Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[the alarming man]

Can't argue with that Kevin,trouble is those motorbicyclists often splatter themselves across other traffic, and it always takes an age to clear all the bits up 

Ignoring the humanity of such situations for a second, given the very obvious risks of riding a bike at 2-3 times the nsl on single carriageway roads, shouldn't such incidents be labelled as suicide and the bikers insurance billed for the investigation/clean up work, rather than making every one else suffer with stupidly inappropriate speed limits and overtaking restrictions

I know there are some sensible motorbicyclists around, but they seem to be as rare as sensible bicyclists...

finding ALL the bits Al is some times the problem...I know I have had the task of trying to find them....the glamorous duties of a paramedic.....not

[chrisgixer]

Aaeye totally ineffective. But then there's enough blue risnsers to keep speeds below 40 anyway, regardless of NSL

[05omegav6]

Oh, I would probably be doing the same if I were a motorbicyclist.

The point is, you have a group of road users who have no regard whatsoever for the speed limits and they are endangering themselves and others. Do you:

1) Put some effort into enforcement, and make an example of a few of them.
2) Use it as a fantastic excuse to slow everybody else down, then start making money from people who mostly observe the speed limits when they aren't insanely low. Meanwhile, continue to turn a blind eye to the dangerous offenders.

Must say I am with you on appropriate use of speed, rather than 'think of a number and halve it' limits... if you have a two mile straight with no junctions and reasonable visibility, then does it need a limit? The Acle Straight on the A47 is a good example... there are two principle hazards on that road, oncoming traffic and a slight bend halfway along. Obvious solutions are make it compulsory to use headlights at all times along it, and mark the bend clearly in order that someone approaching it at 100+ mph actually has fair warning to slow down for it. This could include reactive signs triggered by vehicle speed, displaying 'Ease Off now', 'Brake now' and 'Too Late'. Make the zone a quarter mile either side of the bend 40mph, with a camera each way. Also include a limit, of say 60, together with a ban on overtaking if it's raining/foggy/freezing

Wrt your summary of the solutions,  obviously 1 is the sensible approach, and 2 is the actual approach

As for paramedics wasting their time looking for bits Send an ambulance for the other people involved and an black van for the motor bicyclist. To be blunt, and apologies for that and for those having lunch, if someones head has come off, then despite the best wonders of modern science, they are dead So have someone else collect what's needed to identify them and leave the paramedics to dealing with actual casualties... no wonder you can't get an ambulance when you need one

[JamesV6CDX]

If they were genuinely interested in safety, they would make such cameras highly visible and never use unmarked cars for traffic patrol

Traffic (or for that matter, any type of patrol) includes an awful lot more than looking for speeders, though.

Believe it or not, as advanced drivers, traffic officers do a lot more than enforce the Road Traffic Act, and there are often occasions (for matters much more serious than speeding) an unmarked car is essential.

If there was a person doing 70mph in lane 2 of a mororway, looking into their lap for seconds at a time whilst composing a text message, would you have a problem with an unmarked unit detecting this? That's still traffic patrol

My personal opinion is that speed limits need to increase slightly on a lot of roads. I like France where it is higher in dry weather

[Bigron]

I understand completely what you are saying, James and obviously you see more incidents than most of us on here, but my point is why the need for unmarked vehicles? A visible presence would PREVENT an offense taking place, which is my understanding of the prime directive of the police, rather than prosecution, regardless?
The use of unmarked vehicles in the  area of true criminal activity I feel is justified - drugs dealing, etc., but the only reason for covert operations in civil matters seems to me to be for revenue collection.
By the way, are you ever going to respond to my PMs?

Ron.

[Rog]

Can't argue with that Kevin, trouble is those motorbicyclists often splatter themselves across other traffic, and it always takes an age to clear all the bits up 

There's quite a point here. Most road users (Cars & Bikes) have very little real perception of what happens. They may read that someone got killed, or injured etc, but don't really understand that this means decaptiation, evisceration, limbs ripped off, smashed heads and faces etc with all the mess that these involve.

So little boy racer puts his foot down, takes a chance, and doesn't conside that in a few seconds his jaw may be protruding through the top of his skull.

Mum on the school run, or excited newly qualified driver, looks at a text on the move, not realizing that in a few seconds their life will change.

Everyone should see bodies and/or actual injuries after a RTA.

But of course, it will never happens to us. We're all really good drivers, aren't we ?




 

[05omegav6]

The roads are already littered with bodies, yet noone gives smaller mammals a second glance... why should we be any different

You can go too far the other way, of course, and noone would ever leave their hypoallergenic cocoons for fear of catching summat... What ifs can be as paralysing as parking your car in a tree at 100mph. If you take a chance in life you must accep that there will, on occasion, be consequences, not just for you, but anyone else in the vicinity. Constantly dodging bullets doesn't mean that there isn't one with your name on it

[Rog]

The roads are already littered with bodies, yet noone gives smaller mammals a second glance... why should we be any different

You can go too far the other way, of course, and noone would ever leave their hypoallergenic cocoons for fear of catching summat... What ifs can be as paralysing as parking your car in a tree at 100mph. If you take a chance in life you must accep that there will, on occasion, be consequences, not just for you, but anyone else in the vicinity. Constantly dodging bullets doesn't mean that there isn't one with your name on it

Agreed

But . . . . taking a life changing (or life ending) chance over something a trivial as being impatient, or reading a text, or the momentary adrenaline rush of driving fast ?  and it may not be the drivers life that is being changed or ended.

[chrisgixer]

finding ALL the bits Al is some times the problem...I know I have had the task of trying to find them....the glamorous duties of a paramedic.....not

I often wondered. Why be a paramedic then? Or train to be one I should say? There will be blood and guts, there just will. Goes with territory.

[05omegav6]

There was a woman hit crossing the A24 with her dogs a few years ago. Hit by at least two bikes travelling at twice the nsl for dual carriageway. One rider died at the scene, at least one dog was vapourized and the woman was killed outright. The other rider didn't stop, and was eventually tracked down. Only prosecuted because, although he had stripped and cleaned the bike, there were still traces of blood from both the dog and the woman on it, tying him irrefutably to the scene

Who was taking the greater risk... the local woman crossing a dual carriageway, or the riders travelling too fast to react to anything they encountered... a pot hole would have likely killed the rider at that speed.

If the woman hadn't crossed there, at that moment, she would still be alive, equally so would the rider. However, had the bikes only being travelling at the 60 limit in place at the time, then everyone involved would have had all the time in the world to react.

[chrisgixer]

There was a woman hit crossing the A24 with her dogs a few years ago. Hit by at least two bikes travelling at twice the nsl for dual carriageway. One rider died at the scene, at least one dog was vapourized and the woman was killed outright. The other rider didn't stop, and was eventually tracked down. Only prosecuted because, although he had stripped and cleaned the bike, there were still traces of blood from both the dog and the woman on it, tying him irrefutably to the scene

Who was taking the greater risk... the local woman crossing a dual carriageway, or the riders travelling too fast to react to anything they encountered... a pot hole would have likely killed the rider at that speed.

If the woman hadn't crossed there, at that moment, she would still be alive, equally so would the rider. However, had the bikes only being travelling at the 60 limit in place at the time, then everyone involved would have had all the time in the world to react.

Not necessarily. Most pedestrians, drivers in lane two changing to lane 3, cyclists etc etc that choose to wonder into my path seem to it time it so perfectly that there would almost certainly be an accident if I didn't divert course.

Thing is, this happens regardless of speed v speed limit.

Therefor, timing is everything. If a person chooses to walk out in front of a car at the right time so as to give the driver no hope of avoiding the accident, then it won't matter how fast they are going OR What the speed limit is.

Granted there's a better chance if stopping but speed absolutely is not the over riding factor in an accident. Yes its a common factor, but then it would be given the ever falling speed limits these days.

[Kevin Wood]

Not necessarily. Most pedestrians, drivers in lane two changing to lane 3, cyclists etc etc that choose to wonder into my path seem to it time it so perfectly that there would almost certainly be an accident if I didn't divert course.

Thing is, this happens regardless of speed v speed limit.

Therefor, timing is everything. If a person chooses to walk out in front of a car at the right time so as to give the driver no hope of avoiding the accident, then it won't matter how fast they are going OR What the speed limit is.

Granted there's a better chance if stopping but speed absolutely is not the over riding factor in an accident. Yes its a common factor, but then it would be given the ever falling speed limits these days.

On the other hand, the woman wouldn't have reasonably expected traffic to be approaching doing twice the speed limit, that would have driven her decision to start to cross when it appeared clear and you can bet the crossing was designed to be safe at the posted speed limit, and not double the limit. So, riders observing the speed limit would have resulted in lives saved and speed was absolutely the main factor.

I think it's fine to take risks when the risks are to yourself alone, but where others are involved, it's extremely selfish. If I make a decision that the most risky thing to do in life is to walk my dogs it's incredibly selfish for someone more reckless to put me at higher risk than I have accepted.

As it is, I'm no angel, but, if you choose to exceed the limit, at every road feature where interaction with other drivers / pedestrians is a possibility, you have to expect that they will behave according to the speed limit, and that may mean it's unacceptable for you to be above it. If you are above the limit, others may well indeed pull out on you, as their perception will be based on the majority of traffic which will be at the speed limit. It's something you have to accept, because you're not on a race track but a public road where not everyone is superhuman.

[chrisgixer]

Not necessarily. Most pedestrians, drivers in lane two changing to lane 3, cyclists etc etc that choose to wonder into my path seem to it time it so perfectly that there would almost certainly be an accident if I didn't divert course.

Thing is, this happens regardless of speed v speed limit.

Therefor, timing is everything. If a person chooses to walk out in front of a car at the right time so as to give the driver no hope of avoiding the accident, then it won't matter how fast they are going OR What the speed limit is.

Granted there's a better chance if stopping but speed absolutely is not the over riding factor in an accident. Yes its a common factor, but then it would be given the ever falling speed limits these days.

On the other hand, the woman wouldn't have reasonably expected traffic to be approaching doing twice the speed limit, that would have driven her decision to start to cross when it appeared clear and you can bet the crossing was designed to be safe at the posted speed limit, and not double the limit. So, riders observing the speed limit would have resulted in lives saved and speed was absolutely the main factor.

I think it's fine to take risks when the risks are to yourself alone, but where others are involved, it's extremely selfish. If I make a decision that the most risky thing to do in life is to walk my dogs it's incredibly selfish for someone more reckless to put me at higher risk than I have accepted.

As it is, I'm no angel, but, if you choose to exceed the limit, at every road feature where interaction with other drivers / pedestrians is a possibility, you have to expect that they will behave according to the speed limit, and that may mean it's unacceptable for you to be above it. If you are above the limit, others may well indeed pull out on you, as their perception will be based on the majority of traffic which will be at the speed limit. It's something you have to accept, because you're not on a race track but a public road where not everyone is superhuman.

Absolutely. Point accepted. But I did say, not necessarily, at the start. My point is, the women could just as easily done as she did at 60 or even 40, with the same casualties, as there where at, say, 160. There comes a point at which an impact is unavoidable, If the timing is such. But do we all brake to walking pace on sight of her in case she wonders into the road? No we are within the limit so that's all fine then. ....That was all really.


Ok, the medics won't have to walk as far to pick up the bits etc etc, but you get my point surely? Minor as it may be, to what Happened in Al's post.

[Kevin Wood]

The thing is, probability of a collision, or level of risk, if you want to see it that way, is probably close to zero at 40 MPH, and a little higher at 60 MPH, but probably rises exponentially such that an accident is almost inevitable at 160 MPH. The woman presumably accepted the 60 MPH level of risk, or she would have stayed indoors. What right did the bikers have to increase her risk by their actions to the "almost certain death" scenario she actually faced on the day?

[chrisgixer]

The thing is, probability of a collision, or level of risk, if you want to see it that way, is probably close to zero at 40 MPH, and a little higher at 60 MPH, but probably rises exponentially such that an accident is almost inevitable at 160 MPH. The woman presumably accepted the 60 MPH level of risk, or she would have stayed indoors. What right did the bikers have to increase her risk by their actions to the "almost certain death" scenario she actually faced on the day?

That I don't accept. Lesser risk yes, of course. But zero, no.

The woman accepts much greater risk by crossing that particular road, that goes without saying. But what's reasonable to expect on that road. NSL plus 10 or 20mph would be far from unusual. She accepts that risk by crossing. There is always a risk. Always. The only way to lessen the risk is a speed limit, as that's cheaper. But a fatality is a fatality regardless of the speed limit.

Tell me there's no chance if death at the speed limit. Clearly that's not the case. Lessened yes, but if the timing is such, the vehicle simply won't stop in time regardless.