"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 18:41:26 +0100, Pete Smith
wrote:


This accident was on the A483, north of Wrexham, heading northbound.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3063585.stm

The pedestrian was walking _in_ lane 1.

Well according to our resident fscknut, the pedestrian couldn't possibly
have been at fault dontcha know.





greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:06:32 +0100, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

Well according to our resident fscknut, the pedestrian couldn't possibly
have been at fault dontcha know.

From the BBC report:

"It is the case of the pedestrian being in the inside lane of the dual
carriageway at quarter past midnight and the driver having little
option but to collide with him," said Chief Inspector Adams.

"The vehicle travelling behind was the HGV and, unfortunately, that
vehicle was not able to stop and collided with the rear of the coach.

"Our initial examinations of both vehicles suggest there is nothing
mechanically wrong with either vehicle."

So, we have someone afoot in Lane 1 at midnight - which is definitely
not an activity to be undertaken without hi-viz clothing and a Damned
Good Reason - though of course we don't know why he was there. Or
indeed where in Lane 1 he was - on the edge? In the middle?
Crossing? Walking back to recover something which he had seen from
his car?

Then we have what sounds like an HGV following another large vehicle
too close to be able to stop. HGV drivers are generally very skilful
and vigilant, but if they have a fault it is draughting other large
vehicles. Was that what was going on here? We don't know, of course.
But if it was, do we blame the pedestrian for the injured bus
passengers or the following vehicle? Just thinking out loud here.

Guy
===
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk: Respectable rules for responsible people

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

Then we have what sounds like an HGV following another large vehicle
too close to be able to stop. HGV drivers are generally very skilful
and vigilant, but if they have a fault it is draughting other large
vehicles. Was that what was going on here? We don't know, of course.

The existence of multi-lane roads pretty much supports being
allowed to get too close to stop if someone moves over suddenly.
(The pictures of the damage suggest an offset collision,
rather than both vehicles being in the same lane before).

This accident was on the A483, north of Wrexham, heading northbound.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3063585.stm

The pedestrian was walking _in_ lane 1.

Well according to our resident fscknut, the pedestrian couldn't possibly
have been at fault dontcha know.

Ignored.

In article ,
says...
So, we have someone afoot in Lane 1 at midnight - which is definitely
not an activity to be undertaken without hi-viz clothing and a Damned
Good Reason - though of course we don't know why he was there. Or
indeed where in Lane 1 he was - on the edge? In the middle?
Crossing? Walking back to recover something which he had seen from
his car?


Girlfriend was in the car, in the layby. I don't know _exactly_ where the
accident occurred (photos weren't clear enough), because there are 2
laybys within a mile of each other on that stretch. If the car was in the
2nd one, he could have run out of petrol, and have been walking back to
Wrexham.

(Aside : This is why I have breakdown recovery. There's no way in hell I'd
leave _my_ wife, alone in a car, on a road like that, at midnight)

The going to get something he'd seen is a possibility. Sometimes you see
these _great_ hawsers and loads of rope fallen off lorries that are just
_begging_ to be picked up. Preferably while watching the road :-/

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail
is a spam testing address.

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/

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message
...

The existence of multi-lane roads pretty much supports being
allowed to get too close to stop if someone moves over suddenly.

You should not follow so close that you can't stop if the vehicle in front
does. The fact that people do is irrelevant: it is safer not to, because
the vehicle in front might suffer, for example, a sudden tyre failure, just
at the point someone is overtaking you in the other lane.

If the vehicles are in different lanes, that's a different matter.

Different lanes (on a multi-lane road) is what I was refering to.

The
coach was in Lane 1 of 2 - are HGVs allowed in lane 2 of a 2-lane dual
carriageway? I guess they are.

Yes.

But what Plod said could be taken as
implying that the HGV was in the same lane and unable to stop.

Maybe, but pictures of the damage suggest an offset collision,
rather than both vehicles being in the same lane before.

Like I said, I was thinking out loud.

I was just adding some more possibilities.