Safe Speed Forums

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

I wont be doing it any more though. They made it illegal when they brought in the mobile phone legislation, so by the time I've found somewhere that's safe and legal to stop my information probably wont be so useful any more.

Getting back more directly to the topic, is it possible that the driver was able to stop within the distance they could see to be clear, but the cyclist approached from a sharper angle than the beam of the driver's headlights. ie instead of the cyclist appearing at the far edge of the beam, they appeared from the side half way along the area illuminated by the beam (or perhaps even closer).

If you think about it, it's quite likely if the drunken cyclist had previously been in a near miss then they likely would have moved back over to their side of the road, only to veer across again a few seconds later, perhaps in response to almost hitting the curb.

On a motorway you can reasonably expect all road users to be lit, thus increasing visibility beyond the range of your headlights, you can also expect any road furniture to at the very least be reflective, in fact the only thing that you can't expect to be illuminated beyond the range of your headlights is the path of the road itself and you can deduce this from other cars as well as make assumptions as to how twisty it's likely to be (don't try this on the M53 around Bromborough though!)

Not so. Emergency use of a telephone on a 999 basis (hand-held or hands-free) on the move is permitted.

Quite possibly.

I contend that irrespective of this, an alert driver following the Safe Speed rule would still be avle to avoid an accident and in all probability provide a rear guard until the emergency services arrived to take over.

The emphasis here is "reasonably". Every few years you can expect a car with failed rear lights or, more frequently, particularly in inclement weather, flatbed trucks, black, so completely caked in mud that not only do their lights not penetrate through the grime, the reflectors are useless too. This is why it is important to keep one's distance and to look a dozen or two cars ahead when in free-flowing traffic on a motorway, and when on one's own, to have one's lights full on except when one would dazzle oncoming traffic (or, sadly, when one might be potentially dazzled by a tit-for-tatter on a righthander despite them not being unreasonably affected by full beam coming toward them), and as one dips, to have pre-assessed ahead, left and right and to have made use of the oncoming car's beam too if possible. If you are on your own in your direction and there is a stream coming toward you, it may well be safer to be in the "fast" lane of your carriageway as that may get the benefit of the oncoming traffic's lights. If not, you simply have to reduce speed to match the extent of your dip beam. No hard and fast rule though - judge it on the night. Some motorways and dual carriageways are so well lit you could make safe 3-figure progress were it not for the law of the land. Others not.

In a statement read to the inquest, Natasha H, who was sitting in the front passenger seat of the X-reg Ford Focus, said she saw a man on a bike in the middle of the lane ahead.
"I screamed at Mark to stop and he braked immediately," said Natasha.

"The car hit the back wheel of the bike and the cyclist hit our windscreen."
Mr P told the inquest he braked as soon as he saw the cyclist who he said was 'riding erratically'.
He added, "The next thing I knew was the impact of him on the windscreen and roof."

Well *this* implies that he was looking elsewhere - even for a moment, (probably reasonably - perhaps) but he was NOT seeing the cyclist as quickly as his passenger.....
'immediately' well, as quickly as he could anyway, - given another 3/4 of a second or more (likely) of reaction time, and so he may not have been able to brake much before the impact at all.

It is NOT about suing Pubs, or fining anyone, it is about caring for a fellow human being, who needed a good friend or caring citizen, to run him home. (If of course he could remember where that was!).

I agree with you entirely, unfortunately the current perception that many people have is that getting involved puts you at risk of being sued or prosecuted. We're not as bad as America were people get sued for attempting first aid and not doing it right, but we're getting there. People just aren't prepared to put themselves at legal risk even if they may be prepared to put themselves at physical risk[1] (eg. saving a drowning child, or helping a possibly violent drunk)

Any one who knows me will know that I go the extra mile to see people get home safe. However I can't look after every body. there are just too many. I have rang control rooms and got grouchy reception.

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 )

They kept that bit quiet. I bet it wouldn't stop you from getting a tug if a passing trafpol happened to see you though.

I thought the previous driver was travelling in the same direction as the driver involved in the accident, ie in the opposite direction as the cyclist, so they'd have to turn around first, probably not going to happen on an unlit A road.

In any case, given the current legal climate where the nearest person who has a driving licence is automatically responsible for any crime that happens anywhere in the country (ok, I exaggerate, and in this case it didn't happen, but it's the general feeling a lot of drivers have) surely the safest position to be when near an obviously drunken cyclist is as far away as possible so that you can't be blamed. I guess the continentals have it even worse than us on this one thanks to the "no fault liability" rule, but over here we effectively have that anyway due to the current political and legal climate.

An offence if copped



I'm aware of the exceptions for motorways, I was trying to use them as an example of where there is little to go wrong, before bringing in the pedestrians (and unlit cyclists) that are likely to be encountered. Personally I'd be in favour of introducing certain minimum visibility requirements for unlit roads of 40mph or higher, but that would still only shift blame, not prevent an accident.

Well, if it's insight to depression you want, I can offer some thoughts.

First thing you have to understand is you often lose all intrest in taking care of oneself, to the extent of regard for your own mortality. It simply ceases to be relevant; death seems inevitable, and often welcome. There's only one way you can truely appreciate the gravity of that though, and it's a trip you don't want to take.

My own theory is that the minds instinctive self-preservation continues to prevent a suicidal person from taking his own life by simple means, thus leaving him tortured in a "I want to die/but don't have the courage to do it" scenario. Despite what blissfully ignorant fools all too often tell you is "cowardly", it takes a great deal of conviction to overide the mind and commit the act of suicide; this is why more often we see what look to the unknowledgable as attempts at "seeking attention". Often people commit the act in a way that could be reversed, if they're found, as a way of tricking their mind into consenting to it as not being 100% committed to dieing. Self-destructive behaviour is another outlet; riding a bicycle in the manner the chap above did is tatamount to inviting death, but to his mind his priority is simply to get home to bed.

As for what can be done... unless you've got a few dozen billion to reform our heath services woefull mental heathcare provision forget it. Another theory of mine is depression is easy for a GP to marginalise as it's such an unknown quantity, and as such is the first victim of cost-cutting. If you have a broken arm, or a gammy eye, it's obvious and beyond dispute you need help, therefore there is an obligation to treat you. The severity of depression cannot be so readily ascertained so can be safely fobbed off by a budget-conscious service, aided by the patient who lacks the the impetus to "fight for his rights", who contribute to the problem by pretending the patient doesn't need help, which of course they have to do if they're not going to treat them, which leaves the sufferer feeling evan more worthless and destitute.

Call and phone number and time of call would have been logged. Emergency use in such a situation "proven" and thus the exception to the "use" law.

We are only interested in making sure folk are safe and understand why this rule exists. We are not out to procecute members of the public for unfairly nor for every nit-picking "offence"

Even on the continent - this law would, allegedly, not be applied if cyclist was on a road which he or she was not legally entitled to use, or was drunk in charge of a bicycle (an offence there as well as here and would affect a driving licence since I understand Germany banned a person from driving who was drunk wholst cycling and another drunk in charge of a lawn mower )

Swiss j-walking rules apply to cyclists as well.

Sadly - this guy was on a busy road in a very much inebriated state. He may even have bought the booze from an off-licence or a supermarket. Another reason perhaps why we need these stores to charge the full prices again and possibly a return to the old Duty Free allowances

An offence if copped

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?