Should there be a new offence listed

[the black fox]

Twice now in the last four weeks I have had youths walk across the road in front of me , totally immersed in there mobile phones ,headphones/ earbuds plugged in not a care in the world .oblivious to a large 4x4 heading there way .. .
I realise it’s part of life these days but if god forbid you hit one who would be at fault . . The u.s once had a offence called jaywalking perhaps we need something similar here

 

[ancient_mariner]

This is really a bit of natural selection at work, for you as well as them. We don't need a jaywalking law, but we do need people to be aware of their surroundings. Sorry you had a scare.

 

[Ham]

I agree with you, yes, there absolutely should be an offence of selecting a 4x4 when it is not needed. And no, I have no idea whether your selection was prompted by utility or perception without reference to the danger posed to yourself (more likely to die in a 4x4) or other road users.(more dangerous to pedestrians etc) and more likely to drive badly because drivers of 4x4 feel safer.

I'm really not having a go at you personally, you may have a valid reason for choosing a 4x4 but the overwhelming majority of people don't.

The pedestrian? Yep, they certainly define themselves as a knob, but equally our own perceptions need a little readjustment: just being in a car should not accord the driver an advantage over others. Everyone on the road has a duty to others (including the pedestrian, to NOT step out without looking) but looking out for others involves slowing down to avoid the possibility of incident, when in a busy zone.

 

[Box Brownie]

I agree with you, yes, there absolutely should be an offence of selecting a 4x4 when it is not needed. And no, I have no idea whether your selection was prompted by utility or perception without reference to the danger posed to yourself (more likely to die in a 4x4) or other road users.(more dangerous to pedestrians etc) and more likely to drive badly because drivers of 4x4 feel safer.

I'm really not having a go at you personally, you may have a valid reason for choosing a 4x4 but the overwhelming majority of people don't.

The pedestrian? Yep, they certainly define themselves as a knob, but equally our own perceptions need a little readjustment: just being in a car should not accord the driver an advantage over others. Everyone on the road has a duty to others (including the pedestrian, to NOT step out without looking) but looking out for others involves slowing down to avoid the possibility of incident, when in a busy zone.

The new Highway Code as I understand it, is explicit about the hierarchy of care & attention required of every road user........with the greater weight of responsibility for the safety the most vulnerable (pedestrians & cyclists) resting on motor vehicle users!

 

[Pound Coin]

Sorry to hear that youths walked out in front of you on a dual carriageway

 

[the black fox]

WTF has it got to do with it .. mine is a mid range Honda CR-V chosen for reliability and ease of access ,comfort for my aching bones and towing ability .. but that’s irrelevant . It’s also needed in the winter weather of north wales where half the time even the good roads have grass growing down the middle.. plus as a ex lorry driver ,then 20 years on taxis I have not had a at fault accident for over 50 years

 

[Ham]

In my book, living in North Wales/comfort/towing are valid reasons for choosing a 4x4, but note I went to lengths to de-personalise my comment. You did title this thread: "Should there be a new offence listed" and then go on to say ".....oblivious to a large 4x4" so I'm afraid that was fair game

And frankly the US jaywalking laws are hugely offensive, you'll find a fairly balanced history of how they came to be, as a result of the motor industry ascendency here https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

Would you really want that here?

 

[Cobra]

I have had youths walk across the road in front of me ,

Phone zombies, yes there are plenty here,
and when you stop rather than running them over all they do is


Where is the green cross code adverts ?

 

[Fuji Dave]

Sadly it happens everywhere heads in the phone, we have had a few here but do it to the bus sadly they won't be doing it again.

 

[JohnC6]

I recall reading about measures being taken to help stop this kind of behaviour but applies to pedestrian crossings rather than anywhere along a road.I've manged to find an article on it.

Zombie traffic lights’ are saving the lives of smartphone users - here’s how

They’re called ‘smartphone zombies’ - people who walk along staring at their phones. So cities are introducing ground-level traffic lights to save their lives at busy junctions.

www.weforum.org

 

[JonathanRyan]

The new Highway Code as I understand it, is explicit about the hierarchy of care & attention required of every road user........with the greater weight of responsibility for the safety the most vulnerable (pedestrians & cyclists) resting on motor vehicle users!

