To the Cycling Adult with a child on Goodrich Road at 22.45 on Sat 26th July

[Otta]

And as for "fair", what does that even mean? We're not talking about preordained death sentences, we're talking about accidents. There is no fair, there is just shit luck, and unfortunately those left behind have to live with it.

[Townleygreen]

Otta, I wonder how many of those deaths were deliberately caused by errant or careless drivers? And were the drivers let off (relatively) because the cyclist or pedestrian were felt to have contributed by not wearing a helmet or hi vis jackets (etc)?

In that sense, I mean "fair"!

[aquarius moon]

I'm sure that a lot of pedestrian deaths are not the fault of the vehicle driver but caused by lack of concentration by the pedestrian when crossing the road.

I've been on the bus twice recently when the driver's had to slam on the brakes because somebody has walked into the road without looking.

Peoples minds are so pre-occupied with other things or they are talking on the phone, they are sometimes oblivious to their surroundings.

[Loz]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> Reducing the numbers of deaths on the roads (as has been done recently) is obviously good.

>

> But surely 132 fatalities is 132 too many? 132 families who lost a loved one? Is that fair, or

> acceptable?

>

> Think what you are saying here!!

Sadly, every time you look at this sort of thing you have to do a cost/benefit ratio type study. It sounds awful, but it has to be done. Zero deaths is a virtual impossibility in just about any area. You have to accept some level of death.

You cannot take the risk of everything. It is either impossibly expensive or impossibly intrusive or completely infeasible. In this case you would just get to the (flawed) logic conclusion that all transport - car, buses, cycles - must be banned.

Look at all the child protection stuff brought in since the Soham murders. Most of it is rather ineffective and indeed has got to the silly position where we are putting teenage girls on sex offenders lists for sending someone a topless picture of themselves.

All you can do is lower risk as much as possible as cost effectively and as sensibly as possible.

[Townleygreen]

In response to aquarius moon:

Or maybe the driver was texting? or speaking on their phone? or checking their facebook account???

It is interesting that the police are now going to check drivers' phones after an incident, as they now automatically take a breathalyser from the motorist, to see whether they were distracted from the road.

[Loz]

Townleygreen Wrote:

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

> In response to aquarius moon:

>

> Or maybe the driver was texting? or speaking on their phone? or checking their facebook account???

Or maybe they weren't? I can't see your point, unless it's to try and deny that the the pedestrian might have been at fault. As I posted (quite a few pages ago now), I did exactly this the other day, strolled out onto the road without looking properly.

[Townleygreen]

No, I'm saying that drivers (in control of potential killing machines) but playing with their iphones are much more worrying.

No one could excuse a dumb pedestrian who walked in front of a vehicle so they were unable to stop (unless - as I say - the drivers were texting or surfing!)

[aquarius moon]

My point is that you can't automatically blame the driver. I don't drive or cycle but get buses on a daily basis so as a passenger, I observe. I've seen so many pedestrians have near-misses simply because they're not looking where they are going. Or they think they are invincible & will dash across the road amongst traffic in order to catch the bus.

[Otta]

"Otta, I wonder how many of those deaths were deliberately caused by errant or careless drivers?"

Deliberately?

I suspect none.

[Otta]

And if a driver is using their phone whilst driving they deserve to be banned from driving whether they hit someone or not (unless they jave a bloody good excuse).

And if a pedestrian walks in to a road using their phone and gets hit, then the driver should not be punished.

Bit there are lots of what ifs going on here.

[StraferJack]

"And if a pedestrian walks in to a road using their phone and gets hit, then the driver should not be punished. "

But that just isn't true - that idiot walking into the road might well deserve punishment of some kind but a careful driver will have an eye out for not just idiots, but any sudden presence (children, animals etc)

It's still demonstrably careless driving

And I might have to put a footnote on every post on this thread but saying that doesn't make me anti-driver. I drive through some pretty narrow roads and you just can't drive and expect noting to suddenly appear. Letting a driver off for hitting an idiot who appears out of nowhere as opposed to a child, is just a technicality

[Jeremy]

The argument that a collision with a cyclist is always the drivers fault is ridiculous and downright bizarre. Such extremism would actually be doing a disservice to a worthy cause, by preventing sensible discussion.

[Jeremy]

Otta/SJ... again it depends on the circumstances. You can't say from a broad description ("pedestrian walks in to a road using their phone") how much notice the driver had, whether it was feasible to stop in time, etc.

[StraferJack]

no no - collisions are rarely any single parties fault - I'm not saying the driver has full culpability. But nor is the driver entirely blameless in most cases

Cyclists move at speed and will appear much more suddenly than pedestrians perhaps - harder to deal with for sure. But even so, we drive knowing that anything might appear suddenly and we should be alert

BTW when I posted earlier about cars no longer signalling as much, I was told mine was anexdotal evidence. But as you walk about in London, and you cross roads, roundabouts etc are you saying you don't notice something similar?

[StraferJack]

Circumstances will differ of course Jeremy - but as a general rule drivers should have notice of whats ahead and to the side of the road. That's fair, right?

[Jeremy]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> BTW when I posted earlier about cars no longer

> signalling as much, I was told mine was anexdotal

> evidence. But as you walk about in London, and you

> cross roads, roundabouts etc are you saying you

> don't notice something similar?

Did I say that? Don't recall. But yeah I notice that all the time. Especially in the city in the mornings... drivers not indicating and jumping lights, pedestrians crossing without looking, cyclists bombing out of side streets onto the main road, motorbikes zooming over the bridges. It's mayhem! Seems nobody is looking anywhere except straight ahead. There are bad road users across the board, but not sure where this is going.

> Circumstances will differ of course Jeremy - but

> as a general rule drivers should have notice of

> whats ahead and to the side of the road. That's fair, right?

Maybe. Sort of. Actually no. I wouldn't want to generalise like that. If you're in a position to clearly see someone step into the road, and you have time to stop (which you should... most cars can brake very quickly) then yes the driver should probably take some of the blame. But it's not always that straightforward. I'm sure many accidents occur when there is an obstruction in the line of sight... crowded pavements, large vehicles, parked cars. There's no point "blaming" the pedestrian when they're lying on the floor in pain, but equally there's no point blaming a traumatised driver that may not have stood a chance.

[Otta]

I have never driven a car, and of course every case is different. But I still feel pretty certain that you could be doing everything right and still fail to brake in time to avoid someone walking out infront of you, especially if walkng out from between parked vehicles.

[StraferJack]

But I just don't understand - so many things can come from between parked cars that aren't idiot pedestrians - if you are driving through an environment like that you just slow down to allow time don't you?

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> But I just don't understand - so many things can

> come from between parked cars that aren't idiot

> pedestrians - if you are driving through an

> environment like that you just slow down to allow

> time don't you?

You might, but slowing down doesn't mean you might not still hit someone.

I guess I am coming at this from a slightly different perspective. Teaching people to cross roads safely is a big part of my job, and I see a lot of really stupid habits.

Cars might be "killing machines" (I think that is absolutely stupid terminology personally, but whatever floats your boat), but they are also a fact of life, so we have a responsibility to be aware of what is going on around us.

Again, I don't drive, but I can easily imagine a situation where a driver was (correctly) looking one way, only for someone to step out right in front of them on the other side.

"an environment like that"

Like all of London you mean?

[Jeremy]

Of course you pick a sensible speed for the environment, but there's only so much you can do. There has to be an element of cooperation. You think you always drive at a speed where you could stop for *any* eventuality? If you say yes then you're kidding yourself. Unless you never go above 10mph.

> Cars might be "killing machines" (I think that is

> absolutely stupid terminology personally

I like to think of myself as Kurt Russell in Death Proof when I'm prowling the streets hunting for my victims.

[StraferJack]

"You might, but slowing down doesn't mean you might not still hit someone."

a) - it does. You have more time to react

b) - if you do hit them the impact is much diminished

I'm not disagreeing with you about the need for everyone to play their part - just seeing some statements I disagree with.

"Like all of London you mean?" - well, like a lot of London yeah. Dog Kennel Hill not so much, but Goodrich Road yeah.. I'd be going pretty darn slow down that road

[Loz]

Average stopping distance at 20mph = 40ft. 20 of those feet (i.e. more than a parked car length) are reaction time, so you will not even have hit the brake yet.

[StraferJack]

If that's true Loz, then it suggests 20mph is too fast to be driving down Goodrich Road, doesn't it?

[Otta]

So would you suggest 10mph speed limits on all residential streets in London?

Or just that people look where they're bloody going!!!

[StraferJack]

It's already part of highway code that people drive at appropriate speed regardless of the limit - so if a residential road is narrow and full of parked cars do you NEED a law to say slow down to 10?

telling a child or a dog to "look where they are bloody going" isn't going to have too much effect is it

look, my point is you can tell EVERYONE as much as you want to pay attention, but as the one driving the car, I'm the one responsible (probably, mostly) for hitting something, anything that's on the road. It would help me as a driver if I could be sure the roads were clear of idiots, but I can't be sure - so mentally shrugging and saying well it won't be my fault, or I can't be expected to see them is just lazy thinking