Why Lifesavers are a good idea - In a car
Comments
-
Rolf F wrote:Given how few people seem to indicate correctly or use their mirrors (eg the bus that pulled out on me this morning), I would be slightly alarmed that this case seems to give no responsibility on drivers to keep an eye on the traffic behind them.
Let's say you cycled through a pelican crossing showing green to traffic and the red man to pedestrians. A ped steps out in front of you and a collision occurs. There are no witnesses. The pedestrian tries to cover their arse by saying they had a green man and you were at fault.
Would it be right for a court to err on the side of the pedestrian given the widely-held belief that "few cyclists seem to stop at traffic lights correctly"? Do we want juries to be giving weight to their own opinions and prejudices rather than the evidence presented to them?
The people carrier was, according to witnesses, being driven in an exemplary manner. The driver of the mondeo admitted at the scene that it was his fault. The case was heard at Crown Court, in front of a jury who decided he was guilty.
There are no reasonable grounds given to suspect the driver of the people carrier was in some way responsible for this incident.Rules are for fools.0 -
gtvlusso wrote:Waddlie wrote:That case is worlds apart from this one. Your friend was breaking the speed limit, which the court may have considered was a contributory factor. The prosecution wouldn't have been decided "50/50", either the driver was found guilty or he wasn't. The "50/50" aspect was an insurance/liability issue and would not have been made by the court hearing the driving charge.
Yes, exactly - He was found not guilty - hence the 50/50 (should have clarified). I think it goes to show that courts don't always get it right, I believe that the Police were pushing for some higher charge like 'dangerous driving'....at the time - very long time ago. **The driver of the car turned out to be a lay preacher and one of the wealthiest and most connected business leaders in the area, not that this is relevant to the court.
My, you are a pedant....Not a typical Bristolian.
Surely the moral of that story, if there is one, is that it's never work taking the risk when it comes to traffic.0 -
Please don't agree with me, Rick - it won't do my credibility any good at all.Rules are for fools.0
-
But you are taking the witnesses appraisal of the ladies driving as gospel. Someone's opinion on somebody else's driving is totally subjective. For all we know, they could have been a lousy driver themselves, or simply judge lower speed = good. In the absence of data or a variety of witnesses, that's all they have to work from.
Also 'the admission' - I defy anyone to be involved in a shunt, then watch bodies get dragged from a lake to think/talk cleary.0 -
gtvlusso wrote:One of my friends was knocked of his motorbike whilst overtaking;
He was overtaking a line of traffic at a fair speed, national speedlimit zone and he was clocking at least 80+ mph and accelerating on a 600cc race rep motorbike. A car decided to pull out and overtake without checking his mirror - result was that the car pulled out and hit my friend and knocked him off causing massive injuries.
At the court case; The driver, being prosecute for driving without due care and attention, who effectively caused the accident claimed that he was not given fair warning of the motorbike overtaking......which is f*cking incredible, considering he clearly did not look before he made the move to overtake....due care and attention?!
The result was that it was decided to be a 50/50 knock for knock - car driver had a damaged car. My friend took near 2 years to get the use of his legs back.
Not even an apology from the driver. My friend wound up losing his job.
So, I am not surprised if the court made a poor decision.
Hang on, 80mph+ (and still accelerating) in a 70mph zone, combined with this act being done whilst going past a line of stationary traffic and you don't think your mate had any hand in the blame at all?0 -
I took it as being a moving queue held up behind a slower vehicle.davmaggs wrote:Hang on, 80mph+ (and still accelerating) in a 70mph zone, combined with this act being done whilst going past a line of stationary traffic and you don't think your mate had any hand in the blame at all?
And also as being on a single carriageway, hence "overtaking rather" than just "driving in lane 2" which would make the speed limit 60mph, not 70.0 -
Peat wrote:But you are taking the witnesses appraisal of the ladies driving as gospel. Someone's opinion on somebody else's driving is totally subjective. For all we know, they could have been a lousy driver themselves, or simply judge lower speed = good. In the absence of data or a variety of witnesses, that's all they have to work from.
Also 'the admission' - I defy anyone to be involved in a shunt, then watch bodies get dragged from a lake to think/talk cleary.
I doubt the witness simply stood up in court, said "exemplary" and sat down again. News websites don't tend to include every word of every witness's testimony. Mondeo Man's barrister would have been entitled to question the witness during the trial to see what grounds they had for using such a word. He could have cast doubt in the jury's minds about whether the witness's testimony was accurate. Either he didn't do so because the testimony was not in dispute, or he tried to do so and the jury were not convinced.Rules are for fools.0 -
Waddlie wrote:Rolf F wrote:Given how few people seem to indicate correctly or use their mirrors (eg the bus that pulled out on me this morning), I would be slightly alarmed that this case seems to give no responsibility on drivers to keep an eye on the traffic behind them.
Let's say you cycled through a pelican crossing showing green to traffic and the red man to pedestrians. A ped steps out in front of you and a collision occurs. There are no witnesses. The pedestrian tries to cover their ars* by saying they had a green man and you were at fault.
Would it be right for a court to err on the side of the pedestrian given the widely-held belief that "few cyclists seem to stop at traffic lights correctly"? Do we want juries to be giving weight to their own opinions and prejudices rather than the evidence presented to them?
The people carrier was, according to witnesses, being driven in an exemplary manner. The driver of the mondeo admitted at the scene that it was his fault. The case was heard at Crown Court, in front of a jury who decided he was guilty.
There are no reasonable grounds given to suspect the driver of the people carrier was in some way responsible for this incident.
We don't know what grounds there are to suspect any misbehaviour of the people carrier driver as we have no real information/evidence at all. There hasn't even been a sequence of events related - in relation to when the overtaking manouver was commenced, when did the people carrier driver start to indicate, how long after starting to indicate did the people carrier move out, where was the overtaking car at this point, how sudden was the change in direction of the people carrier?
We can assume that this evidence was taken into account - we can probably assume that the overtaking driver had plenty of warning (by the indicators) that the people carrier was about to move. But we don't know as these very simple facts seem not to have been reported. The way it is reported implies that in an overtaking accident, the overtaker is responsible irrespective of the circumstances.
It's just terrible reporting. As usual.Faster than a tent.......0 -
suzyb wrote:
I was told by my instructor you could break the speed limit when overtaking if you had drawn level but were running out of road to finish.estampida wrote:they highway code states you can overtake and exceed the speed limit to over take when safe to do so.......
You are still breaking the law. If your speed is detected in excess of ACPO's guidelines you may still be prosecuted.Rules are for fools.0 -
davmaggs wrote:gtvlusso wrote:One of my friends was knocked of his motorbike whilst overtaking;
He was overtaking a line of traffic at a fair speed, national speedlimit zone and he was clocking at least 80+ mph and accelerating on a 600cc race rep motorbike. A car decided to pull out and overtake without checking his mirror - result was that the car pulled out and hit my friend and knocked him off causing massive injuries.
At the court case; The driver, being prosecute for driving without due care and attention, who effectively caused the accident claimed that he was not given fair warning of the motorbike overtaking......which is f*cking incredible, considering he clearly did not look before he made the move to overtake....due care and attention?!
The result was that it was decided to be a 50/50 knock for knock - car driver had a damaged car. My friend took near 2 years to get the use of his legs back.
Not even an apology from the driver. My friend wound up losing his job.
So, I am not surprised if the court made a poor decision.
Hang on, 80mph+ (and still accelerating) in a 70mph zone, combined with this act being done whilst going past a line of stationary traffic and you don't think your mate had any hand in the blame at all?
Note: I made no comment on who I thought was to blame - This was not stationary traffic, It was moving traffic behind a slow vehicle. IMHO; the driver should have been found guilty of undue care and attention; although I am probably biased to supporting my friend. And the insurance I think should have gone with 30/70 split on insurance and speed was clearly a factor; just amazed at the failure to prosecute for factually not bothering to look before maneuvering on the part of the driver....
But that's just my opinion and TBH, I have overtaken traffic on a motorbike at much higher speeds - over double that when I was in my yoof. So, I kinda see both points - bike too fast, driver too stupid.0 -
Rolf F wrote:Waddlie wrote:Rolf F wrote:Given how few people seem to indicate correctly or use their mirrors (eg the bus that pulled out on me this morning), I would be slightly alarmed that this case seems to give no responsibility on drivers to keep an eye on the traffic behind them.
