Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Markjay on 04 February 2008, 12:20:52
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7222690.stm
-
Is this an error in the report? Surely the motorist was driving through a red light, not the cyclist? Otherwise I can’t see why she should be jailed… of the two, I would have thought that jumping a red light is the more serious offence? Definitely the lady should be punished for texting while driving, but doesn’t the greater blame fall on the cyclist? This is worrying, because I see cyclist jumping red lights every day, and on several occasions got caught-out and almost knocked them down… I am aware that red light offences are hardly ever enforced on cyclists, but surely as far as the law is concerned they are vehicles and it is illegal for them to jump a red light? Not sure I fully understand this one… :-?
-
After reading this - she should get points and a fine for dangerous driving, but it is NOT her fault the cyclist used her for his suicide.
-
I think the issue here is that she was using her mobile phone, to text, at the time the cyclist went through the red light.
Surely everyone knows by now that, if you have an accident whilst using a mobile phone, you are going to get hammered. Texting has got to be more dangerous than talking as, by definition, you have to take your eyes off the road.
The motorist here has some mitigating circumstances in her favour, insomuch as the cyclist ignored a red traffic signal but she commited the absolute offence of using her mobile phone whilst driving.
I guess it's similar to killing someone when speeding. No matter how reckless the behaviour of the injured party, if you are exceeding the speed limit you will be held partly to blame. It is up to the court to decide how big a part you are to blame.
Maybe, a prison sentence will persuade people that this is serious and that, when driving, you must concentrate on driving.
-
Hi Chaps
As a local, this has been done to death in the local papers, I believe the upshot was she was texting on her phone and basically had no idea what colour the lights where.
It is viewed that if the cyclist has fallen from his bike before hand, she still would not have seen him possibly lying in the road.
From what I have read she should be locked up and banned from driving for life.
Around south Hampshire the amount people still holding a phone while driving is amazing.
She would seem to be the typical arrogant young woman who thought "it won't happen to me". well it did, perhaps she will learn but I doubt it.
Southampton is full of the 20-35 year old arrogant people who all think they can drive faster and better than anyone else.
Just this morning I have passed a car on it's roof on a straight dual carraigeway with a 30mph limit on it.
Rant over.
Mike
-
the cyclists lobby group are in the process of convincing the authorities that any accident between a cyclist and a powered vehicle should automatically be assumed to be the fault of the powered vehicle(seriously)!....it looks like they are succeeding
-
the cyclists lobby group are in the process of convincing the authorities that any accident between a cyclist and a powered vehicle should automatically be assumed to be the fault of the powered vehicle(seriously)!....it looks like they are succeeding
This is totally wrong! :o
-
i read a report on it in mcn a while ago but i must admit i cant vouch for the accuracy of their story
-
Hi Chaps
As a local, this has been done to death in the local papers, I believe the upshot was she was texting on her phone and basically had no idea what colour the lights where.
It is viewed that if the cyclist has fallen from his bike before hand, she still would not have seen him possibly lying in the road.
A large amount of points and a fine, she is an idiot for texting and driving, this is the crime not cyclist running over - that is a consequence.
-
I don't disagree, but... again, both parties are to blame but surely the greater offence here is jumping the red light? Taking what you said further, if you were say speeding through a junction and crashed into another motorist that jumped a red light, your blame will be greater than his....? The only thing here is that news reportiing can be very misleading, they may be additinal factors here such as her being arrogant / not showing remorse / having previous convictions etc, but either way i am really worried that the fact that the cyclist went through a red light appears not to be taken as a serious matter by the court.
-
but would she have been jailed just for the texting offence?...having said all this i think that texting while driving is lunacy and should be dealt with very harshly.
-
I think the issue here is that she was using her mobile phone, to text, at the time the cyclist went through the red light.
Surely everyone knows by now that, if you have an accident whilst using a mobile phone, you are going to get hammered. Texting has got to be more dangerous than talking as, by definition, you have to take your eyes off the road.
The motorist here has some mitigating circumstances in her favour, insomuch as the cyclist ignored a red traffic signal but she commited the absolute offence of using her mobile phone whilst driving.
I guess it's similar to killing someone when speeding. No matter how reckless the behaviour of the injured party, if you are exceeding the speed limit you will be held partly to blame. It is up to the court to decide how big a part you are to blame.
Maybe, a prison sentence will persuade people that this is serious and that, when driving, you must concentrate on driving.
I see plenty of bad road usage which could easily have fatalities.
Cyclists at night with no lights. When I lived with my parents I never saw the next door neighbours daughter until I was along side her, she had no lights, no reflectors, my motorbike lights were poor. If I was two foot to the left that could have been a fatality.
I found out who it was the next day!!
Most recent MORON was a chav crossing the road who thought it was funny to stop oncoming traffic, if the car in front of me hadn't emergency stopped - he would have been run over, and I would been happy to be a witness to that!!!!
-
Hi Chaps
As a local, this has been done to death in the local papers, I believe the upshot was she was texting on her phone and basically had no idea what colour the lights where.
It is viewed that if the cyclist has fallen from his bike before hand, she still would not have seen him possibly lying in the road.
A large amount of points and a fine, she is an idiot for texting and driving, this is the crime not cyclist running over - that is a consequence.
I can see your point, but potentially look at this way, your elderly grandmother waits to cross the road, the little man turns green she proceeds to cross the road and falls over, the lights then turn green for the cars, is it acceptable to run your grandmother over ?
I agree the crime is texting and driving, but does it mean the consequences are irrelevant.
I don't no.
Mike
-
but would she have been jailed just for the texting offence?...having said all this i think that texting while driving is lunacy and should be dealt with very harshly.
There is no argument there
-
I think the issue here is that she was using her mobile phone, to text, at the time the cyclist went through the red light.
Surely everyone knows by now that, if you have an accident whilst using a mobile phone, you are going to get hammered. Texting has got to be more dangerous than talking as, by definition, you have to take your eyes off the road.
The motorist here has some mitigating circumstances in her favour, insomuch as the cyclist ignored a red traffic signal but she commited the absolute offence of using her mobile phone whilst driving.
I guess it's similar to killing someone when speeding. No matter how reckless the behaviour of the injured party, if you are exceeding the speed limit you will be held partly to blame. It is up to the court to decide how big a part you are to blame.
Maybe, a prison sentence will persuade people that this is serious and that, when driving, you must concentrate on driving.
I see plenty of bad road usage which could easily have fatalities.
Cyclists at night with no lights. When I lived with my parents I never saw the next door neighbours daughter until I was along side her, she had no lights, no reflectors, my motorbike lights were poor. If I was two foot to the left that could have been a fatality.
I found out who it was the next day!!
Most recent MORON was a chav crossing the road who thought it was funny to stop oncoming traffic, if the car in front of me hadn't emergency stopped - he would have been run over, and I would been happy to be a witness to that!!!!
Had a close shave with one of those... I turned into a one-way road at night and this cysclist was coming straight at me.... in the opposite direction... no lights obviously. How I missed him is a mystery.
-
If what we read is the truth then it is a case of both parties playing a part in a horrific accident.
Had she not been texting then there is chance she would have seen him and he would not have been killed, so she should be punished for her part, but a custodial sentence, i am not convinced.
Had the cyclist not jumped the red light (which a lot of them do) then he would still be here to tell the tale, however riding without a helmet is asking for trouble as well, i am a keen cyclist and insist anyone who rides out with us has a helmet and wears it no matter how 'untrendy' it looks.
My fear here is she will be made an example of, yes fine her and points, but jail.......i don't think so
-
Hi Chaps
As a local, this has been done to death in the local papers, I believe the upshot was she was texting on her phone and basically had no idea what colour the lights where.
It is viewed that if the cyclist has fallen from his bike before hand, she still would not have seen him possibly lying in the road.
A large amount of points and a fine, she is an idiot for texting and driving, this is the crime not cyclist running over - that is a consequence.
I can see your point, but potentially look at this way, your elderly grandmother waits to cross the road, the little man turns green she proceeds to cross the road and falls over, the lights then turn green for the cars, is it acceptable to run your grandmother over ?
I agree the crime is texting and driving, but does it mean the consequences are irrelevant.
I don't no.
Mike
Now this is different, she would be in the road fully visible and not hurtling out in front of you - visible from a way off and even visible I hope to a texter.
here death by dangerous driving might be appropriate.
The main argument I have with slow road users is that they moan if you HAVE to brake hard for any reason, I discussed this with a cyclist once, who commented at me, I said it was clear when I first saw him so didn't slow as much but when a car came the other way I slammed my brakes on rather than try to pass (both were possible), and that I had no intention of running him over.
Yes I do realise I should have slowed a bit earlier but twisty road and he was grass hidden until closer.
I did slow down within braking distance - just to a cyclist it sounds worse.
-
It completely escaped me, but I now recall a conversation I had with a keen cyclist a few months ago (met him in a social event), he was moaning that he heard police were to crack-down on cyclists jumping red lights, he was on about police picking up on cyclists and wasting public money instead of fighting crime etc etc... thinking back I can't belive some cyclist have this attitude, that it is their birthright to jump red lights... :-/
-
Hi All,
Being local to where this happened I have read a lot of court coverage in the local press.
Yes the cyclist went through a red light, no he didnt have a helmet on etc. But there was no evidence that the driver tried to stop or took any collision avoiding action.
The court did take cyclist action into consideration, but surely the bottom line is no matter how stupid / careless cyclists or pedestrians may be, We drivers are supposed to be alert and take best care we can to not injure or kill them.
Roger
-
If what we read is the truth then it is a case of both parties playing a part in a horrific accident.
Had she not been texting then there is chance she would have seen him and he would not have been killed, so she should be punished for her part, but a custodial sentence, i am not convinced.
Had the cyclist not jumped the red light (which a lot of them do) then he would still be here to tell the tale, however riding without a helmet is asking for trouble as well, i am a keen cyclist and insist anyone who rides out with us has a helmet and wears it no matter how 'untrendy' it looks.
My fear here is she will be made an example of, yes fine her and points, but jail.......i don't think so
I have to admit - I LIKE cycle lanes where I live - it is excercise.
-
It completely escaped me, but I now recall a conversation I had with a keen cyclist a few months ago (met him in a social event), he was moaning that he heard police were to crack-down on cyclists jumping red lights, he was on about police picking up on cyclists and wasting public money instead of fighting crime etc etc... thinking back I can't belive some cyclist have this attitude, that it is their birthright to jump red lights... :-/
That is the usual clap trap you get, try monitoring the various transprot news groups including the cycling ones. They blame the drivers even if they run red lights
-
Yes, cyclist went through red light (as they seem to) and got killed. Now I'm not saying driver is innocent, shes not, but the way the trash bbc has villainised her, but not the cyclist is bad.
She deserves punishment, but the cyclist should be badly treated by bbc as well.
-
Yes, cyclist went through red light (as they seem to) and got killed. Now I'm not saying driver is innocent, shes not, but the way the trash bbc has villainised her, but not the cyclist is bad.
She deserves punishment, but the cyclist should be badly treated by bbc as well.
Found some more details here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/02/ntext102.xml
Don't expect the BBC to give you the whole news anymore... >:(
-
Yes, cyclist went through red light (as they seem to) and got killed. Now I'm not saying driver is innocent, shes not, but the way the trash bbc has villainised her, but not the cyclist is bad.
She deserves punishment, but the cyclist should be badly treated by bbc as well.
Found some more details here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/02/ntext102.xml
Don't expect the BBC to give you the whole news anymore... >:(
OK, so considering thge lady's antics so far, I agree she should not be allowed to drive a car, and possibly even punished severly for repeatedly offending.
But I disagree that she should be convicted of causing death....
And the story about how the cyclist dismounted actually makes things worst- why could he have not waited another couple of minutes? This baffles me completely, how his actions are not deemed irresponsible.
-
...so where is Hotel21 when you need him? ;D
-
so reading all the info we have this is what we know....
she was speeding
she was texting
she had been caught speeding before in similar situations (junctions)
she was not paying attention
He ran a red light knowingly
he had no head protection
Still say it was 6 of one and half a dozon of the other, she should be punished but he was also at fault and paid the ultimate price
had one or the other not carried out their action then there is a possiblity they would both be here today
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Would the cyclist have been killed if he had stopped at the red light?????
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Right, the milk of human kindness has dried up completely today, so forgive my honesty.
She is a chav, and in order to prevent her having thick, chav kids, should be banged up or shot.
He got want he deserved for being an impatient prat.
The BBC are a bunch of idiots, nothing more than an extension of the government's press office.
There, I've said it.
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Right, the milk of human kindness has dried up completely today, so forgive my honesty.
She is a chav, and in order to prevent her having thick, chav kids, should be banged up or shot.
He got want he deserved for being an impatient prat.
The BBC are a bunch of idiots, nothing more than an extension of the government's press office.
There, I've said it.
Well said jaime, i agree with you :y
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Would the cyclist have been killed if he had stopped at the red light?????[/quote]
by the same rule i didnt think that a green light gave the driver automatic right of way also
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Right, the milk of human kindness has dried up completely today, so forgive my honesty.
She is a chav, and in order to prevent her having thick, chav kids, should be banged up or shot.
He got want he deserved for being an impatient prat.
The BBC are a bunch of idiots, nothing more than an extension of the government's press office.
There, I've said it.
Have you thought about applying for a job with the Diplomatic Service? Or perhaps the United Nations?
I reckon you could solve the Iraq, Iran, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Darfur chrises by about 3.00 on your first day and still be home for a couple of cans of Stella and reboot the OOF server before tea.
Just a suggestion. ;D
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Would the cyclist have been killed if he had stopped at the red light?????[/quote]
by the same rule i didnt think that a green light gave the driver automatic right of way also
Right read what i have written, in no way am i suggesting that the driver of the car, was not to take the major part of the blame for this, but answer me one question.
What would you, or even better it may have happened to you, what did you do after someone has taken YOUR right of way?
did you say oh what a fool i am for driving across a GREEN light without looking cautiously if someone has jumped a RED light.
I dont think so.
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Would the cyclist have been killed if he had stopped at the red light?????[/quote]
by the same rule i didnt think that a green light gave the driver automatic right of way also
Right read what i have written, in no way am i suggesting that the driver of the car, was not to take the major part of the blame for this, but answer me one question.
What would you, or even better it may have happened to you, what did you do after someone has taken YOUR right of way?
did you say oh what a fool i am for driving across a GREEN light without looking cautiously if someone has jumped a RED light.
I dont think so.
Well just to regale you of a little experience I had last year. I was driving home one evening on my normal route from work. I have to come through one set of traffic lights on the way home and they are a bit of a pain as they seem to stay red for ages. As I approached the traffic lights they were green in my favour so I speeded up just a little bit to make sure I got through. As I went through the lights they remained green; as I looked left, I noticed that the lights were also green in the other direction. :o :o :o
It took me a moment to digest what I had seen and from that point onwards I always approach that and other TLC junctions with caution just in case someone else puts their foot down to try to get through the lights before they change.
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Would the cyclist have been killed if he had stopped at the red light?????[/quote]
by the same rule i didnt think that a green light gave the driver automatic right of way also
Right read what i have written, in no way am i suggesting that the driver of the car, was not to take the major part of the blame for this, but answer me one question.
it has happened to me ,but i was lucky, so was the cyclist he didnt die but i was still threatened with prosecution by the police for the above reason
and from then on my right of way or not i always check my exit is clear
this happened in march93 iam not sure if things have been changed but at the time it made my life difficult
-
would she have been able to avoid a collision if she had her full attention on the road?
if not she should only be done for using the phone while driving
if he hadnt gone thru the red light but she was still using her phone, would she have collided with anything else?
its all if's and but's
-
Slight change of scenario but basically quite similar.....
Instead of a cyclist running a red light, what if it was a paramedic (or fire-engine, or police car or coastguard or blood transfusion vehicle) with blue lights etc on and she still hit it?
The 999 service driver would be hung out to dry undoubtedly, (especially by some who frequent here) but would she still be done?
-
Slight change of scenario but basically quite similar.....
Instead of a cyclist running a red light, what if it was a paramedic (or fire-engine, or police car or coastguard or blood transfusion vehicle) with blue lights etc on and she still hit it?
The 999 service driver would be hung out to dry undoubtedly, (especially by some who frequent here) but would she still be done?
probably not the media would have a bigger target
-
This case is a typical example of how reckless some people can be at times, i too have sometimes not acted the way the highway code would like us too, but fortunately for me nothing has ever happened.
It sure makes me sit back and think over some of my actions :-?
-
Slight change of scenario but basically quite similar.....
Instead of a cyclist running a red light, what if it was a paramedic (or fire-engine, or police car or coastguard or blood transfusion vehicle) with blue lights etc on and she still hit it?
The 999 service driver would be hung out to dry undoubtedly, (especially by some who frequent here) but would she still be done?
Don't ask awkward questions you! You're supposed to come up with the sagacious answers. If you start asking questions as well where will we be then?? :-/
-
Slight change of scenario but basically quite similar.....
Instead of a cyclist running a red light, what if it was a paramedic (or fire-engine, or police car or coastguard or blood transfusion vehicle) with blue lights etc on and she still hit it?
The 999 service driver would be hung out to dry undoubtedly, (especially by some who frequent here) but would she still be done?
Don't ask awkward questions you! You're supposed to come up with the sagacious answers. If you start asking questions as well where will we be then?? :-/
Devils Advocate, me! ;D
Only thing that changes is that there is an excemption in law for the 999 vehicle to run the red light (safely.....). She would still be allowed to enter the junction on a green, only if safe to proceed....
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Right, the milk of human kindness has dried up completely today, so forgive my honesty.
She is a chav, and in order to prevent her having thick, chav kids, should be banged up or shot.
He got want he deserved for being an impatient prat.
The BBC are a bunch of idiots, nothing more than an extension of the government's press office.
There, I've said it.
Say it like it is Jaime!
Her record is pretty bad - since she is points loaded she will get a ban
-
I can't help but come back to the question, 'If the driver was not speeding and was not on the mobile phone, would the cyclist have been killed?'.
If the answer is that the cyclist would have survived then the driver is at fault. This is the question that the court would have had to answer. The fact that the cyclist went through a red light is merely mitigation in the driver's defence.
Would the cyclist have been killed if he had stopped at the red light?????[/quote]
by the same rule i didnt think that a green light gave the driver automatic right of way also
Right read what i have written, in no way am i suggesting that the driver of the car, was not to take the major part of the blame for this, but answer me one question.
What would you, or even better it may have happened to you, what did you do after someone has taken YOUR right of way?
did you say oh what a fool i am for driving across a GREEN light without looking cautiously if someone has jumped a RED light.
I dont think so.
I emergency stopped so I didn't go into the side of the red light running lorry
-
Slight change of scenario but basically quite similar.....
Instead of a cyclist running a red light, what if it was a paramedic (or fire-engine, or police car or coastguard or blood transfusion vehicle) with blue lights etc on and she still hit it?
The 999 service driver would be hung out to dry undoubtedly, (especially by some who frequent here) but would she still be done?
They are big noisy and have flashing lights.
Also I have seen them slow and check not piling through on full throttle.
And I did say definately a dangerous driving conviction required
-
she should get jail time even if he hadn't died IMO
it's illegal to use the phone under such circumstances.... and txt'ing is even bloody worse than making a call in terms of driver attention and line of sight...
one would hope a 999 call driver would be alert enough to miss, but it might not have been possible to avoid, and really, it would be her fault... and why anyone should hang the emergency services out to dry because of some daft cow txt'ing is beyond me entirely.
the only other point I take exception to is labelling the BBC as a Govt press office..... but that's another story entirely !
-
..... and why anyone should hang the emergency services out to dry because . ...
I think that comment was for my benefit.
-
Firstly there is a difference between the meaning of the word ‘fault’ from the moral point of view and the legal one. If two vehicles enter a junction at the same time they are both prats, and are both morally responsible for the collision, but only one will be legally at fault.
So yes one should always take care when entering a junction, be it when the light is green or otherwise. In the same way you should always look in both direction when stepping into the road, just in case a confused / drunk / police / tourist / bank robber or whatever is coming down the wrong way. But if you do get ran over by someone going the wrong way then legally speaking surely it is the driver’s fault, not yours?
So again in my view she had it all coming apart from a conviction for causing death.
-
Secondly, as someone who studied Philosophy (albeit in another life :( ) I can tell you the logical meaning of ‘cause’ has nothing to do with whether the accident would have been avoided if an earlier incident did not occur (i.e. the lady wasn’t texting). In the same way, if her ex-hubby did not ask her to come and meet him, she wouldn’t be on that road, and the accident wouldn’t have happened, so is the accident her ex fault?
To take it to absurd, if a jet would have crashed on that particular stretch of road a few hours earlier, the road would have been closed-off and the cyclist still alive. Does this mean that it’s the pilot’s fault for not crashing?
When establishing fault, one should look at all those actions that would have prevented the accident had they NOT occurred, but then establish which of these actions should not have been preformed or were outright illegal, and then ask whether the reasonable person should have anticipated that taking this action could lead to an accident. And the simple answer is yes top both texting through a junction as well as to jumping a red light on a bike.;
-
I have to admit some bias......
19th may 1989 , I was pulling away across some green lights at a junction in High wycombe.
you cannot clearly SEE what might be coming as it's obscured by building , railings and greenery....
so a daft cow runs the red lights doing , according to the investigating officers, between 65 and 70 Mph , ina 30 zone.
hits my car about 2 feet behind where i'm sat... cuts it in half,
I end up with a broken neck, crushed left hand , and lower back injury. both the spinal injuries plague me to this day.
now then, tell me how it is that I'd NOT want the bitch strung up?
had I died...... which was close enough to sweat about... i'd hope she'd have gone away for a LONG time.
as it happens , the lights were right next to the Law courts.... in which she was tried and convicted..... they threw several books at her....
She was apparently in a hurry to get home for Lunch....
Granted, the position is kind of reversed , in that the young woman in today's news was passing thru the light on green.... but it's the same kind of lack of due care and attention , and disregard for other road user's safety that really gets up my nose.....
the cyclist should also have been prosecuted had he not died.... to be fair, he was "running the red lights"
but that's not an excuse.
if he'd T-boned in to the side of her car, then it might be fairer to say she wasn't at fault for his death, there was nothing she could have done, but she should STILL be prosecuted for the phone use.
-
she should get jail time even if he hadn't died IMO
it's illegal to use the phone under such circumstances.... and txt'ing is even bloody worse than making a call in terms of driver attention and line of sight...
one would hope a 999 call driver would be alert enough to miss, but it might not have been possible to avoid, and really, it would be her fault... and why anyone should hang the emergency services out to dry because of some daft cow txt'ing is beyond me entirely.
the only other point I take exception to is labelling the BBC as a Govt press office..... but that's another story entirely !
I notice, like your beloved BBC, that you conveniently didn't mention the cyclist running a red light either. The cyclist got what he deserved. The bitch got off lightly. And the BBC, well :-X
-
Secondly, as someone who studied Philosophy (albeit in another life :( ) I can tell you the logical meaning of ‘cause’ has nothing to do with whether the accident would have been avoided if an earlier incident did not occur (i.e. the lady wasn’t texting). In the same way, if her ex-hubby did not ask her to come and meet him, she wouldn’t be on that road, and the accident wouldn’t have happened, so is the accident her ex fault?
To take it to absurd, if a jet would have crashed on that particular stretch of road a few hours earlier, the road would have been closed-off and the cyclist still alive. Does this mean that it’s the pilot’s fault for not crashing?
When establishing fault, one should look at all those actions that would have prevented the accident had they NOT occurred, but then establish which of these actions should not have been preformed or were outright illegal, and then ask whether the reasonable person should have anticipated that taking this action could lead to an accident. And the simple answer is yes top both texting through a junction as well as to jumping a red light on a bike.;
and nobody is still not mentioning the bloody cyclist!
-
If the cyclist was still here they would also be subject to proceedings, IMHO. However, he has answered to a higher authority this time.....
-
errrr try reading the post before your last 2 then Jaime....
-
errrr try reading the post before your last 2 then Jaime....
noted. I hadn't got that far when I was replying. Mr Angry has been out to play a lot today :-[
-
i read a report on it in mcn a while ago but i must admit i cant vouch for the accuracy of their story
Would you feel the same if that was your child on the pushbike?
As devastated as I would be if it was my loved one, the cyclist was in the wrong. Whether or not the driver was (clearly was in this case) wouldn't necessarily affected the outcome. If cyclist keep running red lights (and they do), the inevitable will happen. Surely the cyclist could see the car.
My younger Nephews have no idea about road safety. In Cyprus last year, they just stepped out in to road to cross, too busy playing PSP. Would that have been the drivers fault (fortunately he missed)? No. Don't schools teach this any more? And yes, they are definately old enough to know better.
-
noted. I hadn't got that far when I was replying. Mr Angry has been out to play a lot today :-[
yeah, we all have days like that mate...
for me, it's usually any day with a D in it....
:y
-
Would you feel the same if that was your child on the pushbike?
I would be inconsolable if the deceased were any of mine.
However, if you do something like running a red light/playing chicken on a dual carriageway, then participants instantly become prime contender for the next issue of the Darwin awards.,
-
Would you feel the same if that was your child on the pushbike?
I would be inconsolable if the deceased were any of mine.
However, if you do something like running a red light/playing chicken on a dual carriageway, then participants instantly become prime contender for the next issue of the Darwin awards.,
I've only met your lad (and the mrs, but i was very drunk), and he has his bonce screwed on enough to know he will always lose in a fight against a 30mph 1 tonne of tin object.... :y
-
Still, it goes back to my thoughts about survival of the fittest. 500m yrs of evolution cant be wrong. Because we allow stoooooopid people to add to the gene pool, things will get worse. Shoot them before puberty.
-
Would you feel the same if that was your child on the pushbike?
I would be inconsolable if the deceased were any of mine.
However, if you do something like running a red light/playing chicken on a dual carriageway, then participants instantly become prime contender for the next issue of the Darwin awards.,
When I did my car and bike test you had to keep your eyes peeled, if you saw an ice cream van slow down be looking out for children running across the road, at junctions be watching for motorbikes etc....
