A 20mph road.
TBF a 40mph impact could easily flip a car. (Although I doubt both cars were actually doing 20mph)
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Today's rubbish driving...
(11303 posts)- Started 13 years ago by Stepdoh
- Latest reply from ejstubbs
- This topic is
sticky
-
TBF a 40mph impact could easily flip a car. (Although I doubt both cars were actually doing 20mph)Posted 1 year ago # -
I've seen plenty of examples of SUVs and cross-overs getting flipped at 20mph because they ride up and over the more rounded (and seemingly strong) rear ends of smaller cars
SUVs - unsafe at any speed
Posted 1 year ago # -
If you watch enough Chopito Rally videos, you can see how easily a car rolls over at low speeds, given the correct terrain and velocity!
Posted 1 year ago # -
I use that street a lot, and while I'd say most people are doing 20mph, there are a few who seem in a big hurry to get to the red light. Folks coming out of Ferry Road often seem to be going faster, despite having just taken a reasonably sharp corner.
One of the bike racks up closer to the main junction was wiped out by a driver a few monhts ago.Posted 1 year ago # -
Every time there's a crash, the road should be closed until that crash has been fully investigated and measures put in place to ensure that it never happens again.
Oh wait. I was thinking of the airline / rail / ferry / lift industries. Silly me
Posted 1 year ago # -
@the canuck: Folks coming out of Ferry Road often seem to be going faster, despite having just taken a reasonably sharp corner.
That could be because Ferry Road is a 30mph limit, and far too many drivers are very bad at noticing/taking any notice of 20mph signs. It probably doesn't help that the 20mph limit doesn't actually start until you are 20-25m down Inverleith Row from the junction. So you come round the corner, quite likely from a more or less standing start at the traffic light/junction, so hopefully not going silly fast, then 'automatically' i.e. without thinking start to speed up to 30mph again. "Speed limit sign, officer? What speed limit sign?"
Posted 1 year ago # -
I mean there's that, but also plenty of people just ignore the limits completely, in either direction, and on the surrounding streets. I can hear people ripping past all the time, and the ebike hits 19/20 no bother on the slight decline from here down into Canonmills yet I'm routinely overtaken by cars that then vanish into the distance(you can tell the difference from the not-paying-attentioners because they overtake, realise they're speeding because "me car, car fast; you bike, bike slow", and end up just running right in front at 20 having gained a whole car length).
The fact is if you don't physically design in speed limits by making it impossible to drive faster than the posted speed, plenty of people will adopt the mentality of "ah, but I'm a good driver so that doesn't apply to me" and do what they like.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Heading South on Minto Street last night, in the cycle lane for once because the traffic was nose to tail. Driver in traffic in front started to indicate left and slowed right down, so I (stupidly) assumed he'd seen me or was stopping in the "car lane" - but no, he then turned left into Newlands Park right in front of me, a road that until now I didn't even know was there.
I swerved around his back end, looked briefly at the driver to shout "HELLO!?" and then cycled straight into one of the cycle lane defenders and went over the handlebars.
Knees are pretty banged up, my palms are raw and my forearms are a mess of road rash. Right elbow took the brunt of the impact and I got a stitch put in it this morning at minor injuries when I woke up to find the bandage I'd applied last night was soaked through with blood. Bike is fine as far as I can tell, but I need to give it a good look over tonight.
Cameras were running at least. Police are coming on Sunday (at 7:30am, which is the only appointment they have for nearly 2 weeks), probably to tell me that it was my fault because he was indicating, and/or because I wasn't looking where I was going - ignoring the fact that you can see in the video that the cycle lane wands aren't visible because the car is in the way, so even if I was looking ahead I'd probably still have hit them.
Driver didn't stop, but it's possible he didn't see me at any point (because he wasn't looking).Might have a word with Cycle Law about it once I have the video to show them, I guess it can't hurt.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Sore one sorry to hear this
But bike ok is a plus
Posted 1 year ago # -
EC - Driver didn't stop, but it's possible he didn't see me at any point
An acceptable reason according to the police (driver did at least stop) when I was knocked down on Clermiston Road. I would contact Cycle Law as you suggest.Posted 1 year ago # -
Forgot to update this last week - the police bizarrely argue that there's no cycle lane at this point in the road, because there's a bus stop. The police claim this means that the cycle lane ends, and the driver is in front of me in the same lane, and was indicating.
Cycle Law agree that the police are talking nonsense, and are making a claim through the driver's insurance for my injuries.
Video here, since the police aren't doing anything (And Cycle Law said there's no need to remove the video while the claim is in progress):
Posted 1 year ago # -
GWS ECC, and good luck with the claim.
There's literally a solid white line marking the bike lane that the car turned across.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think the argument is that the cycle lane ends at the bus stop, and starts again after - so it's a new cycle lane (which I wasn't yet in) which the driver crossed.
But also - bus stops don't mean the cycle lane ends anyway...
Posted 1 year ago # -
The police claim this means that the cycle lane ends, and the driver is in front of me in the same lane, and was indicating.
The jump from this (even if it were true) to "Therefore you can cause someone to fall from their bike and not bother to stop afterwards" is...quite something...
