Safe Speed Forums

So wholly different and un-analogous to the issue at hand as to be irrelevant.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I think she may have got the classic case of "taxi driver's u-turn".

Black cab drivers are brilliant drivers (if sometimes a little selfish), but when I see them do their u-turn manovre I'm sure they roll their eyes round in the back of their head.

I also see the same when pedestrians run for buses, they appear to develop a focus so singular that they will willingly run across a busy road with scant regard for what's in it.

Same with cats, small closing gap and they'll go for it and think of nothing else, same with people and tube train doors...

At that point in time she was in the wrong place, probably knew she was, and tried to get out, a classic "I'm trapped" reaction (also demonstrated by some people who get stuck in L1 stationary queue on a motorway).

Some quotes from : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... crash.html
here ...

There seem to be a lot pf mistakes if the following is truly correct :
At noon in dry good visibility & conditions :

1) Maltby, in her silver Vauxhall Corsa in the L1 of a dual carriageway when she turned right
(to cross a gap in the central reservation).
[NO to carry out a Right Turn, but there is NO mention that she is trying for the slip raod, just 'the gap' so had she missed the slip road altogether too !].

2) then .... Appleby (in car) says that he "narrowly avoided hitting Maltby's car, as she appeared to start to turn right in front of him.
[implying that - he drove to his right into the right 'slip road section' to give himself space to drive around her.]

3) In Appleby's mirror, he sees the lorry behind him also swerve "around the inside of her car to avoid hitting it."
(Now does he also mean that the lorry also went into the slip road section or "inside" being 'behind her car ? ) I cannot tell, But IF that is true .... then ....

4) Booth who was driving behind (the bike ?) says that he "saw Maltby pull out in front of Sgt Walsham's motorcycle".
[BUT if she was stationery she could not be 'moving' had she stopped ? or Paused ? - How FAR out was the front of her car ... as .....

4a) Booth says "I could see the Vauxhall Corsa heading towards the central reservation. The car was going really slowly at a snail's pace."
[so we 'can' think then that she was at least NOW (after the 2 near misses) continued towards the 'gap' !!!

5) "The reconstruction (by police) suggested that Sgt Walsham might have been only 50 metres away when Maltby turned in front of him, said Mr Crimp." (Prosecutor)

So we can surmise from this that :

a) Maltby failed to :
see the two near misses with her car,
continues in spite of other traffic about,
IF she HAD paused, actually carries ON, and, STILL failing to observe the 2nd lane, the traffic, the distant slip lane,
continues to fail to observe,
takes NO avoiding action at all,
goes extremely slowly, in spite of the dangers Already going on about her !
She failed to plan ahead (use the 'B' road after in stationery / slow moving traffic,), she ought to have been in L2 and ready to use the slip road.

b) Appleby has failed to :
predict that anyone in the traffic MIGHT try to exit into the nearby junction, especially with slow / stopped traffic,
fails to allow for this possibility, and slow to enable anyone to,
failed to observe her moving, and steering, failed ot observe her looking at the 'opening',
(whether he was also driving closely to the vehicle that he was following - as he had her "appeared to start to turn right in front of him",
he then had NO time to do anything other than avoiding action which worked, so he had some space to consider his actions and allow time for them, albeit last minute.

c) the lorry also had to swerve, and so with his higher up vision, he failed :
to observe properly ahead,
also likely that he too had not left a good gap, and certainly only just enough 'time to react',
again showing that lack of concentration and forethought with the junction to their right,
his failure to observe this potential event is worse as he was further back, and had more time to observe,

d) the motorbike ....
Hummm oh dear
well IF he IS following the lorry and with ALL his massed knowledge what went wrong !
where was his 'gap', his observation, his anticipation, his checks,
what was he thinking of ?
How come he didn't even see the car - he has to have been following the lorry FAR to closely,
he cannot have seen much ..... but we have not been told about skid marks or avoidance manoeuvres or impact speeds ...

MANY people went wrong on this day,
many people made, many fundamental errors,
and the person most likely to have anticipated, and allowed for ALL, of the errors 'of others' failed in his own ability, when he needed all his skill and judgement most !
Perhaps failed in the most basic too - leave a good gap behind the lorry (to enable good visibility), to always have an escape route ... where was his ?
(He helped other motorbiker's and was a trained Police motorbiker, so he had many good training skills behind him to instinctively use).

Everyone involved here,
Failed to Have Good Concentration, Observation or Anticipation,
They coupled this too, with failure to plan for possible predictable behaviours.

There are also probably a host of other local drivers too that have failed to assist her in her 'intentions', helped by leaving a larger gap behind her (enable her indicator to be more visible - no idea if it was or was not on), vehicles in L2 even considering of a L1 intentions into the junction, trying to show courtesy and consideration. Even others seeing her actions and indicating right too may have given L2 traffic a warning.

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

What "others" ?
How can anyone move into the left lane to avoid her if there was other traffic there ?
The road is nearly straight, slight bend to the right.
Even if the m/cyclist had maintained a large gap between the truck and himself it is unlikely to have increased his view ahead.
Add to that the truck moving over into the left lane suddenly, which would have further blocked the view ahead.
The truck, governed to less than 60, moving over means the bike would have accelerated....straight into a slow moving car doing a maneuver that nobody would (or could) have anticipated.
Would I have driven like that ?
No.
Would any reasonable driver ?
No.
Would any reasonable driver have stopped in the inside lane and then, with no observation, no planning and no care for the consequence turned across a lane of high speed traffic to complete a turn that should never have been considered by any normal driver ?
No.

_________________
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

That's an interesting comment - can the mighty safety cameras make that distinction?

(Without the catch-all answer that they (red light & speed cameras) are only placed at such locations, because the general use policy seems to have moved away from those initial requirements.)

_________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Perhaps it'd be a bit more productive to think in terms of education/training/development/evaluation to assess the ability to drive safely rather than just punishment?

_________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

The trouble with all punishments today is that it no longer fits the crime. A burglar can get about the same as a rapist etc…

It seems to me if we all lived to be 400, instead of our three score and ten, then you could have a fairer, more proportionate, system.. Theft could be one year, rape could mean 10 years, murder could be 20 years, terrorists killing many could get 100 years. What’s more you could make it stick! No more off early for good behaviour nonesense.

Of course the down side is speeders would probably get 1 year in jail these days

_________________
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.

The following guidelines apply where there is a contested trial.

Amount stolen


Guideline sentence

Amount stolen is not small, but is less than £17,500
Custodial terms from the very short to 21 months

£17,500 to £100,000
2 – 3 years custodial sentence

£100,000 to £250,000
3 – 4 years custodial sentence

£250,000 to £1 million
5 – 9 years custodial sentence

£1 million or more
Custodial sentence of 10 years or more

That the sentences do not reflect what they should be is not really the courts fault.

The maximum sentence for rape is life.
The average sentence is 7 years.
The average burglary sentence is nearly two years.
The sentence for murder is always life. The time served can be as little as 10 years, but they are always released on licence. Even speeding could mean a return to prison.
At the end of the day, a person died as a direct result of gross incompetence of the driver. At 71 a prison sentence may seem excessive (and she will almost certainly be out on bail now until an appeal) but a person died.

_________________
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

Custody is not possible for careless driving. Custody is available for dangerous driving. As I have already mentioned, the driving must be of a standard that anybody seeing it would consider it to be dangerous.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I wouldn't disagree with that comment, but you don't have to look far to see posts where general comment becomes highly specific criticism about the justice system when the poster has only a press report to go on.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

There would be a discount for a guilty plea but the overall linking of amount stolen to severity of sentence applies to the sentencing of all theft offences, not just trials. You also need to bear in mind that you have only given one of the facts that would be considered when deciding sentence. Others would include any violence, previous record of defendant, possible sentimental value of items taken, was the stolen item(s) recovered in good condition, was there any breach of trust etc etc.

I have been trying to get that point across ever since I found this forum. Hopefully now that you have posted the fact, a few less people will accuse courts of being too lenient.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

The trouble is this ‘anybody’ might say it’s fine or dangerous. Where do you get twelve good men and true AND with the brains to know what constitutes dangerous driving?

My dear ole mum thought I was racing when I used to take her to work on the back of my Honda 250. If accelerated with high rpm in 1st gear she would jab me in the ribs. If I did the same coming away from work people also looked at me like I was a nut.

However, in both cases my Honda was only doing about 20 mph. The noise alone made others think I was going fast or like a maniac. If, on the other hand, I was going faster and quieter in a higher gear, they thought it perfectly safe and mum didn’t bat an eyelid.

“Are you good men and true?”

“Yea, or else it were pity but they should suffer salvation, body and soul”.

_________________
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.

As far as I am aware, they were never intended to.
I am aware of 2 pilot schemes where red light cameras are being backed up with CCTV which records traffic at the other lights to enable the more serious offenders to be separated from those who have just overshot the stop line. I wonder if this will be condemned in the same way as speed cameras?

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Off the Electoral Roll. We all know that 12 people, male or female, picked at random from the Roll, automatically become able to decide matters which are too serious for mere JPs to decide.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Call me cynical but that's the same system which got OJ off. and many more besides. With the recent news that we are soon likely to be paying for our own defence in speeding cases when proven innocent I have to say I'm not sure what is so civilized about our civilized society anymore.

_________________
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.

I am not a big fan of fines (and in particular large fines.)

The problem is that in many cases they affect too many innocent people. (both at the time, and in the future)

And, what is more, Government gets to rely on them as a source of revenue.

(I have mixed feelings about prison aswell. It seems to be overused for "Minor" offences uand underused for "serious" ones)

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

It's overused for minor offences because they are only in for a short time.
It's underused for major offences for the opposite reason, and because there are more minors than majors.

_________________
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 what I was saying is that the courts increasingly seem to be interpreting behaviour where there is no intent, no recklessness, no sustained pattern of misbehaviour, as dangerous rather than careless driving. Therefore people are being imprisoned for isolated and entirely innocent errors of judgment which many reasonable people would merely judge as careless (though obviously not juries).

_________________
"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

Other than improving driver education and testing standards, how else to educate the public what the real difference is / should be between careless driving and dangerous driving?

I wonder if anyone will successfully use 'driver education and testing standards found wanting' as a defense ...

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Both me and Wildy see Over Kellett verdict as absurd acceptance of police misconduct. Only a fool would have driven as they did with zero consideration. But our real anger and contempt is for Schofield who blamed the legal deceased and then his trainer. But then not us let forget the trainer who got banned in N Yorks (known for fair play) for meaningless OTT speeding on their patch.


I agree 100% with "The Rush" whose views I respect and applaud entirely and consider a kindred spirit to both me and my wife.

Just months after his "training audit" catalysed a death.


That road? You are hard pressed to hold it at an illegal 80 mph. They hit 104 mph and had zero respect for others sharing the road with them.

No. with my wife on the "cannot forgive stupidity from those who should know better respect" stance.

My opinion. My wife's opinion.

We do not support a speed camera. We want police.


We do not condone stupidity so who commits it .. police or public. why should we? WHY SHOULD WE?


Easy answer .. we should not. We should expect decent COASt and safety led behaviour which may be a small blip above a speed limit most of the time on most roads.


Note our stance is not as cyclist/Brake .. money cacsh can highway men. but the common sense stance:wink:


Our point .. a uniform carries weight .. enough to pervert what we all know to be justice at times. In this I concede a parent's views when he ranted that police please themselves even if I chastise him over his weakness in putting his foot down on "ground rules to be home" :roll;

I know kids can push limits. Our parental job is to rein them in.. discipline.. steer back to decent norm of life as gently as we can as "draconian" can be "counter-productive"




If a silly error can be proven as silly error .. the one who committed faces his own life sentence.

Now we know this because of suicide attempt of the one who killed Ferdl. And the widow who blamed herself for not stopping her husband .. who died when he almost killed my lovely wild wife.

You forgive. It's salvation.. No one forgets. All remember.. all then THINK about how they behave out there.

_________________
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.