Safe Speed Forums

Or Blackpool, by the Metropole!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I've missed out on that pleasure, but I have been to Blackpool (Yates Wine Lodge), Nottingham (Trip to Jerusalem) and Manchester (the Hacienda), but I didn't see many trains zooming down main street when I was there. There were some trolley buses, I admit, but they aren't quite the same thing, according my knowledgeable 6 year old, Dylan.

Being serious for a minute, though, we all know the basic principles - heavy, unpredictable stuff zooming around near vulnerable, unpredictable stuff is not highly desirable! That's all there is to it, really.

Weepej .. yo9u contradict yourself here.

The Cyclist CHOSE to RUN a RED LIGHT here. Red mean STOP! How many time do I have to remind you of Rule 69 of NEW Highway Code -which even give the STATUTE LAW broken - which ist CRIMINAL OFFENCE


You not answered question as to whether cyclist wise to break the law either. It not blaming the person or being "anit-cycling" - but we all have to obey the laws und you seem to suggest law appy to drivers, pedestrian. but not the cyclist here. which does not ring right to decent lawa abiding folk here.

We are not at all "hoons" who want to flout the law on this site. The militant cyclists are basically farting ne'erdo well chavs who play the system und fleece us all. They do not do the hard rides either. We have some evidence which suggest the identity of these persons und they have not ever ridden the Tourmalet either. Such feats require training. surfing every perceived petrolhead site or others does not allow such time for training und the mags .. C+ .. CW. Cyclosport und the foreign equives more than support my post here

The person farting the most? He does not ride. Cannot do so.

By volume of posts und the lurks.

To ride the major "col" or "mountain passes"// that take dedication. You cannot do this if monitoring every motoring or cycling site und spinny ist not being honest with anyone. He not a cyclist as we understand one to be. I coild say what I really think und know to be truth of matter.. but unlike said idiot/ - I think if I give enough rope he hang himself here

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I think people who text while driving should be jailed, along with drink drivers and druggged drivers. It is not possible to drive safely while doing any of these things. Personally I hate mobile phones anyway so I really dislike the idea of using them while driving, but I am not convinced that talking on one is automatically dangerous.

The cyclist in this case is entirely the author of his own misfortune and he has received the ultimate sentence. Even if the driver has been concentrating there is no guarantee that she would have missed him - he should not have been where he was and she had no reason to expect it.

If the cyclist had gone round a level crossing half barrier and got hit by a train would the likes of weepej be saying that it was the train drivers fault? I can see no difference between running a level crossing and running a red light. If the cyclist had just been injured and not died, would he have been prosecuted for jumping the red light?

Lets start with the truck-bashing again, shall we?

Actually I find that MOST HGVs are driven in a very predictable way, moreso than most cars and USUALLY the only problems happen when someone (usually in a car) does something stupid.

So she was texting almost a minute before she made the 999 call? How long do we suppose it would take to have the collision, realise what's happened and make the 999 call? THB that's probably fair indication that she was distracted by the phone at the time of the incident.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

If the train driver had his head down and was not looking then its entirely likely he would be prosecuted in that situation.

Also, if he was speeding (train tracks have speed limits too).

Both are examples of recklessness and neither have anything to do with somebody actually being on the track.

Remember just because something doen't happen doesn't mean it was safe to to it.

Let's put it another way, had a policeman seen somebody speeding and texting at the same time then the driver could be prosecuted for dangerous driving REGARDLESS of whether they hit anybody or not.

The logic here seems to be that because the cyclist jumped the red light then the driver could not have been driving dangerously.

Very strange.


The Road Traffic Act 1991 states that ‘a person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence’. [1]

A person is regarded as ‘driving dangerously’ if:
· The way they are driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
· It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous

I'll take it as a given that you don't want more heavy, unpredictable vehicles zooming around near vulnerable, unpredictable cyclists and pedestrians? Otherwise, we'll start putting pedestrian crossings on m-ways, and routing by-passes through shopping malls!



If I was searching for someone to blame, I would take that into account. But I'm not doing that yet. Before I attribute blame, I have to know the cause. Cause and blame are very different, as you will know as an engineer. Only when you know the cause can you go on to attribute blame.

Assuming that the cause of an event is the total set of all the preconditions (just a suggestion?), heavy vehicles zooming around near vulnerable ones is not highly desirable, if any of the parties behaves unpredictably (which we know). That is not "truck bashing", Sixy, although if it bashes trucks as a side effect, I'm happy with it!

In the case you describe (big truck, stupid little car driver), it only takes one of the parties to be unpredictable - it doesn't much matter which.

Probably, and the car driver would ALSO likely have been prosecuted for dangerous driving.

Can't quite get why you don't understand this concept, BOTH parties can be in the wrong and BOTH parties can be prosecuted for it.

If the cyclist had survived, do you think he would have been given a custodial sentence?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Perhaps if it could be shown that he was texting at around the time?!?

But not for going through a red light?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

A custodial sentence for going through a red light?

No, FPN of £30.00 is the norm I think.

But then the law rightly reflects the serious of the offence in the context of its potential, and it will rightly distinguish between travelling at 45 mph through a junction in a one tonne vehicle whilst not looking, or going through a red light on a cycle.

In the same way as arson is an offence, but there's going to be a difference in perspective if I set light to a hotel full of people, or my next door neighbours dog house. Both are arson, but you would expect the first one to be met with a much stiffer response from the law because of the potential for harm.

He's dead Dixie, he can't be charged for going through a red light.

That what it adds up too. The score was "1 all" i.e. she was doing 40 in the 30 zone, and he blew the light. But then she texted, so the score was 2:1. If he had texted too, it would be "2 all", and they'd both get jail time (had he survived) or both be let off.

Maybe that's how blame is totted up, along with weepeg's comments on proportionality? They were both wrong, but the driver was way wronger.

Dixie, you seem to be arguing here that the driver should have never been charged simply because the person she hit had previously broken the law, even though it was shown she was not driving with due care and attention.

A strange president to set.

I'd say the score went like this:

he jumps lights 0-1
she's speeding, a bit, still 0-1 but is on a yellow card
she's on the phone 1-1
he's got no lights 1-2
or helmet 1-3

To jail her when he jumped the lights is very harsh. Why did he not hear or see HER, if he wants to jump the lights he can't just blunder out into the traffic. What if she had swerved and hit a lamp post, would he have been prosicuted or just peddled like hell away from the seen? The latter would be my guess.

If she was not on the phone and still hit him and he had still died, what would the outcome be?

Hmm.



She may well have been driving dangerously, but the accident was not as a direct result of this. The colision was as a direct result of the cyclist jumping the red.

Even if she haddnt been driving "dangerously" she still may well have hit him (or him her IYSWIM) under these circumstances.

She would not (Could not!) have hit him if he had stopped at the red light, as he was required by traffic law to do so, regardless of how bad her driving may have been.

Justice would have been better served (as well as the road safty message) with a convition for DWDC or even DD, But NOT "causing death by" either.

It is reasonable that she should be held accountable for her own foolishness, she should not be held accountable for another persons, however unfortunate the outcome.

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

exactly,

Don't jump the lights, if you do you might die. It is not unreasonable to expect to be able to go on green. It is not unreasonable to expect the traffic that is on a red to be stopped so you (on green) can go, or what is the point in having traffic lights?

You need to get the law changed then Dusty, because it states: -

A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/uk ... 1-pb1-l1g1


Nothing there about who you hit, and what they are doing when they are hit.

Focuses the mind somewhat a? That if you drive stupidly and end up killing somebody (even though you didn't mean to) you're under a DBDD.

I think this is right, it reflects the level of responsibility people have to others when they pilot a motorised vehicle at speed, a level of responsibility that many don't comprehend IMO, it seems neither do you, certainly she didn't appear to.

The question you might like to ask was what would the law have done if she had been killed and not the cyclist.