Hope you're recovering, and good luck with the Cycle Law Scotland route.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Walking up Colinton Road this morning after school dropoff. I started to cross the entrance of the flatted house at #22 and was aware of a small car approaching slowly from the drive. As I reached the midpoint of the entrance, I realised the car hadn't slowed down further or stopped. I stopped in the middle (but ready to scarper - or jump!) just to see where this was going. The car got to within a foot of me before emergency stopping, apparently not having seen at any point before, despite having been visible for some seconds. Aged driver, window down, apologies, didn't see you. This is opposite a school, I firmly believe if it had been a small child, they would have driven right over them without noticing or stopping. I don't think it was pHoNe for once. Vision problems, cognitive issues? Who knows?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think the problem is two-fold:
1) Cars are big and people are small. When we look at a car, we see the whole thing, or portions approximating the whole thing, so we can judge size and speed and distance. It's easier if it's moving. When we are in a car looking at pedestrians in the outside world, a less observant driver will forget that a person can be more easily obscured by clutter than would be another car.
2) The entrance to no.22 has a lot of clutter from the exiting driver's perspective. There are person-sized gateposts, small trees and bushes, and the fence. So the safety of anyone nearby on the footway is already compromised in the interests of grandeur.
But this doesn't excuse the driver for not seeing you if you were fully there to be seen. I've often criticised drivers for looking but not seeing. Saccades are a physical thing where our brains ignore perceived less critical information in order to cope with lots of visual stimuli. Brains are clever but overloaded and lazy. We tend to see what our experience tells us we should expect to see. You could have been right in front of the car but if the driver was looking rapidly left and right, and focussing specifically in those directions for potential hazards (other vehicles, probably) you would be half-invisible. That's the driver's fault.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well, one thing is that before starting to cross, I checked I could see the outline of the driver's head, so not obscured by gatepost or A-pillar (the grand entrance actually provides better line of sight to the pavement on both sides than a gate right at the pavement line would). After that, rather like on bike, I was trying to see if I had eye contact with the driver (and if they're looking at you or through you!). Reflection made it a little difficult but they were definitely looking straight ahead in my direction throughout, not already looking for traffic down Colinton Road.
If it had happened with a younger driver, I'd say drugs or drink. Perhaps it's ageist to say that...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Good luck with the claim. I'd probably still point out that performing a manouevre on the road that causes another road user to have to take evasive action to avoid a collision is a textbook definition of 'driving without due care and attention'. If the conditions had been wet (or icy) then this could have been even worse.
I do think that many drivers think their mirrors are there for decoration.Posted 1 year ago # -
Older drivers aren't exempt from cognition-impairing drugs, just that they tend to be on prescription ;-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
“
#RoadJustice report by UK Parliament's @allpartycycling
--> https://allpartycycling.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/APPGCW-Road-Justice-Report-2023.pdf
Recommendns include...
Rising penalties for repeat offences
Compulsory re-testing
'Exceptional' should mean exceptional
Drivers arrested for dangerous driving lose license until court“
https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1702975879519899711
Posted 1 year ago # -
(or police – or not)
“
The driver of the car did not face criminal prosecution, but Robyn’s parents now plan to pursue damages through the civil courts.
“
Posted 1 year ago # -
Another <rule 2> pulls the 'blacked out' dodge and gets away with it, abetted by a 'jury'.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-66852585
Posted 1 year ago # -
If people with other medical conditions aren't allowed to drive why are people with conditions which don't show up in medical exams allowed to drive?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Exactly. Either you get tried as if you were competent, or you accept that if you really weren't and no medical explanation can be found as to why your license is revoked until it can be.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Murun - My guess from the verdict is that the jury felt they had no choice. It was 'not proven', not 'not guilty', and I'll bet the case was very much presented to them as 'you can only find him guilty if you are convinced he didn't black out', so the arguments in the jury room would have been about that and the fact that it could be true that he'd had a blackout, and it's worse to convict an innocent person than let the guilty go free. So I'm sympathetic to the jury here.
That said, I'm with @Yodhrin in that what follows is 'well, you've clearly now been found to have a condition that causes unexpected blackouts, so you can't have your licence back'.
Posted 1 year ago # -
“
“We’d like to request that our privacy be respected whilst we grieve for Stephen.”
Police are continuing to hunt for the grey coloured Audi SQ5 believed to be the vehicle involved.
Police said it was driven in the direction of Perth Road immediately after the crash.
“
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/police-name-pedestrian-killed-in-hit-and-run-crash-in-cowdenbeath
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Greenroofer Hmm. For me, my view of the jury's verdict would depend on knowing more about the evidence presented; what was the basis for the prosecution alleging phone use? What was the illness the defendant claimed could have been responsible for him blacking out and how likely was that according to a medical expert? It's been my observation that juries in motoring cases will often minimise the "reasonable" part of reasonable doubt and focus on the doubt, so "*maybe* he blacked out" would be enough of an excuse to sidestep the far more likely explanation that he's a dangerous sociopath who should be looked after if he's given a pair of scissors nevermind a multi-ton metal weapon - but I concede that as I say, that conclusion is drawn without knowing the detail of what the jury saw.
I will say it cements in my mind that we do need reform of the legal system in Scotland - I agree with anti-rape campaigners that we should reduce to two verdicts, but I think they should be Proven and Not Proven rather than Guilty and Not Guilty as the latter have emotive connotations that don't belong in a process that should be based in consideration of fact, and I think juries being given an impartial briefing on the general subject matter of the law in question at trial prior to its beginning so they have the proper context and frame of mind to consider the specifics of a given case should be the standard for all cases not just rape.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
