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.

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.
--
dave hill

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?

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.

"Richard" wrote in message
...
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.

Don't involve me... I don't know you (do I?)

__Steve__

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.

Don't involve me... I don't know you (do I?)

__Steve__

Not you, the other Steve ;o)

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"?