EBay

[sobrique]

I'm no longer and ebay virgin. Finally plucked up the courage to buy something.

A set of 3 throwing knives.

Now of course, I just need to hope they get delivered :)

Last night I heard there's a new campaign, to get increase safety in residential areas. Now don't get me wrong, I think that in places where there's likely to be children around, a driver should be paying attention, keeping the speed down etc.

I can't help but feel though, that blaming "children runs in front of car, child dies" accidents on the driver is just covering over the real problem. As a parent you have a duty to look after your children. Not blame it on 'drivers' (even though most of these parents are also drivers, who bumble around in stupidly large SUVs at offensive speeds), not blame it on 'teachers', not blame it on the 'government'.

When you have a child, you have a responsibility to them, as a parent. This includes teaching them that a vehicle in motion is bigger and harder than ... well almost anybody. And they go SQUISH. In varying degrees of squishyness. (Personally, I've been hit by a car several times, and never came away with more than bruises).

Seriously, the number of times I've seen cars driving up on pavements to run over pedestrians... well actually I've never seen it.
Roads are for cars. Pavements are for pedestrians. If you as a ped want to fight with a car doing 30, then you will lose.
If you're in the middle of the road at the time, then you're being a fuckwit, and frankly the world is better off without you. My only regret is that it's not the parent getting run over instead of their sprog.

Coddling your child, locking them in your house and force feeding them playstation is _not_ fulfilling parental duties. Take them outside. Show them the world. Let them learn that in the real world, there is no 'reload' button. And yes, they will probably cut themselves. Fall over. Fall out of trees. Break limbs.
These are important lessons in life. That injuries are real, and are really very easy to gain. It gives one a measure of respect for things that are genuinely dangerous that you do not get from TV.

Comments

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

As the victim of a "child bicycles out of a junction in front of car" i can quite agree. Th basic story being. my mother and i were goign to supasnaps to get a photo that was missing from my newly printed photos. on the way there a child on a bike payign no attention to where he was going and what was happenign in the road pulled out of a junction right across the front of my mothers car. luckily for the lad my mum was barely doing 10 miles an hour (she'd just finished maneuvering a chicane of transit van and other motorist). The said young man fell onto the bonnet and then onto the floor. He ended up with a touch of shock, a scraped knee and a bent bike where the front wheel had jammed under the bumper.

The accident was completely the fault of the boy on the bike. As he pulled out of the junction across oncomming traffic. This was acknowledged by the Policeman who looked at the scene, the incident assessor and the insurance assessor who came to look at the scene because the parents tried to sue mum for compensation for their dear little one so cruely injured by the evil nasty Rover metro doing barely 10 MPH on a road where it was it's right of way ..

Children are by default oblivious to danger.. and so should be made aware that roads are dangerous and deadly.. persecuting some poor unfortunate driver who's had the misfortune of hitting someone who's stepped infront of them is not on. Persecuting the drivers who mow down people on pelican/zebra crossings is most deffinatly on. persecuting the drunk driver who mounts the pavement and kills a granny out for a walk with her grandchildren is on..

We need the destinction between who is at fault in a Car on pedestrian conflict.

[ehrine.livejournal.com]

"Persecuting the drivers who mow down people on pelican/zebra crossings is most deffinatly on."

The trouble with that one is that sometimes pedestrians suddenly walk out onto a zebra crossing without looking like they're going to cross at any point when the car is about 3 metres from the crossing (and thus unable to stop safely). This happened to a student at Warwick uni once, and as a result the student newspaper, The Warwick Bore (sorry, Boar) had a nice editorial ranting at drivers going "someone should tell this idiot drivers that pedestrians have right of way on a zebra crossing". Yes, they do. They also should have the sense to make sure oncoming traffic is stopping first, let alone giving it actual time to do so.

[crashbarrier.livejournal.com]

That is unfortunatly a matter for the education of pedestrians in how to use zebra crossings. Something which is non-existant in todays schools.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/01.shtml

plus looking at the rules it does clearly say "be aware of pedestrians approaching from the side of the crossing.". *shrug* but i wasn't at that particular incdent so can't really make an informed coment on the happenings.

but i still say that people who mow people down on zebra crossings and pelican crossings and even lollypop lady crossings should have the book thrown at them.
but then i am a biased pedestrian/ cyclist who doesn't drive a car:)::D

[malal.livejournal.com]

While I agree, I was always taught to slow down for pedestrain crossings with people near either end, in case they did just that. Because the Law won't acknowladge your case... :-(

These days, I'm carefull about using pedestrain crossings, and usually deliberately put one foot on it and wait for traffic to stop (they're not required to stop until you set foot on it). Have been continually suprised by the number of Fuckwits who then happily keep driving.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Ah, but the law is one thing. Getting hit by a fast moving car is another.

If you're dead, because you ran in front of a car, then it's game over. Regardless if it was on a zebra crossing, and they were in the wrong, or if it was in the middle of a motorway.

[malal.livejournal.com]

Yes, but if you can advoid running over some idiot who's ran out in frount of your car, surely it's better to do so?

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

What?

Erm, well, duh.

Yes. Of course it is.
Arguments of 'well, I had right of way' don't cut it when you've just stepped in front of a car and been run over.

There may or may not be 'fault' but one guy's dead, so he doesn't care any more.

[malal.livejournal.com]

"Arguments of 'well, I had right of way' don't cut it when you've just stepped in front of a car and been run over."

Never said they did...