Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why arent pedestrians held accountable for their safety? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steeps)
    Now who's turning this thread around? I mentioned one word included in a sentence and all of a sudden YOU are having a rant at me saying I derailed the thread. Nice one. Don't want threads de-railed? Don't de-rail them!

    It's a thread about pedestrians not being held accountable for their own safety, that the car is to blame, roads are dangerous and speeding kills. We live in a NANNY state where it is always someone elses fault, where there's blame there's a claim! Walk infront of a car, a free week in hospital, £2500 whiplash payout AND you get to sue the car manufacturer because the bumper wasn't shaped around your knees, not to mention taking the driver for a ride "because he should watch where he's going!"
    I wasn't arguing with the blame culture of suing having gone too far. I was merely annoyed that your suggestion that the government providing money for people who cannot afford basic necesseties has having anything to do with pedestrian liability in road accidents.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redemption)
    Absolute ********.

    A cyclist barely ever does anything but keeps to the traffic, and generally get where they're going in the city faster than you. We're not taking 13 year olds on bmxs.

    If you don't see the cyclist, you're not fit to be driving.
    I wholeheartedly agree. Riding in a city is a scary enough experience to ensure you spend every second trying to maintain spatial awareness. The tw*ts who ignore cyclists, or take this ridiculous attitude that they are a danger are the problem.

    Jennybean says hello and also agrees.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I heard about a lorry driver who hit somebody who walked out infront and they died. He was using a handsfree kit thing and is going to be charged with man-slaughter because he was on the phone..ridiculas
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    Really? When it's dark and they don't have lights?
    I said we're not talking about eleven year olds on bmx's here.

    Anyone who "cycles" will ride with lights at night. Couriers, commuters, cyclists, triatheletes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redemption)
    I said we're not talking about eleven year olds on bmx's here.

    Anyone who "cycles" will ride with lights at night. Couriers, commuters, cyclists, triatheletes.
    Funnily enough, I don't recall mentioning eleven year olds on BMXs, but well over half the cyclists I encounter when it is dark have no lights. Those that do generally have them set to flash, which I find incredibly irritating and distracting. Until fairly recently it was illegal to have flashing lights attached to a bike and I don't know if there is any rationale to legalising them, other than most people ignored that law. To say "Anyone who "cycles" will ride with lights at night" is just plain wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    Funnily enough, I don't recall mentioning eleven year olds on BMXs, but well over half the cyclists I encounter when it is dark have no lights. Those that do generally have them set to flash, which I find incredibly irritating and distracting. Until fairly recently it was illegal to have flashing lights attached to a bike and I don't know if there is any rationale to legalising them, other than most people ignored that law. To say "Anyone who "cycles" will ride with lights at night" is just plain wrong.
    We set them to flash because on a dark, dark road with no lights there's a good chance you won't see us untill we come up in your headlights without the flashing enabled.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kultist)
    We set them to flash because on a dark, dark road with no lights there's a good chance you won't see us untill we come up in your headlights without the flashing enabled.
    You're perfectly visible with a steady light, and it's also easier to track your path. Besides which, I won't be driving at a speed that means I can't stop within the distance I can see - so it doesn't matter if I don't see you until you're within the throw of my headlights, as I will still be able to stop safely. Also, flashing lights draw the eye towards them, and you tend to travel in the direction you are looking.
    By the way, I am a cyclist as well as a driver, but flashing lights really annoy me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    Really? When it's dark and they don't have lights?
    I must admit I've been shocked to see a cyclist when my lights suddenly come upon them.... Wearing dark clothes, no lights at all and no helmet. The lack of streetlights didn't help either. Only saw him when it was safe to put my beam on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    You're perfectly visible with a steady light, and it's also easier to track your path. Besides which, I won't be driving at a speed that means I can't stop within the distance I can see - so it doesn't matter if I don't see you until you're within the throw of my headlights, as I will still be able to stop safely. Also, flashing lights draw the eye towards them, and you tend to travel in the direction you are looking.
    By the way, I am a cyclist as well as a driver, but flashing lights really annoy me.
    Do you live in the city or something? Out in the country there are a lot of roads where you'll be travelling very fast and will have to react very quickly not to hit a cyclist. Flashing lights are easier to spot in the distance even if they are a little harder to track.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kultist)
    Do you live in the city or something? Out in the country there are a lot of roads where you'll be travelling very fast and will have to react very quickly not to hit a cyclist. Flashing lights are easier to spot in the distance even if they are a little harder to track.
    I do live in a city at the moment, but I used to live in a pretty rural town and that's where I've done a lot of my driving. I still won't be driving at a speed that means I cannot stop in the distance I can see - and most of the time I shouldn't need to stop to pass a cyclist. I've never heard a motorist say that flashing lights help them to see a cyclist, but several have said they find them distracting. It's also harder to judge the distance of a flashing light.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    One of my friends made me wonder about this. She just walks out into the road without looking. It's got to the point that if out with her I treat her like a child and walk in between her and the road. However, if she was to walk out and be hit (hope not) then the driver would get the blame even though it would be almost certain that she hadn't checked for traffic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblebee)
    Because generally speaking neither pedestrians nor cyclists go at 60mph.
    I've tried to see where you're coming from with this post, I really have. But I just can't quite believe you're saying what I think you're saying.

    To summarise, your point is that if a pedestrian walks into a road using absolutely no common sense or spatial awareness and gets hit as a result, it's the car driver's fault because the pedestrian wasn't traveling at 60mph?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Because walking around absent mindedly isn't dangerous to anyone else. If two absent minded people collide, they apologise and walk on. Driving is dangerous, and therefore it is up to the driver to prevent collisions.

    In short, any harm caused by a collision is caused by the driver, so the onus is on the driver to be careful.


    That's not to say that drivers are automatically assumed to be at fault. If someone walks into the road right in front of a car and the driver can't react, the accident is seen to be the fault of the pedestrian.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FyreFight)
    Because walking around absent mindedly isn't dangerous to anyone else. If two absent minded people collide, they apologise and walk on. Driving is dangerous, and therefore it is up to the driver to prevent collisions.

    In short, any harm caused by a collision is caused by the driver, so the onus is on the driver to be careful.
    Right, I agree insomuch as the driver has a responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and anticipate. But crossing a road is dangerous and if you walk out without looking and assume a driver traveling at 30mph can stop instantaneously, then Darwin wins. If your absent minded walking causes a car to hit you (or a car to take evasive action which results in a collision) then it has become dangerous.

    It's not driving that has caused the danger, it's the idiot that hasn't looked where he's going. You're expecting the driver to predict the unpredictable and it's completely unworkable in any practical sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah I agree, some pedestrians are just plain stupid. I was on my driving lesson the other and I was turning into a side road off a main road, these 2 women just walked across without looking. I saw them pretty early so it wasn't a problem, but it just annoys me that people can be so stupid. I don't think they even noticed me when I was waiting for them!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan?)
    Yeah I agree, some pedestrians are just plain stupid. I was on my driving lesson the other and I was turning into a side road off a main road, these 2 women just walked across without looking. I saw them pretty early so it wasn't a problem, but it just annoys me that people can be so stupid. I don't think they even noticed me when I was waiting for them!
    If they are already on the road, they have right of way over you...

    However, asserting that right can be fairly suicidal... and it isn't clear from your post whether they were already in the road or not
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tofufi)
    If they are already on the road, they have right of way over you...

    However, asserting that right can be fairly suicidal... and it isn't clear from your post whether they were already in the road or not
    I started turning and then they left the pavement. I was going pretty slowly though so they weren't in danger or anything.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.