Pedestrian tired of life?
Sylvia Else
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficreports/innersydcameras/gladesvillebr.html
A pedestrian crossing the road from left to right got as far as the
white line, and then stopped to wait for a break in traffic. So he was
standing there while cars were passing on both sides of him.
There's a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing about fifty
metres further down the road from where he chose to dice with death.
Sylvia.
Noddy
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00777473$0$26796$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> There's a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing about fifty metres
> further down the road from where he chose to dice with death.
99% of all pedestrians killed or injured when crossing the road are stuck by
vehicles within 50 metres or less of a crossing that would allow them to
cross safely with no risk.
Basically, people are incredibly lazy.
--
Regards,
Noddy.
Stan Gifford
Yet Harold Scruby has so much power.......
Stan
--
Stan Gifford
Current: 06 Triumph Speedmaster
Prev: 94 Ultra classic.
Before that: 99-FXD Superglide
Remove my strides to email me
<Witty comment here>
Dave
Statistics prove that most of the people on the road are caused by
accidents.....
F Murtz
into two districts and reducing the profits of numerous shops like they
have been doing in several suburbs.
hippo
Sylvia Else
Not at all. I think we should make it clear that such pedestrians are
fair game. Then I wouldn't have felt the need to slow down.
One could even reasonably hypothesise that this would reduce the death
rate amongst pedestrians. If they knew that by jay-walking, they were a
target for anyone who'd had an argument with his or her wife, husband,
boyfriend, girlfriend, parent or boss, they wouldn't do it, and the
fatalities that are merely accidents would drop accordingly.
Sylvia.
Albm&ctd
syl...@not.at.this.address says...
suicide on the Gold Coast Highway, you wouldn't believe. It's on that road I've
seen someone dead under a truck. All because they won't use the crossings and
even if they do, often see them run to the centre island before they get the
walk sign. Oh well.
Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html
Albm&ctd
am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au says...
Sylvia Else
Some pedestrians seem oblivious of the fact that at night, and
particuarly in the rain at night, they're more or less invisible when
standing in the middle of the road. They may expect the traffic to drive
around them. One day, they'll get a (probably short lived) surprise.
Sylvia.
PhilD
"hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in
message news:hdgics$qa9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
a tendency for them to try and control pedestrian movements to points they
want them to use rather than accept natural or common sense points that
users want to cross at. Added to this are phasing of traffic lights and
their associated pedestrian walk/don't walk lights that unnecessarily leave
pedestrians standing around for way too long. I see too many times where our
own Council has altered crossing points or made other changes to walkways
that are just a total waste of money and time as the pedestrians just don't
want it that way. I'm not condoning the stupidity that pedestrians can show
at times but a lot of it goes back to bad town planning in the original
layout and then added to by approval for developments that are poorly
thought out with the benefit given to the Developer, not the end user. It's
also not helped by Council staff who won't accept criticism from mere
members of the public because they believe that they know better just
because they have a title.
PhilD
John McKenzie
>
>
> Basically, people are incredibly lazy.
Friends of the family, had a son wiped out by a motorist who pulled out
of a side street directly in their path. No bullshit, they told the
police at the scene "yes I saw the motorbike, but I was sick of waiting"
What worries me is these people vote.
--
John McKenzie
tos...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@earthlink.com
ab...@aol.com vice.pr...@whitehouse.gov pres...@whitehouse.gov
swee...@accc.gov.au u...@ftc.gov admin@loopback ab...@iprimus.com.au
$LOGIN@localhost I knew Sanchez before they were dirty ro...@mailloop.com
$USER@$HOST $LOGNAME@localhost -h1024@localhost ab...@msn.com
ab...@federalpolice.gov.au frau...@psinet.com ab...@asio.gov.au
$USER@localhost ab...@sprint.com ab...@fbi.gov ab...@cia.gov
Clocky
"PhilD" <replytonew...@aussient.com.au> wrote in message
news:4pUKm.54325$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "hippo" <am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au> wrote in
> message news:hdgics$qa9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>> news:00777473$0$26796$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>
>>> > There's a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing about fifty
>>> > metres
>>> > further down the road from where he chose to dice with death.
>>>
>>> 99% of all pedestrians killed or injured when crossing the road are
>>> stuck by
>>> vehicles within 50 metres or less of a crossing that would allow them to
>>> cross safely with no risk.
>>>
>>> Basically, people are incredibly lazy.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Noddy.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Or else there are shedloads of crossings in *just* the wrong place.
>>
> Councils/Govt/road authorities have to accept some blame for this.
Because people are too lazy to walk 50M or less to a safe crossing point?
People need to accept responsibility for their own actions and not try to
shift blame onto someone else because they're too fucking lazy or stupid.
hippo
I probably shouldn't ask, but have you *never* sneaked a left turn through
a servo rather than wait for an interminable line of traffic to move, or
some other similar common sense but these days illegal (at least in NSW)
manoeuvre?
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
PhilD
"Clocky" <not...@happen.com> wrote in message
news:0085e6c2$0$26877$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
crossing points will always encourage people to take shortcuts. We have a
set of traffic lights at our major shopping centre that are so badly phased
that it's actually quicker most times to walk a further 100M to a pedestrian
crossing controlled only by flashing lights but is more dangerous because
many drivers don't stop let alone slow down. The only action the authorities
took was to alter the traffic light intersection so that pedestrians can no
longer cross the entire road in one go and you have to stand in the island
for another full set of light operation.
There are a number of crossing points at intersections that while they
comply with regulations regarding site lines etc that are a danger to use
because the speed that drivers actually travel at make it near impossible to
cross safely. At those places it's far safer to cross directly at the corner
where the sight line is better.
Councils have gone mad with "traffic calming" in streets that actually
encourage standing in the middle of the road in a supposedly safe haven when
you should actually be crossing only when you can make it fully to the other
side. The "traffic calming" done in our street doesn't seem to have reduced
one bit the speed that is normal here and has made it even more dangerous as
many vehicles are clipping the kerbing put in the middle of the road for the
safe haven itself. That's the last place I'd like to be standing with truck
& bus traffic doing that next to me. We have regulations to enforce 40kph
limits where workers in safety vests and staff watching over them are on the
road but are happy to have pedestrians, especially children, standing alone
in the middle of a 60 or 70kph road. How does that make sense?
It annoys the hell out of me when I see stickers placed in work place
toilets on mirrors that state that "You are looking at the person
responsible for your own safety". It's bullshit. Everyone has a
responsibility for safety where it can affect others and that especially
applies to bad design and implementation that encourages a natural tendency
to take shortcuts.
PhilD
veritas
Flat tyre on the adjacent car - boot open ???
Rheilly Phoull
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00777473$0$26796$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
Why pick on pedestrians ??
They dont have the franchise on stupidity, theres plenty of fools on wheels
too !!
--
Regards ............. Rheilly P
Sylvia Else
No.
But even if he had been someone who was stranded, there would be no
reason for him to be standing on the white line that separates traffic
going straight on from traffic turning right.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Pedestrians were my chosen subject on the day. You can address stupid
drivers if you want to. I can't be expected to do all the work.
Sylvia.
hippo
>
>
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:00777473$0$26796$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> >I was driving here today
> >
> >
> > A pedestrian crossing the road from left to right got as far as the white
> > line, and then stopped to wait for a break in traffic. So he was standing
> > there while cars were passing on both sides of him.
> >
> > There's a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing about fifty metres
> > further down the road from where he chose to dice with death.
> >
> > Sylvia.
>
> Why pick on pedestrians ??
> They dont have the franchise on stupidity, theres plenty of fools on wheels
> too !!
>
>
Of course you're right. Harold Scruby has a car for a start.
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
Albm&ctd
am9obmhAc2hvYWwubmV0LmF1@REGISTERED_USER_usenet.com.au says...
HeadRush
>
> People need to accept responsibility for their own actions and not try to
> shift blame onto someone else because they're too fucking lazy or stupid.
That goes for the imbeciles that choose to walk on residential roads instead
of using the footpath. They take their chances of being hit by a car from 1
in 100,000 to 1 in 100 (I reckon). And a few of the reasons I've heard they
do this; it's a straighter path, there are spiders in the trees along the
footpath or fear of dogs in front yards. Being maimed by a car is not a
factor in their reasoning.
HR
Jason James
"HeadRush" <( . )( . )@(_!_).com> wrote in message
news:4afde010$0$6091$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Two neighbours a man and wife were walking 2 abreast with traffic
approaching from their rear. A young woman had 2 kids in a small ute coming
down the road. The sun was in her eyes, plus it was reported she looked away
for a couple of seconds. The man was hit directly in the back, thrown 30
metres. He died. His wife survived with moderate injuries.
Jason
Sylvia Else
> "HeadRush" <( . )( . )@(_!_).com> wrote in message
> news:4afde010$0$6091$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "Clocky" <not...@happen.com> wrote in message
>> news:0085e6c2$0$26877$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>> People need to accept responsibility for their own actions and not try to
>>> shift blame onto someone else because they're too fucking lazy or stupid.
>> That goes for the imbeciles that choose to walk on residential roads
>> instead of using the footpath. They take their chances of being hit by a
>> car from 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 100 (I reckon). And a few of the reasons
>> I've heard they do this; it's a straighter path, there are spiders in the
>> trees along the footpath or fear of dogs in front yards. Being maimed by a
>> car is not a factor in their reasoning.
If you're watching the oncoming traffic, I see no reason why the risk
should be significantly increased. People sometimes get run over on
pavements as well, and are not likely to be watching for traffic.
