Roads Belong To Toyota

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Sam Salt, Jun 27, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sam Salt

    Sam Salt Guest

    Heres a quote from today's ' Times ' in relation to car manufacturers disregard for the safety of
    anyone outside their vehicles:-

    " A Toyota spokesman sad that poor road design was to blame for many pedestrian casualties,adding '
    Pedestrian protection is very important to us but we also need to educate pedestrians not to be in
    the road in the first place."

    Says it all really.

    Sam Salt

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.493 / Virus Database: 292 - Release Date: 25/06/2003
     
    Tags:


  2. Adam Dugmore

    Adam Dugmore Guest

    "Sam Salt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Heres a quote from today's ' Times ' in relation to car manufacturers disregard for the safety of
    > anyone outside their vehicles:-
    >
    > " A Toyota spokesman sad that poor road design was to blame for many pedestrian casualties,adding
    > ' Pedestrian protection is very important to
    us
    > but we also need to educate pedestrians not to be in the road in the first place."
    >
    > Says it all really.
    >
    > Sam Salt

    But you can't deny that he has a valid point. I'd wager that more car/pedestrian collisions happen
    when peds are in the road than cars on the footpath.

    --
    Adam Dugmore

    Honda CB500R - mangled :eek:( Kona Explosif - sparkling :eek:)
     
  3. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Adam Dugmore <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > "Sam Salt" <[email protected]> wrote

    > > " A Toyota spokesman sad that poor road design was to blame for many pedestrian
    > > casualties,adding ' Pedestrian protection is very important to us but we also need to educate
    > > pedestrians not to be in the road in the first place."
    >
    > But you can't deny that he has a valid point.

    Yes I can. In fact, I do.

    > I'd wager that more car/pedestrian collisions happen when peds are in the road than cars on the
    > footpath.

    But how many of them are down to teh pedestrian being unaware that cars might be in the road? That
    is, how many of them could be avoided by education of pedestrians?

    I'll wager that it's rathewr fewer than occur on footpaths.

    Besides which, any pedestrians in the road, unless it's a motorway or very few other roads, have a
    legal right to be there. The vehicles that strike them do not have a right to strike them in any
    circumstances.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
  4. Adam Dugmore

    Adam Dugmore Guest

    "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Adam Dugmore <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    > >
    > > "Sam Salt" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > > > " A Toyota spokesman sad that poor road design was to blame for many pedestrian
    > > > casualties,adding ' Pedestrian protection is very important
    to
    > > > us but we also need to educate pedestrians not to be in the road in
    the
    > > > first place."
    > >
    > > But you can't deny that he has a valid point.
    >
    > Yes I can. In fact, I do.
    >
    > > I'd wager that more car/pedestrian collisions happen when peds are in
    the
    > > road than cars on the footpath.
    >
    > But how many of them are down to teh pedestrian being unaware that cars might be in the road? That
    > is, how many of them could be avoided by education of pedestrians?
    >
    > I'll wager that it's rathewr fewer than occur on footpaths.

    You are suggesting then that the majority of incidents occuring involve pedestrians who are fully
    aware that there ARE vehicles travelling on the road, yet step in their path regardless.

    >
    > Besides which, any pedestrians in the road, unless it's a motorway or very few other roads, have a
    > legal right to be there. The vehicles that strike them do not have a right to strike them in any
    > circumstances.

    Unless there is no footpath, walking in the road because you "have a legal right to be there" is a
    no-brainer, let's face it. The duty of care in collision avoidance does not, and can not, rest
    solely with the motorist.

    --
    Adam Dugmore

    Honda CB500R - mangled :eek:( Kona Explosif - sparkling :eek:)
     
  5. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Sun, 29 Jun, Adam Dugmore <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > But how many of them are down to teh pedestrian being unaware that cars might be in the road?
    > > That is, how many of them could be avoided by education of pedestrians?
    > >
    > > I'll wager that it's rathewr fewer than occur on footpaths.
    >
    > You are suggesting then that the majority of incidents occuring involve pedestrians who are fully
    > aware that there ARE vehicles travelling on the road, yet step in their path regardless.

    I'm suggesting nothing of the sort.

    I'm saying that the collisions involve pedestrians that are fullly aware that there could be
    vehicles on teh road. That is, there are vanishingly few collisions with pedestrians that could have
    been avoided by education of the pedestrian that there are vehicles in roads. Educating pedestrians
    that there are vehicles in teh road wouldn't help - they already know that, at it didn't help.

    Are you suggesting that most pedestrians that get struck by vehicles were unaware that there could
    be vehicles in teh road?

    > > Besides which, any pedestrians in the road, unless it's a motorway or very few other roads, have
    > > a legal right to be there. The vehicles that strike them do not have a right to strike them in
    > > any circumstances.
    >
    > Unless there is no footpath, walking in the road because you "have a legal right to be there" is
    > a no-brainer, let's face it.

    Only because the motorist has seized control of the roadway.

    > The duty of care in collision avoidance does not, and can not, rest solely with the motorist.

    It almost entirely does, since the motorist has elected to go out in control of a deadly piece of
    machinery in a public place. Were someone to take up shooting a rifle along the high street, you
    would presumably proclaim that the duty of care in not killing people does not, and can not, rest
    entirely with the person firing the gun?

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
  6. Adam Dugmore

    Adam Dugmore Guest

    "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 29 Jun, Adam Dugmore <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > > But how many of them are down to teh pedestrian being unaware that cars might be in the road?
    > > > That is, how many of them could be avoided by education of pedestrians?
    > > >
    > > > I'll wager that it's rathewr fewer than occur on footpaths.
    > >
    > > You are suggesting then that the majority of incidents occuring involve pedestrians who are
    > > fully aware that there ARE vehicles travelling on
    the
    > > road, yet step in their path regardless.
    >
    > I'm suggesting nothing of the sort.
    >
    > I'm saying that the collisions involve pedestrians that are fullly aware that there could be
    > vehicles on teh road. That is, there are vanishingly few collisions with pedestrians that could
    > have been avoided by education of the pedestrian that there are vehicles in roads. Educating
    > pedestrians that there are vehicles in teh road wouldn't help - they already know that, at it
    > didn't help.
    >
    > Are you suggesting that most pedestrians that get struck by vehicles were unaware that there could
    > be vehicles in teh road?
    >
    > > > Besides which, any pedestrians in the road, unless it's a motorway or very few other roads,
    > > > have a legal right to be there. The vehicles that strike them do not have a right to strike
    > > > them in any circumstances.
    > >
    > > Unless there is no footpath, walking in the road because you "have a
    legal
    > > right to be there" is a no-brainer, let's face it.
    >
    > Only because the motorist has seized control of the roadway.
    >
    > > The duty of care in collision avoidance does not, and can not, rest
    solely
    > > with the motorist.
    >
    > It almost entirely does, since the motorist has elected to go out in control of a deadly piece of
    > machinery in a public place. Were someone to take up shooting a rifle along the high street, you
    > would presumably proclaim that the duty of care in not killing people does not, and can not, rest
    > entirely with the person firing the gun?

    No, I would not as a pedestrian has greater control of the situation than a person being shot.
     
  7. Ian Smith

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, Adam Dugmore <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]mithnet...
    > > On Sun, 29 Jun, Adam Dugmore <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > "Ian Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > > But how many of them are down to teh pedestrian being unaware that cars might be in the
    > > > > road? That is, how many of them could be avoided by education of pedestrians?
    > > > >
    > > > > I'll wager that it's rathewr fewer than occur on footpaths.
    > > >
    > > > You are suggesting then that the majority of incidents occuring involve pedestrians who are
    > > > fully aware that there ARE vehicles travelling on the road, yet step in their path
    > > > regardless.
    > >
    > > I'm suggesting nothing of the sort.
    > >
    > > I'm saying that the collisions involve pedestrians that are fullly aware that there could be
    > > vehicles on teh road. That is, there are vanishingly few collisions with pedestrians that could
    > > have been avoided by education of the pedestrian that there are vehicles in roads. Educating
    > > pedestrians that there are vehicles in teh road wouldn't help - they already know that, at it
    > > didn't help.
    > >
    > > Are you suggesting that most pedestrians that get struck by vehicles were unaware that there
    > > could be vehicles in teh road?
    > >
    > > > The duty of care in collision avoidance does not, and can not, rest solely with the motorist.
    > >
    > > It almost entirely does, since the motorist has elected to go out in control of a deadly piece
    > > of machinery in a public place. Were someone to take up shooting a rifle along the high street,
    > > you would presumably proclaim that the duty of care in not killing people does not, and can not,
    > > rest entirely with the person firing the gun?
    >
    > No, I would not as a pedestrian has greater control of the situation than a person being shot.

    You've omitted to reply to any of the other parts of the post. Are you asserting that pedestrians
    who get struck by motor vehicles in the carriageway were unaware that vehicles could be there? Are
    you saying that educating them that there could be vehicles in teh carriageway would have avoided
    the coliision?

    And no, the pedestrian has no greater control than the person being shot. The person being shot has
    every ability to get out of teh way - they are not compelled to be in teh high street when the
    rifleman wants to do his target practice.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...