Safe Speed Forums

A cunning use of selective quotation which is rather beneath you, Steve. The full quotation - Usually, a person has the status of guardian because the ward is incapable of caring for his or her own interests due to infancy, incapacity, or disability - defines the relationship between ward and guardian rather than listing the defining characteristics of a ward. A person can be incapable etc. without being a ward - they only become a ward when a guardian is appointed. Contrariwise, a health 20 year old could be a ward, usually over a financial matter.


Even if that wasn't a false dichotomy the answer to the question is not as clear cut as you phrasing of the question implies.


Your hopes would be fulfilled. But there is a large group of people who, while not being so incapable to need a guardian, find crossing the road difficult - A mothers with a pram is a good example. But such people are obliged to cross the road and any decent person driving a car would not be incensed at having to slow down or even stop to accommodate them.

_________________
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

Certainly. But only when you have defined what "pedestrians taking responsibility for their own safety" means

_________________
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

Au contraire, Boing, two tonnes of steel potentiates massive domination of your environment. Which is why car drivers have to be so bound a bout by rules and punishments to mitigate the effects of that domination.

Very fair indeed

_________________
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

I will allow the first part of the quote to contradict the second without further comment.



I agree. But where we differ is that I think that bit ought to be apportioned according to the person's ability to do harm: You would apportion it according to the persons vulnerability. The first is the civilised way: the second is the law of the jungle.

_________________
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

I was taught one simple rule as a pedestrian; if a vehicle is coming you wait, if it is clear you cross the road. Unfortunately this now seems to be obsolete, probably due to our so called road safety policies that seems to be telling pedestrians you can do what you like and traffic will stop.

I often see mothers walking along, talking to their friends, while their young child is some distance a head and could easily run into the road. Is this being a responsible parent? When my children were young they were made to walk alongside you so you had control over them. So often you get people with an ipod plugged into their ears or using a mobile phone while they are walking, totally oblivious as to what is around them. Is this being responsible?

As I have said before, during my driving career I have had on four occasions had people just walk out without looking, one of which was drunk, but I knew by instinct they were going to and had already taken evasive action. This was achieved by observation and anticipation not by driving around at 20 mph when the road is totally clear which is what Brake seem to be suggesting.

As for accusing drivers of blaming someone else, isn't this exactly what Brake are doing?

Yeah, trains are even heavier than cars - next time I feel like a picnic on a level crossing I'll be sure to tell that nasty domineering train driver where to get off!

Has anyone suggested that pedestrians should be allowed to picnic in the road? To save you the trouble of looking back I will tell you that the answer is no. And if they did they would be more likely to be killed by a car than by a train

But your example illustrates my point exactly. A railway train is indeed much heavier than a car so it is even more incumbent on the driver to be careful about the damage he could do to others. That is why a train driver has a long period of training, frequent re-examination, frequent health checks: why he is bound by a series of regulations which make the Highway Code look like a ladybird book: and why there is a substantial body of law governing the behaviour of pedestrians on railway property.

If you think the railway is a good model you would be proposing that pedestrians were not allowed on the road except at designated crossing points under signal control. Perhaps you are? There are plenty on the forums who would agree with you.

_________________
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

No, I'm suggesting that a system of priorities based on vulnerability (however satisfying that might feel for the most vulnerable!) will be of little benefit to society.

You can train and regulate train drivers all you like, but the sad fact is, they still can't stop if someone walks out in front of them! You could make trains move at similar speeds to urban trams, and then the most vulnerable of travellers could enjoy a "shared space" with them and assert their right to use another transport corridor that their taxes help fund. HOWEVER, the price the whole of society would have to pay, would be a completely useless rail network. (oh, er, hang on... maybe that's a bad example!:wink: )

Anyway, it seem obvious to most people that if society is going to enjoy the benefits that a fast rail system can bring, there is a price to pay in terms of the freedom to roam in areas used by trains.

I see the situation with cars as being little different. If you apportion the responsibility for avoiding injury according to a vehicle's potential to cause harm, you just end up with trains that move at a snail's pace, trucks that move at walking pace, cars that move at a gentle trot, pushbikes that can got at running pace and pedestrians that can go as fast as they like! Now society has decided that pedestrians should be excluded from railways and motorways. Fine. They've decided that motorised vehicles should be excluded from certain other areas. OK. We end up with shared areas though, and unless you want to see the above apply in those areas, you can't just allocate responsibility on the ability to cause damage.

I've got a better idea! How about allocating responsibility based on the ability to stop or swerve?

On reflection I think you might be right with the application of the terminology in this case (no it wasn't a cunning tactic - please don't continue assuming all errors are actually deliberate misrepresentations).
However, it is a 'pyric victory' as the essence of the argument isn't affected. Wards/minors or however those "not capable of taking responsibility for their own safety" are defined, need supervision.


I think it can be.
It would be completely irresponsible to dismiss both tuition or supervision for those who need it.


Replace the goalposts back to where they were, please.



It seems one of us misunderstood what was posted.


I would like to think your misrepresentation was merely accidental......

I apportion responsibility to all road users (or guardians where appropriate), regardless of their mode of transport.
'Both' is the best way, and is what I called for: "All parties ..." - no mention of any onus on any particular party.

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

And so do I.



The statement by Whynot with which I took issue was
"If pedestrians took responsibility for their own safety it would go a long way to making our roads safer."

That is a pretty clearcut illustration that at least one forum member thinks that pedestrian safety should be entirely the responsibility of the pedestrian. If that were the case, with no onus on the motorist to look to the safety of pedestrians, it would be difficult to walk the streets and impossible to cross the road

_________________
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

Really? I can't help thinking you're not being entirely true here...

So when you said "you" ...




You have clearly made an obvious assumption.

A doing X doesn't mean B needn't do X

Please confirm that with the poster, instead of continuing your flawed assumption.

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

Not at all dcbw, try reading the paragraph that followed. But pedestrians have to take some responsibility for their own safety or of those that they are in charge of.I am sure you would not be happy seeing a child of 3 years left by themselves alongside a main road. I would have thought being a pedestrian and thus being vulnerable, it would be in your own interest to take extra care. The safest way of remaining safe is look after your own safety and not rely on others and that applies to all whether driving walking or riding and applies equally to activities at work or in the home.

Hmmm...

If you have the ability to stop "instantly", swerve easily and so on then you should have the primary responsibility to avoid others as you have the capability to do so. The less agile the road user the less responsibility would be attributed to them as their room for corrective action is less.

This actually sounds pretty sensible.

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

Yes, I find that pedestrians have far better stopping distances than cars, and are much more adept at swerving...

I'm pretty sure I asked first!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Isn't that what shipping does? Smaller craft have to avoid the big ones which cannot stop or steer easily.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Kind of! They have the "power gives way to sail" bit, but it is tempered with sensible and pragmatic exemptions. So, for example, ANYTHING has to give way to "a vessel restricted in its ability to manoeuvre". They also have the absolutely over-riding requirement that absolutely EVERY vessel has the duty to take all possible action to avoid a collision - regardless of right of way. (So the master of a vessel that had right of way could still get "done" for trying to "prove a point" and just being bloody-minded). There are other requirements (I think) about keeping clear of "working" boats (like trawlers towing a net) and almost all harbours and ports have their own byelaws, so, for example, in some places, small ferries could have right of way over everything.

The basic rules can be summarised as: power craft give way to sailing boats ; boat to starboard has priority when on converging courses; overtaking vessel has priority; pass port side to port side when going in opposite directions. You have picked on one of the exceptions which applies to vessels "constrained by their draft" or to working boats unable to manoeuvre because of that work.

But those basic rules are paramount and, in the open sea, the Arc Royal would have to give way to a rowing boat.

_________________
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 the master of the rowing boat would be under an EQUAL obligation to take all possible action to avoid a collision, regardless of who had right of way. He also needs to take all reasonable steps to maintain a proper lookout and maximise his visibility.

The rules of the air (and on the grounds at aerodromes) are very similar, and it should be pointed out that the significance is not in the fact that they are powered, but that their manoueverability is greater. It would be specious to liken a glider/sailboat to a pedestrian purely due to the fact that they have no engine.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.