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

I'm hoping that Carol Jackson will be able to use the civil route to pursue the driver. As I understand it, the standard of proof is more in tune with the common sense arguments in the thread above, and the chances of success potentially higher than via the criminal route.

I guess that these don't often make the news, but in all the sad cases of careless/dangerous driving that we read about on here, there will usually be a compensation case that accompanies it, where the driver has to answer a second time to what he has done, and where a successful prosecution establishes wrong-doing. Except in this case, unfortunately.

Please don't think I'm victim-blaming, but a pedestrian crossings are for pedestrians. Get off and milk it across a pedestrian crossing. And always keep a lookout for the idiot who hasn't seen you or is driving too fast, drop the bike and run.

Anyone know which junction this was? The only one I can see on Google Earth with ped crossings on the slip roads is this one:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Mancunian+Way/@53.4703218,-2.2469628,145m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x487bb1eb414a487f:0x8f65dc5f26c77ecf

On the approach to the junction there are 30 signs, big 30s on the road, and no signs to the contrary going up the slip road. The traffic lights for the crossing are signed from before the roundabout. Seems pretty clear to me. If you're leaving the Mancunian Way at that junction it's got 30 painted on the road at the very start of the slip road, but apparently the driver was joining (not sure why the PC is going on about the signage when leaving).

'now that is a can of worms'

It's really not, unfortunately. It's very clear. A cyclist is not a pedestrian. Yes, I agree to a change to the law - but until then, it's pretty clear.

Taking this at face value I wonder why, if the cause of the accident was the failure of the highways authority (in this case Manchester City Council) to place signs correctly, then why aren't they being prosecuted for Ms Bloomfield's death? They have a statutory responsibility and they have failed to deliver on it - with the result that someone has been killed. Why no action?

'No excuse that it's a dual carriageway. If it has street lights then you have to assume it is a 30mph limit.' Told this by a copper on Derby Rd in Liverpool after doing 38mph in what I thought was a 40.

Mancunian Way isn't really a motorway but a city centre dual carriageway so should be, IMO for safety, judging by the people barrelling along the overhead section at 60mph+ 40ph max really.

the dude didnt even see what he hit. wtf. how can this be no charges?

though there maybe some issues with the signage I suspect this is the real issue:

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.”

so in court the case would rest on does a driver have to give way to a cyclist on a pedestrian crossing?

now that is a can of worms and is a very simple change in the rules that should have been made years ago to protect the lives of the more vulnerable road user

This a f****g disgrace. Shame shame shame on the all those in the justice system.

I drove on that road every working day for years, it's obvious that it's a built up area and speed restriction signs should not be necessary.

there are streetlights. The Highway Code is clear streetlights = 30mph zone unless signs show to the contrary.

Manc Plod and CPS have let us all down.

there are streetlights. The Highway Code is clear streetlights = 30mph zone unless signs show to the contrary.

Manc Plod and CPS have let us all down.

In fact, the more I think about this, the more absolute nonsense it really is.

The accident occurred on the slip road ON to the Mancunian Way, not off it. The sign signalling the start of the motorway is after the crossing in question, with the signs signalling the start of the 50mph speed limit are beyond that at the top of the slip road.

All of the roads leading to the slip road are a 30mph limit. The 'lack' of a sign signifying it was a 30mph limit at that point is totally irrelevant - if you are driving on roads were a 30mph speed limit, then that is the limit until signed otherwise. He should not have been driving at 41+mph, and there is no excuse for the fact he was doing so.

Yet another victim let down by the justice system. Pathetic.

More bollocks from the justice system.

The speed limit is just that - a limit. It's not a target. If he was driving at a speed where he didn't see something in the road, even when he hit it, then his driving quite clearly feel below the standard expected of a competent driver.

This make me feel sick and very angry

A very sad case.

I failed my first driving test because I was doing 50 in a 30 zone. There were no signs but the examiner said I should have known the speed limit. This was some time ago but if it was the case then, why is it not the case now.

I failed my first driving test because I was doing 50 in a 30 zone. There were no signs but the examiner said I should have known the speed limit. This was some time ago but if it was the case then, why is it not the case now.

am i missing something?

Is it ok to kill someone? since when does a sign over rule looking where the f*** your going????

Correction needed:

"Ms Bloomfield had entered into a civil partnership with Gemma Godden, her partner of eight and a half years, Carol Jackson, just under 12 months before her death and the pair were preparing to celebrate their anniversary."

Carol Jackson is Gemma Godden's solicitor.