Educating Motorists

Thu 29 Mar 2007, 11:31

Junglejoo: you also create the world you live in through your actions and inactions.

Why shouldn't pedestrians have right of way ?

You cite a specific about a kid narrowly escaping death under your wheels. Fortunately you were driving ten miles an hour; if you had been speeding he would be dead.

And I deplore the attitude that responds that that would somehow be deserved.

Because it trivialises the issue: the pedestrians we're discussing in Charlbury are not drunks staggering out of pubs but school children, the elderly and mothers pushing buggies. These are the people that deserve priority over drivers when trying to cross a road or an intersection to get to and from school, the shops or the playground.

More crossings are definitely needed, especially a school crossing on The Slade in front of the primary school.

The problem with your argument about other initiatives is that the traffic calming attempts in Charlbury have all failed: either motorist interests get speed bumps removed or speed cameras are compromised down to simple speed limit lights that drivers largely ignore.

What's needed is an overall change in attitude and awareness about driving safely within the speed limit and occasionally making allowances for children trying to cross a busy road.

Is that really so out of this world?

Wed 28 Mar 2007, 22:19

I dont think Igor you are in the real world. I agree with just about everything you say (except the bit about pedestrians having the priority) Em Taig is right... it would be much better if we had some sort of traffic calming and more crossings etc. Also i think there are reckless pedestrians... have you ever driven through chippy at pub out time? Just the other day i had some kid run out infront of me, he was lucky i saw him first and was only doing 10mph but that could happen on any road and the driver of a car wouldnt be able to do anything about it.
We have to live with the world we have created.

Wed 28 Mar 2007, 14:45

My point is that pedestrians should have priority over motorists at all times because they are much more vulnerable, especially when pushing a buggy.

Personally I think that the myth of the reckless pedestrian is merely a justification for bad driving; but even if it were true, a driver obeying the speed limit and driving defensively will more often than not be able to deal with even a reckless pedestrian without causing harm.

Pedestrians have to cross roads.
Drivers don't have to speed.

Wed 28 Mar 2007, 14:19

I can see why some motorists could view pedestrians as a bit reckless. I’m predominantly a pedestrian these days and would consider myself to be extremely careful around roads but there are some places in Charlbury that are difficult to cross and I’ve been beeped at by motorists a few times for what must appear to be the stupidest things. The Enstone Rd Cross Roads on three of the four trunks is very hard to cross as it is quite hard to see what is coming down in each direction. Another spot I find hard, especially when trying to manage a buggy and little ones’ hands, is crossing from the library side over to The Bull side of the Enstone Rd, a mirror there would be very useful. I know pedestrians do reckless things, as do drivers, but the streets of Charlbury make it doubly difficult for both parties: blind corners, no pedestrian crossings, no mirrors, no traffic calming devices (now), narrow streets, no pavements, cars parked all over the place...

People and cars are a disastrous combination when they have to share the same space, particularly when both think they have priority over the other. In areas where pedestrians and drivers are separated i.e. cars on roads, pedestrians on pavements, pedestrians cross at crossings, cars stop at crossings it is much less an issue isn’t it?

Wed 28 Mar 2007, 11:35

I find it incredible that there are people on this forum who actually want to blame pedestrians for speed driving fatalities. lol!!!

It's shocking because firstly, the pressumption bears no connection to any verifiable reality (just ask the police or go to the dept transport website where fatality and injury stats are readily available), and secondly the attitude underlines the extreme arrogance and insensitivity of those motorists who are in a complete state of denial about the dangers posed by drivers who don't obey the speed limit and who drive as if pedestrians and cyclists should just get out of their way.

This kind of blind arrogance poses a real threat to life and limb on our roads. But it does go some ways in explaining precisely why we have so many fatalities.

Let's try it one more time: the driving fatalities are caused by speeding, reckless and sometimes drunk drivers.

When's the last time you heard of someone being killed by a speeding pedestrian? lol!

Educating Motorists is even more needed than I thought.

Tue 27 Mar 2007, 19:00

I think the problem lies with drivers being reactive rather than pro-active. If they are trained in this way there will be a reduction (I wish is was eliminated, my daughter has recently passed her test and I'm advising her on how to read the road ahead, speed, position, & gear etc. and she feels that this helps.

As an after thought what about a refesher course for all road users, especially cyclist (Yes I was was cyclist - even raced for an amateur team)how many times have we seen them without lights, going up oneway streets the wrong way, jumping red lights. Perhaps I could do that in my 26 tonne car transporter!!!!!, ok with a possible ticking off the police.

Mon 26 Mar 2007, 21:15

I did not call pedestrians saints, do not think any one is.
Get things in perspective,most of us drive and walk,I think sometimes children can teach us a thing or to.You are talking about a minority of drivers who will never slow down,but we are all being tarred with the same brush!

Mon 26 Mar 2007, 20:23

Of course pedestrians aren't saints - I don't think anybody was claiming that. Maybe even on the contrary, since we're often talking about children here. And even under close supervision, and after been taught about safe road crossing etc, they can be quite unpredictable and suddenly cross a road because they spotted a friend or a cat. Safe driving is partly about anticipating that kind of behaviour. And that's exactly why driving slowly in areas with lots of pedestrians/children is so important! And that's also what the message on those posters is about: in a close encounter between a car and a pedestrian, the latter will always be the worse of, never mind who was being reckless!

Mon 26 Mar 2007, 17:45

Yes and lots of pedestrians walk carelessly,it would be interesting to know what percentage of the accident figures are caused by pedestrians!we motorists are not addicted we just like the convenience of motoring.
To see addiction to cars just walk up to the school and see all the bad parking and obstruction being caused there. i think pedestrians and motorist are about equal in not obeying the Highway code 9yes pedestrians also have to obey it)

Mon 26 Mar 2007, 11:00

Sadly lots of drivers do drive carelessly, they just may not realise it. A car driving past at 30 mph on a narrow street feels very fast to a pedestrian walking with kids on a narrow pavement, but I guess doesn't feel so to the driver happily insulated from the outside in their car. I also think we're very lucky in Charlbury with our public transport - the trains are not perfect but are a good way,even with kids, of getting to the shops. Likewise the bus service to Chippy/Witney is reasonable. Both means are a viable alternative to driving but I think many are addicted to their cars.

Mon 26 Mar 2007, 09:03

Chris: I have a life and I would like to keep it, as I would my daughter's.

You can ignore the facts if you'd like but it doesn't alter the truth of 1,000 fatalities a year, 40,000 injuries and one of the highest pedestrian mortality rates in Europe.

You claim that the vast drivers drive extremely cautiously and yet the Department of Transport's own survey shows that 60% of drivers think it's OK for THEM to speed.

I contend that most drivers just think they're safe drivers. (It's always the other guy, isn't it?)

But more importantly how can anyone stand against promoting safer (i.e. slower) driving?

I guess the same individual(s) who ripped down the road safety posters put up on the primary school board to remind drivers what the speed limit is.

As far as public transport goes if you didn't rely on the buses and trains for transport to work, I suppose you might find them adequete. I'd start counting myself lucky when I could.

Mon 26 Mar 2007, 07:33

it's ok saying more people should use the train but theydont go to witney do they.what about when you want to do the weekley shop or need to take the kids from one place to the next.it's ok saying lets use public transport it's cheaper to use your car to go to witney or charlbury than on the bus.yes sometimes it is easier to use the bus or the train but when youve got shopping and kids then i,m sorry but the car is the easiest and cheapestto use.

Sun 25 Mar 2007, 21:30

Deplorable it is. However, and I am the first to moan about the railways, as a non driver, I wouldnt be able to get to work if it were not for the trains. Personally, although deplorable, perhaps if more people used the trains, therefore being more green, FGW would just have to get their act together.

Sat 24 Mar 2007, 14:24

That doesn't alter the fact that the rail service is deplorable, as detailed extensively on this forum in recent weeks.

Sat 24 Mar 2007, 13:41

Hey Igor - Get a life, haven't you got better things to do than constantly having a go at motorists. The vast majority of motorists drive extremely carefully. Many have children, they walk themselves and some cycle and are well aware of the consequences of driving badly.

As for having a go at local public transport, do you live in the same town (or planet as the rest of us), we are lucky for a rural community to have a hourly bus service to Oxford and Witney, with services to Chippy and the local villages as well.

Sat 24 Mar 2007, 08:13

I don't understand what the distance I can run has to do with anything.

(About 2.5 kilometres every other day, btw)

Yes, I do own an automobile and I take local public transport as often as practical and would use it even more if it were more efficiently run and the county government invested more of my tax money in supporting its infrastructure rather than indulging an ever increasing and self-doomed car culture.

I think it's amazing when you compare a country the size of France which has fewer cars per capita and at the same time can maintain a joined up national and local transport system that looks like it comes from a science fiction future compared to ours.

I don't care what TV shows people watch.
I do care about the negative values that perpetuate a car dominant culture at the expense of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.

I cycle around Charlbury with my daughter regularly and the attitude some drivers demonstrate is selfish and reckless, to the extent that we feel safer cycling in the busy street of central Oxford where there are designated cycles lanes and drivers respect the space around cyclists, than on a rural road where someone's trying to replicate Clarkson's latest speed test.

And I sometimes agree with my wife.
;-)

Fri 23 Mar 2007, 21:41

igor do you own a motor vehicle or do you use public vehicles.or are u saying that people of a certain age are capable of driving an automobile and that younger persons are incapable of anything that you dont agree with. i would like to see you run more than ten yards without getting out of breath.can you ride a bicycle answers on the web site. do you agree with anybody apart from yourself

Fri 23 Mar 2007, 19:35

if you watch the top gear road tests very closely you will see that alot of them are done on the out skirts of charlbury. the top of forest hill on the chadlington to leafield cross roads and the lane that runs off of the the chippy road that runs past wilf fowlers old land and ends by the the resevoir on the enstone road.

Fri 23 Mar 2007, 16:36

yes i did see the show where richard had his crash and it was richard woh wanted them to joke about his crash as he didnt want any fuss.i dont watch the show on my own i watch it wiith my 15 year old son who wants to go into the car side of things when he leaves school.and im not middle aged im a young mother.

Fri 23 Mar 2007, 15:36

It is not just young drivers that cause accidents, some young drivers drive carelessley but not ALL young drivers, i think you'll find that a mixture of people all ages are responsible you cant just blame one age group.

Fri 23 Mar 2007, 12:16

Middle aged boys and Mandy. As for DIY SOS, in what way does DIY SOS glamorise being a DIY idiot?

Fri 23 Mar 2007, 10:44

Top Gear is just a silly TV show for middle aged boys---it's hard to blame 'it' for anything.

I was referring to the Jeremy Clarkson-type 'mindset' (i.e. attitude, perspective, values) that confuses going at high speeds in high fuel-consumption vehicles with individualism or even masculinity.

The evidence is pretty clear as a nation and as a planet that the elevation of the automobile as the dominant means of transport is unsustainable. The quicker people's attitudes and assumptions change about how we get around, the quicker we can offset the damage we do ourselves on our roads and what we do to our environment.

Oafs like Clarkson just turn high speed driving into a fetish.

I know it's just entertainment, but I find Top Gear allot more capricious than all the fuss that's made about computer games.

Or did everyone miss the show where Clarkson turns to the camera after pointing to his co-host who narrowly escaped death in a high speed crash and jokes 'and they say that speed kills'?

Thu 22 Mar 2007, 19:50

i ws'nt blameing top gear as i watch it with my son and think it is a great programe.

Thu 22 Mar 2007, 17:51

Why does everyone blame Top Gear etc, do we blame DIY SOS for a dreadfull exterior paint job, - No.

Thu 22 Mar 2007, 17:13

i'm a very good driver i have been driving for 17 years and have never had a accident.there is a young person in are village who has just passed his test and the speed that they drive at is un real.just sit back a look at young drivers today your see what i meen.

Thu 22 Mar 2007, 17:06

I dont think Mr Clarkson or the kids who have just passed their test should be to blame atall, everyone just uses them as an excuse to take the blame off themselves.

Thu 22 Mar 2007, 15:26

like mandy says 'when' they test cars !!!

Thu 22 Mar 2007, 13:38

i would'nt blame computer games or top gear as when they test cars at speed it's on a un used piece of road.i blame young drivers who have just passed there test and think its cool to go fast it's not cool or cleaver just makes them look stupid.but then its not them that get hurt its the ones that drive as they should they get hurt or even killed.

Thu 22 Mar 2007, 12:27

I wouldn't blame computer games as much as the Jeremy Clarkson mindset that perpetuates the idea that high speed and high consumption reflects some kind of individualism.

Wed 21 Mar 2007, 16:12

As a professional HGV driver, I have been trained to respect all users of the areasroad and be extra vigilant especially in high pedestrian areas (i.e. shopping area, schools etc). however I feel that the level of driving has deterioated since the introduction of computer games, but unlike the game you cannot RESET a car etc after an accident.

Wed 21 Mar 2007, 09:45

There's been an absurd undercurrent of motorist vs pedestrians sentiments expressed on a couple of the other transport topics.
Absurd, because everyone is a pedestrian, but not everyone is a motorist.

Ordinarily, I would be standing up for a minority's rights; but in this instance, this particular minority does extract…

Long post - click to read full text