Safe Speed Forums

Given the the government's current one dimensional approach to tackling road safety: speed, and the spate of recent adverts demonising drivers who break the 30mph limit, emphasising how dangerous it is to travel at 35mph in a 30mph zone, I have had some interesting thoughts:

1) Why don't we have anti-jaywalking laws to protect pedestrians from traffic? (especially 35 mph drivers)

2) A large number of pedestrian Vs car accidents involve drunk pedestrians, especially late at night.

Therefore, why is it not illegal to cross the road whilst drunk?

3) A penalty point system could be introduced: 4 jaywalking offences mean an automatic ban from crossing the road for a year; a single drink jaywalking offence - an immediate 3 year ban.

Breaches of these road-crossing bans could be dealt with by imprisonment.

On a more serious note, surely some responsibity should lie with pedestrian? Or should the motorist always be held accountable?

I'm suprised our nanny state hasn't considered introducing laws like these.

Ah - you forget - the motorist can (the legal ones anyway) be traced via the registration and it's all done by PC Gatso - unless you can devise a way to get pedestrians to carry id that can be read by a camera ( id card perhaps) or other we need real live policemen out there - PCSO's no good - they can't give out tickets(yet) and the idea HMG is giving out (with Motorways being taken over by HA trucks, and PCSOs sprouting out of the woodwork) is that real live properly trained policemen are an expensive luxury.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

So if you think 35mph in a 30mph zone is too low a speed to be prosecuted at, what IS enough over the limit? 40mph? 50mph? Why not 31mph? Why have a limit at all?
The reason car drivers are prosecuted and jaywalkers aren't is because car drivers kill pedestrians, whereas pedestrians almost never kill car drivers...

Ah, another person with a blissfully simplistic view of the world, I see.

By your reasoning, if someone jumps in front of a train then the train driver should be prosecuted.

Or, if a drunken yob deliberately throws himself in the path of your car, (as has happened to me on more than one occasion - fortunately I saw it coming) should you be prosecuted if you hit him?

No, if anyone is to be prosecuted then it should be the person who is at fault.

And if you really believe that nonsense about pedestrians being perfectly safe provided everyone drives at 30mph, but in mortal danger the moment anyone goes a few mph faster, then you're living in a dream world.

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

I think you're missing the point of my post mosis; I did not state 35mph was too low a speed to be prosecuted at. I did however mention speed enforcement appears to be the current government's road safety priority. Which I and many others consider to be wrong and possibly why road deaths have stopped falling.

Im sure there are many instances where pedestrians have caused drivers to swerve and crash. Just becuase the pedestrian is usually the one worst off it does not mean they should be exonerated from any blame.

What about the emergency services who have to deal with the pedestrian-caused crash? What about the cost to the NHS?

Surely these factors are worthy of some consideration?

What about those dosy parents, they refuse to cross becauase of the traffic yet stand on the kerb with the pram/buggy/pushchair in the road ??

Is this a new form of traffic calming ??

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Maybe we should introduce a speed limit - you're nto allowed to cross the road at more than 1mph

I am very much against jaywalking laws, although this might because I am very good at crossing roads (that's a rather odd boast, I know, but I am). I tend to see things as pedestrians came first, then horses, then cyclists, then finally motorists. Although a pedestrian on speed that emerges from a hidden door at 10 mph and shoots across the road clearly bears all culpability, it remains true that you can spot 95% of pissed people (lord knows I'm often one of them - and I think alcohol is probably the worst drug to be on as a pedestrian) and it's not unreasonable for drivers to act carefully around them, and it's not unreasonable to expect drivers to know that there are inebriates around between 10-4 in town centres.

It gets more debatable when someone's attempting to walk in the fast lane of a motorway standard dual carrigeway, although I should point out that they are legally entitled to be there - and as the highway code section on pedestrians doesn't contain anything about lane discipline, it's probably only bog standard obstruction...

(am I actually right about the motorist / cyclist order?)

Swiss recently prosecuted a 9 year old because she caused an accident through jay -walking.

It works - few jay-walk - so less pedestrian deaths.

Besides - it almost never gets reported - but there have been a couple of past cases where driver swerved to avoid and ended up colliding with solid street furniture - impact can kill - even a low speed.

Then there was the really silly woman the other day. Was walking towoard the pelican to cross a busy dual. Carriageway separated by barrier so you had to use the pelican to cross.

