Anti-social behaviour



MrBitsy ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

> Our children have NEVER been drivien to school. They have always
> walked or cycled - their choice. Parent who drive their kids to school
> are under the thumb.


I was driven to school every day.

It was three miles each way, mainly down country lanes, and the specially
laid-on school bus from our village was *timetabled* to get to the school
at 9.05am. It was usually late, often badly.

There was no bike parking at the school.
 
At 10 Jun 2005 08:07:11 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by
Adrian <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>>> INAPPROPRIATE speed intimidates people.

>> Who is making a judgement about what is appropriate/inappropriate? The
>> driver?

>Of course. Who else?


How about the person being intimidated? Or is that too much to ask?


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
At 10 Jun 2005 08:04:36 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by
Adrian <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>And if it DID "go wrong", then the cause wouldn't be "speeding", it'd be
>poor observation or judgement.


In the same way that if you shoot someone by accident the cause is not
"gunshot wounds" but poor aim...


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
At 10 Jun 2005 09:35:16 GMT, message
<[email protected]> was posted by
Adrian <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the
following:

>>>> Who is making a judgement about what is appropriate/inappropriate? The
>>>> driver?
>>>Of course. Who else?

>> How about the person being intimidated? Or is that too much to ask?


>You want every driver to stop and ask every pedestrian/cyclist/other road
>user "Excuse me, are you being intimidated?"


You're missing the point: leaving the judgment to the driver is like
asking a group of lager louts whether they are causing a nuisance.

There is research on the issue, and it is cited in work by Hillman,
Adams, Davis and others. It's on the DfT website, too. And in
numerous TRL reports and other places.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
Peter Amey wrote:

[...]

> I also think the ludicrously high performance of modern vehicles is a
> problem. Quite ordinary cars offer accelleration rates that would have
> put them in the supercar league 20 years ago. This acceleration is
> often sufficient to defeat the sight lines round which roads were
> designed and built and can cause vehicles to appear from nowhere in less
> time than it takes to cross a road.


Acceleration defeating sightlines? How?

What does it matter that I can achieve cruise in 2s or 10s, I can still
see or be seen for the same distance.


A

--
Trade Oil in €
 
Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>>You want every driver to stop and ask every pedestrian/cyclist/other
>>road user "Excuse me, are you being intimidated?"


> You're missing the point: leaving the judgment to the driver is like
> asking a group of lager louts whether they are causing a nuisance.


Umm, no, it's like asking a bunch of people in a pub if they're causing a
nuisance, because some people get ****** and cause a nuisance.

95% of them will not be.
5% will be.

So we should ban "having a pint"?
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

[...scary, scary speed...]

> How about the person being intimidated? Or is that too much to ask?


Are you suggesting that the existence of the occasional wuss should
drive public policy?

I think it is reasonable that people should not be forced to suffer fear
of genuine danger but I see no need to pander to the timorous.



A

--
Trade Oil in €
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:20:02 +0100, Alistair J Murray
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I always take great care to avoid hitting stuff, car or no car.

>
> Jolly good. That's not the point. The point is, as drivers, we
> should be taking more care not to hit people than if we are doing
> something less dangerous.


I do have a 100% record of not hitting people with a motor vehicle which
slips a bit when self powered.

I suppose I am slightly sloppier as a ped. :)

>>> The major problem with considerations of road safety is that,
>>> while liability might split 50/50 in pedestrian v car collisions,
>>> injury is pretty much 100/0 in the driver's favour.

>
>> Which makes it even more amazing that so many pedestrians and
>> cyclists fail to make sure their way is clear.

>
> Oh yes, do let's blame the victims, so much more comfortable than
> challenging our own behaviour.


Riding bikes amongst cars is exactly as risky as driving cars amongst
bikes it just hurts more if it doesn't pan out

When I biked I always made sure I knew what was around me.

I drove pushbikes much the same as I drove 7.5t box vans - clearly
indicated intentions, firm assertion of priority and thorough
observation - same collision avoidance policy.

> By the way, you do know that one definition of a pedestrian is
> "someone who's found somewhere to park the car", don't you?


