Safe Speed Forums

Does that matter, if the amber light was flashing when he entered the marked crossing and there was somebody on the crossing he's committed an offence right?

Nobody's disputing that he committed an offence.

_________________
"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

Hmm "Was the green man flashing when she started to cross? " certainly sounds like blame was trying to be laid on the pedestrian for doing something wrong.

I could step out in front of a car tomorow doing the speed limit, or less, and get killed.

I could equally be going along in my car tomorrow doing the speed limit, or less, and kill someone.

I'm guessing that you, weepej, will put the blame on the driver in each case 100%?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

So from that, you can conclude she made no error?

Or are you still in "fairly strict liability" mode?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The way I read it, she stepped into the road after the amber light started flashing, ie there was nobody on the crossing at the time that he made the decision to go through on the flashing amber.
Also, as he must have been right on top of the crossing when she stepped out, he would almost certainly have hit her, regardless of his speed.
What if, instead of a car, it had been a bus or a lorry? Large vehicles tend to kill pedestrians at much lower speeds than cars do.

Whether you're a pedestrian, cyclist, driver, passenger or whatever, you always have ultimate responsibility for your own safety. I, for one, never attempt to cross the road before ensuring that it's safe to do so - it's folly to do otherwise.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I'm gussing weepej is waiting for a few responses before cherrypicking the one he replies to so...


I think there is something very important going on here which is what has sickened me so much about the speed camera legacy...

Apart for being on the phone, she looks at something which tells her it’s safe to do something, or not, in the same way that speed limits tell drivers these days that if you follow a rule, cast in stone by law, you are safe.

Who here looks across a pedestrian crossing without looking left and right before taking that green leap of faith? I’ll bet no-one!!! And I bet you would have passed that wisdom onto your children too!

As a driver, who here would even bother to look at your speedometer in a situation like that? You would surely be looking at her and where she was and what she was doing, or not doing, and slow down to a speed you wouldn’t even be able to tell because what she is doing and that situation is far more important than looking at what speed you are doing.

There is no way on God's green Earth I would be doing 37mph in that situation, just as there is no way I would ever walk across a road, least of all while talking on a mob, without looking.

Devils advocate: If he was doing the speed limit and had the reactions to avoid her, only to crash and be killed himself, what does anyone suppose the outcome would have been on her responsibility or lack of?

A terribly sad loss and so totally preventable by either party IMHO.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Does it matter if she did make "an error".

In my book the guy driving the car should've approached the crossing with care and caution (just like he should've been driving his car at ALL times), he should have been going much slower and frankly had been ready to stop considering the light was flashing amber (knowing that as anybody else does a flashing green man can mean "cross now" to some pedestrians).

Also, if he had been more observant he would've seen the lady at the side of the road much further back.

It should have been up to him to show he couldn't have avoided the collision, even if that meant in hindsight he should have been travelling much slower, so yes, this strengthens my desire for a strict liability law.

To add I have read a story about what he feels about this and he's clearly a broken man, which I'm very happy with, perhaps if he had thought a bit more before behaving like he did then we wouldn't be discussing this.

BTW I attribute no blame whatsoever to the girl for her own demise, there's no way she should have been struck, regardless of her behaviour at the time.

Absolutely yes!
Had she looked she would be alive today (like the hundreds of other killed pedestrians every year), or does that not matter to you? Talk about an abrogation of responsibility!


That means nothing. Lots of people walk along a road past a crossing without actually crossing; do you stop for all these people?


So even more people won't look properly before crossing?
In terms of safety, would an enforced Jaywalking law give better safety?


It appears you are alone in that opinion, thankfully!
Walking into a road without first looking, even when having priority, is extremely dangerous and foolhardy; unless you actually want to forward the argument that people using crossings needn't look? I sincerely hope not!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

No, but I don't aim to hare past the crossing at nearly 40mph.




No, so people in or on vehicles have a much better idea of what the result would be should they strike somebody.



I'd be happy with a jaywalking law, if we had pelican crossings every 100 meters or so.



Shouldn't be though should it. If drivers and riders are exhibiting the right level of observation and care all that would happen is that the slow down and perhaps stop.

To be clear, no one is defending the driver!
Do you slow to less than 30mph? If not, aren't you risking killing people? (people still dies when struck at 30)



So yes! The words that followed it didn't support your rejection (a non sequiture) or properly address my question (evasion).


Many streets already do. How about the best of both worlds: that law in force within 100m of a crossing?

So how about answering my question (requoted and highlighted): yes or no?


...but it is extremely dangerous and foolhardy!
So you're happy to rely entirely on the lights, and the ability of yourself and others to not misread them, and that you don't happen upon the criminal element (e.g. a police chase) or drivers like Ali, and cyclists not blowing through red lights? Get real Weepej!


Stop for people who are walking past a crossing? I bet even you don't do that!

Show on other foot:
If walkers are exhibiting the right level of observation and care then perhaps they wouldn't walk into the path of a vehicle?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Er, no, I didn't even suggest that.

Being prepared to stop I said.

Would weepej slow to below 30 mph if he encountered pedestrians alongside a road with a speed limit of 60 or 70 mph? Or people on the hard shoulder of a motorway?

_________________
"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

Well it may have cost her her life, so I would say it does.

If there is an accident it is far more important to try and prevent the same thing happening again than apportion blame.

I'd certainly be slowing down and be prepared to stop.

On a motorway I'd be pulling into L2 if possible.

Indeed, as often said before, "'I had right of way' is no consolation if you're lying in the mortuary."

_________________
"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

That doesn't seem like the same description; perhaps != prepared. Do you want to be clearer from now on.?


If you want to go there, I can always highlight the questions you've wantonly evaded! Are you trying to hide your cherry picking amonst your failed arguments?

So, do you always slow dwon to less than 30mph for folks who are walking past crossings? I think you answer (to PeterE) was actually 'yes'!


Was that an answer to the first question (which I've emboldened)?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Twice I've already said on the forums (and I probably pinched that from someone else): "it is better to be safe than right"

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

How clear can I be.

He should have been driving slower, and when approaching a crossing, certainly on flashing amber, he should have been prepared to stop in case anybody stepped onto it.

I don't know what's so difficult there.