dcbwhaley wrote:
toltec wrote:
An aside, but am I the only person that finds the repeated naming of cars as weapons irritating? Yes they can be used as a weapon just as an ironing board could be, however that is not the designed intent and failure to use a tool correctly does not make it a weapon.
The term usually used is "potential weapon" which seems eminently reasonable. That is why pocket knives are banned on aeroplanes. Though designed as tools they are potential weapons. Mind you so are those glass clubs filled with flammable liquid which we are encouraged to buy at the duty free shop.
To become a weapon an item, be it a newspaper, bunch of keys, tin of beans or vehicle needs to be used with intent to harm. You acknowledge the absurdity of what can be defined as a weapon or not above.
The number of pedestrian incidents where the driver had intent to harm is hopefully very small. This does not mean drivers should not be held responsible for careful use of 'potentially dangerous machinery', however the use of the term weapon is emotive and implies an intent which does not really exist. The responsibility is not only one sided, one must take care of ones own safety in areas where you know potential dangerous machinery is being used or potentially hazardous operations are being carried out.
As a stretched analogy consider chainsaws, wandering through a crowd with a running chainsaw is not reasonable, however making sure that someone using one sees you well before you are in reach, if not avoiding them entirely, would seem excellent common sense. The chainsaw user must make sure they are aware of their surroundings (given the loss of senses due to safety gear) and they are visibly clear to wield it, at the same time a rambler should not hide behind or climb trees in a woodland being logged let alone go running blindly through bushes.
If around 95% of vehicle incidents are down to driver inattention then it seems reasonable that those same people on foot will also fail to pay attention. For some reason road safety arguments forget drivers and pedestrians are not separate species, one is actually a subset of the other. It might be more correct and even useful to see vehicles as error amplifiers rather than instruments of random destruction.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
Swiss are not chocolate truffles nor clockworked models.. but perhaps a OTT withit all . 
with added twists und stings too 
