dave hill wrote:
Richard writes

Pedestrians rarely step out without warning. This is a
fallacy. And I have seen pedestrians crossing at
junctions walk upto the junction, look both ways, step out
and be hit by a car that wasn't indicating; the driver
then claimed 'she just stepped out' when in reality she
had walked to the junction, looked both ways and stepped
into the road where she has right of way over vehicles
turning.

Part of the driver's role is to anticipate what
pedestrians might do and drive at an appropriate speed to
be able to stop if a pedestrian does step out. If
children are particularly close to the road, you slow down
to be able to stop if necessary.

If you have to pass close to a line of parked vehicles
which block your view of anyone trying to cross, you slow
down.

This is not particularly advanced driving, it's the
basics, which you and a majority of drivers seem to ignore.

By god you are so bloody virtuous .
In all the above and your previous posts there has not
been anything
so
holier than thou in among the drivel that you have written.
You don't seem to get it do you but you have put yourself
up and you
will be crucified for making statements similar to that
above.

But is he wrong in what he says and if not why do the ******* try to drag
everyone else down to their level?

"Richard" wrote in message ...

This presumes that a pedestrian can be at fault.

When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT, the vehicle driver was
responsible for bringing his vehicle to a stop without causing injury
regardless of whether a pedestrian steps out, runs out or falls from a
bridge above.

(Reasonably you would expect some leeway to be applied in cases of dangerous
driving where a pedestrian deliberately runs out - but in practice far too
much is applied).

I've often wondered if the strict legal position is that *anyone* has
a right to use the Highway, being on foot or driving a vehicle making
no difference, so if I need to cross a road I should be able to walk
straight out, drivers are always required to drive at a safe speed to
avoid any collision which in towns would then be 10 to 15mph.

This may sound unreasonable but Sweden has adopted a 'Vision Zero' in
which no one is killed or seriously injured. Some towns have scrapped
all traffic lights and road markings except those that state
pedestrians have free reign, a BBC Radio reporter put it to the test
by wearing a blindfold and wandering across roads - not so much as a
toot! Average traffic speed actually increased too. Then again Sweden
is a civilised country, I'm not convinced it will work here.

Pedestrians rarely step out without warning. This is a fallacy. And I
have
seen pedestrians crossing at junctions walk upto the junction, look both
ways, step out and be hit by a car that wasn't indicating; the driver
then
claimed 'she just stepped out' when in reality she had walked to the
junction, looked both ways and stepped into the road where she has right
of
way over vehicles turning.

Part of the driver's role is to anticipate what pedestrians might do and
drive at an appropriate speed to be able to stop if a pedestrian does
step
out. If children are particularly close to the road, you slow down to be
able to stop if necessary.

If you have to pass close to a line of parked vehicles which block your
view
of anyone trying to cross, you slow down.

This is not particularly advanced driving, it's the basics, which you and
a
majority of drivers seem to ignore.

By god you are so bloody virtuous .
In all the above and your previous posts there has not been anything
so
holier than thou in among the drivel that you have written.
You don't seem to get it do you but you have put yourself up and you
will be crucified for making statements similar to that above.

Sadly you are right but when you look at the posts I was replying to, there
was no alternative.

It was justify myself, or concede the point, as the crux of ian's argument
was that because I am a driver I am automatically making no attempt to avoid
accidents. And that in fact most accidents are unavoidable.

The only response was, (and I knew it), going to see me crucified.

But is it better to be modest and say, "yes, there's no way anyone could
drive any better than they currently do"?

But is he wrong in what he says and if not why do the ******* try to drag
everyone else down to their level?

Thanks mate, glad someone can look beyond my character, arrogant, conceited
or otherwise (no-one is ever going to know over a newsgroup, apart perhaps
from Steve), and consider the argument in question.

In article ,
Richard wrote:
Is anyone here arguing we should require people to work close to where they
live?

Yes. If people live closer to their work and their children's schools,
many otherwise required journeys evaporate. Having a car allows you to
avoid some parts of that at the expense of making a lot of journeys.

A lot of jobs would disappear. I'm sure even you wouldn't argue
this. I'm a member of the Green Party and even I don't support this policy.

How convenient. Car driver. Commutes long distances to work. Joins
Green Party to show moral superiority.

The risk of me causing an injury accident is demonstrably lower than for the
general population

How modest of you.

The risk of me causing an injury accident is higher than it would be if I
didn't travel, or travelled by public transport

So you care less aboutn injuring people than about your convenience.
The only difference between you and every other commuter is the smug
look.

ian

In article ,
Richard wrote:
I agree that self-glorification is tiresome to read and often arrogant.

So stop doing it, then.

However you directly criticised my personality and I think I am justified in
defending myself, even if that includes claims that my lower average speed
is likely to reduce my risk of being involved in an injury accident.

Oh, OK then, don't.

Perhaps I should start criticising you personally and see how long it takes
you to start defending yourself in a way which then comes across as
arrogant.

I think after fifteen years of Usenet I'm a big boy and might be able to
cope.

ian

"Ian G Batten" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard wrote:
Is anyone here arguing we should require people to work close to where
they
live?

Yes. If people live closer to their work and their children's schools,
many otherwise required journeys evaporate. Having a car allows you to
avoid some parts of that at the expense of making a lot of journeys.

One of the reasons for long-distance commuting (by car or train) is that two
people wish to live together (e.g husband and wife) but wish to follow
separate careers, and so find themselves working in very different
locations. One (or both) has to commute.

Peter

The only response was, (and I knew it), going to see me crucified.

You anticipated the hazard, and carried on anyway.

Would they tolerate that during an ADT? Þ~

;o)

In article ,
Richard wrote:
One of the reasons for long-distance commuting (by car or train) is that
two
people wish to live together (e.g husband and wife) but wish to follow
separate careers, and so find themselves working in very different
locations. One (or both) has to commute.

They don't have to. They choose to. There's no gun to their heads.

Or in my case because my job involves travelling round the country training
people.

There are other jobs. Vegetarians who take jobs in abatoirs don't get
taken terribly seriously.

No one location would be close to all my workplaces. I happen to live
within walking distance of the WCML but it should not be the case that only

``Happen to live''. Didn't you think about proximity to a railway line
when choosing somewhere to live? I did.

a subset of the country's housing stock is suitable for travel by public
transport

Really? Public transport within walking distance of every house? How
are you going to pay for it?

public transport should be extended to provide access to as many
people as is economically viable.

So that's a subset, then. And what makes you think it isn't _already_
extended to as many people as is economically viable?

ian

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:13:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 16 Jul 2003 16:11:33 GMT, Ian G Batten
wrote:

So you're the one driver who never speeds.

No, I'm the /one/ driver who never speeds, he's the /other/ one.

So you have never *ever* drifted even .001 mph over the posted limit?
--
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with
white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw