BBC Look East - "run em down"

[downfader]

ST I agree, if it takes points lets do it. We have to get into the public conscious that these things are wrong. Not just wrong but illegal.

Have recently favoured the idea of 3strikes and you#re out. Too many people can easily afford the fines that it just doesnt even bother them. Others see the points on their license as something to brag about, or to whine about as if they're the victim.

So my philospophy is this:

-Minor motoring offence (bad parking, 5-10% over the speed limit threshold, lack of indication etc) = 1 strike

-middle ground offence: late light running (the type that go "it's only just changed), blocking access, box junctions, seatbelt and phone infringements, etc = 2 strikes

-very serious offence: driving that results in injury or death to another party (even if in the same car), completely excessive speeding, blatant red light jumping, driving on pavements, etc = a 3 strike event that sees the license stripped and an immediate retest called for (at the drivers expense).

Ofcourse I also now think theres something to be said for suspending the license whilst death and injury are investigated, the strike system would in this case be involved after said investigation. Other offenses are easier to prove and see.

 

[dondare]

Have recently favoured the idea of 3strikes and you#re out. Too many people can easily afford the fines that it just doesnt even bother them. Others see the points on their license as something to brag about, or to whine about as if they're the victim.

So my philospophy is this:

-Minor motoring offence (bad parking, 5-10% over the speed limit threshold, lack of indication etc) = 1 strike

-middle ground offence: late light running (the type that go "it's only just changed), blocking access, box junctions, seatbelt and phone infringements, etc = 2 strikes

-very serious offence: driving that results in injury or death to another party (even if in the same car), completely excessive speeding, blatant red light jumping, driving on pavements, etc = a 3 strike event that sees the license stripped and an immediate retest called for (at the drivers expense).

Ofcourse I also now think theres something to be said for suspending the license whilst death and injury are investigated, the strike system would in this case be involved after said investigation. Other offenses are easier to prove and see.

Is "speed limit threshold" the same as speed limit?
I'd definately put phone use in a more serious category than box junction infringement.
In all, a five tier system would be better.
IMAO.

 

[downfader]

Is "speed limit threshold" the same as speed limit?
I'd definately put phone use in a more serious category than box junction infringement.
In all, a five tier system would be better.
IMAO.

I tend to think simple systems work best and thats why a 3 strikes system. Adding extra tiers to it makes it more complicated and road users know less of where they stand.

With the threshold I was refering to the speedometer of cars not being 100% accurate and the threshold allowed on most speed cameras.

 

[dondare]

I have been told that the margin for error is 10% + 2.
So in a 30 mph zone the enforced limit is 35; in a 70 mph zone it would be 79.

 

[downfader]

I have been told that the margin for error is 10% + 2.
So in a 30 mph zone the enfoced limit is 35; in a 70 mph zone it would be 79.

Pretty much what I read.

RIIGHHT!

Everyone listen up. Lets take this whole issue to government!

http://www.number10.gov.uk/footer/contact-us Halfway down the page theres a link for a email form to email the PMs office! Flood them with requests on cycling matters, this "road tax" get-out-of-jail card motorists keep playing and so on.

Get the ball moving. No good complaining if we cant try and do something bout this!

 

[PBancroft]

I completed that form and was told my message was invalid.

Says it all really.

 

[downfader]

I completed that form and was told my message was invalid.

Says it all really.

You're invalid?

Seriously though. Did you use the drop down bar and select contact PM rather than the air/volcano bit..?

 

[HJ]

The text was in cafe but there was also a piece on tv in the Scottish news; I could't believe the BBC broadcast it. I'll have a look to see if I can find any links.

The beeb link

Sheriff Small said the accident might have been avoided if Mr MacTaggart had driven with greater care and attention...

In making his recommendations, Sheriff Small said: "That although Jason MacIntyre's death could not have been avoided by him wearing a helmet at the time of the accident all cyclists, including cyclists in training, should wear a helmet when on public roads." "That although Jason MacIntyre's death could not have been avoided by him wearing a helmet at the time of the accident all cyclists, including cyclists in training, should wear a helmet when on public roads."

Unfortunately Sheriff Small fails to understand the concept of logic. It wasn't the failure to wear a helmet that killed Jason MacIntyre it was a careless driver. If the judiciary stopped blaming the victims and did their job properly, we could save hundreds of lives a year!

 

[soulful dog]

There's some sort of hatred thing going on out there towards cyclists...im sure it wasn't like that in the 1980's.

Bottom line is people are so often in a hurry nowadays, 'get out of my way, I'm in a rush and no one else matters' seems to be the attitude. So if you add the fact that there are a heck of a lot more cars on the road (and therefore a lot of aggressive drivers!), the seemingly widely held belief that these pesky cyclists don't pay road tax so shouldn't be on the road anyway, and then to top it all off, the gits that merrily cycle through red lights (and some drivers seem to take that as deliberate goading)...

 

[BSRU]

I have been told that the margin for error is 10% + 2.
So in a 30 mph zone the enforced limit is 35; in a 70 mph zone it would be 79.

It is true in general but not always, I know someone done for doing 34 in a 30 zone. The reason they used was your speedometer always exaggerates your speed, so if your done for 33 you thought your were going a lot faster.

 

[Coco]

Unfortunately Sheriff Small fails to understand the concept of logic. It wasn't the failure to wear a helmet that killed Jason MacIntyre it was a careless driver. If the judiciary stopped blaming the victims and did their job properly, we could save hundreds of lives a year!

Methinks the report has distorted what the Sherriff said:

Sheriff Small said the accident might have been avoided if MacTaggart had driven with greater care and attention, and had kept a proper lookout on the road ahead of him.
In his ruling, he said: "I am of the opinion that no cause, apart from a failure on the part of Mr MacTaggart to see Mr MacIntyre, can be identified.
"I am satisfied that Mr MacTaggart's failure arose as a consequence of him not keeping a proper lookout of the road ahead of him when he turned across Mr MacIntyre's path."
The inquiry heard that Mr MacIntyre was wearing a grey jacket and a blue-and-white top on the day of the crash.
The sheriff said that the death might have been avoided if Mr MacIntyre had been wearing high-visibility clothing.
He recommended that all cyclists wear "some form of high-visibility clothing" on public roads.
He further urged the council to consider a feasibility study for the positioning of a traffic island at the crash scene, known as Carrs Corner.

There's nothing in there that says the cyclist was to blame.

 

[HJ]

If it have been a collision to motor vehicles (and there are plenty of fatal examples to choose from) would he have suggested that the collision could have been avoided if the vehicle on the major road was painted a brighter colour? No.

Driver error is known to be the cause of over 95% of all fatal collision involving motor vehicles, it is a major killer, but it is tolerated when it shouldn't be. Yes we make mistakes sometimes, but driving is regarded with an increasingly causal attitude and not the dangerous activity which it is. If a zero tolerance attitude was taken driving offences, we would all be safer and better off.

 

[sheddy]

I expect the BBC to represent cycling, as I always pay my TV Tax

 

[dondare]

I expect the BBC to represent cycling, as I always pay my TV Tax

The only tax in Britain tha treally is hypothecated.

Which means that you have every right to demand that non-taxpayers turn the radio off so that you can hear the TV.

 

[Coco]

Driver error is known to be the cause of over 95% of all fatal collision involving motor vehicles,

And that's what the Sheriff concluded. The accident was caused because the driver failed to see the cyclist.

From the actual FAI determination:

[57]Having made a determination under Section 6(1)( that the cause of the accident was a failure on the part of Mr MacTaggart to see Mr Macintyre by not keeping a proper lookout, the question of whether the wearing of high visibility clothing as a reasonable precaution "might" have avoided the accident resulting in the death falls to be considered under Section 6(1)(c).
[58]It is helpful when considering the provisions of this section to bear in mind what is said by Ian Carmichael (supra) at paragraph 575. In that regard he states:
"What is required is not a finding as to the reasonable precaution whereby the death or accident resulting in a death "would" have been avoided but whereby the death or accident "might" have been avoided... What is envisaged is not a probability but a real or lively possibility that the death might have been avoided by the reasonable precaution."
[59]In my opinion notwithstanding that Craig MacDonald, who was driving behind Mr MacTaggart, saw Mr Macintyre and notwithstanding the evidence of Mr Riley (supra) there is a "real or lively possibility" that Jason Macintyre's presence on the road might have been brought to Mr MacTaggart's attention and the death might have been avoided had he been wearing high visibility clothing. I have made an appropriate determination and recommendation under Section 6(1)(c) to that effect.

It would seem common sense that if the cyclist wasn't seen that being more visible might increase your chance of being seen. It doesn't excuse the driver or apportion blame towards the cyclist.

Incidentally, the highway code also says:

59


Clothing. You should wear

• a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
• appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
• light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light

I see it as advice and not some way of putting the blame on me if I get hit by a car. Same for the Sheriff's statements.

I'll refer you to the Right Honorable Crankarm's views on journalists for my thoughts on how this has been reported.