Ever tried driving at 20 km/h (12 mph) for long?

hoodwinked wrote: »

i've posted here before about the children around this estate,

one neighbour of mine came out of her house and got in her car, only for me shouting at her to stop there was a child under her car, she was parked in her drive, her car was stopped, would she be responsible for running over that child if i wasn't there?


or is the parent at fault for thinking a 4 year old had the cop on to mind themselves for the day,


i don't get how a parent can fuss over finding a babysitter for a 4 year old, and then do things like leave them out playing unsupervised at 11pm in the pitch black night.

hoodwinked wrote: »

and children shouldn't be lying under cars in a strangers driveway or out in the dark for hours on end with parents having no clue where they are, but it happens,

hence why i think responsibility doesn't lie solely with the driver, what about the driver where a two year old (tiny in height) runs out from behind a car straight behind another reversing car? is that really the drivers fault or is it the parents who let their 2 year old roaming the streets?

...

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

You'd think so but unfortunately not. A couple of months ago I was walking through an apartment complex and there was an unsupervised kid of about 4, running around the street. A woman drove around the corner and managed to break in time, she'd no way of seeing him until he was almost under the car. The father was yapping away on his mobile, oblivious to it all until he heard the brakes. Of course the fcuker followed her down the street shouting abuse at her for driving too fast. She wasn't, if she had been the kid would've been hit. That's an example I've seen all too often, especially among the listless scummer class who choose not to work.

Admittedly these are all anecdotes but they appear to be credible accounts of stupidity of toddlers being allowed by their (useless) parents to run around roads without a care in the world, play hide-and-seek under neighbors cars and the like.

I put it to you that we should not be encouraging this kind of behaviour.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What about my estate? Laid out with some of the principles of the Essex Design guide. Our estates does not have pavements everywhere. It has been partially acceptable in taking he car from centre stage in our estate - but still very difficult in car soaked society like our own. So roads that meander, rather than go straight, preventing speed being built up.

And parking that is miserably rationed and laid out in an inconvenient, pointlessly hostile manner.

You are no doubt aware of my very public spat with Iwannahurl over precisely this matter. IWH, you may recall, proved how pointless and stupid the Essex Design is by showing a Google View street shot of one such place on the outskirts of Portlaoise - no driveways, very limited parking, oh yeah, and every other house had a car (illegally parked) outside of it, because the people who lived in the kip rendered their own judgement on the design and it was a resounding, absolute rejection. You might like the idea, but I would avoid such places at just about any cost. Oh and I certainly don't want the Essex design to be made a requirement so that I don't have any choice among new developments either.

doopa wrote: »

Since one assumes neither the child or the person driving the car wanted to crash into each other in this case it is not useful to address blame.

If it's "not useful to address blame" then why do motorists have to carry insurance? For very good reason, they can cause accidents and it most certainly is useful to address blame. Or does it only become useless to assign blame if it can't be assigned to a motorist? That's what you seem to be implying.

CramCycle wrote: »

All I am asking is that you don't drive to fast for the conditions of a typical housing estate.

I have no issue with that, but remember maximum speed limits are blanket cases, they cover both the best case scenario (wide street with danger verifiably absent), and the worst (blind spots, crawling toddlers and other sorts of danger all over the gaff) a speed limit is blind to these differences and so should be at the higher end, with the provisio that it's a maximum limit, not even a limit, and that circumstances may dictate lower speed is appropriate.

But there are, IMHO already far too many maximum speed limits that would either make more sense as recommended cruising limits (urban peripheries, grade separated dual carriageways), or that make no sense whatsoever (other urban peripheries, 30kph limits on the N3 as it crosses the M50 etc) and we don't need more reduced blanket limits that take no account of local conditions.

No, but if I am walking with my 3yo and they break my grip and I just can't get to them in time, I expect you to be going slow enough to stop in the majority of incidences.

That is a reasonable risk, it is also a reason for motorists to slow down, if necessary, below the maximum limit.

But do you have the same expectations for when it can clearly be seen that there is no-one walking with their 3 year olds?

Yes we do, hence why we try and impose laws to reduce these activities rather than just let people rot at the side of the road, welcome to society.

Huh? I think you're getting a little incoherent, because you're addressing two things in the same post.
1) You are indeed correct in our nanny state government imposes laws to reduce these activites. Hence we have cigarette taxes that have single handedly created a massive black market, a desire to regulate minimum prices of alcohol to punish people like myself who like a quiet drink at home now and then, and junk food/obesity ... doesn't seem to be anything done about that so far.
2) We provide a healthcare system that is open to everyone including smokers, alcos and fatsos so that they can get healthcare despite their own stupidity. We do indeed pay for this with our taxes and I'm not arguing against that. Nor am I arguing against my taxes being used to subsidise your kids schools and very soon if the feminists have their way, your familys creche bill.

But my obligations end there in all of the above cases. Or at least it should.

I haven't but i am sure there are many who may have parents, family or old friends who have fallen into this situation, but, as you said, your liability isn't there, who cares if they raised you, who cares if they supported you in your youth, who cares if they were an ear when you needed it, they are not your "liability".

I think you're just descending into silliness here, it's painfully obvious that I was referring to strangers and of course you have obligations to your family, e.g. your parents that you don't have to Joe Soap on the street. As to the other things you mentioned, benefits for injuries are paid for out of taxes, charity is not an obligation on anyone, and as such is also irrelevant.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What - hostile to you and your magic carpet? People couldn't be ar$ed to park properly - so they mess it up for everyone else.

Maybe it's because the designers designed around ideology and not people?

Much more to life than the individual in their car that's 20% fill most of the time.

Not when you have so much fun driving as I do.

In that particular incidence, it was people parked outside their houses because they were too lazy to park in the allocated parking and walk to their doors from memory

No, every other house had a car parked outside it. When 50% of people who have to live with an idea reject it, it's time to stop blaming the people and start wondering why the gaff wasn't built to the needs of the people, rather than wondering why the people aren't being reshaped to fit the ideology.

although given our over dependence on the car it wouldn't be unusual for a familiy of 2 adults and three children from 18 plus to have 5 cars, so I can see where issues arise.

Ireland has lower car ownership rates than Germany.

The Essex design is adopted in many developments (including the one I write this from). It focuses on the community rather than the individual in the private car - it's demoted from its pedestal and other users considered equally. The Dutch take this to a higher level of community living with their woonerfs, which they build from new as well as retro fit to older streets.

But what is a community made up of ??? People! and as Iwannahurl proved, people don't want the crap that they were expected to live with, at least not in Portlaoise. You say the Essex design is based around "the community" Iwannahurl proved indavertently that this is completely false.

You may like your layout and good for you. But you're in the minority.

People like your good self who are obviously Hopelessly wedded to the car as the sole means of transport and take an individualistic view on life usually struggle with these concepts that are for the better of all in the community - old, young, Children, disabled, cyclists and the like.

Not only a blind ideologe but one fond of hasty conclusions :P For the record, I use my car, routine user of public transport and am a routine pedestrian, albeit the latter two, while more frequent, are normally a matter of necessity.