Safe Speed Forums

15-20mph = 12 stitch gash to the head.

http://archive.oxfordmail.net/2004/9/4/8958.html

I reckon a back of the head wing mirror (for a higher up one) at 40mph could easily kill, and I have known somebody that had quite a lot of his wrist ripped out by a lower down one, he got several thousand pounds worth of compensation.

Lawks oh lordy, so I can't see three from where I sit at work then, includng one quite large one?

I've had stitches after being hit in the face by a cricket ball, and in the leg after a bicycle pedal went into it. A school friend was knocked unconscious by a golf ball, but another got nothing more than a nasty bump on the head after being hit by a shot-put ball

What injuries you incur in any particular collision depends on a myriad of factors.

Personally, I'd prefer not to be hit by a wing mirror (or anything else) at any speed.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Yeess, but I'd prefer to be hit by one travelling at 30 mph rather than 40.

And I suppose you'd also prefer to be hit by a bullet from a handgun rather than one from a rifle?

Or fall over a 100' cliff rather than a 150' one

Until such time that you've actually been hit by both you cannot really know.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

you wont get hit by a car or a wing mirror if you use the cycle lane and don't jump red lights,

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Marvellous post!

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

I've been in london for just over a month now and can honestly say that cyclists are a menace. I've had a number of very close calls when cyclists have done some mind boggling things.

But for the grace of god would I have been jailed if some cyclist had been killed in a collision with me. What if i'd recieved but not read a text a few minutes earlier by pure co-incidence, what if it had been alleged that I was looking at my sat nav simply because it was on??

My liitle boy is in creche and when I walk in i take extreme care not to stand on little kids flying around my feet.It not unlike driving in london.

not sure i agree.

if people are going to insist on slicing past my right elbow i'd rather they did it as quickly as possible.

i find somebody crawling past way too close at least equally scary as someone buzzing me.

I agree! Because you can't tell what a creeping driver will do! They are very unsettling.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Surely when overtaking a cyclist the speed of the car vs. the speed of the road is irrelevant, it's the speed of the car vs. the speed of the bike which matters? Bike @ 20mph (road speed) + car @ 25mph (road speed) = 5mph potential impact speed...?

It's the speed of the car vs. the cyclist (or horse) which I try to keep down, depending on how much gap I can leave.

_________________
Andrew.

I'd rather pass a bike wide and fast (within reason) than some people's approach of close & slow. I guess I like to get the period of hazard/conflict over asap.

Personally I have the PATIENCE to WAIT until there is adequate room for me to pass the cyclist allowing as much space as possible.

This includes using L2 on a multi-lane road. I mean, you're encroching into the next lane anyway, so you may as well use it fully FFS.

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

Kinetic force would be higher


Personally - prefer the car to pass me quickly and give me space as well.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Cor, becuase my words have been twisted so it looks like I've suggested I don't want cars to pass me when I'm on my pushbike at more than 5mph I'll state: -

If a vehicle passes to close to me I'd rather it was going 30 instead of 40 (but sure, not 5mph).

A good pass is done at the right moment, executed in a decent time, leaves a cyclist plenty of room, doesn't scare onconoming traffic and results in everybody still enjoying their journey afterwards instead of fuming at each other.

I should add that 98% of passes made on me when I'm on my bike are very good indeed.

And you didn't notice the cars and trucks (and pedestrians) also doing mind boggling things?

Normally "CW" would make a big deal of a naughty driver jailed for killing a cyclist.


However, this story has merited a very tiny article at the bottom of page 20. Somehow, this suggests the mag does not actually condone the cyclist as it's not demanding the key being thrown away this time However, the piece does report solely on the texting and alleged speed - but conveniently ignores the red light jumping aspect.


As said - the offence was handling the phone: this is constued as "using" - which is why I am trying to hammer this across to folk here. Holding a phone in your hands is an absolute


Forensics can perhaps prove at what point she hit the brakes...and the car's computer may hold some clues as to what the engine was doing at the time. I doubt that they were able to prove her speed as absolutely as reported in the press. The clues would be in tyre/skid marks left on the surface of the road. So - they would have an "idea" but not absolute proof - other than the fact she admitted she was above the speed limit - and may have conceded she was travelling at this wide margin over.

Much has been reported on the content of message received - but not the alleged text being sent at the time of the impact. Perhaps the press decided not to print the reply - or she had not actually hit the send button - but the reply was in evidence as created but not sent? I do not actually send text messages - prefer to call and leave a voice mail! If I want it in writing - I send e-mail on computer!



Wildy tells me that she has seen on the internet forum grapevine - some allegation that the phone was used one minute and the message read one minute or so before the 999 call was recorded from this mobile phone.

Thus, the headlines screaming "texting driver kills cyclist" would seem sensationalist reporting.


It stood a better chance of getting the message across that holding mobile phones whilst driving is not a good idea - by simply reporting that the driver collided with the red light jumper whilst picking up her ringing /buzzing telephone to read a text message and was daft enough/slave enough to the device to start a reply perhaps - with a firm message that it's best to switch off the device!

It should also have got across the idea that choosing to ignore a traffic light signal is also not "clever progress"

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I could argue that her 4 year sentence was harsh compared to this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/6983113.stm
The lad who died was not in any way to blame for his demise. he died after a week long battle. There was a systematic failure of safety yet the man only got 1 year.

Without arguing which sentence is wright or wrong I feel that the butcher was the bigger danger.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Ah yes the well defined and precise, 'a few inches'! (not from you Twister).

A Court would have a field day with this one. What is a few inches to one, is 3 feet to another.
If a car passes me when I am cycling with 3ft, I'd ask myself how was I looking so unsteady? or incompetent. This does not mean that it is wrong to give cyclist good room, for fear of that odd wobble, but in London I was quite happy that as long as I got about 14" I was quite happy, esp when the roads are narrow and space it tight. I could see that drivers were thinking and were very aware, and that was fine, just what we want.

As I have said in an interview on this - there is no replacement to drivers having better skills at the wheel. The right attitude and right awareness to their surrounds coupled, with a healthy responsible outlook goes far further than worrying about any extra way in which to continue to penalise a driver for careless driving, esp with a death punishment as opposed to simply using the existing law of death by dangerous driving.
We need more police on the roads not pushing paperwork. We need them to learn from the roads too, and behind a desk does not do this - along with pointless impracticable 'targets'. This devalues the police authority and pressurises a Force that already have a very stressful job, and does nothing for the credibility of the Police /Public relationship.

Far better to teach more about road awareness and skid control ... tackle the problem not the punishment phrase or point in Law.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

just for clarity, can you confirm who you beleive has twisted your words?