Cars are dangerous.

[TteFAboB]

And kill alot of children.

We need to continously remember drivers to drive safe.

I hereby kill a drunk driver with my own bare hands.

EDIT: I forgot about Spain. While two topics in one thread may be confusing, and stupid, so is the age of consent in Spain which can be used to protect a pedophile with a lawyer clever enough. Or not, I don't really know for sure.

But anyway, I also take this opportunity to throw a rock at a Spanish citizen, Hitman I choose you, and announce the foundation of the "CTACISP", or Change The Age of Consent in Spain Party. :arrgh!:

[Umfuld]

:rotfl:

[Umfuld]

In the U.S. alone, someone dies from a car crash every 15 minutes.


Just so you know.

[jumpy]

There's an advert on TV here in the UK where some kids (young teenagers) are filming themselves chatting on a street corner using their mobile phone cameras. One of them then walks out into the road without looking for oncoming traffic and is promptly run over by a motorcar *lots of screaming in the background*
Then the message: 55 teenagers a week are hit by motor cars. Stop and Think! drive slower blah blah blah.
You get the idea. It is staged, ofcourse. But I think the message of the advert is missing the point a little. The responsibility for road safety is placed firmly at the doorstep of the driver and the whole tone of the ad is aimed at driver awareness.
But where is the message to the kids (who are plenty old enough to know better, I might add - like most good drivers too) to look to see if a car is coming before steping out into the middle of the road and thereby completely avoiding the possibility of an accident occuring in the first place?
Nomination for a Darwin Awward anybody?
I say thats 55 less dumbass teenagers to pollute the collective gene pool with idiot 'I'm too stupid to look before crossing the road' dna. :rotfl:

I'm a careful driver all the same though :stare: :arrgh!:

[FAdmiral]

In the USA alone, more humans are killed and maimed by autos
than all the other ways combined, and that includes war, guns,
explosions, etc. So why aren't the activists protesting the
abolishment of these very dangerous things?
WHOAW, abolish my SUV !! I would rather die first (wish granted)


JIM

[STEED]

Jumpy,You forgot the one with the invisible car hits the motorbike. :shifty:

[scandium]

But I think the message of the advert is missing the point a little. The responsibility for road safety is placed firmly at the doorstep of the driver and the whole tone of the ad is aimed at driver awareness.
But where is the message to the kids (who are plenty old enough to know better, I might add - like most good drivers too) to look to see if a car is coming before steping out into the middle of the road and thereby completely avoiding the possibility of an accident occuring in the first place?
Nomination for a Darwin Awward anybody?

I'm a careful driver all the same though :stare: :arrgh!:
How many drivers per year are run over by pedestrians? And in an accident involving a car and a pedestrian, who has the better chance of survival? Taking these factors into account, along with the fact that generally the only way to get from point A to point B - whether by car or by foot - is a road, and that the roads are funded by both pedestrians and by motorists, would you consider it a better usage of tax payer money to educate drivers or pedestrians?

I don't really see where dying from being hit by a 2 ton automobile merits a Darwin Award. If you were ever a child, at any point in your life, you should recall from first-hand experience that children tend to be carefree and as a result are often impulsive and reckless by nature. They lack the ingrained habits of adulthood, such as automatically checking for traffice before crossing, and at their young age lack the life experience that makes things obvious to adults but still novel for children.

Even when they do behave responsibly, they still die as a result of drivers who abdicate their own responsibility and common sense for convenience or expedience. An example being the children who are killed by the motorists who, in a rush, cut through parking lots to avoid waiting at a traffic light. Or who attempt to multi-task while driving. Sure, it is in the pedestrian's self-interest to have an awareness and use "common sense" but because it is in their self-interest they tend to do so. When you're protected by a a couple thousand pounds of steel and isolated in a sound proof cocoon, on the other hand, with the radio playing while conducting a conversation and eating fast-food, I don't think the same sense of one's environment or vulnerability exists, which is where ads like the one you mentioned come into play.

[jumpy]

^^
We're not talking little children here - think 14 and above. plenty old enough to look both ways before steping into the road if you ask me.

I don't really see where dying from being hit by a 2 ton automobile merits a Darwin Award If you can't be bothered to 'look before you leap' I sure do ;)

How many drivers per year are run over by pedestrians? lol don't be silly :lol:

I don't know about anywhere else but here in the UK pedestrians don't pay for the upkeep of the roads.
Time and time again I am faced with people here who just step out into the road without looking. Tbh it really gets on my nerves that some people expect (as you said) 2 tonnes of metal traveling at 30 miles an hour to be able to just stop dead to allow them to cross the road. Simple physics says otherwise.
And I sure as hell don't want to have the lasting effects of running somebody down because they were not paying attention. No matter how careful a driver I am, there's no accounting for the stupidity of others- be they other drivers or pedestrians.
The worst pedestrian offenders for this behaviour seem to be mothers with pushchairs; the chair and the infant seem to give them some magical absolution allowing them to throw common sense out of the window. It's almost as if the pushchair is a kind of talisman which wards off all danger lol. I would have thought that having an infant would heighten any mothers internal radar for danger awareness, but my daily driving experience would appear to suggest otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with reminding drivers to be careful, but I think the onus should not solely be placed upon them to behave responsibly but should also be expanded to include pedestrians too... remind them that a car cannot just stop dead in a very short distance. Afterall, as a driver I wouldn't expect a 44tonne HGV to stop in the same distance as your average family saloon and for the same reason I would not consider blindly pulling out infront of such a vehicle, unless I had a deathwish.


Jumpy,You forgot the one with the invisible car hits the motorbike. :shifty:
Ah yes, poor motorcyclist etc etc etc hehe. I've never seen an advert telling motorcyclists to not treat the public highway like their own private F1 track, which is how many of them round my way behave; especially in summer. All of the power-rangers come out with their 200mph superbikes and behave like idiots. There's a good reason why my doctor refers to motorcyclists as 'Donnors' :rotfl:



Still, in a few years all of this will be academic: Soon the cost of road tax, insurance, fuel, congestion charges, speed cameras, toll roads and such like will make it all but impossible for most people (except the very well off) to afford to run a motor vehicle on a daily basis.
But there's always the clean, reliable and plesant service of public transport *shudders* - over my late and mugged body.

[Skybird]

I assume it does not happen too often that a driver rolls over his victim intentionally. This whole thread is pointless.

[jumpy]

There's not much happening at work right now Skybird, so I have to do something to stop my brain from turning to mush :lol:
T'internet seems the best way to relieve work boredom so far... I have tried reading a good book, but to 'management' this does not have the appearence of working and tends to attaract their unwanted attention :rotfl:

[Konovalov]

I assume it does not happen too often that a driver rolls over his victim intentionally. This whole thread is pointless.

You can use the new "rate this thread" function with the 5 star rating system. ;)

[Umfuld]

This whole thread is pointless.And there you have it. Alcoholism is victimless. And discussing the carnage caused by too many cars driving too fast is pointless.

I rest my case.

[STEED]

As the stand in wacky Judge I find this thread not guilty on the grounds it has nothing to do with the you know what, case dismissed on with the thread. ;)

[Skybird]

And there you have it. Alcoholism is victimless. And discussing the carnage caused by too many cars driving too fast is pointless.

I rest my case.
Learn the differenc ebetween "intention to do harm", and causing harm for reasons of negligence, thoughtlessness or stupidity. First is a crime, latter is a folly. Damage can be the same, but still there is a difference. In both cases, the one causing damage or pain should be held responsible - but for different reasons. My fiance was killed in a car-accident that was caused by a drunk driver who drove on the wrong side of the road. So happened to the sister of my Mom as well. I hate that driver for his negligence and stupidity, and hold him responsible for the ammounts of alcohol he drank before entering his car. But I hold him responsible for reasons of slaughter, not murder. He is a stupid idiot, but not necessarily an evil man.Better rest you case indeed until you have learned the difference between evil intentions, and negligence/thoughtlessness. It is essential.Oh, and I do drink some wine while writing this. I'm sure no one will suffer because I do it. Some other board memebrs probably also will drink a beer or a wine before this day is over. And you know what? It will neither hurt your nor anyone else's wellbeing. Oh, and several guys here probably will enter a car and make aride this evening. I assume none of them does that with the intention to kill.

[scandium]

And there you have it. Alcoholism is victimless. And discussing the carnage caused by too many cars driving too fast is pointless.

I rest my case.

You don't have a case.

[joea]

My fiance was killed in a car-accident that was caused by a drunk driver who drove on the wrong side of the road. So happened to the sister of my Mom as well. I hate that driver for his negligence and stupidity, and hold him responsible for the ammounts of alcohol he drank before entering his car. But I hold him responsible for reasons of slaughter, not murder.

Oh @#$% I did not know that Skybird...well shows you know of what you speak.

[Skybird]

So it goes. Learned to live in peace again, but of course - never forget. Was a big wonder, me and her. Even at that price - I wouldn't change anything in that I met her. I would be a different - and not necessarily a better - one without the whole story happening, including the end.

But I have referred to this one or two times in past years, I think.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I say thats 55 less dumbass teenagers to pollute the collective gene pool with idiot 'I'm too stupid to look before crossing the road' dna. :rotfl:

Whoa whoa hey now, I'm a teenager. Just..a very tall one. Infact I probably cause more accidents by being 6' 7" and attracting all the :huh: looks from drivers than just bumbling out into the roadway.

Its teenagers in pimped out Vauxhall Novas that I cant abide. Yes, we've heard that drumbeat, yes, we've seen your MDF spoiler and heard your drainpipe exhaust. Now stop driving 60 mph down a main street. Arses. :arrgh!:

Well done for driving safely though :up:

[Kurushio]

There's an advert on TV here in the UK where some kids (young teenagers) are filming themselves chatting on a street corner using their mobile phone cameras. One of them then walks out into the road without looking for oncoming traffic and is promptly run over by a motorcar *lots of screaming in the background*
Then the message: 55 teenagers a week are hit by motor cars. Stop and Think! drive slower blah blah blah.
You get the idea. It is staged, ofcourse. But I think the message of the advert is missing the point a little. The responsibility for road safety is placed firmly at the doorstep of the driver and the whole tone of the ad is aimed at driver awareness.
But where is the message to the kids (who are plenty old enough to know better, I might add - like most good drivers too) to look to see if a car is coming before steping out into the middle of the road and thereby completely avoiding the possibility of an accident occuring in the first place?
Nomination for a Darwin Awward anybody?
I say thats 55 less dumbass teenagers to pollute the collective gene pool with idiot 'I'm too stupid to look before crossing the road' dna. :rotfl:

I'm a careful driver all the same though :stare: :arrgh!:

You are wrong. The advert is aimed at teenagers to look before stepping into the road. The caption is "55 teenagers a week wish they'd given the road their full attention". So your point is a moot one. ;)

[jumpy]

^^
Ah, c'est la vie.. :smug:
I was sure it was the other way round, I still stand by pedestrians being tought more road awareness though. Meh, Oh well :lol::lol: