Taxi driver who sped through red light jailed for killing cyclist

DrG82 wrote:

Red light jumping is ridiculously common in Swansea, and yet there are hardly any cameras. I'd like to see some form of pop up barriers developed that rise when the lights go red and would likely destroy a tyre/shock absorber if hit at speed. The jeopardy of potentially expensive car repairs would stop people racing to get through on amber.

the speed with which people hit speed bumps, or bump up pavement kerbs, leads me to believe they dont link the cause to the effect of expensive shock absorber/wheel bearing car repairs

but cameras on traffic lights, at least within central city areas would be a good idea, at least plant the idea that someone may watch and you will be caught doing it. I was just this weekend gone at a crossing where the stop line is near on 2-3 car lengths back from the crossing itself (think they are worried about turning lorries or something),but the light went red, the green man was lit, Im halfway across the road and Im almost being runover by the first car who refused to stop and the second car following had the damn cheek to rant I was blocking his way !!! he got an earful about what the colour red meant, but as soon as I was across the road his car still crept forward into the junction, couldnt even be bothered to wait for the next green light.

Ramuz wrote:

Another reason why I never use taxis.

Or trains - Ladbroke Grove

Or trams - Croydon

Or buses - M40

Or ships - titanic

Or planes - or airships etc.

That's not really a reason to not use taxis.

ClubSmed wrote:

Having read some more into this I now know that the cyclist did not run a red light because he was cycling on the path. This would explain why he didn't have his lights on. He did cross before the green man came on though just like we all do. I am not trying to victim blame and not trying to troll, I was tasty asking questions because I'm curious and never like to just accept things at face value.

link please, I can't see anything in the reports on this to suggest he had ridden from the pavement. 

The fact that a jury has convicted and a judge has give a custodial sentence (all very unlikely event where the death of a cyclists is concerned) means that the motorist was considered totally at fault. 

Housecathst wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Having read some more into this I now know that the cyclist did not run a red light because he was cycling on the path. This would explain why he didn't have his lights on. He did cross before the green man came on though just like we all do. I am not trying to victim blame and not trying to troll, I was tasty asking questions because I'm curious and never like to just accept things at face value.

link please, I can't see anything in the reports on this to suggest he had ridden from the pavement. 

The fact that a jury has convicted and a judge has give a custodial sentence (all very unlikely event where the death of a cyclists is concerned) means that the motorist was considered totally at fault. 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/taxi-driver-who-kill...

ClubSmed wrote:

This is very sad news that yet again a cyclist has died as a result of a motorist not following the rules of the road. It is good to see that jail time has this time been given though little comfort.
I would however like to add a little balance and ask if maybe the cyclist jumped the red light too? Usually there is a delay between one set of lights turning Red and the other set turning Red-Amber to avoid such incidents.Also riding at that time of night in January without lights is both foolish and illegal.

All good points. I'm sure the taxi driver didn't intend to kill the cyclist, but his silliness caused a catastrophe.

We humans are far too stupid to be in control of machines as potentially deadly as automobiles. Bring on driverless cars, I say.

ClubSmed wrote:

This is very sad news that yet again a cyclist has died as a result of a motorist not following the rules of the road. It is good to see that jail time has this time been given though little comfort.
I would however like to add a little balance and ask if maybe the cyclist jumped the red light too? Usually there is a delay between one set of lights turning Red and the other set turning Red-Amber to avoid such incidents.Also riding at that time of night in January without lights is both foolish and illegal.

I'm sure that would have been covered in depth in the trail and would have been a key part of the defence if he had. An average jury of cycle hating motorists would have had no problem with returning a not guilty verdict if there had been any suggestion. Given that the article made reference to him not having any lights I sure it would have included any suggest of the cyclist having jumped the lights. It far more likely they the motorists underestimated how badly he had jumped the red light. 

Have I been suckered by a troll ? Dam it !

Housecathst wrote:

Have I been suckered by a troll ? Dam it !

Not trolling, just trying to add balance as this may be a one sided summary

ClubSmed wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

Have I been suckered by a troll ? Dam it !

Not trolling, just trying to add balance as this may be a one sided summary

no balance, just wild speculation and a bit of classic victim blaming. 

ClubSmed wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

Have I been suckered by a troll ? Dam it !

Not trolling, just trying to add balance as this may be a one sided summary

No one needs you to "add balance" here. That's what the trial is for.

ClubSmed wrote:

This is very sad news that yet again a cyclist has died as a result of a motorist not following the rules of the road. It is good to see that jail time has this time been given though little comfort.
I would however like to add a little balance and ask if maybe the cyclist jumped the red light too? Usually there is a delay between one set of lights turning Red and the other set turning Red-Amber to avoid such incidents.Also riding at that time of night in January without lights is both foolish and illegal.

Point about not having lights on: ok.

Point about RLJing: not ok, not balance - speculative bullshit about a lad who was killed by someone we know drove for a living and did RLJ. Could easily have been T-boned by the impatient twat.

ClubSmed wrote:

Usually there is a delay between one set of lights turning Red and the other set turning Red-Amber to avoid such incidents.

I disagree with you on that point, many lights now have little or no delay in sets of lights from different directions. i.e. both sets of lights hit amber at the same time rather than set one going to amber then red before set 2 goes from red to red and amber

There is one particular traffic light controlled junction where I live that there has been multiple accidents due to the poor sequence timing of the lights, and no matter how many times this has been reported, or how many accidents there have been the council/police refuse to do anything about changing the light sequence.

It is a T junction, and if you are on the 'main' road, not the road joining it and you are stopped at the red lights, you can also see the lights which signal the joining road, and both sets turn amber at the same time.  The junction is on a local boy racing loop and more often than not they come racing up to the lights, see thier set going from green to amber and try to beat the lights not caring that the lights on the other side have also began to change.

craigstitt wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Usually there is a delay between one set of lights turning Red and the other set turning Red-Amber to avoid such incidents.

I disagree with you on that point, many lights now have little or no delay in sets of lights from different directions. i.e. both sets of lights hit amber at the same time rather than set one going to amber then red before set 2 goes from red to red and amber

There is one particular traffic light controlled junction where I live that there has been multiple accidents due to the poor sequence timing of the lights, and no matter how many times this has been reported, or how many accidents there have been the council/police refuse to do anything about changing the light sequence.

It is a T junction, and if you are on the 'main' road, not the road joining it and you are stopped at the red lights, you can also see the lights which signal the joining road, and both sets turn amber at the same time.  The junction is on a local boy racing loop and more often than not they come racing up to the lights, see thier set going from green to amber and try to beat the lights not caring that the lights on the other side have also began to change.

You are probably right on that, I know that they used to have delays but now most have hoods on so that you can't see the other set so I wouldn't have noticed the change in thinking.

That sounds like an horrific T junction, I wonder who it is that is in charge of light sequencing (not something I had concidered before). Maybe we should start cataloguing poor sequencing traffic lights as they are arguably more dangerous that pot holes?

rct wrote:

AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident

How many vehicles have you seen obeying that one lately? Or the bit about go on *green* (if it's clear to proceed)? Most cars only stop on red, and then go again on amber.