Safe Speed Forums

Well, yes, in an ideal world, but that doesn't exist, so its a moot point.

About the best ideal world we have for high speeds are train tracks, a very controlled environment, only one train on the track at any one time, people prohibitied from being on the tracks, trains halted if another train is ahead of them on the same track.

Motoways and roads are not train tracks though.

Utterly ludicrous. Even if everyone else was a good driver, she would still be a danger. It really is as simple as "speed bad, slow good" in your mind, isn't it? Safety is inversely proportional to speed, end of. I'm starting to wonder who you work for, I must admit.

Formula One drivers know what they're doing. It would still be incredibly dangerous to drive at 10mph on a track. (And yes, I know that the motorway isn't a racetrack.)

You have to be predictable. She may in theory have only been the indirect cause of danger, but she was still the root cause.

I suppose you agree with the fact that someone caught at 100mph on an empty, dry motorway would get a far greater punishment than she did?

_________________
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)

You are prohibited from walking, cycling, horseriding on motorways and even the A55 at Colwyn Bay/Llandudno carries this sign as do one or two other really fast and extremely busy 70 mph dual carriageways which are very like a motorway in style and lay-out.


I would not choose or wish to cross or cycle on such a road .. and when I have done so .. I have been in uniform and fellow officers have been controlling the traffic to make if safe for me to do so

If we have a slow moving load on the motorway ... or our stretch of the A1 etc... we either have Highways Agency staff or a mix of these and RPU to escort.


There are big flashing signs and information bulletins put out over national and local radio stations, TV travel news and inernet to forewarn other road users of the hazard and the delay and we set all the gantries to warn for about a 25 mile length... which does explain why you see an advised limit for miles and no apparent reason.. ... it's 'cos we are about 25-30 miles ahead of you at 20 mph -ish and escorting for that lenght of time keeping a uniform space between all escorts and the escorted does take a heck of a lot of trained up skills - especially if you're the one on the motorbike


But since you appear not to have read the Highway Code recently


The Highway Code and the Road Traffic Act state you must not go over whatever the lolly says

Rule 260 of the latest edition tells us we should adopt a steady cruising speed - which does not mean a cruising speed of 10 mph or 20 mph by the way.


Per Rule 270 You MUST NOT stop on the carriageway, hard shoulder, or central reserve - unless in an emergency or instructed to by the police.

Rule 269 tells you you must not drive on the Hard Shoulder unless instructed to by police or signs and on the M42 - a big sign tells you when you are allowed to as well.

Rule 271 tells you that you MUST NOT set down a passenger or walk on the motorway

Per Rule275 - you are advised that if your car develops a fault - you should head for the nearest exit or service station - and if this is not possible - only then can you stop on the Hard Shoulder - preferably near an SOS phone as this helps the AA etc find you - as they are numbered

If you have a hi-viz vest in the car - put it on and you MUST NOT place a warning triangle on the motorway - but you may - providing you take great care place one about 50 yards from the car on the Hard Shoulder. (Rule 274).






Rule
Driving at 10 mph on a motorway (or any road) is akin to driving at a "near or intending to stop speed - and thus dangerous.


Northumberland police prosecuted a woman for 20 mph in L3 of their A1M stretch. Our guys escorted a chap whose car had broken down and was not capable of above 30 mph to the nearest exit as that was nearer than the nearest lay-by.


It's about safety and we prosecute ALL careless, inconsiderate and downright dangerous standards of road use (NOTE the term as this also includes cyclists, moped users, mobility scooter users and quad bikers...


If the person is not speeding - but was driving a defective vehicle ... causing this vehicle to be unstable: if the officer is satisfied that the defect is the result of some oversight and fixable - we give 7 days grace to get it fixed or else we prosecute for driving an "unroadworthy vehicle"


If the driver who is not speeding .. but drives in a manner as to cause concerns .. and we find them to be under the influence (surprisingly a good few on the "morning after" ) - we chuck the book at them ..


If the driver drives at 10 mph on a FAST road for whatever reason - then this is inconsiderate driving which places other road users at greater risk than necessary - including a cyclsist (who can legally ride if he wishes to on the parts of the A1 which is not A1(M))

If she really had a phobia about driving to the extent she created a potentially lethal situation on a very fast road - then she simply should have been advised not to drive.


She did have a choice - local supermarkets sell almost all popular ink cartridges and presumably she has driven her car to shop there in the past.

There are re-fill outlets.

There are also taxis if not on a bus route.

I see no excuse and the traffic officer made the correct and only possible decision and the CPS and court backed him all the way.


If she does drive again - it will be under supervision until she proves to an examiner that she is capable anyway.

_________________
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.

Indeed - a drver can be charged with dangerous/careless if there is strong evidence to support his/her being a catalyst agent in the incident.


I am reminded of mahali's case. "Mahali" posted on this forum in 2004/2005. He/she was the parent of a little girl who died in a car crash in Kent.


She was a back seat passenger in a saloon car driven by a family friend. She was wearing a seat belt as were all occupants of the car per mahali's account on here and later on CRIMEWATCH July 2004.

Mahali asked us to sing a petition to ensure thugs get tougher sentences if caught.. and we all signed it and circulated it even.

You see - this child died because a driver in another car drove in a very dangerous fashion and caused this driver to swerve and I think the car rolled when it clipped another car and a road sign. The child died instantly.

The offending driver stopped .. then drove off again at speed. Despite statements from over 100 who could testify to the appalling standard of driving.. the car was never registered nor even found to date. Kent police ended up closing the file after 12 months and nothing.

But had he been caught - then he would have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving . even though he had not collided with the car in question.

So had she caused an accident - she could still have been charged had the CPS been able to prove her driving was the catalyst which sparked off the incident.

Oh - incidentally - I can back this up with case law already

_________________
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.

Once again Weepej has diverted this thread into a meaningless debate over who is responsible for an accident.

The point is that someone driving at 10 mph falls well below the standard of driving another driver could reasonably expect. Thus I would argue that she was in fact guilty of dangerous driving.

Also I am reminded that in the advanced test you are told to do 'everything possible to avoid an accident' and that it is no good being 'dead right'. So we ask ourselves, was she doing all she could to avoid an accident - no, she could have sped up to motorway speed and stayed in her own lane. The sticker on the back suggests that she would have been happy to be 'dead right' in the case of a fatal accident.

And my argument is that regardless of this, if somebody rear ended her they might also be guilty of dangerous driving.

Just because she was going at 10mph on a motorway does not automatically absolve anybody who hits her of any blame, whereas I am getting the impression of some others on here that it would.

I certainly agree that far too many drivers do not pay enough attention to what is going on around or ahead of them. They are adequate drivers but no more, just as some people are poor parents, poor with money, poor in relationships, have poor social skills etc etc etc. Each of these things is bad in its own way, but its the situation we have because people are not perfect and society doesn't always give them enough incentive to be better people or, in our case, drivers.
But, we know that on a motorway we have a pretty safe environment, even though many drivers are not concentrating or observing fully, because the traffic is all going in the same direction with, generally, a modest speed difference between them. Chuck in a 'rogue' driver who creates a major speed difference, either too slow or too fast for other drivers to be able to anticipate and take appropriate pre-emptive action and we have an impending crash.
Does it help to avoid the crash that we know a lot of the drivers have weak observational skills. No, it doesn't.
Does it help to say that it serves them all right and that they should be paying more attention? No it doesn't.
What does help is to send out the message that driving in an 'irregualr' way on a motorway is unacceptable, dangerous and should be punished.
If you can find a way to make all the other drives pay more attention I's sure there are many who would love to hear it.

NB: This thread has now reached a stalemate:

Weepej is simply finding diferent ways of saying 'the average driver is a muppet and should be prosecuted if they collide with a rogue vehicle' and
everyone else is saying 'yes we know that but the driver of the rogue vehicle should be dealt with even though, tehcinically, they may not be breaking the law'.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I think you've hit on it there for me RigPig.

Simply not accepting the norm is my way, i.e. instead of saying "10mph driver is a danger", say "people who would hit a 10mph driver are the danger". Wake people up a bit, shake them out of their reverie that its the 10mph driver that's 100% to blame if anything occured.

Its about attitude.

I remember a singer getting prosecuted for dangerous driving in New Zealand (Daniel Beddingfield I think). He came off a road, on his own, nobody else in the car, nobody else around for miles, only injured himself, but he still got prosecuted. Very refreshing.

Here I think we would have said, lucky boy, be a bit more careful next time please, you're lucky nobody else was around to hit, and it would be accepted.

And both sides are right IMO (as ever when there's arguments to be had).

I certainly agree that there is a hell of a lot more we could do to try to make driver's better.
I personally like the idea of, in an official sense at least, of dropping the use of the word 'accident'. Sure people don't mean to drive into trees or other road users, but the fact that they it happened is usually as a result of something they did mean to do (e.g. reach for something in the glove compartment) or didn't do properly (pay bloody attention to what is going on ahead of and around them ).
As a society we tend to be a little too blase about the process of driving and possibly too sympathetic towards those who can't do it properly or who cause crashes because in all other senses they are nice, sensible people.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I see your point but I have reason to disagree with your stance that a driver hitting a stationary or slow vehicle must be at fault.

Drivers must be able to stop in the space they can reasonable expect to be clear, that includes breakdowns. However, in the real world it’s not as simple as that. For example, there may be some oil deposited on the carriageway that prevents the most careful drivers to be able to brake or swerve appropriately. We drive reasonably expecting oil to not to be in the road (ordinarily this isn’t a problem on motorways anyway), to plan for it would be harking back to the days of the red flag man. Hence anyone hitting that woman would not necessarily be at any fault.

They may or they may not be deemed at fault depending upon the full circumstances in which such a collision occured. And I don't believe weepej is saying they definately will be at fault, just that they might.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Not sure that's my stance, I'm arguing against the stance of others who appear to be saying that a driver hitting a vehicle on a motorway which is not behaving "as it should" has no blame associatd with them at all.

I broadly agree that both drivers would be in the wrong. however her actions congested part of the roads infustructire.
would you distribute blame 50-50,
70-30 or 90-10?

_________________
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

What, if she caused a tailback and a driver a mile back drove into the a car in the back of a queue at 70mph and killed the occupants of the car they hit?

For that collision, 100% fault to the driver who struck the back of the queue.

Your comments of:

- But if you'd gone up the back of said HGV it would've been totally your fault.
- Fair enough, but in the end if somebody had gone up the back of her they could only blame themselves.
- Still no excuse to ram her up the a**e though.
edited to add:
- For that collision, 100% fault to the driver who struck the back of the queue.

made it appear to me that it was your stance. I apologise if I have misunderstood you.


I don't think anyone had said that, I would have opposed it had they had done.

I think its hiding behind a lot of the sentiment in some poster's posts.

Ultimately leads to unfairness though, with the best (real) example I can think of being driver driving in another country got hit by a car driven by a local and the visiting driver ended up with the rap because the attitude of the "police" was that if he hadn't chosen to visit said country he wouldn't have been there to hit.

If you are the last vehicle in a slow moving queue, I find it wise to hang back from the end of the queue, so that if struck, you dont get crushed against the car immediately in front, and if you see the car behind approaching too fast, you can surge forward to lessen or avoid the impact.
As a further aid to safety on MY car, if travelling above 40 mph and I hit the brakes hard, the HAZARD lights come on AUTOMATICALLY to alert vehicles behind.
If your vehicle is not fitted with such a device, you can of course turn them on yourself.
Ultimately the slow moving vehicle which causes a tailback of traffic on a motorway unnecessarily IS responsible for any collision which results from that selfish act.
The vehicle which smashes into the back is only responsible if their driving was negligent - if they have been taken by surprise, or been driving too close to the car in front. They may of course be pressured by cars behind who dont have a good view of the road ahead, and be trying to leave a space behind.
Slow moving lorries carrying large loads etc. nearly always display a flashing amber light, or are even preceeded and followed by a support vehicle with flashing lights and signage - as per French Convoy Exceptionale.

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

Red herring. You very seldom scan your instruments during visual flight, and I don't believe any road vehicle is cleared for IMC ops.

You can't really compare a solitary slow moving vehicle to the rear of a tailback, one of them has dozens of other vehicles ahead of it!

Incidentally, it is not lack of observation thats causing people to fail to identify that the vehicle is slow-moving. Closing speed does not become readily apparent until the object starts to grow in the windscreen, this is a limitation common to all humans.

The whole topic of responsibility is a red herring.

To make an analogy, if I choose to open the door of a building to enter, I can make a reasonable assumption that there aren't rotating razor blades ready to rip me to shreds on the other side. However if there were such an implement of death, I am responsible for choosing to opening the door.

Real helpful!