They are but they are increasing the risk that they will be killed by oncoming traffic.They are perfectly entitled to walk two or more abreast
Absolutely, but the thinking needs to shift so it's clear to all that such an incident would be the driver's fault. When someone gets killed on the roads now the majority of focus is on the victim's actions and what they should have done to prevent an accident caused by someone else's carelessness.They are but they are increasing the risk that they will be killed by oncoming traffic.
In the case of pedestrians that may be true but my experience as a cyclist the focus should be shifted onto cyclists behaviour. The number of cyclists I see weaving through traffic, not using lights at night, not wearing high-vis clothing, running red lights and passing trucks and busses on the inside close to junctions is shocking.Absolutely, but the thinking needs to shift so it's clear to all that such an incident would be the driver's fault. When someone gets killed on the roads now the majority of focus is on the victim's actions and what they should have done to prevent an accident caused by someone else's carelessness.
That's a different matter entirely, but yes, cycling recklessly should be tackled, but obviously with a lot less focus that driving recklessly which injures and kills far more innocent parties.In the case of pedestrians that may be true but my experience as a cyclist the focus should be shifted onto cyclists behaviour. The number of cyclists I see weaving through traffic, not using lights at night, not wearing high-vis clothing, running red lights and passing trucks and busses on the inside close to junctions is shocking.
Anyone who can obey the law should have no issues with speed cameras anywhere.I also have a problem with speed cameras on the safest roads but not on dangerous roads.
Glad you recognise that I showed more concern for their safety than they did. Pin my Good Samaritan badge to my post please.Wow you're quite the good samaritan mathepac! Stopped to remonstrate with them indeed.
Walking 2 abreast while wheeling their bicycles as in my post, meant they'd occupy more than half of that particular carriageway. I can still manage to count so they didn't qualify as a large group under RSA guidelines.They are perfectly entitled to walk two or more abreast. RSA guidance for large groups (20+) is to walk on the left hand side.
All incidents involving vehicle and pedestrian collisions are now the driver's fault? That's a bit of a leap. That thinking will reduce the backlogs in the courts; send the driver to jail from the scene of the incident.Absolutely, but the thinking needs to shift so it's clear to all that such an incident would be the driver's fault.
They are perfectly entitled to take up all the carriageway. The only stipulation is they shouldn't do so if the road is narrow (i.e. they take up so much room as to make it impossible for a vehicle to pass in either direction.)Walking 2 abreast while wheeling their bicycles as in my post, meant they'd occupy more than half of that particular carriageway. I can still manage to count so they didn't qualify as a large group under RSA guidelines.
You're just making up stuff now, that's clearly not what I said.All incidents involving vehicle and pedestrian collisions are now the driver's fault? That's a bit of a leap. That thinking will reduce the backlogs in the courts; send the driver to jail from the scene of the incident.
Thanks, that's exactly my point. Glad I got it across.They are perfectly entitled to take up all the carriageway. The only stipulation is they shouldn't do so if the road is narrow (i.e. they take up so much room as to make it impossible for a vehicle to pass in either direction.)
Absolutely, but the thinking needs to shift so it's clear to all that such an incident would be the driver's fault.
Clearly, it is.You're just making up stuff now, that's clearly not what I said.
But aren't we moving to EVs, where the slower you drive the greater your range?Plus no ICE vehicle is designed to be driven at 60kmph so the greenhouse gases will increase.
That's true Mathepac.But aren't we moving to EVs, where the slower you drive the greater your range?
Try have another read of it, and point out exactly where I suggested all incidents would be the drivers fault?Clearly, it is.
Never knew that and is something I absolutely will not do if ever I am walking in a large group.They are perfectly entitled to walk two or more abreast. RSA guidance for large groups (20+) is to walk on the left hand side.
I'd be the same, I prefer to see what's coming.Never knew that and is something I absolutely will not do if ever I am walking in a large group.
A lot of pointless, idle speculation in that post. Maybe you or @Leo who liked it could explain what value it adds or is it just another of those "Jeeze, gotta make some noise here" non-contributions?So would I but bear in mind that the scenario here was a young family where the three children had bicycles. Presumably at some point the children were on those bicycles (not simply walking with them) and therefore the left hand side was correct at that point. They may well have decided that it was safer to remain on the left hand side rather than crossing over or they may well have intended to get back on their bicycles again at some point. We don't know this, nor does the poster who stopped his/her car to reprimand them. I wonder did the poster safely park their car in a suitable location before getting out to reprimand the family.
What value it adds? No doubt you feel you were doing some good but you admit yourself that the father was "frothing at the mouth" so clearly there was a heated exchange and a difference of opinion. You posted your view as if it were definitive but it's already been pointed out to you that what that family did was not as incorrect or deserving of a reprimand as you seem to think. It sounds to me like a family outing was ruined by an angry driver.A lot of pointless, idle speculation in that post. Maybe you or @Leo who liked it could explain what value it adds or is it just another of those "Jeeze, gotta make some noise here" non-contributions?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?