Roymondo:
HC Rule 126 makes no reference to the presence of street lighting (nor should it). You should be driving at a speed where you can safely stop in the distance you can see to be clear. You cannot blindly assume that there is nothing in your lane. Stuff falls off lorries etc on a daily basis - usually it is unlit. If you hit some of this stuff, you bear some responsibility (unless said stuff falls directly into your path). Why is this so hard to understand? Yes, the driver of the truck from which it fell is also responsible, but it’s not a simple case of black-v-white.
To reiterate, yes the plonker(s) in the car are in the wrong for doing why they did, but some responsibility rests with the driver that hit them.
then why aint he been nicked then? even if there is some responsibility with the driver as you say surley that could amount to him being charged with dangerous/careless driving?? just a thought.
Roymondo:
HC Rule 126 makes no reference to the presence of street lighting (nor should it). You should be driving at a speed where you can safely stop in the distance you can see to be clear. You cannot blindly assume that there is nothing in your lane. Stuff falls off lorries etc on a daily basis - usually it is unlit. If you hit some of this stuff, you bear some responsibility (unless said stuff falls directly into your path). Why is this so hard to understand? Yes, the driver of the truck from which it fell is also responsible, but it’s not a simple case of black-v-white.
To reiterate, yes the plonker(s) in the car are in the wrong for doing why they did, but some responsibility rests with the driver that hit them.
For the benefit of the hard of thinking, there is a huge difference between "bearing some responsibility" for a crash and committing a criminal offence such as Dangerous (or even Careless) Driving.
(Hint: in the vast majority of collisions that the Police attend, no-one gets arrested and no-one gets prosecuted - even though at least one of those involved usually bears some responsibility for what happened).
Roymondo:
HC Rule 126 makes no reference to the presence of street lighting (nor should it). You should be driving at a speed where you can safely stop in the distance you can see to be clear. You cannot blindly assume that there is nothing in your lane. Stuff falls off lorries etc on a daily basis - usually it is unlit. If you hit some of this stuff, you bear some responsibility (unless said stuff falls directly into your path). Why is this so hard to understand? Yes, the driver of the truck from which it fell is also responsible, but it’s not a simple case of black-v-white.
To reiterate, yes the plonker(s) in the car are in the wrong for doing why they did, but some responsibility rests with the driver that hit them.
So with all your experience in this matter how fast should the lorry have been travelling?
Roymondo:
To reiterate, yes the plonker(s) in the car are in the wrong for doing why they did, but some responsibility rests with the driver that hit them.
Not if the behaviour of the car driver fell short of exercising due care.
Roymondo:
Depends how far he could see to be clear…
On an unlit motorway using dipped headlights with an unlit obstruction ahead that’s not going to be far at all.Without running on main beam lights at anything like average motorway speeds a driver wouldn’t stand a chance of seeing something,then reacting to it and then stopping in time,at least unless it’s illuminated by the lights of oncoming traffic.
Disagree, Harry. The fact that A N Other has been careless (or even grossly negligent) does not absolve you from all responsibility for everything that happens.
Roymondo:
Depends how far he could see to be clear…
On an unlit motorway using dipped headlights with an unlit obstruction ahead that’s not going to be far at all.Without running on main beam lights at anything like average motorway speeds a driver wouldn’t stand a chance of seeing something,then reacting to it and then stopping in time,at least unless it’s illuminated by the lights of oncoming traffic.
Roymondo:
Disagree, Harry. The fact that A N Other has been careless (or even grossly negligent) does not absolve you from all responsibility for everything that happens.
so using your logic we could say that when a train hits a car on a level crossing thats jumped the barriers then the train driver bears some of the responsibility because he should have seen the car in time even though said train could be doing 100+?
Roymondo:
Depends how far he could see to be clear…
On an unlit motorway using dipped headlights with an unlit obstruction ahead that’s not going to be far at all.Without running on main beam lights at anything like average motorway speeds a driver wouldn’t stand a chance of seeing something,then reacting to it and then stopping in time,at least unless it’s illuminated by the lights of oncoming traffic.
So slow down a bit…
That’s going to mean slowing up to around 20 mph,or less,every time an oncoming vehicle/s appear in the distance requiring the use of dipped headlights.
Roymondo:
Disagree, Harry. The fact that A N Other has been careless (or even grossly negligent) does not absolve you from all responsibility for everything that happens.
so using your logic we could say that when a train hits a car on a level crossing thats jumped the barriers then the train driver bears some of the responsibility because he should have seen the car in time even though said train could be doing 100+?
No because the rule don’t travel at a speed greater than that which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear ahead doesn’t apply to trains.The question in this case is does that rule apply on unlit roads/motorways in the case of unlit obstructions being in the carriageway which logic says often won’t be seen in time unless you’re running on main beam .
Roymondo:
Disagree, Harry. The fact that A N Other has been careless (or even grossly negligent) does not absolve you from all responsibility for everything that happens.
so using your logic we could say that when a train hits a car on a level crossing thats jumped the barriers then the train driver bears some of the responsibility because he should have seen the car in time even though said train could be doing 100+?
We could. But then we would be hard of thinking, wouldn’t we?
Roymondo:
Depends how far he could see to be clear…
On an unlit motorway using dipped headlights with an unlit obstruction ahead that’s not going to be far at all.Without running on main beam lights at anything like average motorway speeds a driver wouldn’t stand a chance of seeing something,then reacting to it and then stopping in time,at least unless it’s illuminated by the lights of oncoming traffic.
So slow down a bit…
That’s going to mean slowing up to around 20 mph,or less,every time an oncoming vehicle/s appear in the distance requiring the use of dipped headlights.
Or getting your headlights adjusted so you can see a bit further on dipped beam.
Roymondo:
Disagree, Harry. The fact that A N Other has been careless (or even grossly negligent) does not absolve you from all responsibility for everything that happens.
so using your logic we could say that when a train hits a car on a level crossing thats jumped the barriers then the train driver bears some of the responsibility because he should have seen the car in time even though said train could be doing 100+?
We could. But then we would be hard of thinking, wouldn’t we?
But we’d also be hard of thinking,in thinking that it would be practical to travel at a reasonable speed,on unlit roads,subject to the national speed limit,if the need to use dipped headlights arises.Assuming that the rule,concerning stopping within the distance you can see to be clear ahead,applies to unlit obstructions in that case.
Roymondo:
Depends how far he could see to be clear…
On an unlit motorway using dipped headlights with an unlit obstruction ahead that’s not going to be far at all.Without running on main beam lights at anything like average motorway speeds a driver wouldn’t stand a chance of seeing something,then reacting to it and then stopping in time,at least unless it’s illuminated by the lights of oncoming traffic.
So slow down a bit…
That’s going to mean slowing up to around 20 mph,or less,every time an oncoming vehicle/s appear in the distance requiring the use of dipped headlights.
Or getting your headlights adjusted so you can see a bit further on dipped beam.
Suggest you check out the reaction and stopping distance required and how far the dipped beams can be raised without blinding oncoming traffic.That’s why vehicles are fitted with main beam lights.
Whenever we get some really foggy weather, a general warning goes out for folks to slow down a bit. You’ll also see numerous grumbles on this forum regarding drivers who still press on at the limiter even in thick fog (and they get fairly widespread backing from other participants). What is the difference (from a driver responsibility satndpoint) between being unable to see further than (say) 100m due to fog and being unable to see beyond 100m due to pitch blackness and the limits of dipped headlamps?
Whenever we get some really foggy weather, a general warning goes out for folks to slow down a bit. You’ll also see numerous grumbles on this forum regarding drivers who still press on at the limiter even in thick fog (and they get fairly widespread backing from other participants). What is the difference (from a driver responsibility satndpoint) between being unable to see further than (say) 100m due to fog and being unable to see beyond 100m due to pitch blackness and the limits of dipped headlamps?
It comes down to “reasonableness”. Would a reasonable man expect to encounter a car in the live lane of a motorway with its lights extinguished because the occupants had had a marital spat?
A lot of motorways are unlit, to save money. If the lorry driver was prosecuted I think one of the things to come up would be the lack of lighting. If the lack of lighting on the motorway was a contributory factor then shouldn’t some responsibility also lie with the authorities.
Harry Monk:
It comes down to “reasonableness”. Would a reasonable man expect to encounter a car in the live lane of a motorway with its lights extinguished because the occupants had had a marital spat?
What difference does it make (from the other driver’s POV) why the vehicle came to be stationary with no lights? It is not unreasonable to expect that sometimes vehicles break down, and sometimes those breakdowns involves total electrical failure. Sometimes other unlit obstructions come to rest on the carriageway. This is especially true in roadworks/contraflows.
. 