipway.

strandroad

anewme wrote: »

Without any alcohol would Mr. mcGrotty haven driven onto the slipway at all? We did not know, but it would certainly be considered when reaching the verdict.

There's many potential aspects but no one will ever know.
Perhaps doors would be unlocked quicker (if they were on child/central lock).
Perhaps he would think and ask the others to vacate the car while manoeuvring on the slipway.
Perhaps he knew he was impaired and wanted to switch with one of the women in the car later but they knew they slipway is tricky and he knew his car best.
Perhaps the car was in a wrong gear. A friend of mine pinned a relative against the wall after a few drinks; they asked him to move the car to the back of the house and he put the car in a wrong gear (first not reverse) out of habit.

I think that it's ultimately helpful that the drink driving aspect was raised, perhaps it will make someone stop and think about similar situations. I certainly did. It's not just speed that is dangerous while impaired, it's the small decisions too.

John_Rambo

tayto lover wrote: »

If you are not used to drinking 2 pints might have you on your ear. If you have not slept the same thing could happen after 2 pints no matter how big a drinker you are. Food is another factor, Body weight, regularity of drinking, humour etc. There are so many factors. I don't believe it goes by the amount of drink as two people could drink the same amount but act considerably differently.
I won't even have one pint and drive nowadays.

Same here and I agree with every part of your post. I know where you're coming from. But, experience tells me the slip, the algae, the pitch, the incline and the water had more to do with the tragedy. People are not aware of how bad they can be. I've rescued stone cold sober people from them.

Edit - you're talking to someone who has and always had a window hammer/seatbelt cutter mounted on the dash and a canoeing throwbag in the glove compartment.

gctest50

embraer170 wrote: »

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't believe it goes by the actual amount you drank.
4 pints to one man is a lot but to another is very little.
The amount of sleep, food, body weight etc also comes into it.

Quote from the Irish Times:

Dr Dillon could not say whether the level of alcohol in Mr McGrotty’s system had impaired his driving.

That would depend on a number of factors including whether he was a habitual drinker, she added.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/buncrana-tragedy-driver-three-times-over-alcohol-limit-inquest-told-1.3300894

.

Roger_007

All the reaction that I've seen is focused on the blood alcohol level of the driver. While that is important, there is another factor which seems to have impeded any rescue efforts, and that is the inability to open the doors or windows of the car and allow at least some of those inside to escape, or be rescued.
Unfortunately there are many instances where vehicles go into water. Not enough attention is paid as to to how those inside are to escape, especially children who, by law, must be strapped into rear seats.
The evidence of the man who bravely attempted to rescue those inside the car was gut-wrenching.
Cars should be fitted with an emergency button or handle which would release all seat belts and door locks.
We will never know how many of those lives could have been saved if they could have got out quickly.
However, none of this will get any attention. All the focus, on this thread and in the media generally, will be on the blood alcohol level of the driver.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

People know damn well the risks involved driving with drink taken. What lessons could be learned? What "good" as another poster mentioned, could possibly come from the inquest verdict? At the end of the day a family died tragically. A woman is broken. A man will forever carry the moment he saw in to that car.

May the rest in peace.

To try get the message across that drink driving is a terrible idea. If only one person decides to hang up the car keys after a few pints it will have served some purpose.

People do know the risks involved, yet they continue to do it. Hence why there will be media coverage of the inquest verdict to get people to be aware of the dangers. Especially as we are now heading into Christmas, which is peak season for drink driving.

SEPT 23 1989

Did the inquest give an indication of what speed the vehicle entered the water?

Penfailed

Allinall wrote: »

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

As soon as that vehicle started sliding the doors should have been opening

Unless you were comatose the natural reaction is to get out

How do you know the natural reaction would be to get out?

Have you been in that situation?

I haven't , but before this tragedy, I would think my natural reaction would be to try and reverse back up the slipway.

The car was found to be in reverse gear when it was recovered from the Swilly.

CeilingFly

Roger_007 wrote: »

While that is important, there is another factor which seems to have impeded any rescue efforts, and that is the inability to open the doors or windows of the car and allow at least some of those inside to escape, or be rescued.
Unfortunately there are many instances where vehicles go into water. Not enough attention is paid as to to how those inside are to escape, especially children who, by law, must be strapped into rear seats.

I'd totally disagree - yesterday's evidence was primarily about alcohol level and thus was the main reporting point. Today's was about the car and how escaping would work and audi engineers were there giving evidence - they could not understand how the door could not be opened as even in case of all power failure, the opening of doors from inside is a manual operation and would work no matter what.

Exception would be rear doors if childlock was on.

Another aspect (i think) is he recently purchased this car, so may not have been fully aware of everything - possibly because its four-wheel drive he was trying to show its capabilities?

The inquest certainly gave some interesting information.

screamer

My heart goes out to the poor woman and her little girl. It's awful to have to go through an inquest a month before Christmas. What difference it makes as to who did what etc I don't know. It won't bring them back. I hope she can find peace and some way to keep going in what must be a nightmare situation for her. I wish her and her little girl nothing but the best, they deserve that.

Dial Hard

Roger_007 wrote:

Cars should be fitted with an emergency button or handle which would release all seat belts and door locks.

The Q7 has a button that releases all door locks. The issue (and it would be the same for a button that releases seatbelts) is that you can't legislate for a) how individual people will react in an emergency and b) how electrics will react in water.

embraer170

John_Rambo wrote: »

Same here and I agree with every part of your post. I know where you're coming from. But, experience tells me the slip, the algae, the pitch, the incline and the water had more to do with the tragedy.

And the decision to get on the slip?

I am breaking the speed driving at 120km/h into a narrow bend. I crash the car. The root case is that I am breaking the speed limit. A contributory factor might be the narrow bend.

I am breaking the law by being 3 times above the drink driving limit. I drive down a slip. Is the root cause really the slip or the decision to drive down the slip?

Atlantic Dawn

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Did the inquest give an indication of what speed the vehicle entered the water?

I didn't see any mentioned in the media, to me it looked more like the driver perhaps parked on the slipway to watch the scenery and then when they decided to move off there was zero traction as the tyres were on the moss/algae and the car pretty much slid in to the sea and then off the edge of the submerged slipway in to deep water. The Q7 is nearly 2.5 tons in weight.

RhubarbCrumble

screamer wrote: »

My heart goes out to the poor woman and her little girl. It's awful to have to go through an inquest a month before Christmas. What difference it makes as to who did what etc I don't know. It won't bring them back. I hope she can find peace and some way to keep going in what must be a nightmare situation for her. I wish her and her little girl nothing but the best, they deserve that.

And to Davitt Walsh too. I don't think there's even a word to describe him. Hero doesn't come anywhere near close. He should be so so proud of himself for what he did.

Penfailed

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Did the inquest give an indication of what speed the vehicle entered the water?

I didn't see any mentioned in the media, to me it looked more like the driver perhaps parked on the slipway to watch the scenery and then when they decided to move off there was zero traction as the tyres were on the moss/algae and the car pretty much slid in to the sea and then off the edge of the submerged slipway in to deep water. The Q7 is nearly 2.5 tons in weight.

Yep.  They were supposedly there to watch the sunset.

strandroad

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I didn't see any mentioned in the media, to me it looked more like the driver perhaps parked on the slipway to watch the scenery and then when they decided to move off there was zero traction as the tyres were on the moss/algae and the car pretty much slid in to the sea and then off the edge of the submerged slipway in to deep water. The Q7 is nearly 2.5 tons in weight.

It was reported at the time that the driver was trying to execute a three point turn. Not sure if the inquest confirmed it.