News RSS Feed


News index forum banner.

Crash driver was travelling at more than 90mph

7:20am Thursday 6th December 2007

comment Comments (15)   Have your say »


A DRIVER who was killed when his car came off the A40 and ploughed into a tree was travelling at more than 90mph, an inquest has heard.

Gerard Hyland, 43, was driving from Beaconsfield towards High Wycombe on July 30 this year when he crashed his Mercedes E320 into the tree on a bend near the Wyevale garden centre.

The speedometer on the car froze when the electrics in the car cut out on impact, and the needle was between 95 and 96mph.

A post-mortem exam found that Mr Hyland, who lived in Cookham Dean, had two and a half times the legal amount of alcohol in his blood at the time of the crash.

Witness Lucy O'Shea told the inquest at Amersham Coroner's Court yesterday afternoon that she had seen the silver Mercedes approaching the roundabout at the junction of Wycombe End and Aylesbury End in Beaconsfield before the crash.

She said: "I saw the Mercedes come onto the roundabout without looking. It ended up on the roundabout. He got onto the straight and just floored it. I've never seen a car go so fast."

Miss O'Shea and her partner Dean Grant followed the car along the A40 to write down its registration number but lost sight of it. They saw a cloud of dust and turned into the garden centre entrance, and when they turned back out onto the A40 they saw the Mercedes had crashed.

PC Andrew Evans from Thames Valley Police told the inquest that Mr Hyland may have clipped a traffic island and lost control of the car.

The tree was embedded in the centre of the car and Mr Hyland suffered multiple injuries. Coroner Richard Hulett recorded a verdict of accidental death.


Your Say YourBucks Free Press

odbyt, High Wycombe says...
8:32am Thu 6 Dec 07

I hope this crash is put down to excessive alcohol not just speed!

Mr S Dragon, Moon Crescent says...
9:11am Thu 6 Dec 07

^^Quite^^

With all this speed kills nonsense I find NSL A roads plugged up with motorists chugging along at 30mph because they are led to believe that if they drive any faster a child will be removed from school and executed.

I expect that this drink drivers demise will be put down to excessive speed. Funny thing is though that I travelled 1000's of miles across europe at 80-90 mph and am still alive. Must be lucky I s'pose.

phisch21, Chalfonts says...
9:20am Thu 6 Dec 07

Had he been travelling at 50mph he may still be alive. The faster you go, the more chance of being killed in a colision.

Steve, Totteridge Hill says...
9:43am Thu 6 Dec 07

If Coroner Richard Hulett has recorded a verdict of accidental death, does that mean he was accidentally drunk and also quite accidentally speeding?

Mr S Dragon, Moon Crescent says...
9:52am Thu 6 Dec 07

phisch21 wrote:
Had he been travelling at 50mph he may still be alive. The faster you go, the more chance of being killed in a colision.
Depends, Crash into a tree at 30mph and you are more likely to die/be seriously injured than if you crash into a wheat field at 100mph.

Depends also on whether he was wearing a seatbelt, in which case crash at 30mph is going to limit his chances.

Etc

HTH

local, bucks says...
10:28am Thu 6 Dec 07

Steve wrote:
If Coroner Richard Hulett has recorded a verdict of accidental death, does that mean he was accidentally drunk and also quite accidentally speeding?
It would seem so yes. I just thank god that nobody else was involved,i.e an innocent motorist, doing a sensible speed, and not tanked up with alcohol. Nobody likes to speak ill of the dead, but I would have thought at 43years old, he would have known better.

m, Wycombe says...
11:26am Thu 6 Dec 07

at 43years old, he would have known better.

He did know better, but he may have been dealing with the pressures of a mid-life crisis (although it was at the end of his life - but he did not know that when he left the house that morning) Fact is he's no longer with us and there's nothing anyone can do to change that. Let him now rest in peace.

Amen...

phisch21, Chalfonts says...
12:05pm Thu 6 Dec 07

Depends, Crash into a tree at 30mph and you are more likely to die/be seriously injured than if you crash into a wheat field at 100mph.

What a ridiculous remark!


local, bucks says...
12:18pm Thu 6 Dec 07

m wrote:
at 43years old, he would have known better.
He did know better, but he may have been dealing with the pressures of a mid-life crisis (although it was at the end of his life - but he did not know that when he left the house that morning) Fact is he's no longer with us and there's nothing anyone can do to change that. Let him now rest in peace. Amen...
everbody is entitled to their own opinion - mine is drink driving coupled with speeding warrants little sympathy. It would actually be the people that he has left behind that I feel sorry for. And I repeat, no body likes to speak ill of the dead, but at 43 years old he should have known better, and thank god nobody else was injured or worse due to his actions. Sorry if your opinion is different.

Mr S Dragon, Moon Crescent says...
1:14pm Thu 6 Dec 07

phisch21 wrote:
Depends, Crash into a tree at 30mph and you are more likely to die/be seriously injured than if you crash into a wheat field at 100mph.
What a ridiculous remark!
why?

You said speed kills I said nonsense.

Now I could be flippant and say crashing can kill but doesn't always, speed in itself doesn't kill in fact and as I "ridiculously" quoted it is easy to be killed at lower speeds in certain circumstances i.e. I'd rather side swipe a crash barrier on a motorway at 70mph than hit a tree head on at 30mph and there is a good chance that i'd walk away from the higher speed accident. How do I know? Been their and done that I am afraid. Never crashed into a tree but Euroncap will tell you that hitting a solid object even at low speed hurts a lot.

Back on topic the unfortunate driver had been boozing and this probably fuelled his invincible bravado which ultimately led to his premature demise. He shouldn’t even have been in the car let alone at an inappropriate speed for the conditions i.e. his inebriation. So in this case had he, in his intoxicated state, crashed at below 30mph into a tree he would still be with us and enjoying his relatively minor 1 year plus driving ban for his troubles. So I agree with you that in this case his excessive speed contributed to his demise. Now you go and google speed doesn’t kill and find the GOVERNMENT transport stats which state how many road deaths were as a direct result of excessive speed, I think you might just say “oh!”

HTH

RIP Mr Hyland and thank the Lord that nobody else was involved.

billsheppard, Whycome says...
1:29pm Thu 6 Dec 07

I think the point is the faster you drive, it becomes more and more unlikely you'll be able to avoid wrapping yourself around a tree, and more unlikely slight lapses in concentration (like clipping a traffic island in this case) will lead to serious or fatal accidents.
Maybe the slogan should be changed to "inappropriate speed kills", though it can't really be contested that driving at 90 down the A40 in Beccy is totally inappropriate.

phisch21, Chalfonts says...
4:04pm Thu 6 Dec 07

I didn't say speed kills, I said that increased speed increases your chance of being killed - obviously in the same accident. if you hit a tree travelling at 30mph, your injuries are likely to be less than those caused by the same collision at 50mph or 70mph or 90mph.

Hans Schmidt, High Where says...
4:37pm Thu 6 Dec 07

Well thankfully this idiot didn't injure anyone else when he decided to drink and drive. He won't get a second chance and that has to be a good thing.

fedup, Bucks says...
7:09pm Thu 6 Dec 07

If you have alcohol in your bloodstream at a time of a accident then that with impaired responds caused the dreadful accident that cost a life .... Speed and alcohol do not mix .... Sorry to the family of they loss ....

Steve, Totteridge Hill says...
10:53pm Thu 6 Dec 07

local wrote:
Steve wrote: If Coroner Richard Hulett has recorded a verdict of accidental death, does that mean he was accidentally drunk and also quite accidentally speeding?
It would seem so yes. I just thank god that nobody else was involved,i.e an innocent motorist, doing a sensible speed, and not tanked up with alcohol. Nobody likes to speak ill of the dead, but I would have thought at 43years old, he would have known better.
Is that not the point...?

He willingly got behind the wheel of a car and drove with excessive speed putting more than himself at risk.

I'm not a religious person but there must have been some serious luck that he only killed himself.

I wonder what the coroners verdict would have been if another were to have died? This was no accidental death this was suicide and any insurance policy that benefits those he left behind must not be paid out.
What if it had been that one of his possible victims didn't have insurance?

Again he drove whilst under the influence of alcohol willingly, he was in control of the throttle and should have driven slower.

This is not an accident this is suicide...an accident waiting to happen with intent!

Comments are closed on this article.

Local Links


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »