Community sentence for speeding driver who killed cyclist

Tom_77 wrote:

This is the approach to the junction. I don't think anyone is suggesting doing 20mph, but if you're driving at the speed limit then backing off 10-20% would be sensible.

For one thing green means you can proceed IF it is safe to do so, going through a junction at the LIMIT (which isn't a target) never mind at a ridiculous speed for the conditions (night time narrow rural road) without taking into account anything else whatsoever is dangerous and reckless.

Going through the lights at even 45mph would have given him sufficient time IF he was actually looking to see the cyclist by way of his headlights (no reflective garment required) and avoid a collision. 

Nope, this killer like most others simply drive at excessive speeds with zero leaway whatsoever that is in contravention to the law. The judge and even CPS either don't understand what has actually happened and aren't interested in what is just with reagrds to who should have the massively greater responsibility for not killing people or they don't give a tinkers cuss, probably mostly the former and certainly a bit of the latter.

burtthebike wrote:

I was initially outraged by the apparently lenient sentence, since there appear to be few mitigating circumstances, but then I realised that the lights were green for the driver, and were probably red for the cyclist, and this from the web report "Antiques dealer Gary Dowell, 52, had no lights on his mountain bike and was wearing dark clothing in the 50mph limit area as he rode home from a pub dominoes match in the village of Upton."

Which kind of puts things in perspective.  Yes the driver was speeding, and that was a contributing factor, but there were other factors which contributed more which weren't his responsibility.

Accident just before 10pm, dusk on that date, 22:18.   Lights are not a requirement until dusk. Smart, yet, but not a legal requirement.
Dark clothing probably didn't help, but tearing towards a set of traffic lights at a junction with potentially crossing traffic at 63mph is ludicrous. On approaching traffic lights you should be driving in a manner that you can stop, and react to potential hazards.
Had it been dark, lights and clothing would be a fair argument, however it was still before dusk.

StuInNorway wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

I was initially outraged by the apparently lenient sentence, since there appear to be few mitigating circumstances, but then I realised that the lights were green for the driver, and were probably red for the cyclist, and this from the web report "Antiques dealer Gary Dowell, 52, had no lights on his mountain bike and was wearing dark clothing in the 50mph limit area as he rode home from a pub dominoes match in the village of Upton."

Which kind of puts things in perspective.  Yes the driver was speeding, and that was a contributing factor, but there were other factors which contributed more which weren't his responsibility.

Accident just before 10pm, dusk on that date, 22:18.   Lights are not a requirement until dusk. Smart, yet, but not a legal requirement.
Dark clothing probably didn't help, but tearing towards a set of traffic lights at a junction with potentially crossing traffic at 63mph is ludicrous. On approaching traffic lights you should be driving in a manner that you can stop, and react to potential hazards.
Had it been dark, lights and clothing would be a fair argument, however it was still before dusk.

Where'd you get dusk at 22.18 from?

Google tells me that sunset in Nottingham on May 15 is at 20.57.
It would have been pitch black after 10pm.

burtthebike wrote:

I was initially outraged by the apparently lenient sentence, since there appear to be few mitigating circumstances, but then I realised that the lights were green for the driver, and were probably red for the cyclist, and this from the web report "Antiques dealer Gary Dowell, 52, had no lights on his mountain bike and was wearing dark clothing in the 50mph limit area as he rode home from a pub dominoes match in the village of Upton."

Which kind of puts things in perspective.  Yes the driver was speeding, and that was a contributing factor, but there were other factors which contributed more which weren't his responsibility.

Your comment highlights absolutely everything that is wrong with the way things are.

When a person such as yourself who is a committed cyclist wanting equity for people on bikes and is a stout opposer of helmet legislation/victim blaming, can't see the obvious flaw in what they are saying and from that appears to be indoctrinated by the system (that is fooking us over) from birth then we are pretty much lost!

Without the speeding, dangerous reckless motorist the poor sod gets home safely, and would get home safely 1 million times out of a million. The action of the motorist is not careless, that's patently bullkcarp. Rule 126 of the HC, drive at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. That's for a start off.

If I'm driving at night/fog/rain whatever, I'm aware of what's going on around me such that I can prevent the hazard I present to others (the thinking on hazard perception is all wrong!) from becoming an incident that harms others. Isn't that what a careful and competent driver does ALL THE TIME??

The whole point of not driving at excessive speed (at or just under the speed limit can easily be excessive in many situations) is that you have time in hand for seeing and thinking, such that you don't crash into stuff and that you do not harm other persons who are going about their business. It's only the ridiculously slanted 'rules' that are in place that say it's partly the fault of the dead person they are dead and that the killer gets a slap on the wrist!

The justice system is just so far away from applying 'justice' due to the motorisation of the planet and in the inequity of the system that places far too much onus on vulnerable people to not get killed/harmed and nowhere near enough on those doing the harm by their actions.

'Sorry that your loved one got raped and killed, if only they hadn't walked on the wrong street at the wrong time of night & on their own particularly in that attire which just said 'asking for it', said no decent human being in a civilised society ever. But this essentially happens in the world with regards to vulnerable persons on the highway all the time, vulnerable only because we allow swathes of people into machines that they cannot or do not want to control correctly with barely any consideration for the harm they can do (often because they are cocooned) and have free reign to go where they like, when they like and at times at what velocity they like without fear of penalty, there's virtually no jeopardy to driving dangerously, the sentence and indeed your words pretty much tell me this is true.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

I was initially outraged by the apparently lenient sentence, since there appear to be few mitigating circumstances, but then I realised that the lights were green for the driver, and were probably red for the cyclist, and this from the web report "Antiques dealer Gary Dowell, 52, had no lights on his mountain bike and was wearing dark clothing in the 50mph limit area as he rode home from a pub dominoes match in the village of Upton."

Which kind of puts things in perspective.  Yes the driver was speeding, and that was a contributing factor, but there were other factors which contributed more which weren't his responsibility.

Your comment highlights absolutely everything that is wrong with the way things are.

When a person such as yourself who is a committed cyclist wanting equity for people on bikes and is a stout opposer of helmet legislation/victim blaming, can't see the obvious flaw in what they are saying and from that appears to be indoctrinated by the system (that is fooking us over) from birth then we are pretty much lost!

Without the speeding, dangerous reckless motorist the poor sod gets home safely, and would get home safely 1 million times out of a million. The action of the motorist is not careless, that's patently bullkcarp. Rule 126 of the HC, drive at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. That's for a start off.

If I'm driving at night/fog/rain whatever, I'm aware of what's going on around me such that I can prevent the hazard I present to others (the thinking on hazard perception is all wrong!) from becoming an incident that harms others. Isn't that what a careful and competent driver does ALL THE TIME??

The whole point of not driving at excessive speed (at or just under the speed limit can easily be excessive in many situations) is that you have time in hand for seeing and thinking, such that you don't crash into stuff and that you do not harm other persons who are going about their business. It's only the ridiculously slanted 'rules' that are in place that say it's partly the fault of the dead person they are dead and that the killer gets a slap on the wrist!

The justice system is just so far away from applying 'justice' due to the motorisation of the planet and in the inequity of the system that places far too much onus on vulnerable people to not get killed/harmed and nowhere near enough on those doing the harm by their actions.

'Sorry that your loved one got raped and killed, if only they hadn't walked on the wrong street at the wrong time of night & on their own particularly in that attire which just said 'asking for it', said no decent human being in a civilised society ever. But this essentially happens in the world with regards to vulnerable persons on the highway all the time, vulnerable only because we allow swathes of people into machines that they cannot or do not want to control correctly with barely any consideration for the harm they can do (often because they are cocooned) and have free reign to go where they like, when they like and at times at what velocity they like without fear of penalty, there's virtually no jeopardy to driving dangerously, the sentence and indeed your words pretty much tell me this is true.

Totally agree.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

I was initially outraged by the apparently lenient sentence, since there appear to be few mitigating circumstances, but then I realised that the lights were green for the driver, and were probably red for the cyclist, and this from the web report "Antiques dealer Gary Dowell, 52, had no lights on his mountain bike and was wearing dark clothing in the 50mph limit area as he rode home from a pub dominoes match in the village of Upton."

Which kind of puts things in perspective.  Yes the driver was speeding, and that was a contributing factor, but there were other factors which contributed more which weren't his responsibility.

Your comment highlights absolutely everything that is wrong with the way things are.

When a person such as yourself who is a committed cyclist wanting equity for people on bikes and is a stout opposer of helmet legislation/victim blaming, can't see the obvious flaw in what they are saying and from that appears to be indoctrinated by the system (that is fooking us over) from birth then we are pretty much lost!

Without the speeding, dangerous reckless motorist the poor sod gets home safely, and would get home safely 1 million times out of a million. The action of the motorist is not careless, that's patently bullkcarp. Rule 126 of the HC, drive at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. That's for a start off.

If I'm driving at night/fog/rain whatever, I'm aware of what's going on around me such that I can prevent the hazard I present to others (the thinking on hazard perception is all wrong!) from becoming an incident that harms others. Isn't that what a careful and competent driver does ALL THE TIME??

The whole point of not driving at excessive speed (at or just under the speed limit can easily be excessive in many situations) is that you have time in hand for seeing and thinking, such that you don't crash into stuff and that you do not harm other persons who are going about their business. It's only the ridiculously slanted 'rules' that are in place that say it's partly the fault of the dead person they are dead and that the killer gets a slap on the wrist!

The justice system is just so far away from applying 'justice' due to the motorisation of the planet and in the inequity of the system that places far too much onus on vulnerable people to not get killed/harmed and nowhere near enough on those doing the harm by their actions.

'Sorry that your loved one got raped and killed, if only they hadn't walked on the wrong street at the wrong time of night & on their own particularly in that attire which just said 'asking for it', said no decent human being in a civilised society ever. But this essentially happens in the world with regards to vulnerable persons on the highway all the time, vulnerable only because we allow swathes of people into machines that they cannot or do not want to control correctly with barely any consideration for the harm they can do (often because they are cocooned) and have free reign to go where they like, when they like and at times at what velocity they like without fear of penalty, there's virtually no jeopardy to driving dangerously, the sentence and indeed your words pretty much tell me this is true.

Sorry, I've read your essay twice and I still can't discern the point you think you are making.  Would it be too much trouble to sum it up in a coherent sentence or two?

burtthebike wrote:

Sorry, I've read your essay twice and I still can't discern the point you think you are making.  Would it be too much trouble to sum it up in a coherent sentence or two?

I think CyclingInBeastMode is saying you are excusing the driver, when due to the points in his excellent and succinct 'essay' there is no excuse.

visionset wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Sorry, I've read your essay twice and I still can't discern the point you think you are making.  Would it be too much trouble to sum it up in a coherent sentence or two?

 

I think CyclingInBeastMode is saying you are excusing the driver, when due to the points in his excellent and succinct 'essay' there is no excuse.

I agree with CIBM, but I did have to think about it (and not sure I'd call him succinct). These cases are always affected by the context of what happens in other cases, and what is considered 'normal' motorist behaviour. This guy was speeding excessively even by the lenient standards of motorists-in-general and the police.

Both parties broke the rules/law, but the price paid by each are decidedly unequal.

As long as speeding like that is tolerated and regarded as acceptable by many (until someone dies), are outcomes like these entirely the fault of the speeder (rather than all those who tolerate it)?

burtthebike wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

I was initially outraged by the apparently lenient sentence, since there appear to be few mitigating circumstances, but then I realised that the lights were green for the driver, and were probably red for the cyclist, and this from the web report "Antiques dealer Gary Dowell, 52, had no lights on his mountain bike and was wearing dark clothing in the 50mph limit area as he rode home from a pub dominoes match in the village of Upton."

Which kind of puts things in perspective.  Yes the driver was speeding, and that was a contributing factor, but there were other factors which contributed more which weren't his responsibility.

Your comment highlights absolutely everything that is wrong with the way things are.

When a person such as yourself who is a committed cyclist wanting equity for people on bikes and is a stout opposer of helmet legislation/victim blaming, can't see the obvious flaw in what they are saying and from that appears to be indoctrinated by the system (that is fooking us over) from birth then we are pretty much lost!

Without the speeding, dangerous reckless motorist the poor sod gets home safely, and would get home safely 1 million times out of a million. The action of the motorist is not careless, that's patently bullkcarp. Rule 126 of the HC, drive at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. That's for a start off.

If I'm driving at night/fog/rain whatever, I'm aware of what's going on around me such that I can prevent the hazard I present to others (the thinking on hazard perception is all wrong!) from becoming an incident that harms others. Isn't that what a careful and competent driver does ALL THE TIME??

The whole point of not driving at excessive speed (at or just under the speed limit can easily be excessive in many situations) is that you have time in hand for seeing and thinking, such that you don't crash into stuff and that you do not harm other persons who are going about their business. It's only the ridiculously slanted 'rules' that are in place that say it's partly the fault of the dead person they are dead and that the killer gets a slap on the wrist!

The justice system is just so far away from applying 'justice' due to the motorisation of the planet and in the inequity of the system that places far too much onus on vulnerable people to not get killed/harmed and nowhere near enough on those doing the harm by their actions.

'Sorry that your loved one got raped and killed, if only they hadn't walked on the wrong street at the wrong time of night & on their own particularly in that attire which just said 'asking for it', said no decent human being in a civilised society ever. But this essentially happens in the world with regards to vulnerable persons on the highway all the time, vulnerable only because we allow swathes of people into machines that they cannot or do not want to control correctly with barely any consideration for the harm they can do (often because they are cocooned) and have free reign to go where they like, when they like and at times at what velocity they like without fear of penalty, there's virtually no jeopardy to driving dangerously, the sentence and indeed your words pretty much tell me this is true.

Sorry, I've read your essay twice and I still can't discern the point you think you are making.  Would it be too much trouble to sum it up in a coherent sentence or two?

You're offended because I've criticised you , which actually is a very mild criticism as I simply used you/your comment as an example of the baseline of thinking of the vast majority in this case including the CPS, judge and jurists, that the vulernable party was in part at fault to offset the drivers actions.

I explained in depth so that it was clear as to why I thought your comment and the thinking of others is flawed. Have another read, don't take it as me bashing because I know you write a lot of good stuff with regards to people on bikes but in my opinion I think you are off the mark.

There's no need to use insulting language like that simply because you're offended.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

Your comment highlights absolutely everything that is wrong with the way things are.

......

'Sorry that your loved one got raped and killed, if only they hadn't walked on the wrong street at the wrong time of night & on their own particularly in that attire which just said 'asking for it', said no decent human being in a civilised society ever. But this essentially happens in the world with regards to vulnerable persons on the highway all the time, vulnerable only because we allow swathes of people into machines that they cannot or do not want to control correctly with barely any consideration for the harm they can do (often because they are cocooned) and have free reign to go where they like, when they like and at times at what velocity they like without fear of penalty, there's virtually no jeopardy to driving dangerously, the sentence and indeed your words pretty much tell me this is true.

I think the comparison with rape and killed doesn't really fit because the rider did break some important rules with regard to lighting. We also don't know if they ignored the red light or misjudged oncoming traffic.

That driver are given far to much leeway and not properly held to account is shown in the many stories on this site.

hirsute wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

Your comment highlights absolutely everything that is wrong with the way things are.

......

'Sorry that your loved one got raped and killed, if only they hadn't walked on the wrong street at the wrong time of night & on their own particularly in that attire which just said 'asking for it', said no decent human being in a civilised society ever. But this essentially happens in the world with regards to vulnerable persons on the highway all the time, vulnerable only because we allow swathes of people into machines that they cannot or do not want to control correctly with barely any consideration for the harm they can do (often because they are cocooned) and have free reign to go where they like, when they like and at times at what velocity they like without fear of penalty, there's virtually no jeopardy to driving dangerously, the sentence and indeed your words pretty much tell me this is true.

I think the comparison with rape and killed doesn't really fit because the rider did break some important rules with regard to lighting. We also don't know if they ignored the red light or misjudged oncoming traffic. That driver are given far to much leeway and not properly held to account is shown in the many stories on this site.

"Important rules", that's the rub though isn't it, rules put in place by motorists so that they and others of their kind don't have to take as great care when going about in their conveyances and the onus for safety is shifted away from them onto the vulnerable.

