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.

the quest for safety
 

David Hansen wrote:
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.

I've pointed this out to car drivers, and get reactions such as "there's no
sign".

the quest for safety
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:05:26 +0100 David Hansen wrote:
} On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 10:32:16 +0100 someone who may be "Steve Moore"
} wrote this:-
}
} 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.

As far as I can see the "started to cross" is imaterial.

A pedestrian going down the road isn't changing direction, a vehicle
turning into another road is changing direection and so should give way
to the pedestrian at any point.

Of course that's theory, not practical advice for many situations.

It was very disheartening seeing how difficult some people found it to
grasp the concept of direction change. That going around a bend isn't a
change of "direction" as you're still going ahead in terms of the road.

It's significant for priorities and giving way because junctions can be
marked in ways that make "ahead" rather different than would appear
naturally.

Matthew
--
Il est important d'être un homme ou une femme en colère; le jour où nous
quitte la colère, ou le désir, c'est cuit. - Barbara

http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

the quest for safety
 

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:36:29 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

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

I've pointed this out to car drivers, and get reactions such as "there's no
sign".


That baffles me. Sounds more like "oh I've been caught. If I shout
back I may not look such an arze".

I remeber up the local main road a could of chineese students crossing
the road when a right lardy bloke in a big rover pulled into the road
and started paping on his horn and shouting as they were in the way.
As they carried on crossing the road I decided to take that moment to
cross too, slowing down the fat c#nt again.
--
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with
white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw

the quest for safety
 

Bagpuss wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:36:29 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

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

I've pointed this out to car drivers, and get reactions
such as "there's no sign".


That baffles me. Sounds more like "oh I've been caught. If
I shout
back I may not look such an arze".

I remeber up the local main road a could of chineese
students crossing
the road when a right lardy bloke in a big rover pulled
into the road
and started paping on his horn and shouting as they were in
the way.
As they carried on crossing the road I decided to take that
moment to
cross too, slowing down the fat c#nt again.

You didn't? How naughty, tut, tut. (tee hee).

the quest for safety
 

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:14:28 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

Bagpuss wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:36:29 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

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

I've pointed this out to car drivers, and get reactions
such as "there's no sign".


That baffles me. Sounds more like "oh I've been caught. If
I shout
back I may not look such an arze".

I remeber up the local main road a could of chineese
students crossing
the road when a right lardy bloke in a big rover pulled
into the road
and started paping on his horn and shouting as they were in
the way.
As they carried on crossing the road I decided to take that
moment to
cross too, slowing down the fat c#nt again.

You didn't? How naughty, tut, tut. (tee hee).

I though he was going to have a coronary, oh he was a shaven headed
fat c'nt too. Personally I can't stand arrogant jerks on the road, to
many people get far too streesed.

If I'm going to town I usually use the bus although its a bit rough
with the being thrown around in it or use the m/cycle if I am in a
hurry. It does make me laugh watching peole get more and more p!ssed
off with each other becuae they are stuck in queues.

It was fine round here going back 10 years as well. Where I used to
live there was about 5-10 cars on the road, now every house has near
enough 1 or 2 cars and the road is down to car width + about 1 meter.
But then the bus service is now but then a return trip to town was
about 40p now its near £2.50.
--
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with
white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw

the quest for safety
 

Bagpuss wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:14:28 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

Bagpuss wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:36:29 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

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

I've pointed this out to car drivers, and get reactions
such as "there's no sign".


That baffles me. Sounds more like "oh I've been caught. If
I shout
back I may not look such an arze".

I remeber up the local main road a could of chineese
students crossing
the road when a right lardy bloke in a big rover pulled
into the road
and started paping on his horn and shouting as they were
in
the way.
As they carried on crossing the road I decided to take
that moment to
cross too, slowing down the fat c#nt again.

You didn't? How naughty, tut, tut. (tee hee).

I though he was going to have a coronary, oh he was a
shaven headed fat c'nt too. Personally I can't stand
arrogant jerks on the road, to many people get far too
streesed.

If I'm going to town I usually use the bus although its a
bit rough with the being thrown around in it or use the
m/cycle if I am in a hurry. It does make me laugh watching
peole get more and more p!ssed off with each other becuae
they are stuck in queues.

I was visiting someone in London one day and made some comment about the
traffic congestion (this was long before Congestion Charging or even the
position of Mayor was thought of). The person I was tallking to agreed that
it was bad. When I suggested that if one was to say to all those people
stuck in traffic jams that "They could make a useful contribution by not
using their car" they would probably consider you to be mad. The expression
on the other persons face was a picture, the penny had suddenly dropped.

the quest for safety
 

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 10:01:19 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

If I'm going to town I usually use the bus although its a
bit rough with the being thrown around in it or use the
m/cycle if I am in a hurry. It does make me laugh watching
peole get more and more p!ssed off with each other becuae
they are stuck in queues.

I was visiting someone in London one day and made some comment about the
traffic congestion (this was long before Congestion Charging or even the
position of Mayor was thought of). The person I was tallking to agreed that
it was bad. When I suggested that if one was to say to all those people
stuck in traffic jams that "They could make a useful contribution by not
using their car" they would probably consider you to be mad. The expression
on the other persons face was a picture, the penny had suddenly dropped.

Exactly. The congestion does need to come down. I think in London its
not too bad a thing having the CC, but they have the advantage of a
quite good PT capacity compared to other areas.

Round here the council decided that the best way to reduce traffic
round the city center was to constrict ring road to reduce the number
of lanes. It was a disaster the result was that buses are now stuck in
congestion and have to take paths that are not part of their route and
occasionally skip stops. The council even started re-arranging the
hunctions to improve traffic flow. The problem is that the ring road
is the main way of getting across from one side of town to another.
Rather than narrow it, they sould have improved it to alow flow from
one side of the city to another. It looks like this is what they are
trying to do. Unfortunatly the bus service is only good if you want to
go where the buses run and its very expensive. If you are going as a
family is considerably cheaper [1] to go by car and pay the parking
fees, which is wrong. It should be cheaper to encourage use.

[1] It would cost us about 40p in fuel (say at usual company milage
rates about 2 quid to 2.50 in total) or by bus about 7 quid, which is
only marginally less than a taxi both ways.
--
This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth
cats be they a bit loose at the seams or not
GSX600F - Matilda the (now) two eared teapot, complete with
white gaffer tape, though no rectal chainsaw

the quest for safety
 

Bagpuss wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:14:28 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

Bagpuss wrote:

As they carried on crossing the road I decided to take that
moment to
cross too, slowing down the fat c#nt again.

You didn't? How naughty, tut, tut. (tee hee).

I though he was going to have a coronary, oh he was a shaven headed
fat c'nt too. Personally I can't stand arrogant jerks on the road, to
many people get far too streesed.

Yet you chose to enter the road to be an arrogant jerk.

the quest for safety
 

nospam wrote:
Bagpuss wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 08:14:28 +0000 (UTC), "Cast_Iron"
wrote:

Bagpuss wrote:

As they carried on crossing the road I decided to take
that moment to
cross too, slowing down the fat c#nt again.

You didn't? How naughty, tut, tut. (tee hee).

I though he was going to have a coronary, oh he was a
shaven headed fat c'nt too. Personally I can't stand
arrogant jerks on the road, to many people get far too
streesed.

Yet you chose to enter the road to be an arrogant jerk.

I would suggest not. He went onto the road to get to the other side.

the quest for safety
 

Round here the council decided that the best way to reduce traffic
round the city center was to constrict ring road to reduce the number
of lanes. It was a disaster the result was that buses are now stuck in
congestion and have to take paths that are not part of their route and
occasionally skip stops. The council even started re-arranging the
hunctions to improve traffic flow. The problem is that the ring road
is the main way of getting across from one side of town to another.
Rather than narrow it, they sould have improved it to alow flow from
one side of the city to another. It looks like this is what they are
trying to do. Unfortunatly the bus service is only good if you want to
go where the buses run and its very expensive. If you are going as a
family is considerably cheaper [1] to go by car and pay the parking
fees, which is wrong. It should be cheaper to encourage use.

Surely better than narrowing the road would have been to provide a
bus/taxi/cycle lane?

the quest for safety
 

Yet you chose to enter the road to be an arrogant jerk.

No, he did exactly what the highway code expects you to do.

Have you ever tried crossing a busy junction?

Given that a lot of drivers don't indicate, all you can do is to look around
and hope that any driver turning knows how to drive.

If one flow of traffic was already halted, seems like a safer (and more
efficient) way of crossing to me.

the quest for safety
 

"Richard" wrote:

Yet you chose to enter the road to be an arrogant jerk.

No, he did exactly what the highway code expects you to do.

"I decided to take that moment to cross too, slowing down the fat c#nt
again."

Which part of the highway code expects exactly this behaviour?

the quest for safety
 

In message , Steve Moore
writes

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__
40 years ago when I was learning to ride a motorbike (unlimited cc.
then) I had drummed into me the verse,
"Here lies the body, of Albert J,
Who died maintaining his right of way,
He was right, dead right, as he drove along,
But just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
--
Clive

the quest for safety
 

In message , Cast_Iron
writes
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.
As a third age person, I've no experience of bike's on roads, but it
sure made a difference to the car owning proletariat when I was driving
a white van about two feet above their eye level.
--
Clive