Oh my god, I nearly killed a man this morning ?

[ QUOTE ]
You see to me thats just doesn't make any sense, why on earth take toddlers on roads you know to be dangerous. Change your circumstances.

You have already said you know that drivers steam around the roads so you know the situation is dangerous yet you still chose to use the roads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth drive too fast on roads you know to be dangerous?

I lived there, how was I supposed to unchoose to use the roads?
 
[ QUOTE ]

I think whats a shame is that it almost takes for accidents before the authorities do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever happened to individual responsibility! The authorities set a maximum speed limit - the driver makes a judgement on what is a safe speed for that particular stretch of road. It sounds like a lot of people on that road this morning, yourself included, didn't make a particularly good judgement on that and failed to consider there may be pedestrians using the road.

What is really getting to me is the fact that you do not appear to take any responsibility for your mistake. It is the council's fault for not making the road a 30 mph limit, the man's fault for walking on it in the first place and the other drivers' fault for encouraging you to do at the same speed as them.

We all make mistakes when we drive - otherwise accidents wouldn't happen and we become safer drivers by learning from them. I'm not saying its all your fault - obviously the man wearing hi viz might have helped- but please accept your part in it and take action to drive differently on this road in future.
 
I wasn't driving fast I was just driving, and even if i'd have come around the corner at 5mph I could still have hit him but I was alert enough to take avoiding action unlike others ahead who didn't seem to even have seen him.

He was very lucky this morning, walking on unlit country roads in dark clothing is not the brightest thing to do, if you have to be on the road make yourself as visible as possible and it gives everyone a chance of being safe.
 
I was always of the impression that, although it is generally correct to walk on the side of the road facing oncoming traffic when there is no pavement, if you are walking around a blind bend, you walk on the outside (ie, the widest part) even if it is with the traffic flow, because then you can be seen earlier. Especially if it is a narrow road, when cars may be hugging the bend on the inside to give more room for any potential oncoming traffic.

At the weekend, I saw a very lucky young man when I was out riding. He was walking on the inside of a sharp bend, in the direction of traffic flow. Even worse, he had an Ipod on, so he was completely oblivious to the van coming round the bend behind him. The van was actually going relatively slowly compared to some along this road, but even so, it still had to brake sharply and swerve to avoid him.

So yes, I think the OP has a bit of a point regarding contributory negligence if the man was walking on the inside of a blind bend.
 
Ok you're boring me now, I doubt there's one person on this forum who hasn't had some sort of near miss at some point in their driving history. And no I don't believe every single accident is a drivers fault because after all they could have hit the brakes, taken a different route, gone at a different time, etc.

If I had had a near miss with a horse and rider would it be the riders fault for not wearing Hi viz stuff or again the driver for not seeing them. Anyone who uses the roads imo has an obligation to be as safe as possible.
 
I have been doing a lot of walking lately, some on no pavement roads because I broke my arm and couldn't drive. Wouldn't like to do it too often.

The local school buses go round the lanes (national speed limit) collecting children from various random places along the road, often just one child at a time, at the end of their farm track so they don't have to walk the road. One of these was run over and killed whilst waiting for his school bus.

Anybody could have to be on a road for whatever reason and accidents are avoided just by driving more slowly and carefully, if it was a blind bend and a horse and trap after it or possibly a horse and rider you might not have missed them but they could have equally been there.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ok you're boring me now, I doubt there's one person on this forum who hasn't had some sort of near miss at some point in their driving history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct and the point most posters are making is that we learn from these near misses and become better, safer drivers in the future.
A
 
Drivers need to be aware that there may be a vunerable road user ahead of them and drive at an appropriate speed because otherwise there is the danger of injuring or killing someone. Walkers, cyclists and horse riders are all allowed to ride on the roads and motoristss need to drive responsibly. The speed limit is just the highest speed allowed on that road not the speed you should travel at. Vulnerable road users should of course be sensible and where Hi-Viz so that they can be seen more easily by other road users.

Where vulnerable road users find a stretch of road to be dangerous they should ask the Highway Authority to provide a safe alternative route to the side of the road.
 
I wasn't going to add anymore to this debate, but I have to say that yours is the most sensible comment on this whole thread.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Where vulnerable road users find a stretch of road to be dangerous they should ask the Highway Authority to provide a safe alternative route to the side of the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

And expect what? A rural lane, with houses on it, half a mile or so from a village, with the shop, school, church, pub etc, has to be walked along, it's madness to suppose everyone should have to drive, and as part of our parish planning group, I know only too well, there are lots of things we'd like done in terms of accessibility and safety, but neither the will nor the money for them.
What are residents supposed to do while they wait twenty years for 'a safe alternative'
You have to walk, you should be able to walk. Pedestrians, riders, motorcyclists, cyclists, agricultural traffic - everyone has a right to use the road, and a responsibility to use it sensibly, and look out for others.
In this case, the OP first said she came round a bend and the pedestrian was upon her, then he should have been wearing hi viz, which surely would be no help on a blind bend (where I agree, I would have switched to the other side. I'd also be inclined to use which ever side had the best approximation of a grass verge, come to that) - and then that even had she been doing 5mph, it would still have been dangerous.
Yes, but the point is, you don't 'nearly kill' someone at 5mph.

I'm sure the OP has had a shock, and it isn't nice to be in a 'near miss' from which ever side, but the fact remains, if you are in a car you have the greater responsibility, because you are the one who can do the most damage. If she had come round the bend and been faced with a combine harvester, the burden of responsibility would have been more on it, and less on her, though of course, both need to drive carefully and responsibly.
 
I agree in principle about walking on the other side round a blind bend, however on my road the other side has a high bank so absolutely no refuge from cars. It is idealistic to suggest that all roads should have a safe walking route, as it is to think that bus companies will change their minds (people have tried) and that everyone has cars or indeed is able to drive.
I expect we have all had near misses, and it is usually a wake up call. Hopefully this incident will have made the pedestrian as well as the OP review how they travel along this particular road.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't going to add anymore to this debate, but I have to say that yours is the most sensible comment on this whole thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that because it's the only one not challenging your perception of personal responsibility????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top