Looking like a commuter is safer ...

[MrHappyCyclist]

Roads are dangerous because of the arrogance and stupidity of various different road users, from pedestrians to lorry's.

Roads are dangerous mostly because people bring large, powerful, heavy machinery to them (i.e. motor vehicles, specially lorries). Yes, some people do foolish things, even knowing that the large, heavy machinery is likely to be there, but it is a very important responsibility of those in control of the motor vehicles to anticipate those foolish things and drive accordingly (e.g. slowing down).

It takes one idiot for the road to become a dangerous place, the number of idiots that wander across the main road looking at their i-pods is quite scary, yet the second a motorist hits them, it's the big dangerous motorist at fault, for as far as society is concerned motorists guilty until proven innocent.

Yes, this pedestrian is foolish, but the motorist should not drive at a speed that makes it impossible to avoid a collision should the foolish pedestrian walk out in front of them. In practice, a court would consider what can be reasonably expected of a competent motorist, but make no mistake, the problem is being hit by a car, not walking with an i-pod. In the absence of the car, the ipod would cause no damage, but in the absence of the i-pod, the car would still cause the same damage.

If you go out with the attitude "givin' it large" then you will find trouble, and it would seem that there are some cyclists who are going out of their way to find trouble.

Not sure what "givin' it large" means. I have certainly seen some very foolish cyclists, but I get the impression that they believe they are safe even when they aren't. I can't say I've ever seen a cyclist going out of their way to find trouble, though.

 

[cd365]

Yes, this pedestrian is foolish, but the motorist should not drive at a speed that makes it impossible to avoid a collision should the foolish pedestrian walk out in front of them.

Maybe we need someone with a red flag to walk in front of all cars again? It is not always the car drivers fault when a pedestrian or a cyclist gets hit by a car.

 

[Wankelschrauben]

the problem is being hit by a car, not walking with an i-pod.

This is where our difference in opinion lies, you say the problem is being hit by a car, I would say, the problem was road awareness which resulted in a pedestrian being hit by a car.

You have gone so far as to incriminate the motorist without trial, in your opinion he is guilty without doubt, whilst I have merely stated the situation, suggesting that at least one party or perhaps both, was at fault.

There is a particularly famous legal case, Fitzgerald V Lane & Patel 1988, whereby it was declared that a pedestrian was as equally at fault as a pair of speeding motorists for he crossed the road without paying attention. The claimant was deemed to have contributed negligently to the act and was therfore awarded a fraction of the damages he would have otherwise been awarded.

 

[cyberknight]

This is where our difference in opinion lies, you say the problem is being hit by a car, I would say, the problem was road awareness which resulted in a pedestrian being hit by a car.

Y

i would have to agree with you on this part about if you walk across the road not paying attention then it is stupid, but it should not absolve the responsibility of the road user to drive safely and have awareness of what is happening.

 

[Wankelschrauben]

You are right it does not absolve responsability, all road users have a responsability to use the road in a manner that is respectful to the rules of the road and all other road users.

Sometimes events may occur that no amount of awareness can prevent.

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

In practice, a court would consider what can be reasonably expected of a competent motorist

You have gone so far as to incriminate the motorist without trial, in your opinion he is guilty without doubt,

No I haven't. See my quote from above.

There is a particularly famous legal case, Fitzgerald V Lane & Patel 1988, whereby it was declared that a pedestrian was as equally at fault as a pair of speeding motorists for he crossed the road without paying attention. The claimant was deemed to have contributed negligently to the act and was therfore awarded a fraction of the damages he would have otherwise been awarded.

I think you are referring to the case where two motorists both hit a pedestrian on a pelican crossing that was on red (for pedestrians), and the court did indeed decide that the pedestrian was equally to blame as the motorists were.

However, I was responding to your comment "Roads are dangerous because ...", which is a different matter. There is no doubt that motor vehicles bring almost all of the danger to the situation. In their absence, there would be no need for other road users to be so alert to danger.

My point is that, far from acting as though they own the road, motorists should take the lion's share of responsibility for ensuring that the presence of their motor vehicle poses as little danger as possible to other, vulnerable road users, and should accept the fact that it is they who are a guest in the public space, to be tolerated by other road users provided they abide by some very stringent rules.

Incidentally, I apply this principle to myself as well, as a motorist with over 350,000 miles of experience, who pays fuel duty, GVED (£30.00), insurance, and tax on that insurance, but who has never, ever paid road tax, having been born decades after the latter was abolished.

 

[funnymummy]

I ride my MummyBike, upright position, ladies stepthrough frame bright yellow panniers on the back... and I look like a girl on it... hardly any problems, with or without Cains trailer on the back.
Get on my old Dawes, or now my Spesh, dressed in 'proper' cycling gear & the pratts seem to view me as a challenge..I gave a driver a piece of mind when i caught up with him at traffic lights yesterday.... He was a bit put out, uttered the words "Oh you're a bird, sorry didn't realise"
I may have to wear more pink from now on!!

 

[Wankelschrauben]

Perhaps there shouldn't be any road users......then no one would need road awareness, however we'd soon fall back to the dark ages with no means for our produce to mobilise, no means for our supermarkets to re-stock and no means to ferry our young ones to the gates of school on time.

 

[Origamist]

Perhaps there shouldn't be any road users......then no one would need road awareness, however we'd soon fall back to the dark ages with no means for our produce to mobilise, no means for our supermarkets to re-stock and no means to ferry our young ones to the gates of school on time.

Perhaps there should be less driving kids to school and more kids walking and cycling. Oh, but hang on, what are the principal reasons that most people give for not wanting to walk or cycle to school?

 

[tongskie01]

Perhaps there should be less driving kids to school and more kids walking and cycling. Oh, but hang on, what are the principal reasons that most people give for not wanting to walk or cycle to school?

its dangerous for kids to walk or cycle to school? haven't enough time?

 

[tongskie01]

i would have to agree with you on this part about if you walk across the road not paying attention then it is stupid, but it should not absolve the responsibility of the road user to drive safely and have awareness of what is happening.

that's where hazard perception comes in which majority of motorists lacks or ignores. driving a motor vehicle=less blood circulation to brain=less attention.....

 

[Adasta]

Roads are dangerous because of the arrogance and stupidity of various different road users, from pedestrians to lorry's.

Lorries. It's lorries. A plural is never formed by randomly placing an apostrophe in a word.

 

[brokenbetty]

This is where our difference in opinion lies, you say the problem is being hit by a car, I would say, the problem was road awareness which resulted in a pedestrian being hit by a car

Tell you what, I'll volunteer to be hit by an un-road-aware pedestrian at average walking speed if you volunteer to be hit by an un-road-aware driver at average driving speed. If they are both equally dangerous then we should both come off about the same, right?

 

[MrHappyCyclist]

I ride my MummyBike, upright position, ladies stepthrough frame bright yellow panniers on the back... and I look like a girl on it... hardly any problems, with or without Cains trailer on the back. Get on my old Dawes, or now my Spesh, dressed in 'proper' cycling gear & the pratts seem to view me as a challenge..I gave a driver a piece of mind when i caught up with him at traffic lights yesterday.... He was a bit put out, uttered the words "Oh you're a bird, sorry didn't realise" I may have to wear more pink from now on!!

An interesting study was published in 2007 (Ian Walker, Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender, Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 39, Issue 2, March 2007, Pages 417-425) where a bicycle was kitted out with proximity measuring equipment and ridden under various conditions.

Among other things, the study found that drivers were much more likely to pass very close if the rider was wearing a helmet than if they weren't (by a factor of more than 1.4). Another finding was that drivers tended to pass leaving more space (by 14cm on average) if the rider wore a long blonde wig to make him look like a woman.

Another particularly significant finding was that drivers tended to pass closer if the cyclist was further out from the kerb. (Though there are other reasons for keeping away from the kerb and the author does point this out.)
http://

 

[Davidc]

:troll: ?