Safe Speed Forums

I did not say all have exactly equal, just that all road users have a responsibilty for their's and other's safety and if they are incapable of doing so then they need supervision . If I am the more vulnerable then it is in my own interest to take extra care if I want to survive. That is why young children need the supervision of an adult until they know how to deal with situations properly and is why we need to teach them road safety.

I totally agree with you and this is a fundamental point which seems to elude cyclists in particular. This is why there must never be automatic liability in any collision situation.

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

These discussions always seems to get tied up around this area.
I think the key terms in the above posts is "responsibility" and "interest" ... the amount of volunerability/"interest" (or lack of) by any road user can't possibly dissolve another of their responsibility.
Whether/how you can enforce any road user taking that "interest" and/or responsiblity is the problem.

I think it's something we used to do better than we currently do. When I was what, 10? 11? you couldn't turn on the telly without "Tufty" and his mates haranguing you about your green cross code! OK, I don't get to watch as much kids' TV as I used to, but I get the impression that the emphasis has moved away from even trying to educate kids, to just dumping it all on the driver. Very satisfying for the lawyers, I'm sure. Less so for the bereaved, perhaps. As others have said, I clearly do not believe that EQUAL responsibility is fair either, but I fail to see what harm can be done (and, in fact, see a lot of GOOD that could be done!) by doing everything possible to instil a sense of shared (proportionally shared!) responsibility in ALL road users (or their responsible guardians). I see it as a great evil, in fact, that in their enthusiasm to get rid of cars, there are some who would use these most vulnerable of road users as pawns in their political game.

I could say, with equal justification: as a child I was taught that the motorist was the most important road user and that, as a pedestrian, I was of little account and if I wanted to survive we should take good care to give full obseqience to drivers. That, in essence, is the message from Tufty and the Green Cross code.

But today the teaching is that all road users are equally important and should take care not to harm each other. And since it is so much easier for a car driver to harm a pedestrian than vice versa a greater duty of care must fall on the driver 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

That's very much Weepy's line, but while I can see the argument, I don't think it's the best route to ensuring safety. I was probably not a very well developed small child when Tufty was doing his thing, because I never read all that into it. To me it was nothing more sinister than playing with matches - "if you do this you might get hurt".

Even today (and maybe I'm just naive) I don't read all that into it.

There used to be similar ones (with Rolf Harris, I think?) warning kids about playing near rivers. Presumably now the message is "play around rivers as much as you like kids, and if anything bad happens, sue the pants off the rich git who owns the land adjacent to the river and failed to secure it properly"!?

But surely that misses the various points that have been made about being responsible?

All road users must try to anticipate incidents, manage risk, observe well, travel so that they can stop in the distance that they know to be clear, (COAST etc) then they will stop (bar those highly exceptional incidents), before another person becomes a real threat.

We must all look out for each other and take care, but not to the extend that it becomes the legal responsibility to ensure the safety of another.
On the second point I am amazed that this is what you were taught! I take this is not how you still feel?

We all can all improve and hone our skills, abilities and knowledge.

Mole happily most kids education public info films are still sensible. Thank goodness!

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Either your teachers were poor or you completely misunderstood the message. As Mole says above, it was just warning you to be careful and nothing about the social positioning of different road users. Of course, you may believe that teachers are renowned for being politically unbiased and never partaking in social engineering.

As for teaching today, you are also incorrect in citing the message of equality. The message in school now (probably from left wing, "green" leaning teachers) is that the driver is bad and that you can do what you like as it's their fault in all cases. As opposed to that, I simply support the commonsense position that we should all look out for our own safety and that of others.

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

Please provide evidence of a teacher who has said this (or something similar).

Just out of interest, IS there some sort of "Tufty" equivalent these days? Is there a formal curriculum item in schools for road safety? I can't honestly remember, but I think when I was in primary school, we had the odd local bobby come round and talk to us all about road safety, Green Cross Code & all that.

As this is just a forum and not a court, I don't have to provide any evidence of anything but you might like to consider the mindset of the teachers who would support the farce reported in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=26241&p=249795#p249785

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

The message wasn't explicit but it was there. Rather like modern teaching that all adult males earn potential paedophiles and children shouldn't trust them.


You are saying that pedestrians should be taught to keep out of the way of cars because those cars can kill them. That is an eminently pragmatic thing to teach but it implies that car drivers are, by virtue of their ability to kill pedestrians, superior beings. That is the law of the jungle, not of a caring society.



I am disappointed in you, Mole, with that specious argument. A river is an inanimate object and the dangers it poses, unlike those posed by the motor car, cannot be mitigated. And |I think you will find that back in Tufty's day a dfamn site more children played around rivers,unsupervised , than they do today

_________________
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

It already is the legal responsibility, in most areas of life, to ensure the safety of others. If you are working on a roof and drop your hammer on a passer-byes head you will be held responsible. If you are rough shooting and you pot a passer-bye instead of a rabbit you will be held responsible. If you are piloting an aeroplane you are legally responsible for the safety of your passengers. Why should the driver of a motor car be less accountable?


Yes I still feel that motor vehicle drivers, in general, feel that they are superior to and have precedence over pedestrians. For example: if a pedestrian wants to cross a road when a motor vehicle is approaching the expectation of the driver is that the pedestrian should wait until the motor vehicle has passed even though there would be ample time for the driver to stop and allow the pedestrian to cross in front of him.

_________________
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

Derbyshire have a fairly extensive programme of road safety teaching http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/transport_roads/road_safety/children_schools/resources/default.asp which is far more sophisticated than Malcolm's belief that it simply consists of saying: "The driver is always wrong"

Though it is getting on for ten years since my youngest was at primary school I was quite satisfied with whatb they were taught then. Though they probably learnt a healthier and more robust attitude to road safety on their daily, supervised, walk to school than they would have done had they been driven there.

_________________
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

Have you got recent personal experience of this, as a teacher or class-room assistant?

_________________
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 don't agree with that particular project but that isolated example doesn't prove your assertion that the message in all schools is "that the driver is bad and that you can do what you like as it's their fault in all cases". Even that example isn't giving that message.

There seem to be a lot of people on this forum who like to put words in the mouths of the establishment or others they disagree with just so they can say the exact opposite in reply.

Yes, it's like that on most forums as it stimulates debate and clarifies views. You are welcome to introduce "proof" that I am wrong. I won't mind.

In fact, on here a lot of people have stated that I have posted something which, on examination, I have not. For example, where did I say "all schools"?

I can be a lot more provocative if you like especially about social engineering in schools.

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

And conversly it is the expectation of the driver ( though any good & competant driver should always assume that a pedestrian has more important things on their mind than checking that it is safe to proceed), that the pedestrian will look round to ensure that it is safe to move ,before doing so. In 20 areas in particular ,I find that it's odds on for a pedestrian to do the unexpected ( and that usually means engaging legs before brain in observation mode. In particular ,in the one 20 town street ,I now find even wheelchairs and those on crutches in middle of traffic .This one street ,which before the introduction of a 20 limit was a safe street ( although 20 was fast) has now become pedestrian kami kazi alley .

_________________
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

Good example! the question is, why aren't we doing the same thing with cars? Just like the car driver, the adult male has the capacity to cause harm to the child and the sensible thing is to teach kids to be wary of them, so why not cars?



No, I don't see it that way. Taking the "law of the jungle" metaphor, I wouldn't see a poisonous snake or a tiger as "superior" to me, but they could kill me! Of course, the tiger or snake isn't capable of taking responsibility for its actions (which is where this one falls down), but it illustrates that I just can't make the link between the capacity to kill or injure (in itself) and superiority. OK, how about this one... The gang of drunken thugs on streets late at night has the capacity to kill or injure me, but isn't superior to me, yet I still stay out of its way wherever possible, despite having every right to be there.



Oi! Now who's being specious?! I never said they'd sue the river! And yes, you CAN mitigate the dangers - by restricting access! (Whether or not that's a good thing, of course, is a different issue). Anyway, I thought you'd like that one because in general only rich gits (AKA "superior") generally own stretches of river!

And yet, if we, as a society, want to reap the undoubted benefits that the motor car can bring, surely you can see that the pedestrian's freedom of movement (and the motorist's freedom of movement, come to that) have to be restricted to a certain extent? You could pretty much gridlock the centre of every big town and city pretty much instantly if you introduced an automatic right of way for pedestrians in every situation!