Punishment for pedestrian - fair?

[gherkins]

Trouble is, if you go too far you end up how it is here in Germany, where pedestrians just cross when it's green without even a glance. I've watched hundreds of people waiting on the pavement for the little green man to show when the road is closed to traffic for a parade. And the funniest thing is when the traffic light is out of order - it's like they cannot compute and are not sure what to do. I think that common sense must prevail - mistakes happen and people should be aware (even if the traffic light gives them right of way) that someone might cross and vice versa for the pedestrian. I'm not saying anything about fault. I'm just saying roads are dangerous and should be treated with respect.

[T0nup]

Pedestrians about to step out in front of me... A long blast of my painfully loud horn and a deep stair usually gets them running back to the curb. They are a pet hate of mine, and heaven help the jaywalker that I have to stop for.

[heebeegeetee]

T0nup said:

Pedestrians about to step out in front of me... A long blast of my painfully loud horn and a deep stair usually gets them running back to the curb. They are a pet hate of mine, and heaven help the jaywalker that I have to stop for.

Oh dear god.

[T0nup]

heebeegeetee said:

Oh dear god.

Not quite, but close enough.

[redgriff500]

heebeegeetee said:

No, a child isn't responsible for it's actions. Furthermore a person can be mentally deficient, have no legal responsibility for himself but may still be able to walk.

Pedestrians are even allowed to be deaf and blind.

If the parent doesn't care - why should I ?
(However that wasn't what this topic was about)

Mentally deficient people shouldn't be out by themselves if they can't deal with everyday situations.

Same with all other disabilities.

My 2yr old couldn't cope shopping by herself in a city centre - so I don't let her out by herself. She is MY responsibility.

I'd rather you tried to aviod her as I would for other people's kids but if she runs into the road and gets hit by a car it's MY fault NOT the drivers.

[heebeegeetee]

redgriff500 said:

1. Mentally deficient people shouldn't be out by themselves if they can't deal with everyday situations.

2. Same with all other disabilities.

3. My 2yr old couldn't cope shopping by herself in a city centre - so I don't let her out by herself. She is MY responsibility.

1. Bestof luck with explaining that to them.

2. No, people are allowed to be deaf and blind and walk at the same time.

3. Yes, but like lot's of people she's not responsible for herself. She is allowed to exist though.

Drivers could help the situation by learning to look beyond their bonnets.

[Efbe]

heebeegeetee said:

stuff

whereas I see where you are coming from, the logical conclusion to your argument is that any time a car driver see's a pedestrian, or could possibly be in running distance of one, they should stop. More than this, if a mentally disabled person was to run at your car and hurt themselves on your antenna the responsibility would lie with yourself.

back to reality...

Road awareness is taught at school. Mentally incapable people are given carers. Blind/Deaf people are not stupid, they are quite capable of not walking into the road themselves.

Young children who will not yet have the sense to avoid roads should be looked after by parents at all times by roads.

Once any pedestrian steps into the road, it is either their or their parent/guardians' responsibility what happens next. Not just vehicle driver's.

Edited by Efbe on Friday 24th February 08:16

[Lordglenmorangie]

I am only a pedestrian for a very short time, before I jump in my Turbo but I do have some sympathy for them on ocassions

[Stig]

I had exactly the same accident a while back. Lights turned green and I set off, pedestrian decided they could leg it across - they couldn't.

After I got the bike upright and checked they were ok I said we should talk at the side of the road where it was safe (very busy London junction).

By the time I'd got to the side of the road said pedestrian had legged it leaving me with a damaged bike, bruising down one side and the 'duty' to report it to plod and my insurers, who of course then loaded my policy despite it being totally no fault on my part.

Pedestrians and cyclists should abide by the same rules as motorists and face the same penalties for not doing so.

[deltashad]

I may get slated for this but I believe built up areas should have the speed limit reduced to 20mph. I mean city centres not wide roads leading into them.

As for pedestrians/ children/ disabled/ elderly/ dogs and people in track suits walking infront of cars, well, I think they have every right to.
Cars were an afterthought.
If someone wants to walk infront of me riding a GSXR 1000 at 20 mph causing me to come off my bike, injuring myself then the bus behind me not able to stop and crush me to death then.
A) I should have had stabilisers/ been pushing my bike by hand
B) The bus driver behind me should have anticipated this could happen before he decided to take the job.

So, my opinion, if you are pedestrian then you have no responsibilty of your own.

[heebeegeetee]

Efbe said:

whereas I see where you are coming from, the logical conclusion to your argument is that any time a car driver see's a pedestrian, or could possibly be in running distance of one, they should stop. More than this, if a mentally disabled person was to run at your car and hurt themselves on your antenna the responsibility would lie with yourself.

back to reality...

Road awareness is taught at school. Mentally incapable people are given carers. Blind/Deaf people are not stupid, they are quite capable of not walking into the road themselves.

Young children who will not yet have the sense to avoid roads should be looked after by parents at all times by roads.

Once any pedestrian steps into the road, it is either their or their parent/guardians' responsibility what happens next. Not just vehicle driver's.

Edited by Efbe on Friday 24th February 08:16

No, none of this.

It's that yet again, we have people who drive vehicles that weigh over a ton and which contribute to the deaths and injuries of thousands a year, and who don't seem to have any common sense or basic grasp of either everyday reality or basic road law. It's not right.

[Captain Muppet]

TheAlfaMale said:

Simples.

That's where you lost your credibility. Doesn't matter what else you posted,

[Some Gump]

heebeegeetee said:

freedman said:

williamp said:

and not every pedestrian can be responsible for their own actions

What utter nonsense

No it's not.

Oh yes it is. If you;re too young ("untrained"), you should be holding a parent's hand. If you're older and just too stupid to cross a road, it's natural selection.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

redgriff500 said:

If the parent doesn't care - why should I ?

Using that logic, we may as well wind up all the child protection agencies and children's charities in the country. According to you, if parents are abusing their kids, no one else should be bothered!!

Very few car drivers and injured or killed by pedestrians. Seems logical to me that if lots of bundles of flesh and bone weighing around 11 stone and doing 3mph are in close proximity lots of bundles of steel weighting over a tonne and doing 30mph, the onus is on the heavy fast things to avoid the light slow things, and not vica versa.

[T0nup]

Stig said:

Pedestrians and cyclists should abide by the same rules as motorists and face the same penalties for not doing so.

+1

[heebeegeetee]

Some Gump said:

Oh yes it is. If you;re too young ("untrained"), you should be holding a parent's hand.

There is no law requiring this and the child is not legally responsible for itself.

This is basic common sense, surely? Surely you can see that it is physically impossible for every pedestrian to be responsible for itself?

[Efbe]

heebeegeetee said:

No, none of this.

It's that yet again, we have people who drive vehicles that weigh over a ton and which contribute to the deaths and injuries of thousands a year, and who don't seem to have any common sense or basic grasp of either everyday reality or basic road law. It's not right.

I agree, but there does have to be line drawn over who has responsibility for a vehicle colliding with a pedestrian on a road. (unfortunately, because apparently things can never just be an 'accident' any more!)

If a pedestrian never has responsibility, then they would be able to sue a vehicle owner because the pedestrian banged their head on the wingmirror whilst the vehicle was stationary.

I am NOT saying that car drivers should not anticipate pedestrians running into the road and take measures to prevent this such as reduced speed in busy areas and looking for people about to run out into the road. Remember that a speed limit is just a limit, it is not the speed you should drive at.
If you drove at 30mph through a busy town centre with people waiting to cross a very small street on each side you should be prosecuted for dangerous driving. However, it is still the responsbility of the pedestrians not to run out into the rosd in front of the vehicle.

[xRIEx]

heebeegeetee said:

redgriff500 said:

1. Mentally deficient people shouldn't be out by themselves if they can't deal with everyday situations.

2. Same with all other disabilities.

3. My 2yr old couldn't cope shopping by herself in a city centre - so I don't let her out by herself. She is MY responsibility.

1. Bestof luck with explaining that to them.

2. No, people are allowed to be deaf and blind and walk at the same time.

3. Yes, but like lot's of people she's not responsible for herself. She is allowed to exist though.

Drivers could help the situation by learning to look beyond their bonnets.

Complete misunderstanding going on there; the question is responsibility, right? So if a person is not responsible for their actions then there must be a person with responsibility for them and their actions, which is why you see carers with disabled people who may put themselves (or others) in harm's way.

Blind/deaf people who are independent are so because they have learned how to live like that, i.e. taking care in potentially dangerous situations (e.g. using pedestrian crossings with those little rotating nubs on the box to tell them when it's safe to cross).

Of course a two year old can bloody exist, what a daft statement. The parents are still responsible for a child (up to the age of 12 I believe) and parents can be held responsible for the child's actions (criminal or otherwise).

[deltashad]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

redgriff500 said:

If the parent doesn't care - why should I ?

Using that logic, we may as well wind up all the child protection agencies and children's charities in the country. According to you, if parents are abusing their kids, no one else should be bothered!!

Very few car drivers and injured or killed by pedestrians. Seems logical to me that if lots of bundles of flesh and bone weighing around 11 stone and doing 3mph are in close proximity lots of bundles of steel weighting over a tonne and doing 30mph, the onus is on the heavy fast things to avoid the light slow things, and not vica versa.

I don't think that any right minded person on this forum would deliberately not try to avoid an accident of whatever kind, let alone involving a pedestrian. But a big bloody NO, we are ALL responsible for our own actions. All of us. Lets say I'm driving a lorry, your driving a Fiat 126, you hit me, you were at fault, so the onus is on me? Dont thik so. Every individual has a responsibility to themselves, there may be rare circumstances where 'Dot MacCaulley' escaped from the mental institution and caused havoc with motorists etc. but that is not the arguement here.

[xRIEx]

heebeegeetee said:

Some Gump said:

Oh yes it is. If you;re too young ("untrained"), you should be holding a parent's hand.

There is no law requiring this and the child is not legally responsible for itself.

This is basic common sense, surely? Surely you can see that it is physically impossible for every pedestrian to be responsible for itself?

There is a law that parents (or appointed legal guardian(s)) have a duty of care towards their children and that they are legally responsible for said children.

Isn't it basic common sense that parents teach their children how to be safe in the world? It's generally referred to as 'raising children' and 'growing up'.