Horrifying hit-and-run in Brighton

[661-Pete]

I don't blame them. Shock makes people freeze instead of springing into action. When, some years ago, I saw a couple of motorcyclists thrown off their bikes right in front of me, my first instinct was to stop and then grab my phone, not run up to them. Others did attend to them though.

[pwa]

I don't blame them. Shock makes people freeze instead of springing into action. When, some years ago, I saw a couple of motorcyclists thrown off their bikes right in front of me, my first instinct was to stop and then grab my phone, not run up to them. Others did attend to them though.

You weren't necessarily wrong. If you have good reason to think a life is on the line, getting the ambulance on its way could be a good first action.

[Vantage]

You might aswell put a safe in the kitchen to lock up all the knives then.
Cars etc aren't dangerous. People are.

I've heard that line of argument often enough before, but sorry I don't agree.

In an ideal world we'd have got all criminals off our streets, but that isn't going to happen in my lifetime - or yours - or even our great-grandchildren's.

It'll never happen. Not unless the human race develops the ability to predict the future or read minds.

The USA is fighting, amid great controversy, an unprecedented epidemic of gun crime. I side with Obama on this: take away the guns and fewer people will be shot. Of course there must be many thousands of totally innocent gun-owners who only ever shoot their weapons at a paper target. I'm sure we're sorry that they would have to do away with an enjoyable pastime, but some sacrifices have to be made.

The difference between guns and cars is simple. Guns were and are designed for the specific purpose of killing. They are designed to hit and in most cases penetrate whatever the pellet, ball bearing or bullet encounters causing immediate damage.
Cars were and are designed for the purpose of transportation. Doesn't matter if it's an F1 car with 800bhp going from finish line to finish line or a Smart car going to your aunties for a cuppa. They are not weapons unless the user decides to be a gigantic a*****e.
You said that it should be law that any owner of a car or any other vehicle for that matter should lock away the keys. What for? In case someone steals it and uses it to kill?
As I said, that same rule then should apply to the kitchen cutlery set, the diy toolbox and maybe even the pedal bike. With enough force, even the end of a handlebar can be driven through someone's heart.
We don't need more rules and regulations. We need the current ones to be better upheld. Stiffer sentences for one.

[Postboxer]

Maybe there were too many bystanders. Isn't there a theory that you're more likely to react to something if you're on your own, with a large group, everyone kind of looks at each other waiting for someone to react. It is quite a shocking impact so not really surprising that people took a moment to take in what had just happened before reacting.

[661-Pete]

Interesting concept, this, about bystanders 'freezing' and not rushing to help. Luckily the victim is reportedly getting over his trauma.

It's got to be extraordinarily unusual for me (being an atheist) to make mention of such a religion-oriented radio programme as Thought For the Day, but by pure chance I happened to find myself drowsily half listening to today's offering, from the Chief Rabbi, instead of switching off as I usually do. Having this dreadful incident on my mind, I was aroused by his talking about the very topic. Worth a listen.

[Tangled Metal]

If you have a Chubb style lock that takes takes a traditional looking key based on a round shaft do not leave it in the lock on the inside of your door. Even if it's a rear door without a cat flap or letter box for a burglar to reach through to get the key you can easily get in. There's a technique that requires about 20 seconds at most, then you leave it for a while, possibly while you are doing the same for the next house. After some time you go back and simply open the door, commit the burglary then lock the door and leave the key on the inside of the door.

This method then causes the homeowner a bit of an issue with the insurer since there's almost no evidence of how the burglar got in and out when the door's locked. You probably know this method but I'll not describe it further for obvious reasons. All I can say is I used to live on a little estate consisting of cul-de-sacs that had at least 4 houses hit on one afternoon. Someone saw them but a white van with confident men working away moving things into the van can look very normal without cause to suspect a burglary is going on.

[CREPELLO]

The fact that the stolen car was a Fiat 500 may have possibly helped this poor pedestrian survive (so far), due to the lowish rounded profile of the car's front, despite it having the effect of launching him high into the air. Quite amazing that he has survived that high speed impact.

If it had been a SUV, the outcome would surely have been instant and quite different. Another reason for restricting the availability of that type of vehicle.

[Postboxer]

Also less mass so less energy, although still a frightening amount of energy involved. Good to see the victim is home already, although I haven't seen a description of their injuries anywhere.

[Flinders]

The fact that the stolen car was a Fiat 500 may have possibly helped this poor pedestrian survive (so far), due to the lowish rounded profile of the car's front, despite it having the effect of launching him high into the air. Quite amazing that he has survived that high speed impact.

If it had been a SUV, the outcome would surely have been instant and quite different. Another reason for restricting the availability of that type of vehicle.

I know. An adult member of my own family was killed outright by a flat-fronted vehicle like that which was only doing 30mph in a 30mph zone. It hit her, then ran straight over; there was no sloping bonnet for her to slide up onto. He claimed he just didn't see her (there is a visibility problem with these vehicles too for anything close). I think more research is needed on these vehicles, they are far more dangerous to pedestrians than standard saloons. I think people driving them ought at lest to be subject to an extra test.

[Postboxer]

Tractor test for anyone who wants to drive one. Farmers would already have one, it would severely inconvenience others.

[pwa]

Tractor test for anyone who wants to drive one. Farmers would already have one, it would severely inconvenience others.

I've driven Ford Ranger 4x4 pick-up trucks, and they have no significant blind spots compared to normal cars. They are tall at the front, though, so a pedestrian struck by one would be more likely to go under rather than over.

[Flinders]

They are tall at the front, though, so a pedestrian struck by one would be more likely to go under rather than over.

That's the problem. I think an extra test ought to me mandatory for that reason alone.

[661-Pete]

I know. An adult member of my own family was killed outright by a flat-fronted vehicle like that which was only doing 30mph in a 30mph zone. It hit her, then ran straight over; there was no sloping bonnet for her to slide up onto. He claimed he just didn't see her (there is a visibility problem with these vehicles too for anything close). I think more research is needed on these vehicles, they are far more dangerous to pedestrians than standard saloons. I think people driving them ought at lest to be subject to an extra test.

Very sorry to hear about that tragedy. Years ago, a distant cousin of mine was killed when he was struck by a bus while crossing the road. I don't know any details (it happened in Budapest) but I presume he stood no chance.

[pwa]

They are tall at the front, though, so a pedestrian struck by one would be more likely to go under rather than over.

That's the problem. I think an extra test ought to me mandatory for that reason alone.

When I was regularly driving a Ford Ranger (as part of my job) I did not treat it as a normal car, but as a lumbering commercial vehicle. But I'm not clear how an extra test would help. If you drive one just like a normal car, but a bit slower and allowing more stopping distance, you would be driving it about right and would pass a test. Anyone who can pass a normal driving test could just take it a bit easier and pass a test for a large 4x4. It is what happens after the test that matters.

[kwackers]

Anyone who can pass a normal driving test could just take it a bit easier and pass a test for a large 4x4. It is what happens after the test that matters.

Indeed. But most 4x4's are bought for show. Having to take a test would discourage those who really didn't need one and even if one person in the family felt the desire to own one it's quite possible their partner might not want to do the test.

Also, most folk who drive them don't appreciate their physical properties. They're engineered and programmed to 'feel' like normal cars so they get driven like them - right up to the point where it all goes a bit pear shaped and physics takes over. A test could include explaining why they're not normal cars and that can only be a good thing.

TBH, I'm not against 4x4's as such. But I think there should be a minimum pedestrian safety 'value' and over the years the bar should be raised. I also think that the PLG license class shouldn't include vehicles that weigh neigh on 3 tonnes...