"PeterE" wrote in message
...

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.

It's just a shame that so many walkers in this country are ignorant of the
advice to walk *towards* oncoming traffic, rather than in the same direction
as the traffic. There was a major accident involving a pedestrian, a coach
and an HGV earlier this week - it appears that the coach hit the pedestrian
and then veered into the HGV. What's the betting that the pedestrian was
walking in the gutter, heading in the same direction as the traffic? It's
such a simple philosophy - if you walk towards oncoming traffic and remain
aware then you have the opportunity to take sudden, evasive action if a
vehicle fails to see you or swerves towards you.

Likewise the logic in keeping left on pavements - if an approaching vehicle
is out of control or has a wing mirror or other item overhanging the
pavement then you see it coming, rather than when it clouts you from behind
at some force.

"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

It's just a shame that so many walkers in this country are ignorant of the
advice to walk *towards* oncoming traffic, rather than in the same direction
as the traffic. There was a major accident involving a pedestrian, a coach
and an HGV earlier this week - it appears that the coach hit the pedestrian
and then veered into the HGV. What's the betting that the pedestrian was
walking in the gutter, heading in the same direction as the traffic?

The news story was that the coach swerved to try to avoid
the pedestrian, and the pictures seemed to show the front of
the HGV having hit the rear of the coach. Fortunateley the
coach had seltbelts fitted and in use.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 18:16:28 +0100 Jack Taylor wrote:
}
} "PeterE" wrote in message
} ...
}
} 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.
}
} It's just a shame that so many walkers in this country are ignorant of the
} advice to walk *towards* oncoming traffic, rather than in the same direction
} as the traffic.

Why is this? It seemed to be somethign everyone was told when I was a
kid, the sort of knowledge that was universally absorbed rather than
taught.

} Likewise the logic in keeping left on pavements - if an approaching vehicle
} is out of control or has a wing mirror or other item overhanging the
} pavement then you see it coming, rather than when it clouts you from behind
} at some force.

The additional lgic of keep left wherever foot traffic is bi-directional
also seems to have slipped from general consciousness. It used to be
almost unversal while negotiating the foot tunels of the Underground -
and many signs were posted. It just makes negotiating a route easier
and less stressful but noe the custom - and the signs - seems to be fast
disapearing.

Cycling along a tow-path (where it is allowed and for which I have a
permit) last weekend some old buffer was smugly pleased with himself for
having made me stop. There would have been no need for the path in that
area was very wide but he and the six other members of his party were
strung right across it so he was on his right (my left) and so it was he
creating the obstruction. Unecessary and ill-mannered.

What I did notice was a general and understandable reluctance to go near
the water's edge. But everyone trying to use the inside of the path just
ain't going to work. If ones timidity is sufficient to keep a person
from observing the keep left custom perhaps the canal side isn't the
best choice for a stroll?

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/