RLJ'ing Pedestrians

[joebingo]

Because there's no such thing as RLJing if you're a pedestrian - you can cross wherever you like. And because people moving a tonne of metal around at high speed have a responsibility to make sure they don't hit people with it. Why on earth should everyone get out of the way?

I'm sorry, but what happened to people looking after their own lives? Vehicles on the carraigeway can and do move quickly, if someone isn't looking when crossing it, then the consequences are their own fault entirely. Yes, even if the motorist is speeding.

I also think that people should look at other measures of road safety than just slapping down the speed limit, and putting sleeping policemen and other traffic calming measures all over the place. From my experience all these measures do is seem to anger an already irate mass of road users. As it stands, thirty is a good limit on most urban roads, with the exception of past schools, hospitals etc.

I believe that the current rules should be enforced more, with harsher penalties for breaking them. The DSA should add to the theory test, more questions about vulnerable road users, and new drivers should be taught to act with patience. Why is the mood of Drivers on the continent so different from the mood of Drivers here? There's something more fundamental to be addressed than the speed limit.

 

[Davidc]

Well, I'd go with automatic responsibility for cyclists involved in collisions with pedestrians, but a bicycle is considerably less dangerous than a car at the same speed. How about 30 for bikes and 20 for cars?

Fine - and automatic responsibility for any motor vehicle driver in collision with a pedestrian or a cyclist.

People walking in towns shouldn't need to think about motor vehicles. They do, and that's because we've allowed motors to totally take over our spaces. A 20mph limit in urban areas is the highest that should exist. 10 near schools, houses, shops and so on. Perfectly reasonable for bikes as well.

Would those who disagree like to justify the continuing needless slaughter of 3000 people a year on UK roads?

Sadly it isn't going to happen. The cultural shift would be too great, and the vested interests are too rich and powerful.

The worst decision ever over road use was doing away with the man with the red flag!

 

[mm101]

Why is the mood of Drivers on the continent so different from the mood of Drivers here? There's something more fundamental to be addressed than the speed limit.

It always seems to me that people are pitted against one another in some imaginary competition and everyone is claiming their space. I think people are essentially childish. You only have to take a cursory glance at the pettiness of some drivers in rush hour traffic to see this.

We all have to be somewhere and nobody should have preference over another. Road users have a obligation to look after each other and particular those most vulnerable. We really have to do something to redress the car is king culture. Cutting speed limits across the board and more rigorous enforcement tackling anti-social driving would be a great start.

 

[hackbike 666]

Have you seen how peds cross the road in London?

That's if they haven't got a mobile phone glued in their ear,there is a lot of stupidness out there anyway.

At a guess with Davidc's avatar it seems he may make the rules up as he goes along anyway.

Why can't peds take some sort of responsibility here instead of just bolting across the road to save two seconds yet again.

Then again seems like ped,cyclists car drivers and every other road user ignore the rules to what suits.It's probably a bit deeper out there though isn't it?

They are probably too stupid to know any different.

 

[joebingo]

Fine - and automatic responsibility for any motor vehicle driver in collision with a pedestrian or a cyclist.

No. This automatic responsibility thing must be a joke.

People walking in towns shouldn't need to think about motor vehicles. They do, and that's because we've allowed motors to totally take over our spaces. A 20mph limit in urban areas is the highest that should exist. 10 near schools, houses, shops and so on. Perfectly reasonable for bikes as well.

20 mph is too slow. Obviously, there are huge benifits to a 20 limit in some places, as I said in my post above, outside all schools, hospitals etc. However, seeing as a lot of drvers cannot even stick to the 30 limit, a 20 limit is unenforceable. 10 mph will just not ever work. My car won't go that slowly while ticking over in 2nd, and 1st gear is hardly any good for safe car control.

Would those who disagree like to justify the continuing needless slaughter of 3000 people a year on UK roads?

It's too many, I cannot deny this. I don't think a blanket speed limit of 20 mph will make much of a difference in terms of safety. The idiots that cause accidents will not change their behaviour on the roads. They will still speed, and they will still take un-necessary risks.

Pedestrians aren't blameless either, they have as much duty to look out for road traffic, as road traffic does to look out for them. There are idiots outside of cars too, you know.

 

[Davidc]

No. This automatic responsibility thing must be a joke.



