TBK-Light.com

For fuck's sake, Frank! You'd think a professional driver would know better than that. Idiot.

_________________
Check out the Touring Car Driver Database! (if you'd be so kind)
Motorsport playlists on YouTube

That is awful, and yet it happened over a year ago. This has been kept very very quiet. And how? I'm disappointed.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

I hope they through the book at him. I have absolute disgust for anyone that talks on their phone anyway, but to kill somebody doing it infuriates me even more.

And people must have known in the paddock. No wonder he's had issues this year.

Yes I agree, it is disgusting what has happened / what he has done but also disgusting that this has been known by people in the paddock, so teams, TOCA, Gow, media for over a year now and yet everyone has kept quiet as if nothing has happened.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

Absolutely.

In relation to TOCA etc, I suppose it would come down to the idea of who would actually know about it. I mean it's not something that you would shout from the rooftops but people would HAVE to have known about it. Looking at it from another side as well, is it really their business to say something like that and if he did tell people in the paddock then what did he actually say to them? What a crazy, disgusting situation.

You're absolutely right with your comments. And also, it could have been kept quiet as so not to prejuidice the forthcoming (at that time) trial as well as protect the business interests of BTCC, TOCA, the team, driver and sponsors.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

You know, we've all supported Frank from the moment he entered the BTCC and I feel really angry and disgusted with him. I honestly can't believe it!

Easy to keep something like that quiet before a trial, not so much once the trial starts.

He's pleaded not guilty, the evidence is pretty conclusive, I'd expect him to do substantial time for this, 7 years plus in consideration of his "stature", indicated continued refusal to acknowledge fault (by pleading not guilty) and being a racing driver by trade will go against him big time, he will be made an example of (and rightly so).

I was once stopped for speeding, 40 in a 30, the copper was very understanding, I'd just bought the car and I was still getting used to it, until he walked round the front and saw the Silverstone paddock pass in the window, he went ballistic and read me my rights there and then, bundled me into cuffs and said he was going to throw the book at me because I was a racing driver I should know better etc. etc., I managed to convince him that the pass was just that, a pass, carried over from the previous owner (it was 2 years old) and wiggled out of it, but the authorities really do take a dim view on racing drivers breaking the law.

That's really sad to read about someone who I supported.

I know we all make mistakes. I'm sure there are plenty of drivers here who have had a cheeky few seconds on the phone whilst driving (I'll admit that when I was a young driver, I might have answered a call to say 'I'll call you back, I'm driving.'). I don't even bother with that anymore, especially since the ban. What's so important that it can't wait? Or if it is, pull over. What's the point in risking it?

99% of the time, you'll get away with it. Frank didn't. That doesn't make the 99% any better than him, but ultimately he's robbed a family of their father, and I hope he is made to pay.

When I last went on a road trip with my friend, we had the window down, and pointed our camera at anyone on the phone whilst driving. Amazing how quickly some people dropped their phones.

Agree that the evidence against Frank is pretty clear and his judgement is pretty appalling, but this is the idea of innocent until proven guilty. What should the BTCC or Alan Gow have done? At the moment he's been accused but not found guilty, it's tricky territory penalizing someone for being accused before trial no matter how clear you think the evidence is.

_________________

If he's found not guilty, this was still an incredibly reckless and stupid thing to do and demonstrates the all too common mindset of motorists with regards to cyclists (I'm an occasional driver and a more regular cyclist who has been hospitalised by reckless driving) - that three seconds of their journey/their phone call is more important than a human life. If you think about it in those terms, it's very clear what the right and wrong things to do are, but so many people simply don't. When I cycle, I see all motor vehicles as a direct threat to my own life - not that they're trying to kill me, they're simply not trying not to.

If he's guilty, I have no sympathy and I hope the punishment fits the crime. I don't agree with him being made an example of simply because of his profession but I think far too many people get light punishments for killing or seriously injuring people through a simple lack of consideration for life.

A statement from Frank or TOCA (especially) would have biased a jury and I do think he's entitled to a fair trial, but I still have issues with him continuing to race (and potentially drive on the roads) whilst being investigated for vehicular manslaughter. He could perhaps have slipped away quietly rather than keeping going as if nothing has happened - incidentally, this tends to be what drivers who have collisions with cyclists do, in my experience.

As conclusive as it seems, I don't want to take anything the DM says as fact. Look at their headline - it's basically saying he DID do it. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

I read the story in the Lancashire Evening Post but their article is similarly weighted to prosecution evidence ... http://www.lep.co.uk/news/local/driver- ... -1-5818500

EDIT: If anything, the Mail article is probably this one with a few minor changes.

I think we're all guilty of doing something reckless behind the wheel at one stage or another, whether it is talking on a mobile, eating or drinking, taking your eyes off the road, a dangerous overtake, anything that distracts from driving. Certainly I am, I've done most of these. I'm not ashamed to admit it but I am ashamed of what I've done.

Now I'm not defending Wrathall, talking on a mobile while driving is unacceptable (but most feel it is and the authorities don't do enough about it), but there were two parties involved and we don't know what role the cyclist played. We know that cyclists need and deserve respect on the road but then there are also some that make their own lives difficult. Plus, while the article and the prosecution says that Wrathall was seen on his mobile at a certain point, there is no concrete evidence (unless they have phone records, which they'll be looking at) that he was using his phone at the moment of impact. And even then, how bad was the impact? Was there something on the ground or verge he hit, like a road sign or something that protruded from the verge? If that foreign object hadn't have been there, would he have survived and with minor injuries? Perhaps the rider failed to take evasive action. Perhaps he could have done more to ensure he had a safe passage to ride down, but instead chose to keep speed and not yield to Wrathall. Like I said, I'm not defending Wrathall but these are certainly things we should be considering and especially when (like ellis says) we're using facts presented to us by DM.

But coming full circle, and as we're all saying, if Wrathall is guilty then I hope he pays properly for what he's done. I'm still disgusted and disappointed that it has been over a year since this happened and yet we've been supporting and cheering him on as if everything was normal.

_________________
BTCC Pick Em's Champion 2010
Formula Fun Cup Champion 2013
http://www.the-fastlane.co.uk

Quite. Fortunately the mistakes I've made whilst driving haven't resulted in anything like this, but they probably could have done had I not been lucky rather than careful ... now I'm a very careful driver, partly because of my years spent as a cyclist - and I wasn't always a very careful cyclist either, but now I find cyclists who skip red lights or cycle the wrong way up one-way streets very annoying because they're not only endangering themselves through a sense of entitlement to ignore the rules of the road, but they're making any driver who sees them do it less likely to respect any cyclist they encounter two minutes later. I see myself as a fellow road user, and expect to be treated like one, however, whereas I generally feel treated as an annoying obstacle to be dealt with as quickly as possible.

In one of my accidents I was run off the road by a car going too quickly on a narrow road - technically I took evasive action, but I'm a capable cyclist experience in cycling on the road, and had cycled that route at least 100 times before, I don't just ride off the road for no reason. That's bad, but ordinarily I'd have hit a hedge and suffered some cuts. As it was, I was run off the road (took evasive action from a rear impact and left the road, if you prefer) into some road works and hit a construction vehicle, resulting in severe facial injury that if I hadn't been so lucky could have cost me an eye or an ear (the wound was exactly between the two, and deep enough to sever the ear and probably destroy my eye socket) and some fractures. The actions of the motorist resulted in my injury (it was either that or be hit from behind and probably run over) regardless of whether there would normally be road works by the road - the fact that there were actually makes his driving worse as he should have slowed further than the 30mph limit he was already ignoring. What's at the side of the road isn't a mitigating circumstance for Wrathall as far as I'm concerned - if he landed on a bouncy castle, that wouldn't make knocking him off a bike any better.

That said, the above all assumes that the cyclist didn't play a part in causing the collision, only that if he didn't and the collision is the fault of the driver, then so are the consequences of the collision. The cyclist may have had a role in it, that is as yet unclear.

we need to be careful.. Presumed Innocent and all that, im not defending Frank but there are two sides to every story and i dont think that getting hysterical here about it, although wont effect the outcome of a trial, but it will effect out own blood pressure!

From a personal note, where i work i have to pull from a side road onto a main road of an industrial estate and run the gauntlet of cyclists who work further down heading home.. quite a few times i have set of (and the road is very wide) as a cyclist has been going past.. i always give them plenty of room and accelerate away from them.
Not so long ago i had one pull up at the side of me, kick the car and berate me..
we then slotted into the long queue of traffic to head into town and the guy then proceeds to play chicken with oncoming cars and the slow moving traffic in front of me.. how he didn't get knocked off i'll never know!

What im trying to say is that even though somebody died, it doesn't necessarily make him the innocent party.

_________________
I think you should do what you want.

It's your forum and I paid the bills this year..

and if people don't like it they shouldComplain here

Indeed. I think my post went a bit one sided when I started talking about a personal incident, but I did intend it to be a bit more balanced with the mention that cyclists are frequently skipping red lights, cycling where they shouldn't be/in ways they shouldn't be and often are confrontational with motorists when they don't get respected as road users despite not acting like one ...

If he's guilty and (especially) was on his phone are still unproven ...

Warren Scott is confirmed in the 2nd Passat:

http://www.btcc.net/html/generalnews_detail.php?id=3473

Guys, he's done a terrible thing but I can't blame the BTCC, ITV or anyone for not saying anything about this until now.

We all know our libel and slander laws, saying "OMG Frank Wrathall killed someone last week!" even on something like Twitter or Facebook can get you in trouble with the law.

As we learnt from the whole Yewtree thing and how people were arrested just for retweeting and sharing various tweets or status', it's best to give a huge wide berth to any of these kinds of rumours (and they were just that at the time) until they become fact.

Once the court case is resolved (and there's no appeal) it's a closed matter and you can say what you want, but for now it's best to stay away. Even "Allegedy..." and "is accused of..." aren't good defenses in some cases.

But yeah, if it is true, shame on him for being such and idiot and throwing away not only everything he had built up but more important an innocent man's life on a momentary act of stupidity.

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley

Lets not get into this.....the whole battle for the roads thing between cyclists and drivers is as pointless as it is Top Gear.
To cyclists, they're the sainted do gooders being victimised by the selfish car drivers and to drivers the cyclists are all jobsworth quorn eaters who have no place being there, it's just pathetic.
And that's before you add motorcyclists into the argument. (S.M.I.D.S.Y)

In this case a cyclist has died and someone who should know better was allegedly (there's that word again) not paying full attention to the road.
It doesn't seem to matter if the Cyclist actively targeted the van, as soon as FW picked up that phone, he was at fault (if it is indeed the case and blah blah blah, plz don't sue me, etc )

_________________
RIP Birmingham Wheels: here's some of the crash videos I recorded when it was there:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIaKIE ... 5t9d5PvoHA

Twitter:

http://www.twitter.com/paulhadsley