Be honest if you were driving your car and a person be it a cyclist, motorcyclist or a car jumping the red light, you would do your best to miss them, swerve run into another car, wall anything to miss the person.... if then the person had been killed I would be able to live with myself knowing full well I could have done no more.
-
YaY I Vote TheBoy for Prime Minister !!!
....
-
Would you feel the same if that was your child on the pushbike?
I would be inconsolable if the deceased were any of mine.
However, if you do something like running a red light/playing chicken on a dual carriageway, then participants instantly become prime contender for the next issue of the Darwin awards.,
When I did my car and bike test you had to keep your eyes peeled, if you saw an ice cream van slow down be looking out for children running across the road, at junctions be watching for motorbikes etc....
Be honest if you were driving your car and a person be it a cyclist, motorcyclist or a car jumping the red light, you would do your best to miss them, swerve run into another car, wall anything to miss the person.... if then the person had been killed I would be able to live with myself knowing full well I could have done no more.
in this day and age, people are more likely to swerve to save a dog, causing them to lose control, and kill loads of people.
-
Would you feel the same if that was your child on the pushbike?
I would be inconsolable if the deceased were any of mine.
However, if you do something like running a red light/playing chicken on a dual carriageway, then participants instantly become prime contender for the next issue of the Darwin awards.,
When I did my car and bike test you had to keep your eyes peeled, if you saw an ice cream van slow down be looking out for children running across the road, at junctions be watching for motorbikes etc....
Be honest if you were driving your car and a person be it a cyclist, motorcyclist or a car jumping the red light, you would do your best to miss them, swerve run into another car, wall anything to miss the person.... if then the person had been killed I would be able to live with myself knowing full well I could have done no more.
in this day and age, people are more likely to swerve to save a dog, causing them to lose control, and kill loads of people.
and to add to that, supposing she had seen cyclist, swerved, lost control, hit other cars causing injury, while the single brain cell cyclist rides away?
-
Would you feel the same if that was your child on the pushbike?
I would be inconsolable if the deceased were any of mine.
However, if you do something like running a red light/playing chicken on a dual carriageway, then participants instantly become prime contender for the next issue of the Darwin awards.,
When I did my car and bike test you had to keep your eyes peeled, if you saw an ice cream van slow down be looking out for children running across the road, at junctions be watching for motorbikes etc....
Be honest if you were driving your car and a person be it a cyclist, motorcyclist or a car jumping the red light, you would do your best to miss them, swerve run into another car, wall anything to miss the person.... if then the person had been killed I would be able to live with myself knowing full well I could have done no more.
in this day and age, people are more likely to swerve to save a dog, causing them to lose control, and kill loads of people.
and to add to that, supposing she had seen cyclist, swerved, lost control, hit other cars causing injury, while the single brain cell cyclist rides away?
If that had been the case, yes you would have been annoyed that your No Claims Bonus could have possibly gone out of the window, I can live with losing a few hundred quid........
Sooner that than killing someone when i could have tried to prevented it..
-
Would you feel the same if that was your child on the pushbike?
I would be inconsolable if the deceased were any of mine.
However, if you do something like running a red light/playing chicken on a dual carriageway, then participants instantly become prime contender for the next issue of the Darwin awards.,
When I did my car and bike test you had to keep your eyes peeled, if you saw an ice cream van slow down be looking out for children running across the road, at junctions be watching for motorbikes etc....
Be honest if you were driving your car and a person be it a cyclist, motorcyclist or a car jumping the red light, you would do your best to miss them, swerve run into another car, wall anything to miss the person.... if then the person had been killed I would be able to live with myself knowing full well I could have done no more.
in this day and age, people are more likely to swerve to save a dog, causing them to lose control, and kill loads of people.
and to add to that, supposing she had seen cyclist, swerved, lost control, hit other cars causing injury, while the single brain cell cyclist rides away?
If that had been the case, yes you would have been annoyed that your No Claims Bonus could have possibly gone out of the window, I can live with losing a few hundred quid........
Sooner that than killing someone when i could have tried to prevented it..
So how would you have felt had you of swerved to avoid the neanderthal and caused a bigger head on accident, perhaps killing/maming someone/others, and that definately would be your fault. And the cyclist rides away into anomality.
-
in this day and age, people are more likely to swerve to save a dog, causing them to lose control, and kill loads of people.
Once upon a time, dealt with a double fatal where a driver swerved on a country road at dusk to avoid a rabbit in his path. Head on into another car and both innocent occupants minced. At fault driver survived and held his hands up. Managed a fine and ban but avoided jail.....
-
I'm a little calmer now but will continue the debate.
I have actually been in a similar situation to her (granted, I wasn't using the phone, and wasn't speeding). A pedestrian at a pelican crossing for some reason didn't wait for the green man. Knocked him flying, poor sod. Luckily, nobody hurt, no idea how, as I had probably only just managed to get on brakes before impact, so probably about 30mph. Only damage was a damaged number plate and a big tailback whilst he worked out what happened.
Now suppose I had killed him (and at 30mph that is very possible)......
-
Would you feel the same if that was your child on the pushbike?
I would be inconsolable if the deceased were any of mine.
However, if you do something like running a red light/playing chicken on a dual carriageway, then participants instantly become prime contender for the next issue of the Darwin awards.,
When I did my car and bike test you had to keep your eyes peeled, if you saw an ice cream van slow down be looking out for children running across the road, at junctions be watching for motorbikes etc....
Be honest if you were driving your car and a person be it a cyclist, motorcyclist or a car jumping the red light, you would do your best to miss them, swerve run into another car, wall anything to miss the person.... if then the person had been killed I would be able to live with myself knowing full well I could have done no more.
in this day and age, people are more likely to swerve to save a dog, causing them to lose control, and kill loads of people.
and to add to that, supposing she had seen cyclist, swerved, lost control, hit other cars causing injury, while the single brain cell cyclist rides away?
If that had been the case, yes you would have been annoyed that your No Claims Bonus could have possibly gone out of the window, I can live with losing a few hundred quid........
Sooner that than killing someone when i could have tried to prevented it..
So how would you have felt had you of swerved to avoid the neanderthal and caused a bigger head on accident, perhaps killing/maming someone/others, and that definately would be your fault. And the cyclist rides away into anomality.
The instance we are all refering too was at a set of lights, so the poor person I would hit trying to avoid this cyclist would more than likely be in another car, so they stand a far greater chance of survival than a person on a pushbike....
We are all being allowed time to think what we would do in that situation, but in a split second I would say 99% of drivers would swerve out of the way.........
-
This woman didn't give herself the option, her eyes totally off the road..
-
The green light does not give you carte blanche to drive on, it is "permission" to procede with care ...
She did not take care because she was speeding and texting.
You are not allowed to mow down others simply because THEY break the law.
Deserves everything she gets.
