4x4 Vehicles - Should they be banned from Town/City Centres

nej

Exactly, frankie.

Nobody seems to understand that if a pedestrian steps in front of a car, it's their fault entirely (except perhaps in some rare situations) if they get hit by a car. The car industry is now forced to design their cars around these morons, so that their injuries are lessened. This costs billions.

Pavements are for people, roads are for cars. Where there are no pavements, common sense dictates that you should be extremely wary of the huge lumps of moving metal... I will say that drivers should be more careful here also, as it is not a pedestrians fault he is in the road in this circumstance. It's funny how they don't design trains to have pedestrian safety ratings, given that people do cross level crossings, and occasionally jump in front of them. Just a thought.

It sounds harsh, but survival of the fittest is natures way of ensuring that the weak get bred out of existance. These days, this doesn't happen, which is why there are plenty more idiots in the world than there used to be... maybe cars are helping to redress that balance.

If a child is hit by a car and dies, it is of course a tragedy. But, it is not the fault of the child, or the driver. The blame lies with the parents either not educating, or not restraining the child. Again, I suppose there are some exceptions to this rule. My daughter nearly stepped into a road in front of a car a couple of weeks ago (albeit in a road that looks like it's pedestrianised but isn't). Believe me she got a right telling off!

steve!_10

nej: Accidents happen, you know.

Who's to stay that a car can't accidentally mount the pavement, or the driver is speeding and can't slow down in time. I perhaps think it's a little short-sighted to assume RTAs involving pedestrians are all because of the pedestrian or as a direct result of a parent's neglect. I know you surely must realise that, but your POV doesn't strike me as being particularly well balanced.

110frankie

Figures compiled by the police themselves, who investigate every accident involving pedestrians,show that in such accidents the pedestrian is at fault 85 per cent of the time.
Not my figures.

So if pedestrians don't cause accidents the number of accidents in which pedestrians are injured by a car will be reduced by a massive 85 per cent.

rdwarr

110frankie wrote:

Figures compiled by the police themselves, who investigate every accident involving pedestrians,show that in such accidents the pedestrian is at fault 85 per cent of the time.
Not my figures.

So if pedestrians don't cause accidents the number of accidents in which pedestrians are injured by a car will be reduced by a massive 85 per cent.

...and if nobody had cars it would reduce 100%. Statistics really are useless sometimes.
Sometimes accidents happen. The Police will always try to apportion blame and will say it's the fault of the pedestrian even in a 51-49 situation. Many accidents "caused by pedestrians" are also avoidable by better driving.

110frankie

everything you say is true... but this thread is putting all the blame on 4x4s

There is a "humourous" video around on the net. It shows a man walking into the road and being hit by a car driven at 30mph.
Then it shows the same man walking into the road, the car - doing 50mph - has already driven past.

nej

steve! wrote:

nej: Accidents happen, you know.

Who's to stay that a car can't accidentally mount the pavement, or the driver is speeding and can't slow down in time. I perhaps think it's a little short-sighted to assume RTAs involving pedestrians are all because of the pedestrian or as a direct result of a parent's neglect. I know you surely must realise that, but your POV doesn't strike me as being particularly well balanced.

I may be taking it to extremes a bitm, yes, but as I'm fond of pointing to my 9-yr old daughter, accidents only happen because somebody wasn't being careful.

If I mount the pavement, it isn't an accident, it is me not driving carefully. If I am speeding and can't slow down in time, then I am not driving carefully, although the pedestrian is equally at fault (I would argue more at fault) for not looking when he stepped into the road.

The only time a pedestrian is not at fault (IMHO) in an RTA is when the lights are red for the car at a pedestrian crossing, and the green man is on.

steve!_10

nej: So accidents only happen when someone isn't being careful, but if you mount the pavement by not being careful, then it's not an accident? I had to re-read your first two sentences, but I'm fairly certain you just contradicted yourself.

The point I'm trying to make though is, regardless of blame, or your definition of what an accident is, a pedestrian or another car getting hit by a car travelling @ 30mph that weighs 1 ton is going to be in better shape than being hit by a car travelling at 30mph that weighs 2 tons. Accidents are always going to be inevitable, and if you are going to get smacked by a car one day (because let's face it, you might be careful but not everyone else is) then you'll want it to be a Micra.

110frankie

so it's no longer a ban 4x4 thread but a ban everything bigger than a Micra thread...

this is why one cannot take the anti-view seriously...

david29dpo

nej wrote:

Exactly, frankie.

Nobody seems to understand that if a pedestrian steps in front of a car, it's their fault entirely (except perhaps in some rare situations) if they get hit by a car. The car industry is now forced to design their cars around these morons, so that their injuries are lessened. This costs billions.

Pavements are for people, roads are for cars. Where there are no pavements, common sense dictates that you should be extremely wary of the huge lumps of moving metal... I will say that drivers should be more careful here also, as it is not a pedestrians fault he is in the road in this circumstance. It's funny how they don't design trains to have pedestrian safety ratings, given that people do cross level crossings, and occasionally jump in front of them. Just a thought.

It sounds harsh, but survival of the fittest is natures way of ensuring that the weak get bred out of existance. These days, this doesn't happen, which is why there are plenty more idiots in the world than there used to be... maybe cars are helping to redress that balance.

If a child is hit by a car and dies, it is of course a tragedy. But, it is not the fault of the child, or the driver. The blame lies with the parents either not educating, or not restraining the child. Again, I suppose there are some exceptions to this rule. My daughter nearly stepped into a road in front of a car a couple of weeks ago (albeit in a road that looks like it's pedestrianised but isn't). Believe me she got a right telling off!

could'nt agree more!!

Dora_the_Explorer_5

It sounds harsh, but survival of the fittest is natures way of ensuring that the weak get bred out of existance. These days, this doesn't happen, which is why there are plenty more idiots in the world than there used to be... maybe cars are helping to redress that balance.

Good heavens, I had no idea idiots weren't allowed to drive cars - clearly I shall have to donate mine to a worthy cause.