Motorists urged to be more aware of pedestrians

Isambard

Idleater wrote: »

Junctions are the correct place for pedestrians to cross. Assuming that you would have to be exercising care to proceed in your chosen direction at a junction the Statue would apply:

in other words pedestrians are just another road user and the same rules apply. They are "traffic" just the same and car drivers should Yield to them just as if they were a car.

micks_address

Idleater wrote: »

Junctions are the correct place for pedestrians to cross. Assuming that you would have to be exercising care to proceed in your chosen direction at a junction the Statue would apply:

Yes naturally..there was traffic lights and they were green for me..I don't think the laws have changed in that respect

Idleater

micks_address wrote: »

Yes naturally..there was traffic lights and they were green for me..I don't think the laws have changed in that respect

Absolutely

SI332 wrote:

(3)(a) A driver of a vehicle facing traffic sign number RTS 001, RTS 002, RTS 003 or RTS 013 in which the green lamp is illuminated may proceed beyond the traffic lights, or beyond traffic sign number RRM 017 (stop line) if such traffic sign is provided in association with the traffic lights, provided no other road user is endangered and subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of articles 8 and 29.

.

You must give way to pedestrians already (or about to be) before you.

kirving

ronoc wrote: »

That is a terrible example. The video is an infamous case of two sisters who had a form of psychosis and ran onto a motorway. Very little to do with driving with proper care.

Of course it's a terrible example, that's exactly why I posted it. It was in response to this post which effectively excused any and all contributory actions by the vulnerable road user, placing 100% of blame on the driver in all circumstances.

Amirani wrote: »

Motorists are the ones driving the machine that's going to cause injury, it's on them to be vigilant. It's a fairly fundamental part of driving.

When I'm driving, I fully accept that it's my responsibility not to kill a vulnerable road user with the piece of equipment I'm driving. It's my actions (using the accelerator) that is cause any fatality. A pedestrian isn't going to die by walking into my stationary car, they'll only die if I press the accelerator and drive into them. I'm not sure how that could even be up for debate.

Following that line of thinking, the truck driver is at fault - which is patently ridiculous.

As shred of cop-on from both sides goes a very long way in terms of respect on the road, but most of all people just have no awareness of the damage their vehicle can do, and equally no awareness of their own vulnerability. I've been in cars that have been hit, and come off my bike enough times to understand both, and it certainly changes my actions on the road.

As an aside, the Safe Pass course for tradespeople is a genuine eye-opener, with plenty of pictures and video of how things can go wrong, how to look out for yourself, and never to put your safety in the hands of anyone else.

Still waters

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is true, but whether or not you intend it, your post implies some sort of equivalence of responsibility. the responsibility weighs vastly more heavily on the motorist; they are the one driving a vehicle typically weighing a ton or more at speeds considerably higher than pedestrians can manage.

the greater the damage your vehicle can do, the greater responsibility on you and higher level of training you need, this is common sense.

I fully agree, and in a vast majority of cases the driver is found to be at fault because of that responsibility, that still doesn't take away personal responsibility to yourself to not walk out in front of a car even at pedestrian crossings, i wouldn't trust a motorist to stop at a crossing or anywhere else, a quick YouTube search throws up loads of results supporting this, I've driven trucks since i was 20 years old, the stupid things I've seen motorists, cyclists and pedestrians do is unbelievable, look after number 1 and assume that driver isn't going to stop, their fault or not it's no good being right and dead

Uncle Pierre

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

How on earth would it be equally valid? Pedestrians and cyclists haven't killed many motorists (that I know of anyway).

Sweet Jesus - you have to wonder about some people's logic!

Let me be the one to say "Sweet Jesus". I really don't believe that I have to explain the logic here. But having to do so is a perfect example of what I said about these sort of discussions always attracting members of the "four wheels bad, two wheels or no wheels good" brigade.

OP has clarified that he merely intended to start a discussion on RTE's headline on the story about what the Director of the RSA said: "motorists and vulnerable road users should follow safety precautions."

Most valid headline of all would therefore be something like "all road users urged to take care". Let's call that 100% valid.

But the RTE headline puts all the emphasis on being careful on one group of road users (motorists) and none on the other two we're talking about (pedestrians and cyclists). So let's call that only 33% valid.

Similarly, a headline to put all the emphasis on either of the other groups (such as "cyclists urged to take more care" or "pedestrians urged to be more aware...") would also ignore the other two groups, so they'd be only 33% valid too.

Therefore all would be just 33% valid and therefore all are equally valid (or even invalid, depending on your point of view).

Remember this was supposed to be a discussion about how an inaccurate or only partially accurate headline can influence interpretation of a story. And I think the fact that it's already been dragged down so many pages of the usual motorist/cyclist stuff just proves that point.

Bottom line is that the RSA man just said all road users should follow safety precautions. I've yet to see anybody here suggest that's bad advice. And if the headline had just said that, this thread probably wouldn't exist at all. Which again just proves the point.

Anyway, I'm out. This discussion has gone way to far down the usual diatribe about "two or three abreast" and "two-tonne killing machines" and all that other usual stuff. That's not what it was supposed to be about at all.

magicbastarder

the OP included the line "Why come down more on the motorist to be more vigilant?"

which, to be fair, is a question so trivial it wasn't even worth asking.

lawred2

BronsonTB wrote: »

Video Highlights section on https://www.rte.ie/news/
"Motorists urged to be more aware of pedestrians"

Why come down more on the motorist to be more vigilant? It's not like we can drive on the footpaths. Should the pedestrian not be more careful when near the road instead?

Should the emphasis not be on the pedestrian to be conscious of their actions , esp when they are the ones that could end up dead.

Pinning it to the motorist is somewhat unfair esp if someone feels they can just just walk out in front of them.
(Of course Motorists have to be vigilant & careful)

Should there be better education for pedestrians in how to cross roads safely?
(Common sense seems to be missing from some)

Use of zebra crossings seems to be optional for pedestrians - Would a spot fine work to encourage there use when near one instead of crossing 3 metres near one?

the reason that motorists need to be more aware than pedestrians is that pedestrians can't kill motor cars.

It is as simple as that.

magicbastarder

BronsonTB

Speaking as the OP, we can leave it at that, thread seems to have derailed from my intention & some people just didn't what I was trying to ask.
I do thanks everyone for the responses. Mod Note: Thread can be closed as going off topic.

Thank You 'Uncle Pierre' - You hit nail on the head & understood exactly what the intended discussion was about.

magicbastarder

we've every right to disagree with you, it's not cricket to start a thread expressing your opinion and then ask for it to be closed because it didn't go the way you wanted.

BronsonTB

magicbastarder wrote: »

we've every right to disagree with you, it's not cricket to start a thread expressing your opinion and then ask for it to be closed because it didn't go the way you wanted.

Only asking for it to be closed as people are not just expression opinions but thread is going completely off topic from what it was about!

I have thanked people for their contribution anyway whether I agreed or not so I fully accept those that disagreed as well. You as a mod should see that from the replies.

07Lapierre

begbysback wrote: »

The “do not drink” on a bottle of bleach is there for the same people who believe cycling 2 abreast on a main road is safer.

Cycling 2 abreast is not dangerous. Its not being inconsiderate to other road users either. Its a safer way for two cyclists to cycle and its also the safest formation for motorists to overtake. Two cyclists cycling single file means a motorist has to overtake for a longer period of time, which requires a longer stretch of clear road and/or higher overtaking speed.

magicbastarder

BronsonTB wrote: »

Use of zebra crossings seems to be optional for pedestrians - Would a spot fine work to encourage there use when near one instead of crossing 3 metres near one?

it is already an offence to cross the road i think within 10m of a pedestrian crossing if the pedestrian light is red.
zebra crossings are rare enough in ireland, certainly compared to other countries. i have an email somewhere on the other computer where the chairman of dublin city council confirmed they generally don't use them because of the way the law is written here. but it has led to a catch 22 situation - they're not used because the law is unclear and motorists don't expect them, but motorists don't expect them because they're not used here.

in other countries in europe i've been to, if you so much as look at a zebra crossing, most approaching motorists will stop.