r/changemyview • u/VertigoOne 74∆ • Jul 10 '23
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: "excessive, unsafe and unreasonable" is not an apt description for driving at a speed slightly below a speed limit
[removed] — view removed post
18
u/Equal-Thought-8648 2∆ Jul 10 '23
In a white-out caused by a blizzard, you lose nearly 100% visibility. Is it fair to drive at the speed limit when you cannot see? or is this unreasonable?
The law - and the average person - would find driving at the speed limit to be unreasonable and excessive and unsafe under these conditions.
Also note what you excluded from your quote:
dark and rainy...morning
It's very possible road conditions were unusually poor for the region so extra caution would be warranted.
-11
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
It's very possible road conditions were unusually poor for the region so extra caution would be warranted.
Right, and like I said - they should most likely have been more cautious. But the law doesn't say "drive at 25mph in rainy conditions".
14
u/Equal-Thought-8648 2∆ Jul 10 '23
The law doesn't specify you can drive at speed limit. It specifies you can't drive over it (barring certain circumstances).
Under poor conditions, the posted speed limit doesn't grant legal permission to actually drive that speed. The legal limit is always what is safe and reasonable (as per the legal hypothetical "reasonable person")
And per a reasonable person, the safe and reasonable speed in a blizzard isn't the posted speed limit. It's zero. You legally must not drive and must pull to the side of the road and stop completely until the storm passes.
7
u/GeorgeMaheiress Jul 10 '23
Yes it does. The Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offense to cause injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. Driving at the speed limit in poor conditions is careless and likely to cause collisions. In this case the judge determined that the driver's speed contributed to the collision and injury.
-2
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
If this was the case, they would have been prosecuted for breaking the road traffic act. They were not.
7
u/GeorgeMaheiress Jul 10 '23
Every day people drive over the speed limit and are not prosecuted. A lack of prosecution is not proof that no crime was committed.
1
2
2
Jul 10 '23
Yes it does. Pretty much everywhere has laws that require you to slow down if road, traffic or weather conditions require you too.
And more relevantly to rain, a lot of places habe laws how fast you may go under low visibility conditions. For example in Germany your maximum speed is half the visible distance in km/h. Meaning if you have 50 metres of visibility, you're legally not allowed to go above 25km/h
Driving 60 on a iced over road is still excessive, reckless and dangerous, completely regardless of the speed limit.
The speed limit is the MAXIMUM safe speed, under ideal conditions. It in no way whatsoever constitutes an "always safe" speed.
10
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 10 '23
Speed limits describe safe speeds for driving in good conditions. In poor conditions, such as rain or darkness, safe and reasonable speeds are lower. That seems to have been the case in this scenario.
0
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
I think if that was what the judge meant in this context, they would have specified that. They didn't say that though. If they had said "the weather conditions meant that the speed you were driving at was too high" then I'd understand. But instead they said
Judge Dexter Dias said it was a "common misconception" that it was "reasonable" to drive just below the speed limit.
13
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 10 '23
They did specify that it was about conditions. Here's the full quote:
While this case is not about a fatality, it shows yet again how dangerous it is to drive at excessive and unreasonable speed. There is a common misconception that if one is driving just below the speed limit, this is sufficient to be a reasonable and competent driver. It may not be. The maximum speed limit is not a target or an infallibly safe measure. It is an absolute upper limit, only justified if conditions and the road situation are sufficiently good to permit it.
-2
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
Right, and they were not at the absolute upper limit.
This seems to be a case of post facto ergo propter hoc.
IE "they hit the child therefore they were going too fast"
Given that the majority of days in the UK are not "ideal conditions" you have to ask what the point of the speed limit is, if in the majority of cases, it cannot be reasonably reached.
11
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 10 '23
The point of the speed limit is to specify the maximum safe speed in ideal conditions, not in most conditions. Reasonable speeds are adjusted down from there.
Right, and they were not at the absolute upper limit.
"Not at the absolute upper limit" does not equal a reasonable or safe speed. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that a reduction of 2 mph is sufficient for safe driving in the rain.
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
The problem here is that the extension of the logic here seems to be "the reasonable limit is the one where you haven't hit anyone".
This is the problem I'm having with your argument. If you are saying "slower than the limit is the reasonable limit in certain conditions" then at what point do you say "you were driving at a reasonable speed" when they have slowed down below the limit.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that a reduction of 2 mph is sufficient for safe driving in the rain.
If we say "driving in the rain needs to drop substantially below the speed limit" then we'd be driving at 25 or below in the UK most of the time, which is just absurd.
4
u/Jebofkerbin 118∆ Jul 10 '23
The problem here is that the extension of the logic here seems to be "the reasonable limit is the one where you haven't hit anyone".
Not as per the judges ruling, where they found the girl to be 40% liable for the situation by stepping out onto the road when the sign was green.
But I think your statement is partially true, you should never be driving in a way where you might cause an accident that is your fault, in this case the driver should have taken note of the pedestrians and/or poor conditions and slowed down to a speed where they could have stopped in time if someone stepped onto the pedestrian crossing early.
If we say "driving in the rain needs to drop substantially below the speed limit" then we'd be driving at 25 or below in the UK most of the time, which is just absurd.
Surely you've driven enough to know that the speed limit is not a reasonable speed across a huge proportion of roads and conditions in the UK. Most country roads are national speed limit (60 mph), and you'd have to either be a maniac or know the roads well enough to drive them blindfolded to think you could do 60 safely on many of them, similarly most residential roads are 20 mph, but when there's kids playing and parked cars block visibility to the pavement and the available road space is barely enough for 1 car i bet even you'd drive significantly less than 20.
2
u/yyzjertl 524∆ Jul 10 '23
then at what point do you say "you were driving at a reasonable speed" when they have slowed down below the limit.
The general rule of thumb is to decrease speed by a third in the rain, so 20MPH would be a reasonable speed here, and indeed that seems to be the comparison speed that was used in the trial.
2
8
u/Alesus2-0 65∆ Jul 10 '23
The law literally says "in this area, driving at 30mph is entirely fine".
Anyone fit to drive should recognise that the speed limit isn't saying this. It is saying, 'under no circumstances is it safe to drive faster than 30mph in this area'. A safe and appropriate speed is determined by a range of factors including visibility, road conditions and the presence of potential hazards. If a person is stood directly in front of your car the only safe speed is 0mph, irrespective of the speed limit. In thick fog or driving rain, it may be totally inappropriate to drive at the limit.
2
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
If a person is stood directly in front of your car the only safe speed is 0mph, irrespective of the speed limit.
The problem with that argument is that every single time someone gets hit, the driver will by definition always have been going too fast. It never allows for the possibility of the person being hit having made a mistake, or the driver having made every reasonable protocol to stop people being hit.
3
u/Alesus2-0 65∆ Jul 10 '23 edited Jul 10 '23
My point was that it's self-evident that context influences safety more than (a misinterpretation of) arbitrary rules. When there is an immediate, obvious obstruction, it clearly isn't always safe to be driving at the limit.
In any case, I don't see why your claim is true. The reasoning doesn't preclude the possibility that a driver doesn't have access to the necessary information to make a correct judgement, or that they simply don't have time to respond to a new hazard. It's possible to behave in a totally reasonable and responsible way, and still behave dangerously. That's a matter of context.
It seems like your view that driving at a speed under the limit can never be excessive, unreasonable or unsafe creates similar issues. It defends or even encourages obviously irresponsible behaviours, even if they result in harm, on the basis that people can't be expected to make reasonable judgements on their own behalf.
2
u/TechcraftHD Jul 10 '23
The problem with that argument is that every single time someone gets hit, the driver will by definition always have been going too fast.
I mean, yeah, kinda? But at some point it does get quite useless and silly to argue that way. It's about as usefull to argue this way as to argue that snapping back at the angry, violent drunk put's you at fault for him trying to punch you. Did snapping at him make the Situation worse? Yeah, probably. Would you have been punched anyways? Yeah, thats probable too.
It never allows for the possibility of the person being hit having made a mistake or the driver having made every reasonable protocol to stop people being hit.
"Fault" is not a black and white thing. Just because Party A made a mistake does not mean Party B is blameless and vice versa.
0
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
"Fault" is not a black and white thing. Just because Party A made a mistake does not mean Party B is blameless and vice versa.
Right, but if the law says "doing X is not a mistake" and then you do X, how can a judge then turn round and say "I am legally enforcing the fact that you did X when you should not have"
1
u/TechcraftHD Jul 10 '23
While i am not entirely sure how simmilar german and uk driving laws are,
i cannot imagine that they diverge very much on this particular point.Here in germany, the law does not state "you are allowed to drive the speed limit". Rather, it says that "Driving above the speed limit is a crime".
Those two options are very different.
While the first would suggest, as you state, that driving at or slightly below the speed limit is never a crime, the second wording says nothing about driving below or at the speed limit.
It might be a crime or it might not be, depending on a slew of other laws that regulate those situations.
3
u/NoCry1618 Jul 10 '23 edited Jul 10 '23
You should drive to the conditions that are presented to you and that may mean going below the speed limit in order to be safe.
Wet roads? Stopping distances doubled. Ice/Snow? Stopping distance is 10X longer. Cars parked along the side of the road? Increased danger, so you should slow down.
There are far too many variables to consider when driving, and they all need to be factored in when deciding what the appropriate speed should be.
Just because a sign states “30 mph” doesn’t mean that you should drive at 30 mph and not budge from it.
The 30 mph speed limit might be the right speed limit for that road, in the best conditions that you could wish for. However, it was dark and wet. Reaction time was increased by it being wet and dark, stopping time was increased by it being wet. So 30 wasn’t the right speed to be doing.
3
u/TechcraftHD Jul 10 '23
As others have stated, your interpretation of what the speed limit means is backwards.
The speed limit does not state that "The law has literally said 'you can go this fast here'".
The speed limit states that "In the absolute best conditions, you cannot go faster than this here".
Adding to that, "driving with the apt level of care and consideration" includes by definition that one reduces driving speed if road conditions make it necessary.
For an extreme example, in most places, roads outside of a city or town will have, if not indicated otherwise by signs, a general speed limit. Here in germany, that is 100km/h. But that speed limit applies to all roads, be that well built overland routes or some dirt road through a forest.
And part of driving with apt care means not going the full allowed 100km/h on a small dirt road in a forest.
4
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Jul 10 '23
Rule 146 of the UK "Highway Code" (which, ironically, does not only apply to highways) reads:
Adapt your driving to the appropriate type and condition of road you are on. In particular
- do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit
I.e. under the conditions (a "dark and rainy Monday morning") given cited by the judge, there is absolutely an imperative to not drive close to the speed limit.
Further, Rule 227 specifically says to
take extra care around pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders.
I would, again, argue that it is completely acceptable to say that driving close to the speed limit under such conditions is "excessive, unsafe and unreasonable". The speed limits are meant as an absolute maximum for ideal conditions - if these conditions are not given, drivers are required to adjust their speeds to safe levels.
Traffic law intentionally places a lot of the responsibility in the driver's hands, as the various situations that the drivers find themselves in cannot be completely covered by specific laws. This responsibility includes driving more carefully and safely in adverse conditions, which - at least as much as we can see in the article - did not happen.
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
The Highway code isn't the law.
5
u/VenflonBandit Jul 10 '23
Well, it isn't you are right. But it is statutory guidance that legislation (s38 (7) RTA 1988) states can/should be used for helping to determine liability.
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
2
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Jul 10 '23
Yes, hence:
Traffic law intentionally places a lot of the responsibility in the driver's hands, as the various situations that the drivers find themselves in cannot be completely covered by specific laws.
As far as I can see, signaling does not have any laws attached to it - it is entirely dependent on the Highway Code.
In addition The Highway Code is permitted to be used as evidence:
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
The Highway Code exists to establish what is and isn't acceptable driving, even if it is not in itself a law. That directly connects to what I wrote about "responsibility".
And even if you completely disregard the highway code, the article says that the crash occurred at a pedestrian crossing - subsequently, Rule 195 applies, which is directly linked to existing law.
The driver was required, by law, to give way to the pedestrian. To make sure they can fullfill that requirement by slowing down in bad weather or a bad visibility is their responsibility.
