Safe Speed Forums

http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/ ... 3853807.jp



Unfortunately - the idiot will affect the stats and thus blights us all.

My sympathies are with the driver and his young passenger.

However, last week - young man j-walked on the M61 in a drunken stupor and was killed as a result. This case involves another drinking to oblivion and causing trauma for others as well as his own family.

24 hour drinking cannot be a success and perhaps we need to look at why Brits of all age groups are unable to know when they have had enough to drink or think it cool to behave like a complete muppet.

I have provided the link. I have removed personal surnames of the parties involved from this paste-up of the article.


So. discuss. How do we really prevent binge drinking - and most importantly . try to prevent cyclists from riding in that state - given the law on drink does apply to them.. but they consider themselves to be "pedestrians on wheels" when it suits their arguments,

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Well, regardless of the verdict this guy was obviously driving at a speed that meant he couldn't see what was the road ahead outside the beam of his lights, so he would've hit anything right? Even a stationary side on car for instance?

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Weepej, you are talking utter nonsense.

The cyclist was entirely at fault.

And your post shows depths of ignorance that are breathtaking.

This type of post is why you might be mistaken for a troll.

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

Nope. Unlit dual carriageway per the account. Think I know of the road as old pal of my parents lives in Easbourne.


Guy was in riding or rather wobbling around the broken white lane lines. No lights and in black clothing. NSL limit I think as well?


Car drivers usually do switch on the lights at night anyway If they break down in a vulnerable spot - they can and do put on the warning hazards.


It could be the cyclist had a severe drink problem or was an alcoholic. But all the same - inquest and police investigating decided there was no case for the driver to answer as the accident was unavoidable in this set of circumstances..


I have posted up the tale of the Manchester driver whom police pulled before he could cause harm down in "News". He has a suspended sentence and a long driving ban as a result. I think another alcoholic in reality.

But all these stories prove is why we need police out there and a clear education message about how to "quaff refinedly and moderately..and take taxis home" as opposed to getting as bladdered as possible.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

I think this guy should've been going slower, he couldn't see far enough into the distance to be able to avoid an unlit object.

Unless you think it's a good idea to drive like this?

Would you drive like it in fog? I.e. at a speed that meant you would hit a stationary object in the road becuase you didn't see it in time?

Darkness is the same as fog in this case.

The law says that it's ILLEGAL to ride a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol. The cyclist was clearly at fault. The driver is as far as I'm concerened completely beyond reproach. And anyway, why would someone who had heart disease want to booze so much?

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

Well, we can get into a discussion about alcoholism if you like...

Fair enough then, but only if you want to be evasive and avoid responding to ThatsNews, Mad Moggie or myself.

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

Can't quite understand how you think I've not repsonded, but there you go.

Do you drive around in the dark at a speed that effectively makes your headlights purposeless?

I suspect his heart disease may have been brought on to some extent by his addiction to booze. He also perhaps was in denial over the extent of his condition. I am trying to be fair to him.

The driver was on a fast NSL road.. probably in L1 as it was reportedly quiet at the time. He was wobbling between L1/L2. Not the position you would expect to see a cyclist in all reality. He may have been on dippies so as not to dazzle on-coming traffic and on a closing approach at 70 mph - cyclist would probably be in line of vision just that bit too late. He braked and hit perhaps at a lower speed in reality. Nothing he could have done. Police and CPS must have been satisfied there was no case to answer. I feel for the driver and his young passenger though.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Meaning what exactly? I've been driving since 1985. Number of points on license, convictions for speeding -NIL

Secondly, the last time I looked I was a member of the ROADA and I have taken advanced driver training at both day and night and as a consequence, I know how to obey speed limits and observe the road ahead and behind, particularly for idiot drivers and drunken cyclists.

As regards the driver who had the misfortune to hit that drunk cyclist, what do you want him to do, slow down and religiously stare at his speedometer to avoid hitting the cyclist? No thanks, because if you stare at a speedometer while driving that's classed as inattention which is a GREATER cause of accidents than excessive speed.

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

So you probably wouldn't have stuck this guy, pulled over and reported to the police that there was an unlit cyclist on the road?



Now you're being ridiculous.

You obviously WILL NEVER understand that safe driving constitutes effective observation both ahead and behind your vehicle. You CANNOT watch the speedometer ALL the time. If you do, you stand less chance of seeing that drunk cyclist ahead of you.

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

Clearly the cyclist shouldn't have been doing what he was. But, people should always (when possible, which it isn't always, e.g. behind a HGV in busy motorway traffic) be driving in such a way as to be able to stop in a distance that they can see to be clear. Here, the driver should have been able to stop within the distance covered by his headlights. So yes, just this once, I agree with weepej.

I do think that the current promotion of the speed limit way beyond its level of competence increases the likelihood of such incidents though. "I'm below the speed limit so I'll be OK." It may be incorrect, but if people were told that the most important thing by far was driving at an appropriate speed, rather than staying within the speed limit, that misconception would undeniably be less common.

Unfortunately people are being told exactly the opposite at the moment, with enforcement of the speed limit absolutely dwarfing enforcement of appropriate speeds. It's completely the wrong way round, and the main reason it's the wrong way round is that one thing can be enforced by machine (and is easily proved in court) while the other can't.

The speed-related question that a driver needs to ask themselves first is not "Am I below the speed limit?", but "Is my speed appropriate?" (and questions that follow from that such as "Can I stop in a distance that I can see to be clear?") Do you agree with that weepej, or do you think it should be the other way round? Presumably you do accept that one or the other has to be prioritised.

_________________
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)

No, you cannot. You will NOT be allowed to hijack this thread, Weepej.

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

Folks.... Please park your prejudices.

The opening post asks
It is entirely possible that touching on alcoholism to some degree during the discussion may well help in this context. If such discussion deviastes too far it can be split retrspectively or Y-forked at any time.

I've been away from the board for a while - pressure of work - but I've had my attention drawn by one poster in here and had action requested of me. That action is - in boxing terms "break" - to ask you all to take a step back, review your positions and meet back in the ring and score points from points, not points from people.

To the person who PMed me, if there were other threads germane to your point, please PM me again with links.

Tje Mad Doc does ask hard questions at times. I think he's trying to be fair and accept the guy might have been an alcoholic. The complexion on the photo seems to suggest there was a drink problem. I think we should respect Ted by not pasting up bits which would identify the guy. I think he is trying to show respect to the guy's family - but at the same time showing where he sourced the story.

So weepej and CJG - I do not think we are drifting way off the point if we try to look at how come folk will drive, cycle and become so drunk that they become a danger to selves and others.

The binge cultrure - is not a British problem by the way. Wildy has umpteen stories from Germany and even Switzerland and France which seem to suggest European or Western society - especially the youngsters - and the younger "middle aged" who are perhaps trying to recapture their youth - have the worse problems.

I honestly do not know if we are "egging on" the problem by suggesting booze is a bit "naughty but nice" either. Or giving mixed messages via the celeb worship we seem to have developped either. This is open to discussion and I would hope that weepej will feel able to discuss without fear of ridicule - and I even would like hjeg2 to offer an opinion on this story.


I do not think Ted is suggesting the cyclist deserved his fate. He naturally feels for that driver and his passenger who suffered a great trauma from this event - as do I. People who are involved in any RTAC - whatever the liability and fault - or combined liability - are genuinely traumatised - ALL involved regardless of who collided with whom. I am sure Ian, Stephen, Patch and Hanbo can all back this observation from the "front line"


But dark road. Pitch black circumstances. NSL limit. Was he on high beam - which case a good view ahead.


Dipped? He's a bit less light ahead. He's not expecting cyclist to be on his right and veering. The other lady did see him though. Did he wobble just as he came into view? At NSL speed - he's covered about 33/34 metres per second. Easy then to close in and note that presences a crucial second too late. Could he have avoided the impact? Well - we do look at normal conduct as expected by a normal person with some common sense in those circumstances. I fear the person was so far fuddled by drink that he had no real idea as to where he was.


Which brings us back to how the hell do we stop the binge drinking? - short of going back to licencing hours, banning UN"happy" hours and cheap booze.

_________________
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.

It's not "how do we stop binge drinking"

It's: "how do we make these idiots realise that they cannot hold their drink"

It is one reason why I stopped "going to the pub for a quick one"

Too many friendly faces that try to shove a broken glass in your face after a few "quick ones"

Lets face it, the average english drinker has no ability to hold his/her drink.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

But the driver collided just after the first driver swerved to avoid him.

I think even if she had reported it in... no matter how fast police sent out an officer to deal with it.. this was an accident in the making.

Ted says a young man died crossing the M61 after a lad's heavy night out per some report he got hold of from the big 'burb. The Mad Lad does have an intolerance of what he considers "daftly stupid" I've seen every single form of "daftly stupid" over the years. If they live - they end up answering for their actions in court. If they die.. then they paid perhaps too high a price for their silliness.

Now I can accept some end up alcoholics because of some deep emotional or deep depression. I can even just about understand why some may turn to drugs. I do not condone their actions and would hope that they receive the right kind of help to wean off and get a real life to enjoy and experience. Maybe it's our society which pretends to be caring - yet is hyopcritical in that it refuses to help or help prevent those who would turn to other "comforts" by callous indifference and its move towards an "isolate" community - which is fuelled by nightmare politics and nanny state induced fears perhaps.


Now I am making a very controversial bone to gnaw over here. I am making this statement to try to stimulate a deeper discussion. I think weepej is well capable of thinking through this controversial post of mine here. We need perhaps to work out why this cyclist and Mad Doc's other driver in "news" were each 5 times above the drink drive limit. Statements showed the driver was "out of normal character" for some reason and why he received some clemency. Perhaps this cyclist was similarly "out of character" and given his illness and unemployment - was he drowning sorrows or attemtptng to "end it all"?


Several years ago.. I dealt with an accident involving a drunken pedestrian who charged into a car on a fast dual carriageway. She survived the impact. To my knowledge - she was not ever able to walk again due to breaking her back.


She was depressed and wanted to die. She admitted she deliberately ran in front of the car. We did not ever charge the driver.. but he was very shocked and I recall having to get a doctor to him when I took a statement days after the incident.


So just maybe? Who knows for sure though.

Depression? It can cause all kinds of daft behaviour patterns. You know, we have to take all this into account when dealing with "situations"


I am not at all condoning or excusing tjhis cyclist. I am trying to make some sense of what happened without condemning him. Of course I do feel for the driver, his young step-daughter, the earlier motorist who will all wonder whether they could have prevented all this. I also feel for the cyclist's family who will also wonder why he was riding there and very drunk too.

A very nasty incident to all involved and I hope all will come to terms without anger/grief/depression and fury - and forgive that cyclist eventually. (All will go through a cycle of emotions from anger to grief to guilt ot anger to guilt to distress.. and it takes years to come to terms with all that )

_________________
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.

Ok

I've digested all the above. Taking Ted's summary at face value - and I've deliberately NOT followed the link... I may surprise people here by saying by and large I agree with the points that *I THINK* weepej tried to make early on before the thread degenrrated into an unfortunate p$$ing contest.

As far as the law is concerned, the cyclist was evidently illegal (shouldn't have been out in that state let alone on a cycle), and the motorist on balance of probability legal (ie driving with observation that one reasonably expects of an average driver, in sensible road position and within the speed limit.

However, as far as safety is concerned - and here is where I get controversial.. The cyclist should not have been there, but he was. Therefore anyone who sees him or is on the road at the time has a duty of care toward him. This includes:

* Anyone driving past him realising the problem IMHO has a duty to dial 999 and alert trafpol.

* Anyone who approaches him within capability of stopping, but realising that on balance of probability Mr Average would NOT be able to stop, if the road is as quiet as it would appear to have been, IMHO should likely adopt a primary position, a few car lengths behind the cyclist with hazard flashers on, if necessary weaving sideways to and fro in concert with the cyclist - and also call 999 explaining the situation, just as, hopefully, such a persom would do for a loose (sober) horse.

Now for my second piece of controversy - and here is where I think I am on board with Weepej - the motoris who is not being prosecuted was probably not "advanced" to take all the snapshot opportunites afforded to him when on full beam or immedaitely after dipping for any oncoming traffic etc - and was likely therefore travelling too fast to stop within the distance he knew to be clear. Ie, he was not practicing Safe Speed. Note - none of this refers to speed limits or absolute speed.