Do you Speed (or mums net has taken over the asylum )

[Phatboy317]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I still maintain that killing a cyclist at 100 in a 60 limit is likely to land you in massive bother. You have 2 chances in court, slim and no, and slim just left town.

That's largely down to the prevailing attitudes, isn't it?

[RDMcG]

I remember an old tag line from long,long ago now...seemed to be something like " speed matters". The shame of it.!

The answer is yes.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Phatboy317 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I still maintain that killing a cyclist at 100 in a 60 limit is likely to land you in massive bother. You have 2 chances in court, slim and no, and slim just left town.

That's largely down to the prevailing attitudes, isn't it?

Yes. But I don't think you can go into court and expect prevailing attitudes not to prevail.

[Paul Dishman]

RDMcG said:

I remember an old tag line from long,long ago now...seemed to be something like " speed matters". The shame of it.!

The answer is yes.

Of course I speed.
This place is going to the dogs, or perhaps the lentilists

[Zod]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Neither would I, but proving that a cyclist killed at 100 would definitely have died at 60 is nigh on impossible.

You assert that on what basis?

Edited by Zod on Friday 17th October 14:08

[singlecoil]

Phatboy317 said:

singlecoil said:

Being homosexual has never been a crime in this country.

Perhaps not explicitly, but tell that to people like Alan Turing

My point remains correct, being homosexual has never been a crime in this country.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Neither would I, but proving that a cyclist killed at 100 would definitely have died at 60 is nigh on impossible.

You assert that on what basis?

Edited by Zod on Friday 17th October 14:08

On the basis that he died having been hit at 100. What would have happened at 60 is conjecture, no matter how educated. And given the limit is 60 on this hypothetical road the prosecution would state that he wasn't giving the opportunity of maybe surviving the impact, regardless of how unlikely that chance was. Your reckless actions, driving at nearly 70% above the limit, ensured he definitely died.

[singlecoil]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Neither would I, but proving that a cyclist killed at 100 would definitely have died at 60 is nigh on impossible.

You assert that on what basis?

Edited by Zod on Friday 17th October 14:08

On the basis that he died having been hit at 100. What would have happened at 60 is conjecture, no matter how educated. And given the limit is 60 on this hypothetical road the prosecution would state that he wasn't giving the opportunity of maybe surviving the impact, regardless of how unlikely that chance was. Your reckless actions, driving at nearly 70% above the limit, ensured he definitely died.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

The reality is that having killed a cyclist doing 100 in a 60, if those were the established and undisputed facts, you would never be defending a charge of causing death by dangerous driving in the first place. No legal team is going to fly with that. You would be pleading guilty and going with mitigating circumstances.

[Zod]

singlecoil said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Zod said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Neither would I, but proving that a cyclist killed at 100 would definitely have died at 60 is nigh on impossible.

You assert that on what basis?

Edited by Zod on Friday 17th October 14:08

On the basis that he died having been hit at 100. What would have happened at 60 is conjecture, no matter how educated. And given the limit is 60 on this hypothetical road the prosecution would state that he wasn't giving the opportunity of maybe surviving the impact, regardless of how unlikely that chance was. Your reckless actions, driving at nearly 70% above the limit, ensured he definitely died.

For Heaven's sake! This has been a purely hypothetical situation since the beginning. Part of the hypothesis that you are disputing is that the accident investigation concluded that the cyclist's death would have occurred whether the speed was 50, 60 or 100. Arguing against elements of the hypothesis is absurd.

Now we have singlecoil too, prepared as ever to enter an argument for the sake of it!

I'm done here.

[singlecoil]

Zod said:

For Heaven's sake! This has been a purely hypothetical situation since the beginning. Part of the hypothesis that you are disputing is that the accident investigation concluded that the cyclist's death would have occurred whether the speed was 50, 60 or 100. Arguing against elements of the hypothesis is absurd.

Now we have singlecoil too, prepared as ever to enter an argument for the sake of it!

I'm done here.

Sorry, didn't mean to chase you away, though it does rather come across that you are using my supporting TWK's position as a convenient excuse for extracting yourself from an untenable position.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Zod said:

For Heaven's sake! This has been a purely hypothetical situation since the beginning. Part of the hypothesis that you are disputing is that the accident investigation concluded that the cyclist's death would have occurred whether the speed was 50, 60 or 100. Arguing against elements of the hypothesis is absurd.

Now we have singlecoil too, prepared as ever to enter an argument for the sake of it!

I'm done here.

Hitting a cyclist at 100 in a 60 is hypothetical. An accident investigation team concluding beyond all doubt that the cyclist would have died at 60 anyway is moving from hypothetical to fantasy. In my long experience (over 30 years) of court proceedings in relation to motoring offences following RTAs, it would never happen. Can I ask, do you have any professional experience in this field?

[Chimune]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Hitting a cyclist at 100 in a 60 is hypothetical. An accident investigation team concluding beyond all doubt that the cyclist would have died at 60 anyway is moving from hypothetical to fantasy. In my long experience (over 30 years) of court proceedings in relation to motoring offences following RTAs, it would never happen. Can I ask, do you have any professional experience in this field?

He's going down anyway. The cyclist had been nailing his mum for years. They found out off of the facebook.....

[Phatboy317]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The reality is that having killed a cyclist doing 100 in a 60, if those were the established and undisputed facts, you would never be defending a charge of causing death by dangerous driving in the first place. No legal team is going to fly with that. You would be pleading guilty and going with mitigating circumstances.

That's the whole problem.

If the driver had been exceeding the limit, even by 5 or 10mph - or perhaps doing something else deemed to be in breach of some law - then they'd likely be in a whole load of trouble, and very much at the mercy of the court and the experts debating whether or not he might have died.

And all this, despite the rather obvious fact that the cyclist would 100% not have died, regardless of the car's speed or anything else, had he not recklessly gone flying into the road.

What if the driver had swerved to avoid the cyclist, hit a pole and died? Would the cyclist be held responsible?

Or if the cyclist had been hit by a train doing 125mph then it's 100% certain that the train driver would not be held responsible.

Just because the law says so doesn't say anything about the rights or wrongs of the matter.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 17th October 16:23

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Phatboy317 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The reality is that having killed a cyclist doing 100 in a 60, if those were the established and undisputed facts, you would never be defending a charge of causing death by dangerous driving in the first place. No legal team is going to fly with that. You would be pleading guilty and going with mitigating circumstances.

That's the whole problem.

If the driver had been exceeding the limit, even by 5 or 10mph - or perhaps doing something else deemed to be in breach of some law - then they'd likely be in a whole load of trouble, and very much at the mercy of the court and the experts debating whether or not he might have died.

And all this, despite the rather obvious fact that the cyclist would 100% not have died, regardless of the car's speed or anything else, had he not recklessly gone flying into the road.

What if the driver had swerved to avoid the cyclist, hit a pole and died? Would the cyclist be held responsible?

Or if the cyclist had been hit by a train doing 125mph then it's 100% certain that the train driver would not be held responsible.

Just because the law says so doesn't say anything about the rights or wrongs of the matter.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 17th October 16:23

I won't argue with any of that. All I ever said was that killing a cyclist doing 100 in a 60 would land you in a whole load of trouble, and very possibly prison. I never said "should", just "would". "Should" is a separate debate.

[Foppo]

Phatboy317 said:

La Liga said:

The risk is that even if you're not at fault, if you're doing excess speed and a collision then you may have culpability.

And that is the root of many miscarriages of justice.
The tendency is to nail you for whatever technicality they can find.

There was a case in London a few years ago, where a pedestrian stepped out directly in front of a car and was killed.
Although the chap's driving couldn't be faulted, and there was nothing he could have done to prevent or mitigate the collision, he was found to have - I can't remember if it was an invalid licence or lapsed insurance.

Because of this the prosecution successfully argued that he should not have been driving, and if not for this the collision would not have happened, and he was jailed as a result.

Of course, they completely ignored the fact that if his car hadn't been on that bit of road at the time then someone else's vehicle almost certainly would have been - especially considering London traffic.

Someone else might have been more alert.Iam not holier than thou but I expect some people to cross the road sometimes without looking.Exspecially children.Punishement in the UK is very light for driving without Insurance or valid licence.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Foppo said:

Someone else might have been more alert.Iam not holier than thou but I expect some people to cross the road sometimes without looking.Exspecially children.Punishement in the UK is very light for driving without Insurance or valid licence.

The fine for no insurance is usually less than the cost of insurance. Like fining someone £10 for failing to buy a £20 train ticket.

[V8Ford]

ORD said:

I drive at wide-open-throttle at all times and never brake for anyone or anything (let alone for speed limits). I exceed 170mph in Central London at least once a day, but I can handle it because of my driving skills and general superiority. I am not the person for whom laws are made. I am above them.

p.s. Women want me and men want to be me.

[9mm]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Zod said:

For Heaven's sake! This has been a purely hypothetical situation since the beginning. Part of the hypothesis that you are disputing is that the accident investigation concluded that the cyclist's death would have occurred whether the speed was 50, 60 or 100. Arguing against elements of the hypothesis is absurd.

Now we have singlecoil too, prepared as ever to enter an argument for the sake of it!

I'm done here.

Hitting a cyclist at 100 in a 60 is hypothetical. An accident investigation team concluding beyond all doubt that the cyclist would have died at 60 anyway is moving from hypothetical to fantasy. In my long experience (over 30 years) of court proceedings in relation to motoring offences following RTAs, it would never happen. Can I ask, do you have any professional experience in this field?

Don't the authorities regularly tell us there's such and such a percentage of killing someone at x speed, y speed, etc and aren't those numbers rather low, like 20pph, 30mph, etc? Based on that, I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult to argue 60 mph would kill you and if anyone's going to say 60 mph might not but 100 mph definitely would, they would surely have to demonstrate just how that works. i.e the human body cannot survive more than a 73.6 mph impact.

[Durzel]

I drive to the conditions, sometimes below, often above the posted limit.

I consider other road users, more specifically their likely influence on my survival through being faced with me approaching them at unusual speeds. In short this means I don't do stupid speeds in any limit because I know people won't react consistently. I also don't think it's particularly fair to subject others to that additional stress unnecessarily.

I don't speed in residential limits because I'd be pissed off if others did the same outside my house. Notwithstanding that I couldn't live with myself if I hit & killed a child or something.

My general attitude towards speeding on the roads is "do onto others as you would have done onto yourself", I do it where I consider safe, I take the consequences of being caught on the chin like a responsible adult. It's served me well enough thus far.

The biggest problem with speeding really are the people that do it without a single thought for the fact they're sharing the road with others.