Look how well it has served the safety of people on bikes as a whole by having to arm oneself and change behaviour, wear garments and so on. Even with lights, special garments and often evading action if you are even able to, even when the killer has clear sight of you for a long time/distance the system still finds a way to tuck us up and mitigate. The police are complicit with this and yet it's not employed in any other aspect of society where the imbalance is so far apart when it comes to not harming human beings.

If we had equity we wouldn't need rear lights, we wouldn't need to be 100% error free without the fear of being killed, not ever!

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

hirsute wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

Your comment highlights absolutely everything that is wrong with the way things are.

......

'Sorry that your loved one got raped and killed, if only they hadn't walked on the wrong street at the wrong time of night & on their own particularly in that attire which just said 'asking for it', said no decent human being in a civilised society ever. But this essentially happens in the world with regards to vulnerable persons on the highway all the time, vulnerable only because we allow swathes of people into machines that they cannot or do not want to control correctly with barely any consideration for the harm they can do (often because they are cocooned) and have free reign to go where they like, when they like and at times at what velocity they like without fear of penalty, there's virtually no jeopardy to driving dangerously, the sentence and indeed your words pretty much tell me this is true.

I think the comparison with rape and killed doesn't really fit because the rider did break some important rules with regard to lighting. We also don't know if they ignored the red light or misjudged oncoming traffic. That driver are given far to much leeway and not properly held to account is shown in the many stories on this site.

"Important rules", that's the rub though isn't it, rules put in place by motorists so that they and others of their kind don't have to take as great care when going about in their conveyances and the onus for safety is shifted away from them onto the vulnerable.

Look how well it has served the safety of people on bikes as a whole by having to arm oneself and change behaviour, wear garments and so on. Even with lights, special garments and often evading action if you are even able to, even when the killer has clear sight of you for a long time/distance the system still finds a way to tuck us up and mitigate. The police are complicit with this and yet it's not employed in any other aspect of society where the imbalance is so far apart when it comes to not harming human beings.

If we had equity we wouldn't need rear lights, we wouldn't need to be 100% error free without the fear of being killed, not ever!

I get your point in general but accidents will happen, because by human nature no one is perfect, and being a as exposed as a cyclist is such accidents will always have greater risks.

And the point about lights is pertinant, because the onus of lights after dusk isn't just on bikes but or cars to - as you mentioned the car should have been able to see the cyclist in the headlights - lights are required to help make things easier to see in poor visibility conditions, it would be equally irresponsible for the cyclist not sporting lights to mow down a pedestrian who couldn't see them because of the lack of light. The responsibility here is not some slight on a particular type of road user but all road users.

The point is both made mistakes, the cyclist should have had lights in dark conditions and shouldn't have ignored a red light and the driver should have been driving at an appropriate speed - it was the combination of both of these that led to the incident.

The cyclist paid the bigger price, but being a vunerable road user arguably took the bigger risk, but by contrast the driver posed a bigger risk to others and so has a greater onus of responsibility - I think this is something that has potentially be reflected in the comments surrounding the case but maybe not the final punishment.

The greater responsibility a motorist bares because of their actions have the potential to cause more harm is often ignored and a problem, and I think it is right that we hold drivers to a higher standard because of this, but we can't ignore the fact that there were mistakes on both sides, unfortunately because both made mistakes in this case the punishment didn't fit the crime in the case of the cyclist.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

hirsute wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

Your comment highlights absolutely everything that is wrong with the way things are.

......

'Sorry that your loved one got raped and killed, if only they hadn't walked on the wrong street at the wrong time of night & on their own particularly in that attire which just said 'asking for it', said no decent human being in a civilised society ever. But this essentially happens in the world with regards to vulnerable persons on the highway all the time, vulnerable only because we allow swathes of people into machines that they cannot or do not want to control correctly with barely any consideration for the harm they can do (often because they are cocooned) and have free reign to go where they like, when they like and at times at what velocity they like without fear of penalty, there's virtually no jeopardy to driving dangerously, the sentence and indeed your words pretty much tell me this is true.

I think the comparison with rape and killed doesn't really fit because the rider did break some important rules with regard to lighting. We also don't know if they ignored the red light or misjudged oncoming traffic. That driver are given far to much leeway and not properly held to account is shown in the many stories on this site.

