The fact that you couldn't stop within the distance you could see to be clear means that 50 was NOT a safe speed.
Originally Posted by StephenAmor
Originally Posted by YahooCom
Quite an unfair comment and clearly out of touch with reality.
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
The carcass would have been virtually impossible to see in the dark and hitting it would have been almost inevitable at any speed.
If it was a car etc then you would have more chance to see and react.
Do we drive everywhere at 10mph to satisfy your theory?
It's not a peculiar theory I've invented, it's the advice of the police, Driving Standards Agency, RoSPA, IAM, etc....
Still, what do they know, eh?
What alternative method would you recommend for determining a safe speed?
In any event, the carcass was big enough to damage the car, so hardly "virtually impossible to see".
Last edited by Beelzebub; 09-12-13 at 08:34.
The carcass was big enough to damage the car you say.
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
It caused no damage to the front bumper or bodywork.
There is your first big clue as to how hard it was to see this item.
It was so small and flat to the ground that only the exhaust got bent.
Try not to be to clever using quotes and therorys of motoring organisations when they really do not apply to this incident.
Loony, I think you are being unfair. I drive on lanes reasonably regularly in the dark, and I manage to avoid dead pigeons, rabbits, hedgehogs and foxes whose carcasses have been left lying in the road. The deer was probably a muntjak which are small for deer, but bigger than either than those I mention. The reason I do not wish to run them over is not because of fear of damage, but because I don't want to have to clean the mess off the underside of the car. I do not accept they are 'invisible', but have my own thoughts as to whether the OP was driving faster than he could stop, or see.
I am not saying they are always invisible,just to be clear.
What I am saying is that sometimes,no matter how careful you are,you may not be able to avoid hitting something.
There have been collisions between cars and humans where it had been deemed unavoidable on the drivers part.
So it is unfair to always blame the car driver or make a comment that they were not traveling at a safe speed(as above).
A mate of mine was driving up rural section of the A9 in the early morning, when he saw what he thought was a large stone, or bolder laying in the middle of the road.
He reduced his speed right down, with the intention of driving round it, but just as he got near it,.... it got up and ran right in front of his car?
As it turned out to be a sheep, that had woken up when the head lights (full beam) shone on it, and it had panicked, and ran straight towards the lights?
Point being, he knew the road, had driven it countless times, but only had a second or two to decide what to do, but the result was inevitable, no mater what he did?
A muntjak had the misfortune to run out in front of me some years ago on the A1(M). It would have made it across the road, as there was enough room for me to pass behind it. I think it must have panicked, as it tried to turn and run back where it came from. The only thought I had was that I could not emergency brake due to the convoy of tailgating cars behind, nor could not swerve into the outer lane as I was being passed by a convoy of tailgaters.
It is my suspicion that this thread title is misleading. I suspect that the OP hit and killed a living animal.
Either way, I think he should have stopped immediately to ascertain whether the animal needed urgent veterinary attention.
You need to think very carefully before you post accusations like the above Dennis.
Originally Posted by Dennis W