RE: Pedestrian Protection from Ford
Friday 22nd February 2002
Pedestrian Protection from Ford
New system cushions the blow as you get mown down
Discussion
What about a 'Pedestrian Protection Program' in schools, library's and other public places that states:
'Pedestrians should at all times stay on the narrower, generally raised part of the public highway nearest the shop/house doors. In order to reach the similar looking piece of highway the other side of where cars travel they should approach the relevent crossing area in order to facilitate not being run over'
It might just work?
'Pedestrians should at all times stay on the narrower, generally raised part of the public highway nearest the shop/house doors. In order to reach the similar looking piece of highway the other side of where cars travel they should approach the relevent crossing area in order to facilitate not being run over'
It might just work?
I've always thought that the cheapest, simplest and most obvious way of improving pedestrian safety would be to follow the example set by some of our continental cousins ie. Denmark
Anyone caught crossing a main road or highway, for example city centres, high streets etc away from traffic lights or pedestrian crossings should receive an on the spot fine by police.
This should not apply around residential streets where the onus for safety should be on the car and driver. Main roads however should be recognized as routes designed for cars, with clear separation of pedestrian and car and fines for pedestrians wandering down the road in the same way a driver would be punished for driving up the pavement.
This of course would require police back on the beat (unlikely to ever happen) and recognition from the state that cars have a place in our transport structure (even less likely).
The only part of the idea with any attraction to the authorities would be the ability to raise a bit more money..... but you can guarantee that if strictly implemented, pedestrian casualties would be drastically reduced around town.
Anyone caught crossing a main road or highway, for example city centres, high streets etc away from traffic lights or pedestrian crossings should receive an on the spot fine by police.
This should not apply around residential streets where the onus for safety should be on the car and driver. Main roads however should be recognized as routes designed for cars, with clear separation of pedestrian and car and fines for pedestrians wandering down the road in the same way a driver would be punished for driving up the pavement.
This of course would require police back on the beat (unlikely to ever happen) and recognition from the state that cars have a place in our transport structure (even less likely).
The only part of the idea with any attraction to the authorities would be the ability to raise a bit more money..... but you can guarantee that if strictly implemented, pedestrian casualties would be drastically reduced around town.
Reminds me of an article I read in the paper the other day about a young girl hit by a car. The insurance company offered the girl £400,000 in an out of court settlement.
She wanted more money, so refused the offer and went to court. The judge ruled that the motorist was not at fault as the girl just stepped out in front of the car and the driver had no time to react. She ended up with nothing
motorist 1 pedestrian 0
She wanted more money, so refused the offer and went to court. The judge ruled that the motorist was not at fault as the girl just stepped out in front of the car and the driver had no time to react. She ended up with nothing
motorist 1 pedestrian 0
quote:
oh ok. Why not remove all the safety stuff from inside the car, that'll make the car drivers a bit more vulnerable, and less likely to do dangerous stuff.
Stands to reason: safe cars = dangerous drivers.
Hhhhmmm bikes are not as safe as cars, no airbag, no seatbelt, no crash protection etc does it make bikers slow down, does it f......
quote:
oh ok. Why not remove all the safety stuff from inside the car, that'll make the car drivers a bit more vulnerable, and less likely to do dangerous stuff.
Clarkson suggested this in one of his articles. All cars should have a large, needle sharp, steel spike mounted in the centre of the steering wheel. Then you can go as fast as you like (dare).
quote:I think in this respect, cars and bikes are quite different issues..
quote:
Hhhhmmm bikes are not as safe as cars, no airbag, no seatbelt, no crash protection etc does it make bikers slow down, does it f......
I can't possibly explain my way out of this one! Drat !!
Err, you've got me there. Damn. I really am stumped for a logical explanation.
Short Explaination:
Enthusiasts take personal responsibility for their driving/riding and hence their safety. This includes accounting for road conditions, appropriate speed etc. By way of illustration, I'm equally happy to gun it in a TT with lots of safety gubbins or a TVR with none, because either way, it's all in my own hands (I more often than not kill the DSP on the TT anyway)
Numpties, taking little interest in their driving/riding, devolve responsibility for their safety to the devices (SRS ABD SIPS DSP) - hence the more saftey devices fitted, the more of their responsibility is shouldered by the technology. These people aspire to be like Americans, eating breakfast, reading books and applying make-up like they do on Freeways in the USA.
Car Drivers are 90% Numpty, 10% Enthusiast
Motorcyclists are 90% Enthusiast, 10% Numpty
Therefore, most motorcyclists are prepared to gun it, a few car drivers do the same.
The sort of people who are numpty commuter motorcyclists have bought BMW C1s (or whtever those kinder egg motorcycles are called...)
I've tried to get a coherent explaination out there, but can't help feeling I failed to do so, but you kinda see what I mean.. right ?
>> Edited by CarZee on Monday 25th February 15:58
quote:
quote:
oh ok. Why not remove all the safety stuff from inside the car, that'll make the car drivers a bit more vulnerable, and less likely to do dangerous stuff.
Stands to reason: safe cars = dangerous drivers.
Hhhhmmm bikes are not as safe as cars, no airbag, no seatbelt, no crash protection etc does it make bikers slow down, does it f......
Ive got knee pads !
Frankly, you guys scare me sometimes.
I hate it when people drive unaware of their surroundings -- which seems to be most pople most of the time -- but sometimes people here show a worrying lack of concern for human life.
Have you never made a mistake when driving or walking? Or used a pavement? I sure have (to both). Or do you think that being able to pay for a fast car makes you better than the rest of the human race?
I hate it when people drive unaware of their surroundings -- which seems to be most pople most of the time -- but sometimes people here show a worrying lack of concern for human life.
Have you never made a mistake when driving or walking? Or used a pavement? I sure have (to both). Or do you think that being able to pay for a fast car makes you better than the rest of the human race?
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff