Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
They deserve their fate.As for PC Twerb "You can only legally use your phone if mounted on a fixed point and hands free kit is used, however it is still as distracting as talking to a passenger."
She really needs to think that through.
At least passengers are still legal and silence in a car isn't mandatory
turbobloke said:
Contrary to your assertions, the majority of people set their road speed according to the conditions, disregarding the speed limit. The figure is about 75% as posted earlier.
I don't believe that. I can find you plenty of people who can prove that God exists, and I don't believe that either.Johnnytheboy said:
In the case of road law, I don't see why incompetence + bad luck should be punished more than incompetence.
So what would you say was a fair punishment for somebody who kills someone due to "incompetence"? 3 points and £100 fine, being the same as the punishment for using a mobile and not killing anyone, or should it be 5 years for using a phone, in case they kill someone?Mega valid statistical sample of one: In 20, 30 and 40 zones I drive within the posted limit (except when I forget, and maybe get a ticket, about which I don't complain). On 50, 60 and NSL roads, I drive according to the conditions, without much regard for the limit, absent visible signs of enforcement. These are broad generalisations, as driving isn't a binary thing.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 30th August 10:07
turbobloke said:
They deserve their fate.
As for PC Twerb "You can only legally use your phone if mounted on a fixed point and hands free kit is used, however it is still as distracting as talking to a passenger."
She really needs to think that through.
At least passengers are still legal and silence in a car isn't mandatory
I don't think a hands free kit is required, just the fixed point. If it's in a holder you can push the buttons all you like.As for PC Twerb "You can only legally use your phone if mounted on a fixed point and hands free kit is used, however it is still as distracting as talking to a passenger."
She really needs to think that through.
At least passengers are still legal and silence in a car isn't mandatory
Breadvan72 said:
Mega valid statistical sample of one: In 20, 30 and 40 zones I drive within the posted limit (except when I forget, and maybe get a ticket, about which I don't complain). On 50, 60 and NSL roads, I drive according to the conditions, without much regard for the limit, absent visible signs of enforcement. These are broad generalisations, as driving isn't a binary thing.
Yes, within the posted limit, so in a 30 it can be unsafe to exceed half the speed limit at times, and I suspect both of us will adjust our speed accordingly - showing the blunt instrument nature of those limits (one number is never capable of doing a safety-related job) and in general reflecting responsible behaviour. The same responsible behaviour is shown in terms of hands-free mobile use. mygoldfishbowl said:
I don't think a hands free kit is required, just the fixed point. If it's in a holder you can push the buttons all you like.
Issue there is that you totally change your focal length, from several hundred metres away to 50cm, which as you get older becomes a significant challenge, and you are forced to take your eyes off the road - at speed, for a long time.Same issue with looking at the radio of course, but most people can operate the knobs and buttons by feel once they are used to the car, whereas with a touch-screen phone you have to focus on it to hit the correct area of screen.
singlecoil said:
turbobloke said:
Contrary to your assertions, the majority of people set their road speed according to the conditions, disregarding the speed limit. The figure is about 75% as posted earlier.
I don't believe that. I can find you plenty of people who can prove that God exists, and I don't believe that either.There is, however, credible evidence that more than 75% of drivers set a safe speed for the conditions disregarding speed limits. The fact that you would wish or hope it was othertise changes nothing, and you still haven't offered any contrary evidence beyond your own unsupported belief.
To refresh your memory, it was Mustyn and Sheppard whose study found that more than 75% of motorists set a speed that traffic and road conditions permitted, regardless of the posted speed limit. As per the earlier post from Breadvan72 and my reply, this is essentially safe behaviour. Rightly or wrongly the unjustified emphasis on compliance can lead to the belief that driving within the speed limit is somehow safe, when it may well be very unsafe.
The same skills that moderate speed to below 30mph in built-up areas are used when setting a safe speed on open roads, and those skills are responsible road safety skills. The law on vehicle speed may have divorced itself from road safety, but that's hardly a driver's fault.
Dammit said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
I don't think a hands free kit is required, just the fixed point. If it's in a holder you can push the buttons all you like.
Issue there is that you totally change your focal length, from several hundred metres away to 50cm, which as you get older becomes a significant challenge, and you are forced to take your eyes off the road - at speed, for a long time.Same issue with looking at the radio of course, but most people can operate the knobs and buttons by feel once they are used to the car, whereas with a touch-screen phone you have to focus on it to hit the correct area of screen.
turbobloke said:
There is, however, credible evidence that more than 75% of drivers set a safe speed for the conditions disregarding speed limits.
Feel free to post some links, but please remember that what is credible to you might not be quite so credible to someone who didn't already hold such a firm position on the subject.My company has banned the use of mobile phones whilst driving and recently banned the hands-free kits too. I don't agree with the hands-free ban, imo this is less distracting than speaking to a passenger.
when my company makes rules they generally filter into other companies and become common practice.
As for using a phone whilst driving, I see this as a major nuisance. The amount of bad drivers I see on the phone is digraceful. They are on another planet.
when my company makes rules they generally filter into other companies and become common practice.
As for using a phone whilst driving, I see this as a major nuisance. The amount of bad drivers I see on the phone is digraceful. They are on another planet.
singlecoil said:
turbobloke said:
There is, however, credible evidence that more than 75% of drivers set a safe speed for the conditions disregarding speed limits.
Feel free to post some links, but please remember that what is credible to you might not be quite so credible to someone who didn't already hold such a firm position on the subject.The reports I refer to may be hard copy, or pfd files sent through by contacting the institutions involved, or sent to me by colleagues, associates or friends. If I have the report on paper or as a pdf file etc then I don't need a link. If you need a link and want to search online, I've given the names of researchers plus the subject and the findings, so if that's not enough, never mind.
Handwaving rejection of published research beause it disagrees with mere opinion, to which anyone is entitled, simply doesn't stand up.
turbobloke said:
singlecoil said:
turbobloke said:
There is, however, credible evidence that more than 75% of drivers set a safe speed for the conditions disregarding speed limits.
Feel free to post some links, but please remember that what is credible to you might not be quite so credible to someone who didn't already hold such a firm position on the subject.The reports I refer to may be hard copy, or pfd files sent through by contacting the institutions involved, or sent to me by colleagues, associates or friends. If I have the report on paper or as a pdf file etc then I don't need a link. If you need a link and want to search online, I've given the names of researchers plus the subject and the findings, so if that's not enough, never mind.
Handwaving rejection of published research beause it disagrees with mere opinion, to which anyone is entitled, simply doesn't stand up.
Why am I not surprised?
I'm not rejecting your 'published research' because is disagrees with my mere opinion, but because it is simply a collection of the mere opinions of others.
singlecoil said:
turbobloke said:
singlecoil said:
turbobloke said:
There is, however, credible evidence that more than 75% of drivers set a safe speed for the conditions disregarding speed limits.
Feel free to post some links, but please remember that what is credible to you might not be quite so credible to someone who didn't already hold such a firm position on the subject.The reports I refer to may be hard copy, or pfd files sent through by contacting the institutions involved, or sent to me by colleagues, associates or friends. If I have the report on paper or as a pdf file etc then I don't need a link. If you need a link and want to search online, I've given the names of researchers plus the subject and the findings, so if that's not enough, never mind.
Handwaving rejection of published research beause it disagrees with mere opinion, to which anyone is entitled, simply doesn't stand up.
Why am I not surprised?
I'm not rejecting your 'published research' because is disagrees with my mere opinion, but because it is simply a collection of the mere opinions of others.
Even so, for one of the research reports, I just Googled the names and the research I cited appears in the list at number three hit. If you're too lazy to do your own donkey work don't expect me to run after you.
Why am I not surprised you don't want to find the evidence that has already blown your faith out of the water.
Having originally cited the authors, the subject of the research and the findings, you don't have a single
Support here for Derek Smith's view as expressed in this thread, which I agree with, that the relevant law was badly drafted and is being badly enforced.
Law not doing the business
Law not doing the business
agtlaw said:
turbobloke said:
Driver A has a momentary minor lapse in attention and a low speed collision with a cyclist occurs. The cyclist falls but without any major injury, gets up and remonstrates with the driver who apologises and both carry on with their journeys.
Driver B has a momentary minor lapse in attention, to the same degree as Driver A, and a low speed collision with a cyclist occurs. The cyclist happens to fall badly and is clearly seriously hurt, they die on the way to hospital from a severe head injury. The driver goes to jail.
Presumably justice in this form of road safety poker matters more than justice applying to all parties.
Least likely outcome given in example B. Driver B has a momentary minor lapse in attention, to the same degree as Driver A, and a low speed collision with a cyclist occurs. The cyclist happens to fall badly and is clearly seriously hurt, they die on the way to hospital from a severe head injury. The driver goes to jail.
Presumably justice in this form of road safety poker matters more than justice applying to all parties.
I've been a witness in circumstance B more recently, in that a cyclist was emerging slowly from a side road in town and was (in my view) hidden from and unsighted by parked cars from the view of the driver of the car that braked but still had an impact with the cyclist who cycled into the side of the car. The cyclist fell sideways and hit their head on the kerb. Assisting at the scene and realising the cyclist was in a bad way I looked for follow-up news in local media and it turns out they died from their injury.
Neither of us (cyclists) were wearing safety helmets at the time.
In terms of the driving involved, both were DCA in my view and following a change in law introducing the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, the second driver could well have faced a serious charge leading to stripey daylight but their lapse in driving standard was in essence no worse than the higher speed impact that skinned my elbow.
It was and is pure chance as to whether a DCA impact will lead to death or not as the same degree of lapse can have markedly different outcomes depending on peripheral but decisive other factors. Bad law.
turbobloke said:
Why am I not surprised you don't want to find the evidence that has already blown your faith out of the water.
But there is no such evidence!All there is a collection of opinions.
But, leaving all that aside for the moment, just what is it about the current situation vis-à-vis speed limits and their enforcement that doesn't suit you, and what practical, equitable and affordable changes would you suggest?
singlecoil said:
turbobloke said:
Why am I not surprised you don't want to find the evidence that has already blown your faith out of the water.
But there is no such evidence!All there is a collection of opinions...
It can help to establish an informed opinion, you should try it some time
Also there is indeed such evidence, it's been indicated at numerous points in this thread. The research as cited does exist, the findings are as stated, and your unwillingness to accept it has no basis.
Your pointless and futile aproach is at this stage empty and purely argumentative. Time to get back to mobiles and how hands-free use doesn't increase crash risk - see the CMU-LSE research posted yesterday
given your fondness for research you'll be on it like a rash 
so watch out Google.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff