Cycling UK Forum

thirdcrank wrote:On the matter of speed in this case, I think the officer was suggesting that as the vehicle was so large, a collision (being run over?) would inevitably kill a pedestrian whatever the speed. I don't think he meant that the crash could have been avoided by driving more slowly, or rather, I hope he didn't, but it's a downward spiral.

Local reporting agrees with your interpretation. https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/te ... -1-8723403

gaz wrote:Local reporting agrees with your interpretation. https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/te ... -1-8723403

Thanks for the link, Gaz. Doesn't make me any more comfortable with the various 'expert' comments from the inquest, though

As reported (it was on South East News) she was lying in the road, but who knows? The road was the A22 - not a minor road by any means and not a road to be walking along in the dark.

Edit. Somewhere along this stretch of road.

gaz wrote:

thirdcrank wrote:On the matter of speed in this case, I think the officer was suggesting that as the vehicle was so large, a collision (being run over?) would inevitably kill a pedestrian whatever the speed. I don't think he meant that the crash could have been avoided by driving more slowly, or rather, I hope he didn't, but it's a downward spiral.

Local reporting agrees with your interpretation. https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/te ... -1-8723403

Local reporting is also stating the screamingly obvious - that if an articulated lorry runs over someone lying in a roadway they will certainly die. What's at issue is that the driver ran over the individual at all, and his culpability for so doing - or not in this case.

I came off a ferry this week at about 1700 and as I am known to the ferry crew as local I got off promptly which is good because I can make my way for the next 21 miles home without hassle. About half mile from the terminal I was lining up to overtake a bimbler who had got off before me but checking my mirror I could see something coming up behind and waited. I was doing about 50 mph and we were both passed by a large 4x4 pickup at a speed which is hard to estimate but possibly in 3 figures I guess. This was in the pitch dark not far before a couple of bends one of which is blind to oncoming traffic. At any time after dark deer are a menace here and are a major hazard driving after dark. There are some bampots around even in our rural areas.

plod in ignoring criminal actions by motorists shocker they're as bad as a jury full of motorists, no actually they're worse. They are supposed to be keeping the peace and yet their bias and discrimination is there to see in droves and their actions or rather inaction makes our roads less safe by protecting the killers.

The utility cyclist wrote:plod in ignoring criminal actions by motorists shocker they're as bad as a jury full of motorists, no actually they're worse. They are supposed to be keeping the peace and yet their bias and discrimination is there to see in droves and their actions or rather inaction makes our roads less safe by protecting the killers.

...... but they're there for a headmistress offended by a cycling mask, don't forget.

Airsporter1st wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:plod in ignoring criminal actions by motorists shocker they're as bad as a jury full of motorists, no actually they're worse. They are supposed to be keeping the peace and yet their bias and discrimination is there to see in droves and their actions or rather inaction makes our roads less safe by protecting the killers.

...... but they're there for a headmistress offended by a cycling mask, don't forget.

Ah but terrorist threat or some-such bullcrud (despite being a parent known to the school and kids)

MikeF wrote:As reported (it was on South East News) she was lying in the road, but who knows? The road was the A22 - not a minor road by any means and not a road to be walking along in the dark.

Edit. Somewhere along this stretch of road.

So you should learn to teleport when the sun sets?

The *only* roads for which you can reasonably say "not a road to be walking along" are motorways, which ironically generally have decent places to walk along...

I was walking along another, similar-looking stretch of the A22 at dusk a couple of months ago, often on verges though I happened to reach a pavement around lighting-up time.

I wonder if she was lying in the road because a previous lorry driver put hir mirror a bit too close to her head.

Bonefishblues wrote:....
I too can see less after dark, but let's not get into definitions of 'dark', let's just deal with the penalties.

But normal speed limits are set for daylight visibility:
the distance you can see in dark on dipped headlamps alone is much reduced* (and even on main beam which is also affected by the need to switch to dipped as needed meaning you don't want to big a disparity in speed). So lower night speed limits would simply recognise those facts....

Simples

Daytime xx mph
Nighttime xx kmh
(xx=xx)

Cyril Haearn wrote:Simples

Daytime xx mph
Nighttime xx kmh
(xx=xx)

Rain/Fog also require different limits, as it is the limits are too high for most roads anyway,we need to rid ourselves of the NSL and start again, country/minor roads should be 40mph tops, there's simply no need for them to have a higher limit. Residential roads/built up areas should be 20mph.

The vast majority of motorists cannot abide by them nor adjust their speed so that others around them and themselves are safe/not in fear of harm so
We can only do this by physically restricting the machines and by addressing the limits themselves (something governments/local authorities are loathe to do), humans are just really dog-do at making these judgements. We have the tech to be able to have this in all new motors and older vehicles should be retrofitted at the expense to the vehicle owner. If that prices some people off the roads that's a win win situation.
One can only dream as we can't even get gov to make small changes to address the killing and maiming spree never mind the injustice against cyclists by police and so called justice system!

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6489513 ... 6?hl=en-GB
A couple of weeks ago I drove over this road (at around the 450m level) at night with a dense mist / drizzle restricting vision to 30m or thereabouts. Drive off the edge of that road by mistake and they might not find your body for a day or two. So I went slowly. Mostly dipped headlights because full beam just lit up the mist and made things worse. I encountered a couple of other vehicles and they were going slowly too. The road is mostly NSL but it did not require any official drop in limit to slow us down. That is how it should be. Brain fully engaged and eyes glued to the road ahead, with the right foot reacting to changing conditions.

SA_SA_SA wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:....
I too can see less after dark, but let's not get into definitions of 'dark', let's just deal with the penalties.

But normal speed limits are set for daylight visibility:
the distance you can see in dark on dipped headlamps alone is much reduced* (and even on main beam which is also affected by the need to switch to dipped as needed meaning you don't want to big a disparity in speed). So lower night speed limits would simply recognise those facts....

Are they? I can see for miles and miles in the daylight, maybe they are too low? Yes of course I'm being devil's advocate, but with serious intent.

Sort the penalties and make the motorist drive to what he or she can see to be clear, irrespective of the condition, for mortal fear of transgression.