Make pedestrians wear reflective clothing, says 'Mr Loophole' lawyer who defended killer driver

Him Up North wrote:

flobble wrote:

How does one carelessly drive a rabbi?

Without jew care and attention?

*sorry*

Extremely poor taste - the poor man died. Have some respect.

fukawitribe wrote:

Him Up North wrote:

It's interesting, isn't it, how this article is primarily about car vs. pedestrian (the word "cyclists" is mentioned once) and the comments section is full of opprobrium for the shyster.

I thought the article was primarily about someone being an obnoxious and manipulative wanker whose client killed someone myself... fair game i'd say.

Don't get me wrong. It's deserved. I meant the comments at the foot of the newspaper article. If the victim had been riding a bike the bile may well have been directed differently, is my point.

SB76 wrote:

Does anyone actually know anything about this? The article is actually short on any kind of detail, how was the driver driving? How lit was the road....

Does it matter? It's dark half the time. The idea is to not drive into stuff - even if it's dark, or raining, or sunny, or whatever. It's not like darkness is some freakish anomaly like an undiscovered WWII landmine in the middle of the road, it's something that happens for several hours of every day and for which we ensure cars are equipped with lights by which to see.

Bez wrote:

SB76 wrote:

Does anyone actually know anything about this? The article is actually short on any kind of detail, how was the driver driving? How lit was the road....

Does it matter? It's dark half the time. The idea is to not drive into stuff - even if it's dark, or raining, or sunny, or whatever. It's not like darkness is some freakish anomaly like an undiscovered WWII landmine in the middle of the road, it's something that happens for several hours of every day and for which we ensure cars are equipped with lights by which to see.

Not really but the article had little detail as to if the driver was speeding or driving recklessly. For all i knew, the road may have been heavily treed and with not road lighting when the rabbi suddenly appeared from nowhere OR the driver could've been speeding without care and attention.

Sometimes, just sometimes and i do mean very occasionally, the driver is not to blame, i was wanting to know more detail as without the detail, how can you come to any conclusion.

SB76 wrote:

For all i knew, the road may have been heavily treed and with not road lighting when the rabbi suddenly appeared from nowhere

Nothing appears from nowhere. He was a rabbi, not Dumbledore.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

"Pedestrians, motorists and cyclists all share road space and in my view must assume responsibility for their kinetic energy."

Yep. You nailed it.

SB76 wrote:

the road may have been heavily treed and with not road lighting when the rabbi suddenly appeared from nowhere

Ah. As much an act of magic as Mr Freeman's notion that the layman can quite casually achieve the eternally enigmatic feat of invisibility.

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/from-out-of-nowhere/

For what it's worth, here (at least, on this road, and close to or at this junction) is where the collision occurred.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.512576,-2.251263,3a,75y,179.98h,67.01t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1syzaNzhMuoSIjpnp1HpGRYg!2e0

El Tel wrote:

I'd be surprised if most people commenting here haven't at some point, struggled to see someone in the road, on such nights, particularly if they are wearing dark clothes.

I don't know about you but on "dark winter nights" (are they darker than summer nights?) or when visibility is in any way affected, I adjust my speed accordingly.

El Tel wrote:

In Scandinavia, where they know dark evenings/nights better than most, most people wear or carry something reflective in order to make themselves more visible. This can be something like a simple armband, or even a tag carried on a handbag strap.

I wear reflective things at night on the bike. Because, to some extent, I'll clutch at what straws I can - despite the fact that research shows that particular straw to be futile, and, more importantly in this discussion, despite it not making the slightest difference to the fact that people should be driving such that they can safely stop within the distance they can see to be clear and such that they can account for "unpredictable" (really, "unpredicted") events.

And there's the rub: just because a particular measure seems, to an individual, to be a wise move does not mean it should be law. Lots of women carry rape alarms, but that does not mean it should be law for a woman to carry one. I stopped going out in large towns because I was fed up with aggressive blokes looking drunkenly for fights, but that does not mean a Saturday night curfew of town centres should be law.

There may be arguments why personal protection should be law in certain cases - seat belts and motorcycle helmets perhaps the most pertinent examples - but people's individual perceptions and straw-clutching are not such arguments. Were there conclusive evidence to show a reduction of collisions when hi-viz is used, that might - if we set aside for now the bigger issues of victim-blaming and the unsustainable arms race of personal armour - start to shift the argument. But the only credible research I've seen shows that there is no such reduction, day or night.

El Tel wrote:

I'm not excusing drivers or anyone else with these comments, but to expect perfect vision, and behaviour from road users in poor light/conditions just doesn't make sense.

There's a difference between realistically expecting it, and legally demanding it. We legally demand people drive safely. We don't reasonably expect everyone to do so, but we demand it. To make hi-viz law would, particularly in the face of the research, undermine our demand for safe driving, by saying that people can't be expected not to drive into something that isn't illuminated. And that would be A Bad Thing.

Bez wrote:

There may be arguments why personal protection should be law in certain cases - seat belts and motorcycle helmets perhaps the most pertinent examples

You generally talk good sense Bez, but you should be aware that seatbelts cost the lives of cyclists and pedestrians.

Members of PACTS ( Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety) in an article in the statistical journal "Significance" have admitted this.

"A significant omission because the authors, all defenders of the seat belt law, acknowledge an effect of the law of important consequence to vulnerable road users. They say “the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”"

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/03/24/the-biggest-lie/

Adams has a lot more to say on the effect of seat belts.

It may be common sense to wear hiviz, but rule 126 of the Highway Code is also common sense. It says

"Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. "

This does not mean, carry on unless you see something in the way, but, unless you can see there is nothing in the way within your braking distance, slow down.

Why do we see so much blather about hiviz, which is a very weak protection, but so little mention of rule 126? If drivers obeyed this rule hiviz would not be needed.

All this talk about hiviz is meant to make it safer for drivers to break rule 126. There are many reasons why ignoring this rule can lead to a crash. Some of them involve objects rather more unyielding than a cyclist or pedestrian.

Drivers are implicitly encouraged to behave as if any obstacle will be lit up or hiviz. It would be safer for all concerned if they were reminded much more often of rule 126.

How often is this rule mentioned? How often is the vulnerable road user told that it is their responsibility to take the precaution of hiviz, when all cyclists know that covering yourself with lights is not enough to keep you safe?

The assumption is that drivers will break the H.C. and that it is up to us to do what little we can to keep ourselves safe.

"Pedestrians, motorists and cyclists all share road space and in my view must assume responsibility for their kinetic energy."

Highest time to introduce presumed liability. The above definition sums it up neatly. As also Bez explains, the law must be equitable, clear and expedient and especially well balanced to protect individual liberties. Otherwise pedestrians will soon be prosecuted for not wearing high enough viz clothing, cyclists for not carrying lights that beam far enough and the roads will be cleared from all those inconvenient obstacles. No more fatal injuries. Even when speeding whilst texting. Mission accomplished.

Regarding the fatal collision, a waste of human life, a disgrace of decency , a shame of the judicial system. All my sympathy goes to the beraved family and friends of the slain rabbi.