Safe Speed Forums

He did jump the lights though, and by account was mown down by somebody travelling at quite a speed whilst looking at their mobile phone.

You think they just should have said to the lady at the scene, "jumped the red light did he, don't worry, not your fault at all, carry on"?

Think about that - we are not talking about 1 or two mph. Is there a judge in the land who would consider nearly 50% over the limit as "only speeding a bit"?

Through quite a complicated junction as well, I know that junction and I'm always very cautious going through it as its not very easy to read, going at 30mph through that is a bit on the edge IMO.

I don't know what speed she was doing and how relavent the speed was, but isn't it a dual carrageway? So a road probably capably of letting traffic travel at 60 or 70.

I don't know whether he hit the front of the side of the car, but I do know he should not have been where he was. Kind of like building sites having to have fences to stop trespassers hurting themselves.

did't it say some where that the forensic phone person did't know exactly when the phone was used, she would have used the phone to dial 999? So if it was 30 seconds BEFORE it could well have been sat on the seat doing nothing and she could well just be singing along to the radio and as the lights were green carried on, just as you or I would. Then out of the darkness came a bike, with no lights against the lights.

If she was told "he jumped the lights, don't worry carry on" there would be much less light jumping. As it is, don't jump the lights, but if you do it doesn't really matter because you are on a bike and all the responsibilty is on the driver, not you, you are untouchable. The rider of a bike is a person, so is the driver of the car, lorry, bus and they ALL have to take responsbility for their own and other road users safety.

This is really bad PR for cyclists.

But thats the point.

She didnt "cause" the death.

Sure her actions were (possibly) a contributary factor. But it was HIS decision to run the red that resulted in his death

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

The guy was a bluddy idiot for choosing the ignore the red light, but that doesn't absolve the car driver for the overall situation, obviously because she's been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

Had she been looking and not going at such a speed, he might have survived, or not been struck at all.

And if she had struck a pedestrain crossing the road? Or a car that had been caught after the lights and proceeded forward after the light had gone red?

I'd say the cyclist orchestrated the overall situation by ignoring a clear signal. Thats said, taking things at face value the driver failed in her duty to pay proper attention to the road. I live in a city and you can't drive far without a cyclist* taking a liberty on the assumption he's been observed and I'll take aversive action, and as a driver I have a duty to manage others mistakes and idiocy. Given the cyclists input however I don't think a manslaughter/death charge is appropiate. perhaps accessory to manslaughter?

*or of course, many other road users. cyclists stand out more because how many choose to ride doesn't reflect an awareness of their vunerability

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

She offered no explanation as to why she didn't see the cyclist. I think the judge may have conceeded this was because she was hiding mobile phone use.

According to Weepej if a driver is going over a level crossing and hits someone who is on the crossing (even though they had to go through the closed gates) that legally the train driver would be legally responsible for this.

That is not true. If a train driver saw someone suddenly and illegally obstruct the railway line with the stopping distance of even a two car commuter train, let alone a long express or a very long double-headed goods train, can be up to a mile, given the circumstances.

And the case in question seems to be based on guesswork and supposition:-

The driver might have exceeded the speed limit.
The driver might have been using her phone.
The driver might have been expected to see, on a dark morning, a cyclist dressed in dark clothing with no lights on his bike.

Yes and other road users might expect people not to take stupid risks with their own lives.

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

You're willfully misrepresenting the situation I stated Thatsnews.

What I can't figure is the jury. They are supposed to make their decision based on the facts - and in this case there seem to be few. The defendent's guilt must be 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and from what we know it isn't.

I'd have expected more from her defence team. And as there's pretty much no way of saying what she was doing with the phone, if anything, in the seconds before the impact surely the judge should/would have cautioned the jury regarding that 'evidence'. Not to mention that even if she had been paying more attention she may still not have seen him.

That she drove badly is without doubt - and she should be punished for that. But putting the entire incident on her shoulders - 100% - 'beyond all reasonable doubt' - as the jury must have to bring in a death by dangerous driving verdict seems wrong.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

[quote="weepej"

You're willfully misrepresenting the situation I stated Thatsnews.[/quote]

No I am not.



It is unlikely in the extreme that anyone would be stupid enough to prosecute under those circumstances.

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

I agree with Barkstar. I think that there are good grounds for an appeal.

I wonder if the jury were taken up by the hysteria? "Poor young cyclist, dashing to work, evil car driver texting, driving too fast, mowing down the poor, plucky young, etc., etc., etc."

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

Two wrong not make a thing right. In a way .. ist a bit like the video with the kids meeting a van und not applying the skiils they demonstrated to Bikeability assessor.

The Highway Code ist pretty clear over rules for cyclists as in MUST OBEY ALL TRAFFIC SIGNALS INCLUDING TRAFIIC LIGHTS

Had he lived .. then this would have impacted on compo claim. In fact, her insurers may seek to reduce any compo due to the cyclist's family anyway.. und if he no dependents.. it "singelton laws"


But the onus of proof seems unsubstantial und perhaps she can appeal against conviction - though a call to Andreas und IG seem to suggest that if she admitted looking at the message - then her eye off road und it a question of when she read the text in relation to late reaction when coming across the cyclist.

Remember cyclist may have been 10 - 20 mph moving forward

At 30 mph she travel.. 15-16 yard per second .. he travel say - 7-8 yard per second if at say 12- 15 mph or thereabout (which ist about norm for me

It then become possible that he cross in front und may even have been a SMIDSY on initial approach when one look at the aerial photo which Ern post up.

It seem to hinge on exact point she read the text message which ist contrued as "using the phone" in real terms. Speed cannot really be proven und it was prosecutor bluffery reported with gusto by the media idiots

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

You do not know what speed she actually at. No speed cam verify this nor red light cam verify this per the report. Prosecution speculation.

She perhaps look at text which construed as using the phone. At 30 mph .. she travel 16 yards or so per second. We not know cyclist's speed but ist possible to accelerate in momentum ooomph to get through lights quickly. If at 15- 20 mph - he achieve about half this distance per second.

It depend where he ist in relation to her approach.. distance each continue to travel before each become aware of danger zone too.

It depend at what point she glance or readthe message if the interpretation of law lie in actually reading the text und not actual act of texting or ringing back on the handy held device. Though why they cannot use handy free version when so cheap to buy ist beyond my ability to understand any more than the "love affair" with these thing.

To me .. it just a phone. I use it to call folks when I can be bovvered to do so. (I hate speaking on phone. I start having to think for word I need to use. Und I have to listen hard too


He decided to take thaat chance "because it seem quiet".

This case show precisely WHY this to do.

You still have not answered my question as to the wisdom of his decision or the lesson learned from breaking the laws for cyclists. If they want to be "regarded as traffic" - there ist no problem in this


but they just as much obligated to abide by law as all other road users und to be responsible when travelling.

Und they cannot claim to be "pedestrian on wheels" when it suit them either. It either one or the other.. und if it the "being accepted as valid vehicle usong the road - then there ist the responsibilty und the obligation to obey the red light.


If they so wish - they can always dismount und walk like a pedestrian pushing the two wheeled machine

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

They have trams. There a case in Switzerland. Bike got stuck in tram tracks. Fortunately the rider decide to jump off before tram crush bike. Cyclist currently being sued by tram company for damages to tram. Ongoing per last I read in Swiss Sunday Sensationalist type paper

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

if she had an explanation why she didn't see him, she would probably have seen him.

Why did he not see or HEAR her, was he listening to his iPod? If you are going to jump the lights you had better look after yourself.

Whether that guy was walking, cycling, riding a motorbike, driving a car, driving a van, driving a tractor, driving a 44 tonne artic he still jumped the lights and he paid the price. The reason we don't jump the lights is because there just might be some body that isn't paying as much attention as they might be.

If cyclists want to be treated as equals on the road (I personally have no problem with this) they cannot only obey the law when it suits them.

Red lights are there to make proceeding across a junction safe for everyone, if you want to ignore the lights do so at your own risk.

If he had gone to a zoo and ignored the "don't go into the lion enclosure" sign, then jumped over the walls into the lion enclosure and they ate him, do we shoot the lions for being lions or do we laugh at his stupidity? I'll be the one laughing.

I cannot see where they had the prrof of the speed from the reported piece.

If she read the text - then she had used the phone whilst driving. The forensics on the phone may have established when viewed. This would be what she was convicted of.

Unfortunately - her culpability of hitting the cyclist would depend on timing as to when the message was read and point of impact with the cyclist. We might be able to guess at the speed - but this could not surely have been proven given this report if accurate.

We know the lights were on green in her favour and that the lay-out is a bit tricky - which makes the cyclist's decision seem a bit bizarre if he was local.


Had he lived? I think if he'd done this here and lived - we would have given him a strong telling off and may be fined him the £30. We would certainly have prosecuted the driver for texting anyway.

Should she be jailed? Under the circumstances as reported - I think not. I think a fine and a ban would be more than adequate punishment given he also broke the law and in some way contributed to this sorry tale.

Moral of story - OBEY these very essential traffic laws. Slight safe blip of an overspeed - we can offer a little common sense over here. Blatant texting on a mobile phone and disobeying a traffic light signal- we cannot offer "discretion" as this is a very deliberate decision on the part of the road users .

_________________
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.