As you say, it's a hierarchy - so cyclists have to look after pedestrians.

As luck would have it, I was cycling down the tow path the other day. There was the usual mix of bikes, people and dogs on invisible leads running across the entire path. But the only person that was in any way annoying was the guy wandering from side to side of the path with over the ear headphones on. It took me a while to figure out why he was ignoring me ringing the bell. Fortunately, I have brakes

[4X4 and a bike in the same thread? This could end badly..... ]

 

[Ham]

Here's the thing: this all boils down to people's sense of entitlement. Whether it is a driver on the road who wants it to be a crime for pedestrians to "jaywalk" (yes, in the USA you become a criminal if you dare to step into the road), a motorcyclist weaving in and out of traffic, or a cyclist barrelling along regardless the mindset that leads to that attitude is the same. Labelling the individual "motorist", "cyclist" is irrelevant, they are the same person in different modes of transport. Appreciating that would go a long way to bringing about self realisation to those who may not have considered it, and breaking down the artificial barriers and "class war" fostered by those for whom it serves their personal agenda.

Most people react well on a personal level when faced with a direct choice of injuring someone or losing a couple of seconds out their day. It's only when it's painted into an "us & them" scenario that the situation becomes depersonalised and the road wars begin.

 

[Dave Canon]

My local County Council has sent me (and presumably every household) a survey relating to roads etc. The problem is that it is only tick box answers. So I cannot support building more cycle lanes without additional constraints. I feel that where we spend a lot of money to build a cycle lane, it should be used. We have a cycle lane along side the A40 running towards a large employer on the edge or town. When I used to cycle I used the cycle lane as it was much safer. OK the cycle lane arrangements were not perfect as they was an awkward gap crossing a bridge but this has recently been fixed. However it is still common to find cyclist using the main road and ignoring the cycle lane. However, many of them while happy to use the road they completely ignore traffic lights. I think the time has come where cyclist should pay road tax, insurance and have a visible licence plate. Of course. in return they should then expect better cycling facilities. Although I no longer cycle (old age), I do support cycling.

Dave

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

My local County Council has sent me (and presumably every household) a survey relating to roads etc. The problem is that it is only tick box answers. So I cannot support building more cycle lanes without additional constraints. I feel that where we spend a lot of money to build a cycle lane, it should be used. We have a cycle lane along side the A40 running towards a large employer on the edge or town. When I used to cycle I used the cycle lane as it was much safer. OK the cycle lane arrangements were not perfect as they was an awkward gap crossing a bridge but this has recently been fixed. However it is still common to find cyclist using the main road and ignoring the cycle lane. However, many of them while happy to use the road they completely ignore traffic lights. I think the time has come where cyclist should pay road tax, insurance and have a visible licence plate. Of course. in return they should then expect better cycling facilities. Although I no longer cycle (old age), I do support cycling.

Dave

Road tax doesn't exist and hasn't for many years.

 

[Pound Coin]

My local County Council has sent me (and presumably every household) a survey relating to roads etc. The problem is that it is only tick box answers. So I cannot support building more cycle lanes without additional constraints. I feel that where we spend a lot of money to build a cycle lane, it should be used. We have a cycle lane along side the A40 running towards a large employer on the edge or town. When I used to cycle I used the cycle lane as it was much safer. OK the cycle lane arrangements were not perfect as they was an awkward gap crossing a bridge but this has recently been fixed. However it is still common to find cyclist using the main road and ignoring the cycle lane. However, many of them while happy to use the road they completely ignore traffic lights. I think the time has come where cyclist should pay road tax, insurance and have a visible licence plate. Of course. in return they should then expect better cycling facilities. Although I no longer cycle (old age), I do support cycling.

Dave

Cyclists generally use roads rather than cycle lanes because the latter are often crap, dark, unswept, rough, don't go where people want, and every time you come to another road crossing, you have to stop.

Car drivers don't have to worry about inertia - the engine does it for them. For cyclists, stopping is highly inefficient.

I think the time has come for polluting methods of transport to pay their way. Oh! They do already!!

 

[Marc]

Road tax doesn't exist and hasn't for many years.

Not to mention that, even with VED, cyclists would be exempt anyway as are electric vehicles.

 

[stickytape]

I agree with you, yes, there absolutely should be an offence of selecting a 4x4 when it is not needed. And no, I have no idea whether your selection was prompted by utility or perception without reference to the danger posed to yourself (more likely to die in a 4x4) or other road users.(more dangerous to pedestrians etc) and more likely to drive badly because drivers of 4x4 feel safer.

I'm really not having a go at you personally, you may have a valid reason for choosing a 4x4 but the overwhelming majority of people don't.

The pedestrian? Yep, they certainly define themselves as a knob, but equally our own perceptions need a little readjustment: just being in a car should not accord the driver an advantage over others. Everyone on the road has a duty to others (including the pedestrian, to NOT step out without looking) but looking out for others involves slowing down to avoid the possibility of incident, when in a busy zone.

What are your problems with 4x4s and SUVS? Not switching out my Dodge unless it's for an Expedition Max (yep, go check out how many morons crossing the street engrossed in their phone that can mow down without you even noticing it)

 

[Cobra]

go check out how many morons crossing the street engrossed in their phone that can mow down without you even noticing it

Is that part of their advertising blurb?

 

[ancient_mariner]

Is that part of their advertising blurb?

If not, it should be.

 

[stickytape]

Is that part of their advertising blurb?

it should be thinking about it ha!

 

[woof woof]

I agree with you, yes, there absolutely should be an offence of selecting a 4x4 when it is not needed. And no, I have no idea whether your selection was prompted by utility or perception without reference to the danger posed to yourself (more likely to die in a 4x4) or other road users.(more dangerous to pedestrians etc) and more likely to drive badly because drivers of 4x4 feel safer.

I'm really not having a go at you personally, you may have a valid reason for choosing a 4x4 but the overwhelming majority of people don't.

Going by this logic why would I have owned multiple sports cars?

Maybe people just shouldn't be allowed to own things they shouldn't?

The creeping influence and virtue signalling of the Stasi and the fun suckers marches on.

 

[Mr Bump]

same when walking down the road, especially in pedestrian areas, spotty youths walking along just looking down at there phones
sometimes give them a little should tap then watch them desperately clutch there phone so they don't drop it

 

[Pound Coin]

Maybe people just shouldn't be allowed to own things they shouldn't?

It is an interesting question.

If everyone in the world owned what we own, life on earth would be completely fuxxored. Aren’t we lucky!

 

[woof woof]

It is an interesting question.

If everyone in the world owned what we own, life on earth would be completely fuxxored. Aren’t we lucky!

It's the moralising of other peoples choices and virtue signalling that annoys and it's usually from people who wouldn't think twice about flying multiple times or having a carbon footprint the size of China.

If people are going to talk the talk they should also walk the walk.

 

[Pound Coin]

It's the moralising of other peoples choices and virtue signalling that annoys and it's usually from people who wouldn't think twice about flying multiple times or having a carbon footprint the size of China.

If people are going to talk the talk they should also walk the walk.

So if you don't moralise, you can have what you want and care not for any consequences?

 

[Ham]

What are your problems with 4x4s and SUVS? Not switching out my Dodge unless it's for an Expedition Max (yep, go check out how many morons crossing the street engrossed in their phone that can mow down without you even noticing it)

I have no problems with large SUV per se, I'd even consider one myself for towing.

What's wrong with them is that they cause greater injury to occupants and other road users than the equivalent saloon car, use more fuel and cause greater pollution. You can argue the toss about the detail but whichever way you stack it up people die and are injured because of that choice. Now that risk is part of the overall mix so that additional risk is simply part f the overall risk, but it is entirely ignored by the industry, more than ignored, the "stylish SUV" is intensely marketed to help drive sales, and people mistakenly choose them "because they feel safe". Ultimately, they and other road users are more at risk, they are really poor choices for city streets, for situations where no other factors apply.

That's not a "Saloon car good, SUV bad" rant, life's altogether more complicated than that. If I rooled the wurld restricting inappropriate speed would be the single greatest contribution to safety.

 

[woof woof]

So if you don't moralise, you can have what you want and care not for any consequences?

Perhaps it's none of your business unless people break the law?

 

[Pound Coin]

Perhaps it's none of your business unless people break the law?

presumably we can take that as a ‘Yes’.

 

[woof woof]

I have no problems with large SUV per se, I'd even consider one myself for towing.

What's wrong with them is that they cause greater injury to occupants and other road users than the equivalent saloon car, use more fuel and cause greater pollution. You can argue the toss about the detail but whichever way you stack it up people die and are injured because of that choice. Now that risk is part of the overall mix so that additional risk is simply part f the overall risk, but it is entirely ignored by the industry, more than ignored, the "stylish SUV" is intensely marketed to help drive sales, and people mistakenly choose them "because they feel safe". Ultimately, they and other road users are more at risk, they are really poor choices for city streets, for situations where no other factors apply.

That's not a "Saloon car good, SUV bad" rant, life's altogether more complicated than that. If I rooled the wurld restricting inappropriate speed would be the single greatest contribution to safety.

Most of this needs qualifying and what is equivalent needs to be specified. Uses more fuel than what? A 40 year old Vauxhall? Causes more injury than what? A transit van? A 40 year old Citroen? Uses more fuel than what? A 5ltr BMW?

I think unless you are specific and accurate and impartial you lose credibility and start to look increasingly biased.

 

[Pound Coin]

Perhaps it's none of your business unless people break the law?

Of course, this opens up a huge can of worms. Who sets the laws? In this country they tend to be set by us, over time. They will, therefore, be skewed towards our needs, and possibly not to the needs of other people on Earth. And vice versa, of course.

 

[woof woof]

presumably we can take that as a ‘Yes’.

Of course, this opens up a huge can of worms. Who sets the laws? In this country they tend to be set by us, over time. They will, therefore, be skewed towards our needs, and possibly not to the needs of other people on Earth. And vice versa, of course.

There are those on here who support politicians and parties who have been found to be anti Semitic and on multiple occasions so I'd have thought those people would be against criticism of non crime life choices.

Once you get into non crime life choices what's next? Gays? Religion? Who is to decide? People like you?

It's interesting that you bring democracy into this as you support an organisation which has unelected officials deciding arbitrary rules with no recourse to the people at all.

 

[Pound Coin]

There are those on here who support politicians and parties who have been found to be anti Semitic and on multiple occasions so I'd have thought those people would be against criticism of non crime life choices.

Once you get into non crime life choices what's next? Gays? Religion? Who is to decide? People like you?

It's interesting that you bring democracy into this as you support an organisation which has unelected officials deciding arbitrary rules with no recourse to the people at all.

er, I think you started this little discussion:

Perhaps it's none of your business unless people break the law?

and - what organisation do you think I support?

 

[woof woof]

er, I think you started this little discussion:



and - what organisation do you think I support?

I started this in response to the above poster who objects to people owning 4x4 if they don't need them. That statement seems worthy of the Stasi to me.

I don't know and don't care what or who you support but the chances are that you do as the chances are that many if not all of us do but it's none of my business, if you're not breaking the law. That's my point.

 

[Pound Coin]

I started this in response to the above poster who objects to people owning 4x4 if they don't need them. That statement seems worthy of the Stasi to me.

I don't know and don't care what or who you support but the chances are that you do as the chances are that many if not all of us do but it's none of my business, if you're not breaking the law. That's my point.

OK - it doesn't look like you quite get it. This is what you said earlier:

It's interesting that you bring democracy into this as you support an organisation which has unelected officials deciding arbitrary rules with no recourse to the people at all.

Have a good day, but maybe also have a think.

 

[Ham]

Most of this needs qualifying and what is equivalent needs to be specified. Uses more fuel than what? A 40 year old Vauxhall? Causes more injury than what? A transit van? A 40 year old Citroen? Uses more fuel than what? A 5ltr BMW?

I think unless you are specific and accurate and impartial you lose credibility and start to look increasingly biased.

I've actually deliberately avoided citing specific chapter and verse, instead leaving it to anyone who has an interest to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

As far as the points you raise are concerned:

>> Uses more fuel than what? The SUV shape has inherently higher drag coefficient than a saloon equivalent, and the bodywork weighs more. So, a BMW X5 will use more fuel than a BMW 5 series with the same tune engine. Load carrying, estate cars are more efficient than SUV and frequently have higher load carrying capacity.

>>Causes more injury than what? Additional injuries come from several areas. The most evidenced based and incontrovertible are the injuries to pedestrians where the slab front causes more damage than a sloping bonnet, and don't get me started on bull bars. Aside from that other possible increases to injury are those caused by the higher centre of gravity than saloons and more intangibly the decrease in attention resulting from "feeling safe"

Choosing an SUV makes perfect sense for some, but these questions should be considered, and they just are not almost ever even spoken about as you have just demonstrated quite clearly.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

By the sound of it someone here is flying a private jet and sailing in mega yachts while giving a very familiar lecture.

 

[Ham]

I started this in response to the above poster who objects to people owning 4x4 if they don't need them. That statement seems worthy of the Stasi to me.

Do you think the science is wrong, or do you object to asking people to be accountable for the outcome of their decisions?

 

[the black fox]

I've actually deliberately avoided citing specific chapter and verse, instead leaving it to anyone who has an interest to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.

As far as the points you raise are concerned:

>> Uses more fuel than what? The SUV shape has inherently higher drag coefficient than a saloon equivalent, and the bodywork weighs more. So, a BMW X5 will use more fuel than a BMW 5 series with the same tune engine. Load carrying, estate cars are more efficient than SUV and frequently have higher load carrying capacity.

>>Causes more injury than what? Additional injuries come from several areas. The most evidenced based and incontrovertible are the injuries to pedestrians where the slab front causes more damage than a sloping bonnet, and don't get me started on bull bars. Aside from that other possible increases to injury are those caused by the higher centre of gravity than saloons and more intangibly the decrease in attention resulting from "feeling safe"

Choosing an SUV makes perfect sense for some, but these questions should be considered, and they just are not almost ever even spoken about as you have just demonstrated quite clearly.

You really are showing your bias against suv/ 4x4 now , most of them tend to be driven at a far slower speed than a car .so although allegedly they could cause more damage in a accident it’s pretty rare that they do .. They also due to being larger have better brakes and tires than cars . You rarely if ever see a boy racer in a s.u.v but rather in a ponced up corsa flying round the towns at 60+ mph with no seat belt on and mobile phone in hand .. saw plenty of that when I was working .
The stats obviously back that up as well as the insurance premium on my 2.2 Honda CR-V is far cheaper than it was on my previous mondeo 2.0 hatchback . And at the end of the day in the event of a accident I’m only concerned about the safety of myself and my family not some obnoxious little scrote that is oblivious to the real world

 

[Ham]

You really are showing your bias against suv/ 4x4 now , most of them tend to be driven at a far slower speed than a car .so although allegedly they could cause more damage in a accident it’s pretty rare that they do .. They also due to being larger have better brakes and tires than cars . You rarely if ever see a boy racer in a s.u.v but rather in a ponced up corsa flying round the towns at 60+ mph with no seat belt on and mobile phone in hand .. saw plenty of that when I was working .
The stats obviously back that up as well as the insurance premium on my 2.2 Honda CR-V is far cheaper than it was on my previous mondeo 2.0 hatchback . And at the end of the day in the event of a accident I’m only concerned about the safety of myself and my family not some obnoxious little scrote that is oblivious to the real world

Y'reckon?

Ok, try this

There's clearly a lot of opinion in the results thrown up, some of which suggests arguments for why SUV might be safer in some respects (and, in some they are) - none match your posited reasons, but that's ok - when you dig down, the hard data and statistics demonstrate unequivocally what I am saying.

I would be fascinated to hear any evidence that SUV are driven more slowly than saloons, or that their brakes are better (at best, they are likely to be the same due to the additional momentum and higher CoG) but I would be happy to be put right.

>>in the event of a accident I’m only concerned about the safety of myself and my family not some obnoxious little scrote that is oblivious to the real world

Can I ask you to take a moment for a thought experiment? Your grandchild runs out from between cars and is knocked down and killed or seriously injured by an SUV, where they may have survived if the vehicle had been a saloon. How do you feel now? Because, in every hundred that happens to, there are about 5 who fit that description.

 

[JonathanRyan]

It's the moralising of other peoples choices and virtue signalling that annoys and it's usually from people who wouldn't think twice about flying multiple times or having a carbon footprint the size of China.

If people are going to talk the talk they should also walk the walk.

I mean technically I just bought a 4x4 but it's electric so I guess this is complicated....