Grim Reaper for Pedestrians

Home Forum Chat Forum Grim Reaper for Pedestrians

Viewing 31 posts - 1 through 31 (of 31 total)
  • Grim Reaper for Pedestrians
  • Premier Icon JoeG
    Subscriber

    It has finally come to this: Article

    CountZero
    Member

    I wouldn’t bother, I’d just let things take their natural course: just think of it as evolution in action, nature’s way of culling the stupid.

    Premier Icon bails
    Subscriber

    How about making not running people over the message to spread?

    Officials said statistics nationally show that 10 percent of pedestrian accidents that require a trip to the emergency room involve people who had been using their cell phones at the time of the accident

    I reckon at least 20% of pedestrians are looking at a phone while walking around. Does it actually make a difference to their odds of being run over?

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    How about making not running people over the message to spread?

    Bit of both isn’t it, like the old don’t step out from behind the bus ads. As careful as you are and as ready to stop as you want to be somebody stepping off the kerb into your path generally ends badly.

    The 2 conclusions don’t support eatch other but it does seem to suggest 1 in 10 accidents had distraction by phone as a major cause, seems like a good one to eliminate.

    It also goes back to the practical situation where moral high ground or not getting hit by a car hurts. Don’t expect that they see you – it’s a safer method that insisting every driver is perfect.

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    I think I saw an article a little while ago saying this is a big problem in Germany.

    How about making not running people over the message to spread?

    I’m all for the notion that all drivers are idiots, but if someone steps out in front of a vehicle without looking… I think you’re being a bit ambitious to expect drivers to take the blame for this!

    In pedestrian precincts, do you notice how many people walk round staring at their screen expecting everyone else to be dodging them? (Or, more likely not even thinking).

    What happens when a driver on their phone meets a pedestrian staring at their phone…?

    [edit] Germany
    Australia
    Aresholes on all sides of the world.

    allan23
    Member

    How about making not running people over the message to spread?

    Really, have you driven a car? You have to be alert for the high proportion of other drivers on their phone, shouting at the kids in the back seat while pulling out, speeding, taking chances. Add to that the self righteous idiots on bikes who think they can do anything as other people will look out for them and the pedestrians bimbling about aimlessly reading to leap into your path at the last minute.

    It’s not the vehicle that’s the problem, it’s ALL road users, learn to look after yourself and use the roads safely.

    “You have no right of way, you have the right to give way.”

    Stupid phrase my driving instructer used years ago.

    /sarcasm off

    Premier Icon nickjb
    Subscriber

    You have to be alert

    That would be a good start

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    That would be a good start

    Especially for people crossing a road. They could get hurt.

    Premier Icon BoardinBob
    Subscriber

    As someone who works in the heart of a city, it’s quite staggering how many people are not paying attention when crossing roads due to being on phones. Coupled with the fact they eschew using their eyes and rely on their ears to tell them if traffic is approaching. No engine sounds = no traffic, and they just step out onto the road while still engrossed in their phones, oblivious to the approaching silent ninja cyclist…

    allan23
    Member

    That would be a good start

    Again – works for all road users regardless of vehicle.

    Premier Icon nickjb
    Subscriber

    Again – works for all road users regardless of vehicle.

    Yes, but the focus should go on those doing the killing and maiming rather than the victims

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Yes, but the focus should go on those doing the killing and maiming rather than the victims

    Oh, you mean the suicidal ones who don’t look before stepping out in front of a moving vehicle.
    I think you should try it. Next time you’re lying on the road under a bus make sure to tell everyone you’re the victim. 😆

    allan23
    Member

    Yes, but the focus should go on those doing the killing and maiming rather than the victims

    If that is the outcome of an individual incident then yes, overall no.

    You assume all incidents on the road are immediately the car drivers fault. Many may be but not in every case.

    Overall education on using the road in a safe way for your given choice of trasnport is the only way.

    Assuming someone else will look out for you because you are vulnerable and then blame them for all incidents, even if you’ve been the one taking a stupid risk is a sociopathic way of running things – not good.

    Premier Icon nickjb
    Subscriber

    Of course you need to look out for yourself as it is firmly in your own interests. The problem I have with campaigns like this, and there seem to be a lot of them, is that there is one form of transport that does the vast majority of the killing and maiming yet everyone else is expected to temper their behaviour so that this group can carry on as they are. Fix the cause of the problem rather than sticking a few patches on.

    stumpy01
    Member

    nickjb – Member

    Yes, but the focus should go on those doing the killing and maiming rather than the victims

    Are you a victim if you aren’t looking where you are going because you are distracted by Facebook on your phone and walk out into the road without looking?! Or are you an idiot?! I know where my vote goes…

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    I saw someone get knocked over by a van once. She ran across the road to follow her presumably boyfriend who’d nipped across a few seconds earlier. She suddenly bolted across the road a few m in front of the van. He slammed on but still caught her leg.

    It does happen. There’s not always much the driver can do. 20 mph limits everywhere in town would help though.

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    enforced 20 mph limits everywhere in town would help though.

    😉

    The limit is already 20 in a lot of places, but its not enforced so it makes very little difference.

    Obviously if/when it’s all self driving cars the limit will be adhered to, but I wonder if there’ll ever be a stepping-stone solution where cars (still manually controlled) can be location aware enough in cities and limit maximum speeds? Still won’t deal with people driving like twits and such but it would increase the error margin with virtually no impact on overall journey times.

    I’m not going to wade in on the pedestrian thing because it’s not as black and white as everyone on here is making it.

    Premier Icon D0NK
    Subscriber

    I’m not going to wade in on the pedestrian thing because it’s not as black and white as everyone on here is making it.

    quite, nickjb’s “look at the ones doing the damage” is normally my stance on road safety but it gets a bit murky if people step out into the road without looking at all, those would be a significant danger to the safer road users aswell (ie cyclists).

    pedestrians viewing certain browsers at busy intersections will receive a push alert on their cell phones to look up.

    it’s worrying that people think this is needed.

    Edukator
    Member

    UK stats for pedestrians killed

    +————————————————————————+
    | Deaths (persons) |
    |————————————————————————|
    | Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by | (b) Pedestrian hit by |
    | | pedal cycle | car, pick-up or truck |
    |——+——————————+———————————-|
    | 2006 | 3 | 233 |
    |——+——————————+———————————-|
    | 2007 | 6 | 267 |
    |——+——————————+———————————-|
    | 2008 | 3 | 247 |
    |——+——————————+———————————-|
    | 2009 | 0 | 141 |
    |——+——————————+———————————-|
    | 2010 | 2 | 123 |
    +——————————————————-

    And in 2015 54 people were killed on zebra crossings, pelican crossings and at traffic light crossings with green men where the pedestrians had right of way (edit – or drivers could expect people to cross).

    I doesn’t look like increased phone use is making things worse, if anything it looks like things are improving perhaps due to improvements to crossings and more speed/traffic light cameras.

    Now remind me, how many drivers were killed in accidents with or caused by errant pedestrians?

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    it’s not as black and white as everyone on here is making it.

    I don’t think it’s black and white – but one thing’s for sure, if you don’t look where you’re going when walking into a road, then you’re an idiot. Smartphone involved or not.

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    Well I said I wasn’t going to wade in but…

    I don’t think it’s black and white – but one thing’s for sure, if you don’t look where you’re going when walking into a road, then you’re an idiot.

    sounds like a pretty absolutist, black and white statement to me. I can think of situations where idiocy might not be the cause.

    – Accident/falling
    – A child
    – Emotional distress
    – Intoxication
    – An adult with learning difficulties
    – Mental illness
    – Blind/partially sighted (without being crass since you specifically said ‘looking’)

    None of the above are idiots, and I’m also not suggesting that that a driver who might hit one of the above would necessarily be to blame, but there are always more shades of grey than you think.

    Point being it is not black and white, and there is responsibility on both sides, but lets not pretend that the vast majority of the danger doesn’t come from the vehicles, if we can reduce that danger imposed on others its a good thing, just like if we can reduce people putting themselves in danger its a good thing, but we’re doing the latter due to the former so it makes sense to look at the imposed danger as a bigger priority.

    But there will always be situations outside the normal and in those cases simply saying “well it’s a road isn’t it, this stuff happens” is symptomatic of the blind eye we turn to vehicular injuries and deaths as an accepted cost of road travel.

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    I think everyone’s spending their whole time looking for vicious clowns now so pedestrian wariness has reached record highs.

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    oh yes, I should add

    – Scared into running into the road by vicious clowns

    as an additional non-idiot cause of potential mishap 😉

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    Yeah, I meant black & white whether the ped or the vehicle (driver) is to blame, but you can expand it into every other possible scenario in the world if you like 🙄

    Premier Icon nickjb
    Subscriber

    There’s not always much the driver can do. 20 mph limits everywhere in town would help though.

    They can drive at 20 in built up areas even when it isn’t enforced or even when the limit is 30. I have recently taken to driving at 20ish in pretty much all residential areas since the 20 limit came in round our way. It seems a much more appropriate speed and our local roads are a much more pleasant place to be since it came in. Its not foolproof, and there are lots of fools out there, but it hopefully moves away from the idea that there isn’t much you can do or that an incident will 100% the blame of one party.

    But there will always be situations outside the normal and in those cases simply saying “well it’s a road isn’t it, this stuff happens” is symptomatic of the blind eye we turn to vehicular injuries and deaths as an accepted cost of road travel.

    That is spot on. The attitude to driving in this country is a big factor. Don’t get me started on ‘right of way’ 🙂

    stumpy01
    Member

    amedias – Member

    Well I said I wasn’t going to wade in but…

    I don’t think it’s black and white – but one thing’s for sure, if you don’t look where you’re going when walking into a road, then you’re an idiot.

    sounds like a pretty absolutist, black and white statement to me. I can think of situations where idiocy might not be the cause.

    – Accident/falling
    – A child
    – Emotional distress
    – Intoxication
    – An adult with learning difficulties
    – Mental illness
    – Blind/partially sighted (without being crass since you specifically said ‘looking’)

    None of the above are idiots, and I’m also not suggesting that that a driver who might hit one of the above would necessarily be to blame, but there are always more shades of grey than you think.

    But didn’t this thread start specifically about people who are too wrapped up in their mobile phones to look where they’re going?
    So, yes there are vulnerable people out there who people should be looking out for when driving & yes if everyone took a bit more care & thought when driving accidents might be reduced/avoided……but that doesn’t make the moron who can’t tear his eyes away from his phone for a few minutes to proceed down the street in a safe manner any less of an idiot…

    You get it all the time in pedestrian areas, people who think that looking on their phone is the number one priority & everyone else should magically go around them, rather than them actually having to look where they are going.
    On a busy day in Peterborough, you have to bat these people away like flies as they bimble around in their tech induced version of Brownian motion……cretins…

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    But didn’t this thread start specifically about people who are too wrapped up in their mobile phones to look where they’re goin

    yes, but as normal for a lot of threads it evolved and branched out into related areas during the course of discussion, and my comments were responding to some of those points, or are we not allowed to do that any more?

    Yeah, I meant black & white whether the ped or the vehicle (driver) is to blame, but you can expand it into every other possible scenario in the world if you like

    I disagree with that notion as well though. Even if an pedestrian is walking along looking at their phone and steps out into the road, as a careful and observant driver you have had the opportunity for some time to observe that person and identify them as a possible hazard, it’s exactly what the hazard perception bit of the driving test is all about, spotting things that *could* go wrong and taking mitigating action.

    How many times have you been driving along and either had a ‘sense’ that someone is about to do something, step out, turn, stop etc? and when you get that feeling do you then go:

    A> carry on regardless safe in the knowledge you’re in the right
    B> taking mitigating action if possible

    The ‘fault’ may still be with them, but you would also be at fault for not choosing option B as careful and observant operator of a vehicle on the road.

    Obviously you won’t spot everything, and if they literally jump out in front of you from nowhere with no warning whatsoever and you had no chance then you’re pretty stuffed, but as above, it’s not black and white.

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    as a careful and observant driver you

    I’m not talking about myself. Or you… (you’ll have to read between the lines here, cos I’m not explaining it)

    have had the opportunity for some time to observe that person and identify them as a possible hazard

    Now you’re simplifying the situation far too much…

    Obviously you won’t spot everything

    Again, not me, not you…

    Premier Icon amedias
    Subscriber

    Now you’re simplifying the situation far too much…

    no, the exact opposite, I’m saying that in real life it is rarely as black and white (ie: simple) as was being made out on this thread.

    There is responsibility on both/all sides to behave sensibly, not do things that put others in danger, and not do things that endanger yourself.

    It was your blanket statement of:

    but one thing’s for sure, if you don’t look where you’re going when walking into a road, then you’re an idiot. Smartphone involved or not.

    That reeled me in. I don’t think labelling everyone who walks into a road without looking as an idiot is helpful or fair, for the reasons I explained above.

    I also think that since these things will always happen from time to time, whether the cause is idiocy or not, that it would be prudent to address the cause of the danger where possible*, the price shouldn’t be death or serious injury. This should be especially true in a low speed busy multi-user urban environment where such incidents are most common.

    For every campaign targetting pedestrians telling them to stop looking at their smartphones there should probably be a campaign targetting the motorists and cyclists telling them to look out for pedestrians who might not be paying attention, even more so when you consider that there is a lot of crossover between user groups, pedestrians are often drivers and cyclists, and vice versa, for maximum effect you look at all aspects.

    In the same way we get loads of “don’t go up the side of lorries” campaigns but rarely get enough “don’t squish people” campaigns.

    anyway, veering slightly…to take this further down a theoretical path…

    Self driving cars are rightly getting a lot of press at the moment.
    In a scenario with self driving cars, a pedestrian stepping out in front of traffic would likely result in the car taking avoiding action or stopping, especially in low speed environments like a city.

    If we assume that is the right* choice, logically over time it would become expected that cars would stop, so given enough time and take up stepping out into the road comes with an expectation of safety, and it is no longer dangerous or idiotic.

    It’d probably be a bloody nightmare for anyone trying to get somewhere by car though…

    So if we assumed it is the wrong** choice, would we then have to move to a situation whereby it becomes illegal to cross anywhere other than designated crossings? Good luck getting that through in the UK.

    * brings up an interesting point as it then creates a possibility of an incident where if the automated car could have stopped, but a human driver didn’t then you’d almost have to attribute blame to the human for not observing/anticipating/acting.

    ** brings up another interesting point whereby we could have a situation where someone crosses illegally, but a human would always attempt to stop rather than mow someone down, and likely the automated car would be programmed to do the same, so you’re back at having the expectation the vehicle will yield and right back at the beginning.

    Anyway, just idle thoughts, going to be an interesting future with automated vehicles…

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    You don’t mind if I don’t bother reading any of that do you?

    Premier Icon wwaswas
    Subscriber

    In a scenario with self driving cars, a pedestrian stepping out in front of traffic would likely result in the car taking avoiding action or stopping, especially in low speed environments like a city.

    If we assume that is the right* choice, logically over time it would become expected that cars would stop, so given enough time and take up stepping out into the road comes with an expectation of safety, and it is no longer dangerous or idiotic.

    It’d probably be a bloody nightmare for anyone trying to get somewhere by car though…

    Car is reporting that the software is being developed to prioritise occupant safety. I wouldn;t assume they’ll either brake or take avoiding action if the software believes the passengers in the vehicle would be endangered…

    http://blog.caranddriver.com/self-driving-mercedes-will-prioritize-occupant-safety-over-pedestrians/

    The world’s oldest carmaker no longer sees the problem, similar to the question from 1967 known as the Trolley Problem, as unanswerable. Rather than tying itself into moral and ethical knots in a crisis, Mercedes-Benz simply intends to program its self-driving cars to save the people inside the car. Every time.

    So that’s ok then 🙄

Viewing 31 posts - 1 through 31 (of 31 total)

The topic ‘Grim Reaper for Pedestrians’ is closed to new replies.