Horrendousness in Italy

Absolutely tragic.

You just cant legislate for human stupidity though. No amount of rules and speed limits would have stopped this driver, with a clear disregard for anyone but himself, getting behind the wheel and causing this carnage.

Had he been driving a lightweight, composite crumple zoned eco box limited to 30 mph he could have possibly still killed one of these cyclist, and any death is a tragedy.

You need to eradicate stupid people, which unfortunately is never going to happen.

it gets worse...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-11924046

something needs to be done and sharpish, careless driving taking lives left, right and centre...soon it will be commint a murder, bung a bike under them and you'll get off...21st century and we seem to heading backwards in terms of understanding and compassion when it comes to certain aspects of our culture.

Bloody hell... what a weekend. RIP.
Tragic and shocking....

1. Because some places do not have speed limits - Autobahns, for example
   
   

I've pointed out before that currently only about a quarter of German motorways have no speed limits:

http://www.lfgss.com/post1404509.html

You're not wrong to say that 'some places do not have speed limits', but it would be more correct to say that 'some places do not have mandatory speed limits, while all have advisory speed limits.

This is important, as the alleged absence of speed limits is a somewhat talismanic factor in myths about motoring.

But, as you say, this shouldn't detract from the driver's shocking lack of fitness to drive and his callous disregard for his and others' safety.

A bad weekend indeed.

RIP

my thoughts are with all of your families.

1. Because some places do not have speed limits - Autobahns, for example, and cars are sold worldwide. Some roads have different speed limits to other roads.

2. It's an irrelevant question in this case because an abitrary limit would not necessarily have saved these cyclists lives. He could have ploughed into them at 30, 40,50, 60, 70 or 80, whatever the limit was, and there is every chance he could still have killed them.

The fact he was speeding is less relevant than the fact that he was banned for dangerous driving and had no business being behind the wheel.

To paraphrase somebody, most road deaths do not involve exceeding the speed limit.

Most road fatalities have speeding as a factor. It is quite wrong to say speed was not a factor, faster speeds make accidents are more likely and increase the severity of injuries.

To put it in perspective, if a cyclist is struck by a car doing 30mph or less, 8 out of 10 of them will survive.

If the car is doing over 30mph, 9 out of 10 will die.

Even that shocking statistic is not the main issue, faster speeds bully and intimidate vulnerable road users. There doesn't have to be a death for speeding to be anti-social and aggressive and selfish behaviour.

The main issue in this horrible event isn't the man's nationality, the fact he had smoked a joint or that he was banned.It was his speed.

Apparently the ambulance crew knew many of the victims, making it even worse for them.

The main issue in this horrible event isn't the man's nationality, the fact he had smoked a joint or that he was banned.It was his speed.

I disagree with your post. Yes, speed was a secondary factor, but if he had been on the correct side of the road there wouldn't have been a collision, whether he was going 20 or 200km/h.

Renato di Rocco, president of the Italian cycling federation, Federciclismo, said that it was necessary to reflect on a culture that put the car at the centre of everything and the bike in second place, while Paolo Bettini, former World Road Champion and coach of the national cycling team, pointed out that Italy lacked cycle paths and the highway code did not safeguard cyclists.

That absence of cycling infrastructure is also something that was seized upon by the daily sports newspaper La Gazzetta dello Sport, which points out in today’s print edition that Italy, for all its sporting success on two wheels, lags behind Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and even Great Britain when it comes to participation in cycling.

In suggesting how to address that problem, however, rather than make the roads safer by addressing poor driving habits, the newspaper instead suggests introducing cycle training for children at schools, and promoting greater use of cycle helmets.

http://road.cc/content/news/28156-italy-comes-terms-yesterdays-tragedy-claimed-seven-cyclists-lives
While those issues do have their place in the safety debate, and providing cycle training to schoolchildren may hopefully lead to a future generation of drivers who are more cycle-aware, they would have been of little use yesterday, nor do they address the immediate issue of the vulnerability of cyclists on the road.
Meanwhile, it emerged that three cyclists had earlier broken off from the group subsequently involved in the tragedy to return home as a result of light rain, although the weather is not being put forward by police as a factor in the incident.
One of the trio, Salvatore Mancuso, recounted how he was already at home when “one of my friends called my wife, saying ‘I don’t know how to tell you, but there’s been an accident.’ I was in the shower, but I realised what had happened.”
Initially, there was confusion over how many cyclists were killed in yesterday’s incident, with some media outlets – including ourselves – reporting that eight had lost their lives.
However, it has now been confirmed that seven were killed, their names and ages confirmed as Fortunato Bernardi (58), Giovanni Cannizzaro (58), Pasquale De Luca (35), Domenico Palazzo (45), Rosario Perri (55), Vinicio Pottin (47) and Francesco Stranges (51). Another cyclist, Domenico Stranges, was said to be in very serious condition.
The driver, 21-year-old Moroccan immigrant Chafik Elketani, was slightly injured in the crash, as was his eight-year-old nephew who was travelling in the car with him when it hit the group of cyclists head-on after overtaking another vehicle at speed, putting it on the wrong side of the road.
Police confirmed after the incident that Elketani had tested positive for havingf smoked marijuana, and that he had also had his driven licence taken away from him seven months ago.
Italy’s under-secretary for policy against drugs, Carlo Giovanardi, said yesterday; “Enough now with imbeciles who talk of the difference between soft and hard drugs.”
“After this massacre, the laws against causing death through driving needs to be rewritten,” added Sandro Mazzatorta, head of the Lega party’s group on the senate’s justice commission, quoted, like Giovanardi, in the Gazzetta dello Sport.

