No speed limit sign means no prosecution for speeding driver who killed cyclist on pedestrian crossing

Eebijeebi wrote:

but I don't see where the police are in the wrong here or the officer's attitude is cavalier, or what they have done to be slated and derided as letting people down.

Because people are rightly concerned that, on what has been reported, the driver seems to have been excused, based on the comments of an officer referring to a piece of road on which the accident did not occur.

There is no excuse in relation to signage that is applicable to his speed in this case.

dp24 wrote:

Eebijeebi wrote:

but I don't see where the police are in the wrong here or the officer's attitude is cavalier, or what they have done to be slated and derided as letting people down.

Because people are rightly concerned that, on what has been reported, the driver seems to have been excused, based on the comments of an officer referring to a piece of road on which the accident did not occur.

There is no excuse in relation to signage that is applicable to his speed in this case.

4 sentences reported from the whole of an accident investigators evidence. This is the same guy who gave you your estimated speed but you don't query that. Do you seriously believe that through all the investigation, the enquiry into the signage and through the coroners hearing that no one would have raised an eyebrow - yet people on here thought it form four sentences?
Too quick to damn.

Eebijeebi wrote:

dp24 wrote:

Eebijeebi wrote:

but I don't see where the police are in the wrong here or the officer's attitude is cavalier, or what they have done to be slated and derided as letting people down.

Because people are rightly concerned that, on what has been reported, the driver seems to have been excused, based on the comments of an officer referring to a piece of road on which the accident did not occur.

There is no excuse in relation to signage that is applicable to his speed in this case.

4 sentences reported from the whole of an accident investigators evidence. This is the same guy who gave you your estimated speed but you don't query that. Do you seriously believe that through all the investigation, the enquiry into the signage and through the coroners hearing that no one would have raised an eyebrow - yet people on here thought it form four sentences?
Too quick to damn.

But the same argument applies the other way - why the blithe assumption that everything is fine?

In the absence of greater detail, why is it wrong to ask questions based on the obvious problems raised by the 'four sentences'. I guess some of us don't share the complacent faith in the "authorities", especially given what one sees all around in terms of car-centric thinking.

These questions seem valid to me - why is the signage critical when no sign told the driver that the previous speed limit no longer applied? And if the signage is such a big deal why are those responsible for it not in the dock?
And why is the fact the victim was straddling a bike relevant? Yes its against the rules, but that's not enough, it needs to be shown it affected the outcome. If a victim of such an event had had illegal drugs on their person, for example, that's also against the rules but would anyone say that somehow caused the accident?

Perhaps justice was done, but it would be nice if it were _seen_ to be done. It seems in general as though the aftermath of RTAs is rarely reported in sufficient depth for that to be the case.

It still seems to end up that someone is dead and yet again 'nobody is to blame'.

Eebijeebi wrote:

It sounds to me a strong possibilty that the accident was on the off slip.

It wasn't on the off slip, no matter how strong a possibility that you think it may have been

Now you can choose to believe that or not, but when doing so, bear in mind that one of us can say they use said road at least twice a week.

Eebijeebi wrote:

http://madcyclelanesofmanchester.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/death-of-cyclist...

Those pictures put into perspective how bad the road layout is, the lights are hidden on the exit of a 2 lane, one way blind corner on a motorway on slip, you know, on slips...the kind of place cars usually accelerate.

I suspect the guy has took that corner too fast and didn't know there was a crossing there, it's a one way 2 lane into one road, thus requiring a bit of mirror work, so speeding, and got caught out.

If he was, however, familiar with the road, he can't blame the layout, as stupid as it is, you can reasonably expect people on to be on crossings and shouldn't go charging into them.

I suspect there is a file on this road that could be pulled on freedom of information staying that it's dangerous and this could probably have been used in a defence should the driver find himself on a more serious charge.

Flying Scot wrote:

Those pictures put into perspective how bad the road layout is, the lights are hidden on the exit of a 2 lane, one way blind corner on a motorway on slip, you know, on slips...the kind of place cars usually accelerate.

It's pretty awful, certainly, but the presence of traffic lights on the slip road is signposted on the approach to the roundabout as well as at the entry to the slip road itself. It also says SLOW in massive letters on the slip road and there are zig-zags on the approach. All of which the driver appears to have either not noticed or just ignored. There's only so much that road design can do when faced with that level of incompetence or ignorance. I mean, really, how is "he may not have known what was around the corner" any kind of defence? If you don't know what's around the corner, drive accordingly. "I don't know what's around this blind corner, so I'll assume it's completely clear and also speed up a bit, just to be sure" doesn't really cut it.

Eebijeebi wrote:

With the limited information I'll put my faith in them, not emotive rantings thanks.

Good job i'm not ranting then. Again, if you bother to read the comments above you, you'll see that the issue with the PC's comments has already been pointed out. Seems like you'd rather snipe at people than inform yourself.

Eebijeebi wrote:

Cyclists should be aware that motorists are not obliged to give precedence to them on a pedestrian crossing. You have to be off to and pushing to earn that - by being a pedestrian.

Really? A person on a bike in the road has to 'earn' the right to not be mown down? That's certainly an interesting interpretation the law.

Eebijeebi wrote:

The speed issue would be good evidence towards an offence of dangerous/ reckless/ without due care etc, but the road signage appears to have put paid to that.

If you bother to read the comments above, you'll understand why the argument about signage is nonsense.

Eebijeebi wrote:

Do people seriously think that the police would not prosecute if there was a case?

I don't know, but what is for certain is that the comments from the PC involved in the inquest demonstrate a stunningly cavalier attitude to the matter.

Eebijeebi wrote:

There's always more to know

Yes, quite.

Flying Scot wrote:

driver had the green light

According to the driver. And you'll have to forgive my doubts about the veracity of anything he says.

It's very strange that he managed to override the pareidolia that is innate in humans and failed to make out the shape of another person, and their bicycle, directly in front of him yet manage to clearly see that the light was green.

Flying Scot wrote:

A few views ... The guy was travelling at the limit and the lady left the pavement in front of him against a red man, driver had the green light and due to his speed and the bend in the road couldn't avoid it as he seen her too late.

I'm pretty sure that still doesn't give him licence to just plough through her...

Well, I was, until I read this story.

Basically, it all boils down to "not driving at an appropriate speed for the environment" or whatever the Highway Code says (=driving at below the expected standard, surely?). There's a reason they don't put pedestrian crossings (whether zebras or pelicans or toucans) on motorways...

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

The police officer added: “The pedestrian crossing is placed essentially in the middle of the motorway. It’s not meant for cyclists, but for the movement of pedestrians.”

I really don't see the relevance of the policeman's comment above, in the story.

It's completely irrelevant and also completely untrue.

So, whilst giving evidence PC Ian Beaumont is either so totally unaware of whats happened or where it has happened that it gross incompetence or he had deliberately and purposefully misled the hearing with his evidence. Given that he is allegedly a "senior investigating officer" I would imagine a mistake of this magnitude would not be allowed to happen.

brooksby wrote:

Would it have been still treated the same if she had been walking her bike across (as a pedestrian), or is the fact she was scooting across meaning that therefore she was a cyclist "illegally" using the crossing?

I don't get why some people, not yourself, are attempting to highlight this, why the hell would cycling or scooting a bike across a crossing be in any way an issue? Why should you have to get off and walk just because you're on a bike?

Do we also expect babies and young children to get out of their buggies to use crossings? Or disabled people to rise up out of their wheelchairs like Lourdes miracles when the green man lights up? Of course not, it would be absurd, just as absurd as the notions being put forth by the nonsense from PC Beaumont.

farrell wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

The police officer added: “The pedestrian crossing is placed essentially in the middle of the motorway. It’s not meant for cyclists, but for the movement of pedestrians.”

I really don't see the relevance of the policeman's comment above, in the story.

It's completely irrelevant and also completely untrue.

So, whilst giving evidence PC Ian Beaumont is either so totally unaware of whats happened or where it has happened that it gross incompetence or he had deliberately and purposefully misled the hearing with his evidence. Given that he is allegedly a "senior investigating officer" I would imagine a mistake of this magnitude would not be allowed to happen.

brooksby wrote:

Would it have been still treated the same if she had been walking her bike across (as a pedestrian), or is the fact she was scooting across meaning that therefore she was a cyclist "illegally" using the crossing?

I don't get why some people, not yourself, are attempting to highlight this, why the hell would cycling or scooting a bike across a crossing be in any way an issue? Why should you have to get off and walk just because you're on a bike?

Do we also expect babies and young children to get out of their buggies to use crossings? Or disabled people to rise up out of their wheelchairs like Lourdes miracles when the green man lights up? Of course not, it would be absurd, just as absurd as the notions being put forth by the nonsense from PC Beaumont.

Exactly!

So, is it equally legal to gun someone down because they've driven through a red light - NO!

Is it legal to stab someone to death because they committed fraud - NO!

Just because something is illegal doesn't make committing another crime legal.

Either that, or I've been living in the wrong country all my life...

The guy was driving carelessly, at the very least. Whether or not he was speeding is immaterial, he wasn't paying attention or driving at a speed that would have allowed him to stop for the crossing - whether it had a pedestrian, horse, errant shopping trolley, or "scooting" cyclist.

Quote:

I don't get why some people, not yourself, are attempting to highlight this, why the hell would cycling or scooting a bike across a crossing be in any way an issue? Why should you have to get off and walk just because you're on a bike?

Do we also expect babies and young children to get out of their buggies to use crossings? Or disabled people to rise up out of their wheelchairs like Lourdes miracles when the green man lights up? Of course not, it would be absurd, just as absurd as the notions being put forth by the nonsense from PC Beaumont.

I also find it baffling how there are people who construct some justification for persecuting cyclists by treating them differently to other similar members of the public. Its as if the only way 'motorists' can justify their attitude to cyclists is by treating us like other motorists. They say we don't pay road tax and we don't follow the rules, so we deserve all we get. Totally bogus irrelevant arguments, in my view, but for some silly, small-minded reason there are more and more people who think like the anti-cycling petrol-head brigade.

In my view the law should be changed to an automatic assumption that the pedestrian or cyclist is not at fault when a motor vehicle hits someone. Cyclists are more like pedestrians than they are like motor vehicles, so why do the authorities not get it? In my view, so long as cyclists ride with due courtesy to pedestrians, they ought to be able to use pedestrian areas without the need for bye-laws. At the very least the default situation of shared pavements should be around pedestrian crossings, busy main roads and busy junctions.

In Twickenham they've been altering a busy junction to make it more cycle friendly. They have removed a bus lane, which may sound bad, but at the same time they have lowered the pavement to the level of the road all the way across the junction allowing cyclists to ride alongside pedestrians and negotiate the junction much more safely, whilst reducing delays at rush hour. These solutions are being implemented all over the country so why not go the whole hog and make all pavements, 'shared', where there is no room for a separate cycle lane. Obviously the rule should always be that pedestrians have the right of way, so cyclists ought to stop to allow pedestrians to pass and not ride at such high speeds to make the whole space unsafe, but it's got to be better than treating cyclists like a motor vehicle, which they clearly are not.