Originally posted by emicen
Completely agree with LSR, bugger pedestrian safety. Notice something in common about all these bastard "30 not 35mph" videos? I'll give u a hint,
"if this driver had been going at 30mph he would have stopped here.....thud"
If the stupid urchin/drunk hadnt jumped out from behind a parked car / jumped out on the road there would have been no need to stop. Stop blaming drivers for parents negligence in teaching their kids how to cross the road and enforcing it!
That was my view which I never disclosed. Why the hell does the car industry have to pay for everything - even if it isn't the car industry's fault? These new laws are a good example of this - same for car emissions, and yet there are plenty of other pollutants, which aren't as tightly governed - and these laws come into party thanks to the idiot tree huggers who pollute themselves
- does anyone think about the effect on the companies - brand image and perceptions, the costs involved?. If people get hit by a car and it is because they are walking on a pavement minding their own business and some drunk driver swerves onto the pavement then yes the pedestrian deserves to survive, and the driver should be prosecuted (sp?). But if the case is that a kid runs across the road after a ball which has little significance, and doesn't look, or it is some girl in high school running across the road, waving her hands saying bye to her friends and gets hit by a car, which is abiding the speed limit (which I have seen happen), then YES that person deserves to be hit by a car and with serious consequences (injuries), not with MITIGATED consequences - if someone gets hit by a car and breaks a few bones, or even worse, can't do things they could do prior to the crash such as driving or opening a can due to being physically disabled, then they would learn their lesson and would be a lot more vigilant - much better than idiot TV ads, which even people who you'd expect to know how to cross the road (refer to the girl example). They might learn their lesson even with these new laws helping them, but without them, the consequences would be greater, and they'd be kicking themselves and regretting it. Same for drunk people who stagger onto the road (this has tought me not to drink, drink and drive, or smoke or take illegal substances come to think of it). And yet even if we are not guilty, we'd still be dragged into a legal battle - if I hit a kid or a drunk person because they ran onto the road running after a ball (which isn't important enough to put your life at risk) or staggered onto the road, then I would drive away, not check on them, due to getting involved for something not my fault - even if it is hit and run (another criminal offence), but can you get in trouble and caught even there is no description of the car and driver?...
The point is that even with or without these new laws (which put another strain on car aesthetics), we may see less injuries and fatalities in the statistics, but what won't have changed would be the fact that kids and drunk people who aren't aware of the environment they are in will still be going onto the road - it's not the injuries and fatalities that matters here, but the fact that people still haven't learnt how to use the roads - and this should be the parent's responsibility - and partly the government's.
Injuries and fatalities shouldn't JUST be considered, there is more to it, because we would never have the above (injuries and fatalities) if people could actually THINK, and even get hit by a car and learn their lesson once they are in pain and can't do what they could do before.