CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

55mph in a 40mph zone is not 'careless driving'

(14 posts)
  • Started 13 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from crowriver

No tags yet.


  1. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    It would seem...

    The thing is, I'm prepared to believe that a cyclist would indicate and start to move out without looking, it happens all the time.

    What also happens all the time is someone breaking the speed limit on seeing a cyclist indicate in order to try and get past. 40mph zone, driving at 55mph, braking at the incident had only reduced his speed to 52mph when he hit the cyclist.

    Statements around the phone use are just odd too. He was hands-free, so I wouldn't have raised it as an issue, but apparently he had 'stopped talking to concentrate on the overtake'. It just sounds like a VERY odd thing to say.

    Another life gone, with a driver breaking the law, but apparently that having no contributory effect on the death (he might have been killed being hit at 40, but at the same time his chances have to be better, and the driver will have more reaction space on the road to bring the speed down even lower). But no. 55 in a 40, perfectly fine.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. amir
    Member

    It is hard not to read into this that the safety of vulnerable road users is a low priority and that drivers do not have to take responsibility for the standard of their driving.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. kaputnik
    Moderator

    This is fairly sickening.

    It is a speed limit. The clue is in the word limit. For the benefit of the legal system;

    noun . 1. the final, utmost, or furthest boundary or point as to extent, amount, continuance, procedure

    He was nearly 40% over the limit. That is not a "whoops guv'n'r didn't realise, sorry mate, didn't see you", it means the lorry driver has taken a wilful decision to break the limit by quite some way and thereby the law.

    The courts / police / legal system seem pretty good at dealing with people over the drink limit. Why? Because it's proven that being over the drink limit kills. It's also proven beyond all doubt that being over the speed limit kills. Seriously. WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT? In both cases you take a decision that "today I will break the law, to hang with the consequences, my priorities in life are more important than the lives of others". You should be punished accordingly, even if you are very sorry and full of remorse. Sorrow does not bring back dead people.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. rust
    Member

    What also happens all the time is someone breaking the speed limit on seeing a cyclist indicate in order to try and get past.

    Indeed, this happened to me yesterday on Queen Street when moving into the right hand lane. I was going to mention it in the 'getting in the way on purpose' thread as that was exactly what I did. Though it was only against a car...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. Min
    Member

    This happens to me too and I see it happening to other people regularly. I came extremely close to being hit once when I moved right early to (ironically) avoid holding the driver up. All they needed to do was pass on my left but they had to cross to the other side of the road to make their pathetic little point, just as I was actually starting to make the turn.

    It shows how deeply entrenched is the attitude that drivers have no responsibility to take care and that it is always the cyclists fault for being there. I feel so sorry for this man's mother. Imagine having to live with this.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. PS
    Member

    Managing to reduce the speed from 55 to 52 doesn't strike me as an awful lot of braking from someone who was concentrating on their overtaking.

    Reading between the lines, I'm guessing the lorry driver got done for speeding ("he admitted exceeding the speed limit"), but it's bizarre that being 37.5% above the speed limit (presumably set at that level because that is the "safe" speed for that road) is not seen as dangerous in some shape or form.

    The leeway we get in respect of the speed limit is a real anomaly in our legal system. I've got a vague notion that it's there to allow for inaccuracies in measuring equipment, but 55 in a 40 is way higher than any margin of error. And the margin of error thing doesn't seem to worry the French gendarmes who, I'm told, will nail you for being 1 km/h above the limit.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. wingpig
    Member

    Wouldn't the 'leeway' argument only cover him up to 46mph?
    It would surely be possible (except in cases where the vehicle is damaged beyond operability) to retro-calibrate the actual-versus-displayed speed of a vehicle involved in a collision, particularly one fitted with a tachygraph (and presumably also subject to more regular calibration-check-ups than non-commercial vehicles).

    Posted 13 years ago #

  8. amir
    Member

    "It shows how deeply entrenched is the attitude that drivers have no responsibility to take care and that it is always the cyclists fault for being there."

    Yes, this is a real distortion of morality. Where else is responsibility transferred from culprit to victim?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  9. crowriver
    Member

    Isn't using a mobile phone whilst driving illegal? Or is it just clamping it against your ear that's illegal? No question the law was broken with regard to the speed limit.

    So to get away with unlawful killing, you just have to turn on the waterworks in court. Then the judge makes some apologetic remarks to the bereaved family to try and cover his embarrassment at the awful judgement just made. As if that's going to bring back their son.

    It's outrageous that this driver is not in prison for what he did.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  10. amir
    Member

    It isn't clear whether he received any form of driving ban.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  11. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    'Cleared' of causing death by dangerous driving - he may well have got hit with a basic careless driving charge, possibly just the speeding offence (though I think that depends on whether it was on the charge sheet).

    In short, no, I'm 99.9999999% certain that there was no ban handed down (and I'm pretty sure that would have been mentioned in the article).

    Posted 13 years ago #

  12. PS
    Member

    There's no way he'd have got a driving ban, seeing as driving is his livelihood... >:-(

    Posted 13 years ago #

  13. slowcoach
    Member

    conflicting reports and comments - the jury cleared the driver of causing death by careless driving (not the harder to get verdict of dangerous driving). It wasn't a local 40mph limit, it was national speed limits that applied which is 40mph for a lorry like this on a single carriageway (so it wasn't a case of sorry I didn't see the lower speed sign). From google pictures of what seems to be the site, the road was (at some time) marked with diagonal stripes (ghost island/ladder marking), which show "you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so". Hard to imagine how the jury reached that verdict.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  14. crowriver
    Member

    Hard to imagine how the jury reached that verdict.

    Not that hard to imagine. How many of the jury were:

    a. cyclists
    b. drivers
    c. lorry drivers

    How did their road using habits influence their view of the driver's behaviour in this case?

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin