Safe Speed Forums

Possibly but I can't help wondee whether people who do 71 in a 70 are as dangerous as people who do 69 in a 70.

Since the vast majority of collisions occur at or below the speed limit, I cannot understand your emphasis on speed limit compliance.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Well, I think any speed at all is inherently dangerous, so 69 is already pretty hairy, especially if something goes wrong.

And people that choose to speed don't exceed the speed limit by 1mph, I see people driving at 50mph + in 40 limits all the time, people often overtake me when I do 30 in a 30 limit.



Of course they do, most people have already slowed down quite a lot before they hit something, but if they were going slower in the first place they might've stopped, and if they don't manage to stop the the results will most likely be far less damaging.

I'm sorry but there is no way you can evidence that type of assertion.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

No, you're right, unless we do find out there is a universe created for every single possible outcome and we can somehow watch what would've happened if one of both of the particpants in the crash were going a bit slower.

In the meantime though I'll keep the speed down myself and not text on my phone whilst driving, and certainly won't do both when I'm negotiating a complex junction, or ride through red lights either when I'm on my pushbike.

Excellent. I'm very glad to hear it. Same here.

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

Very controversial retort - but surely the cyclists being KSI's by jumping red lights are .. the cyclists who take that chance and end up beneath another's wheels as a result. Likewise the amber gamblers who T-bone each other

It's basically suicidal just as much as walking across the carriageway of a motorway or other fast road.


Yes.. I know TO/HATO/Highways Agency staff do so.. but we are in hi-viz and have high viz vehicles with bit flashing lights and have instructed certain gantry settings to warn, Oh yeah . why alert up to 15 miles away... at 70 mph Go figure how soon you reach the site

I think the day will come when more cyclists will mean legislation and registration.


"Elfin Safety"

_________________
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 love your cartoon head

-----

If I may put it a different way weepej; there's no such thing as a dangerous junction, just dangerous road users. If that's what you're saying, or even if it isn't, that's my opinion/take/life-experience.

If there were such thing as a country with no speed limits but simply had safe drivers, you wouldn't need speed limits or STOP signs - in fact you wouldn't need any sign with a red triangle or circle!

I don't need a sign to tell me what's safe, no matter what I'm using to get from A to B. If or when I get killed on our roads, I am absolutely certain a sign or a camera will not have made the slightest difference!


No matter whether I'm riding a bike or driving a Hummer - when I approach a junction I'm looking for someone else regardless and irrespective of whether I have right of way! Isn't that what every good driver does?

When I'm on my bicycle, I don't want to get killed by a driver, so I'm on the lookout for others' mistakes.

As a driver, I don't want to kill anyone! So I'm on the lookout for others' mistakes - cyclists, pedestrians, cars, HGVs...


When I traverse a junction I don't wear blinkers or assume it's okay just because 'it's my turn' - my legal right!


The bottom line, for me: I'm gutted that his life has ended and could so easily have been prevented by EITHER of them!

Either one of them could have prevented this situation! She , if she is a decent human being, will have to live with her conscience and punishment for the rest of her life whereas he has no life.

If he, on his cycle had gone over on red and she, as a responsible alert driver had reacted and swerved only to kill herself while he walked free. What then? What would the media say then? But it didn't happen that way so we beat up on her.

I am both a cyclist and driver and as such I see them as both at fault!

They are equally to blame and either could have prevented it, but only the living can be punished.


Both were at fault and both were stupid. The rest is just physics.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Tone




Ah.. but there's the rub. We do not want to speak ill of the dead.

We establish both were stupid - but no message as to the dangers of jumping red lights seems to be forthcoming from this story. I think this is the problem for many

. More than the fact she used a mobile phone to read a text - which is "texting"as far as this case was concerned per the report and per other case law -not so high profile as it did not involve a second law breaker or result in a death.

Reading a text is then not distinguished as such from actually typing out and sending the text. I think she read the text or was reading it the second before impact. That's what the issue was really given the press published the received message and no sent message. It does not mean she was any less silly though - but it perhaps gives her a slant making her appear just a little less of "monster" perhaps - but still very tragically inconsiderately silly. (Silly is used in the old fashioned sense .. ) . She looked to the right and not right ahead. Maybe because she had not been concentrating as she should have been. She certainly was not COAST-ing Nor was the cyclist.


Both at relatively progressive speeds too. Boils down to kinetic force of two speeds impacting to some extent

He chose to ignore a red signal She chose to read a text. Neither paying any real attention to the road and both families paid a high price for life. But justice is not about vengeance and revenge. Justice should have passed comment on the sheer stupidity of both - and such comment would have given justice to the liable party just as much as the injured party as result of each illegal action.

But what if a biker had run these lights? A red light jumping car T-boned? I cannot help but think some folk would not be so defensive of the red light jumper in such a scenario - regardless of the texting or text reading driver. I get the impression that there would be a call for all survivors to get locked up for life.


I confess to having ...regret , not sadness, that two lives were ruined by their own stupidity. Compassion? I have compassion for their blameless families who are forced to pick up the shattered peices of their family lives - but not for the persons directly involved. Their very deliberate decisions to break the law caused all this after all.

