Nice blogs

[sussex2]

The idea of pedestrians scurrying across the road and indeed encouraging children to do so (you see it all the time) is a symptom of the prevailing UK attitude.
We do lag sadly behind our neighbours in this respect.

I think the the topic has been derailed but I've not seen too many nice blogs in any case

[GJD]

Indeed they are in many cases death traps for cyclists and encourage motorists in the view that pedestrians only belong in certain portions of the highway.

Discouraging that view and emphasising that the road users on the inside of tin boxes are not more important than the road users on the outside is what seems to me the obvious strength of the shared space idea. I was a little disappointed to discover from reading your recent post in another thread that there are reasons other than driver-selfishness to not like shared space.

[revian]

; if they step off the kerb without looking and I hit them - my fault.

your fault even if they run across immediately I front of you, at any speed? I know what I think you mean generally and would agree,,generally...

But does a pedestrian have no responsibility? If I stepped out stupidly and was hit I would hope I would think it was my own fault.

[fungus]

But does a pedestrian have no responsibility? If I stepped out stupidly and was hit I would hope I would think it was my own fault.

Obviously not.

Using the reasoning that the more vulnerable a road user is, then the less responsibility that road user has, then if I as a car driver stupidly drive into the area that an LGV needs to manoeuvre on a roundabout for instance, then it's the LGV drivers fault as I am the more vulnerable road user. I think not.

Ancient wrote:
; if they step off the kerb without looking and I hit them - my fault.

No, not necessarily.

[sussex2]

It's not the pedestrian who steps of the kerb without looking or runs blindly into the road (though I'm sure both actions may often be anticipated by a driver) that is the question for myself.
It is the more general attitude and treatment of the most vulnerable in every day road use; by drivers and those who design roads I should add.

[Ancient]

But does a pedestrian have no responsibility? If I stepped out stupidly and was hit I would hope I would think it was my own fault.

Obviously not.

Using the reasoning that the more vulnerable a road user is, then the less responsibility that road user has, then if I as a car driver stupidly drive into the area that an LGV needs to manoeuvre on a roundabout for instance, then it's the LGV drivers fault as I am the more vulnerable road user. I think not.

Or to put it the other way:
The more danger your transport choice poses to others and the less vulnerable you are by that transport choice, the more responsibility you have to take care around (and of) those to whose vicinity you are bringing your tons of metal.

Ancient wrote:
; if they step off the kerb without looking and I hit them - my fault.

No, not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily because it is my responsibility to pilot my vehicle in their vicinity with the knowledge that they are not the ones introducing the danger: People will 'lark' with friends in public, people will walk distracted from their surroundings by events in their lives - they always have. These things should not have a potential death penalty attached and it is my reponsibility as a driver to ensure that I don not impose that (or indeed any injury) because of their distraction. They are allowed to be distracted, I am in control of a potentially lethal machine and am not so allowed.
I recently saw a driving test 'click the hazard' video which demonstrates precisely this point; the potential for people stepping out in front of the car without looking was a hazard to be identified.

[exportmanuk]

Walking out distractedly is one thing. A frightening thing I have seen is people walking out deliberately if front of vehicle. This is especially true if they are in groups such as football supporters going to a match ( I live near one Manchester ground and work near the other so I see this very regularly) But shoppers too. They look at you but still walk out sort of hit me if you dare, very deliberate they are looking at you whilst they are doing it.

[fungus]

They are allowed to be distracted,

So am I allowed to be distracted when driving my car in the vicinity of a 44ton juggernaut because I am more vulnerable? After all, we are now deeply embroiled in the blame culture, so I could blame the driver of the juggernaut if I do something stupid. There is, believe it or not, such a thing as personal responsibility, and that includes looking after ones own safety. Children are a different matter, and I do accept that we as drivers have to take responsibility for their safety, and I'm sure that many drivers, not all, do slow, and possibly take a wider safety line if possible when near children, or where there are children cycling.

Then there is the question of parental responsibility, which sadly nowadays seems to be abdicated to anyone but themselves. Only yesterday I saw a mother walking 20 or more yards ahead of her daughter who could not have been more than about two years old. This woman was talking on her mobile phone. Yes I did slow. Yes I did position wider. Nothing happened, but this woman had absolutely no idea what her daughter was doing.

Walking out distractedly is one thing. A frightening thing I have seen is people walking out deliberately if front of vehicle. This is especially true if they are in groups such as football supporters going to a match ( I live near one Manchester ground and work near the other so I see this very regularly) But shoppers too. They look at you but still walk out sort of hit me if you dare, very deliberate they are looking at you whilst they are doing it.

Exactly, that sort of attitude is certainly more prevalent today than it was thirty or forty years ago.

[fungus]

Surely not if they emerge from behind cars or walls adjacent to the road? Surely that must by the child's fault (particularly if the child is on a bicycle - yes I am refering to a post on ADUK )
Not referring to one of your posts though, sussex2 and thanks for the link - it might well prove useful elsewhere

If you are referring to the topic "I've had an accident", firstly, you were not there. Secondly, the child rode out from behind a blind six foot wall riding into the side of my car. It was completely impossible to see him, the first indication that he was there was the sight of his front wheel as it appeared from behind the wall, and a split second later made impact with the side of my car. The fact that the car was stopped within about fifteen feet of seeing the bicycles wheel, with the bicycle along side the rear near side of the car, would suggest that the vehicles speed was probably less than 15 mph. How you can say that because I was in possession of a car that I am to blame beggars belief. This is exactly the attitude that encourages the blame culture and discourages personal responsibility. It may surprise you to know that the childs mother was actually angry with her son for being so stupid.

[MGF]

...I recently saw a driving test 'click the hazard' video which demonstrates precisely this point; the potential for people stepping out in front of the car without looking was a hazard to be identified.

There are also a few with cars potentially emerging from a minor road into your path.

In what sense do you mean fault because a pedestrian, without warning, stepping into your path, is likely to be at fault legally?

[GJD]

...I recently saw a driving test 'click the hazard' video which demonstrates precisely this point; the potential for people stepping out in front of the car without looking was a hazard to be identified.

There are also a few with cars potentially emerging from a minor road into your path.

Oh. Now I think I might be agreeing with MGF twice in one day.

Ancient, it sounds like you are taking the sound principle of defensive driving - using good observation and anticipation to mitigate the effects of others' mistakes - and interpreting it so as to suggest that because the drivers around me have the opportunity to mitigate the effects of my mistakes, I should be allowed to make mistakes with impunity.

Blundering out into the traffic because I'm larking about or distracted by the events in my life does have a potential death penalty. That's just a fact. The only way you could change that fact would be to remove the traffic from anywhere I might want to blunder about.

[Ancient]

In what way do I mean fault? I mean morally certainly, also I would not be seeking to place blame on the other party.

@Nigel, that is precisely the incident I am referring to. As you say, I was not there and can only go on your description. What you could see was the "blind six foot wall"; this is no different from a parked vehicle and one should expect 'anything' to possibly emerge. That you stopped within 15ft is good - that you placed the blame on the playing child IMO not so. Had a child run from between parked cars into your moving vehicle the comparison with Roadcraft examples may have been clearer.

Reductio ad absurdium is a poor argument so no, a car driver cannot suddenly drop all responsibility in the presence of an HGV, but certainly the driver of an HGV should be better trained than the average car driver, precisely because he is in charge of a vehicle which can be lethal in more ways. HGV drivers cannot (and the better do not) expect that all car drivers (let alone other legitimate road users) know the limitations of their larger vehicles.

None of this is rocket science, nor some wierd belief espoused only by manic defensive drivers; it is the basis of all Health and Safety legislation in the workplace. Long gone are the days when an employer can say 'I didn't provide safety guards because the workers should know it is their personal responsibility not to put their hands in the press'. It is the machine which brings danger, the responsibility of the owner to ensure the machine safe for where it is operating and of the operator to ensure others are not injured by the machine they are operating. Unfortunately H&S does not operate on our roads (even for industrial machines) which is why we have machines driven by a single driver, which would require two (driver and banksman) to operate in a building site for example. Adopting a H&S attitude to road safety would (IMO) be the single biggest step that we could make towards a better road environment.

[Ancient]

Blundering out into the traffic because I'm larking about or distracted by the events in my life does have a potential death penalty. That's just a fact. The only way you could change that fact would be to remove the traffic from anywhere I might want to blunder about.

Forgot to answer this:
I'm afraid that it's "just a fact" that someone can be killed by the machine I bring into a public space where I know people may be behaving less than responsibly does not suffice for me. Were I to bring any other potentially lethal instrument into a public space (and there are times when I have), then it is my personal responsibility to ensure that no dangerous outcome ensued. The acceptance that cars kill "it's just a fact" is IMO one of the things wrong with UK society.

[MGF]

...Adopting a H&S attitude to road safety would (IMO) be the single biggest step that we could make towards a better road environment.

In the same way kids are forbidden to cycle around the factory floor they would be physically prevented from getting onto the carriageway if H&S attitudes were adopted. If cyclists and pedestrians were removed from the carriageway you might not be so keen on H&S as a solution.

[GJD]

Blundering out into the traffic because I'm larking about or distracted by the events in my life does have a potential death penalty. That's just a fact. The only way you could change that fact would be to remove the traffic from anywhere I might want to blunder about.

Forgot to answer this:
I'm afraid that it's "just a fact" that someone can be killed by the machine I bring into a public space where I know people may be behaving less than responsibly does not suffice for me. Were I to bring any other potentially lethal instrument into a public space (and there are times when I have), then it is my personal responsibility to ensure that no dangerous outcome ensued. The acceptance that cars kill "it's just a fact" is IMO one of the things wrong with UK society.

"Potential" is an important word in the point I was making.

The fact I am referring to is that cars have the potential to kill. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that is a fact. You said you didn't think larking around or walking about distracted should have a potential death penalty. The only way I can see for your wish to come true would be for us to enter a very different world: either stop using cars or completely segregate them from all the people they have the potential to kill. I don't see how changing the basis on which fault is apportioned could change the fact that cars have the potential to kill.

Accepting that cars have the potential to kill is not the same as arguing that car operators should be allowed to potentially (or actually) kill with impunity.

The difficulty I have with your position, if I've understood it, is that you appear to be arguing for apportioning fault based solely on who was the car driver and who the pedestrian, rather than considering each case on its merits.