Safe Speed Forums

Driving at an unsafe speed caused this accident.

But NOT the speed of the driver concerned.

The safe speed for the cyclist at the time of the accident was... anyone know?

Yes! That's right! The safe speed of the cyclist was ZERO MPH! At any speed over ZERO MPH he was proceeding at a dangerous speed. Because he should not have been proceeding at all, should he?

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

Absolutely I have seen this too Ziltro. There are some lights near me where I regularly see drivers going through on red because the lights have either been timed incorrectly or deliberately, like you said, to bog everyone down.

There's a moment where a green light allows drivers to turn left when it would also be okay to turn right, so drivers who know the sequence just think "sod this for a games of soldiers" and drive over.

I've actually been in the queue waiting to make the said right turn, on red, and been tooted from behind! I know what he meant, I saw his gesture in my rear view mirror using his hand, (Not in a nasty way), - 'get a move on! It's okay!'

The tailback these lights cause is ridiculous. I've often wondered if I should write to the council about it, but I expect they are living in their ivory tower somewhere else (Forgive me but I've never had a good or honest experience with councils)


I see a parallel here with speeding and all other legislation.

If lights are obviously timed stupidly, people will flout the rules
If speed limits are made stupidly and artificially low, people will flout the rules
If the price of fuel/road tax/parking is obviously a rip off, people will try to circumvent it somehow.

I'm sure there's a thousand other examples I can't think of right now?

There's a road I regularly use which used to be NSL, 60 mph. About two years ago it was made into a 40 limit. I can swear to you on everthing that's dear to me that nothing has change in that area in the 30+ years I have been using that road. No new path, no accidents, no new buildings - nothing! My friend uses it twice daily going to and from work and he's never seen flowers on a tree or any change to the environment, like myself.

But overnight, two years ago, where it was once safe and legal to do 60 mph, if I did that now I would be deemed a maniac!

What's that about? I know it's not about safety!!!

_________________
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.

ach.. .aside from the weepee debate...

do we have any better info on the nature of evidence presented for
a) speeding
b) texting

?

I would differencitage between passing a red light and driving into the path of oncoming traffic, or where there is likely to be traffic especially where your precence would be un-expected.

The first one is illegal, the second is dangerous.

There's a junction at the end of my road with a stop sign. That has much less visibility than a lot of traffic light junctions, especially the ones on roundabouts.


If rules are to be respected they have to be respectable. If that makes sense...

The government and councils must stop using (for example) speed limits and traffic lights in order to get in our way, cause congestion and reduce our quality of life.
At the moment a lot of rules do not demand respect, so they quite rightly don't get it.

It would of course be better if the rules made sense and then I think you'd find that most people, most of the time would obey them.

"Stop even though you can see that it is perfectly safe to continue" is not a sensible rule.



Wow, I didn't expect anybody to agree with me!

I keep meaning to go out and video some of the more stupid lights. Of course I'd have to be able to do it without anyone driving realising what I am doing, otherwise that would skew the outcome.

_________________
Andrew.

Hmmm...

I feel quite put out here.

When I started something the other day, which I thought had value, I got flack, (or was it just in my mind?), because it's all speculative and we don't know the facts.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 877#172877

And yet here, (yes I know you're not supposed to start a sentence with 'and'), with less than I provided and could have added to - this is big news and open for debate


Suddenly, everyone is a witness or something!

Why was mine like: 'well we don't have enough information'? whereas this is like 'yeah! I have an opinion!

Do I need to put a nude photograph on page three or something?

Right! Full frontal coming up..

_________________
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.

Good, constructive points indeed. I thought I'd contribute to a sensible discussion on Safespeed because I've tried to discuss the matter using the Highway Code on Pistonheads and I might as well talk to the wall I've been accused of trolling and falling for nanny state tactics etc.

A couple of years ago I had a near miss while turning right out of a side road into an A road. The lights changed to green and I moved off, building up speed to 30mph when, not 15ft in front of me, a cyclist shot across my path. I nearly put the brake pedal through the floor.

That cyclist had jumped a red light and he wasn't even looking where he was going. He was looking at the ground, I suppose in an attempt to be more aerodynamically "efficient"

The irony of it all is he jumped a red light in front of a police station festooned with at least 12 CCTV cameras. At least two of which were aimed at the junction.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

I'm not trying to differentiate between jumping a red light and anything else, there is no need to. Jumping a red light is illegal, end of.



I don't believe for one second that speed limits and traffic lights are used to deliberately obstruct people in the way that you suggest. I and many others still manage to respect the rules because they are worthy of respect; the most I have been moved to do at a red light is 'tsk, it would be nice if these were turned off during quiet hours'.
But thats clearly where we differ. I will obey red lights, not because its always dangerous not to, but because I believe its the right thing to do in the larger and more altruistic scheme of things. We could all act in a way that attracts immediate gain for ourselves Ziltro, but I'm pretty sure that if we did we'd all pretty soon be wishing it would have been better if we'd just played the game in the first place.

_________________
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 suppose that would be the difference between doing something because someone wrote a bit of paper saying that you must do it, or doing something because it makes sense to do it.

_________________
Andrew.

Me too, I see people jumping red lights every day, but I have no desire to follow them and say "well, they do it, so it's OK for me to do it".

What's more, there's nothing more likely to make a bunch of cyclists stop at a red light than seeing one stopped at it already (i.e. me).

Same with exceeding the speed limit, riding on pavements, talking on my mobile whilst driving, pushing into queues at the shop, throwing litter and any other tort or crime one could happen to think of.

Nope, obeying traffic law is, in the wider scheme of things (as opposed to the very narrow and selfish requirements that may suit the individual at one moment in time) makes sense in all normal circumstances.
We all encounter the same (or similar) frustrations whilst driving around but it seems that some are better prepared mentally to cope with it, and this IMO, is the crux of the road safety problem we face today. Anyone can make up feeble, self-serving excuses for not obeying road traffic law (such as too many traffic lights, wrong speed limits, councils, parking charges or believing the police exist to inflict the law upon us) but these are just clucking noises made by those who are too weak of mind and character to realise or accept that society is not just about having their own needs serviced.

_________________
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.

Hmmn,

Hypothetically speaking.



If it could be shown to your own satifaction that this was, indeed, the case. Would you still respect the rules because you consider the rules to be worthy of your respect?

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

It must be nice being you. Honestly, I wish I had so much faith and optimism when it came to our "masters" (well, they're our servants actually, but you wouldn't know it).

_________________
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 it as being optimistic though, I just can't envisage a scenario in which a roads planning committee sits down and carves out a plan with the expressed and explicit aim of obstructing people as they drive around their borough.
A roundabout near where I live had traffic lights added only last year, and the immediate effect was to create a tailback along the road I approach from. A politely worded letter to the council revealed they were already aware of the problem and within a few days the lights were re-phased and the problem went away. Yeah, I have had occiasion to sit at the lights at midnight on the way back from the footie and think, tsk - it would be nice if these were switched off during the night, but it hasn't (and is unlikely to) turned me into a foaming mouthed, traffic light crazed road safety hazard. If, at the end of my life, I were to scrape all these loose seconds off the floor into a pile, I may have enough time to enjoy a couple of beers.

_________________
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.

What about London? I've heard they phase lights deliberately to hinder free flow of traffic.

Try driving round Swindon a couple of times. There are about 5 sets of lights along Drakes Way and if you stick to the 40mph limit you have to stop at every single one.

That, and through one of the housing areas, they decided in their wisdom to install chicaines (sp) to slow the traffic. Only AFTER they were installed did they realise that one of them was oposite a bus stop and the bus company refused to move it. The result was that every time the bus stopped the whole road ground to a halt. The situation was NOT rectified, but was simply left like it (for about 5 years)

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

A lot of people seem to be unaware of the fact that in English law you are punished for what you did (or didn't do), NOT for the consequences of that act or omission.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

one thing bothers me.
What if her phone received a text and her phone replied with a "delivered" transmission. Or a text you sent 5 min earlier tried to send again?

What would happen if a suicidal person tried the same on you or I? And our phones receive texts and transmitted back, or we sent a text that failed to connect but then found a mast when we got out the car?

It could happen to any of us. You could set out for work and a year later could be facing 4 years jail and your children could even end up in care.

The evidence in the court case was not conclusive enough. This conviction is not sound.

I do accept that there is a fair amount of evidence suggesting that she was not very observant with multiple speed camera tickets on the same speed camera. I also accept that if she was texting it should be a severe sentence.

This accident was that the cyclist hit her. She had legal right of way.
The other cars presumably with their lights on, were stopped at the lights.

I drove home tonight to see three cyclists without an effective front light.
What chance do we have of not hitting these fools at a junction?

_________________
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

Oooo, have you seen the evidence presented?

Up to a point. But in this case if she had been caught using her mobile while driving and the cyclist hadn't come through the junction she would have got a £60 fine. As it is she got 4yrs.

fergl100 / Rigpig

I was involved with a project for TfL and that was exactly what was happening. When I pointed out that unnecessarily long phasings could help cause accidents and that as a designer they should be designing OUT hazards the phasing was changed back to the original one.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk