Should truck drivers have their licences suspended for using mobile phones?‏

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 3104936, member: 45"]At risk of repeating myself, we were discussing children and roads. Before the post I replied to asking your age you said that lollipopers would cross you over when you were young. They're few and far between these days, despite you claiming otherwise. You said you've never been run over as you were taught road safety at a very early age. In the context of the discussion -children crossing roads- the environment is very different today to when you were young.

The whole, and completely relevant, point is that the danger that road vehicles bring today is very different and much greater than when you or I were young. So, if we are to share responsibility as you have suggested, that requires that pedestrians have to increase their share of responsibility through no fault of their own. We have to do more to protect ourselves these days, when it's the road vehicles that have increased the risk. That's not shared responsibility, that's not right, and that's why I asked how old you were.[/QUOTE]
I know they still have lollipop-persons at my old junior school because i ride past them... they also have two of them at the junior school down the road from where i currently live... and the one near my parent's house. As far as i can tell oop'north... they're not the thing of the past like white dog poo, deely-boppers and spangles.

In light of the fact that you too seem to think that one should not take some responsibility for their own safety (i.e. to share the responsibility)....What road sense advice would you give to kids these days?

PS... you don't have to reply, you won't be the first to avoid that question.

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 3105063, member: 45"]I've not said that pedestrians should not take some responsibility.

I think we may have found the reason why you've not had a reply to that question previously.[/QUOTE]

oh that's odd.. because ever since I've suggested that it should be a 'shared responsibility'... people on here seem to have other, alternative ideas... but don't seem to want to answer the question "What road sense advice would you give to kids?"... I expect their reluctance is due to the fact that they agree that it is in fact a shared responsibility, but would rather argue the toss and moan a bit more about cars.

I'm glad we finally all agree that we do have a shared responsibility regarding our safety on or around the roads

 

[summerdays]

They will not have enough lollies to cover every direction of approach to a school. Kids arriving at my kids old primary school had one lollipop person who covered the nearby zebra, coming from other directions they could cross busy roads which included an A road, a road with mini roundabouts, a round with 4 lanes. We lived inside that square, but we still had to deal with narrow roads and parents who drove on the pavement. Most of their time at the school ther wasn't any lollipop man, and we only got one in the last few years of my youngest at the school. Not every school in Bristol has a lollipop crossing I know that fact.

It's a nervous time when you decide your child is ready to start making those choices for themselves, and I've seen many a child make the wrong decision, lucky with alert drivers most of the time.

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 3105096, member: 45"]Feel that rustling in your hair just then? That was the point whistling past you.

Try reading #161 again.[/QUOTE]
please.. stop.... you really are being silly now.

 

[jonesy]

oh that's odd.. because ever since I've suggested that it should be a 'shared responsibility'... people on here seem to have other, alternative ideas... but don't seem to want to answer the question "What road sense advice would you give to kids?"... I expect their reluctance is due to the fact that they agree that it is in fact a shared responsibility, but would rather argue the toss and moan a bit more about cars.

I'm glad we finally all agree that we do have a shared responsibility regarding our safety on or around the roads

Children have to be warned about the danger of motor vehicles in preparation for taking responsibilities as as adult, just as children have to learn about all sorts of things in life that we don't hold them responsible for until they become adults. Children need to be warned of the dangers of chainsaws, but it is the adult using one who must bear the burden of responsibility for ensuring children aren't hurt by one, and the same should apply to motor vehicles.

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 3105129, member: 45"]Post #161. The point.

No-one has suggested that pedestrians take no responsibility. We have to, because drivers don't. Everyone agrees that we have shared responsibility. Some people mistakenly think that this means 50/50.

Level of responsibility should be proportionate to the risk that you bring. That's shared responsibility, but not the level that some would mistakenly argue for.[/QUOTE]
Do you drive and do you consider yourself a responsible driver?

You seem to be getting in a twist over something we agree on... only your finer details of what shared responsibility may or may not mean is muddling things up.

I have a responsibility towards keeping myself and others around me safe... as everyone else does (I'd like to think).. it doesn't matter if I'm on the pavement, in the road, on a cliff top, crossing a fast flowing river... i have to take responsibility for my own safety and the safety of others regardless of whether i present 'the risk' or not.

 

[glenn forger]

Really? The Allegro's have been replaced by Punto's... but other than that, it all looks pretty much the same. Every house had a car and still has, and the road furniture, or lack of is exactly the same as it was. They still have a lollipop person helping the kiddies cross the main road to school too... it very much the same.

It is nothing whatsoever like the same. Despite a much larger number of vehicles on the roads, fewer drivers are getting punished for driving offences.

Trafpol numbers have been slashed. Now, we have just 8 trafpol at any one time covering the whole of Norfolk and Suffolk. Traffic police numbers having been sharply reduced means that traffic convictions have also been slashed.

From '01 to '11 driving licence offences fell by 78%; TV licence offences rose by 78% Which is the more dangerous activity?

 

[MontyVeda]

Glenn Glenn Glenn Glenn Glenn.... I was talking about a specific street and a specific section of main road in Lancaster, which is, by and large, more or less the same today as it was when i was a kid. [sigh]

 

[glenn forger]

Nowhere near the same level of policing. To pretend things are the same as thirty years ago is naive.

 

[stowie]

Do you drive and do you consider yourself a responsible driver?

You seem to be getting in a twist over something we agree on... only your finer details of what shared responsibility may or may not mean is muddling things up.

I have a responsibility towards keeping myself and others around me safe... as everyone else does (I'd like to think).. it doesn't matter if I'm on the pavement, in the road, on a cliff top, crossing a fast flowing river... i have to take responsibility for my own safety and the safety of others regardless of whether i present 'the risk' or not.

It is the "finer details" that matter in this case. You have provided some examples about responsibility to oneself - the pavement, in the road, a cliff top, crossing a fast flowing river. This is part of the problem - in the last two these are features of nature, something which bears no responsibility for being there or offering the danger to you. The first two, being on a pavement for example, the danger is predominately presented by the decision of other people to operate dangerous machinery in the presence of you. In your cases, the similarity is that you have no influence over the danger presented to you, but the pavement example, the danger is presented by sentient beings who bear responsibility for their actions.

You should not be able to bring a danger to other people due to your decisions and then decide that it is their responsibility (or even 50:50) to avoid the danger.

The law sees it this way as well (at least in theory). Hence the reason I can ride a bike or walk without any paperwork, whereas I need license, insurance, MOT to take a car on the road. The problem is that in practice this gets turned on its head - the bigger danger bullies its way around and expects those most likely to get injured to keep away and compensate for them. And the law in practice should rectify this, but it all too often doesn't.

 

[glenn forger]

No mobile phones thirty years ago either:

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 3105631, member: 45"]No, you weren't. Before and after that post you spoke generally, and only closed it down when you realised what you were saying was incorrect. Even closing it down doesn't help, because traffic levels (and policing as Glen suggests) have even changed in Lancaster.[/QUOTE]
Yes I was... but hey ho, have it your way.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

It is the "finer details" that matter in this case. You have provided some examples about responsibility to oneself - the pavement, in the road, a cliff top, crossing a fast flowing river. This is part of the problem - in the last two these are features of nature, something which bears no responsibility for being there or offering the danger to you. The first two, being on a pavement for example, the danger is predominately presented by the decision of other people to operate dangerous machinery in the presence of you. In your cases, the similarity is that you have no influence over the danger presented to you, but the pavement example, the danger is presented by sentient beings who bear responsibility for their actions.

You should not be able to bring a danger to other people due to your decisions and then decide that it is their responsibility (or even 50:50) to avoid the danger.

The law sees it this way as well (at least in theory). Hence the reason I can ride a bike or walk without any paperwork, whereas I need license, insurance, MOT to take a car on the road. The problem is that in practice this gets turned on its head - the bigger danger bullies its way around and expects those most likely to get injured to keep away and compensate for them. And the law in practice should rectify this, but it all too often doesn't.

Quite. NCAP's latest 5 star rating....

The red parts are poor protection for pedestrians. They don't do tests for killing or maiming cyclists but I'd guess the injuries would be broadly similar. 5 star safety - poor protection - no analysis of cycling collisions. Safety first is now safety me first.

 

[Shaun]

[QUOTE 3105744, member: 45"]Are you denying the posts exist where you did exactly that? Are you bonj?[/QUOTE]

Let it go now please and move on. Thanks.

 

[theclaud]

Children have to be warned about the danger of motor vehicles in preparation for taking responsibilities as as adult, just as children have to learn about all sorts of things in life that we don't hold them responsible for until they become adults. Children need to be warned of the dangers of chainsaws, but it is the adult using one who must bear the burden of responsibility for ensuring children aren't hurt by one, and the same should apply to motor vehicles.

This is spot on, but I find it astonishing that it's necessary to say it. The blind spot people seem to have with motor vehicles is the absolute responsibility for not killing others. The responsibility that said others might have towards themselves and/or their loved ones to stay alive has no bearing whatever on the responsibility of drivers not to kill people. If I run over a child, I am responsible - I am not somehow less responsible if I run over Willy Weasel than if I run over Tufty the Timorous T**t.