Police getting tougher on speed tolerance

[FJRider]

So we should have a blanket 30 km/h limit anywhere there are footpaths?

NOPE ... just ban pedestrians from high volume traffic roads. Regardless of any existing speed limit for that area.

If a pedestrian steps in front a motor vehicle ... why should the driver be penalized .. ??

[pete376403]

NOPE ... just ban pedestrians from high volume traffic roads. Regardless of any existing speed limit for that area.

If a pedestrian steps in front a motor vehicle ... why should the driver be penalized .. ??

They do that (ban peds from motorways) but it doesn't stop them trying. Wonder who is deemed to be at fault if a person walking on a m'way gets clipped? If the walker is killed does the driver get prosecuted?

[FJRider]

Yesterday a pedestrian was killed by a car travelling on Main North Road in Woodend.

It's a 50 kmh road, and until the vehicle speed is determined, lets speculate that it was doing 50 kmh.

Speculation causes more angst in cases like this than anything else. Apportion BLAME where it is due. NOT where you think it might be.

This is an excellent example of the reason to slow traffic down, at least in places where people are likely to make a mistake. Pretty much anywhere there are people.

BULLSHIT. There is a VERY high likelihood of finding more people on the side of the road in towns ... than you would outside the town boundary (funny that).

Somehow (again) your assumption is DRIVER error. Obviously ... your assumption is that pedestrians should be protected from harm in any/all ways possible.

Obviously ... you believe the pedestrian could not be at fault. Why else would you recommend an immediate reduction in the towns speed limit.

The legal speed limit is not always a safe speed to travel at. In or outside a towns boundary. If the driver was within the posted speed limit ... and the traffic and pedestrian count was higher than usual for the town/city ... a dangerous driving charge should be applied. Not the knee-jerk reaction of a 30km/hr speed limit implemented.

If such a radical reduction in the Woodend town speed limit WAS implemented ... this would/could likely result in the entire country's 50 km/hr speed limits reduced ... as a possible resulting cost of (possibly) one simple act of stupidity ... by one pedestrian.

Whatever the reason the pedestrian stepped out in front of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle determined the outcome.

And without actually knowing (a) the speed of the motor vehicle and (b) or why that pedestrian stepped onto the road in front of traffic ... you advocate the speed limit should be lowered.

Just a thread dredge I know, but relevant to my work.

Is the speculation (guesswork) ??) a consistent and valid part of your work ... ?? If your job is based on speculation (or even in part thereof) and/or guesswork ... not facts ... get a real job.

[FJRider]

They do that (ban peds from motorways) but it doesn't stop them trying. Wonder who is deemed to be at fault if a person walking on a m'way gets clipped? If the walker is killed does the driver get prosecuted?

Watch Motorway Patrol on tv. Auckland drivers ... The series is available on demand. It's quite entertaining ...

[onearmedbandit]

Somehow (again) your assumption is DRIVER error. Obviously ... your assumption is that pedestrians should be protected from harm in any/all ways possible.

Obviously ... you believe the pedestrian could not be at fault. Why else would you recommend an immediate reduction in the towns speed limit.

Can you point out in his post exactly where he assumes the driver was at fault and not the pedestrian? Or is that just your assumption? The way I read his post was regardless of who was at fault (and I can not for the life of me see where he attributes any blame and I just had my eyes checked today renewing my licenses) physics come into play.

[FJRider]

Can you point out in his post exactly where he assumes the driver was at fault and not the pedestrian? Or is that just your assumption? The way I read his post was regardless of who was at fault (and I can not for the life of me see where he attributes any blame and I just had my eyes checked today renewing my licenses) physics come into play.

In my opinion ... if the auto response to a pedestrian / motor vehicle accident is reducing the speed limit ... is must be assumed by the powers that be ... that it is the driver that is seen to be at fault.


Thus it can be expected that any onus of responsibility ... and the repercussions for such accidents (anywhere) ... gets laid at every drivers right foot.


Regardless of whom was actually at fault.


Plainly and simply because ... there is sweet fuck all else the officialdom can do about it.


Apparently ... dead pedestrians don't respond well to court a summons ... go figure.

[rastuscat]

In my opinion ... if the auto response to a pedestrian / motor vehicle accident is reducing the speed limit ... is must be assumed by the powers that be ... that it is the driver that is seen to be at fault.


Thus it can be expected that any onus of responsibility ... and the repercussions for such accidents (anywhere) ... gets laid at every drivers right foot.


Regardless of whom was actually at fault.

Actually no. But don't let the facts stand in the way of your beliefs.

[onearmedbandit]

In my opinion ... if the auto response to a pedestrian / motor vehicle accident is reducing the speed limit ... is must be assumed by the powers that be ... that it is the driver that is seen to be at fault.

As much as I'm opposed to reducing speed limits because selfish reasons your assumption is a very long reach there. Regardless of who made the mistake, the pedestrian or the car driver, it's the speed of the car that will determine for the most part the outcome. Physics doesn't care who is at fault. So if you want to increase the odds of the pedestrian surviving (once again this has nothing to do with fault just purely physics) reduce the force of the impact. There are two ways of doing this, either reduce the mass of all vehicles on the road or reduce the speed.

As i point out, I'm not enjoying seeing speed limits reduced but I can not argue with physics.

I'll also point out that your accusation was against rastuscat, not TPTB. And as you can't point out where he personally attributed fault to the driver it's obvious you were wrong.

[FJRider]

As much as I'm opposed to reducing speed limits because selfish reasons your assumption is a very long reach there. Regardless of who made the mistake, the pedestrian or the car driver, it's the speed of the car that will determine for the most part the outcome. Physics doesn't care who is at fault. So if you want to increase the odds of the pedestrian surviving (once again this has nothing to do with fault just purely physics) reduce the force of the impact. There are two ways of doing this, either reduce the mass of all vehicles on the road or reduce the speed.

As i point out, I'm not enjoying seeing speed limits reduced but I can not argue with physics.

I'll also point out that your accusation was against rastuscat, not TPTB. And as you can't point out where he personally attributed fault to the driver it's obvious you were wrong.

(1.) People make decisions ... get it right and there usually aren't issues you need to be concerned about.

Get it wrong ... and there might well be serious issues regarding their health and longevity.

(2.) I was taught at Primary school how to cross roads SAFELY. The modern thought process of any issue is ... "I'm an adult and will make my own decisions regarding MY own safety" ... but THAT doesn't always go as planned. It never did.

PERSONAL safety should be the main concern for the person making that decision.

As above ... get it right and all is good ... Get it wrong ... (etc)

(3.) Has Woodend got any Pedestrian crossings or over-bridges ... ?? perhaps some (More ??) should be installed.

Too easy .. ??

(4.) WHAT did I actually accuse him of ... ??? nothing to do with the actual accident actually was it .. ??

HE didn't even know whom was at fault in that incident. But he proposed changes in the rules for motorists ... but no mention of more awareness made of/for pedestrian movement across roads.

(5.) An accident occurs ... Pedestrian vs Motor vehicle. Without knowing whom was at fault ... He proposed ALL driver are penalized by reduction in the speed limit.

Regardless of any (known) fault made by either party.

Nor ANY rule changes or better methods made for pedestrians crossing roads/streets in that area.

[FJRider]

Actually no. But don't let the facts stand in the way of your beliefs.

Facts ... ??

Fact is ... step out in front of a car moving at 50 km/hr ... and the chance of you getting killed is good.

Pedestrians seem to forget that.



And so ... if it's found the driver was not at fault ... the speed limit wouldn't be reduced .. ??

A quick look on Google maps (usually streetview is a few years behind reality) ... but Woodend is still showing a 50km/hr town speed limit.

You are a bit closer to there than I am ... is it still 50 km/hr in town ... ??

[onearmedbandit]

(4.) WHAT did I actually accuse him of ... ??? nothing to do with the actual accident actually was it .. ??

HE didn't even know whom was at fault in that incident. But he proposed changes in the rules for motorists ... but no mention of more awareness made of/for pedestrian movement across roads.

You've forgotten already? It was only earlier today. But here you go, I've pasted your accusation below to refresh your memory.

Somehow (again) your assumption is DRIVER error. Obviously ... your assumption is that pedestrians should be protected from harm in any/all ways possible.

Obviously ... you believe the pedestrian could not be at fault. Why else would you recommend an immediate reduction in the towns speed limit.

As for the rest of your post, please try to remember I'm just agreeing with the physics behind the rationale. I'm not getting into an argument over personal responsibility, right or wrong, blame etc (because you;ll most likely find we agree on all of that), I'm simply saying the physics stack up.

[Stylo]

You've forgotten already? It was only earlier today. But here you go, I've pasted your accusation below to refresh your memory.



As for the rest of your post, please try to remember I'm just agreeing with the physics behind the rationale. I'm not getting into an argument over personal responsibility, right or wrong, blame etc (because you;ll most likely find we agree on all of that), I'm simply saying the physics stack up.

I'll stay out of this. Three days ago we were in Te Anau. Milford Sound the next morning. 119Kms. How long to get there ? 3 hours said the woman at the Hotel desk, check on google she remarked. 2 hours said the guy at the bar as i paid for my drink. Managed the trip there in 1 hour 40. Trip back, 1 hour 27. In a slug, '22 Corolla Hybrid. Not bad. No cops. Magic drive.

[onearmedbandit]

I definitely ain't no saint when it comes to obeying the speed limits, although I do pick my time and place a lot better these days.

[roogazza]

Look right look left and then look right again ! When growing up we were told this and had it drummed in.
Cars and things hurt if they hit you beware !

If you walk near roads beware ,it's their country !!! Not hard is it !!!!!!

Road to zero !!!!!!!! well fuck me ! That'll work ? pffft.

[Navy Boy]

Years ago when I was a student at Southampton University (And I had to cycle everywhere as I had no choice) I witnessed a pedestrian walking out in front of a car.

This was in a 30Mph (50ish Km/hr) zone and the lady driver was, by my estimation, doing 20-25Mph. In other words she was driving with due consideration to the circumstances and conditions at the time and was in keeping with the other traffic around her.

The chap who walked out clearly misjudged the distance and was hit pretty much square on. He travelled through the air and hit the road with quite a thump (The sound of which I still remember to this day).

This was not a pedestrian crossing but simply a cut through footpath-type of arrangement and he did what many of us have done countless times over the years - He simply got it wrong.

The damage to the car (It looked as though the A-pillar had deformed so I'd expect the car to have been written off) was significant and the pedestrian - Well let's just say that it ruined his day - And quite a few days after that too...

When people talk about speed and damage it's always this memory which comes back to me. Whilst the pedestrian in this case was clearly in the wrong none of that really seemed to matter much in the hours and days that followed.

I'm not in favour of simply lowering speed limits and then proclaiming that the road toll problem will/should diminish but the powers that be need to try and do something. There were a number of factors in play on that day, not least of which was the pedestrian simply misjudging the distance to the car involved, but this is a multi-layered issue that needs intelligent tackling.