I see evidence of lots of people doing just that. For instance, the two occasions I have had points from speed cameras were no one's fault but mine. What I am more interested in is is there a set of circumstances where mitigation is possible. It isn't always possible to see diesel on the road, black ice, etc but perhaps you should ride like those things are always there? In which case, why do we have motorbikes greater than 50cc out on our roads?
Let us not get confused between hypothetical (but non-existent) circumstances, and things which actually exist. If you actually encounter oil/ice on the road which causes an accident, there will be evidence of the oil/ice and this might provide you with an excuse, a defence, or at least some mitigation. If there isn't any oil or ice, and thus no evidence of any, then raising the hypothetical notion that there might be oil or ice affords you no excuse at all. Proposing to invent fictional oil or ice in order to contrive a false defence is the kind of thing which leads to "perverting the course of justice".
Speaking of confused ... I am not interested in discussing the concoction of fictitious mitigating circumstances. I am more concerned with the question of whether mitigating circumstances can possibly exist. If yes, then there may be almost insurmountable difficulties in proving such. An example: a diesel spill makes it nearly impossible to stop safely at a red light. If stopped by a traffic policeman, you can point to the diesel and hopefully get a sympathetic hearing on the roadside, or failing that, be able to refer to the matter in court. If caught by a traffic light camera, your options become limited. Where's the justice? (Hint: As is normally the case, it isn't in the courtroom. It's a court of law, after all) Addendum: to whom it may concern, if you don't like hypothetical discussions, don't join them
I guess (and I am guessing, so feel free to correct me) that mitigation could be used if the situation wasn't foreseeable such as diesel in the braking zone of the lights. But there can't be many scenarios where the road conditions are going to differ that much to allow you to use it as a defence. You could predict or see there could be ice, wet roads, leafs (?), gravel etc. It's a pretty thin wedge! In Lucas case it was raining and he was travelling too fast to stop safely at the light. I think even you'd agree with that @Lucazade
( correct me if I am wrong ) I don't think you can be found guilty of something which you have not been charged..
Its simple really. You either crash or, if spotted and avoided and trip a light, ge off your bike, call the police and report the spill before someone else does. Unless of course interest is more in escaping justice than doing the right thing
Well from point of view of camera hell yes I agree. Thing is I was travelling within the law. I tried to stop on amber but it did not feel safe to do so therefore went for option 2, throttle. It was a406 so diesel spillage or bad surface are not a possibility but reality. Bradders I am not going to try to get out of that one. If there is a way to minimise damage hell yes please will try but I did run the light and will not contest in court as it will be my word against yellow box. I started this as just like Loz I have realised that unless you crash at Red lights while trying to stop, or someone rear ends you, you have no way of arguing it was not your fault. If you did crash and survive to tell the tale you could point at diesel, bad surface, car behind going to fast to stop, what ever and possibly get off but I prefer not to crash don't you?
Well old lady crossing while she has green is another matter as by the time they get green you should have been able to spot red long before and stop. I mean there is what 2-3s delay? If she was there after I run the light by 1s that would mean she was there on red as well........
So lets make it real easy. 30 is a limit not a target When it is wet take extra precautions When it is cold take extra prcautions On approaching lights, zebra crossing, pedetrian crossing, expect tostop and be approriately proactive, ie slow down If said surface is covered in an inch of diesel, or a 2 inch black ice puddle, you take whetever action is needed not to get yourself killed It is equally a danger for others, so pull over, phoneout, call 999, register it as a dangerous situation with police, use as defence in court as you have eveidence (well as much as you can) of mitigation All based on layman views from a bloke who drives a bit more than some, less than others, and sees cocks jumping lights and pulling dodgy manoeuvres every day
Sorry mate, youre being an arse now. Just rum the old bitch over, her fault shes jaywalking so who cares, right?! Time to find another thread...
Bradders get of the high and mighty horse will you? How many times did you stop to report a pot hole, bad surface, spill even if you did nothing wrong? I doubt ever unless you damaged your vehicle or it was bang in front your home. Doubt anyone would stop to do what you suggest, you went over, you survived you keep going. Not to mention as far as I know you are not allowed to stop in middle of the road if Road ahead is safe and clear, nor you allowed to stop on double yellow. You would possibly get off red light to get double yellow pcn
If everybody stopped to report it eventually roads would be better but at first no one would get anywhere. For bad surface alone I would have to stop every mile to report something.
However when it is pissing down and you do 30 in 50 you will get moved down by car drivers behind you so your 50 becomes a target. You are completely skipping the point of unforeseeable obstacles. If it is raining such that 30 is safe speed you go 30. You will go over diesel spill or two at 30 and nothing happens you will not know. By 3rd one you still travel at 30 as rain has not changed you get a diesel spill you cannot see but have to stop and suddenly your 30 should have been 10 you run red and your fault. On one hand you speak off taking the punishment if you deserve it on the other you talk about taking the punishment always. Well I never said that you gave a stupid example. Sorry not long ago you said would it not have been nice if people just admitted to wrong doing, then you talk about accepting consequences. Then you defend a granny walking on red if someone runs her down. Should they have no, who's fault was it for crossing on red hers. Whom you trying to blame driver. No logic.
If you couldn't stop for the red light you were either travelling too fast (speeding) or you were travelling too fast for the road conditions. Take your pick.
Those are the choices, yes. But in the second instance, could you reasonably have known that you were travelling to fast for the road conditions? Could you reasonably have known that the amount of grip offered by the road surface had changed? If someone suddenly runs out of in front of you and you hit them, you were travelling too fast for the road conditions.
Traffic lights dont run out in front of you which is what we're talking about here. Hazard perception is a big subject Im sure we'll all agree. Some hazards will be predictable in their actions (traffic lights etc) others like other traffic or people which don't take a predictable path less so. I'm sure if you hit something/one there are more things to consider than not stopping for a red light because you were riding too fast in a 30 in the pissing rain
Agreed so lights stay put but diesel patches, chipped Road surface, other slippery spillage move.... Rain or not.
I'm not defending anyone. I'm certainly not defending or commenting on Lucas' situation. My only real objection to any of this is the phrase "too fast for the road conditions". I was pointing out the fallacy that you can determine absolutely and in every case, the appropriate speed for road conditions. The incredible idea that someone can always have complete awareness of every aspect of their environment at all times seems terribly blinkered, if not downright arrogant. And frankly, false.