You would think so.. Only this woman crossed the road and despite lorries approaching in the outer lane to turn right up at the lights some 500 yards ahead - she crosses and walks along the barrier inthe outer lane causing traffic to switch lanes to avoid or stop altogether and walked to the crossing in the middle of the pelican. When she gotr there the green man was lit - because I had actually arrived there first - despite sticking to the pavements and using the crossing properly.

We crossed and but instead of retunring to pavement - she proceeds to walk on the outside of the barrier for 10 yards despite the oncoming traffic and bus emerging from the stop and then rejoined the pavement.

I just do not see the point or reason for the daft behaviour - she was middle aged - in 40s at least and I followed her to the car park... where she unlocked a bicycle and wobbled off - no lights..either

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

don't let mosis drag you in... this is too important!

Jay walkers are dangerous. people running across the motorway, taking short cuts across barrieried duel carriageways cause ripples in the traffic flow and sometimes drastic evasive action.

Pedestrians should not be on our trunk roads, just the same as cars and bikes should drive through the footpaths and pedestrian precincts (and that includes coppers!)

we need a return to
traffic / pedestrian seperation policy
not parking on street corners
people crossing where it is safe to cross
adult cyclists on the road not pavement
wide roads with room to pass cyclists, paths not filled with street furniture
more off road parking to increase visibility
more parking with new build housing to increase visibillity

Sorry if i have drifted off topic, but if you care about road safety you will understand

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

There's a humdinger of a thread on PH right now (registration required):

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 247165&h=0

It's currently at 743 posts and showing no signs of abating.

Personally I'm definaltely for anti-jay walking laws. It drives me to distration when you're approaching a crossing and some muppet decides to cross 10yards before it, expecting you to stop. I almost got knocked off my motorbike by someone doing that and forcing me to swerve hard to avoid him. Crossings are there - bloody well use them!

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I seem to remember a TV documentary a few months ago which claimed that studies indicated that pedestrians would always try to walk the direct route, hence pelican crossings on roundabouts and other grid-lock inducing measures.

Regardless of where the crossings are placed no-one seems to pay a blind bit of notice though.

Except, oddly enough in the absolute city centre (here at least). The large volumes of pedestrians perhaps influence each other with peer pressure (there's always the odd one though)??? I don't know, I'm no expert on this. It does seem to be lone pedestrians or small groups who simply meander out into the path of anything wheeled.

People who push the Wait button on crossings then just bugger off really get on my nerves too.

In short - run over a pedestrian crossing on a green man and you should get hammered.

If you're the pedestrian crossing anywhere other than a prescribed crossing and/or without waiting for the green man then you should expect to pay to repair the dent shaped like your head from the car that you got in the way of.

_________________

Slightly off topic, but pretty soon we will be able to track pedestrians in this manner.

Compulsory carrying of ID cards combined with the fact that they will contain RFID[1] tags will mean that you can simply set up a scanner and clock anyone who walks near it. So all that you would need to do is embed RFID readers into cats eyes and once the proximity drops below a few metres it can issue a jaywalking fine to the address registered at the central computer.

They could even put them in lampposts and fine people for running on the pavement. Speed Kills after all.

Note: I am not endorsing any of the above measures, quite the opposite actually.


[1] Ok, the government realise that people don't like RFID tags and RFID readers, so instead they have something called a "smart chip" that will contain the ID, and a "contactless proximity reader" which uses Radio Frequency in order to acheive this.

I'm no fan of ID cards, but AIUI it won't be compulsory for them to be carried at all times.

_________________
"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

not straight away no. But it probably will be eventually.

Eventually they'll be implanted in your body

_________________
"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

Indeed, have a look at the Book of Revelation. "The Mark of the Beast" it is called, and it is implanted either on your hand or forehead.

I thought that was Logan's Run?

Many moons ago I worked in the USA on harvest driving combines. Pre Harvest there was a saftey school run by the US Custom Cutter Asociation. Anyway, they showed us the insurance costs for hitting deer and swerving to avoid them. It cost twice as much to miss a deer as it does to hit them. The advice was brake hard and hit them if you have to.

So, if someone steps out without looking is it moraly better to brake hard and hit them if you have to while not bringing innocent people into the equation or swerve to avoid them and potentially injuring inocent people?

Well if you hit them, then at least they will have to hang around long enough to be identified (and possibly sued by your insurance), wheras if you swerve, miss them and run into a lamppost then chances are they will bugger off and you will get billed for damaging public property.

A bit of devils advocate there. I personally beleive it's morally right to try and avoid injuring someone, even if they are a stupid moron who probably deserves it. It is not my place to judge. It just sucks that by doing so you'll end up getting penalised more.