>
> Two neighbours a man and wife were walking 2 abreast with traffic
> approaching from their rear. A young woman had 2 kids in a small ute coming
> down the road. The sun was in her eyes, plus it was reported she looked away
> for a couple of seconds. The man was hit directly in the back, thrown 30
> metres. He died. His wife survived with moderate injuries.
This is why it's now a legal requirement that pedestrians face the
oncoming traffic when walking on the road.
Sylvia.
HeadRush
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>
> If you're watching the oncoming traffic, I see no reason why the risk
> should be significantly increased.
You must live in an ideal world Sylvia, a world where professional
pedestrians roam the streets safely, wearing flouro vests with reflective
strips, wearing proper walking shoes and wide brimmed hats, keeping watch on
cars behind and forward of them and have a keen sense of sight and hearing.
I'm talking about the real world, I'm talking about imbeciles. Like the
young bare-footed guy in his pajama pants running up the shop to get a
carton of milk. Like the elderly asian couple dawdling along in the middle
of the road with 4 shopping bags EACH and oblivious to everything around
them. Like the drug-fucked single mother pushing a stroller along the road
while trying to control the wayward toddler with the mullet hairdo. Like the
muslim woman pushing a shopping trolley along the road, 4 kilometers away
from the local Woolworths. Like the yob walking back from the bottlo with
the VB carton on one shoulder AND talking on his mobile phone.
That's the real world.
> This is why it's now a legal requirement that pedestrians face the
> oncoming traffic when walking on the road.
The road is for cars.
HR
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:0079c81c$0$17140$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> If you're watching the oncoming traffic, I see no reason why the risk
>> should be significantly increased.
>
> You must live in an ideal world Sylvia, a world where professional
> pedestrians roam the streets safely, wearing flouro vests with reflective
> strips, wearing proper walking shoes and wide brimmed hats, keeping watch on
> cars behind and forward of them and have a keen sense of sight and hearing.
>
> I'm talking about the real world, I'm talking about imbeciles. Like the
> young bare-footed guy in his pajama pants running up the shop to get a
> carton of milk. Like the elderly asian couple dawdling along in the middle
> of the road with 4 shopping bags EACH and oblivious to everything around
> them. Like the drug-fucked single mother pushing a stroller along the road
> while trying to control the wayward toddler with the mullet hairdo. Like the
> muslim woman pushing a shopping trolley along the road, 4 kilometers away
> from the local Woolworths. Like the yob walking back from the bottlo with
> the VB carton on one shoulder AND talking on his mobile phone.
>
> That's the real world.
Those are presumably not people who're watching the oncoming traffic, so
my statement doesn't apply to them.
>
>> This is why it's now a legal requirement that pedestrians face the
>> oncoming traffic when walking on the road.
>
> The road is for cars.
If there's a pavement, or a usable nature strip, then pedestrians are
required to use it. But sometimes there's none, in which case
pedestrians have to walk on the carriageway.
Sylvia.
Jason James
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
Speaking of stupid drivers,..on a saturday night, a young driver was doing
circuits of a roundabout in the main drag. He broke traction in his Holden
ute, spun around with his nose up onto the vegetated centre. He than burned
rubber trying to pull the front wheels up past the centre outer ring
(cement).
Jason
F Murtz
> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:0079c81c$0$17140$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> If you're watching the oncoming traffic, I see no reason why the risk
>> should be significantly increased.
>
> You must live in an ideal world Sylvia, a world where professional
> pedestrians roam the streets safely, wearing flouro vests with reflective
> strips, wearing proper walking shoes and wide brimmed hats, keeping watch on
> cars behind and forward of them and have a keen sense of sight and hearing.
What is a flouro vest? is that a white dusty one?
F Murtz
According to bicycle riders they should be allowed to roam freely on
highways and freeways so why shouldn't pedestrians?
ti...@beerlover.com
> If there's a pavement, or a usable nature strip, then pedestrians are
> required to use it. But sometimes there's none, in which case
> pedestrians have to walk on the carriageway.
HeadRush
HeadRush
>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>> news:0079c81c$0$17140$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>
>>> If you're watching the oncoming traffic, I see no reason why the risk
>>> should be significantly increased.
>>
>> You must live in an ideal world Sylvia, a world where professional
>> pedestrians roam the streets safely, wearing flouro vests with reflective
>> strips, wearing proper walking shoes and wide brimmed hats, keeping watch
>> on
>> cars behind and forward of them and have a keen sense of sight and
>> hearing.
>
> What is a flouro vest? is that a white dusty one?
Sorry, flewro.
HR
hippo
It's a bit different. Bicycles as a vehicle are *supposed* to use the road
unless there is a mandated alternative or there's a signposted restriction
on that particular section of road - dedicated bus lane, freeway, etc.
They're also supposed to obey road rules and travel in the same direction
as the other traffic. Pedestrians in Oz and many other countries have been
advised to
walk facing the oncoming traffic for as long as I can remember. Cheers
--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au
F Murtz
I did not say roads, I said highways and freeways.
Very few countries allow bicycles on high speed roads