20 mph is too slow. Obviously, there are huge benifits to a 20 limit in some places, as I said in my post above, outside all schools, hospitals etc. However, seeing as a lot of drvers cannot even stick to the 30 limit, a 20 limit is unenforceable. 10 mph will just not ever work. My car won't go that slowly while ticking over in 2nd, and 1st gear is hardly any good for safe car control.




It's too many, I cannot deny this. I don't think a blanket speed limit of 20 mph will make much of a difference in terms of safety. The idiots that cause accidents will not change their behaviour on the roads. They will still speed, and they will still take un-necessary risks.

Pedestrians aren't blameless either, they have as much duty to look out for road traffic, as road traffic does to look out for them. There are idiots outside of cars too, you know.

Automatic responsibility works elsewhere (e.g. Netherlands) so could work here. Clearly there have to be lmits to it.

There is no good reason why motor vehicles cant be designed to operate at slower speeds. Current ones (including mine) would need a modification to the drive chain to be easy to drive any distance at 10 mph.

Equally I can't see any problem with higher speeds on roads designed for them - motorways and dual carriageways. They're very safe if used responsibly.

I wouldn't be surprised to see vehicle automation used to enforce speed limits at some stage in the future. Technologically there's no reason not to.

The pathetic penalties for breaking the rules, and for killing and injuring people while driving are a reflection of attitudes to road use. When they change we might see the idiots coming under control.

Reducing speeds always cuts fatalities and serious injuries.

If we had the will to roll back the domination of the motor vehicle, to reduce the misery of 3000 road deaths, and of many more road injuries, it could be done. We don't have that will, and are unlikely to have it in the forseeable future. More's the pity.

I know I'm an extremist in my views on motor vehicles and their use. I don't apologise for it either. I've just been around long enough to have got fed up with them - or more accurately a significant proportion of their owners and drivers.

 

[joebingo]

Automatic responsibility works elsewhere (e.g. Netherlands) so could work here. Clearly there have to be lmits to it.

I didn't know this - how do they do it though? I remain sceptical, it does kind of disregard the basis of our justice system.

There is no good reason why motor vehicles cant be designed to operate at slower speeds. Current ones (including mine) would need a modification to the drive chain to be easy to drive any distance at 10 mph.

They would, a modification which won't be paid for by those enforcing the new limit, and one that I, most probably, would not be able to afford.

Perhaps an enforced limit of 20, but advisory speed limit of 10/15 mph would work in these areas?

Equally I can't see any problem with higher speeds on roads designed for them - motorways and dual carriageways. They're very safe if used responsibly.

+1, I'm always a little surprised when I hear about people who are phobic of these roads.

I wouldn't be surprised to see vehicle automation used to enforce speed limits at some stage in the future. Technologically there's no reason not to.

Intelligent speed adaptation is already being tested in the UK. The system uses GPS to know the limit of the road you are on, and is available in varying degrees of control. I'm definitely not against advisary ISA in motor vehicles. This system will let you know the speed limit of the road you are travelling on, and will let you know when you are travelling above it. Anything above that level of intervention, I think, would be detrimental to road safety.

Drivers should control their speed, not the vehicle they're driving. It is this reason that I don't like cars with cruise control, it leads to a level of complacency in driving, which is exactly what you don't need when in control of a tonne of metal!

The pathetic penalties for breaking the rules, and for killing and injuring people while driving are a reflection of attitudes to road use. When they change we might see the idiots coming under control.

This is the crux of the issue, as I have already stated, I think that the speed limits are sufficiently safe, it's the enforcement of them, and punishment of drivers who break them which needs to change.

Reducing speeds always cuts fatalities and serious injuries.

There are other and better ways to do this, however. Having a speed limit implies that it will always be safe to drive at that speed (I'm not pro abolition btw), and a lot of drivers seem to see this way. I remember during the snow in February, I saw someone going at least 30 down my road. He proceeded to brake and skid into a parked car. Driver education needs to be improve for road safety to improve.

If we had the will to roll back the domination of the motor vehicle, to reduce the misery of 3000 road deaths, and of many more road injuries, it could be done. We don't have that will, and are unlikely to have it in the forseeable future. More's the pity.

I'm not so sure it's the domination of motor vehicles, rather the apparent reliance on. There are definitely too many cars on the road, the alternatives need to improve before this changes. It would be great if everyone cycled, but people are too lazy. The busses and tubes in London, however, are overpriced, unclean and overcrowded.

I know I'm an extremist in my views on motor vehicles and their use. I don't apologise for it either. I've just been around long enough to have got fed up with them - or more accurately a significant proportion of their owners and drivers.

I'm definitely getting that way to an extent. Some people are downright stupid. Not all are, however.

 

[Radius]

If the same number of people that die on the roads were dying in a war every year, there would be outrage. It is social acceptance of driving / road 'eventualities' that has led to this.
On the other hand, I can't see how automatic responsibility would work. Surely the flip side would be that pedestrians were more nonchalant about crossing traffic, because they would know that they were going to be 'automatically' in the right no matter their actions!

 

[hackbike 666]

Originally Posted by Davidc
I know I'm an extremist in my views on motor vehicles and their use. I don't apologise for it either. I've just been around long enough to have got fed up with them - or more accurately a significant proportion of their owners and drivers.

Yeah I could detect this in your postings.I have been to other countries where the moton behaviour is much better.In fact I spent time cycling in Bangkok last year and when I came back to my commute here I found it very difficult to get back into as the driving here can be agressive.They seem to have more tolerance in other countries towards cyclists.

BTW I don't own a car and have been lucky enough to get by without one for most of my life.


Originally Posted by Davidc
Reducing speeds always cuts fatalities and serious injuries.

Relevant policing to enforce the laws would be quite nice too as opposed to ignoring all the road traffic offences.


Originally Posted by Davidc
The pathetic penalties for breaking the rules, and for killing and injuring people while driving are a reflection of attitudes to road use. When they change we might see the idiots coming under control.

That doesn't only apply to motor vehicles though does it?

Oh yeah my ped rant last night.I don't actually mind peds who actually look and are patient and cross responsively when they cross the road and I try to thank them or raise an arm when possible as i appreciate it as opposed to crossing dangerously and unpredictively in front of me.

 

[skwerl]

People walking in towns shouldn't need to think about motor vehicles. They do, and that's because we've allowed motors to totally take over our spaces. A 20mph limit in urban areas is the highest that should exist. 10 near schools, houses, shops and so on. Perfectly reasonable for bikes as well.

Would those who disagree like to justify the continuing needless slaughter of 3000 people a year on UK roads?

"Slaughter". Come on.

How many of those 3000 are killed in urban areas? How many of those 3000 are attributed to excessive speed of a 3rd party?

 

[Origamist]

"Slaughter". Come on.

How many of those 3000 are killed in urban areas? How many of those 3000 are attributed to excessive speed of a 3rd party?

Two thirds of all road casualties take place in built up areas.

The London Assembly Transport Committee draft report published a couple of months ago, supported borough-wide 20mph zones. If TFL go for it, a pilot scheme will not be far away...

 

[skwerl]

hmm. fatality rates have pretty much reduced 5% year on year since the 50s yet traffic volume has consistently increased.

22% of fatalities are pedestrians, i.e. about 660 in 2007. 12% of accidents are attributed to excessive speed. It's doesn't necessarily directly correlate but 12% of 660 is 80

 

[tandemman]

I think it's a mindset problem as well as a cultural one.In France, Germany, Holland etc almost everyone owns,and uses a bicycle, so all motorists "see "themselves when they see a cycle. In the UK, most people who own a bike seldom if ever use it, and don't see themselves as a cyclist. You can never successfully legislate for idiots they just ignore the rules, which in themselves become a nuisance for the people who did not need the rules in the first place.
A fundamental change in road markings and the teachings of road behavior would eventually produce the desired effect but it wouldn't be overnight.

 

[Origamist]

It depends how you interpret excessive speed. If you include exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions, it's closer to 26%, not 12%.

20mph zones will save a lot of lives. Don't forget average speeds in peak times are around 20mph and only a few mph more at off peak times.

 

[theclaud]

I know I'm an extremist in my views on motor vehicles and their use. I don't apologise for it either. I've just been around long enough to have got fed up with them - or more accurately a significant proportion of their owners and drivers.

I don't think so - that people should be able to walk around and survive without being constantly vigilant seems an entirely moderate and sensible position to me. The notion that we should shape our lives, spaces and societies around people moving dangerous and polluting vehicles around at speed for no good reason is the barmy one. I was kinda joking about the higher speed limit for bikes - it's true that I don't really see a need for a bicycle speed limit at all, but I do think that some cyclists are in danger of identifying too much with motorists - becoming drivers on bikes, as it were. Cycling fast is nice, but we should not expect pedestrians to get out of the way for it.