Safe Speed Forums

Beside the point. I was talking about the cause, not the effect



You're quite wrong there.
The longer your eyes are off the road the greater the probability of of coming across something in your path while you're not looking - regardless of your speed.
Just like the longer you spend outdoors during a thunderstorm the greater your chance of being struck by lightning, regardless of how fast (or slow) you're running.

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

That's an invalid comparison, because there isn't a common point of reference.
Besides, by her own admission, she wasn't observing the junction at all at the time, so 1/3 of 0 is still 0.

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

it seems to me she did look:



going slower = more time to be looking

She was looking to her right - not straight ahead. Where was she looking in the four or five seconds before she reached the junction? If the cyclist had been in the junction in that time, and she had been looking ahead, she would have seen him. If the cyclist had not been in the junction during that time then he must have pulled into the junction when she was literally right on top of him - in which case one has to ask why. Where was he looking?



...or more time to be not looking
If she only started observing when she was already within the junction then the difference would have been a very small fraction of a second.

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

I think the person who was not looking was the cyclist, sadly.

What was he doing? Scared he'd be late for work and like the old lady in the other thread- misjudged the speed of the other vehicle? Fiddling with his iPod? Or in a bit of a daydream?

We will never know.

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

For a little clarity we need to start at the beginning. Not at the point of impact.

He cycled up to the lights. Looking over his left shoulder he had a good view down the road the car was approaching along. It's straight for some distance. He then proceeded through a red light and some distance later into the path of an oncoming car. I can't understand why didn't he see the car? Unless it was still some distance away and approaching at very high speed - so he thought he had time. Perhaps he was so far across the area where the lanes merge he thought the car was bound to see him and be forced to react. We'll never know.

As for the driver. Given the angle the roads merge at it seems possible she may not have seen him. But in that case he must have been going at quite a lick to get in front of her having been out of her direct line of sight behind the A-Pillar. Not impossible but much more like to end in a near miss. I wonder if the police tried a re-enactment?

Given what we know and the road layout I think she drove though a green light and relaxed her concentration. It doesn't look like she did a life saver - looking to check to her right to see if anything had come through the lights the cyclist did. We only have her word for whether she was still chewing on her cornflakes or messing with a phone, stereo, make-up, map, drink, food, or whatever. Can't help thinking if she was ever going to have seen him it would have been much earlier - as she crossed the TL line - and not even a near miss.

The obsession about the phone is missplaced - its a distraction and an illegal one, but a car contains plenty that aren't. If he hadn't gone through the red light and then failed to pay attention he still be alive. But it seems the court is intent on hanging her out to dry in an effort to hammer home the moblie phone message - this is the wrong case for that.

It is wrong to use a headlines like 'Driver sending text killed cyclist'.
'Cyclist rode through red light into path of car' would do it or 'Red light jumping cyclist killed by inattentive driver' for a more balanced view.

In essence he was foolish and she took her eye off the ball.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

The only fact we know for sure is that the cyclist went through a red light. Everything else is circumstantial at best.
The only thing which would positively have prevented the collision is if he hadn't gone through the red light. The woman could have been doing 200mph, sending a text, been having sex and been watching TV all at the same time and there would not have been a collision.

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

If that's the case then he misjudged the time he had by 1/3 - and, considering that he was reportedly 2/3 of the way across, he would just have made it to the other side had she been doing 30 - and been at the same point when he first saw her. that means he would have been cutting things very fine indeed - either that or he expected her to slow down for him.

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

Or he did not see her at all.

I wonder if he went into autopilot? Just automatically cycled on, whilst his mind was somewhere else? I nearly got run down by doing that. This happened nearly 40 years ago, but I remember it very well.

Last thing I remember was leaving the house to walk to school, next thing I remembered was a driver hooting his horn and giving me a mouthful of abuse. And I remembered none of the ten minute walk in-between the two events. I'd just stepped off the path into the road.

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

The more I read of this, the more I think there's more politics than justice in this prosecution.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

Then there's a far greater chance of not hitting somebody still in the junction.

Its not hard is it.

For many drivers green light seems to mean, "put your foot down, shut your eyes and hope for the best", with a single orange meaning "put your foot down a bit harder, shut your eyes and hope for the best" and a red sometimes apparently meaning "totally gun it, you're already in the wrong and you need to get through the junction as quickly as possible regardless of the consequences".

No, green light means proceed with caution, orange light means stop.

Is there CCTV footage? How do we know this?

(from past form it probably says there was in the article)

He could have waited and gone through a green light and still been struck.

If somebody isn't looking at all its entirly possible they could go through a red light and hit somebody coming through a green light.

I've seen cars go straight through red lights as if they weren't there.

It possibly meant the same for the cyclist, too, Weepej.

"Let's race across before that car reaches..." BANG! too late....

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/wear/7221630.stm

The guilty party admitted the offence in this case. It was adequately prosecuted under DWDCA legislation, the Mobile phone law wasn't in force at the time if I recall correctly?

[edit]
The "safespeed" campaign used to make much of the distraction that Paul believed looking at the Speedo caused during the driving activity. Whilst I disagree with the whole anti-mobile phone law (it's bad law - the loopholes on frequenct will be exploited, it was adequately covered by DWDCA) I can't ever see an excuse for texting or even reading texts whilst the vehicle is moving.

just my opinion!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

The case is being prosecuted on this basis: "It is a driver. She owns a mobile phone. And had, at some time prior to the accident, used it! Therefore she is guilty!"

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

It is next to impossible to have an accident which is not partly caused by speed. How come? Just imagine the same scenario with all parties perfectly stationary. See - no accident! It's just the way it is.



There are several things wrong with your analysis. Let's take just one of them.



If you go fast enough, you will not "see" anything before you hit it. There would be no time to rationally perceive things. If you fly along at (say) 250 kph in the 20 zone, there are many things you will not see, and you will hit them, absolutely for sure. If you are go about at 10 mph in the 20 zone, there are fewer things you will not see, and you will hit none of them. Crashes usually involve speed in their causation.

I'm talking about that particular collision

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

...which I choose not to answer. Life's too short

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

Well, how about thisample?

I saw a car driving through a green light and a cyclist hurtled towards the junction, did not stop and ran smack into the side of the car.

The cyclist managed to get himself badly banged up, but it was entirely his fault.

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