Let's say you cycled through a pelican crossing showing green to traffic and the red man to pedestrians. A ped steps out in front of you and a collision occurs. There are no witnesses. The pedestrian tries to cover their ars* by saying they had a green man and you were at fault.
Would it be right for a court to err on the side of the pedestrian given the widely-held belief that "few cyclists seem to stop at traffic lights correctly"? Do we want juries to be giving weight to their own opinions and prejudices rather than the evidence presented to them?
The people carrier was, according to witnesses, being driven in an exemplary manner. The driver of the mondeo admitted at the scene that it was his fault. The case was heard at Crown Court, in front of a jury who decided he was guilty.
There are no reasonable grounds given to suspect the driver of the people carrier was in some way responsible for this incident.
We don't know what grounds there are to suspect any misbehaviour of the people carrier driver as we have no real information/evidence at all. There hasn't even been a sequence of events related - in relation to when the overtaking manouver was commenced, when did the people carrier driver start to indicate, how long after starting to indicate did the people carrier move out, where was the overtaking car at this point, how sudden was the change in direction of the people carrier?
We can assume that this evidence was taken into account - we can probably assume that the overtaking driver had plenty of warning (by the indicators) that the people carrier was about to move. But we don't know as these very simple facts seem not to have been reported. The way it is reported implies that in an overtaking accident, the overtaker is responsible irrespective of the circumstances.
It's just terrible reporting. As usual.
In fairness to whoever wrote the report, their intended audience was Joe Public who are happy to accept a summary of the overall situation rather than the tiny minority wanting chapter and verse on every aspect of the incident. The BBC News website is still carrying earlier reports from the trial which include more testimony from the witness.Rules are for fools.0 -
Worth mentioning, perhaps, that people will often make judgements of traffic based on the assumption that people are going at normal speeds, not piling up the road like lunatics :roll:gtvlusso wrote:..considering he clearly did not look before he made the move to overtake....due care and attention?!0 -
gtvlusso wrote:Note: I made no comment on who I thought was to blame - This was not stationary traffic, It was moving traffic behind a slow vehicle. IMHO; the driver should have been found guilty of undue care and attention; although I am probably biased to supporting my friend. And the insurance I think should have gone with 30/70 split on insurance and speed was clearly a factor; just amazed at the failure to prosecute for factually not bothering to look before maneuvering on the part of the driver....
But that's just my opinion and TBH, I have overtaken traffic on a motorbike at much higher speeds - over double that when I was in my yoof. So, I kinda see both points - bike too fast, driver too stupid.
@Bompington - kinda what I was saying - not really fair on the driver to have someone belting up the road, but, he should have been more aware of the potential for faster overtaking traffic.....and motorbikes will always do this, legality aside.0 -
After reading posts in this thread I realise that. I was just mentioning that I was under the same impression albeit due to a different reason.Waddlie wrote:suzyb wrote:
I was told by my instructor you could break the speed limit when overtaking if you had drawn level but were running out of road to finish.estampida wrote:they highway code states you can overtake and exceed the speed limit to over take when safe to do so.......
You are still breaking the law. If your speed is detected in excess of ACPO's guidelines you may still be prosecuted.0 -
suzyb wrote:
After reading posts in this thread I realise that. I was just mentioning that I was under the same impression albeit due to a different reason.Waddlie wrote:suzyb wrote:
I was told by my instructor you could break the speed limit when overtaking if you had drawn level but were running out of road to finish.estampida wrote:they highway code states you can overtake and exceed the speed limit to over take when safe to do so.......
You are still breaking the law. If your speed is detected in excess of ACPO's guidelines you may still be prosecuted.
Gotcha - I must have woken up with my "I must be right at all costs" head on this morning...Rules are for fools.0 -
I suppose that's from the school of "it's better to break the speed limit and get on the right side of the road than it is to stick at 60mph and hit a HGV head on".suzyb wrote:
After reading posts in this thread I realise that. I was just mentioning that I was under the same impression albeit due to a different reason.Waddlie wrote:suzyb wrote:
I was told by my instructor you could break the speed limit when overtaking if you had drawn level but were running out of road to finish.estampida wrote:they highway code states you can overtake and exceed the speed limit to over take when safe to do so.......
You are still breaking the law. If your speed is detected in excess of ACPO's guidelines you may still be prosecuted.
