rant about children crossing the road irresponsibly

[JohnL]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

>

> > If someone is speeding (going more than the

> speed

> > limit) down that road and hits someone, the law

> > won't say the boy didn't look, they'll throw

> the

> > book at the driver.

>

> Are you sure? I suppose it depends on case law. If

> a driver goes at 25 mph in a 20 mph zone and hits

> a pedestrian who did something appallingly stupid

> (e.g. jumping in the middle of the road from

> behind a van without looking), common sense would

> suggest both the drivers and the pedestrian should

> be at fault. After all, pedestrians can cross when

> it?s safe to do so ? they do not have a

> constitutionally guaranteed right to Darwinianly

> select themselves out of the gene pool by

> involving other people in easily preventable

> accidents. But law and common sense don?t always

> go hand in hand; plus I?m not a judge, so my

> opinion is irrelevant!

>

> My desire to avoid these situations is precisely

> the reason why I ride defensively, i.e. assuming

> there are only two categories of road users: those

> who want to kill themselves and those who want to

> kill me, too. It sounds cocky, but anyone who has

> ever ridden a motorcycle in a big city would

> understand. Jokes aside, when driving/riding you

> should always assume that what is hidden from

> sight is a potential danger. You can?t rely on

> other people being sensible, even when it?s their

> own life that?s at stake.

>

> Incidentally, one of the reasons why I am against

> 20mph limits introduced in the entire area of a

> borough is because it creates a further incentive

> for people to cross when and where they shouldn?t,

> rather than going through the hassle of walking 30

> yards to the next traffic light and waiting 20

> seconds for the green man. Btw, note that the

> Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents is

> against introducing 20mph limits in an entire

> borough, and especially on major A roads.

No proof - this is just what I always have assumed.

If drunk driving I'd be certain all blame would be on the driver - even if a pedestrian threw themselves at the car - in court it would just be "you were drunk, you hit a pedestrian". Maybe it's less unforgiving for speeding. I hope not to ever find out in a bad way.

[DulwichLondoner]

Feb 2017 factsheet: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/drivers/20-mph-zone-factsheet.pdf

page 13 of 17:

Although a high proportion of urban roads are suitable for 20mph limits, RoSPA does not believe that 20mph

speed limits are suitable for every road in a local authority area. They should be targeted at roads that are

primarily residential in nature and on town or city streets where pedestrian and cyclist movements are high (or

potentially high), such as around schools, shops, markets, playgrounds and other areas. Roads which are not

suitable for 20mph limits are major through routes.

-------------------------------------------

You might say that the whole of London, or at least all of zone 1 and most of zone 2, might fall under the above definition, even those roads which are major through routes. ROSPA does not elaborate on this so we don't know what their opinion on this is. I suppose it comes down to the balance between residential and major through routes.

For example, forbidding parking on major through routes (which is already the case in most such major through routes) is probably more helpful in reducing risk to pedestrians, because they cannot jump in the middle of the road from behind a car or van which was hiding them from sight (i.e. they are way more visible).

A practical example is Lordship lane, betwen the goose green roundabout and the cinema. Forbid parking and you make that stretch of road way safer because cars and pedestrians will be more visible to each other. But residents and shopkeepers would probably rise up in arms. None of this would be necessary if people crossed the road sensibly, but good luck with that!

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

None

> of this would be necessary if people crossed the

> road sensibly, but good luck with that!

I agree, with the caveat that it would also depend on people driving their cars sensibly, not being distracted by their 'phones, not speeding etc. Anecdotally, as Mrs H was driving down Herne Hill Saturday morning at the prescribed 20mph, we were overtaken by not one but three cars, all doing 40mph plus, the last of which drove the wrong side of the traffic island at the pelican outside Herne Hill Pharmacy to do so. It's not just pedestrians...

[DulwichLondoner]

Agree it's not just pedestrians, that goes without saying. Even my "category" (motorcyclists) is full of dangerous idiots.

But, see, the behaviour Mrs H witnessed is the typical behaviour I struggle to believe is in any way impacted by 20mph limits; I very much doubt those geniuses would have behaved differently if the limit had been 10 or 20 or 30 or whatever.

[Pugwash]

When I am with a child - I always cross at the lights and press the button, when I am by myself - I use my judgement as to whether it is safe to cross else where. As a driver, I find turning right from LL into Barry Road can be problematic as the filter light is not always working. I find driving down Court Lane then up Eynella to cross over to Barry at the lights is far safer. You do get the odd idiot who decides to cross Barry when the red light is showing and seems surprised when cars hoot them.

[Nigello]

I see parents with children (being carried, in a pram/buggy, or dragged) crossing roads all over the shop. The worst is when they get off a bus and then peer around the back of it to try to assess whether it is safe to cross, when the crossing is just a few yards away. What gives?

[TedMaul]

This is just part of being a road user in a large, dense city. School kids are not the problem, *everything* is potentially the problem: cars pulling in/out of sidestreets at the last second because they are lost, white vans suddenly stopping and reverse parking, people on their phones - I swear it's only a matter of time before I encounter two people dressed as decorators carrying a giant pane of glass across Lordship Lane...

[Sharon N]

Cyclists are also a danger, a friend of mine was knocked over by a cyclist riding extremely fast through the red light at a crossing. She had bleeding on the brain because of what happened to her.

[rendelharris]

Sharon N Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cyclists are also a danger, a friend of mine was

> knocked over by a cyclist riding extremely fast

> through the red light at a crossing. She had

> bleeding on the brain because of what happened to

> her.

Very sorry for your friend, yes there are a minority of cyclists who ride like idiots. I have a friend who lost a leg having been hit by a drunken driver whose car mounted the pavement. Pedestrians are sixty times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a motorized vehicle than by a cyclist. Tragic individual cases will, unfortunately, always exist, but overall it's motor vehicles that are the danger.

[robbin]

I have no doubt that my biggest danger as a cyclist (in terms of likelihood of an accident) is colliding with a pedestrian crossing the road irresponsibly. Their smart phone is usually the reason - people heading to or from work pass the time online, or texting/emailing and some just don't look before stepping out, sometimes when you are right on top of them. They must think because there is no traffic noise there's nothing on the road. That, or they are in a world of their own - either way it's very dangerous even when you cycle defensively (which I do).

I'm sure this must apply to children crossing while distracted by smartphones too.