Safe Speed Forums

If you are going to be pedantic be accurate
I did not say prohibit. Crossing that road is prevented by virtue of the physical barrier disallowing the action; they are not prohibited by any form of command or legislation (unless there are also authoritive signs in place there but I have not claimed this). Of course there's nothing to stop attempts (crossing half a road), apart from a total lack of visual acuity - and sanity!
The prevention leads discouragement; the latter is true – I have never said this is wrong - but in this case is only a subset of the overriding former (the former is leading the latter).
The way weepej is communicating it akin to a sign saying "please refrain"; this physical barrier says "it is not possible...".
Folks are being “discouraged” from smoking/drugging etc, but do they continue to do so?



I'm sure we could argue this all day and not get anywhere, so let's get to the nub of the issue.
Let me ask you what weepej has been conveniently dodging (with the poor excuse that 'it doesn't matter'):

Is it reasonable, or is it unreasonable, to expect pedestrians to be crossing that stretch of road?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

And if there were people crossing that particular road, which seems an extremely risky thing to do, they would probably be the kind not to be deterred by the illegality of crossing a motorway on foot. Or, for that matter, a railway line.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

That made me think when I read that, I regularly exceed a speed limit by 40+ mph!

The entry slip into Rownhams on the West Bound carriageway has had a set of 20 mph speed limit signs installed, ever since the M27 was altered to have a completely empty lane and 3 other lanes that are always clogged with traffic.

The limit is so impossibly close to the motorway that it would border on suicidal to try and slow to the limit. Personally I exit the motorway and coast down from 70 and exit to the car park, as does every other driver I have ever seen. This usually means that I pass the limit sign at about 60, but am doing about 15 by the entry to the car park, with no braking required!!!

Perhaps, therefore based on certain comments I have read in this thread, I would be better advised to perform a near emergency brake to acheive the speed dictated by the signs, since this is clearly safer?

Do I need to tell you why that argument is disingenuous? Eating lard doesn't directly threaten other peoples lifes



But just occasionally driving can be a great pleasure, usually late at night on country roads, and I shall miss that,.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

No, it is merely prudent.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The only available answers to that question are reasonable and unreasonable.
"No" doesn't answer the question, nor does it address the issue we were discussing.

Is a proper answer forthcoming from anyone?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Wow.

OK then, if forced into such a binary choice I'd say reasonable. You must be ready for it on any road, even motorways, so therefore it reasonable.

OK, just so that we can get some sort of closure:

You reckon it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to be crossing a very busy, three-lane carriageway, where they can visibly see they cannot reach the other side (well if they reckon they can negotiate through three lanes of traffic then surely they can see that fence), even though there are numerous bridges and underpasses available?

Seriously?

Better yet, you seem to be saying that it is reasonable to expect pedestrians to be crossing motorways, even though they are prohibited from doing so, and those limits there are higher, and most sections aren't illuminated? (that was my next step, thanks for skipping to it)
No doubt you would apply your "fairly strict liability" there too


There's your "wow" right there.

To come full circle:

Compared to folks crossing them, I reckon it's fair to say that it's far more reasonable to expect at least some motorists to exceed the limits on those kinds of roads (especially motorways where over 50% of drivers do so), so I guess pedestrians must be even more "ready" for that, huh?
That kinda invalidates the basis of your argument!


I will let the reader judge you on the response you gave. I don't have much more to say, except:

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You have set up a totally false dichotomy there. Not have you defined what you mean by reasonable in this context - reasonable is a weasel word. I would say that it is unreasonable for pedestrians to cross such a road when there is traffic about but reasonable for a motorist expect that they might do so.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

And by similar logic(working in reverse) ,how are drivers expected to work out ,when any one of a number of pedestrians is likely to decide to jump out into a busy road with out warning . One thing ,missed out by the pedestrian element is that ,as well equiped with instrumentation etc as modern cars are ,they don't have an idiot detector ,or a crystal ball - but fortunately for a lot of pedeatrians ,the drivers do.
It's a funny thing that animals ( acknoledged to be of inferior intellect) , don't do this ,but the pedestrian idioticous thinks it's quiteacceptable .
Me thinks ,I'll have to rethink my opinion of sheep and cows .Alwayspreferred their company to city dwellers .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I don't think so, even weepej saw the binary nature of it (and he answered it bless him).
Let me re-word it for you:
Is it reasonable to expect pedestrians to be crossing that stretch of road - yes or no? You're claim is invalid if you can't demonstrate your false dichotomy within there.


Showing reason or sound judgment, goodness of reason and judgment, rational - what more do you want?
Is that level of pedantism really needed - "a distinction without a difference" and all that?


As highlighted by weepej, there was indeed traffic "[to put a halt to any suggestion he was the only person ont he road]"; within the bounds of this case and at that time, I can only assume your answer is unreasonable.


Even with it being a 3-lane carriageway, the visible fencing to prevent crossing and the numerous overpasses/underpasses, and not forgetting the presence of the motorist? Seriously?
To expand on that last point: the "traffic" (as mentioned within the previous quote above) kinda logically negates this clause too - 'unreasonable for pedestrians to cross such a road when there is traffic about', the motorist is traffic, hence unreasonable to cross when the motorist is about, therefore is unreasonable for the motorist to expect that crossing pedestrian.

Simples!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I have never said that it is reasonable behaviour on the pedestrian's part to cross that road in those circusmstances. But I have no reasonable expectation that every pedestrian - the old, the young, the deranged - will show "reason or sound judgment, goodness of reason and judgment". People, and not just pedestrians, behave unreasonably all the time. That pretty little acronym COAST recognises that.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I have never said that you said such a thing! I'm merely trying to extract an answer regarding those circumstances.


.... so after all that, you seem to be implying that your answer to the question is unreasonable - correct?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Cut me some slack. I was just trying to tackle the dangerous verses not-dangerous angle. After all, it’s still a matter of life and death at the end of the day and we do need to be protected from ourselves too 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.

Ok, Tone, but make it pork dripping rather than lard - a much tastier way to die

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Not at all. It is a perfectly reasonable answer.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

ha haaa

AFAIC: unless anything else is forthcoming, that point is now settled.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

tis a load of of course.


He's way above the lolly sign - and the only danger he was in was the one of losing his licence.


For all I know this road may have dropped barriers like the A14 (70mph) - the one which tells me that there may be pedestrians at one point in the Northants bit.

He was banned for driving like a plank. Cannot see why folk are annoyed to be blunt.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

So there are bridges and underpasses allegedly where Cole was pinged.

OK.. but the limit was 50 mph and he thought he was at 80 mph but was actually a lot faster. Yeah right.

He must have known it was a hot spot ...

As for ped dangers and crossing facilities - tis irrelevant. He was at 100 mph and got copped. And a ban was inevitable. He can afford the fine and chauffeurs in any case. I have no sympathy.

Would I have driven at high speed in that area? Err .. nope and nor would any one else within our over-large families. Straying over by a small margin of error for a short distance is one thing - but this was a blat which I am baffled at folk trying to justify.


Tis why I think this campaign against the cams will go nowhere as it does seem as if folk want to drive fast and measure good driving skills in this way.

Anyway - must dash. Only posted to give weepej a break as you lot are giving him hell. I happen to think he makes valid points anyway.

Shopping for my hols to do and bliss on a boat.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

No one here has attempted or implied any sort of 'justification' for that 'blat' on that road.


Surely you must know by now that this campaign calls for properly set speed limits and for trafpol to enforce them in an intelligent manner. COAST is the guide and the measurement of good driving.


The pedestrian dangers were the only (almost pertinent) point weepej made within this thread...


I don't think you can justify that. Sure knew he was above the limit and he apparently cannot judge his speed, so he certainly was a bit of a plank in that respect. However, he was banned for excess speed above the speed limit, nothing more. The police gave no indication of any dangerous/reckless/careless driving.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign