PDQ Mobile wrote:What I tried to put forward was the argument that ALL road users have a responsibility to be a tad visible.
A simple idea!
All well and good, except that there will always be road users that do not do this, whether they be sheep, cow, fallen tree or human being. And given that is the case you have to fall back to driving to that assumption. What we have is a slow march to put the responsibility 'to be visible' over the responsibility to drive to conditions.
I'm not saying being visible* is bad idea, just that it should not be a focus of campaigns to improve road safety, nor should it be used as a contributory condition of blame. All that does is divert from the real cause of danger and i another way to avoid the very hard and difficult job that needs doing in terms of changing mindsets about driving. A careful observant driver with a functional vehicle, driving to conditions should not collide** with something in their path day or night. If they do then they've failed on one of those aspects or been unlucky enough to encounter one of the truly rare cases of an unavoidable accident rather than a lack of anticipation or care.
Thought experiment for you....
How will things change if/when there is proper AI and automation in charge of our vehicles?
Do you think we'd see automated vehicles continuing to drive the way humans currently do, or will they be a lot more cautious and safe at the expense of saving a second here or there at great risk to other users?
If the answer to that is yes, then we're doubly screwed.
If the answer to that is no, then why should we not hold human drives to the same level?
* note; being visible != wearing high-viz
** the fact that they do, and so regularly, is evidence of how low we set the bar and how little we hold people to account