Six of One and Half Dozen of the Other..
Discussion
Another snip for tonight's Bolton paper
Headline reads
TEENAGER NATALIE KILLED BY SPORTS CAR
A motorist overtook a car at double the speed limit just moments before he struck 15 year old Natalie Pickwick-Jones - who died of multiple injuries last February.
The 31 year old driver of a Toyota MR2 is alleged to have overtaken a Peugeot at 60mph in a 30 mph zone.
He pleaded "Not Guilty" to dangerous driving at Bolton Crown Court.
Natalie was crossing the road with her friend when the car hit her. The car was, allegedly, on wrong side of road for some time, not showing brake lights and swerved at sharp angle asif out of control)
Prosecution say that Natalie decided to cross and ran out into the carriagway - but no-one is prepared to say if she looked to her left, but they say she "misjudged the speed"
She was thrown into the air and the Toyota's windscreen shattered.
The driver claims he hit brakes hard but could not avoid her. He admits to being in excess of the speed limit but claims he was travelling at 40/45 mph and not 60 mph.
The prosecution claims that the driver was acting dangerously and his speed caused Natialie's untimely death.
Natalie was with a group of her friends and thhey congregated every evening at the junction between Bolton Road and Ainsworth Road (think this used to be 40mph once upon a time - tonker may know as Bolton lad?)
Natalie and her mates would ask adults to go into the off-licence and buy a bottle of vodka - which they would drink every evening...
An autopsy on Natalie proves that she was two times over the prescribed drink driving limit at the time of her death
Perhaps a bit more parental control and knowledge of the Green Cross code may have prevented Natalie's "untimely death".
Is it a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other?
Headline reads
TEENAGER NATALIE KILLED BY SPORTS CAR
A motorist overtook a car at double the speed limit just moments before he struck 15 year old Natalie Pickwick-Jones - who died of multiple injuries last February.
The 31 year old driver of a Toyota MR2 is alleged to have overtaken a Peugeot at 60mph in a 30 mph zone.
He pleaded "Not Guilty" to dangerous driving at Bolton Crown Court.
Natalie was crossing the road with her friend when the car hit her. The car was, allegedly, on wrong side of road for some time, not showing brake lights and swerved at sharp angle asif out of control)
Prosecution say that Natalie decided to cross and ran out into the carriagway - but no-one is prepared to say if she looked to her left, but they say she "misjudged the speed"
She was thrown into the air and the Toyota's windscreen shattered.
The driver claims he hit brakes hard but could not avoid her. He admits to being in excess of the speed limit but claims he was travelling at 40/45 mph and not 60 mph.
The prosecution claims that the driver was acting dangerously and his speed caused Natialie's untimely death.
Natalie was with a group of her friends and thhey congregated every evening at the junction between Bolton Road and Ainsworth Road (think this used to be 40mph once upon a time - tonker may know as Bolton lad?)
Natalie and her mates would ask adults to go into the off-licence and buy a bottle of vodka - which they would drink every evening...
An autopsy on Natalie proves that she was two times over the prescribed drink driving limit at the time of her death
Perhaps a bit more parental control and knowledge of the Green Cross code may have prevented Natalie's "untimely death".
Is it a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other?
I think you have to expect everything when driving. Although the girl was drunk and, if I'm interpreting the article correctly, ran out in the road without looking, the guy really shouldn't have been driving like he was.
I would lay the blame at the door of the car driver - although I'd be interested to know what speed he was doing - and whether it really was 60mph (I assume they'll be able to tell from the investigation)
>> Edited by john_p on Tuesday 23 November 18:48
I would lay the blame at the door of the car driver - although I'd be interested to know what speed he was doing - and whether it really was 60mph (I assume they'll be able to tell from the investigation)
>> Edited by john_p on Tuesday 23 November 18:48
Yep she was drunk and didn't look before crossing and he was driving too fast for the conditions. Had he lost control and mounted the pavement that would have been a different matter. If he had 2x the legal limit of alcohol in his blood that would also have been a different matter.
The balance of road safety has shifted far too much in the drivers direction and been re-enforced by speed kills mantra that now pedestrians don't think and get killed. Why the hell do all new cars need to be pedestrian friendly in a crash? How many pedestrians are killed on the road compare to say the pavement? False sense of secruity.
The balance of road safety has shifted far too much in the drivers direction and been re-enforced by speed kills mantra that now pedestrians don't think and get killed. Why the hell do all new cars need to be pedestrian friendly in a crash? How many pedestrians are killed on the road compare to say the pavement? False sense of secruity.
they would be able to estimate the speed prior to brakes being applied and the impact speed.
Trouble is the way the press report things, they very rarely give a true and accurate account of what actually happened.
Had the driver been driving in the manor described then i would say the majority of the blame lays with the driver with contributry neglegence laying at the girl.
If she just ran out in the road without looking then visa versa.
Really hard to tell TBH.
A bit of road sense education would not go amiss as many pedestrians assume if its a 30 limit then all traffic is travelling at 30mph without actually judging the speed before crossing etc.
Without knowing all the facts and the road conditions / layout etc then its too hard to tell.
Trouble is the way the press report things, they very rarely give a true and accurate account of what actually happened.
Had the driver been driving in the manor described then i would say the majority of the blame lays with the driver with contributry neglegence laying at the girl.
If she just ran out in the road without looking then visa versa.
Really hard to tell TBH.
A bit of road sense education would not go amiss as many pedestrians assume if its a 30 limit then all traffic is travelling at 30mph without actually judging the speed before crossing etc.
Without knowing all the facts and the road conditions / layout etc then its too hard to tell.
Have very vague memories of this road. (Trained at St Andrews pre-clinical and we completed studies in Manchester.)
Seem to recall it as wide but built up. Of course .. am going back a long time now ... about 22 years
May have been changed over the period...
Case is proceeding ... cirumstances as reported seem straightforward. Driver was too fast for the conditions, but girl's drunken state contributed. It was about 11 pm on February evening. Prosecution is reported as remarking on Natalie's action playing part in the tragedy.
This is what strikes me as unusual here. They usually play on the innocence and loveliness of the young victim. The report appears more disapproving of the under age drinking.
Compare with Manchester paper's report where the "driving fell far short of the standards set for a competent and careful driver."
(Headline GIRL, 15 , KILLED BY CAR GOING AT TWICE LEGAL LIMIT
Manchester's paper talks of her friends "watching in horror" Despite the first aid services of a local off duty nurse Natalie was brought in dead to Bury's Fairfield Hospital. The paper also acknowledges the prosecution;s concession that the child had been drinking heavily. Again .. there is no sentimental reporting of the girl's character.
The prosecution, per Manchester's report, say that the driver "was in a hurry and did not want to be held up by a slower driver - and that he gave himself no chance of braking when an unexpected hazard like a child running out in front of him occurred"
The driver passed a breath test, and claims he overtook the car because it was "going too slowly and that the girl just appeared from nowhere"
His passenger allegedly confirms the story ....
>> Edited by Mad Moggie on Tuesday 23 November 19:50
Seem to recall it as wide but built up. Of course .. am going back a long time now ... about 22 years
May have been changed over the period... Case is proceeding ... cirumstances as reported seem straightforward. Driver was too fast for the conditions, but girl's drunken state contributed. It was about 11 pm on February evening. Prosecution is reported as remarking on Natalie's action playing part in the tragedy.
This is what strikes me as unusual here. They usually play on the innocence and loveliness of the young victim. The report appears more disapproving of the under age drinking.
Compare with Manchester paper's report where the "driving fell far short of the standards set for a competent and careful driver."
(Headline GIRL, 15 , KILLED BY CAR GOING AT TWICE LEGAL LIMIT
Manchester's paper talks of her friends "watching in horror" Despite the first aid services of a local off duty nurse Natalie was brought in dead to Bury's Fairfield Hospital. The paper also acknowledges the prosecution;s concession that the child had been drinking heavily. Again .. there is no sentimental reporting of the girl's character.
The prosecution, per Manchester's report, say that the driver "was in a hurry and did not want to be held up by a slower driver - and that he gave himself no chance of braking when an unexpected hazard like a child running out in front of him occurred"
The driver passed a breath test, and claims he overtook the car because it was "going too slowly and that the girl just appeared from nowhere"
His passenger allegedly confirms the story ....
>> Edited by Mad Moggie on Tuesday 23 November 19:50
Mad Moggie said:Surely the other way round? If the car being overtaken was going faster might not that have killed her before she got in front of the overtaking car? So is it the overtakee's fault that the overtaker killed her?
Driver was too fast for the conditions, but girl's drunken state contributed.
What if she had fallen or jumped off a bridge so close in front of the overtaker that he would have seriously injured her at 30, but actually killed her as he was doing an alleged 60. Is the accident still the overtaker's fault "but girl's drunken state contributed"?
john_p said:Isn't that two separate issues? And isn't your first point wrong? Does he have to expect her jumping off the far side of a bridge? If he doesn't then what difference would him driving a stolen car/ being an illegal immigrant/ having escaped from jail/ suffered a heart attack and jammed his foot on the accelerator make to his guilt? You wouldn't say if he hadn't stolen the car/ illegally entered the country/ stayed in jail/ not been a fat b*st*ard he wouldn't have killed her so it's the drivers fault, would you?
I think you have to expect everything when driving. Although the girl was drunk and, if I'm interpreting the article correctly, ran out in the road without looking, the guy really shouldn't have been driving like he was.
So why does -
john_p said:
I would lay the blame at the door of the car driver
Could the driver stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
Could he reasonably expect a pedestrian to be in the vicinity? Yes.
If he was driving according to the principles of Roadcraft would the accident have been prevented? Probably.
Should we be encouraging more people to undertake advanced training? Yes
How many people actually do it? Very few.
Why? Ignorant and/or bone idle.
Could he reasonably expect a pedestrian to be in the vicinity? Yes.
If he was driving according to the principles of Roadcraft would the accident have been prevented? Probably.
Should we be encouraging more people to undertake advanced training? Yes
How many people actually do it? Very few.
Why? Ignorant and/or bone idle.
ca092003 said:
Could the driver stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
Could he reasonably expect a pedestrian to be in the vicinity? Yes.
If he was driving according to the principles of Roadcraft would the accident have been prevented? Probably.
All good points, but you missed another one:
If she hadn't been a pi55ed-up chavette, would the accident have occured? No
Its all a matter of perspective, but FWIW I reckon the driver's at fault, but so is the girl. "Careless" rather than "Dangerous", perhaps?
pdV6 said:
Could the driver stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
Could he reasonably expect a pedestrian to be in the vicinity? Yes.
If he was driving according to the principles of Roadcraft would the accident have been prevented? Probably.
All good points, but you missed another one:
If she hadn't been a pi55ed-up chavette, would the accident have occured? No
Its all a matter of perspective, but FWIW I reckon the driver's at fault, but so is the girl. "Careless" rather than "Dangerous", perhaps?
Fair point. But replace chavgirl with 3yearold. You then get into an argument about under what circumstances a driver should or should not make decisions on behalf of a pedestrian.
Personally, I never want to bend my car so I drive appropriately.
Also, jaywalking should definitely be an offence.
You see a 3 year old at the side of the road, you can kind of imagine a semi kamaikazw act with no thought of self preservation. A kid of 14 maybe you take it for granted a bit more that they are going to stay put.
I know everyone says that you should be aware of pedestrians, but on that basis, to avoid acts of stupidity on th epart of a pedestrian, we would all be doing 20mph everywhere, and trucks even slower as they have virtually zero manoueverability and longer stopping distances.
The guy had who hit her had probably 1/2 second to stop. What would be happened if he was overtaking a stationary car at 30mph and the girl ran out just a split second later. The end result would probably have been simiiiar.
We all know the textbook rules, but realworld rules also apply. Both parties technically at fault, but also wrong place, wrong time. For instance if the driver had been doing 80mph, he would have passed the girl before she ran out!
Just off to my nuclear fall out shelter now for a while!
I know everyone says that you should be aware of pedestrians, but on that basis, to avoid acts of stupidity on th epart of a pedestrian, we would all be doing 20mph everywhere, and trucks even slower as they have virtually zero manoueverability and longer stopping distances.
The guy had who hit her had probably 1/2 second to stop. What would be happened if he was overtaking a stationary car at 30mph and the girl ran out just a split second later. The end result would probably have been simiiiar.
We all know the textbook rules, but realworld rules also apply. Both parties technically at fault, but also wrong place, wrong time. For instance if the driver had been doing 80mph, he would have passed the girl before she ran out!
Just off to my nuclear fall out shelter now for a while!
andygo said:
You see a 3 year old at the side of the road, you can kind of imagine a semi kamaikazw act with no thought of self preservation. A kid of 14 maybe you take it for granted a bit more that they are going to stay put.
I know everyone says that you should be aware of pedestrians, but on that basis, to avoid acts of stupidity on th epart of a pedestrian, we would all be doing 20mph everywhere, and trucks even slower as they have virtually zero manoueverability and longer stopping distances.
The guy had who hit her had probably 1/2 second to stop. What would be happened if he was overtaking a stationary car at 30mph and the girl ran out just a split second later. The end result would probably have been simiiiar.
We all know the textbook rules, but realworld rules also apply. Both parties technically at fault, but also wrong place, wrong time. For instance if the driver had been doing 80mph, he would have passed the girl before she ran out!
Just off to my nuclear fall out shelter now for a while!
An advanced driver will be looking for things like feet behind parked cars, balls bouncing across road, etc..
I know driving can never be a perfect science but it seems to me that there is an awful lot that advanced driving techniques can do to mitigate such problems.
ca092003 said:
Could the driver stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
Could he reasonably expect a pedestrian to be in the vicinity? Yes.
If he was driving according to the principles of Roadcraft would the accident have been prevented? Probably.
Should we be encouraging more people to undertake advanced training? Yes
How many people actually do it? Very few.
Why? Ignorant and/or bone idle.
Sounds more like he could stop in the distance he could see to be clear, then a drunk walked out in front of him and reduced that distance.
But I agree with your point about good driving being important. More important than irrelevant outdated spped limits, IMHO.
>> Edited by deeen on Wednesday 24th November 12:03
stevecallaghan said:
How advance do you need to be to avoid doing 60, 45, 40 in a 30 mph limit or to be aware that hazards such as people stepping into the road will be likely?
Indeed, but if a road has a limit of 30mph and a pedestrian presents him/her self in front of your car within 15 feet (thinking distance) then there is no power on earth that is going to avoid a collision. This is because the driver cannot react in time.
This demonstrates (to me anyway) that THE most important factor is whether a driver can stop in the distance he/she can see to be clear and can reasonably expect to remain clear.
Given your position you are angling for people to not exceed the speed limit. I am angling for a reduction in casualties which are not the same thing.
stevecallaghan said:
How advance do you need to be to avoid doing 60, 45, 40 in a 30 mph limit or to be aware that hazards such as people stepping into the road will be likely?
In a recent case, a policeman answering an emergency call killed a drunk pedestrian who stepped onto a zebra crossing in front of him. He was doing 60 in a 30, I think it was in Oxford. The jury found the policeman not guilty of any offence.
So bearing in mind the driver says he was doing 45, and there was no zebra crossing, I don't see that the accident is his fault. If a drunk steps in front of a car doing 30, there will still be an accident.
I must admit to taking it easy around closing time if there is a group on the pavement, however.
ca092003 said:
Could the driver stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
Could he reasonably expect a pedestrian to be in the vicinity? Yes.
If he was driving according to the principles of Roadcraft would the accident have been prevented? Probably.
Should we be encouraging more people to undertake advanced training? Yes
How many people actually do it? Very few.
Why? Ignorant and/or bone idle.
Sorry but no. Even at 30..or even 20 if someone runs out in front of the car at the most inopportune moment then you have no time to brake. Thus, by your own summary you would only be able to move if in a field (and obviously one without any crops growing
) It is not illegal to overtake, so the only real question here is that would she have survived if he had hit her at a lower speed. Ultimately this is what urban speed limits are for..to reduce the consequences of accidents esp those involving pedestrians.
Edited to add: ah l see we are sort of agreeing after a fashion
>> Edited by funkihamsta on Wednesday 24th November 12:35
funkihamsta said:
Could the driver stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
Could he reasonably expect a pedestrian to be in the vicinity? Yes.
If he was driving according to the principles of Roadcraft would the accident have been prevented? Probably.
Should we be encouraging more people to undertake advanced training? Yes
How many people actually do it? Very few.
Why? Ignorant and/or bone idle.
Sorry but no. Even at 30..or even 20 if someone runs out in front of the car at the most inopportune moment then you have no time to brake. Thus, by your own summary you would only be able to move if in a field (and obviously one without any crops growing
It is not illegal to overtake, so the only real question here is that would she have survived if he had hit her at a lower speed. Ultimately this is what urban speed limits are for..to reduce the consequences of accidents esp those involving pedestrians.
>> Edited by funkihamsta on Wednesday 24th November 12:33
Read the thread again. The issue is about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect to remain clear. It is not about a certain speed.
Read my edit...
By the way once you start talking about "reasonable expectations" then you are out of the realms of black and white and into that of discretion. I could reasonably assert that you should not expect a drunkard to run out in front of your car without looking.
If you should expect that then l refer you to my post indicating that you therefore cannot move at any speed where there are objects from behind which a drunkard might leap into your path.
Ultimately this means cars should not move in urban areas. I hope you understand my point.
By the way once you start talking about "reasonable expectations" then you are out of the realms of black and white and into that of discretion. I could reasonably assert that you should not expect a drunkard to run out in front of your car without looking.
If you should expect that then l refer you to my post indicating that you therefore cannot move at any speed where there are objects from behind which a drunkard might leap into your path.
Ultimately this means cars should not move in urban areas. I hope you understand my point.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff