Grandad.Malky Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Its that time of year again …………….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Couldn't agree more. If a car mounts the pavement or hits somebody on a crossing, then the driver deserves the full weight of the law dropping on his or her head. If a pedestrian strays into the road and into the path of a car away from a crossing, it should automatically be the pedestrians' fault, with no possibility of penalty for the driver, and payment for damage to the car being the responsibility of the pedestrian (or their estate). Pavements are for pedestrians, roads are for cars. I don't disagree with this but speed of vehicle would likely still be an issue with the law and perhaps rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 The problem with posting this sort of video online is that those who care and who have learned the lessons about how dangerous moving vehicles can be already will think that it's an important and affecting thing to watch, but those who haven't learned those lessons yet (whether as a youngster or a new driver) won't be affected. As a species loads of research has shown that we don't learn from other people's mistakes, so sadly it is likely that a film will not make any difference to the people who need to learn the lessons the most urgently. For those people, only witnessing or being involved in a real emergency is likely to make it through all the bluster and into the part of them that makes them re-evaluate their actions, which means that sadly someone will get hurt or be put in serious danger in order for them to learn. I'd love to think that preaching and graphic imagery helped people to learn, but sadly lots of research shows that it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 @Medusa True and sometimes reality fails to get it through also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I'd love to think that preaching and graphic imagery helped people to learn, but sadly lots of research shows that it doesn't.Some (many I suppose) years ago the driver training centre at Norton used to offer pre-17 introduction courses for young people who were due to start learning to drive. My 6th form organised a trip there, and it was very worthwhile. There was a bit of time behind the wheel, and a bit in the classroom, which included a very graphic video of traffic accidents with footage at the scenes as emergency services dealt with carnage. It was gruesome, I was close to vomiting at one stage watching somebody with hideous facial injuries try to speak, , but the footage stayed with me for a long time and it certainly was an effective reminder that cars aren't toys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Some (many I suppose) years ago the driver training centre at Norton used to offer pre-17 introduction courses for young people who were due to start learning to drive. My 6th form organised a trip there, and it was very worthwhile. There was a bit of time behind the wheel, and a bit in the classroom, which included a very graphic video of traffic accidents with footage at the scenes as emergency services dealt with carnage. It was gruesome, I was close to vomiting at one stage watching somebody with hideous facial injuries try to speak, , but the footage stayed with me for a long time and it certainly was an effective reminder that cars aren't toys. Is it likely you would have been a different driver without the imagery though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Is it likely you would have been a different driver without the imagery though?It certainly made me think twice on occasions when youthful exuberance and recklessness might have otherwise taken over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 It certainly made me think twice on occasions when youthful exuberance and recklessness might have otherwise taken over. or you're essentially a considerate driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Couldn't agree more. If a car mounts the pavement or hits somebody on a crossing, then the driver deserves the full weight of the law dropping on his or her head. If a pedestrian strays into the road and into the path of a car away from a crossing, it should automatically be the pedestrians' fault, with no possibility of penalty for the driver, and payment for damage to the car being the responsibility of the pedestrian (or their estate). Pavements are for pedestrians, roads are for cars. That's just not true is it. Pedestrians have every right to cross the road, every accident is different and either party can be at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 or you're essentially a considerate driver I was as daft as any other youngster, probably dafter than most and things were very different 30 years ago - less traffic, no cameras, and a more tolerant attitude to driving standards than today, but especially whenever I had my girlfriend in the car, I would be reminded of that footage and caution/sense would prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.