"Important rules", that's the rub though isn't it, rules put in place by motorists so that they and others of their kind don't have to take as great care when going about in their conveyances and the onus for safety is shifted away from them onto the vulnerable.

Look how well it has served the safety of people on bikes as a whole by having to arm oneself and change behaviour, wear garments and so on. Even with lights, special garments and often evading action if you are even able to, even when the killer has clear sight of you for a long time/distance the system still finds a way to tuck us up and mitigate. The police are complicit with this and yet it's not employed in any other aspect of society where the imbalance is so far apart when it comes to not harming human beings.

If we had equity we wouldn't need rear lights, we wouldn't need to be 100% error free without the fear of being killed, not ever!

...

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-wedge/

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

hirsute wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

Your comment highlights absolutely everything that is wrong with the way things are.

......

'Sorry that your loved one got raped and killed, if only they hadn't walked on the wrong street at the wrong time of night & on their own particularly in that attire which just said 'asking for it', said no decent human being in a civilised society ever. But this essentially happens in the world with regards to vulnerable persons on the highway all the time, vulnerable only because we allow swathes of people into machines that they cannot or do not want to control correctly with barely any consideration for the harm they can do (often because they are cocooned) and have free reign to go where they like, when they like and at times at what velocity they like without fear of penalty, there's virtually no jeopardy to driving dangerously, the sentence and indeed your words pretty much tell me this is true.

I think the comparison with rape and killed doesn't really fit because the rider did break some important rules with regard to lighting. We also don't know if they ignored the red light or misjudged oncoming traffic. That driver are given far to much leeway and not properly held to account is shown in the many stories on this site.

"Important rules", that's the rub though isn't it, rules put in place by motorists so that they and others of their kind don't have to take as great care when going about in their conveyances and the onus for safety is shifted away from them onto the vulnerable.

Look how well it has served the safety of people on bikes as a whole by having to arm oneself and change behaviour, wear garments and so on. Even with lights, special garments and often evading action if you are even able to, even when the killer has clear sight of you for a long time/distance the system still finds a way to tuck us up and mitigate. The police are complicit with this and yet it's not employed in any other aspect of society where the imbalance is so far apart when it comes to not harming human beings.

If we had equity we wouldn't need rear lights, we wouldn't need to be 100% error free without the fear of being killed, not ever!

I don't see anything motoristcentric about having and following road signs and signals. Seems rather important to give way, stop, give way at a zebra crossing and obey traffic lights.

Lights on bikes are required at nights. I can think of side roads and different elevations being scenearios where lights are very useful. I like to know if there is  cyclist further up a hill, it gives me time to plan: whether on 2 wheels or 4.

hirsute wrote:

I don't see anything motoristcentric about having and following road signs and signals. Seems rather important to give way, stop, give way at a zebra crossing and obey traffic lights.

Lights on bikes are required at nights. I can think of side roads and different elevations being scenearios where lights are very useful. I like to know if there is  cyclist further up a hill, it gives me time to plan: whether on 2 wheels or 4.

I agree, the cyclist in this case absolutely got it wrong. I don't go as far as CIBM - obeying traffic lights is not an unfair requirement, even if cars didn't exist it would still be a justifiable rule. Having lights after dark probably would be as well.

At the same time, though the cyclist screwed-up, it remains a fact that the motorist had the greater responsibility (because they bought the kinetic energy and hence the danger - two rule-breaking cyclists would likely not have led to such a tragic outcome), but suffered by far the lesser penalty (because the law is an ass).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

At the same time, though the cyclist screwed-up, it remains a fact that the motorist had the greater responsibility (because they bought the kinetic energy and hence the danger - two rule-breaking cyclists would likely not have led to such a tragic outcome), but suffered by far the lesser penalty (because the law is an ass).

Sure but as we know from nmtd and news items over time, the greater responsibility often does not seem to match the sentence given to the driver.

hirsute wrote:

Are we to deduce the cyclist ran a red light or were they trying a right turn across oncoming traffic ?

I read that as he was turning right across the traffic, and would probably have had time to do so had they now been speeding, and in fact as they are approaching traffic lights should probably have been dropping their cruising speed anyway "in case" they change as you approach.