the quest for safety
 

Substitute "drunk" for "thick as pig ****" and you might not be too wide
of
the mark. About 40% of the adult pedestrians who die on the roads each
year
are above the legal drink-drive limit.

It's also reckoned that over 80% of all adult pedestrian deaths are
primarily the fault of the pedestrian for entering the carriageway without
proper observation.

You continue to spout this rubbish.

Perhaps if you used quotes which were approved by the statisticians creating
the figures they might be worthy of credence.

As it is these misquotes have been used before and, in the absence of any
real support, I'm sure will be used again.

the quest for safety
 

But the reason people are allowed to walk alongside roads, and not
alongside
railways, is that roads are inherently safer because the vehicles can stop
much more quickly than rail vehicles, and also steer out of the way of
danger.

Most of the 300-odd "trespassers and suicides" who die on the railways each
year would not die on the roads in the same circumstances because drivers
would stop or steer around them.

If railways had pavements running alongside them, and frequent open
crossings unprotected by gates or signals, they would kill *a lot* more
periods.

Railways are fenced because they are dangerous.

There seems to be something missing from your argument which took me a
moment to realize - You have made the unfortunately true assumption that
most people are, to put it bluntly, thick as pig ****. Railways are only
dangerous if you stand between the rails. Your saying that road vehicles can
swerve out of the way and stop faster is rather indicative that people have
a habit of getting in the way of large moving objects.

Ronnie
--
http://www.blugman.freeserve.co.uk

As the wise man says:
"Remember - there is no more important safety rule than to wear these:
safety glasses"

the quest for safety
 

You continue to spout this rubbish.

Perhaps if you used quotes which were approved by the statisticians
creating
the figures they might be worthy of credence.

As it is these misquotes have been used before and, in the absence of any
real support, I'm sure will be used again.

For those interested, the interpretation 'pedestrian's fault' should be
translated to 'occured on the main carriageway, rather than pavements, etc.

So for example, by this fool's interpretation, someone crossing at a
junction where he has right of way, who is hit by a driver who doesn't check
the junction, is unable to stop, etc, etc, would be responsible for his own
accident.

the quest for safety
 

"Richard" wrote in message
...

So for example, by this fool's interpretation, someone crossing at a
junction where he has right of way, who is hit by a driver who
doesn't check
the junction, is unable to stop, etc, etc, would be responsible for
his own
accident.

Yes, because anyone stupid enough to wander out into the road without
taking full cognisance of approaching traffic - 'right of way' or
not - deserves to die for the good of the gene pool.

The alleged 'right of way' of pedestrians is, in the real world, an
irrelevance; cars are big and hard, pedestrians are small and
squashy... You can't argue technicalities about "but I had the right
of way" once you're dead. Stop arsing around with theoretical
arguments about 'right of way' and just use the Green Cross Code/Kerb
Drill to cross the road safely.

__Steve__

the quest for safety
 

"Steve Moore" wrote in message
...

"Richard" wrote in message
...

So for example, by this fool's interpretation, someone crossing at a
junction where he has right of way, who is hit by a driver who
doesn't check
the junction, is unable to stop, etc, etc, would be responsible for
his own
accident.

Yes, because anyone stupid enough to wander out into the road without
taking full cognisance of approaching traffic - 'right of way' or
not - deserves to die for the good of the gene pool.

You are a nazi, and godwin won't save you.

Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. Unless you happen to believe you are a
member of some sort of master race.

the quest for safety
 

Steve Moore wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
...

So for example, by this fool's interpretation, someone
crossing at a junction where he has right of way, who is
hit by a driver who doesn't check the junction, is unable
to stop, etc, etc, would be responsible for his own
accident.

Yes, because anyone stupid enough to wander out into the
road without taking full cognisance of approaching traffic
- 'right of way' or
not - deserves to die for the good of the gene pool.

The alleged 'right of way' of pedestrians is, in the real
world, an irrelevance; cars are big and hard, pedestrians
are small and squashy... You can't argue technicalities
about "but I had the right of way" once you're dead. Stop
arsing around with theoretical arguments about 'right of
way' and just use the Green Cross Code/Kerb Drill to cross
the road safely.

Agreed, and unfortunately that attitude of "I'm bigger than you, keep out of
my way" is displayed by far too many car drivers. At one time I owned and
drove both a bike and a scruffy Bedford CF. When I was out on the bike I got
carved up, crowded and generally treated with no consideration whatsoever by
a great many car drivers. However when in this large scruffy van, all the
cars kept well clear.

the quest for safety
 

In article ,
W K wrote:
Everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

Except Advanced Drivers, apparently.

ian

the quest for safety
 

"Ian G Batten" wrote in message
...
In article ,
W K wrote:
Everyone makes mistakes sometimes.

Except Advanced Drivers, apparently.

Well, you chopped out the clause to cover that one.

the quest for safety
 

Yes, because anyone stupid enough to wander out into the road without
taking full cognisance of approaching traffic - 'right of way' or
not - deserves to die for the good of the gene pool.

Pedestrians are for the most part careful, and they have to be. A problem
is that car drivers have taken all the 'check there's nothing coming' advice
to pedestrians as unwritten authority to ignore the highway code and
bulldoze their way through.

The alleged 'right of way' of pedestrians is, in the real world, an
irrelevance; cars are big and hard, pedestrians are small and
squashy... You can't argue technicalities about "but I had the right
of way" once you're dead. Stop arsing around with theoretical
arguments about 'right of way' and just use the Green Cross Code/Kerb
Drill to cross the road safely.

Have you ever tried crossing a road in London? The traffic flow is
continuous, and cars don't indicate.

The best you can do is to look carefully, guess if anyone's going to turn
and if not, get across the road as quickly as possible. Although I've been
known to do it very slowly to allow old people to cross, knowing that I can
block the road much more visibly than they can as they inch out from the
kerb.

It's no good saying 'live in the real world, because things will never be
any better', we need to say 'live in the real world at the moment, but also
try and make things better for the future'.

the quest for safety
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:32:16 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Moore"
wrote this:-

The alleged 'right of way' of pedestrians is, in the real world, an
irrelevance; cars are big and hard, pedestrians are small and
squashy...

Ah, might is right. Not a good way to run a society.

Far better to run it with rules, such as Rule 146 of the Highway
Code:

Take extra care at junctions.

You should watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians
as they are not always easy to see
watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are
turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way

It's amazing the number of people who pretend they have not read
this rule when it suits them.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.