Safe Speed Forums

Sir John Whitmore also wrote a thought-provoking piece today.




Both Wildy and self told our eldest the same as our teachers told us - the car can kill - and the moment you set off - if you do not apply COAST - you can kill someone.

William took the message seriously - but let's not forget - he knows what happened to his Uncle Ferdl and his Mama. In this - he has an advantage over his peers - but his younger brother is a very different animal - and I tread much more carefully as a Papa with this one.

Think I'm winning - think, hope, pray it's just the teenage strop and challenge phase

I stress - he's a good decent lad - and I am sure his hormones will settle before he turns 17. He's simply going through the normal "challenge his Papa" stage as I did and we all did before him. He's normal and I'd be more worried if he did not try me out.

This bit is very very important




IG has passed coment on here in the past and to me in person


The widow of the man who hit Wildy - so full of remorse and guilt. We try to tell her we forgive. We have her and her family to share our Christmas with us and we have her stay with us for a holiday as well. We hope to show her that my wife recovered and she has no need to feel so upset. She still beats and blames herself for not taking the car keys that day.

Not her fault. NOT his fault - and if Wildy had died that day - her legacy would have left me with kids to be proud of and her work to that point would have survived her as well. Yes - speak from my heart - not my head - perhaps - on this!

But too little consideration is given to person who causes a fatal. He's a human being and a civilised society has to take this into account.

I see what Sir John is getting at.



I have to say - I find myself very much in agreement here. True drivers and cyclists evaluate each drive and ride.

Sir John wonders about advanced training and even asks



Indeed. And I seem to recall posting a similar thought in the early days of this forum when our Paul broached this very subject for discussion.

You heard it debated on this site first!

Sir John poignantly recalls how he felt responsible for two skiers marooned off piste in the mountains and asks how we can make drivers feel this each time they get behind wheel when feeling tired, ill or under influence of drink and drugs.

He goes on to remark that 17 year old boys in particular are eligible to drive before the safety conscious part of brains have kicked into place and asks how we can reduce risk whilst still allowing boys to be – well boys

As a Papa – consider myself to be firm, friendly and open to my growing kids. I encourage them to ask questions and I would worry if they did not challenge my authority over them as I do consider this to be normal behaviour,



But from toddler stage – followed the Swiss/IG example of constant safety led guidance



Um – it also applies to cyclists – realise that ed.m , Cyclist and Peyote may pick up on me as “slating posters elsewhere” but I cannot get over the fact that so many of them come across as “holier than thou “ and unwilling to accept that cyclists as well as drivers make mistakes of abhorrent magnitude!

In my mind – all road users must take and share responsibility for safety and COAST does seem a more comprehensive safety approach – simply because following the code inevitably leads to driving and riding at safest speed for the conditions – which may be at limit or below in an urban situation - and in the case of fast dual carriageway road – maybe just above!

IG, self and the Swiss mob are trying to pass on an important message in COAST – which is part of DIS and Speed Awares - the latter from things IG showed me on social calls to my home and from the Speed Aware Assess form - courtesy of Wildy's colleagues,

Sir John asks who decides the acceptable ratio – given that someone has to explain to bereaved of both parties – and let’s face facts here. – I have never ever forgotten the day the officer told me about my wife nor the second we heard about Ferdl and I would be equally shocked to the core if my kids caused or were victims of an accident of any kind.

Thus – my wife and self have spent some time spelling it out to them. I think - and still reinforce it - they have the message – even my more lippy/laddy second son!

Sir John wonders whether or not we should invest in technology to limit the speed of our young. . Well - they can drive on motorways at 70 mph - so how would you stop a silly speed on a urban if you limited the car to 70 mph per NSL dual - and what happens if you travel abroad where the motorway limit is 81.25 mph in the dry?

Sir John does ask what – as a society are we willing to pay to save a life?

Speaking as a consultant doctor who engages in a bitter argument over funding, beds, budget, available prescriptions, etc on a daily basis – I’d say very little. :furiusL

Or rather the government seems to talk a lot and do little to deliver. – and society’s fault lies in political apathy in not voting this idiot out of office when they had the chance/ :fiurious:

Sir John finally asks whether or not we are prepared to invest in advanced training and riding lessons as he does not know what else we could do.

Nor do we – Sir John – but we do think some kind of periodic assessment – COAST basei and with some kind of reward in reduced insureance costs could help rather than hinder.

_________________
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.

off tangent slightly

_________________
now retired

In this case, I would agree with you, this was a deliberate act with a lethal weapon.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Whilst not condoning in any way hitting someone with your car...why was the PCSO stood in the road? Was it to prevent the driver moving off before the ticket was completed and attached to the vehicle?

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

whati have

_________________
now retired

Why on earth would they stand in the road in front of the vehicle? Especially if they had already issued the ticket, or had the means to do so later? Talk about putting yourself in the line of fire! We've all heard of nutters assaulting traffic wardens, people stabbing folks when they think they've been cut up. I have to say if I was the one issuing tickets I'd stay on the pavement, preferably behind a lamp post.

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Oh, yes.
If I got a knock on the door from the BiB telling me that my wife and kids had been wiped out by someone, my first thought would be "the poor thing, they must be so guilt-ridden. I simply MUST go and see them, and tell them that these things happen".
Fortunately, my reassurance comes from the fact that when my wife and kids go out in the car, A) she's a damn fine driver, and B) they're in a
2-ton 4x4 which will see them through practically everything this side of Armageddon.
Enough with all the bleeding-heart rubbish- if someone died as a result of your incompetence, you SHOULD feel guilty as hell- and you should get a nice long time behind bars to contemplate.

is that response aimed at me

_________________
now retired

No, cam op- sorry if you thought it was.

It depends on the circumstances. We've already discussed at some length on this forum the differences between liability and responsibility and the fact that the vast majority of multiple vehicle accidents can usually be avoided by either party ragardless of who made the initial mistake. Therefore saying 'anyone who causes a death on the road should be treated like a murderer' isn't fair.

The tale that came to mind when I read the initial post was one of a lorry driver my partner used to know. Someone pulled out on him while he was driving round a roundabout and killed themselves under the front of the truck. The accident was not the lorry driver's fault and he was unhurt. He got out of the cab and started walking and they found him later that day, say at home 5 miles away, drinking a cup of tea. He had a complete mental breakdown and as a result had his LGV licence revoked. Would you consider him a murderer? He caused a death on the road, but I would be willing to bet that he and his family were worse affected by the accident than the family of the dead.

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

A friend of mine knocked over and killed a little girl. She ran out into the road between two parked cars and literally under his front wheels. He was absolved of all blame for the accident but his feeling of guilt never left him. It also turned him into a very nervous driver.

If somebody kills somebody by negligence or by a dangerous act then I agree they should be prosecuted for manslaughter and locked up for life.

But there are genuine accidents as well and sometimes the line is very fine.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

Note what i said earlier - "as a result of your incompetence".
There will always be incidents where the driver has done nothing wrong, and someone dies. Or, incidents where not only was the driver not at fault, but saw the hazard and did everything possible to try and avoid it but someone still died. And, yes, these drivers will suffer mental anguish for a long, long time, possibly even giving up driving altogether.
But these aren't the people I'm talking about.
I feel a link to the "mobile phone anniversary" and "death by careless" posts coming on..........