As a blue badge holder I might miss that joke. :)

>>> Some of us think that puts an additional obligation on the driver
>>> to take extra care.

>
>> Some of us think that one should take that much care all the
>> time...

>
> Some of us must have great difficulty getting out of bed in the
> morning, then, given the equal level of care we are supposed to apply
> to all activities regardless of potential danger ;-)


Get the coffee in quick - two cups minimum.

>> ...yet still occasionally play the drunken ped.

>
> And the rest of the time the ped is blameless. And most of the
> cyclists and motorcyclists are blameless too.


Yup, mostly...

> And still we try to turn it round to blame the victim, because that
> is *so* much more comfortable than challenging our own behaviour.


Today I caught up with several cyclists who were obviously going to have
to move right to pass a parked vehicle, I of course hung back until it
was clear pass them; of 5 or 6 occasions precisely *once* did the rider
look back before pulling out.

I don't crowd cyclists and even got a smile and a cheery nod from a
horse rider today, presumably because I slowed as soon as I saw him
approaching, yet I have contempt for arbitrary speed limits.

Many other drivers seem to pay attention solely to the number on the stick.

What sort do you prefer?



A

--
Trade Oil in €
 
Trevor Barton ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

> No, I don't think 31 is more dangerous that 30.
> However, I do think the attitude that says 31 is as acceptable as 30
> leads to the attitude that 32 is as acceptable as 31, ad infinitum,
> which is wrong.


If *all* other hazards mean it is clearly safe to proceed at 32mph, 33mph,
34mph, why is it wrong?

Let's take as an example a road that has recently had the limit lowered.
Last week, it was NSL and 60mph was safe.
This week, it's a 40 limit. Why is 41mph now "wrong" - legal repercussions
excluded.

> I also delieve the attitude that says breaking speed
> limits as an acceptable matter of course is wrong.


A question of Ethics, particularly for Guy :-

Guy, if cycle helmets become legally required, will you wear one *at all
times* while cycling?
 
Alistair J Murray ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

>> Jolly good. That's not the point. The point is, as drivers, we
>> should be taking more care not to hit people than if we are doing
>> something less dangerous.


> I do have a 100% record of not hitting people with a motor vehicle
> which slips a bit when self powered.
>
> I suppose I am slightly sloppier as a ped. :)


Is that taking *more* care while driving, though - or taking less when
walking?

> I don't crowd cyclists and even got a smile and a cheery nod from a
> horse rider today, presumably because I slowed as soon as I saw him
> approaching


Yep, likewise. Although I do admit to giving horse riders and cyclists who
are unable to ride single-friggin'-file in traffic less space than those
who do - Respect is earned, not owed.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> At Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:01:09 +0100, message
> <[email protected]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
> <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
>
>>>> For any given level of culpability a driver is likely to have a
>>>> greater liability than a ped.

>
>>> Well well! We got there in the end.

>
>>Never been anywhere else. Liability is civil, culpability criminal.
>>I do however reserve the right to pursue the estate of any ped who
>>might commit de facto suicide to the detriment of my property and
>>peace of mind.

>
> Whilst quietly ignoring that your choice of transport may well have
> been the single largest determining factor in the fact that said ped
> is now dead, rather than essentially uninjured?
>
> The major problem with considerations of road safety is that, while
> liability might split 50/50 in pedestrian v car collisions, injury is
> pretty much 100/0 in the driver's favour. Some of us think that puts
> an additional obligation on the driver to take extra care.


A good driver is driving defensivly at all times, therefore they can't
increase anything just because a pedestrian is ahead. The only person who
can do extra to remain safe is the pedestrian - maybe by not crossing the
road while on the phone, or riding a bike, or listening to loud music.


--
MrBitsy
 
Adrian wrote:
> DavidR ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
>
>
>>>INAPPROPRIATE speed intimidates people.

>
>
>>Who is making a judgement about what is appropriate/inappropriate? The
>>driver?

>
>
> Of course. Who else?
>
> Yes, the driver may be wrong. Who defines whether they're wrong? Newton,
> mainly.


Here's a driver with full confidence in his ability to decide what's
safe. He's really cross that he's been treated like a criminal. The
police seem to have made up their own minds on the subject without
consulting Newton.

The driver "was having trouble seeing out of the front windscreen and
failed to give way to a lorry at a roundabout, forcing it to brake to
avoid a collision"

Some of his statements seem strangely familiar:

"This is my tenth year of having a no-claims bonus. If I haven't had any
bumps and the insurance company is giving me cheap insurance, my driving
can't be that bad, can it?"

"I feel perfectly safe on the roads and that I am in control."

""There are some very foolish drivers on the road, but I still think
that I am okay."


http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=636162005


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:20:02 +0100, Alistair J Murray
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I always take great care to avoid hitting stuff, car or no car.

>
> Jolly good. That's not the point. The point is, as drivers, we
> should be taking more care not to hit people than if we are doing
> something less dangerous.
>
>>> The major problem with considerations of road safety is that, while
>>> liability might split 50/50 in pedestrian v car collisions, injury is
>>> pretty much 100/0 in the driver's favour.

>
>>Which makes it even more amazing that so many pedestrians and cyclists
>>fail to make sure their way is clear.

>
> Oh yes, do let's blame the victims, so much more comfortable than
> challenging our own behaviour.


BLAMING the victims - who is blaming them?

Look, its quite simple. I do not drive in certain areas with any less
concentration and care, just because there are no pedestrians around. I
drive with full concentration at all times.

Therefore I have no need to drive "better" when around town, because I am
already doing the best I can. Surely it also fair to say the pedestrian
MUST pay full attention also, as they will come off worst in a collision.


--
MrBitsy
 
Steve Walker <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In message <[email protected]>,
> Adrian <[email protected]> writes
>>JohnB ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>>saying :
>>
>>>> Does John carry a radar gun around with him on his bike at all times?

>>
>>> No but I quite often carry a light sabre :)

>>
>>K3wl.
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/4575291.stm

>
> Deserving of an honourable mention in the Darwin awards.
>


No, no ,no.

The burden of care rests firmly with the manufacturers of the petrol,
because that could do the most harm.

--
MrBitsy
 
MrBitsy ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> The burden of care rests firmly with the manufacturers of the petrol,
> because that could do the most harm.


No, no, no - the manufacturers of the fluorescent tubes are at fault - if
they didn't make them look like light sabres, kids wouldn't be tempted.
 
MrBitsy wrote:
[snip]
>
> Well, there are the political bits and the common sense bits - I met the
> common sense bit on the advanced test.
>


So you don't agree with the public policy statements of the organization
that you serve as an instructor for. Have I got that right?

Peter

--

www.amey.org.uk
 
MrBitsy wrote:
> Conor <[email protected]> wrote in news:MPG.1d12bce186e5367a989e84
> @news.individual.net:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, MrBitsy
>>says...
>>
>>
>>>>b) exceeding the speed limit - bad driving
>>>
>>>Don't be so silly man.
>>>

>>
>>Were you taught to exceed the speed limit when you were taking your
>>driving lessons? Would you expect to fail your driving test for
>>exceeding them?

>
>
> No and no.
>
> On the advanced test, part of my commentary would have been along the
> lines of, "not approapriate for a speed check here due to to
> pedestrians", followed by, "ok, happy for a speedo check now, 32mph so
> adjusting back to 30mph".
>


If I were listening to that commentary I would prefer to hear:
"pedestrians about, backing off to reduce hazard", followed by, "ok for
speed check now, 20mph, pedestrians no longer about, adjusting back to 30".

[snip]

Peter



--

www.amey.org.uk
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
5
Views
350
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
B
Replies
0
Views
327
B
B
Replies
0
Views
329
B
B
Replies
2
Views
481
B
B
Replies
1
Views
346
UK and Europe
Alistair J Murray
A
A
Replies
0
Views
318
UK and Europe
Alistair J Murray
A
S
Replies
27
Views
760
UK and Europe
Alistair J Murray
A
B
Replies
2
Views
376
B