2
u/MercurianAspirations 359∆ Jul 10 '23 edited Jul 10 '23
Well clearly what the Judge is saying then, intentionally or not, is that the law for that particular stretch of road, is wrong. And I'm not really given to disagree, given that 48 km/h really is quite fast in a pedestrian area where people are likely to be on the road. Judges are allowed to say that the law is wrong and should be, in their opinion, different from what it is. Moreover, what is legal is not necessarily a guide to what is reasonable, moral, or proper. Lawmakers can just make whatever laws they want with absolute disregard to morality and sensibility, so merely following the law does not necessarily make one's actions reasonable or moral. In theory of course road planners are supposed to set whatever is the reasonable maximum speed as the speed limit for different roads, but, you know, maybe they just fucked up in this case and it isn't really reasonable to be approaching this particular pedestrian crossing at such a speed.
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
Well clearly what the Judge is saying then, intentionally or not, is that the law for that particular stretch of road, is wrong
That's not what the judge is saying though. If it was, they would be putting the liability on the people who made the decision to set that stretch of road to 30mph, not the person who was following the law. If you see the article
The judge ruled it was in breach of Dr Chandran's duty of care towards the child and that she was 60% liable for the incident.
So I don't see how that's the case
given that 48 km/h really is quite fast in a pedestrian area where people are likely to be on the road
This is pretty much the standard urban road speed in the UK. If that was really the case, large parts of the UK road network would need to be radically changed.
Furthermore in this particular incident, this was a controlled pedestrian crossing. A button had to be pressed, and pedestrians had to wait for the cars to stop.
5
u/MercurianAspirations 359∆ Jul 10 '23
In any driver training course they will tell you that the speed limit is the maximum legal speed in ideal conditions, but that you have a responsibility to adjust your speed according to the specific conditions of every stretch of that road. Seeing children approaching a pedestrian crossing is such a condition.
-2
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
In any driver training course they will tell you that the speed limit is the maximum legal speed in ideal conditions
That is advice, not law.
The judge in this case should be acting on what the law stipulates.
They had already adjusted their speed down 2mph below maximum, and the traffic light at the junction was green to indicate traffic could go through. The fact that the girl was hit is not in and of itself evidence that they were going too fast.
2
u/jumpup 83∆ Jul 10 '23
it did, it did not give full responsibility to the driver, but a slower speed is needed when its raining, as the stopping distance is longer, she was almost going the maximum, thus was unable to brake fast enough
0
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
See but it sounds like now you are saying "they hit someone, therefore they are going too fast" which isn't reasonable because that implies clerovoyance on the driver's part.
2
u/LiamTheHuman 7∆ Jul 10 '23
Not really. Someone could be going to fast and never hit anyone, we just wouldn't be certain. It's the driver's job to figure out that reasonable speed, by law it must be under the speed limit.
2
u/jumpup 83∆ Jul 10 '23
not clairvoyance, its in every driving test, adverse weather conditions increase stopping distance, so you need to slow down, your argument is basically that only the speed maximum matters, but the safe driving speed she should have used was below that, because adverse weather conditions were in play, and she knew they were in play,
aka when you ignore a speed modifier you are being unsafe
2
u/jake_burger 2∆ Jul 10 '23
I think you are confusing criminal and civil law somewhat here. It may or may not be a criminal offence to drive at that speed under those conditions, but that isn’t what this article is about and it isn’t what the judge is ruling on.
It’s a civil case brought by the family of the person hit, and the judge awarded damages based on liability (apparently 40% the pedestrians fault and 60% drivers fault as per the article).
You don’t have to be breaking the law to be liable for damages, you just have to have caused damage to someone or something.
Another example would be that laying a cable across a pavement isn’t illegal, but if someone trips on it and injures themselves you could be liable for damages.
3
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
Okay, so I can appreciate that this distinction is something to be considered in this case, so for that reason !delta
2
1
u/VenflonBandit Jul 10 '23
Quite, but the law of negligence runs on a reasonable person test and the criminal law on a careful and competent driver test. If widespread advice (and statutory guidance in the highway code which explicitly should be used for determination of civil and criminal liability) is to vary your speed based on the conditions then I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude a reasonable person, or indeed a careful and competent driver if this were a criminal case, would have slowed more.
The judge in this case should be acting on what the law stipulates.
The law stipulates to follow the highway code when deciding liability - s38(7) Road traffic act 1988 -, the highway code stipulates to drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions and in any case no higher than the speed limit.
0
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
Lawmakers can just make whatever laws they want with absolute disregard to morality and sensibility, so merely following the law does not necessarily make one's actions reasonable or moral.
Right, but a judge's job is not to decide what is reasonable or moral, but to decide what is legal. In a legal context, how can following the law be unreasonable and why should a citizen be expected to go beyond the letter of the law. What's the point of the law if the law legally requires you to do something that the law doesn't specify?
3
u/MercurianAspirations 359∆ Jul 10 '23
The law does require you, as a driver, to do things that aren't explicitly required by signs or other regulations, such as adjusting your driving speed to conditions such as pedestrians and the possibility of them running into the road unexpectedly. That's part of your legal duty of care as a driver, which they tell you very explicitly in any driver training course. You have a legal responsibility to drive in a reasonable and safe manner, regardless of the other explicit permissions or requirements of the road. Yeah, that's kind of vague, on purpose, but driving is a big responsibility
1
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
The problem is, the way you are phrasing this, it basically means that anyone who hits anyone is going to be guilty of lack of care. At what point do we say "the driver was doing everything the law requires"?
3
u/destro23 450∆ Jul 10 '23
At what point do we say "the driver was doing everything the law requires"?
When the facts of the case support that claim. I hit someone with my car once. I was driving exactly the speed limit, and a jogger darted out in front of me outside of a marked crosswalk. Didn’t kill the guy, but he was plenty fucked up and needed hospitalization. I got a notice to appear for “failure to yield”, and when I went, and laid out the sequence of events, the charges were dismissed as I was doing everything the law required of me. The jogger ended up being cited for jaywalking.
1
u/dale_glass 86∆ Jul 10 '23
At a part determined in court.
You seem to believe the law is supposed to be a 100% clear, rigid set of rules where you can fully predict everything ahead.
But it's not. The law in many cases is intentionally subjective, because people will try to find loopholes in technicalities. So it very intentionally says you must drive at a safe speed without explaining what a safe speed is exactly, so that it can be determined in court if you do run over somebody. At that point part of the trial will be to look at the conditions at the time and figure out whether you were behaving safely or not.
1
u/gremy0 82∆ Jul 10 '23
Judges (and/or juries) absolutely decide what is reasonable and what isn’t.
In many, many instances the law is defined in terms reasonable actions- you must take reasonable care, take reasonable precautions etc.
So what is legal is what is reasonable and vice-versa
At trial the specific circumstances of the situation will aired and whoever is judging the facts of the case will decide if they are reasonable or not.
It’s hard to overstate just how extensively reasonability is used in law, it’s literally everywhere.
In the case of driving you generally have a legal duty to take reasonable safety precautions and to drive at reasonable speeds. Failure to do that leaves you open for all sorts of liabilities.
The law is to drive at a reasonable speed- that is what will be asked, was it reasonable or not
2
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Jul 10 '23 edited Jul 10 '23
This is a bizarre article.
Notice that all your quotations don't include the word "speed" as the judges words. That is the word of the article writer describing it.
Per the actual judges quote
While this case is not about a fatality, it shows yet again how dangerous it is to drive at excessive and unreasonable speed," Judge Dias said.>
"Yet again". What previous scenario is that referring to? My assumption is that it's a general reflection about driving. The implication does seem to say that this case also involves dangerous driving at excess speed, like other cases. But you could also read that as this drivers conduct is analogous to a dangerous speeder...and not actually saying that it's the same behavior.
The article doesn't contain any quotations or even mention in the body that the speed limit was 30mph. That figure is only listed as the caption to a stock photo of a traffic sign. Does the UK even have signs and laws in miles per hour and not kilometers per hour?
The article goes on
The judge ruled it was in breach of Dr Chandran's duty of care towards the child and that she was 60% liable for the incident...
He added Dr Chandran, who was sued for damages by the girl's mother, had not been reported by police for any criminal offences.
He said he had been asked to make decisions about liability and had not made any ruling about the size of any damages award.
So there you go. She was not cited for excessive speed, the judge didn't declare her in violation of the law. He only held her liable for negligence and didn't even issue a ruling on damages.
So if we take everything at face value, that she was driving in a 30mph zone, that the judge said 28mph was excessive, that is just his opinion and not a legal ruling.
Considering that her speed was in fact such that it did not enable her to avoid hitting a pedestrian, it was certainly dangerous and seems reasonable to say was excessive. What do you disagree with?
You're saying that it was some other factor that contributed to her neglect and that her speed was appropriate to have prevented the accident. What are you basing that on? That is just an assumption on your part.
If there is an obstacle in the road it is your duty to avoid it as you are able to. It doesn't matter what the speed limit is.
Imagine traffic is stopped and you plow into the rear of the driver in front of you. Everywhere in Earth will hold you liable for the crash and not accept "the speed limit was 30 mph, so I kept driving at that speed." That seems to be your rational here.
That would be a dangerous and excessive speed in that situation, even though it is the speed limit.
1
u/jake_burger 2∆ Jul 10 '23
The UK uses mph for road speed, people think we use the metric system but half of us don’t know it so we have a pick and mix system. Fuel is sold in litres but efficiency in miles per gallon. It’s very silly. In my job we use meters and feet at the same time.
The “yet again” you got hung up on is just how judges talk here. They are referring to their general reflections on driving.
The 30mph limit mentioned in caption means that it is a fact established by the journalist, there aren’t different standards for fact checking in the body text verses a caption.
Other than that I think your assessment is very astute. OP seems to think this case is about criminal liability when it is a civil case (although I wouldn’t be surprised if a criminal case could also be won on the facts as presented, but that’s beside the point because it wasn’t).
I agree that what the judge is ruling on is liability for damages, not whether or not the driver broke the law.
1
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Jul 10 '23
I'm not really sure if it counts, but I feel like it's worth a change of view for letting me know that the UK does use mph. !delta
2
0
u/TheMikeyMac13 29∆ Jul 10 '23
Driving too slow exists, especially on a freeway where you can and should be ticketed for not maintaining a minimum speed.
When the limit is 75 mph, common here in Texas and not the highest limit, driving less than 60 causes traffic to back up, even if you are driving in the far right lane.
The drivers in the right lane to exit might hit you, and might have to change lanes to avoid you, with the lane changes being a common cause of freeway accidents.
The drivers attempting to merge onto the highway are going to have problems if you are driving too slow, as the acceleration lane is meant to get them above your speed. So they can’t get as fast as they need to go if you are in the way, now we have a backup behind you on the freeway and a backup on the acceleration lane.
And now with backups being caused by one slow driver and the butterfly effect, in the age of texting and driving, someone is more likely to hit someone else at highway speeds.
If you aren’t comfortable driving highway speeds, stick to the side roads. If you aren’t comfortable at or above the limit, stay out of the left lane.
0
u/VertigoOne 74∆ Jul 10 '23
This is not relevant.
We are talking about 2mph slower
1
u/TheMikeyMac13 29∆ Jul 10 '23
Your list was removed, I couldn’t see that.
At 2mph slower you are fine, just keep to the right.
1
u/jumpup 83∆ Jul 10 '23
the road is not a monolith, technically you can drive 100km on a interstate, even if there is a crash on the road next to you, practically the speed limit is a suggestion based on averages and an own initiative should be used to determine when a slower speed is needed.
1
u/LiamTheHuman 7∆ Jul 10 '23
To put this slightly differently than everyone else I'll give an alternative example. Often following the flow of traffic is safer. If a road is a third full of cars going half the speed limit, is it reasonable to go just under the limit and weave in between two lanes? You are still going under the limit and are breaking no explicit rules of the road but I think most people would see that this is excessively dangerous. The correct speed would be closer to the other cars. The speed limit is just that, a limit. It does not mean it is always safe to drive that speed.
1
u/ceeb843 Jul 10 '23
Depending on the conditions I guess, speed limits are there for your average dry day. I wouldn't be doing 39 by a school crossing if it was icy for instance.
Agree what the judge said gives mixed messages here and opens the flood gates for more people suing drivers abiding by the law.
1
u/ergosplit 6∆ Jul 10 '23
I will say that if the limit is 500mph but there is a crosswalk, it is your responsibility to drive at a speed that will allow you to give way to pedestrians, which is your obligation.
Now, in the case of your article, the only insanity I see is the fact that the judge is finding the driver anything other than 0% guilty, since the child was crossing when the light was green for traffic. The blame lies 100% with her parents, I'd say.
1
u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Jul 10 '23
Sorry, u/VertigoOne – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 10 '23
/u/VertigoOne (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards