Safe Speed Forums

What rot, I don't see that anyone has suggested this at all! Quite the opposite, you seem to be suggesting that other road-users shoulder 100% of the responsibility so that no pedestrian has to!

It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other, if everyone on the roads looks out for themselves and others in equal measure then everyone would be fine!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

None so blind and all that...

I have a love/hate thing for you weepej.

You post things with which I whole heartedly agree and then you undo it.

Drivers are 100% culpable?

I don't think you have ever posted something which declares that there's an ounce of responsibility on the pedestrian or the education of them, but I stand to be corrected - or not

Two legs good four legs (wheels) bad?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Er, I didn't say that.



I'm the first person to have a word with a ped that steps out into the road Big Tone. When I'm on my bike, if I see somebody step out into the flow of the road to go around somebody or something on the pavement in front of me without looking (and I see this a lot) I'll generally point out to them that this is how most pedestrians that get struck buy it.

And in no place have I indicated that drivers are 100% culpable automatically, however, if somebody is doing 30mph past parked cars and hits somebody that steps out between them sure both should've known better. However, the person in the fast moving one ton vehicle frankly should know MUCH better IMO.

I just see too many people in cars who shoot down potentially hazourdous streets without a thought as to who or what could come out between the cars to think any different.


[/quote]

No, but everybody needs to look out for the vunerable, and people who choose to drive their car like a train on a track are bad.

I know, that's why I qualified it with a question mark. But I hope you can see why your audience might think otherwise. The onus always seems to be on the big bad driver.

Here's the news - there were big bad drivers back in the 60s when I was a kid. I never heard of any kid getting run over or even a near miss, but back then we were taught the Green Cross Code and we used our legs for what's known as walking to school. My dear late mum taught me how to cross a road too. What? Uh?



You see, you did it again* Why 30? WHY? WHY?

Why not tell it as it is? Why not admit that there is a speed which a responsible driver knows he or she can travel at which is safe for the conditions? Can you see a difference between an idiot doing the legal limit dangerously and penalising a safe driver doing more than the posted limit under SAFE circumstances?

I refuse to hate you but you bug me more than the crabs on my crotch

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

As a driver, I - personally - will blame myself if, Fate forbid, I managed to strike a pedestrian. 100% ... even if the person intentionally tried to get himself hit. Such is how I trained, and continue to train, both in my personal gymkhanas, and in the real world ... the most important form of practice.

I frankly don't expect the average American driver to be able to prevent pedestrains who intend to get hit by a car, from doing so. (You'd be surprised how hard it can be if you also decide that they need to be prevented from getting themselves struck by other cars as well.)
I thoroughly expect the average driver to be able to cooperate effectively with pedestrains who don't intend to get hit by a car.
I also thoroughly expect the average pedestrian to be able to cooperate effectively with drivers who don't intend to hit pedestrians.

The weird part, is that I also find myself increasingly surprised by the number of pedestrians who, with shocking gauche, unburden themselves of any responsibility for their own safety precisely when it is in the most danger: while crossing the street, increasingly against traffic, against lights, and / or while jaywalking.
Should I be surprised when they pass this trait on to their own children? I know that the human animal is the only one that actively cooperates in its own victimization, but I suppose I forgot that stupidity is infinite.
However, it stops with me.

Warning:
Those who sacrifice their freedom for safety deserve neither.
As for those who pass on the responsibility for their own safety onto those who are already distracted by cameras placed by those who would prefer not to be bothered with their own safety?
I say that those who campaign for the freedom to ignore their own safety devalue everyone's safety and freedom, and thus also deserve neither.

Maybe pedestrains really do need licenses after all. If you are stupid enough to believe that every driver is always 100% at fault for striking any pedestrian, or that every parent is always 0% at fault when their child is struck by a car, then you might already be too devastated to look in the mirror and accept the possibility that you might be increasing your child's chances of becoming a most unbecoming statistic.

I'd rather subject my child to my paranoid vigilance, than make others needlessly suffer for my making the mistake of not properly protecting my niece, nephews, or my future children. That protection is the first and most important step in teaching them about everyone's safety, not just theirs.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Folks

I've re-read this thread in passing.. PLEASE - for all our sakes, try to remain civil. Widespread condemnation of a post with phrases such as "You're talking bollocks" really does not help debate.
If a post is completely off the wall, and you believe that most people will realise it is so, the best thing by far is to pretend it is not there. You can always add someone to your "foe" list who, in your opinion, has nothing useful to add, then need no longer be blessed gratuitously with their posts - you have to click them explicitly if you wish to see them.
If the original post gets support, then it is possible there was a grain of truth in it after all. Also, as well as being against forum rules, if the personal derision/attack gets amplified by others, we have descended to new lows.

You've got to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, as Bing Crosby used to sing.

Despite considerable urges to the contrary, I try to remain civil. Still there is a danger in ignoring repeated 'off the wall' assertions.
When 'the negative' is 'eliminated' as mis- or dis-information, merely ignoring such ... humbug ... could be tantamount to condoning its proliferation; to leaving such detritus undisturbed. Calling it what it is isn't wrong in itself, either. It is merely insufficient. It must also be properly disposed of, lest it metastasize.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Touché The Rush..

Certainly the well-constructed argument needs careful response and challenge. However, if what is obviously - nice word - humbug - goes unanswered, I cannot believe it will metawhatsitise. If it does, then and only then is the time to deal weith it - we are (collectively) very capable of such dealings too.

I've edited my reply to mpaton2004, and I apologise if it caused offence to anyone (who isn't a troll).

I don't consider mpaton2004 to be a troll, so I don't think he's suitable for my foes list. I do however vehemently disagree with much of what he (and/or his wife) says, and as The Rush says, simply ignoring ludicrous assertions (aka bollocks) whenever they're made is not always the right approach when you consider lurkers. So I will continue to correct rubbish which is talked by non-trolls when I see fit.

However I will give due consideration to Roger's "Leave it if most people are bound to realise that it's humbug" request. And I suppose that remarking that someone often talks rubbish, however true it is, doesn't really help. It is better to demonstrate why and how it's rubbish, and if you're going to say that they're talking rubbish, it's better to say "That's rubbish" rather than "You talk rubbish", as it's less personal that way (and it doesn't give ammunition to trolls, which my statement clearly has done). Point taken. (Unlike some I am happy to admit when I've been shown satisfactorily to be wrong*, rather than going off and sulking like the "crying troll" does, and I do genuinely try to learn from my mistakes, because those who don't tend to remain as clueless as they are arrogant.)

What I'm not going to do is stop calling people anti-car if I consider them to be (although the point is moot for now, as I can no longer see the posts of any active posters who are IMHO anti-car). They do a great deal of damage to society with their dishonest, deceitful hijacking of road safety and I detest them for it. Doubtless they don't like their true aims being exposed, which just makes me more determined to do so. I'd rather leave this forum than stop doing it (and I'm afraid I absolutely don't want to leave ).

--
* It goes without saying that this does not include incidents like Hedgehog screeching "Bombus is wrong" without providing any justification, but I thought I'd say so anyway in an attempt to pre-empt predictable trolling replies from, err, predictable trolls.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

BTW, although it's not really related to the above, I for one would find it helpful if mpaton2004 provided an assurance that it was always him, rather than his wife, posting (and that she wasn't looking over his shoulder). I realise that even if it is just him at the computer, he could still be repeating what jec has said to one degree or another, but I like to know who I'm dealing with all the same. If jec wants to post then great, we need non-trolls who don't agree with Safe Speed, but she should use her own account. Deceptively using other people's accounts is something that Steve Callaghan did on here, and even though mpaton2004 and jec support cameras, I'm not sure that they would want to be tarred with the same brush as our Nemo-esque "friend".

(I am not making out that jec is necessarily "wearing the trousers" or anything; I am simply going on what I have seen on this forum over the years, as that is the only source of information that I have. I know nothing other than that about the two of them personally, and for all I know, mpaton2004 could actually be very strong-willed. I have no idea. However I've never known anyone's opinion on cameras to have changed anywhere near as radically as mpaton2004's apparently has, and I'm not the only one to have wondered whether he's been influenced.)

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Certain parties are in dire need of much more exposure to well constructed arguments, in the form of careful response and challenge to their , um, BS. It's good practice. Further, the responses which counter such tripe are beneficial to those who haven't yet proactively ignored such deconstructive arguments or their disseminators.

(I'm also reluctant to use the word because I am not yet sure of any unique nuances it may carry.)
Ladies, gents,
If I see the word 'bollocks' or other such in reference to mis- or dis- info, I'll treat it as the word ' fire'.
I'm sure I, among others, would only be to happy to put it out, with logic, reason, and what may now be uncommon sense.
IMHO, it's the least I should do, with the little bit of time I contribute here.
Whenever I get the chance, I will expose obfuscations and obfuscators.
Just because your pants aren't yet alight ...

A morbid fascination with the ghastly consequences of striking children at various velocities is vastly inferior to diligently reminding and thoroughly instructing all parties potentially involved - drivers, pedestrians, parents, and children - to prevent such ghastly scenarios in the first place.
I would hope that even weepej should prefer teaching pedestrians to avoid getting hurt by drivers and viceversa, rather than teaching drivers that it is preferable to strike people at reduced speeds, while increasing the likelihood of pedestrians becoming road cones by not teaching at least my kids to avoid all cars, not just the slow ones.

Uttering the above quote to any child - yours, mine - or allowing any idea which resembles it to take root in a child's mind, is permitting, if not assisting, a
social cancer to, um, spread unchecked.

See Rule #1 below? Learn it. Learn it well. Teach it better.

P.S. : by the way, [weepej,] speaking of speed, I barely remember the last time I looked at a speedometer. I won't say my driving has improved, but my passengers seem to be complaining less about my driving, and complementing me and my dispatcher more so. My fuel economy has also improved! I wonder if keeping my attention where it belongs has anything to do with it ...

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Bombus

Many thanks for your actions. We all very much value your contributions and the clarification (for me anyway) was not necessary as you tend to wear your heart on your sleeve.

Look forward to more onward constructive debate.

Well quite. It's an incredibly high price to pay for being unwilling to tell people anything but "If there's a collision then obviously it's going to be the driver's fault". It's an incredibly high price to pay for someone's refusal to accept that drivers are anything but inherently irresponsible and dangerous.


You MONSTER! Do you realise how many poor, innocent, completely perfect pedestrians you've put at risk simply by not knowing your exact numerical speed to the nearest 1mph at all times? I can see why weepej wants everyone to stop driving when there are so many nutters like you at the wheel.

At the moment, my car has a minor problem in that the speedo sometimes stops working in the wet. Strangely enough, when it does stop working, I don't suddenly start running people over, going into the back of queues and coming off bends everywhere. I don't have to stop driving and hope against hope that the speedo comes back, knowing that otherwise I'll never be able to drive safely. In fact, strangely enough (and I doubt that anyone, troll or not, is really remotely surprised by this), I am able to just carry on driving exactly as before, with no drama, fuss or hysterics whatsoever. I have not had one even remotely problematic (or potentially problematic) incident during the speedo downtime. The only time that I worry about it even slightly is when I have to pass a camera.

One reply that I can imagine weepej making to that is "You may not think you had a problem or that you were unsafe, but you probably were". In other words, as already mentioned, he likes to make out that drivers are inherently irresponsible and dangerous. He hates the idea of having to admit that any driver's judgement can ever be trusted, because as soon as he does, the case for cameras and other overbearing, controlling, bullying measures starts unravelling at an almost indecent pace.

I still have absolutely no idea why someone's hatred of cars would be such that it eclipsed their wish for proper, honest road safety where all parties are held appropriately responsible, but we see proof time and time again in threads like these that that is the case. Usually I can at least understand why someone has a political viewpoint even if I disagree with it, but this fundamental problem with cars that too many people have just baffles me. I like things which give us all freedom and progress, and I cannot fathom why everyone else isn't the same in that respect. It's utterly bizarre.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Thanks for your kind words Roger. They're much appreciated.

"Heart on your sleeve"? Don't know what you mean! (I tend to find that things are much more straightforward if people say what they're thinking, as long as it doesn't cause unnecessary offence to those who have genuinely good intentions. Having said that even I bite my lip at times, even if it doesn't seem like it.... )

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Putting words in my mouth again.

Moving heavy vehicles at any speed is inherently dangerous and I don't think some people take this into account when choosing their driving style, certainly those that think "I'm doing Xmph, it's the legal limit and I can do this whatever the situation of the road I'm driving down, if anything get's in my way it won't be my fault", exactly the sort of attitude (expressed in this very thread by some) that leads to other people calling for lower speed limits.

I would suspect that the vast majority of drivers, probably the 99.9% that aren't suicidally depressed or off their tits on something or other, don't want to crash in to anything, static, moving, living or mechanical.

This idea that car-haters have that somehow drivers go about quietly hoping they'll run somebody over because it was the pedestrian's fault doesn't really stand up to a great deal of scrutiny.

No ordinary driver would intentionally endanger a pedestrian. In the same way that no ordinary pedestrian would intentionally endanger themselves.

What I don’t get is who the hell is causing all these accidents.

I don’t mean this to sound big-headed of me but I cover about 30,000 miles a year, every year, in various pool cars and on my motorbike in and around England’s second largest city - so it's not like I'm not in the thick of it.

I speed every time I take to the wheel and yet year after year goes by without the slightest worry or heart-stopper to me, or caused by me to other road users or pedestrians.

In fact, I feel more relaxed in the car than I do at my PC at work. The last time I had to break hard was when a cat ran from under a car last year. Because I’m spatially aware, I knew I could drop the anchors without getting rear-ended.

I think it's because I have always used COAST, even before I’d heard of the acronym.

I don’t put myself in a position where I am likely to have to suddenly react. I think I could almost make brakes last the life of a car. They are there just to scrub that last bit of speed off which doesn’t even show on the speedometer. So what on earth are other drivers doing - or is it something I am doing better than them?

For instance, a little thing I do is when I’m on a DC or motorway I avoid travelling along with cars to my side. I don’t know if they are aware of me so I will either pull forward or back. (Pertains more to motorbike but I do the same in cars).

These little gems sound obvious to me and may well be taught at advanced level but I have picked them up for myself with experience.

So when someone says “he just pulled out in front of me” I say well how come these things happen to you and not to me? I find driving quite relaxing for the most part.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

There was an advert a while ago where a pedestrian is stood behind a van (escort type IIRC) and she steps out in front of a car, it hits her and the 'ghost' of this woman is talking to the driver (he can't hear her) about if he was going slower he would have stopped in time.

My issues with this advert are that:

The car is less than a car length away from the pedestrian when she steps off the kerb, at 30 mph 1/3 of a ton of car isn't going to stop instantly, my thought at the time was that this advert could be 'educating' pedestrians to the idea that cars should just stop. In light of this thread I spoke to a few friends who are not drivers, all 5 of them thought that cars took less distance to stop than the highway code distances.

Looking at the behaviour of pedestrians I'm seeing more and more instances of pedestrians crossing where I as a pedestrian would never dream of crossing either due to the lack of vision or the proximity of oncoming cars.

Whilst not excusing drivers (I'm well aware that by me being on the ball at least two pedestrians are still alive to cross the road in a suicidal manner again), should we be looking at road safety adverts where things are being done for a dramatic impact critically and seeing if they actually send out an appropriate message.

Should we be looking at pedestrian training?

Should we bring in a jaywalking law for roads of above a certain speed limit? (Yes we will need an improvement in crossings).

Thoughts

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Know what you mean. It's bullsh1t!

I was that jay walker - never got close to anything remotely dangerous doing it though - ever! Never got pulled up for it either.

I once got hit-on by what they call a faggot. (Won't go into detail) I'm sure my mum used to feed me them some 40 years ago.. 'Brains' as I recall. I'm very old you know.

The first record I loved, as a kid in Cornwall, was by Telstar. I have the vinyl record my mum bought me yonks later when I was about 12. The B side is Jungle Fever

I'm going to end up being a tramp in the gutter, I just know it. You meet the most genuine people there you know...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.