ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Jay-walking laws have lowered the number of deaths due to vehicles in Germany, and it's pretty much seen as antisocial behaviour to jay-walk there. I'm all in favour of it.
Speeding and general dangerous driving in and around Brixton
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Jay-walking laws have lowered the number of deaths due to vehicles in Germany, and it's pretty much seen as antisocial behaviour to jay-walk there. I'm all in favour of it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Shouldn't have broken the law then, should you? When in Rome..
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I'd be 100% for it. I know at least one person here thinks I'm trolling, but I honestly see no reason why pedestrians shouldn't be responsible for their own actions. But like some car drivers, some pedestrians can't be trusted to act responsibly. If jaywalking was made illegal, I feel it would drastically reduce the number of 'accidents'.
I'm honestly not trying to come across as a knob. I actually believe in what I'm saying. I don't want pedestrians to die. but in the absence of common sense, I believe regulations should be imposed.
I'm not a car lobbyist, far from it. I ride a motorbike and I know how bad some (a lot of) car drivers can be, which is why whenever I'm on my bike I assume every car driver is out to kill me, and I ride accordingly, because I don't want to die. I think maybe a lot of pedestrians should adopt a similar attitude, and realise that in a fight with a car, they will lose.
I reiterate... I honestly believe jay-walking should be illegal, and as you say, deemed antisocial.
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
I was always told that if there's a pedestrian crossing (of any kind) within 100 yards of you..(as a pedestrian) ..that if you didn't use it and you were knocked down crossing at a point within that 100 yards that it was likely you would be held to a large degree, responsible for your own lack of due care.
......my mum was pretty strict about crossing roads...
In all seriousness though...anyone driving has to constantly assume that anything can happen. It's 25 years since I was taught to drive by a retired army driving instructor. He was a brilliant teacher...The one thing he repeated ad nauseum was "be prepared to stop at all times because anything can walk out in front of you". He ised to practice emergency stops all the time.....we'd be driving along at 50km and he'd shout "stop". ...(usually nobody was behind us when he did this)
Drivers need to drive with the mindset that pedestrians dont always keep to the path..at all times.
And pedestrians need to realise that they have to take due care and be fully aware of their environment.
......my mum was pretty strict about crossing roads...
In all seriousness though...anyone driving has to constantly assume that anything can happen. It's 25 years since I was taught to drive by a retired army driving instructor. He was a brilliant teacher...The one thing he repeated ad nauseum was "be prepared to stop at all times because anything can walk out in front of you". He ised to practice emergency stops all the time.....we'd be driving along at 50km and he'd shout "stop". ...(usually nobody was behind us when he did this)
Drivers need to drive with the mindset that pedestrians dont always keep to the path..at all times.
And pedestrians need to realise that they have to take due care and be fully aware of their environment.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Have you got a source for this claim?
I believe the Netherlands legalised jaywalking in the 90s and did not observe an increase in pedestrian fatalities.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
"Most dangerous" as in motorcyclists have a higher rate of injury and fatality from accidents?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
On Jaywalking.
Im against laws on it. In London there have been measures to change it from being dominated by cars. From what I've seen any measures are virulently opposed by drivers. And there supporters who see curb on driving as human rights issue. As I'm on the roads a lot I've heard it all.
Bringing in laws on "Jaywalking" ( a contentious term itself) is of the order of the "if they are doing this to me ( the car driver) they should make them do that" line of argument. That is if my life is made harder then then there's should be. That's what this debate about ", Jaywalking" is about.
The issue of "Jaywalking" is also regard action by car driving lobby as symbolic action. It's not about concern for safety. It's about symbolically saying roads are for cars first. That cars come first.
The moves across London over past recent years - traffic calming, shared space - the "Dutch model" is what lobbying for laws against Jaywalking are directed at.
The Dutch model adopted by Councils at varying levels is what car driving lobby really hate. It moves the emphasis of the public highway away from car drivers to pedestrians, cyclists and buses.
Im against laws on it. In London there have been measures to change it from being dominated by cars. From what I've seen any measures are virulently opposed by drivers. And there supporters who see curb on driving as human rights issue. As I'm on the roads a lot I've heard it all.
Bringing in laws on "Jaywalking" ( a contentious term itself) is of the order of the "if they are doing this to me ( the car driver) they should make them do that" line of argument. That is if my life is made harder then then there's should be. That's what this debate about ", Jaywalking" is about.
The issue of "Jaywalking" is also regard action by car driving lobby as symbolic action. It's not about concern for safety. It's about symbolically saying roads are for cars first. That cars come first.
The moves across London over past recent years - traffic calming, shared space - the "Dutch model" is what lobbying for laws against Jaywalking are directed at.
The Dutch model adopted by Councils at varying levels is what car driving lobby really hate. It moves the emphasis of the public highway away from car drivers to pedestrians, cyclists and buses.
Last edited:
David Clapson
Well-Known Member
Seems to me that the motorcyclists are the worst problem now. They seem more inclined to ride around in groups, pulling wheelies and making as much noise as possible with painfully loud exhausts (which are not road-legal). They've imported a US bike gang culture which is all about 'taking over the street'. They think it's OK to herd everybody else by being loud. I'm rather sick of it. The traffic police used to keep a lid on this behaviour, but they're almost extinct now.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Way to go with a ridiculous blanket statement.
Did you mean there are a few cunts in gangs on motorbikes?
technical
stripey
No. I think you've previously said you don't live in London. In which case you won't have seen the groups of up to 100 motorcyclists driving together around town all of whom have ridiculously loud bikes. They have passed me and my daughter on several Saturdays in Brixton recently. It ends up with people (particularly children) trying to cover their ears because of the noise. They're juvenile tossers basically
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I do live in London and I have never seen the groups of bikers you describe
organicpanda
cat herder extraodinaire
they quite often come down Coldharbour Lane, mixture of quad bikes and motorbikes pulling wheelies and other stunts, there are plenty of videos on youtube
ash
Inittogether
Many of them wearing masks such as skeleton face or scream.
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
Yep, seen them around Crystal Palace. It feels pretty lawless when they go by. No helmets in the most part, either.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I've had a look on youtube but all I can find is groups of 10 - 20 muppets, and I'd hazard a guess that most of them are on stolen bikes.
What I did find was lots of videos about London street gangs with hundreds of members. Maybe it's people that are the problem, not the mode of transport they choose to use?
spanglechick
High Empress of Dressing Up
I suspect that's the hill I was mentioning earlier.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Here we are, back to the parallels with the gun debate.
bimble
floofy
I had no idea quite how bad it is (the aggressive speeding and general nutter driving around here) until i started driving lessons this year, now instead of just seeing and hearing the crazy drivers it's about learning to just carry on at the 20mph whilst people go into fits of beeping rage waiting to overtake. Lifelong pedestrian that I am, I can see another side to the 'jaywalking' issue now too to be honest, if i ever do pass my test it'll be because I learn to stop watching the pavements like crazy looking for a sign that might tell me whether or not that person with the headphones on or looking at their phone is thinking about just stepping onto the street at any given moment. 
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I can see another side to the 'jaywalking' issue now too to be honest, if i ever do pass my test it'll be because I learn to stop watching the pavements like crazy looking for a sign that might tell me whether or not that person with the headphones on or looking at their phone is thinking about just stepping onto the street at any given moment.
Is the "another side" that if cars had total priority, you as a car diver could get away with not doing what you're currently supposed to do (and are doing) - paying attention to what's going on, so you don't hurt someone?
bimble
floofy
I'm being told constantly by my teacher that I am not doing it right and that my attention should be on where i'm going not on pedestrians who are doing their own thing. He has a point as I am far from a safe driver whilst scanning the faces of people on the pavement in a silly attempt to divine what they might be about to do.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
This is a great example of why computers are/will be better drivers. They can watch everything in all directions with as much attention as a human can only give one thing at a time.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Tell him to read the highway code then.
Your instinct is the rational one: you are in control of something that could hurt someone seriously if they make a mistake. The highway code also talks about only driving at a speed where you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. This is ignored by nearly all drivers (particularly in the countryside). Driving instructors pretend they teach you to drive safely, but the reality is that they teach you to drive in a way that's fundamentally dangerous but presents a level of risk to others that's currently accepted culturally. A level of risk that's accepted for pretty much no other common activity.
bimble
floofy
Yes. I've left it so late to learn because I am pretty much terrified of the whole thing, which seems to me a perfectly rational attitude to have. One of the things that seems wrong with the system as it's being taught to me is that you will be judged to have committed a fault in your driving test if you drive too slowly, if conditions allow you are supposed to drive at the speed limit, in fact this is a fairly common reason for people failing their tests.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
I keep forgetting over there. The first time there were loads of people at a crossing and not a car to be seen for about 100 yards. I crossed alone and an old lady shouted at me in German from the other side "young man, are you in a hurry". I've done it many times since and normally only get a 'you're not from round here, are you?' look.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The "driving too slowly" thing basically comes about as a result of the consequences of other drivers becoming frustrated and doing dangerous overtaking moves, etc.
In other words it's a result of drivers being unable to observe the highway code.
As per Crispy's comment, the sooner we can completely hand the job over to computers the better. Sadly I think it'll take a long time, not because of technological constraints but because of people defending their right to handle weapons.
In other words it's a result of drivers being unable to observe the highway code.
As per Crispy's comment, the sooner we can completely hand the job over to computers the better. Sadly I think it'll take a long time, not because of technological constraints but because of people defending their right to handle weapons.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Not directly. It's to prevent congestion (which leads to overtaking ... which may or may not be dangerous). The point of driving is to make progress safely, and a slow moving vehicle among faster ones is a hazard. Minimum speed limits make sense on some motorways, especially "smart" roads where overall speed is used to manage congestion on sections. They have minimums in Ireland ... 30mph on motorways.
Similar threads