http://road.cc/content/news/28156-italy-comes-terms-yesterdays-tragedy-claimed-seven-cyclists-lives

I disagree with your post. Yes, speed was a secondary factor, but if he had been on the correct side of the road there wouldn't have been a collision, whether he was going 20 or 200km/h.

If he was going at 20 it is unlikely there would have been any deaths, as I explained upthread.

It is a fact borne out by every study into the matter that lower speeds = fewer accidents and fewer deaths.

But as I said, counting the deaths is not the bottom line, although speeding drivers kill a thousand people a year.

Speeding is virtually never a victim-less crime. It terrifies the elderly, it carves up communities, it threatens vulnerable road users and it pisses me off when I'm passed by drivers going way too fast for the conditions, especially when I catch them at the next lights.

Horrific
Such a senseless loss.
RIP

Very unfortunate.

Im surprised it doesnt happen mroe often though. It seems standard practice to overtake on the wrong side around blind corners over there.

over there?? try right here in London. The amount of overtaking around blind curves I see here is absolutely horrifying.

The photos in The Mail are horrible, they shouldn't show them, IMO.

it's ok to show dead bodies in the Mail, so long as they're immigrants.

Speeding was a factor in 17% of road fatalities in 2009, same percentage as booze.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2009

I'm not saying everyone should be driving like a bat out of hell all the time, but the constant focus on reducing speed muddles the issue, and takes away from the other 83% of fatalities where speed wasn't a casual factor.
It also gives rise to careless driving in other ways, as people are conditioned to believe if they are driving under the speed limit they are driving safely, rather than looking around, thinking, and driving as the conditions dictate.
I think it gets back to increased driver skills and responsibility, not hammering home convenient slogans relating to one single part of the many things to be aware of when driving a vehicle on the roads.

Why is the driver's nationality mentioned at all at this point? Perhaps if, at some point, there is a story about different standards of driving in different countries then I can see how it would be relevant but immediately after the collision?
I think the pictures are horribly distressing but, since they don't show the victims bodies, just the sheets over them (which somehow makes it all the more upsetting) I feel that they really make a powerful point.

Speeding was a factor in 17% of road fatalities in 2009, same percentage as booze.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2009

.

But reducing speed is something every driver can do, with immediate effect, and with no extra training and at no cost to themselves or to the country.
And since this caring-sharing government has decided to allow councils to get rid of their speed cameras we will after a while be able to see if they worked or not.

Why is the driver's nationality mentioned at all at this point? Perhaps if, at some point, there is a story about different standards of driving in different countries then I can see how it would be relevant but immediately after the collision?
I think the pictures are horribly distressing but, since they don't show the victims bodies, just the sheets over them (which somehow makes it all the more upsetting) I feel that they really make a powerful point.

Because Moroccans drive like maniacs.

(not a racist)

Speeding was a factor in 17% of road fatalities in 2009, same percentage as booze.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2009

.

You can find selective reports that minimise the impact of speeding. It's a robust rule that speeding, either above the limit or inappropriate for the conditions, is a factor in a third of all RTC fatalities. And, once again, deaths from speeding is not the broader picture because many people not killed by speeding drivers are nonetheless negatively impacted by people using public roads as private racetracks.

Marijuana in the blood is a massive red herring too, he may have had a joint a month ago.

But reducing speed is something every driver can do, with immediate effect, and with no extra training and at no cost to themselves or to the country.
And since this caring-sharing government has decided to allow councils to get rid of their speed cameras we will after a while be able to see if they worked or not.

And reducing speeds would help integrate cyclists more into the traffic stream and perhaps allow drivers to feel they can ride behind a cyclists without feeling that if they don't overtake they have a small willy. that would mean cyclists would be happier to ride where they get seen and so reduce other types of crashes which weren't about speed but about drivers not seeing the riders

To paraphrase somebody, most road deaths do not involve exceeding the speed limit.

Most road fatalities have speeding as a factor. It is quite wrong to say speed was not a factor, faster speeds make accidents are more likely and increase the severity of injuries.

Please read what I actually wrote, rather than what you think I wrote.

@ SkyDancer Useless ovaries too, if we are to include all impatient drivers

I think women are generally more patient as they don't worry about these size comparisons as much

Please read what I actually wrote, rather than what you think I wrote.

I did clarify speeding is exceeding the limit or too fast for the condistions, as in the Rhyl case where the police cocked up the entire investigation from beginning to end and let a killer driver off withb a £180 fine.

You did also claim that the likelihood of death if the driver was doing 30 would have been the same. This is quite wrong.

It is also a myth that speeding is concentrated on above and beyond other errant driver behaviour. The cameras that impose fines for speeding free up trafpol for other duties, so they can catch other criminals, not just speeders.

Forgive me, I get annoyed when the role of speeding in fatal RTCs is somehow mitigated.

Speeding fines are a voluntary tax paid by those too stupid or arrogant to think the law ought to apply to them. They can be avoided as easily as fines for urinating in the street or spraying cocks on walls. Fines for graffiti or whazzing against a wall aren't a "Stealth Tax" and it makes me seethe when speeding fines are described as such.

I did clarify speeding is exceeding the limit or too fast for the condistions, as in the Rhyl case where the police cocked up the entire investigation from beginning to end and let a killer driver off withb a £180 fine.

You did also claim that the likelihood of death if the driver was doing 30 would have been the same. This is quite wrong.

It is also a myth that speeding is concentrated on above and beyond other errant driver behaviour. The cameras that impose fines for speeding free up trafpol for other duties, so they can catch other criminals, not just speeders.

Forgive me, I get annoyed when the role of speeding in fatal RTCs is somehow mitigated.

Speeding fines are a voluntary tax paid by those too stupid or arrogant to think the law ought to apply to them. They can be avoided as easily as fines for urinating in the street or spraying cocks on walls. Fines for graffiti or whazzing against a wall aren't a "Stealth Tax" and it makes me seethe when speeding fines are described as such.

Driving too fast for the conditions is not going to get picked up by a speed camera. Neither is it going to be stopped by a car which cannot exceed the speed limit, as was suggested above. It was in response to this suggestion that I specifically used the phrase "exceeding the speed limit" rather than using excessive speed. Excessive speed can be legal speed. (I would imagine that if you had cars that were incapable of exceeding the limit you would get a great increase in accidents caused by excessive, but legal speed, as people would just stick their foot down and ignore the conditions, in the lazy belief that if it is legal it must be safe. This is the same mentality that causes motorway pile-ups in fog.)

The car was being driven on the wrong side of the road, therefore it hit the cyclists head on - the closing speed, even if the driver had been doing 30, would have been in the region of 40-60mph, depending on the speed of the cyclists. Therefore it is entirely possible that even at 30 he would have killed them.

Incidentally the figures quoted on the "If you hit me at 30" campaign were misleading to the point of being an own goal, as evidenced by this article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8007080/Government-anti-speeding-campaign-exaggerated-risks.html

The Government's high profile Think! campaign told drivers that a pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 30mph had a 20 per cent chance of being killed, while at 40mph there was an 80 per cent chance of death.
However the latest research has shown that the probability of death was now seven per cent at 30mph and 31 per cent at 40mph.
According to the latest research the figures used during the campaign were based on 1970s data, since when car design has changed radically and emergency medical care improved dramatically.

Now I personally think that quoting the accurate figures would have been just as effective in getting the message across - perhaps even more so.

Incidentally the introduction of cameras co-incided with a large reduction in trafpol. This made the roads less safe, as evidenced by the fact that the first time annual casualties went up in years was after the introduction of speed cameras. It also did no good to general crime figures, as most criminals drive to and from the scene of the crime, and it was trafpol who would stop them.

1/

Saying speed cameras don't catch driving too fast for the conditions is not an argument against them, any more than aspirin not curing cancer is an argument against aspirin.

2/

Your own article makes it clear that driving at 40mph rather than 30mph increases the likelihood of death fourfold. The robust rule applies- higher speeds means accidents are more likely and injuries are worse.

3/

Traf pol were moved to street crime after Blair promised a reduction in muggings- mostly kids nicking each others' mobiles. It had nothing to do with speed cameras.

4/

Road deaths increasing after speed cameras being introduced is proof of nothing- mobile phones became a lot more common at the same time and you can't pick-and-choose years to "prove" a link between cameras and accidents without including traffic rates, weather, and any number of external factors. I've never heard the suggestion that speed cameras caused other crime rates to rise!

5/

There has been a concerted campaign against speed cameras in papers like then Telegraph and from strange lobbyists and nutjob green ink brigades (Not you, I hasten to add Bluequinn! Some of the anti-camera bods are very strange indeed). Their claims don't stand up to scrutiny- they are essentially extreme libertarians who view ANY potential curtailment of their insistence on picking and choosing which laws to obey as an outrageous imposition.

Speed cameras have a role to play, the new ANPR cameras will also catch tailgaters and drivers on mobiles.

Bring them on.

And more trafpol, it's not an either/or option.