Safe Speed Forums

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aking.html

Now, when I first read this I found myself wondering how could he possibly plead not guilty. Surely it is "Open and Shut"

But then I thought about it.

There is plenty of established presedent that in the event of a collision between a Driver making a well signalled and legitimate right turn being run into by a overtaking motorcyclist or pedel cyclist (Even at junctions where such overtaking is specifically prohibited) the driver is held to be at fault for "Not looking properly"

Presumably if the same logic is applied here then the "Culpable party" is surely the driver of the car and it is she who should be facing trial for the death of her passangers!

Now, I am not suggesting for one minute that she should actually do so, but it does illustrate the double standards that seem to exist whereby responsibility and culpability seems to be more dependent on ones "Vehicle class" rather than ones actual behaviour!

And I would be interested in what arguments the defense council is presenting (Or maybe he is just yer average scumbag lawyer padding out his fee by dragging out a full trial over an issue that could have been dealt with by lunchtime by a simple guilty plea)

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

If you look at the photograph captioned "Dreadful Situation" you can see that both cars would have approached the layby on the right coming over a brow round a left hand bend. The car that ended up in the lake was not local and would only have seen the layby and decided to turn into it at fairly short notice. The driver of the Mondeo was a local and presumably would have been gearing himself up to overtake on a stretch of road he knew well.

The critical factor here is how early the driver of the people carrier signalled. Too late, it would appear and there would have been nowhere for the Mondeo man to go. This may not be quite so simple.

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

The report says there were two other vehicles between the Mondeo and the 807, so he might not have seen the indicators anyway. But, on the other hand, if a convoy ahead of you slows for no apparent reason, it makes sense to establish the cause rather than just going for an overtake.

_________________
"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

Yes, without knowing the full truth of what happened it does seem to be a 50/50 accident. obviously we are taught not to overtake when approaching a right hand junction because of the chance of someone turning right but if you were to take that stance on very layby or possible stopping place on the right, you could never overtake. Again, people turning right should check their mirror before turning right (this has saved my bacon on a couple of occassions,once when turning right on double white lines which didn't stop an inpatient BMW overtaking me.)

I know a guy who worked for parcelforce and strangely enough had a similar accident near Llanidloes where he was travelling down a dead straight road at night, he saw two vehicles stopped on the left of the road, the rear one had hazards on. As he overtook the two stationary cars, the front one turned right into a farm track, leaving him no-where to go but into the side of the first car. He was done for careless driving or similar and didn't bother fighting it but he never found out if the driver of the other car was prosecuted.

Thinking about this some more, the woman's manouvere would be more a case of pulling across the road at approximately a 45degree angle (much like an overtaking manouvere), more so than a normal right turn which would be approximately a 90degree turn and meaning that she and the following traffic would have to slow considerably. Taking into consideration that the manouvere she made was more akin to an overtake manouvere than a right turn, she should have been even more cautious and checked her overtaking mirror as if making an overtake, to check that no other cars were overtaking her (which they obviously were), so in my mind, she would appear to more negligent than i first thought.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

NO COAST!

Important to realise she was not executing a normal right turn - she has driven across the oncoming lane in order to drive into the layby - and from the position of the damage to his car, it looks like she COULD HAVE BEEN slightly to his right at the point of impact - he has struck harder with the right quarter of his front... or he may have been trying to get inside of her vehicle.

I don't see how he can defend his driving - he was unable to avoid a hazard that developed albeit unexpectedly in front of his car, while she has been plotting her course to a layby with what looks like a loose surface, and would have been adjusting her speed accordingly so as not to skid to a halt.
This has resulted in his acceleration getting him past the second (back) car in quick time, to have still struck her car, so she would likely not have seen his car when she commenced her manouvre.

I have to say my opinion IS coloured by my experience of knowing my local roads well, but spending time behind drivers admiring the scenery as they drive. It is not an excuse to throw caution to the wind and dive past another road user - there will inevitably be a degree of risk.
I'd hazard a guess that the deaths in this case might skew the verdict against him - otherwise he might just have got off a DWDC.
The witnesses accounts will be sharpened by the tragedy.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

This is the road they would have been travelling down prior to the collision

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=llanid ... 5,,0,-0.47

It's interesting to note at this point https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=llanid ... 5,,0,-0.41 a sign for a parking area 400 yards away, which as it turns out isn't the small strip of land to the right of the carriageway but in fact a car park a little further on the left....did she see the sign and mistake the strip of land on the right for a parking area instead of waiting a few seconds more to pull into a safer car park?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

My thoughts.

I am not in any way trying to excuse the actions of the Mondeo driver but.........

It's not a layby, it's a bit of dirt on the wrong side of a fast road with poor sight lines in both directions. I would have never attempted to park there. She had passed one large carpark and was approaching another, even if she confused the bit of dirt with the signposted parking area the safe thing to do would have been to drive past, find a place to turn around, park on the bit of dirt, take the photos then use the other carpark to turn back on her original course.

I'm a bit concerned about the reporting of this case. Suppose, instead of the above, he had said "Why the heck did you turn across without looking?" Would this have been reported or is the verdict already in?

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

I must admit, the case seems to be reported as being based on whether she indicated or not BUT we all know (don't we ) that just indicating and manouvering, isn't good/safe/advised driving practice...anyone who indicates blindly and then veers off in any direction which checking behind them is performing a potentially dangerous manouvere.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Reporting of such cases is often poor IMHO or even non existent!

Two or three years ago between Staveley and Ings on the A591, a young woman was stationary on a long curve, waiting to turn right.
A few vehicles were forced to queue behind her - but an ambulance approaching from behind on blues and twos elected to pass the queue of cars, when oncoming vehicles had cleared the stationary queue.

Naturally, the woman turning had checked her mirrors - but because of the curve behind her, could not see the blue lights approaching beyond the vehicles.
She commenced the turn, and was t-boned by the ambulance travelling at speed - a heavy vehicle, and she was seriously injured.
The ambulance driver in my opinion failed on two counts. He assumed that his blue lights would be seen, and possibly that the vehicles had slowed to allow him past, but he also took a risk in making the manouvre when approaching on a curve, as he could not have had a perfect view of approaching traffic.

Her car was shunted sideways some 10 yards.

Investigators seemed to hold her responsible - she was breathalysed in hospital, and her parents were told she "should have checked her mirrors" but in the end, there was never any report into the cause of the accident.

StreetView is unfortunately from the wrong side of the road - https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ings+A591&hl=en&ll=54.380257,-2.841511&spn=0.054287,0.169086&hnear=A591,+Cumbria,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=13&layer=c&cbll=54.380235,-2.841393&panoid=_k94TIbOP3CFCQTCg0CSVQ&cbp=12,295.18,,0,-0.64 but I have slowed and checked - and the drivers mirror shows little of anything approaching from behind - and you cannot turn right while looking continuously into the miror.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

So, in both these quotes, the driver turning right is seen to be at fault. Why is this not the case in this incident?

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

Guilty to causing death by CARELESS driveing verdict delivered.
NOT guilty to causing death by DANGEROUS driving.

It is irrelevant to this incident without further information, but Dyche had an appalling driving record by all accounts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19421724

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

In the case I outlined, this was the view of the first officers at the scene, not the eventual outcome, which for some reason was never published.
As far as I know, she was never prosecuted - her parents are customers of mine, and given my interest, I think they would have mentioned it.

This latest case has a driver setting off to pass two vehicles in front. He should be cautious if the road ahead is straight that they don't speed up - but of course the usual reaction when a potential passing opportunity arises is to boot it and watch for anything coming the other way as priority.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

My personal opinion, based upon doing a lot of driving in Devon and Dorset, where there seems to be a divided opinion on wether the NSL is 40 or 50 double treble or even quadruple overtakes are fairly commonplace.

A little insight first though, when I first started to drive, when one came across a slow driver, one would simply overtake them. Now it seems the art of safe overtaking is disappearing, what the majority of drivers will do is tailgate the slow driver trying to bully them into going faster. All this does is cause a huge slow moving queue of traffic, all getting frustrated making an accident much more likely.

The real problem is not with the slow driver, in fact I would take issue with a driver driving outside of their comfort zone. What I do have a problem with is those who tailgate a slow motorist, if you want to go faster, OVERTAKE, or learn how to. By tailgating, it means that the person behind has to overtake two cars rather than one. I can't help thinking that the over zealous speed enforcement has led us down this route, with drivers feeling it is safer to tailgate, rather than overtake, after all, they aren't speeding are they?

All that said, forward vision is always greater than rear vision, and one should always be vigilant when performing an overtake. I have an excellent piece of footage, where a white van failed to use his mirrors whilst I was overtaking, causing me to perform an emergency brake and abort. This so easily could have been a carbon copy of this accident. I would always say that the onus is on the overtaker to ensure that the move is completely safe.

I do wonder if the case would have been the same if it was the other way round, i.e. he was turning right and the woman with her family had run into the back of him or he was approaching her on the other side of the road and she pulled across him. Would he still be accused of poor driving by failing to look in his mirror or driving too fast if he had been approaching her? It does often seem to be the case that the young male driver is assumed to be in the wrong, when the other driver is "middle aged" and has a family on board, even though the driving standards and observational skills of some middle aged women, in my experience, is far from safe.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

When I come across a long tailback of drivers doing 40MPH, with little being done to overtake the lead driver, I usually assume the second in line to be the main problem , often by not attempting to overtake when they have the opportunity, whilst at the same time not leaving sufficient gap for anyone following, to slot in front of them, in order to attempt to overtake the lead car, who may have good reason for not wanting to go above 40MPH.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I know this road well, both as a passenger in my dim and distant past, and for the rest of the time as a driver. First off, any competent barrister would've had the charges against Dyche thrown out of court at the earliest opportunity, and ask the CPS why they weren't prosecuting the driver of the 807 which ended up in the lake for DwDC&A.

In the reporting I've seen of this case, there was one vehicle in between the 807 and the Mondeo. The driver of this vehicle described the 807's driver as driving in an "exemplary" manner. Now, the problem I have with this is that he/she ignored the fact the 807 pulled out into the other lane while the Mondeo was already in the process of overtaking. I don't regard this as "exemplary" driving. Further, I know of plenty of drivers who wouldn't know good driving from bad. They'd regard any IAM member doing advanced driving as "bad drivers". This witness evidence of the middle car driver should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. The only witness evidence I'd take seriously is from an IAM member, or more preferably a traffic police officer, either on duty or off duty.

As you can see in the photos, this lay-by that the press have been reporting on is nothing but a length of grass verge that parked cars have stripped of vegetation. It certainly isn't signposted. To have considered parking there from the first moment she saw it, the driver of the 807 couldn't have been driving any faster than 35mph. Any faster and she would've had to brake pretty severely.

This stretch of road is also a good overtaking spot as once you're round the slight left-hand bend, it straightens out and you can see quite a distance ahead over the dam. As such, the driver of the Mondeo didn't do anything wrong in going for an overtake. It's highly likely he didn't see the 807's indicator as he was behind the intermediate car. But I cannot stress highly enough that the only way this accident occurred is because the driver of the 807 pulled out into the path of the overtaking Mondeo. This was verified as fact in court, yet nobody - even Dyche's barrister - has thought of questioning why on God's green earth did she do this. She can't have checked her mirrors before moving across, else she would've seen the Mondeo.

I don't know if Dyche's going to appeal, but he should. It's an open and shut miscarriage of justice, and the wrong driver was on trial. Dyche also needs to find himself a competent barrister as well. This verdict as it stands sets a worrying precedent in that if any driver at the head of an overtaking convoy pulls out to the right, thus causing an RTA, he or she will get off scot-free.

I have to agree with everything that Gog has said above. Having driven the road myself a couple of times, albeit, about ten years ago and been a passenger on this road about two years ago, I wouldn't consider it to be a dangerous road and is generally a "fast" road.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

If I signal and pull out suddenly in front of someone overtaking me on a dual carriageway any accident would be my fault. Is there really any difference here?

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

As with many Welsh mountain roads, it's a particularly good one to hone one's driving skills on - not as a Nurburgring-style test track you understand, but in gear selection, approach to corners, and generally to develop a smooth and safe driving style.

Related to this issue, I've lost count of the times when in the middle of an overtaking manoeuvre some cretin ahead of me also decides to overtake, but hadn't bothered to look in his/her mirrors (it's usually a he). Swift blast on horn usually sorts them out to stop them driving me off the road, but the way they swerve back into their lane is deeply worrying. Sadly, in the same way as with other driving problems, this is progressively getting worse, but telling you lot on this forum is like teaching grandma to suck eggs. There's one driver in her mid-60s whom I know who regularly drives over a traffic light-controlled blind hump-back bridge in the vicinity with the red against her - I don't think she knows the traffic lights exist. How on earth she so far hasn't had a head-on collision with an oncoming vehicle is beyond me, but she's eating into her supply of good luck.