Safe Speed Forums

Lot's of people go to jail for things that aren't pre-meditated, that's why there is a distinct different between murder and manslaughter.

You could almost say it was pre-meditated anyway as she was driving in such a way that invited disaster (as was the cyclist).

I think the idea is that when you get in a car you've got to understand that you are driving quite a lethal piece of kit, and there are responsibilities that go with this.

Weepej

In terms of % of fault where do you think that lies with the cyclist and car driver?

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Well.. I'd say all the more reason not to take any chances on jumping it in a car and most especially on a bicycle

Texting? I have stated that the very act of picking up the phone constitutes "using the device". People have been prosecuted - court judgement against them.


Court should have made comment on his stupidity as well. Had he lived - as you quite rightly point out, weepej - he would have been prosecuted - though a £30 fine would still be a lot less than hers and her insurance premiums for many years to come.


But .. had he obeyed the lights in the first place - then no tragedy would have occurred. I dare say she would have been copped on the phone sometime though

Should she have been given 4 years? I think 2 years, long ban and as the Mad Lad said somewhere - an extended re-test.



I gather she already had 6 points for cam flash points. Well, this does seem to indicate that little learning or desire to acquire better skills derives from a policy of automation. Let's just say the roadside chats here ring in the ears for quite a while. Nope - not a slanging nasty chat. Firm, friendly, professionally delivered - and straigthforward in general safety advice of the COAST type.
But the courts are never consistent when you contrast this case to the 22 year old who killed a pedestrian in Cornwall 4 years ago. She was unlicenced, on drugs and fined £80 with a pretty useless two year driving ban. We know this occurs because we waste endless time rounding up the same people umpteen times over


Yes - we have to give out a strong message that using a hands held device to text, or do anything which seriously undermines the handling of a vehicle or bicycle even, jumping red lights and driving whilst unlicenced and under the influence of substances is just plain unacceptable. But when we have a case of six of one and a half dozen of the other - one would expect comment to this effect to be passed by the court so as to affirm the message that jumping red lights is also a - an absolute one just as much as using the devil's invention of a mobile phone.


Mitigating the sentence jail wise with slightly longer ban/high hurdle to get re-licenced or passing hard judicial comment on the cyclist's own part in this tragic sequence of events would help get out the right messsages to all road users.


We do prosecute all hands held phone users and red light jumper on sight. We have also been known to have a quiet chat over the logic of wobbling around on a bicycle using a phone too.

_________________
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.

Hmm, I'd say we have a case of 24 of one and half a dozen of the other, which probably represents the weight of something going wrong for somebody driving a heavy car at quite some speed whilst texting on a phone, and a cyclist going through a red light.

Blame for the crash? Largely the fault of the car driver, 80 to 20 if I had to put a number on it.

Doing past tense "what if" stuff is a bit of a waste of time IMO, but if the cyclist hadn't jujmped the light he wouldn't have been where he was, but if the girl had been driving at the level she should've been driving at it wouldn't have happened either.

weepej

Well I cannot for the life of me work out how you think the car driver is more to blame than the cyclist.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Somebody piloting a one tonne vehicle at those speeds should excercise an incredible amount of caution, especially around junctions; that already moves the balance for me.

Weepej

I agree but there will be times when either deliberately or accidentally lapses of concentration occur.

I wonder if the reason that cyclists jump red lights is because the chances of them actually getting caught are pretty slim. Would you be in favour of cyclists being required to be registered and showing a plate so that red light jumping offences could be detected by red light cameras and NIP's issued?

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

And if you are in the vicinity of one tonne vehicles moving at 30 mph it makes sense to exercise an incredible amount of caution too, and especially not to contravene traffic signals and enter their path.

Would this cyclist have been any more or less to blame if he had ridden through a red light at a railway level crossing and been hit by a train?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

If the train driver is not paying due care and attention when someone crosses the level crossing illegally and later investigations prove that they could have stopped, then I'd expect them to be prosecuted also.

Again it boils down to personal responsibility and attitudes towards other road users. The cyclist had a poor attitude to the red light. He received the maximum punishment possible. The car driver who was texting and speeding through the lights had a poor attitude towards safety in general and received an appropriate punishment for her actions.

They apply just about the same ridiculous reasoning as vehicle drivers that choose to speed IMO.

Red light jumping cyclists think they're being safe whilst breaking the law, so do motorists who choose to break the speed limit.



I haven't got a problem with that, but I would have a problem if money was spent on this rather than spending money on tackling the bigger problem, which is vehicle drivers jumping red lights.

Tell me how many people are KSI'd by cyclists jumping red lights, then how many people are KSI'd by vehicle drivers jumping red lights. I think then it would be clear where the money [edit] and effort [/edit] should be concentrated.

Absolutely.

There are speed limits near crossings, and warnings

Also train tracks are not public spaces, roads are.

Being a more vulnerable road user I would expect cyclists to take more care when riding on the roads. If they choose to ignore red lights and come to harm, then I cannot help wonder whether they are the author of their own misfortune.

We need to target those road users who lack skills and if that means reg plates for cyclists so that they can be identified and placed on mandatory cycling proficiency training courses, then so be it.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

The other thing to consider is how to deal with the situation whereby a hazard suddenly presents itself in front of you within your reaction time. (Advanced drivers will know that the key here is not to get into this situation in the first place).

But:

1. What % of UK drivers have passed an advanced test.
2. How does the Governments simplistic road safety messages mean that drivers no longer think for themselves: Speed Kills. Stick to speed limit and camera won't bother you.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

How do you know this guy didn't excercise extreme care when he jumped the red light?

He was struck quite a way across the junction, so had already gone past the red light, it's not like he rode out directly into her path, he was already in her path to be when she struck him [edit](which is why I think the red light jumping offence really has little to do with the situation)[/edit].

The messgae is speed kills, not speeding kills.

Highway code says: -



You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle (see the table above). The presence of street lights generally means that there is a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit unless otherwise specified.

[Law RTRA sects 81, 86, 89 & sch 6]

The speed limit is the absolute maximum and does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed irrespective of conditions. Driving at speeds too fast for the road and traffic conditions is dangerous. You should always reduce your speed when

the road layout or condition presents hazards, such as bends

sharing the road with pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, particularly children, and motorcyclists

weather conditions make it safer to do so

driving at night as it is more difficult to see other road users




Where is the message about "sticking to the speed limit" coming from, not government literature as far as I can see.

And drivers of large heavy high speed vehicles should take more care when driving on the roads simply because there are more vunerable roads users around.

The roads aren't train tracks, as much as you'd like them to be.

Motorways come close, but you've still got to excercise extreme caution when using them.



Same applies to people that ignore speed limits then ... ?

weep

The thing is where do we stop if we allow people to exercise their own judgements when it comes to things like red lights, pedestrian crossings, double white lines, drink driving.

I appreciate that lots of motoring laws can be broken and sometimes in total safety but if we want to encourage people to adhere to basic principles we then need to punish those that have the potential to cause danger.

Surely we want to get to a situation whereby ALL road users show abide by the law and show consideration for other road users.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Oh, yes.

So, about speed limits...

Rest assured weepej that we do hammer those who persist in using these phones. Oh .. sure they are small. But they still require a hand to keep ot the ear or worse - cradling between ear and shoulder - which rather impedes observation skills.

Texting? You have to look to see what u r txtg and it's not quite the same as touch-typing or two finger typing on a keyboard As for the msgs..i m afrd i hv prblm w txt spk. (probably nowt like what my own kids type. I do not understand it. Wildy is much easier as is the dyslexic poster on some other forum .

BUT... you know the old saying



He was fatally unlucky. She was catastophically unlucky in that his decision to ignore the light and her decision to read a text message and glance - perhaps to the right instead of ahead - taking for granted that there were no pedestrians crossing or rogue cyclists around when approaching from a curved slip. I doubt she was actually texting. Mad Doc chatted to me on the phone earlier today. We were planning to meet for a bicycle ride - but it's so windy and wet up here that we decided to put off. However, he did ponder one thing and said he was going to post it up. Not seen it so far so I will pinch his thought.

It's just that the press published the text message the woman's ex sent to her.. but not her reply? That does seem odd given the verbatim relay of the original message. I wonder... I think we are being misled by journalese. I do not think she was actually texting.. but had "used the phone" in the sense of picking it up and reading this message. I think it highly likely that she was reading the message and not physically texting when she hit the cyclist. If this was the case - and I strongly suspect this the reality on the basis that a journalist's report is focussed on sensation based loosely on the facts.

Now this slant makes more sense as reading a message is just the same in lost concentration terms as actual texting a reply. Let's put it this way - she denied texting as she was not texting - but reading the text? The wording of the law does not really differentiate between reading a text and physically sending one - and it really is up to a judge's interpretation or "ratio decidendi". We have this precedent in place .. and I suspect this was the real reason behind the prosecution - especially if a forensic check showed the time the message was sent and then viewed.

Now I am giving this insight to let folk. pal, lurks, muppets, trolls whatever.. out there know the dangers of holding the phone - even if as innocent in intent as the lorry driver removing from a jacket and placing out of reach (Though I have to say - we do use professional judgement and make common sense decisions based on what was actually SEEN in context WITH the prevailing traffic condition as well as the standard of the overall driving.

But two wrongs never make it right. I would have been happier if the stuntsafetyjournalese had focussed on the dangers of jumping red light signals on the basis that you never know if the driver on the green light reads a text message, sends a text message or just simply accelerates to "beat the lights"


A series of THINK! adverts on amber gambling..

"textering driving does not make dexterous driving"

." Use a mobile phoney create a phoney expert driver"


But her sentence? I think she would have benefitted more from a shorter sentence - but a longer ban requiring an extended re-test given we already have speeding penalites - admittedly via automation.. which brings me back to an earlier point.


Had she been booked for speeding in this area? Decisions would be made professionally. But if our officers decided that a fine with points was warranted - then she would have received a full explanation as to why the action was warranted. The explanation is actually "trained" - but officers can adapt to their own personality style. But basically - we aim to give a lasting safety message which hopefully does not see them re-offending and improves their skills or attitudes. Maybe she would have learned sufficient not to text.. to approach lights with a COAST aware mind. Who knows? And YES// before you post back weepej - we estimate a 2% fail in pulls with polite but with a touch of lemon and vinegar acid twist lectures..

_________________
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.