Safe Speed Forums

And nobody's disputing that.

But, regardless of the driver being in the wrong, she would still be alive if she had looked where she was going. Are you disputing that?

_________________
"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

What makes you think he wasn't prepared to stop?
What makes you think the tragic pedestrian didn't give any prior indication and stepped out immediately in front of the vehicle?

It's almost as if you are trying to paint a picture of drivers not wanting to stop at all!

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

Again, had he been travelling slower he would've given himself more time to observe, react and the [edit: any] collision would not have been so violent.

Sorry, but going at 37mph through a pedestrian crossing on a flashing amber with a pedestrian near it? Unforgivable as I'm sure he knows.

Well quite.

But I'm taking the driver's behaviour in pure isolation, i.e. not even considering the girl's actions.

How on earth did that answer my question, or are drivers to always assume someone will step out at a crossing without looking and must stop - and I mean "stop", not just "be prepared to stop" (which he probably was, something you evaded).

Everyone can always go slower, so what is "slower"? Perhaps he was?
Do you now understand why Peter and I asked you what speeds you actually do in these situations? Then again, your continued evasion kinda suggests you can't answer!


Even at NSL limits? Do you always slow to sub 30 when a pedestrian is close to a crossing in an 40/50/60/70 area?

There may be facts that we don't know about that he may be remorseful about, but this doesn't detract from the safety issue of the pedestrian stepping out without first checking, no matter how much you try to evade it.


And with your tendency towards strict liability (against drivers only), you never will.
Abrogate your responsibility!

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

Why? That's rediculous!

If a kid fell out of a tree you would have the tree cut down. That's all you would consider.

_________________
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.

As Tone says, why?

It just makes you come over as having an agenda to blame the driver, whatever the evidence.
As far as I can tell you're the only person here trying to make out it's all one party's fault.

In fact I would say that was only rational if you did it for each party in turn, i.e.

1. The driver could have prevented the accident by slowing down a great deal on seeing someone walking near the crossing.
2. The pedestrian could have prevented the accident by looking before stepping off the kerb.

Taking 1 or 2 in isolation is pointless.

If the pedestrian wasn't looking and continuing to walk across the crossing for sure!

You see to me it's not. The driver of the vehicle had far more of a responsibility to be careful considering the likely result of would happen if they struck somebody at 30+ mph.

Steve. Without particularly wishing to side with Weep on this it is worth pointing that it was from an island in the middle of the road that the young lady blindly stepped. Now, to me, there is a very high presumption that someone standing on such an island is in the throes (that's for Tone ) of crossing the road. A much higher presumption than if she were standing on the pavement. A good driver should not be surprised when someone in that position steps into the road and should be prepared to stop.

In my observations a large number of drivers will not drive over a PeLiCon crossing unless their light is green. Whilst that might be an excess of caution it does seem to suggest that a lot of drivers encounter and are prepared for pedestrian crossing on the flashing amber phase.

But I do agree that justice has probably been served in this case

_________________
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

weepej

Everyone has a responsibility for their own safety and those of others. Here is an extract from the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974:

"7. General duties of employees at work. It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—

(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and..."

Why should road safety be any different? Do you think employees should be able to act irresponsibly and endanger other colleagues with no sanction against them?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

What if the pedestrian wasn't looking - such as this particular case - and gave no indication that they wanted to cross (potentially what occurred in this case) ?


That's not what you were saying earlier. You clearly said you thought the pedestrian shouldn't be blamed at all (a la strict liability).

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

You see that's where we differ.

I am far more concerned to try and work out how to stop something like this happening again than to work out whose fault it is.

As you have clearly come to this thread having already decided whose fault it is, I suppose that's not so important to you.

And I would say that the pedestrian had a vested interest in their own safety as they had more to lose.

Because there is a concomitant duty on the employer not to employ people who are not able "to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and...". In the case of road safety who would have that responsibility? Are you suggesting that now one should be allowed out of their house until they have passed some kind of road safety certificate?

And, of course, the majority of "Hazardous pedestrians" are under the age of criminal responsibility

_________________
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

Ah yes, I misunderstood the article (I read the ‘didn’t look left’ the wrong way around – duh), thanks for that.
However, the lights at that place are the staggered type, so while a pedestrian won’t walk past that part of the crossing, it is still reasonable to assume they won’t simply continue through.

However, my error has shown that weepej's desires extends at pavements and for that my earlier arguments still hold.

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

I am suggesting that people actually incapable of looking after their own safety and that of others (due to whatever reason including their age) should be supervised by a responsible person. These used to be called parents or guardians.

The trainee barrister in this case was perfectly capable but, unfortunately, stupid not to look after herself.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Oi you! I’ve served my sentence for that one. You’ll want a fine off me for £60 next.

I agree if she was on an island that it would make it much more obvious to any driver of her intentions. But I don’t think that driver is alone in doing what he did; far from in fact sadly.

This is precisely why more emphasis should be put on training, education and a police presence to detect bad driving AND bad pedestrian behaviour, lest we forget, as this case clearly shows. Pedestrians can, and do, wreak havoc on our roads too.

Weepej knows full well you have to consider all factors in an incident but he’s looking at it like if he booted me up the arse he’d question if it’s his boot’s fault or my arse? His arguments get more ridiculous as the years go by; as do my analogies of his arguments.

_________________
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.

If I was swinging my hobnailed boot around in the staff room and hit you up the arse I'd fully expect you to blame me.

No, you may have been having a fit and I just happened to be in the way tying my shoelace; In which case I wouldn't blame you at all.

I considered everything instead of jumping to a narrow minded conclusion!

QED

_________________
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.