-
This woman didn't give herself the option, her eyes totally off the road..
I can find no reference to how much 'notice' she would have had had she not been play with the bloody phone.
But (and I am guessing here), not much.
How long does it take a pushbike to clear the width of a car? 1 second? What would be her thinking + reaction + car response (to swerve 4' or more) time? Significantly less than 1 second? I think not.
And, as said earlier, surely to god the cyclist must have seen 1 tonne of metal approaching at 30mph. Surely he knew he would lose that one.
-
The green light does not give you carte blanche to drive on, it is "permission" to procede with care ...
She did not take care because she was speeding and texting.
You are not allowed to mow down others simply because THEY break the law.
Deserves everything she gets.
I agree she should be punished (perhaps my earlier comment earlier about shooting her might be a tad strong - actually, maybe not), the point is her phone actions may not have caused the accident.
-
The green light does not give you carte blanche to drive on, it is "permission" to procede with care ...
...... She would still be allowed to enter the junction on a green, only if safe to proceed....
agreed....
She did not take care because she was speeding and texting.
You are not allowed to mow down others simply because THEY break the law.
Deserves everything she gets.
Also agreed.....
-
Another thought ....
Lets take the emotive issue of texting out of it ...
She was doing 45 in a 30 limit... ok the cyclist was in the wrong .. but if she had been doing 30 would the collision have occured ?? Did the cyclist make his fatal decision expecting her to be doing 30 ?? Would she have been able to stop at 30 if she had seen him ??
She could be done just as well for "death by dangerous" even if not texting, that just compounds the error, but says an awful lot about her attitude IMHO
-
In which case I will agree to disagree, as I think if she had her eyes on the road as she should have done, she may have caught a glimpse of this guy and either slowed down or swerved.
You are a motorcyclist have you ever been riding your motorbike and had someone pull out on you?
The first thing the car driver says "I am so sorry I never saw you!" and yet most motorcyclist ride with their headlights on.....
I think all car drivers should be made to ride a motorcycle for a while before getting into a car....
I honestly think that a motorcyclist that drives a car looks more whilst driving..
-
Adding another personal similar incident.
My little brother used to cycle to work.
One day, several years ago, he (for still unknown reason) did not stop at T junction. The inevitable accident actually wrote off the car, and nearly killed my brother - even now, some 30+ yrs later, he still carries the scars. It really was touch and go for days.
The driver wasn't in the wrong, was he (though he may have been speeding possibly, but that was not the cause of the accident according to the police)? And his car was written off. His insurance company chased my brother for the money (and strangely, this was covered by our house insurance somehow :-/).
Had the driver killed my brother, and as I said, it really was touch and go for days, would we have blamed the driver?
-
Another thought ....
Lets take the emotive issue of texting out of it ...
She was doing 45 in a 30 limit... ok the cyclist was in the wrong .. but if she had been doing 30 would the collision have occured ?? Did the cyclist make his fatal decision expecting her to be doing 30 ?? Would she have been able to stop at 30 if she had seen him ??
She could be done just as well for "death by dangerous" even if not texting, that just compounds the error, but says an awful lot about her attitude IMHO
I have never she was not in the wrong. I was making the point that he is also wrong for jumping the red light, a fact that the trash BBC are skirting over.
Lets reverse the situation, supposing the cyclist was riding along, head down, pressing on through green lights, and the (no phone) driver jumped the red light. Whos fault would that have been? The cyclist for having his head down, or the driver for jumping the light?
-
Adding another personal similar incident.
My little brother used to cycle to work.
One day, several years ago, he (for still unknown reason) did not stop at T junction. The inevitable accident actually wrote off the car, and nearly killed my brother - even now, some 30+ yrs later, he still carries the scars. It really was touch and go for days.
The driver wasn't in the wrong, was he (though he may have been speeding possibly, but that was not the cause of the accident according to the police)? And his car was written off. His insurance company chased my brother for the money (and strangely, this was covered by our house insurance somehow :-/).
Had the driver killed my brother, and as I said, it really was touch and go for days, would we have blamed the driver?
I suppose in this case fortunately you have your brothers version of events to go by.
Had the worst happened, I'm sure nothing the car driver could say would convince you that it wasn't his fault no matter how the blame was apportioned legally.
-
This entire sad episode still has two people who were both in the wrong whilst negotiating the roads network at a particular place.
One is yet to fully pay the bill for her error, the others bill is overpaid. Unfortunately, no change is given for one of them......
-
In which case I will agree to disagree, as I think if she had her eyes on the road as she should have done, she may have caught a glimpse of this guy and either slowed down or swerved.
You are a motorcyclist have you ever been riding your motorbike and had someone pull out on you?
The first thing the car driver says "I am so sorry I never saw you!" and yet most motorcyclist ride with their headlights on.....
I think all car drivers should be made to ride a motorcycle for a while before getting into a car....
I honestly think that a motorcyclist that drives a car looks more whilst driving..
Oh yes, I can see it from both sides. I think she is wrong. Very wrong. Deserves shooting I believe was my first post on it. BUT the cyclist is also very wrong.
I agree, motorcycle training makes you a better car driver - more alert and concious of whats going on than the training you get to remove the Looney (no pun intended mate ;D) plates from your tin can.
-
Adding another personal similar incident.
My little brother used to cycle to work.
One day, several years ago, he (for still unknown reason) did not stop at T junction. The inevitable accident actually wrote off the car, and nearly killed my brother - even now, some 30+ yrs later, he still carries the scars. It really was touch and go for days.
The driver wasn't in the wrong, was he (though he may have been speeding possibly, but that was not the cause of the accident according to the police)? And his car was written off. His insurance company chased my brother for the money (and strangely, this was covered by our house insurance somehow :-/).
Had the driver killed my brother, and as I said, it really was touch and go for days, would we have blamed the driver?
I suppose in this case fortunately you have your brothers version of events to go by.
Had the worst happened, I'm sure nothing the car driver could say would convince you that it wasn't his fault no matter how the blame was apportioned legally.
My brother has no recollection of the incident.... ....he remembers leaving work, and he remembers the hospital. The precursor, the accident, the trip in the ice cream van to A&E are all missing
-
Adding another personal similar incident.
My little brother used to cycle to work.
One day, several years ago, he (for still unknown reason) did not stop at T junction. The inevitable accident actually wrote off the car, and nearly killed my brother - even now, some 30+ yrs later, he still carries the scars. It really was touch and go for days.
The driver wasn't in the wrong, was he (though he may have been speeding possibly, but that was not the cause of the accident according to the police)? And his car was written off. His insurance company chased my brother for the money (and strangely, this was covered by our house insurance somehow :-/).
Had the driver killed my brother, and as I said, it really was touch and go for days, would we have blamed the driver?