_________________
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.

As far as I have heard there was no proof that she was even actually even reading a text.
But whatever we are still left with :

Inattention - from both parties, the bike could have braked more quickly than the car - why didn't he ? - or take evasive manoeuvres ?

A pillar - did the cyclist appear 'from out of no-where' from behind her A pillar - I have seen no mention of this anywhere.

Mistake 1 - The cyclist chose to go through the red light.
He chose to take a chance, and paid the price, sadly this resulted in two familes lives being turned upside down.

Mistake 2 - The cyclist chose to continue even though the cars started to go, He did not alter course (unless someone can tell me otherwise).

Mistake 3 - The driver not observing the junction properly, even failing to see the cyclist start his route across the junction, and the possibility of it, probably from inattention. If she started her transverse of the junction, with the cyclist totally hidden behind her n/s (near/side), A pillar, then she needed to be more vigilant, and drive with more care - obviously!

I personally believe that both were at fault, and I see it as a 60% to 70% - 40%-30% split to cyclist / driver respectively.

So here is a further thought - what could others have done to prevent it ?
What would you have done if you were also at the junction? As a fellow driver or cyclist or even pedestrian ?
Honk, shout, point ? - Nothing for fear of 'becoming involved' .... ?

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

Complex: 'Consisting of many parts', 'not easily understood or analysed'

Dangerous: 'Likely to cause problems or difficullty'

Am I missing something?

Barkstar

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

There seems to be thinking that ignoring a red light is dangerous. That is simply not true. I must have done it hundreds of times by now and haven't even come close to an accident.

Part of the problem, which is happening in Poole (and is one of the reasons I moved out) and more-so in Southampton is that the councils are using traffic lights to cause congestion. All-red phases, green light only on one of the 4 entrances to the junction, green light for all roads which have no traffic on before the ones which do, lights on all night...

People aren't that stupid. They might not realise that it is being done to cause congestion, but they will realise that a 2 second all-red phase plus 1 second for even the fastest opposing vehicle to hit them means 2-3 seconds where, if you look, it is usually safe to continue.

That is why people are ignoring red lights, because it is easier and safer than waiting and getting angry every time. Also you are sticking a finger up at the hateful council and helping ease congestion by keeping the traffic moving.

If the councils would only use traffic lights where they actually improve the flow of traffic (yes that includes foot traffic) then surely less people would have a problem with their use.

I would think that either person involved in this accident could have avoided it if they were paying more attention.

Who is 'to blame' really doesn't matter, does it?

If I was a third-party to this I doubt I would have done anything - by the time I realised that it really was going to happen it would be too late. In fact I saw a very near miss once where a cyclist came very quickly out of a driveway on to the road apparently without looking, right in front of a lady driving a not overly small car. I remember thinking to myself something like "I think you might actually be about to die" and at that point the lady noticed and hit the brakes. It all happened very quickly and if I had done something it could have either made the situation better or worse depending on either person's (unpredictable) reactions.

_________________
Andrew.

Absolutely, I see tens, possibly hundreds of cyclists go through red lights every day, they look, they're careful (most of them) and they go though with no problems (well, 99.999999% of time they do).

Of course, they think they've looked properly and assesed the situation correctly, sometimes they don't.

It's still wrong though, it's breaking the law, I've never done it myself nor have any plans to do so and I wish others would stop doing it.

None of us have been party to the evidence presented so we're all just speculating frankly; the jury was and they obvously decided she was driving dangerously.

Er, the guy died, and they said he had jumped a red light, what sort of message could be stronger?

The headlines were not "Cyclist dies after going through red light." were they. The message was "Texting driver kills cyclist".

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

No, there is thinking that jumping red lights could be dangerous. Notwithstanding this, ignoring red lights is just one aspect of the poor attitude that an increasing number of people have towards driving and road safety. It is far better for the system as a whole of we all observe the rules of the road because, incrementally, others who are less discerning in their choices will start disobeying other laws and pretty soon we'll have chaos.

_________________
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.

OK. If it is alright for a cyclist to go through a red light after observing that it would be safe to do so, is it therefore acceptable for a car driver to do the same?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Eh Who said it was OK for a cyclist to go through a red light, I certainly didn't.
As far as I am concerned it is not acceptable for any class of road user to go through a red light that applies to them just because they think its OK to do so. One of the key problem with road safety is piss poor attitudes; deciding to go through a red light is just one manifestation of that attitude. We will get nowhere until we recognise this.

_________________
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.

As most are aware this driver received a 4 year prison sentence for the offence of texting while driving and causing death by dangerous driving.

Would the sentence be the same for the cyclist had he lived and the car driver died trying to avoid an accident by swerving to miss the cyclist and hitting a wall or some other obstruction or road furniture I think not ?

Look at the example of the low life who took a lorry drivers life in Northampton last year by dropping a concrete block on the drivers cab and this piece of human garbage got a 1 year sentence in a young offenders institution and his mate a 3 years sentence because they didn,t mean to kill the driver!

She didn,t mean to kill the cyclist but she did even unintentionally though.

Sadly the cyclist died but "He Chose to cross the lights on Red" she although she was breaking the law had the right of way but like all cases we only see the facts that the media want us to see as this is what sells papers after all.

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

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

Spannernut

I thought Ziltro was effectively saying this in his post quoted by you, RP.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.