Dumb

Bigus raved thus:

:: ouch.. that person walking on the path didn't seem to make any :: attempt to get out of the way, though only had about 1½ seconds from :: when he must have heard the impact and looking round / getting out :: of the way. how do you know the age of the PT driver?

Shoulda posted the extra details from where I saw the clip:

'The at-fault PT Cruiser tripped a red light camera when it went over some sensors a good distance from the intersection, which is why there's a few seconds of video of the Escort wagon sitting there before the PT blows the light.

The driver of the PT is a 76 year old woman, and the car was going 42 MPH. The driver of the Forester that was hit is a 41 year old woman, and was going 35 MPH. The pedestrian that had the Forester roll over him was some middle-aged hobo, and is in critical condition. Still alive as of yesterday, but barely.'

The differeance is that in this country the driver would get a £200 fine and a 1 year ban, in America he would get 15 years.

Steve

The guy that got friendly with the Suberu could sue that woman and prosecute her on the grounds of attempted man slaughter (I think).

And then the driver could sue someone for not making the red light visible enough ;-)

Last time I made a comment about the age of a driver (who had driven into a train at an AHB crossing), I was accused of ageisim! :-(((

Alan

Don't reply to this e-mail address - messages will be deleted unread. To reply to me take away the news and substitute alanc

Also female. Perhaps that's a cue for a derogatory comment about women drivers...

--

Looked like he started to run to me. Too little too late :-(

Alan Norris raved thus:

:: On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 12:43:22 GMT, "¤¤¤ Abo ¤¤¤" :: wrote: :: :::

No comment, just a statement... ;)

Just a thought, but if the sensors are able to act in sufficient time to trigger a camera that long in advance of the "action", then I would have thought it should be possible to invent some kind of "panic" (audio.visual) warning to give other road users what seems like (in this case) about 5 seconds notice that someone is doing something crazy and evasive action/stopping may be appropriate.

As a deterrent it wouldn't seem to be all that effective. Perhaps more thorough eye tests would be the way to go?

It's a standard human trait to look for links where there may be none. If it were only old/female drivers who did this then there would be some validity.

To find any *genuine* links between whatever and whatever you need reliable statistics - not gut feeling. That's called mob rule...

(audio.visual)

Or better still, leave the other light at red.

Or a rising barrier from the ground like in some car parks to stop the perpetrator. This ensures a) the perpetrator suffers b) the victim might avoid a collision c) if the perpetrator destroys the barrier and still hits the victim, the impact is likely to be less.

Daytona

Hehe. When they started charging you to drive up the road to Durham cathedral, they used rising bollards instead of a barrier. It had been in operation for about a week when some taxi driver tried to get through without paying and the bollard rose through the floor of his taxi!

I like the idea of steel bollards rising before the opposite lights go green. There might be some shunts but it's a no-brainer who is to blame there and frontal impacts by cars are usually not too fatal, compared to side impacts.

There's also no danger of people jumping lights early, as there is a bollard in front / under them and going early adds a risk of smashing the spoiler. :)

Gentle lifter, so that the bollard doesn't damage a car that happens to be over it. Only has to be strong laterally.

Ambulance, fire and police drivers would love that one!

It would upset most minicab drivers too.

But it'd be great at tripping up the cyclists who seem to believe they have a personal exemption from the need to obey red lights.