Yes if things had have been different yes I think you would have blamed the driver.
But was the driver of the car blamed for being on the phone whilst driving, leaning over to get another cd out of the glovebox, leaning over to pick something off the floor that has dropped off the passenger seat...??? No! so the driver maybe swerved or did something to stop your brother from dying that day because he had his eyes on the road..
My dad parked his car off the road and on some grass outside a mates house, while he was in the house he saw a Land Rover Disco ram into the back of his car.
The little girl in the back said to her Grandad " I told you not to play with the radio grandad!"
What I am trying to say is he was caught out not watchin what he was doing, as was this women, both didn't have their eyes on the road....
we all do things at certain times that are daft and are lucky to get away with them....
No the cyclist was wrong in going through a redlight, but top and tail of it is the driver was caught using the phone, not having her eyes on the road.
-
Adding another personal similar incident.
My little brother used to cycle to work.
One day, several years ago, he (for still unknown reason) did not stop at T junction. The inevitable accident actually wrote off the car, and nearly killed my brother - even now, some 30+ yrs later, he still carries the scars. It really was touch and go for days.
The driver wasn't in the wrong, was he (though he may have been speeding possibly, but that was not the cause of the accident according to the police)? And his car was written off. His insurance company chased my brother for the money (and strangely, this was covered by our house insurance somehow :-/).
Had the driver killed my brother, and as I said, it really was touch and go for days, would we have blamed the driver?
Yes if things had have been different yes I think you would have blamed the driver.
But was the driver of the car blamed for being on the phone whilst driving, leaning over to get another cd out of the glovebox, leaning over to pick something off the floor that has dropped off the passenger seat...??? No! so the driver maybe swerved or did something to stop your brother from dying that day because he had his eyes on the road..
My dad parked his car off the road and on some grass outside a mates house, while he was in the house he saw a Land Rover Disco ram into the back of his car.
The little girl in the back said to her Grandad " I told you not to play with the radio grandad!"
What I am trying to say is he was caught out not watchin what he was doing, as was this women, both didn't have their eyes on the road....
we all do things at certain times that are daft and are lucky to get away with them....
No the cyclist was wrong in going through a redlight, but top and tail of it is the driver was caught using the phone, not having her eyes on the road.
In my brothers case, it was touch and go for days. We really didn't know if he would pull through. At no stage was the driver blamed. Just because he is loved by us does not change the fact it is most probable that my brother was in the wrong.
In this recent case, nobody is for one second saying that the driver is not guilty. My point is the cyclist is equally guilty. Whether or not the phone had a bearing on the outcome will probably never be known.
Although anyone using a handheld phone should be taken out by the rocket launcher I am going to fit to the tractor to rid the roads of stupid drivers.
-
Adding another personal similar incident.
My little brother used to cycle to work.
One day, several years ago, he (for still unknown reason) did not stop at T junction. The inevitable accident actually wrote off the car, and nearly killed my brother - even now, some 30+ yrs later, he still carries the scars. It really was touch and go for days.
The driver wasn't in the wrong, was he (though he may have been speeding possibly, but that was not the cause of the accident according to the police)? And his car was written off. His insurance company chased my brother for the money (and strangely, this was covered by our house insurance somehow :-/).
Had the driver killed my brother, and as I said, it really was touch and go for days, would we have blamed the driver?
Yes if things had have been different yes I think you would have blamed the driver.
But was the driver of the car blamed for being on the phone whilst driving, leaning over to get another cd out of the glovebox, leaning over to pick something off the floor that has dropped off the passenger seat...??? No! so the driver maybe swerved or did something to stop your brother from dying that day because he had his eyes on the road..
My dad parked his car off the road and on some grass outside a mates house, while he was in the house he saw a Land Rover Disco ram into the back of his car.
The little girl in the back said to her Grandad " I told you not to play with the radio grandad!"
What I am trying to say is he was caught out not watchin what he was doing, as was this women, both didn't have their eyes on the road....
we all do things at certain times that are daft and are lucky to get away with them....
No the cyclist was wrong in going through a redlight, but top and tail of it is the driver was caught using the phone, not having her eyes on the road.
In my brothers case, it was touch and go for days. We really didn't know if he would pull through. At no stage was the driver blamed. Just because he is loved by us does not change the fact it is most probable that my brother was in the wrong.
In this recent case, nobody is for one second saying that the driver is not guilty. My point is the cyclist is equally guilty. Whether or not the phone had a bearing on the outcome will probably never be known.
Although anyone using a handheld phone should be taken out by the rocket launcher I am going to fit to the tractor to rid the roads of stupid drivers.[/quote]
Think you have been listening to "Broocie Bonds" accent to much mate ;D
-
The facts are:
Stupid bint speeding more interested in mobile phone texting.
Stupid cyclist who'd obviously lost the will to live, jumps red light to get in Bint's path.
Cyclist dies.
Bint goes to prison.
Lets look at how the BBC (the real brunt of my gripe) report it.
Stupid bint speeding more interested in mobile phone texting.
Poor innocent cyclist gets hit by Bint.
Cyclist dies.
Bint goes to prison.
-
The facts are:
Stupid bint speeding more interested in mobile phone texting.
Stupid cyclist who'd obviously lost the will to live, jumps red light to get in Bint's path.
Cyclist dies.
Bint goes to prison.
Lets look at how the BBC (the real brunt of my gripe) report it.
Stupid bint speeding more interested in mobile phone texting.
Poor innocent cyclist gets hit by Bint.
Cyclist dies.
Bint goes to prison.
I agree the cyclist should not have done what he did, Oh 'dangle berries' to it Death Race 2000 come on ;D ;D ;D
-
The facts are:
Stupid bint speeding more interested in mobile phone texting.
Stupid cyclist who'd obviously lost the will to live, jumps red light to get in Bint's path.
Cyclist dies.
Bint goes to prison.
Lets look at how the BBC (the real brunt of my gripe) report it.
Stupid bint speeding more interested in mobile phone texting.
Poor innocent cyclist gets hit by Bint.
Cyclist dies.
Bint goes to prison.
I agree the cyclist should not have done what he did, Oh 'dangle berries' to it Death Race 2000 come on ;D ;D ;D
I will be your co-Driver Daz lmao
-
The facts are:
Stupid bint speeding more interested in mobile phone texting.
Stupid cyclist who'd obviously lost the will to live, jumps red light to get in Bint's path.
Cyclist dies.
Bint goes to prison.
Lets look at how the BBC (the real brunt of my gripe) report it.
Stupid bint speeding more interested in mobile phone texting.
Poor innocent cyclist gets hit by Bint.
Cyclist dies.
Bint goes to prison.
I agree the cyclist should not have done what he did, Oh 'dangle berries' to it Death Race 2000 come on ;D ;D ;D
I will be your co-Driver Daz lmao
ok your on, mind you will have to take the front seat out and sit in the back you big buggar lmao ;D ;D
-
OK, read this (from Nov 2007):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=494531&in_page_id=1770
and now tell me that the system is not biased towards cyclists... >:(
-
Blame the CPS for that one ...
He had previously pleading guilty to causing bodily harm by wanton or furious cycling under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which carries a maximum sentence of two years in jail.
Should have been done for manslaughter in my opinion :(
-
Admit i hav'nt read every post but she should be done for texting/driving. No more though. Cyclists take the piss then moan when they get hurt. Recently a Mother who lost her daughter is now campaigning about it. The daughter cycled to the left of a truck that was in the left hand lane at a red light indicating left. I feel sorry for the girl cyclist & her grieving family but what was she doing there in the first place? Cold'nt she wait behind the truck then follow it?
How would you feel if you were the truck driver? He just went to work & killed a young girl through no fault of his own, he has to live with that. She should'nt have been there.
Sorry as i honestly feel for a waste of life it was her fault. 2 lanes means 2 lanes, no iffs or bits. :(
-
ive done a bit of digging and there seems to be an increasing number of cyclist involved accidents, where the cyclists are to blame ,(not what i think what ive read)so much so its being discussed by the police chiefs association with a view to change laws and how to enforce them and punishment etc i didn't realise it is such a problem
-
It's 22:20... I first posted this at 12:20 today... 90 replies in 10 hours sounds like a record to me ;D
..so can I now have my posts back Mr. TB? :'(
-
It's 22:20... I first posted this at 12:20 today... 90 replies in 10 hours sounds like a record to me ;D
..so can I now have my posts back Mr. TB? :'(
Who said it was me? Such accusations may cause loss of posts ;D
-
It's 22:20... I first posted this at 12:20 today... 90 replies in 10 hours sounds like a record to me ;D
..so can I now have my posts back Mr. TB? :'(
What have you been doing now??
Why do you only have 6 posts??
-
It's 22:20... I first posted this at 12:20 today... 90 replies in 10 hours sounds like a record to me ;D
..so can I now have my posts back Mr. TB? :'(
Who said it was me? Such accusations may cause loss of posts ;D
I didn't actually say you took them away.... I only suggested that you have the power to grant them back ;)
-
It's 22:20... I first posted this at 12:20 today... 90 replies in 10 hours sounds like a record to me ;D
..so can I now have my posts back Mr. TB? :'(
What have you been doing now??
Why do you only have 6 posts??
Oh the list of my mischief is too long... ;D
-
It's 22:20... I first posted this at 12:20 today... 90 replies in 10 hours sounds like a record to me ;D
..so can I now have my posts back Mr. TB? :'(
:-/MMMMMMM....dunno. Are you in a charitable mood Jaimie???
do you think he's REALLY sorry??? ::) ;D ;D
Give 'em back. This is bound to happen to me one day & i'll want the support of my fellow Migeeeezzz!!!!!
-
It's 22:20... I first posted this at 12:20 today... 90 replies in 10 hours sounds like a record to me ;D
..so can I now have my posts back Mr. TB? :'(
:-/MMMMMMM....dunno. Are you in a charitable mood Jaimie???
do you think he's REALLY sorry??? ::) ;D ;D
Give 'em back. This is bound to happen to me one day & i'll want the support of my fellow Migeeeezzz!!!!!
Yes yes I am really really sorry ::)
-
ive done a bit of digging and there seems to be an increasing number of cyclist involved accidents, where the cyclists are to blame ,(not what i think what ive read)so much so its being discussed by the police chiefs association with a view to change laws and how to enforce them and punishment etc i didn't realise it is such a problem
i am going o sound old fashioned here and i make no apology for it....
When we were at school we were encourage to do cycling proficiency tests, these were a basic form of education and road craft for pushbikes.
HOWEVER...i believe that they also helped people when the came to driving motorbikes and cars, by riding on the road as cyclist they were more aware of the risks and were also more aware of cyclists.
-
It's 22:20... I first posted this at 12:20 today... 90 replies in 10 hours sounds like a record to me ;D
..so can I now have my posts back Mr. TB? :'(
:-/MMMMMMM....dunno. Are you in a charitable mood Jaimie???
do you think he's REALLY sorry??? ::) ;D ;D
Give 'em back. This is bound to happen to me one day & i'll want the support of my fellow Migeeeezzz!!!!!
Yes yes I am really really sorry ::)
oh please give him posts back.....
we wont hear the last of it otherwise ::)
-
.....
i am going o sound old fashioned here and i make no apology for it....
When we were at school we were encourage to do cycling proficiency tests, these were a basic form of education and road craft for pushbikes.
HOWEVER...i believe that they also helped people when the came to driving motorbikes and cars, by riding on the road as cyclist they were more aware of the risks and were also more aware of cyclists.
I did one too, but there's a whole load more cars on the roads now. Cycle lanes should be rubbed out/painted black again & given back for car use. :o :y Unless they are dedicated lanes away from the actual high way, ala East Lancs/A580 for those that know it. This accident proabably wouldn't have happened if cars & cyclist weren't trying to share the same bit of road.
-
just to keep the thread going on and on.....i posted on page one of this thread about reading in mcn that there was lobbying to make it the drivers fault if a cyclist was in collision with another vehicle and martin replied that this was wrong.i have found the article on the mcn site archive....amy aeron thomas,director of roadpeace(admittedly not strictly a cyclists group) said that they were calling for a change in the law so that in any collision involving a cyclist the motor vehicle driver is held responsible unless it can be proved that the cyclist was in the wrong (driver would be guilty until proven innocent?).... the rac commented that this "would give cyclists carte blanche to behave as recklessly as they liked" :o
-
... (driver would be guilty until proven innocent?).......
I thought we already were! >:(
-
probably because we have a bigger carbon footprint ,apparently that is VERY important at the moment ;)
-
probably because we have a bigger carbon footprint ,apparently that is VERY important at the moment ;)
More like cos you have your (or some one you know) name & address on the front & back of your car, makes sending fine out to you a piece of p***. Cyclists however ........
-
true. maybe we should start a petition to make them be registered/taxed/insured/etc; :y
-
Roadpiss >:(
-
Let's look at it this way...
Say lady motorist going through the junction in green light, mobile switched-off, slowing down and observing before crossing. Lady observes cyclist stop and dismount.
Cyclist then mounts his bike and crosses junction. Lady motorist swerves sharply and crashes into a lamppost. Lady motorist dies at the scene.
Assuming that the cyclist did not flee the scene, and that there are witnesses etc etc, would he then be charged of causing death?
-
I'd certainly hope so.