An account worth reading

[Bonefishblues]

I am prepared to go on making that point until drivers observe that paragraph of the H.C.
He did not need to realise he could not see his victim. He needed only to make sure there was nothing in his path.
I find your sarcasm repellent, in the circs.

I was making a serious point actually. Taking it as sarcasm is your choice. We know little necessary detail about the circumstances here. We know that the gentleman seems to have walked in front of another car (or do we?) We know that the incoming car flashed it's lights. We know that the author saw him too late to stop. We don't know much more, but you seem confident to assert that a contravention of the HC has occurred.

I posted the link because I thought that the account of the driver who killed was of interest, and the thread has taken a familiar path.

If the driver had in fact made sure that he could see the road was clear (as the H.C. advises) then he surely would not have hit the pedestrian.
"If only he had realised...etc." seems pretty much like sarcasm to me.

What about the circumstance where, on the basis of pure speculation, to provide a counterpoint, the gentleman had walked out in front of the other vehicle. That vehicle stopped and flashed, the elderly gentleman carried on walking, and walked into the path of the driver who killed him, appearing at the last moment, having been effectively masked by the flash, which had caught the driver's attention? A parallel might be the classic "child who dashed out from between parked cars"?

I don't know what happened. I think that s126 is absolutely the right maxim to drive by, but sometimes stuff simply does happen during the many billions of miles driven each year.

[Bonefishblues]

What do you suggest?

That is a very open ended question, as you must know.
I would suggest a serious attempt to enforce traffic law as a beginning. The amount of lawbreaking by motorists is a scandal.

I know it was. It was an attempt to move the debate into a future-looking/solutions space. Would that have helped here, I wonder?

[Cyril Haearn]

Speeds must be reduced more
Maybe keep the figures on maximum speed limit signs but change the unit to kmh

[Mike Sales]

That vehicle stopped and flashed, the elderly gentleman carried on walking, and walked into the path of the driver who killed him, appearing at the last moment, having been effectively masked by the flash, which had caught the driver's attention? A parallel might be the classic "child who dashed out from between parked cars"?

I don't know what happened. I think that s126 is absolutely the right maxim to drive by, but sometimes stuff simply does happen during the many billions of miles driven each year.

If the driver's ability to see whether the road was clear was masked by the flash, then he would not have complied with 126. Likewise, if he allowed his attention to be caught by it.
Are you suggesting the pedestrian ran out? That was not in the evidence.
The child running out is a morally degenerate excuse for driving badly. Children behave like children, but adults are supposed to endeavour to keep them safe, rather than behave in a way which makes childish indiscretion suffer the death penalty. The driver didn't stand a chance it is said. Whereas it was the child who suffered death with no reprieve.

[Bonefishblues]

That vehicle stopped and flashed, the elderly gentleman carried on walking, and walked into the path of the driver who killed him, appearing at the last moment, having been effectively masked by the flash, which had caught the driver's attention? A parallel might be the classic "child who dashed out from between parked cars"?

I don't know what happened. I think that s126 is absolutely the right maxim to drive by, but sometimes stuff simply does happen during the many billions of miles driven each year.

If the driver's ability to see whether the road was clear was masked by the flash, then he would not have complied with 126. Likewise, if he allowed his attention to be caught by it.
Are you suggesting the pedestrian ran out? That was not in the evidence.
The child running out is a morally degenerate excuse for driving badly. Children behave like children, but adults are supposed to endeavour to keep them safe, rather than behave in a way which makes childish indiscretion suffer the death penalty. The driver didn't stand a chance it is said. Whereas it was the child who suffered death with no reprieve.

No I'm not. I made that clear. I'm saying we don't know what happened, nor do we have sufficient information to make definitive statements.

Please don't edit my post by removing the section where I made that clear by using the phrase "...on the basis of pure speculation, to provide a counterpoint,..."

[Mike Sales]

Here is a suggestion for you.

A new report from the International Transport Forum has called for 20mph speed limits as standard in built-up areas. The study examined road safety performance in ten countries after they changed speed limits or introduced automatic speed cameras and in all cases found a strong relationship between average speed and the number of crashes.

Part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation that acts as a think tank for transport policy.

http://road.cc/content/news/239833-global-study-calls-20mph-speed-limit-standard-built-areas

[mikeonabike]

The best way of slowing traffic down in this case would be to install a pedestrian crossing next to the bus stop. But probably in the Highways Dept cost-benefit analysis you need 3 or 4 deaths to justify the installation cost.

[Cugel]

The best way of slowing traffic down in this case would be to install a pedestrian crossing next to the bus stop. But probably in the Highways Dept cost-benefit analysis you need 3 or 4 deaths to justify the installation cost.

If the pedestrian crossing is one of those with traffic lights, whereat the pedestrians must huddle for 5 minutes at a time in the pouring rain then scuttle across in the 10 seconds the light goes red for the traffic .... well, these might be allowed by the planners. But, as you will realise, it's very important to keep traffic flowing towards the carparks, where drivers become shoppers. We cannot have mere pedestrians holding up the great car-owning democracy in it's urge to consume!

The planners have not yet realised that the shoppers delivered to the emporiums by their cars are also (having exited their pride&joy) forced to huddle at the crossing as the rain pelts down, since "Gew-gaws R Us" is on the other side of the road from "Alabama Fried Gawdknowswot"....

One gets the impression that the demise of "a jaywalker" from time to time emphasises the need for pedestrians (especially the slower variety) to reconsider this nonsensical walking across the road business. In the USA many downtowns don't have "sidewalks" as the large car-bound wallopers can drive straight up to a consumer-hatch to buy and collect their many plasticky things and gobbling stuffs.

In Blighty we are always approximately 8 years behind the current American modes....

Cugel

[mjr]

One kind of behaviour I detest amongst possibly well-meaning drivers is the ad hoc invention of strange little "communications" (which include light flashes, arm waves and even facial gurns) meant to represent some "I just invented a new driving procedure which is against the normal rules but think it will be a good idea just now so I'm inviting you to guess what it is, probably incorrectly, then do it".

Often they believe themselves to be kind, accommodating, well-mannered in inventing these ad hoc notions. In practice, this invitation to ignore the usual rules and do something else is an invitation to a potential disaster. [...]

Indeed. I am sick and [rude word removed] tired of motorists flashing other motorists who then put me in danger by turning across my path on multi-lane roads against the normal rules. I'm ashamed to say that - when I am not fully occupied by taking avoiding action - I have started remonstrating with the worst offenders in the hope that they might think twice, think bike and actually look for something other than motorists before flashing at that location in future. So that deals with the flasher and I think/hope that the motorists that nearly hit me or are nearly hit by me are sufficiently shocked by the experience to look for themselves rather than trust flashers in future.

This morning, I think I'd put flashing motorists as the third most annoying completely avoidable and unnecessary road danger to cyclists, after phoney drivers and close passers.

[mjr]

I don't know what happened. I think that s126 is absolutely the right maxim to drive by, but sometimes stuff simply does happen during the many billions of miles driven each year.

I am not willing to dismiss this sort of avoidable death off as "sometimes stuff simply does happen" and I'm pretty disappointed that anyone is.

[Bonefishblues]

I don't know what happened. I think that s126 is absolutely the right maxim to drive by, but sometimes stuff simply does happen during the many billions of miles driven each year.

I am not willing to dismiss this sort of avoidable death off as "sometimes stuff simply does happen" and I'm pretty disappointed that anyone is.

It wasn't a dismissal - I was alluding to s126, as clearly stated, and that requirement to drive within the distance one can see to be clear.

My personal view, based only on supposition, given the paucity of facts, is that the gentleman may have been crossing but was actively masked by the other car's flash, was not present in front of the author's car when he flashed back - or surely he would have been seen in the light of full beam headlights, and stepped in front of the author's car at the last moment. How could s126 rules apply there, I wonder?

I hope that makes the point clear and that your disappointment is diminished somewhat?

How would you prevent this death?

[Mike Sales]

I don't know what happened. I think that s126 is absolutely the right maxim to drive by, but sometimes stuff simply does happen during the many billions of miles driven each year.

I am not willing to dismiss this sort of avoidable death off as "sometimes stuff simply does happen" and I'm pretty disappointed that anyone is.

Too true. This sort of "stuff" looks different depending on whether you are looking out through a windscreen, or using the roads in a more vulnerable and less dangerous way.
I would feel much better cycling at night if drivers took p.126 seriously, but I fear that most pay it only lip service: that is, if they remember it at all.

[Bonefishblues]

I don't know what happened. I think that s126 is absolutely the right maxim to drive by, but sometimes stuff simply does happen during the many billions of miles driven each year.

I am not willing to dismiss this sort of avoidable death off as "sometimes stuff simply does happen" and I'm pretty disappointed that anyone is.

Too true. This sort of "stuff" looks different depending on whether you are looking out through a windscreen, or using the roads in a more vulnerable and less dangerous way.
I would feel much better cycling at night if drivers took p.126 seriously, but I fear that most pay it only lip service: that is, if they remember it at all.

As said above, it's not a dismissal by me.

[Mike Sales]

sometimes stuff simply does happen during the many billions of miles driven each year.

That sounds like a dismissal to me.

[Bonefishblues]

sometimes stuff simply does happen during the many billions of miles driven each year.

That sounds like a dismissal to me.

If one selectively quotes (again) and ignores a subsequent clarification one can make many things sound like what one wants, I'm afraid.