axel_knutt wrote:I've been wondering how much longer we're going to keep blaming accidents on careless road users before someone asks whether the expectation we're placing on them is realistic. The SMIDSY label just presumes that someone isn't paying attention, with no thought to the possibility that their attention may already have been attracted by another hazard.
FarOeuf wrote:The Observer article
he makes a good point about the characterisation of 'the motorist' as both demon and victim being somewhat 'not the point'.
a quote from the article:
"In 1947, JS Dean, then president of the Pedestrians' Association, produced a robust polemic...[snipped] When else in history has humanity lived with the "foul, strange and unnatural" belief that it should be "common custom to kill and maim people because they get in your way"?"
Bicycler wrote:Improving road design is fair enough but all roads cannot be improved and situations would arise even on the straightest, widest, most well graded roads which required use of judgement and skill, to slow and to stop where necessary. We cannot blame the roads for the inadequacies of drivers.
Bicycler wrote:I agree about the dubiousness of many improvements. The risk compensation you note just shows how ridiculous the assertion is that the existing roads are "dangerous". The danger is posed by the driver of the vehicle, not by the people he aims to avoid hitting. "Jaywalking" is a particularly vile phrase that has no place on this side of the Atlantic.
Cunobelin wrote:According to most of the literature cycling and walking come up at about the same risk, or with cycling being slightly less dangerous.
mrjemm wrote:I don't think we're anywhere near that bad, though I have a nagging niggle in my mind telling me that somewhere I've seen a sign on a motorway warning of pedestrians crossing, and indeed there being a point where they could get onto the carriageway to 'walk' (!) across. Perhaps it was in a nightmare though...
TonyR wrote:Cunobelin wrote:According to most of the literature cycling and walking come up at about the same risk, or with cycling being slightly less dangerous.
You need to be wary of those figures. The official statistics in the UK are limited to accidents involving a vehicle. So a cyclist or pedestrian hit by a car would both be included but a cyclist falling off their bike would while a pedestrian tripping over would not. If you look at what data there is on ksi from pedestrian trips and falls on the highway its about six times the ksi from being hit by a motor vehicle. So overall that makes cycling a lot safer per km than walking by about a factor six.
mrjemm wrote:You're quite probably right, Bicycler. I started to wonder that. I must say, your 2nd link there shows an area that is crazy for motorways and probably terrible access for pedestrians, or cyclists.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests