Driving at night

[squeaker]

Further confirmation that it's 'OK' to drive 'blind' at night

Giving evidence, Mr Gonall told he "simply didn't have time to react" before spotting an "object" in the road.

Sussex Police forensic collision investigator Julian Taylor said the size of the vehicle meant speed would make little difference and it would have been hard for any driver to avoid the crash.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Don't look homemade to me. Afterthought.
Admits speeding.

Did he see her?

[Bonefishblues]

Where does it say he was driving blind?

[mjr]

Where does it say he was driving blind?

How would you prefer to describe driving so you cannot stop within what you can see to be clear?

[SA_SA_SA]

Given that ECE dipped headlamps have a prescribed minimum dip for the two allowed height ranges, and a sharp cutoff:
presuming a certain fraction of visible human needed to recognise, plus margin, surely government should being able to publish tables of maximum speed against dipped beam range/ headlamp setups.

Surely 40mph is always too fast for dipped lamps in the absence of other light sources?

Should their be a blanket nighttime speed limit irrespective of signs?

Vehicles with only dipped headlamps fitted are limited to 25mph which seems a recognition of the problem....

[pwa]

Where does it say he was driving blind?

How would you prefer to describe driving so you cannot stop within what you can see to be clear?

That is something you and I try to do, but at night your eyes can play tricks on you and you can think you are seeing a clear road ahead when in fact it isn't.

I haven't read the link yet so I'm not making that excuse for this particular case. I'll look at it later.

[pwa]

Given that ECE dipped headlamps have a prescribed minimum dip for the two allowed height ranges, and a sharp cutoff:
presuming a certain fraction of visible human needed to recognise, plus margin, surely government should being able to publish tables of maximum speed against dipped beam range/ headlamp setups.

Surely 40mph is always too fast for dipped lamps in the absence of other light sources?

Should their be a blanket nighttime speed limit irrespective of signs?

Vehicles with only dipped headlamps fitted are limited to 25mph which seems a recognition of the problem....

A reduced speed limit after dark seems like a good idea to me. I suppose the problem is, one person's idea of dark is different to another's, so when exactly the limit changes could be contentious.

[Bonefishblues]

Where does it say he was driving blind?

How would you prefer to describe driving so you cannot stop within what you can see to be clear?

No, you're right (it's why I was asking the question), I had read it on a phone and now I read it on a full-sized screen it's clear he is completely liable and should be banned, perhaps jailed, also the following car, which also ran over her The Accident Investigator's views need scrutiny, too, clearly, as the conclusions drawn are at variance with the evidence.

I had read the report on a phone and has interpreted that she had fallen in front of the vehicle, but in fact seems to have been lying in the roadway at the time.

ETA
What's the liability of the event organisers, too? If they had applied to reduce the speed limit, then they presumably foresaw a risk, and had clearly failed to put in place effective measures to sufficiently mitigate the risk as someone was killed.

[Bonefishblues]

Given that ECE dipped headlamps have a prescribed minimum dip for the two allowed height ranges, and a sharp cutoff:
presuming a certain fraction of visible human needed to recognise, plus margin, surely government should being able to publish tables of maximum speed against dipped beam range/ headlamp setups.

Surely 40mph is always too fast for dipped lamps in the absence of other light sources?

Should their be a blanket nighttime speed limit irrespective of signs?

Vehicles with only dipped headlamps fitted are limited to 25mph which seems a recognition of the problem....

A reduced speed limit after dark seems like a good idea to me. I suppose the problem is, one person's idea of dark is different to another's, so when exactly the limit changes could be contentious.

Just reduce every speed limit at all times and avoid any ambiguity.

[pwa]

Given that ECE dipped headlamps have a prescribed minimum dip for the two allowed height ranges, and a sharp cutoff:
presuming a certain fraction of visible human needed to recognise, plus margin, surely government should being able to publish tables of maximum speed against dipped beam range/ headlamp setups.

Surely 40mph is always too fast for dipped lamps in the absence of other light sources?

Should their be a blanket nighttime speed limit irrespective of signs?

Vehicles with only dipped headlamps fitted are limited to 25mph which seems a recognition of the problem....

A reduced speed limit after dark seems like a good idea to me. I suppose the problem is, one person's idea of dark is different to another's, so when exactly the limit changes could be contentious.

Just reduce every speed limit at all times and avoid any ambiguity.

Or increase penalties for speed offences committed after dark. Three points in daylight, six after dark. That might get a message home. I drive slower at night for my own safety, even before considering my responsibilities to others. To me the dark makes it feel less safe. Instinct tells me to go slower.

[Bonefishblues]

A reduced speed limit after dark seems like a good idea to me. I suppose the problem is, one person's idea of dark is different to another's, so when exactly the limit changes could be contentious.

Just reduce every speed limit at all times and avoid any ambiguity.

Or increase penalties for speed offences committed after dark. Three points in daylight, six after dark. That might get a message home. I drive slower at night for my own safety, even before considering my responsibilities to others. To me the dark makes it feel less safe. Instinct tells me to go slower.

Are people's lives more important after dark? Increase all penalties universally to avoid ambiguity.

[pwa]

Just reduce every speed limit at all times and avoid any ambiguity.

Or increase penalties for speed offences committed after dark. Three points in daylight, six after dark. That might get a message home. I drive slower at night for my own safety, even before considering my responsibilities to others. To me the dark makes it feel less safe. Instinct tells me to go slower.

Are people's lives more important after dark? Increase all penalties universally to avoid ambiguity.

What you can see clearly is different after dark. Obviously. So I reduce my speed. On a bit of 60mph road I normally do 50 on, after dark I find myself at more like 40. I think that is a correct response to darkness. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4447871 ... 6?hl=en-GB
This bit of road. At this point you get to see down the road a bit so your speed can increase, to 50 in daylight or more like 40 in darkness, slowing as you get to the corners ahead.

[Bonefishblues]

Or increase penalties for speed offences committed after dark. Three points in daylight, six after dark. That might get a message home. I drive slower at night for my own safety, even before considering my responsibilities to others. To me the dark makes it feel less safe. Instinct tells me to go slower.

Are people's lives more important after dark? Increase all penalties universally to avoid ambiguity.

What you can see clearly is different after dark. Obviously. So I reduce my speed. On a bit of 60mph road I normally do 50 on, after dark I find myself at more like 40. I think that is a correct response to darkness. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4447871 ... 6?hl=en-GB
This bit of road. At this point you get to see down the road a bit so your speed can increase, to 50 in daylight or more like 40 in darkness, slowing as you get to the corners ahead.

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

[thirdcrank]

Further confirmation that it's 'OK' to drive 'blind' at night

Giving evidence, Mr Gonall told he "simply didn't have time to react" before spotting an "object" in the road.

Sussex Police forensic collision investigator Julian Taylor said the size of the vehicle meant speed would make little difference and it would have been hard for any driver to avoid the crash.

I fear we are going to get more and more of this type of thing: police investigate a fatal crash and decide - possibly with the advice of the CPS - that the driving was more or less ok by current standards so no prosecution. There's an inquest where the verdict cannot accuse anybody, but the police have to rationalise their decision. They can't say "Anything goes, these days" so they appear to end up defending bad driving. This case is a bit blurred because the casualty was drunk but that shouldn't lower the standard of driving expected of the driver. We seem to have reached the point where it's ok for drivers to assume the road ahead will always be clear and if it isn't that's not the driver's .. er .. lookout.

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.

I fear it's going to get worse.

[Cyril Haearn]

It would have been easy in this case to slow down the motrons by parking a few vehicles on the road

Plus One for lower maximum speed limits