That really is an incredibly stupid attitude to take as well as a most selfish post to go with it.

A pedestrian has a perfect right to walk along a road without a pavement of course and I reckon you know that well enough. Maybe you are just trying to generate a bit of attention, it certainly looks like it.

The motorist is responsible to ensure the safety of a pedestrian using such a road and one would hope that the pedestrian is using the road in a sensible manner as well.

Les

 

The responsibility to ensure safety of the pedestrian does not lie with the motorist, it lies with the pedestrian. Just because someone has the right to do something, does not necessarily mean you should do it.

 

Sometimes there is no choice, sometimes the only way to get from a to b on foot is to walk along a road with no pavement. I do agree that a pedestrian is responsible for their own safety, but I also think any motorist should drive sensibly past them.

 

its about taking personal responsibility and having consideration for others whatever your means of transport, be it Shanks Pony, pushbike or Ferrari. Selfish\thoughtlessness is the same no matter from which direction it arrives.

 

+1

 

Of course the motorist is responsible for the way he drives near a pedestrian on a road without a footpath. I can't believe you said that.

Les

 

QFT

 

Without doubt the motorist should give consideration to pedestrian who may be using the road, but you don't use an unpaved road without considering your own safety and the risks you take in doing so, that decision lies with the pedestrian. Granted there may be no other alternative, but it is also the pedestrian's responsibility to ensure not just their own safety, but also to minimize the risks that pedestrian presents to other road users, eg. pedestrians have every right to walk 2 a breast on the road, but you wouldn't do it.

 

Quatum Field Theory

 

Quatum?

 

In too much of a hurry to be witty obviously

 

I'm entitled to my opinion, which is that if you go walking along a road with a maximum speed limit of up to 60mph and no pavements, you have a death wish !

That is my personal opinion, ditto for horse riders using the same roads, they are even more selfish however as the horse doesn't have a choice.

You have to take some responsibility for your own safety, not put the onus on someone else.

The type of roads that we enjoy as Subaru drivers tend to be the type of roads I am talking about, national speed limit 'B' roads.

At some stage, someone has set a maximum speed limit for the road based on all available factors and average drivers and vehicles, for me common sense dictates that you don't want to be walking next to cars moving at that speed ?

In 30mph limits I generally try to avoid driving on the pavements so hopefully not a menace to society, as a pedestrian I don't put myself in harms way with moving cars.

Ps. Get a sense of humour, pedestrians score maximum points but the dents are hell to shift !

 

I'm not sure what your argument is?

If a Driver by his bad driving hits a Pedestrian who is using the road, who is responsible? The Driver or the Pedestrian?

If the Pedestrian is keeping to the highway code I am not sure how the Pedestrian can be made responsible here?

 

Well if it is proven that it is in fact down to bad driving, then obviously it will be the driver at fault. If a pedestrian is walking in the middle of the road on a blind bend and is hit by a motorist, who is responsible?

As I said earlier, all road users, not just drivers, must be considerate to other road users. It's not down solely to the motorist to be responsible for a pedestrian's safety.

 

A maximum speed limit exists, that doesn't mean that as a responsible road user you don't have to use common sense to slow down if 'hazards' are along the way, whether it be a pedestrian, cyclist, slow moving vehicle, horse, so on. You might enjoy the roads in your Subaru, as I'm sure most on here would agree, but it comes down to the fact that the road doesn't belong to you alone, and it's not your personal playground, no offence. Sometimes people need to walk along these roads and if there is not a pavement, then what choice is there other than to be sensible and walk along? It's not a case of deliberately putting themselves in harms way.

As for the pavement comment, I assume that was a bit tongue in cheek, as apart from the fact they are not there for cars, there generally wouldn't really be a need to be using them. Also, with the exception of crossing a raod, in built up areas with pavements, it's fairly uncommon to see people walking along the road with the traffic.

 

I think a lot of drivers have some kind of assumption that ther "Shouldnt be anything there, and usually isnt", they drive based on assumptions and averages, we all do to a certain extent, I have been caught out driving to quick and come round a corner to find a oil delivery wagon in the road, had been through there a thousand times and nobody had been fdaft enough to park there but the oil deleivery man either had no choice or didnt care, I was going to quick and making assumptions and luckily nothing was coming, it was a NSL road and I was probably within the limit.

A lot of the assumptions are based onthe fact they will probably be ok if they do hit anything if in a big safe car, funny how people make less assumptions when in something less safe liek a small car, bike or whatever, anyone on the road has a responsibility to whoever and whatever may be on/in the road, ok it isnt a good idea to go walking on a 60 limit road but sometimes it happens, people can not always be relied on to do the sensible thing, they may be old, young, disabled, drunk, foreign, lost, ill or just there as there car broke down.


Just the same as you can be a cyclist who is perfectly in the right and has the moral highground, yet is still wrapped round the wheels of a HGV you can be perfectly in the right as a driver but still have the damaged body of a child or whatever under the front of your car, if you cant see, slow down, dont make assumptions and realise that you might come off ok but still have something on your conscience that spoils the rest of your life, you cant take it back, ever.

 

Despite what the speed limit is, the motorist has always to drive at a safe speed for the conditions. If that means he has to slow down because of pedestrian traffic then he must do just that. He doe not have the right to bomb along at the speed limit if conditions do not allow him to do that in safety.

When it comes to humour, I have to say that I don't find the idea of mashed up pedestrians very funny.

Les

 

Neither do the pedestrians !

 

The pavement comment was a lot tongue in cheek !

I understand the the speed limit is a maximum, however an achievable maximum.

If there are no realistic conditions in which the speed limit can be achieved, the limit would simply be set lower.

For example,

'This road would be safe for your average driver, in an average car, in average conditions to achieve a maximum speed of 'X' if we banned pedestrians from using it. We can't ban them, but the maximum speed limit can stay, even though there are no cicumstances in which it could be safely achieved ?'

Not in this nanny state !

Everyone should consider other 'road users', however the more vulnerable ones should consider who is likely to be worse off in the event of an incident.

You may have the moral and legal right to walk along a national speed limit road in the dark dressed in black with your back to the traffic but is it a safe and sensible course of action ?

When viewing the statistics for pedestrian injuries and fatalities, there are no figures for how they occured ?

ie. driver totally at fault, pedestrian totally at fault or 50/50 ?

 

To walk along such a road in the dark, in dark clothing would be irresponsible, and putting themselves at unnecessary risk. The same as cycling at night with no appropriate clothing/lights on unlit roads. Of course it is personal choice, but in my opinion, a bit reckelss.

However, walking along a road with no other choice than to do so, in broad daylight, as far to the side as possible, without being hidden, isn't. The fact is, maximum speed limit is still achievable on country roads, it just comes down to exercising caution, and watching out for hazards. Even if no pedestrians were 'allowed', there are other hazards potentially waiting around a corner, common sense alone should tell any motorist that. In all my times out and about on country roads, more times than not, there are not groups of people walking about etc. so for the most part, these limits can be reached. Just the same as most trips out, we don't get held up by someone riding a horse, or a cyclist, but like it or not, all these people have a right to use the roads as well. As a motorist, you are told to be aware of potential hazards, and anyone else using a different mode of transport should equally be cautious.

 

Spot on Lisawrx, I spend most of my time driving on narrow country roads down here and no one ever minds slowing down for horses, cyclist, or pedestrians etc. They all have the right to use the roads.

Les