-
wait, what? they release him after they realise he have more than one motoring offences?
Neither offence usually gives rise to a custodial sentence, so there would be no reason to confine him pending charge or trial. If his licence was clean previously, he probably won't even get a period of disqualification.
-
I agree with some of that, Michael, but what I keep saying is that we shouldn't have to have a traffic environment in which people aren't allowed to make mistakes. No-one is ever going to be able to pay 100% attention. The myth that the street environment is 100% unforgiving is a 'Road Safety' myth, a product of a position that refuses to reduce road danger at source.
People are required to be equally responsible because they are people; but they are not equally responsible considering what tools they use. Yes, everybody has the same duty of care in principle (i.e., irrespective of potential to do harm) to avoid harm through their use of such transportation tools (indeed also as a pedestrian, which need not involve any more sophisticated transportation tools than feet or shoes) but in practice (in view of the actual harmful consequences) it is extremely unfair to place the same burden on cyclists and pedestrians as on people using motorised vehicles.
Oh yes of course no one is able to pay 100% attention all the time, but we should be aiming for that, if someone is aiming for 80% attention, they're gonna slack even more. As much as I hate to i've gotta disagree with that second bit though, the way I look at it, if you're using the road, you should bear the same responsibility as everyone else on the road. Like my comment on attention, if a cyclist/biker/car driver think they have less responsibility that someone else, they'll just slip even more.
Now, can we get back to talking about redheads? I can't stand it when threads get dragged off-topic ;)
-
just read this thread. well done to photoben and his mate for bringing it to our attention. scoop of the year i would say.
and well done to those who have followed the story and provided further info. veevee and oliver.
but yes another example of how dangerous the car manufacturers etc have made our public realm - hopefully it will bring it home to the transport planners etc (boris and co). and they will get something done to improve safety in the community.
as usual edscoble and mccarthy missing the point.
-
just read this thread. well done to photoben and his mate for bringing it to our attention. scoop of the year i would say.
and well done to those who have followed the story and provided further info. veevee and oliver.
but yes another example of how dangerous the car manufacturers etc have made our public realm - hopefully it will bring it home to the transport planners etc (boris and co). and they will get something done to improve safety in the community.
as usual edscoble and mccarthy missing the point.
What?! You're taking the piss surely.
-
How is it the car manufacturer's fault when the drivers lazily ignore health and safety by using a coat hanger to secure his door?
Althought I realise I misunderstood Dave when he said that motorised vehicle should take extra responsiblities when driving than cyclists (stupidly tired that night) since the motorised vehicle pose a bigger danger to peds and cyclists, but I still believe that cyclists should bear the same responsiblities on the road as everyone else.
-
Whoever uploaded that video to Petrolheads under the title Failed Cockney Assassination Attempt deserves a Knighthood.
-
Speedbumps. Really, they are nothing more than upside-down potholes. Wasn't there one counclil who decided not to repair knackered roads as a traffic calming measure?
There may be a measurable reduction in casualties at speedbump sites, but the London Ambulance service claimed that casualties had increased because ambulances could not get people to hospital quickly enough. They were claimed to kill more than they save.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-3091358-details/999+patients+'killed+by+speed+bumps'/article.do
I expect this to be debunked, but if this sort of traffic calming costs any lives then it's the wrong sort.We need something far more intelligent than speedbumps. I really like the idea of shared space roads, and will be watching the K&C experiments with interest. Whereabouts are they doing it? I heard Exhibition Rd.
-
Oh yes of course no one is able to pay 100% attention all the time, but we should be aiming for that, if someone is aiming for 80% attention, they're gonna slack even more. As much as I hate to i've gotta disagree with that second bit though, the way I look at it, if you're using the road, you should bear the same responsibility as everyone else on the road. Like my comment on attention, if a cyclist/biker/car driver think they have less responsibility that someone else, they'll just slip even more.
Now, can we get back to talking about redheads? I can't stand it when threads get dragged off-topic ;)
In France since 1985, there is a law that recognises that pedestrians and cyclists are vulnerable road users and therefore motorists are deemed 100% responsible when accidents occur (unless the cyclist was at fault, eg RLJ, etc..). Unlike here where a cyclist is always perceived as the dangerous one, very strange...
-
Early prediction -- driver will be fined. Assuming he has a relatively untarnished record, of course.
Not as early as this
http://www.londonfgss.com/post716417-154.html -
In France since 1985, there is a law that recognises that pedestrians and cyclists are vulnerable road users and therefore motorists are deemed 100% responsible when accidents occur (unless the cyclist was at fault, eg RLJ, etc..). Unlike here where a cyclist is always perceived as the dangerous one, very strange...
Oh I didn't mean to say that the cyclist was the dangerous one, just that they should both be as responsible and vigilant on the roads as each other.
-
Well in fairness, that prediction was one that he wouldn't get disqualified, not that he would get fined. There are a wide variety of other sentences available than disqualification, and of those I reckon a fine is perhaps the more likely. A low-level community order is possible, but so much depends on the driver's record it would be wrong to speculate wildly on the internet...
Hanging's too good for them, I bet he's an immigrant, etc etc
/ daily mail
-
Cyclists, car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers and ice cream van drivers should all pay maximum attention at all times when navigating our roads. but one mans 100% is not the same as the next.
The removal of distractions is a must (mobiles, ipods!, kids in the back, black windows etc) but the fact a mistake in a car is more lethal to a cyclist doesn't make cars at fault.Just means peds/cyclists/motorcyclists take a greater risk, and if you didn't know that then i'd say your 100% attention is about as useful as a NJS langster
I agree with V in so far as the insurance should always favour the cyclist but they should bring in a standard level of cycling proficiency first. else half wit cyclists causing accidents and coming out the cars insurance will just fuel the anti cyclist feelings
-
With power come responsibility.
Power
pedestrian<cyclist<motorbike<car<van<lorry
Responsibility
pedestrian<cyclist<motorbike<car<van<lorry
This does not mean that you have no responsibility as a pedestrian, just you have less, as your ability to cause harm is much less than that of a lorry.
It's the same in every other aspect of life, the PM has more responsibility than me, he also has more power.
-
Cyclists, car drivers, lorry drivers, bus drivers and ice cream van drivers should all pay maximum attention at all times when navigating our roads. but one mans 100% is not the same as the next.
The removal of distractions is a must (mobiles, ipods!, kids in the back, black windows etc) but the fact a mistake in a car is more lethal to a cyclist doesn't make cars at fault.Just means peds/cyclists/motorcyclists take a greater risk, and if you didn't know that then i'd say your 100% attention is about as useful as a NJS langster
I agree with V in so far as the insurance should always favour the cyclist but they should bring in a standard level of cycling proficiency first. else half wit cyclists causing accidents and coming out the cars insurance will just fuel the anti cyclist feelings
Well said that man, one little niggle though, I was thinking of getting that Langster...
=P
-
You clearly haven't my dig at you in the spotted thread then Mick.. ha!
NJS langster... it could well be the future...
-
Tommy, you are forgetting your responsibility to your own safety is inversely proportional to the power you hold.
Given the responsibility to yourself and responsibility for other road users can be grouped under "responsibility" in general, you come out with clear an over all equal level of responsibility across all road users, clearly demonstrated here.
-
If
responsibility_to_me ~ 1/power for all positive power, which I understand is what we are talking about as negative power is impossible.then
r_t_m has a minimum of zero and a maximum of one (multiplied by a positive constant).
your responsibility_to_others looks like it goes something like ~ (1-1/power)
so has a minimum of one and minimum of zero (multiplied by a positive constant).
So the sum of these two parts tends to one (multiplied by a positive constant).
Also there is the possibility to consider that fact that this "power responsibility" is a one on one relationship. If we are in a one on one situation the the limit of one holds. However given that we are operating within a city of population N individuals we need to multiply the responsibility to others by N. This results in a responsibility to power relationship which tends towards N (multiplied by a positive constant).
VanUden
gbj_tester
mmccarthy
somebody
edscoble
MechaMorgan
bq
Wannabe
VeeVee
Greasy_Slag
TheBrick(Tommy)
-
Post a reply
About
Boris Johnson's Narrow Escape
Posted by
@photoben
I think I saw this on the news. Somewhere else in London they where trying to do the K&C style scheme and their were protesters out in force.