Screwed up Justice System

[MattyKo]

Should not a "ROAD USER" be an individual that utilises some form of equipment, such; car, van, or bicycle.

Pedestrian road fatalities is a consequence of an altercation between two or more people on uneven terms.

The death of a pedestrian by another pedestrian would be consider a physical assault. However once one of these people utilise transport equipment such fatalities are consider traffic accidents, in the majority of incidences. This brings us back to the original thread Screwed Up Justice, the injuries to the cyclist are deemed not of malicious intent, even in the case of intoxication.

 

[Frood42]

Should not a "ROAD USER" be an individual that utilises some form of equipment, such; car, van, or bicycle.

No, I am walking on the road (countryside does not have pavements everywhere), therefore I am using the road, so I am a road user (and a vunerable road user at that, same as horse riders, cyclists etc...).

I would also consider pavements to be part of the "road" layout, and so a part of the road infrastructure.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/vulnerable.pdf
Drivers
Everyone has the right to travel on the road safely, whether by car, motorcycle, pedal cycle, horse or on foot.
Drivers should take extra care to avoid collisions with ulnerable road users, because a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist or horse rider will always come off worse.


https://www.gov.uk/road-users-requiring-extra-care-204-to-225
1. Overview (204)
204
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.

2. Pedestrians (205 to 210)
205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.


http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/road-user
noun

1. anyone who uses a road, such as a pedestrian, cyclist or motorist

Intelligent transport systems
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/its/road/action_plan/its_and_vulnerable_road_users_en.htm
ITS & Vulnerable Road Users
Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) are defined in the ITS Directive as "non-motorised road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists as well as motor-cyclists and persons with disabilities or reduced mobility and orientation".

 

[GrumpyGregry]

In my opinion pedestrians cannot be referred to as a road user group, however, they did unfortunately account for 420 of the approximate 1700 UK road deaths in 2012.

Should not a "ROAD USER" be an individual that utilises some form of equipment, such; car, van, or bicycle.

Pedestrian road fatalities is a consequence of an altercation between two or more people on uneven terms.

It may just be me but I don't think a lot of the words you are using mean what you think they mean.

 

[clockman]

@MattyKo, How can you say that 'pedestrians cannot be referred to as a road user group', following on from your previous sentence that '25% of ROAD deaths in 2012 where PEDESTRIANS or cyclists!

Have you ever read The Highway Code? In its introduction, it says that it is essential reading for everyone.
It's rules apply to all road users: PEDESTRIANS, horse riders and cyclists, as well as motorcyclists and drivers.

This is the sort of narrow minded bigotry that we (as cyclists) should only expect to receive from ignorant drivers! Anyone who uses a road, is a road user.

If, as a cyclist, you are riding along a road and you hit and injure a pedestrian, you will be legally at fault.

I do understand that this is a forum, that we all have our own opinions. But, really!

 

[MattyKo]

My issue wishing of not refer to pedestrians as a "road user" group, is firstly to not force a classification onto a group of people primarily for statistical purposes. I believe that we would be hard pressed to refer to pedestrians as traffic, using the term with reference to roads. A pedestrian or person, does not venture outside and willingly participate in the flow of road traffic. Secondly, one quarter of those that died as a result of road traffic accidents in 2012 were pedestrians. In my opinion should this issue be considered with the sufficient merit that it deserves, and we consider ways in which to physically separate those that cause injury (or more severe consequences) from those do not. Just as much as cyclists during the statistical year 2012 was considered responsible for the death of two pedestrians, following an adverse traffic event, it would be exceedingly difficult for a pedestrian to cause injury or more severe consequences to a 55 tonne heavy goods vehicle occupant.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My issue wishing of not refer to pedestrians as a "road user" group, is firstly to not force a classification onto a group of people primarily for statistical purposes. I believe that we would be hard pressed to refer to pedestrians as traffic, using the term with reference to roads. A pedestrian or person, does not venture outside and willingly participate in the flow of road traffic. Secondly, one quarter of those that died as a result of road traffic accidents in 2012 were pedestrians. In my opinion should this issue be considered with the sufficient merit that it deserves, and we consider ways in which to physically separate those that cause injury (or more severe consequences) from those do not. Just as much as cyclists during the statistical year 2012 was considered responsible for the death of two pedestrians, following an adverse traffic event, it would be exceedingly difficult for a pedestrian to cause injury or more severe consequences to a 55 tonne heavy goods vehicle occupant.

As I thought. A segregationist.

Roads are public space. Roads are shared space. Pedestrians (and cyclists) were there first and use the public space as of right whilst the motor vehicle operators are there by licence. We are all pedestrians we are not all motor vehicle operators. Therefore society needs to impose and increase the restrictions on the licensed not restrict other people's inalienable rights.

We don't need to physically separate the vulnerable from those that threaten them. We need to get the threateners to slow the **** down and leave their weapons elsewhere when the vulnerable are around, the perpetrators behaviour needs to be changed and controlled not the victims.

 

[MattyKo]

As a continuation of my earlier posting; the road traffic accident report published by the government, within its pages "the economic" consequences of accidents. Although there may be economic consequences of traffic accidents, it is little more that annoying that it is included in a report that highlights the grim consequences of the interaction between those that wishing to travel faster than walking pace.

Concerning the physical separation of those that are primarily responsible for the causing of injury (and more) from those that cannot. I have also previously referred to an integrated transport policy, embracing water, rail, road, wheels and feet (and hands). Historically I believe I would be correct to suggest that in order for sufficient investment within the transport policy of the day, the canals, the rail, the roads, each government has ensured that the older means of transportation is put at a disadvantage or intentionally made redundant. Which prevents and integrated transport policy to be embraced. This notion is quickly displayed today, concerning the High Speed Rail Line 2, we have the option of either moving forward with this policy or up dating regional line (or just lines in and out of London) on the older network. At the time of Dr Beeching advising the closure of a portion of the rail network, the line that closed I understand the actual rails were immediately lifted to prevent future use.

However this is a cycling website and not a rail one. So I shall close with mention to bicycles. Questions are raised regarding the merits of separating cycles from the normal flow of road traffic, such as in the blue cycle lane in London. However, I am sure I am not the first to suggest that the painting of a few lines, whether different in colour or not, or even the creation of rumble strips on the road surface, does not prevent the occurrence of future traffic accidents.

 

[MattyKo]

As I though. A segregationist.

Roads are public space. Roads are shared space. Pedestrians (and cyclists) were there first and use the public space as of right whilst the motor vehicle operators are there by licence. We are all pedestrians we are not all motor vehicle operators. Therefore society needs to impose and increase the restrictions on the licensed not restrict other people inalienable rights.

We don't need to physically separate the vulnerable from those that threaten them. We need to get the threateners to slow the **** down and leave their weapons elsewhere when the vulnerable are around, the perpetrators behaviour needs to be changed and controlled not the victims.

I really do agree with you with the question of speed. I was unfortunately, involved in a serious traffic accident. This accident happened on a urban road, where the speed restriction was 30 mph. Within my police witness statement I said immediately prior to been struck by the vehicle, the notion of 40 or 50 mph went through my head. However because the police were unable to prove the issue of speed on this vehicle, they could not pursue a prosecution. I have unfortunately, recently began using a car again, and released that it is without question that the commercial vehicle that very nearly ended my life was travelling beyond the speed limit. Had it been travelling within the speed limit, it would have clearly had sufficient time and space to stop before causing me, change of life injuries. Unfortunately, this was a commercial vehicle that caused injury to me and therefore had all of the professional legal services that such organisations can bring to there disposal.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I really do agree with you with the question of speed. I was unfortunately, involved in a serious traffic accident. This accident happened on a urban road, where the speed restriction was 30 mph. Within my police witness statement I said immediately prior to been struck by the vehicle, the notion of 40 or 50 mph went through my head. However because the police were unable to prove the issue of speed on this vehicle, they could not pursue a prosecution. I have unfortunately, recently began using a car again, and released that it is without question that the commercial vehicle that very nearly ended my life was travelling beyond the speed limit. Had it been travelling within the speed limit, it would have clearly had sufficient time and space to stop before causing me, change of life injuries. Unfortunately, this was a commercial vehicle that caused injury to me and therefore had all of the professional legal services that such organisations can bring to there disposal.

I am genuinely sorry to hear you had life changing injuries. Something I can empathise with.

If someone points a loaded gun at my head in the street the answer is NOT to ban me from public spaces, or blame me when I get shot.

There is no technology reason why ALL motor vehicles cannot be forced, electronically, to comply with speed limits. There is no reason why lower speed limits cannot be implemented and enforced. How about we just swap mph for kph and keep all the numbers/signs the same? 30kph where people live.
All that is missing is the political will to make it so.

 

[sheddy]

For those who have yet to do so - please sign http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/

 

[GrumpyGregry]

However this is a cycling website and not a rail one. So I shall close with mention to bicycles. Questions are raised regarding the merits of separating cycles from the normal flow of road traffic, such as in the blue cycle lane in London.

Regarding the merits of separating cycles from the normal flow of road traffic? There are none.

The question itself teeters on the brink of collapse as a result of its own internal contradictions because

Cycles ARE normal traffic
Pedestrians ARE normal traffic
Equestrians ARE normal traffic

We don't need a separate network for so-called abnormal flows of road traffic, we need all the actors in the normal multi-modal flow to operate their vehicles, and, otherwise, behave, appropriately towards each other which means putting the needs of the most vulnerable in that normal flow at the top of the list. On the basis of their vulnerability. Because that, simply put, is the right thing to do in a civilised society.

Reduce the speed and volume of motor traffic.
Leave the roads as they are.
Job done.

 

[clockman]

I really do agree with you with the question of speed. I was unfortunately, involved in a serious traffic accident. This accident happened on a urban road, where the speed restriction was 30 mph. Within my police witness statement I said immediately prior to been struck by the vehicle, the notion of 40 or 50 mph went through my head. However because the police were unable to prove the issue of speed on this vehicle, they could not pursue a prosecution. I have unfortunately, recently began using a car again, and released that it is without question that the commercial vehicle that very nearly ended my life was travelling beyond the speed limit. Had it been travelling within the speed limit, it would have clearly had sufficient time and space to stop before causing me, change of life injuries. Unfortunately, this was a commercial vehicle that caused injury to me and therefore had all of the professional legal services that such organisations can bring to there disposal.

I to am sorry to here about your accident and am glad that you seem to be able to get back behind the wheel of a car again.
It would appear, that you too have had a raw deal from our justice system. You mention it was a commercial vehicle that caused you injuries. Who is it that the police where not able to prove the speed? Surely it had a tachograph? If it did not, was the driver and the company not prosecuted for that issue?

My issue wishing of not refer to pedestrians as a "road user" group, is firstly to not force a classification onto a group of people primarily for statistical purposes. I believe that we would be hard pressed to refer to pedestrians as traffic, using the term with reference to roads. A pedestrian or person, does not venture outside and willingly participate in the flow of road traffic. Secondly, one quarter of those that died as a result of road traffic accidents in 2012 were pedestrians. In my opinion should this issue be considered with the sufficient merit that it deserves, and we consider ways in which to physically separate those that cause injury (or more severe consequences) from those do not. Just as much as cyclists during the statistical year 2012 was considered responsible for the death of two pedestrians, following an adverse traffic event, it would be exceedingly difficult for a pedestrian to cause injury or more severe consequences to a 55 tonne heavy goods vehicle occupant.

Now, of course a pedestrian willingly ventures outside and they have to participate with the traffic flow. They have to cross roads at the very least. Also how the devil do you intent to segregate pedestrians to any prevent injury? There are always going to be accidents. You cannot prevent them, that is why you have vehicle insurance. If the accident is caused by bad behaviour, that is a different matter.
Town planners tried to segregate pedestrians from the traffic when rebuilding after the last war. It didn't work, Birminghams Bull Ring, if I'm not mistaken was a case in point.

I hope that the two cyclists responsible for the deaths of of pedestrians received the full weight of the law! And it is very possible for a pedestrian to cause the occupant of a 55 tonne vehicle injury. It comes back to the willing interaction of the pedestrian with traffic. They step out without looking into the path of said vehicle. Driver swerves to avoid. Bingo, an accident happens possibly causing an injury, it depends where and how the vehicle comes to a stop. School children and OAPs spring to mind as the pedestrians that would step out without looking.