It's a 'least worst' option, rather than something you're allowed to do. If that situation has arisen then you've messed up (incorrectly judged an overtake), but it's better to get out of danger than be hit.0 -
Re the looking before indicating thing, that must be a factor in the amount of blame the culprit takes?
It seems that the victim was driving with a few cars behind and at some point the culprit decided that it was safe to overtake. It still was safe, within reason and providing that he completed the overtake quickly, right up to the point where he suddenly found a car turning across his path.
If I'm filtering down the outside of stationary traffic and someone decides to swing out to park in a lay-by over the road without checking, that appears at face value to be less than perfect driving on his / her part. I don't see much difference in this case. If the driver of the people carrier had checked that it was safe before moving to the right, a different outcome might have ensued. Replace 'driver with string of convictions and unshaven shifty look about him' with 'ambulance' and what do we think then?
Blame isn't 100/0 or 0/100. It's a sliding scale, and from what I can see the driver who was hit appears to have some culpability in the events. Not a huge amount but a bit. If you want to drive across the road it's a good idea to be sure it's safe to do so before carrying out the manoeuvre.0 -
True, but as said, we don't know the exact timing of events, she might have indicated, looked, seen it was clear and pulled out at the same time as the bloke behind started his overtake. He couldn't see the indicator because of the car between them and is already accelerating towards the people carrier when he realises it's moving right.
I was in a similar situation a few weeks back. On a NSL road with good visibility, stuck at 35-40 behind another car. A mondeo caught up with me, and when the road was clear it overtook me and the car in front. Thing is, she didn't indicate, so I'd looked in my mirror and blindspot, stuck the indicator on and just started to move out. Not even over the white line, just starting to edge towards it. While I'd done that she'd closed the gap and started to overtake. But I did a second lifesaver, saw the other car, stopped my overtake and continued a few seconds later when the road was clear. We'd both had the same idea at the same time, but we were both paying attention, both saw what was going to happen before it became dangerous and both got home safely.0 -
The question would be, how fast was he coming up? I have actually been in a collision where I was the first car in a long queue behind a dawdler, I checked my mirror, no-one was coming up the outside, then hesitated for just two or three seconds as I wasn't sure if I could get past, decided I could & went without checking again - and was surprised to side-swipe a Volvo that had been two or three cars back. I still feel that this was my fault for not checking again, even after just a couple of seconds, but it was held as 50/50 by the insurance companies.The Highway Code wrote:180
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn. Do not cut the corner. Take great care when turning into a main road; you will need to watch for traffic in both directions and wait for a safe gap.
But one thing is quite certain:The Highway Code wrote:167
DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example
approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road
I would assume that a lay-by counts as a junction?0 -
good find.0
-
And how about:
"DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example:
...
when a road user is indicating right, even if you believe the signal should have been cancelled. Do not take a risk; wait for the signal to be cancelled
..."
"Cross-examined by defence barrister Geraint Jones about whether she was sure she had indicated to turn, Mrs Griffith replied: "Positive.""
"Earlier the trial heard that James Denham and his brother William were passengers in a car travelling immediately behind Mrs Griffith's Peugeot.
The jury was shown a video of an interview with James Denham, who was 16 at the time.
He said: "As we were coming downhill, the car in front of us indicated right.
"Dad saw this and braked, but the car behind us went to overtake. It made contact with the car in front, which was half in the road.
"The car in front flipped twice, hit the fence and went into the lake.
"There was debris everywhere, glass, pieces of car, stuff from inside the car.""Rules are for fools.0 -
More good digging.
Is 'Geraint Jones' the Welsh equivalent of 'John Smith'?0 -
Thankyou for that.Waddlie wrote:"Earlier the trial heard that James Denham and his brother William were passengers in a car travelling immediately behind Mrs Griffith's Peugeot.
The jury was shown a video of an interview with James Denham, who was 16 at the time.
He said: "As we were coming downhill, the car in front of us indicated right.
"Dad saw this and braked, but the car behind us went to overtake. It made contact with the car in front, which was half in the road.
I should have tried following the links on the BBC site more, instead of just googling.
I guess you were looking at: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-19410738
So it starts to look more like Mondeo driver sees car in front braking, then, rather than thinking - "something funny here, better back off", or "Oh, someone's turning into that lay-by", goes ahead with overtaking the two vehicles in front.0
