In article ,
says...
Consider the predicament of people walking alongside both a road and a
railway.

A train runs along a fixed track. In the event of the driver losing control
the vehicle cannot swerve and current systems fitted to it ensure that it
comes to a stop in short order. However, unless they have both business and
permission tot be there access is denied to all.

A road vehicle by contrast is at liberty to roam where ever the driver
chooses. If when travelling along a road the driver loses control not only
is the vehicle likely to swerve all over the road, it is equally likely to
leave it and crash into anyone unlucky enough to be in its path or to smash
into roadside property causing further damage. Not only are there no safety
devices fitted to bring it to a stop under such circumstances, it is highly
likely that the driver could inadvertantly depress the accelerator pedal and
cause the vehicle to gain speed.


Given your hatred of cars, are you sure you're not MrNatural?

Is this a sensible method of ensurring the safety of the people of this
country?

Well, it seems to be working!

Here's some figures I found out a while ago, when someone said you had a
1/200 chance of dying in a traffic accident. You can get this figure if
you assume that the population of the UK stays constant at 60 million, and
that there are 3600 road casualties per year, and that you live for
approximately 70 years.

You have a 1/200 chance of dying in a road accident. This is as a
pedestrian, driver, cyclist etc etc

25,000 people die a year due to alcohol related diseases.
You have a 1/33 chance of dying from alcohol related disease.

164,000 people die a year due to smoking related diseases
You have a 1/5 chance of dying from a smoking related disease.

1000 people die a year falling down stairs (apparently!)
You have a 1/800 chance of dying while climbing the stairs! You're 1/4 as
likely to die falling down stairs as in a motor accident.

You have a 1/1 chance of dying full stop.

Some more information for you also... It is said that in a pedestrian/car
collision, there's an 80% likelihood that the pedestrian is (solely?) at
fault. They walk into roads without looking, they get drunk and fall over,
they run out between parked cars etc etc.

Let's get a bit of perspective here. Everything carries a risk. You can
sit in and worry about these risks, and probably have a heart attack
brought on by stress.

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail
is a spam testing address.

carman wrote:

IIRC it was a survey by West Midlands Police that found in nearly 70% of
accidents it was the pedestrians fault. I don't consider the police "road
lobbies".

ROTFLMAO

John B

"Richard" wrote in message
...
Well, it seems to be working!

snip

While I agree with much of what you say, the risk of dying due to cars is
more important to me as I can choose not to smoke, I can choose to live a
healthy life, but because of the way our towns are built, I can't choose
to
reduce the risk of me being killed by a speeding vehicle.

It would be a "badly driven vehicle" rather than a speeding vehicle. Speed
as a single factor doesn't kill.

The others are natural causes, or causes which we control personally.

And your 80% likelihood that the pedestrian is solely at fault is CR*P
chucked out by road lobbies trying to justify driving irresponsibly.


IIRC it was a survey by West Midlands Police that found in nearly 70% of
accidents it was the pedestrians fault. I don't consider the police "road
lobbies".

Mark
Buying or selling a Jaguar, go to www.Jaguars4sale.com

IIRC it was a survey by West Midlands Police that found in
nearly 70% of
accidents it was the pedestrians fault. I don't consider
the police "road
lobbies".

This thing about pedestrians often being at fault wants
clarification surely?
If a child runs out between two cars without looking, straight
under the wheels of a car doing a legal speed, with a driver
keeping an alert lookout, but unable to see the child because
perhaps it ran out behind a Transit van or something, it seems
a trifle unfortunate for the driver to be labelled at fault.
However, if some drunk teenager decides to deliberately walk
in front of a speeding car to get it to stop for him in a
display of bravado, and calculates it wrongly so he gets run
over, should that still be the car drivers fault? I do believe
that a significant proportion of the driving population do
indeed drive too fast in the situations that may call for a
little circumspection, but a rant about all car drivers being
in the wrong by dint of being a driver seems unlikely to gain
acceptance and rightly so.
--
Dave;
Who thinks usenet is now
getting quite short tempered
enough, without me joining in too!

This thing about pedestrians often being at fault wants
clarification surely?

The situation is spelt out quite clearly in the highway code.

Just try crossing a road at a junction to see how many drivers actually
respect the highway code and how many think 'I'm in a car so I can barge
pedestrians out of the way'.

Until the highway code is re-written I will stand by my claim that at least
70% of drivers have distorted views of when it's "OK" to run a pedestrian
over.

In article ,
Richard wrote:
And your 80% likelihood that the pedestrian is solely at fault is CR*P

Go and check the proportion of pedestrian casualities in which the
pedestrian is drunk. A man living your healthy lifestyle presumably
won't have that risk.

ian

In article ,
Richard wrote:
When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT,

A man who says that cars pose an unacceptable risk to pedestrians is
happy to pose an unacceptible risk to pedestrians, eh? There's nothing
like having principles, and that's nothing like having principles. You
could try ``cars are bad, that's why I don't have one'' as an idea.
``You shouldn't drive, but I do'' doesn't really impress.

You're just another car driver, but you think you can impress us by
saying how much you hate yourself every time you do it. You get the
best of both worlds: the convenience of driving, and the moral sanctity
of claiming not to drive.

Tell us, Richard, the thing that makes you different from the selfish,
inconsiderate, non-sustainable drivers you rail against. Charlie Hulme
can live without a car. David Hansen can live without a car. Even
(shudder) Mister Natural could live without a car.


ian

When I did my driving test, and subsequent ADT,
happy to pose an unacceptible risk to pedestrians, eh? There's nothing
like having principles, and that's nothing like having principles. You

When you find yourself logically out-argued, do you always resort to
character assassination on a related idea?

You don't warrant a more reasoned response as you did not answer the actual
point of the OP which demolished your erroneous line of argument.

When you answer that post, I will respond more logically.

"Richard" writes:
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.

This strains credibility. Please give us the details of the driving
test and advanced course that you did, the type of vehicle that you
used and the name of your instructor. Because it seems that in
combination they enabled you to subvert the laws of physics - being
able to ensure that you could stop your vehicle without hitting a
pedestrian even if they were to appear immediately in front if you
with no warning, allowing zero stopping distance.

Having made an impossible claim in the first paragraph of your post,
surely nobody could be expected take the remainder of what you say
seriously.

--
Jonathan Marten, SCM Team Engineer VSP Bracknell, UK
Sun Microsystems

"Progress is not expedited by frequent requests for progress reports"

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.

This strains credibility. Please give us the details of the driving
test and advanced course that you did, the type of vehicle that you
used and the name of your instructor. Because it seems that in
combination they enabled you to subvert the laws of physics - being
able to ensure that you could stop your vehicle without hitting a
pedestrian even if they were to appear immediately in front if you
with no warning, allowing zero stopping distance.

You have included only the variables that drivers tend to care about.

The one variable you have ignored is speed.

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.

I'm not giving out personal details but my observed driving was carried out
in Coventry.