Safe Speed Forums

Blame increases in proportion to the amount of responsibility you refuse to accept. (WQhat is GVW?)

_________________
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

so if I run across a very busy dual carriageway causing an artic to crash into another vehicle as it swerves to avoid me, do I get the blame?

GVW = Gross Vehicle Weight

Is the guy in the artic watching film on his a laptop computer?

You do not do vulgar abuse. I know.. to my own education ..that there exist a fine line between what we poster think to be "light banter" und how another take it??

I have never knowingly tried to upset .. but my language skill put me disadvantage. I apologise to all und beg they re-read me when "cooled down"


Johnny.. I know graball mean well .. think he banter... und perhaps he not realise that weepy hurt here. I think weepy make genuinely honest input. If I disagree .. then I have to find something which he accept as fair counter to his view und dann seek to convince here?


The three of us (ME.. TED /.IG on this board (for 5 year or so ) hope we've never caused any offence? I stress that I know all on here have posted only kind thought und I hope I do not betray confidence .. but I have to say almost all who post here contact us via pm to pat on our backs We;ve even had some join just to mail us in private over our "collective common sense"

So could I tactfully und respectively ask .. let weepy continue, He know already I may pounce on him in challenge debate mode .. . but weepy ist a person whose mind und opinion I will respect. I know him .. his inner soul .. off line.. to be one kind und decent person.

I think we must always keep in mind that behind each "keyboard warrior" exist a person who truly believe he sincere in soul und mind. Heaven help me .. but I would like spindrift to accept this attempt to understand him und hope he understand us

But please to let dcb und weepy speak minds. They each know I not agree ,,, but they accord me und Ted und Charles respect und I reciprocate this on behafl of all of us.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

weepej mate,

I am a simple soul and don't understand. Trying to cross a very busy dual carriage way on foot, when there has been fatalities and fences and signs have been erected to discourage is an at best, reckless activity.

What a pedestrian is doing is similar to a car joining the carriageway. I am fairly certain that if you or I were joining a carriageway and caused and crash in our cars in doing so we would be for the high jump. So why would it be different if we were doing it on foot. It could be the case that some one tries to cross when a vehicle is already too close to react. The pedestrian might not judge the speed correctly.

Yes, on the drivers part, COAST does come into it, but on the scale of likely hood, where do you put crossing pedestrians in the central reservation on you list when proceeding along an NSL DC? You expect it when driving through town, but on an NSL DC you have a different set of priorities for a different driving environment.

I put it to you, that as a driver, one would think that with the best will in the world crossing a DC on foot is bloody dangerous. This might not be so obvious to the non driver, but as a driver, surely you wouldn't do.

I have stated explicitly that my arguments do not apply to Motorways and major trunk roads. They are there to provide fast routes for motor vehicles and pedestrians must no more expect to cross them at random than they would a railway line. I think that I differ from Weep on this - proof that we are not brother and sister

But on other roads the argument polarises thus.
Some, the majority of this board led by graball, think that "looking to your own safety" means that motor cars, because of their destructive capability, have de factopriority over pedestrians and that pedestrians may only use the road when there are no motor vehicles about.
A minority, of two I think, consider these roads to be shared space where pedestrians have equal rights with motorists and where priority should be determined by the normal rules of civilised conduct, not by the weight of metal you are able to muster.

_________________
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

For me priorities are as follows:

Pavements are for pedestrians (and not bicycles)

Roads are for vehicles with wheels.

When crossing the pavement to access my drive in the car or on my bike I yield to the pedestrians. It is their space.

When crossing the road on foot I yield to the traffic. It is their space.

While I have no intention of mowing down people, or getting mown down my self, I don't like the idea of shared space too much. It is much better that people walk on the pavement and vehicles drive on a seperate area. There needs to be places where people can safely cross, but people need to understand, that for every one to get where they are going, there needs to be times when you have to wait for a red light, be it on foot or on wheels. If anyone drove like a lot of people walk they would soon come to the attention of the BIB.

I can't bring myself to be anything but absolute on it I'm afraid.

Unless they literelly jump out in front of a car I can't see why a wayward ped or two on a DC should cause a multiple pile up, or even result in their death or injury.

I agree with making it difficult for peds to get on such roads, but when you're driving along one you've got to be ready or the odd ped or two that still manages it.

The A3 is a NSL DC for quite a stretch, it also has "warning pedestrains crossing" signs on it.

Once again, I would have to argue against you theory of crossing the road on a bend in order to be on the outside because it is the safest part.

Any rally fan will tell you that standing on the outside of a bend is not a good idea as any car leaving the road will always leave on the outside BUT lets assume that cars on the road aren't likely to shoot off the edge unless its very slippery.

I would always walk on the right hand side of the road regardless of the bends for the following reasons.

(a) even on the insides of a bend there will always be some sort of verge that you can stand on should you hear and see a car approach (you will see a car approach on your side if you are walking on the right.)

(b) crossing the road at every bend, if as DCB suggests there are several tight closely spaced bends together, means crossing back and forth which if the road is busy is VERY dangerous.

(c) A good driver (I think I picked this up from a police driver but perhaps IG will say I'm wrong on this) will not cut the inside of the bend (racing style) but move to the centre of the road (still on the left of the white line if there is one), before the bend in order to increase the visual capacity of the bend and allow for obstacles (peds) that may be on the apex of the inner bend.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I hope the fact that you are at the computer at midnight+ does not mean that your evening out was a failure


Without meaning to be offensive, Grab, it is evident from this post that you don't do much walking on country roads. Your assumptions about them are plain wrong. To address your text book points :


No! There is not always some sort of verge. Many roads are bounded by unyielding stone walls which spring immediately from the road on one or both sides


It is indeed but in many places it is still the safest alternative. Walking country roads can be very dangerous, largely because of the driver attitude that I have argued against so consistently. Despite that I have survived doing it for many years giving the lie to your proposition that I have no concern for my own safety.


Two points here. Firstly I have no intention of trusting my life to the assumption that every driver is trained to police standards. Secondly many roads are too narrow to permit any choice of position. Some simply too not have room for a large vehicle and a pedestrian side by side between the solid white line and the enclosing wall

Really, Grab, your knowledge - or lack of knowledge - of the nature of roads both explains why we argue so vehemently and disqualifies you from commenting on pedestrian behaviour.

_________________
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

Oh come now, virtually every thread you participate in ends up being steered off in to a slanging match about whether it's all the fault of drivers or someone else. Even if it started of being about celebrity chefs or welding.

If just had a look through a random selection of your old posts and I stand by my remarks. Say something different, just once! I'll fall off my chair!

I'm a member there too - can I be a registered user of both please? It would be a hell of a lot more constructive road safety forum if one or two users didn't have the "implicit presumption" that every accident was the driver's fault.

Feel free (you and weepej) to comment on what I said about Bikeradar, rather than answering selectively.

Again, why should crossing the road be unsafe.

If drivers coming round the corner are driving properly then if they catch the ped half way across they should have plenty of time to slow or stop. If they're going at the right speed in the first place they shouldn't even have to slow down frankly.

Are you suggesting some people in cars go too fast around "blind" bends?

How does that work exactly? You see a pedestrian in the middle of the road and don't even have to slow down to avoid them? Does your car magically dematerialise?

_________________
"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

The idea is you're already going at the correct speed.

This ist a forum about road safety for all - but perhaps more emphasis on motoring/road "safety" by cams than cycling because motoring has set legislation - but this legislation in past 10 years has been steadily added to with most negative effects.

Pistonheads ist not a forum about motoring by the way. It ist a places where folk - especially one clique of police officer try to score points over the public at large in a tasteless fashion - especially in high profile court cases where the accused police officer were charged with "death by dangerous". Most of what get discuss there ist airey fairey nonsense whereby some (certain police officers in particular) try to defend their own bad driving under the "gor-an-exmempshum as it polleeesh bizniss" - even to stating that police officers who KILL innocents by "accident" should not face the consequences of their action in a court of law. It was complete arrogant bollox on their parts und I continue to say so. But they do not discuss road safety at same level as on this board und the sum of the "police advice" on that board would seem to back Steviebabe's accusasation that we only want cops und no cams becasue we perceive we get away with "OTT SPEEDING that way". IG on the other hand states quite clearly that we won't und we don't on "silly misedemeanours" (to quote one comment seen on PH) like 120+ mph!


As for abuse .. no one has any right to try to take away another's self respect when disagreeing a point

But back to the original question:

I think ...I already answered that to a degree of accumulated und acquired knowledge/expertise - I think I TRY to develop the better ATTITUDE to all road users but I think we all have to qualify this by being aware that not one of us ist perfect und that what we think to be safe to us - may not be perceive in same way to another .. und we still have to be aware of physical capabilities in relation to speed of approaching car/bicycle as pedestrians just as the other two road users have to be aware of themselves und their capabilities?



Back to the bend on rural twisty - Highway Code tell me to avoid crossing at bend .. und also if a tight corner - even if approach slowly - you can be caught out. As a pedestrian - I would be listening out for a car in any case. If I came around the bend und the pedestrian was there .. I would hope that my COAST kick in before I get too preoccupied with the bend und the limit point within it. Page 119 of Road Craft ist "COAST IN ACTION!"

As a pedestrian though .. I see car approach und have to judge its speed und know my own walking/running speeds. I normally walk at 5 mph und as ex-speed skater und Mama of kittens .. I think I am pretty nifty on my "paws" too. I think the trick ist still to know oneself

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

How many people do you think drive like this?

Amazing! Graball accuses us of having no regard for our own safety then advises us to trust our lives to the hope that all the drivers we encounter will be police trained. If he follows his own advice he either never walks round bends or is posting to a ouija board

_________________
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

DCB what sort of stone walls do you have round by you then? In Wales and every other part of the country that I know to have stone walls, they are no more than about 4 feet high and no matter how many corners you have tightly together you would be spotted by the approaching car and you would spot it, so your original argument would not hold up.

As for the sort of blind bends that we have round here, with high hedges we always have some sort of verge, so I would suggest that when walking where there are hedges, to stay on the right and not keep dashing across roads "rabbit style" and where there are stone walls, keep on the right and keep your eyes open and don't bend down and hide behind the walls to "suprise" motorists....

I am glad that you have contributed something to this debate, as to how to be a better pedestrian but I , for one, won't be following you advice and playing "rabbit" on country roads....

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

You should always position for the best view. Part of your COAST PLANNING

You need to position to get the best view ahead and straighten the bend. Considering all other road users and their/your safety should feature as priority in risk assessing. and deciding how much of the width of the carriageway you use when negotiating the bend.


LH bends - you are perhaps best to take a position closer to the centre of the road and maintaining all the way through as the view/limit point open up and then sweep smoothly towards the nearside to straighten the last part of the corner (assuming no pedestrians) By flattening the curve - you reduce teh cornering forces and can accelerate back into the straight more easily

RH bends - start on the nearside on approach and then move towards the centre as soon as you can see through the corner This reduces the adverse camber and straightens the last curve out for better overall vision of the road ahead. However - you should not be hitting the central cats' eyes nor be too close to the verge

But by doing this you become more visible to oncoming road users - but all the same it's still COAST-led and your COAST will be controlling your safe speed of approach .. anticipating all hazards..


But then as weepy does say - plenty do not drive as we do. That's why we have been hammering COAST ad nauseam these last 5 years. Why else would a bunch of otherwise busy adults (Team Swiss hooligans at large mostly ) spend time on every chatroom fora they find and drop in the COAST whenever opportunity arises?

because we care enough about ALL others to want them to be safe and keeping their licences as preciously clean to them

_________________
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.