"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.