RE: Please do something!
Discussion
You're being silly now. I wouldn't class having a child fall on top of your car as running him down. Not quite the same thing is it?
Thinking about it the probation on bikes wouldn't work too well. Eventually yes, as everyone who survived it would be fully aware of the dangers of piloting tons of metal around the streets. But not too many would get there I fear.
OK, I give up. Anyone who is stupid enough to transgress on our turf is fair game. Its their own fault, they should stay on their own side of the kerb. Just so long as we are not actually breaking the posted speed limit, its OK to drive with our eyes shut and our brains in neutral.
I'd recommend trading your wheels in for a Volvo as their mass has been proven time and time again to reduce inconvenience to the driver to an absolute minimum in collisions. 4x4's are a good substitute. Bull bars can help by keeping the mess largely off the paintwork. 
While I hope to hell I never end up having knocked down a pedestrian (and I have never even come close to wiping out Pizza boys or trainee cabbies thank-you), if I do I hope I am big enough to accept that it was my lapse that caused someones death. And live with it afterwards.
Yes, the unexpected can happen. A relative of mine died earlier this year when his bike ran into a horse crossing an unlit country lane, just over the apex of a hill. The two kids with the horse were ok, but presumably traumatised for life. In that sort of situation there was probably very little that could have been done to anticipate the accident. But country lanes are not the same as urban streets, nor are motorways.
If anyone can describe a scenario in an urban environment where a vehicle/pedestrian accident could not have been avoided by better observation and anticipation on the part of the vehicle driver then I will back down on my 100% statement. It won't happen IMHO. Postscript: see later postings, I concede!
But lets get back on topic eh? I accept I'm not going to convince everyone that the roads are not their playground, and that not everyone is willing to accept responsibility for their actions. No-one is perfect, and it seems quite a lot are happy to settle for some way short of it.
So how else can we reduce the carnage? One suggestion would be for local authorities to stop wasting taxpayers money on traffic calming measures, and instead do something constructive with it like providing off road parking, or erecting barriers between road and pavement.
External airbags for pedestrian safety ought to be a priority for manufacturers, considering the number of pedestrains killed. Maybe restrict inner city access only to cars with pedestrian protection devices fitted, if its not possible to pedestrianise those areas completely. Tax breaks for cars so fitted ought to help in their acceptance - if we can have tax breaks to appease the environmental lobby then surely its not unreasonable to save human life.
The joke of a driving test needs to be updated.
The concept of a driving licence as a right needs to be questioned. People failing the driving test repeatedly are simply not competent to drive and should be issued a free bus pass for life. The thought of that woman in the Skoda being out there scares me witless.
Sight tests ought to be compulsory and regular - an MoT for drivers?
Criminal prosecutions for drivers involved in fatal "accidents", with sentences equivalent to any other form of manslaughter.
And finally ... gagging of front seat passengers would save quite a number of lives I'm sure - as many of the married among us will I'm sure agree. 
Edited by philshort on Wednesday 26th September 10:31
While I hope to hell I never end up having knocked down a pedestrian (and I have never even come close to wiping out Pizza boys or trainee cabbies thank-you), if I do I hope I am big enough to accept that it was my lapse that caused someones death. And live with it afterwards.
Yes, the unexpected can happen. A relative of mine died earlier this year when his bike ran into a horse crossing an unlit country lane, just over the apex of a hill. The two kids with the horse were ok, but presumably traumatised for life. In that sort of situation there was probably very little that could have been done to anticipate the accident. But country lanes are not the same as urban streets, nor are motorways.
If anyone can describe a scenario in an urban environment where a vehicle/pedestrian accident could not have been avoided by better observation and anticipation on the part of the vehicle driver then I will back down on my 100% statement. It won't happen IMHO. Postscript: see later postings, I concede!
But lets get back on topic eh? I accept I'm not going to convince everyone that the roads are not their playground, and that not everyone is willing to accept responsibility for their actions. No-one is perfect, and it seems quite a lot are happy to settle for some way short of it.
So how else can we reduce the carnage? One suggestion would be for local authorities to stop wasting taxpayers money on traffic calming measures, and instead do something constructive with it like providing off road parking, or erecting barriers between road and pavement.
External airbags for pedestrian safety ought to be a priority for manufacturers, considering the number of pedestrains killed. Maybe restrict inner city access only to cars with pedestrian protection devices fitted, if its not possible to pedestrianise those areas completely. Tax breaks for cars so fitted ought to help in their acceptance - if we can have tax breaks to appease the environmental lobby then surely its not unreasonable to save human life.
The joke of a driving test needs to be updated.
The concept of a driving licence as a right needs to be questioned. People failing the driving test repeatedly are simply not competent to drive and should be issued a free bus pass for life. The thought of that woman in the Skoda being out there scares me witless.
Sight tests ought to be compulsory and regular - an MoT for drivers?
Criminal prosecutions for drivers involved in fatal "accidents", with sentences equivalent to any other form of manslaughter.
And finally ... gagging of front seat passengers would save quite a number of lives I'm sure - as many of the married among us will I'm sure agree.
Edited by philshort on Wednesday 26th September 10:31 What if they trip on the pavement and fall into your path ???? Who should be expected to see that uneven paving slab the pedestrian or the driver ?????
I do actually agree with most of what you say its just the 100% thing that is too sweeping if you'd said 95% I'd go along with it. There will always be the incredible event beyond expectation. Hell ask Lloyds up until last week all aircraft insurance was based on the "worst case senario" this was that two 747's might collide mid air over either London or New York therfore the premiums were based on the worst event being having to pay out for two full jumbo's plus the fall out damage on the ground hence why some underwritters are now looking at going belly up !!!! Phil whatever you believe you can be expected to see coming you'll be suprised by something.
Actually no, I'll save you the bother. This is boring me now.
Suppose someone tripped as you say, but thet were not heading towards the road. Suppose they pushed someone a glancing blow while falling, while a small dog rushed past their feet and simultaneously tripped them, which propelled them into the road and into your path.
You could not hope to have anticipated that? Well yes, actually. Thats one crowded pavement next to you, you either better have left room or slowed down some.
For the sake of argument I'll agree it is possible, just very, very unlikely. Perhaps 100% is extreme (but I don't think so), but there is the question of how tolerant you want to be of driver indifference.
Personally I think zero tolerance is the way to go - if you don't aim for perfection then you will fall some way short of it. Quality control systems are based on this premise, and if we want to improve the quality of driving and therefore reduce accidents then I don't see any reason for not using this premise here.
What bothers me is that the attitude of many posting here seems to be that the driver has a right to be there, the pedestrian does not, and they deserve what they get. My understanding is that the law takes a diametrically opposite view. The pedestrian always has right of way, even on a road. Which is the way it should be, a human life always should come before getting to a dinner party on time.
Believe what you will, it appears unlikely I will convince some people. Sadly is seemsthat an indifference to loss of life by vehicular means is ingrained, socially acceptable.
For myself whenever I get into a vehicle I will be aware of the responsibility that entails. It won't stop me hitting 150 on a deserted motorway, or 100 on a deserted country lane. It won't stop me getting it sideways when I find that that favourite bend or roundabout clear. Hopefully it will make me aware of the risks when driving about town, but I am as human as anyone and will have lapses of will and concentration.
And that's all I have to say 'bout that.
Philshort,
I give up. I'm sorry that you lost a relative, but had they survived they should have been jailed for nearly killing those kids. Whatever happened to being able to stop in the visible stretch of the road ahead. Or do we only care about obstructions in built up areas. Of course you should slow down on blind corners, in the dark.
And for 150 on motorways and 100 on country lanes. Given the situation above that amazes me. How on earth do you expect to respond to that unpredictable old granny in her little brown metro. 100mph closing speed. You'd both be dead. What about the broken-down car you're closing in on at 150mph. Hope that the child clambering out doesn't slip free of their parents and run into the road...
I like mel would have agreed with a 95% blame statement, even a 99% blame statement. I will not agree to anyone being found guilty without the facts being considered, at all!
But then as you say everyone is human. Let's hope that like you those lapses happen out of the towns where you might give them a hearing before branding them. Country folk just aren't worth the trouble trying to protect I guess. And anyone unlucky enough to be stranded on a motorway is just fair game.
Does the word "clear" mean anything to either of you? Its something which becomes apparent with proper observation, that other word you appear not to understand.
Or did you see the numbers, ignore the context, and think "speed kills". Now who's peddling the party line boys?
Before you continue your indignant ranting, could I just say I have reconsidered my position, and I will accept that it is unreasonable to claim that all accidents are the drivers fault.
I witnessed a couple of years ago a child cross a main road on a pedal cycle flat out. No way could anyone have anticipated or avoided hitting him. The pathway comes down a hill, and the other side of the road it turns into a cycle path. The road is edged by 6ft hedging, which stops about 30m before the pathway. Any view you might have is obscured, and the speed the kid was travelling (he was pedalling like hell, head down and going for it) would have surprised anyone. Fortunately for him no-one was coming - its a 40mph limit on that stretch, and most people exceed that.
So 99.9% it is then. I'm a reasonable man.
Anyone need a soapbox? Only slightly used, one (allegedly) careful owner?
Edited by philshort on Wednesday 26th September 10:01
Edited by philshort on Wednesday 26th September 10:23
Actually that thought has occurred to me as well. Driving in the "smoke" is a whole different ball game, and anyone down there has my utmost sympathy. Its bad enough in the Midlands.
I honestly don't think I would own a car if I lived in London, except to get out at weekends.
I used to live "up North", right on the edge of the North Yorkshire Moors. The meaning of a deserted country road is very apparent up there!! Sheep can be a hazard though.
I gave up biking when I moved to the Midlands as the population density made it too much of a risk. I can well see how the prospect of letting learners loose on bikes in the capital could send shivers down the spine - I definately didn't think that one through!
Edited by philshort on Wednesday 26th September 10:09
Philshort,
Hmm. 'Indignant ranting'. Actually you're right. I am angry that there are people like you on the roads who think that is apparently OK to be driving so fast on a country road that they can't stop, but expect to blame the driver 100% of the time for doing the same in a town.
Get your argument straight.
I got into this discussion because of your desire to remove the driver's right to be heard. Maybe you would listen, but then accuse them of ranting if they didn't agree, but why bother anyway as it's 100% percent their fault no matter what.
However what has emerged is your incredible disregard for the safety of road users once out of town.
I for one am glad that I don't live in the Midlands any more. I'll feel a lot safer cycling around my local country roads without you any where near me.
Instead of lynching people, why not trying to listen to their point of view. And for everyone's sake save your selfish out-of-town driving attitude for the track.
Phil1,
You have a point about the high speed out of town.
While I agree 70mph is a bit outdated for motorways, 100mph + for most drivers is blatantly unsafe.
Country roads are also dangerous, and while I don't approve of 100mph, if, as on some roads I drive, there are no hedges etc for miles, and you can see any other road user, driving fast is only a danger to the cars occupants (and yes, I have exceeded 70mph on these roads, and it *is* against the law, if caught 'fair cop').
I also agree that you can never anticipate/observe everything, but you should, especially in built up areas, be aware of a very high percentage of what is going on around you. As philshort says, you are responsible for 1 ton of lethal weapon!
And I agree that drivers should not be automatically blamed for accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians.
Sparks
Sparks
I don't think you are a million miles from my position.
And I don't think I'm a million miles from the position nubbin stated back at the start of this thread.
In my opinion I drive safely and within the limits of prevailing conditions and the ability of my car and myself. I drive faster than most out of town, slower than many round town. I have done so for over 20 years.
I'm ducking out of this one, your all argueing the same thing just with slightly different slants on. After all everyone one of you has claimed to drive "appropriately" !!!!!!!
Now I'm off to thrash down the lanes at 100mph plus, then hammer past a school at 3 o'clock doing bang on 30 because theres a sign says I can !!!!
Bye
philshort,
As always statements can be taken out of context. I wouldn't drive at 100mph on country roads because the surface isn't good enough (where I am). It may be different for you.
I see phil1's point of view, and also agree with nubbin's original post.
The key thing here is that 92% of accidents are in urban areas. therefore concentrate on these. GATSO them out, put up barriers, lets improve driver ability (our main argument I believe) and stop persecuting drivers in general on faster, lower risk roads.
Sparks
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff