Safe Speed Forums

But if you'd gone up the back of said HGV it would've been totally your fault.

If you had pulled around it without looking and put yourself in the path of a vehicle in L2 that struck you then it would have been mostly your fault (of course, said driver probably should've excercised more constraint when seeing the situation ahead, although many speed up to block the driver who they see is about to pull out in front of them).

If you had pulled out to go around it and struck a vehicle in L2 it would be your fault.

I'm not seeing the HGV driver to blame in any of these situations.

The real issue was that she didn't realise it was UNacceptable behaviour.

DVLA "driving at a glance", MS:
Group1:
Providing medical assessment confirms that
driving performance is not impaired, can be
licensed. A short period licence may be
required. Should the driver require a
restriction to certain controls, the law requires
this to be specified on the licence.

Group2:
Refusal or revocation if condition is
progressive or disabling. If driving
would not be impaired and
condition stable, can be considered
for licensing subject to satisfactory
reports and annual review.

The ddoctor should have obtained some advice.

Has anyone seen the quote from BRAKE over on crash.net

http://www.crash.net/motoring/roadcars/news/article/20405-0/woman_banned_for_driving_too_slowly.html



There is a thread running over in General Gassing on PH about it.


In the early 90's a friend had a Triumph Herald as her every day car and we went to stay at friends in Burnley (from Blackpool). Going over it was nice and sunny, but I was still very uncomfortable being in a car unable to do more than 40mph on the motorway. Coming back the next day it was chucking it down, the wipers could only just keep the windscreen clear. That was the most scared I've been in a car to this day.

Fault and blame, utterly useless concepts, except for the insurance companies when they are figuring out who is going to pay.

It would not be unreasonable to consider the root cause of an incident as the one at the head of the 'accident chain', and one that can be learnt from in order to prevent a recurrence. Clearly the woman's presence on the motorway, at 10mph was this event. The lesson to be learnt to prevent recurrence is clearly that vehicles shouldn't be on the motorway at 10mph, not that we should expect to see more of them!

Jeepers f*****g Creepers! Are they mad?

She was straddling L1 and the hard shoulder, with no visible warning that she was going so slowly, at speeds well below what is expected from such a driver straddling L1 and the hard shoulder with no visible warning that they were going slowly. She posed enormous risk to other drivers. Simply remaining within the hard shoulder, with hazard lights on, would have been much safer, but even that is still much more dangerous than the typical driving on the carriageway.

I think from their comment I can deduce that Lorna Jackson (and whoever she was speaking for) does not drive, let alone on motorways.
The only strange message to drivers is that one from Brake!

Excellent post, diy, I quite agree.

And I think we could all (especially Brake) do well to consider RoninXe's post about "the accident chain". Excellent concept, I like it, sort of retrospective risk assessment.

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

Correct mate. She was, to all intents and purposes, posing much the same risk that a completely stationary obstruction in the carriageway would pose. Yes drivers should be on the lookout for obstructions ahead but to say that this person was psoing no risk to others is utterly insane.

In fact, I was moved to send this to Brake:

Me
Telford
Shrops

Brake comments on 10mph motorway driver.

Sir/Madam,


Having read the comments of Brake spokesman Lorna Jackson regarding the case of Stephanie Cole I feel compelled to write and express my amazement at such a stance.

The assertion that Mrs Cole was not endangering anyone by driving at 10mph is a statement that I am certain most drivers who travel regularly on Britain's motorways will find difficulty in relating to and one which the court clearly does not agree with. It is not always absolute speed that creates a hazard; on a motorway with a mass of vehicles travelling in the same direction the relative speeds between them become very significant. Yes, drivers should be looking out for potential obstructions ahead, but with a potential speed difference of 60 or 70 mph between her own vehicle and those around her, Mrs Cole presented much the same hazard as a stationary obstruction in the carriageway and she was quite rightly charged with failing to consider other road users; in the context of a busy motorway a much more serious offence than driving at 80 mph amongst other vehicles doing the same thing.

I am sure Brake does some exemplary work in the name of road safety, but I fear that in trying to constantly overstate the danger of 'speed' whilst, effectively condoning the driving of someone who was presenting a real danger to those around on the apparent basis that she wasn't speeding, is unlikely to attract the average driver to your door.



Yours respectfully

Me

dear BRAKE,

I was interested to see you views regarding the recent Mrs Cole 10mph case and was hoping that you would use your influence at the DSA to help me with an appeal I am considering. You see I have taken my driving test over 10 times now and every time I was failed for not making progress. I can't understand this. I carefully followed the advice on your web site and made sure that my speed was always well below the speed limit. In some situations I was certain that I was travelling 5 x below the limit in clear safe open roads. Yet each attempt resulted in a fail. I just don't understand. after all speed kills, so how can I fail for not making progress?

your sincerely

Tim Stupid-n-Dim

Fair enough, but in the end if somebody had gone up the back of her they could only blame themselves.

Sure, if collisions had occured SHE might have been penalised, but so would any of the other drivers involved.

You can't just drive into the back of somebody on a motorway and expect to be let off scot free just becuase of the speed the other party was going at.

Weepej its not as clear as you think. There are no legal precedent that would guide a court. The inappropriate speed and failure to drive at a standard expected would certainly be taken into account. I suspect it would be 50/50. The driver in L1 could easily say they thought she was pulling on to the hard shoulder.

there have been many cases in courts were conventional rules of the road have been set aside. I noted recently one case of a motorcylist who was hit by a car coming the other way. The rider copped 50% of the blame even though the oncoming car was 1/2 a metre over the centre line on the wrong side of the road. The court held that the rider should have anticipated this.

That's what I'm saying though, just becuase this lady was driving at 10mph on a motorway does not mean she would've been 100% responsible for any collisions.

If you see somebody driving like that on a motorway, slow down, give them as much room as you can, put your hazards on if necessary and overtake at a sensible speed.

Only sh*t or idiotic drivers would actually collide with the car.

And if she'd caused a massive tailback and somebody two miles back drove into the back of somebody else, it would be their fault entirely.

They really have surpassed themselves this time haven't they? We've all seen a large number of sanctimonious, silly comments from Brake over the years, but I don't remember reading anything quite as insane (and potentially dangerous) as that little gem.

They've completely lost the plot. They seem to have lost sight of their original, admirable aims, and instead now worship the speed limit to the exclusion of seemingly everything else. If only we could get through to them using logic, which should in theory be possible; they're not a bunch of liars who just pretend to be interested in road safety for the sake of money (such as Campaign for "Better" Transport, who by definition only care about the profits of bus and train companies). It's undeniable that Mary Williams genuinely wants safer roads, so she must presumably have been brainwashed, or she's in denial. Maybe Brake have in some way been "got to" by those with vested interests in cameras, because they didn't use to be obsessed with "speeding". Whatever the explanation, Brake are having the exact opposite effect of what was intended. We would have been better off without them after their first few years. It really is very sad. They could have done so much good by now.

I suspect that even the C+ trolls and other rabid camera supporters wouldn't be foolish or fanatical enough to claim that 10mph on the motorway was no more dangerous than 80mph. That has to be one of the most bizarre claims that I've ever heard, and (if it wasn't for the attendant dangers) I would encourage anyone making it to try both speeds for themselves. Presumably if one person doing 10mph is "not endangering anyone", then we could have lots of people doing 10mph (like we actually do have lots of people doing 80mph) and everything would still be OK.

I do actually feel sorry for Mrs Cole with her MS, and I hope everything works out for her in the end. She still shouldn't have chosen to drive on the motorway (or anywhere usually) at 10mph though, and hopefully she accepts that the ban was fair. TBH it can't have done her much good ending up in the national press. Maybe she can cash in somehow though, e.g. by having a TV programme made about her progress....

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

I don't really see how this observation helps at all. We are all responsible for what we do but there is behaviour that is reasonable and predictable, and that which isn't.

The Highway Code states:

253
Prohibited vehicles. Motorways MUST NOT be used by pedestrians, holders of provisional motorcycle or car licences, riders of motorcycles under 50 cc, cyclists, horse riders, certain slow-moving vehicles and those carrying oversized loads (except by special permission), agricultural vehicles, and powered wheelchairs/powered mobility scooters (see Rules 36-46 incl).
[Laws HA 1980 sects 16, 17 & sch 4, MT(E&W)R regs 3(d), 4 & 11, MT(E&W)(A)R, R(S)A sects 7, 8 & sch 3, RTRA sects 17(2) & (3), & MT(S)R reg 10]

Why are these vehicles and road users prohibited? Their maximum speed or rather the lack of it. It's the LAW, something you seem very keen to uphold regardless, and a good one in this case. And this woman wasn't travelling as fast as several of the prohibited vehicles can.

Are you now saying in this particular circumstance, that a very slow car on a motorway is no more to blame in the event of an accident than a pedestrian who has walking out into the road without looking?

Barkstar

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

I wasn't inferring that it WAS his fault (although I believe there is a minimum speed a vehicle must be capable of maintaining in order to use the motorway?), I was inferring that the presence of a vehicle moving that slowly compared to the other traffic, without some kind of beacon or warning device, presents a hazard.

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

Just to add...

It is quite possible to CAUSE an accident without being directly involved in it.

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

Throughout mainland Europe .. to drive at low speed like that ist ILLEGAL anyway.

The restrictions for SLOW vehicles are for reason anyway. The road ist designed for free flow traffic at up to 70 mph here und 80 mph upward in Europe depende on country or stretch of road.

If she not able to drive on such road .. then she like the learner und driver of the mlk float .. und the cyclist.. horse rider.. pedestrian und she use the normal A/B/C roads.

As for BRAKE


Riggers I am also going to be writing some letters or rather the Mad Doc ist. as he can spell ..


The lady was not only creating a needless hazard by driving so slowly on a fast road .. und weaving around .. she also not driving to the road condition which demand consideration to other road users too .. which mean not creating a jam or a brake wave or gridlock behind her.


We usually get warnings of "wide loads" und these very slow moving vehicles are escorted by police officers und also supported by the gantries warning of such a hazard as well.


She also weaving around L1 und Hard Shoulder too. That not safe on any road either.


I doubt if she pass extended test und I would suggest she get taxis or someone else to drive her if she really cannot drive above 10 mph.


At such a speed she create danger for a cyclist .. a horse rider because they not know what she intend either und what if she collide with them as they overtake thinking she pulling over at such a low speed? Or she justweave out into them?


No the judge was right to ban

_________________
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!

They sell at Asda etc these days.


Also refill places sometimes have ready fills available too if desperate whilst waiting of on-line shoppe to send out.



But if she had such a fear of driving.. und needed this cartridge so urgently.. why not book taxi to get there und back. Quick phone call und they would had ready to pick up for quick in und out too.

_________________
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!

Thats her obligation though isn't it?

I heard the doctor-patient confidentiality laws are another right that nazi labour want to take away though.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

The thing that some of the posts have missed on this is that it was a serving "Traffic Police Officer" who made the decision that this driver was a danger to other road users using his professional judgement.

This is something the police are paid to do as it could have been anyone who could have been driving to slow and they would have been prosecuted in the same way and because she was so slow she was a hazard to other road users and motorists.

The courts upheld this view by banning her and ordering her to re-take her driving test as there is a law in the highway caode that states that it is an offence to "Drive a motor vehicle without consideration for other road users" which covers a multitude of sins.

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut