Safe Speed Forums

Oh my... Seriously?

Weepej,

How many times have you recently moved goal posts to suit your argument?

Were were talking about cyclists/pedestrians and drivers.
You changed that to pilots and drivers.

There is a fundamental different between the original argument and your new one: pilots don't interact with other groups - the other groups can't jump out in front of them (let alone from around a blind spot).
Pedestrians and cyclists simply cannot have the same level of potential irresponsibility because they cannot interact with pilots; therefore you cannot link pilots and drivers in this case.

<sigh>



edited to add:
Weren't we talking about folks who "rides/drives like an idiot" as opposed to someone who is 'drunk'?

If your argument is about how many passengers one can carry, doesn't that make a drunk pilot in charge or a cargo plane relatively OK? Or in comparison: a drunk parent carrying a child, or pushing two in a double pram, grossly irresponsible?

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

weepej can!

PS, dcb: your argument is starting to dangerously resemble 'having your cake & eating it'.

I don't recall introducing any culinary considerations into my argument. Please elucidate.

_________________
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

Here's an explanation for you, since you're obviouslynot familiar with this old phrase.

Everyone else reading this can see that trying to differentiate between 'culpability' and 'responsibility' in this context is a way to overcome the illogicality in the 'weepej model' of faster/heavier vehicles having more responsibility leading to the idea of smaller vehicle/road user being less obliged to act safely.

But the illogicality remains: how can the driver of an artic's greater responsibility be practically manifested if a pedestrian is 100% culpable in a collision between them?

Also, in the same situation, how can the pedestrian's 100% culpability be punished in law?

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

No it's not, it's about how much carnage one has the potential to create.

And it's not an argument either really, a man who gets on a bicycle drunk, the same man getting in a car drunk, and then the same man getting in an an 18 wheel artic truck drunk (same levels of drunkeness each time, driving the same route), which do you think is the more irresponsible action by the man?

Why does "18 wheel truck" matter in your post (apart from the emotive effect you're aiming for)? Any moving vehicle could kill a drunk ped.

Seriously, you can't see the difference, after having had say six pints, of somebody deciding to drive home in their car or their articulated truck?

I can see where you're coming from but I’m still having difficulty whether it applies to road safety in the way you’re suggesting weepej. There is such a thing as greater and lesser responsibility, in the same way the Prime Minister shoulders more responsibility than a Civil Servant.

But if a pedestrian walks in front of that 18 wheeled HGV forcing the driver to take evasive action and in the process he swerves out of control into a bus stop killing a dozen people you can hardly blame the driver can you? That one irresponsible pedestrian has caused mayhem!

I think this is where I disagree with you where you say, or suggest, the most irresponsible person wields the greater vehicle. If I drive around a train barrier and derail the train, (doubtless killing myself in the process), my irresponsible act could potentially kill countless numbers of innocent people.

_________________
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.

No. They are both illegal to drive on booze, and both (like any other vehicle) capable of killing a careless pedestrian. Both are at the 100% end of the badness scale for me. You can't get any stupider than driving a car after six points, so driving a truck is no worse.

You're constantly trying to get me to say that I think the drivers/riders of lighter or slower vehicles need take less responsibility for their actions but I won't. Because I believe (I can't believe I'm saying this again!) that we should all be responsible for our own mistakes.

To say otherwise is effectively to offer some people a reason to drive/ride/walk/whatever less carefully than they would expect others to do.

Yes, this was something I said earlier.

You will notice how the goalposts haven't been returned to where they originally were. One could be forgiven for thinking there is an implication that driving/riding like an idiot is OK compared to simply being drunk!

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

How can the pedestrian force the truck driver to do anything? If the truck driver chooses to swerve into a bus stop rather than holding his course and hitting the pedestrian that is his choice. Having to make that kind of decision is exactly what I mean by saying that truck driver carries a greater responsibility than the pedestrian.

_________________
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

What? The ability to steer?

No. The ability quickly to decide where to steer when under great stress.

_________________
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

In terms of responsibility, how is that different from deciding where to look when under no stress?

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

Because it is much more difficult to make a correct decision when under stress

_________________
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

But surely that supports the notion that those under stress are more expected to get it right in the first place, thus being comparatively more irresponsible for getting it wrong?

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

What is it for driving drunk, up to six months in prison? Riding a pedal cycle drunk?

Steve. I think we have completely different ideas on what "responsible" means so I see no point in continuing the discussion

_________________
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 what? What's the current law got to do with what I think it should be?

I've said this a few times before as well: I think the law should punish intent, not outcomes.