Why can't motorists slow down?

"Most pedestrian crashes involve a forward moving car (as opposed to
buses and other vehicles with a vertical hood/bonnet). In such a
crash, a standing or walking pedestrian is struck and accelerated to
the speed of the car and then continues forward as the car brakes to a
halt. Although the pedestrian is impacted twice, first by the car and
then by the ground, most of the fatal injuries occur due to the
interaction with the car. ...

Most pedestrian deaths occur due to the traumatic brain injury
resulting from the hard impact of the head against the stiff hood or
windshield. In addition, although usually non-fatal, injuries to the
lower limb (usually to the knee joint and long bones) are the most
common cause of disability due to pedestrian crashes." (Wikipedia)

I wonder why the car-drivers are unable to stop? Do they care?

"Squashme" wrote in message
...

"Most pedestrian crashes involve a forward moving car (as opposed to
buses and other vehicles with a vertical hood/bonnet).

Because most vehicles are cars going forwards.

In such a
crash, a standing or walking pedestrian is struck and accelerated to
the speed of the car and then continues forward as the car brakes to a
halt. Although the pedestrian is impacted twice, first by the car and
then by the ground, most of the fatal injuries occur due to the
interaction with the car. ...

Yes, quite possibly.
It's likely that when a large metal object hits a person, the person will be
hurt.

Most pedestrian deaths occur due to the traumatic brain injury
resulting from the hard impact of the head against the stiff hood or
windshield. In addition, although usually non-fatal, injuries to the
lower limb (usually to the knee joint and long bones) are the most
common cause of disability due to pedestrian crashes." (Wikipedia)

Yes, that seems likely too.
That's why there are now rules about leaving a minimum gap between bonnet
and engine - to make it softer.
There are also companies developing external airbags and in time these will
become common features like internal ones.

Your point?

I wonder why the car-drivers are unable to stop?

Usually because someone made a mistake, possibly more than one.

Do they care?

I would have thought so, yes.

--
Alex

On Aug 16, 7:40*am, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

...



"Most pedestrian crashes involve a forward moving car (as opposed to
buses and other vehicles with a vertical hood/bonnet).

Because most vehicles are cars going forwards.

In such a
crash, a standing or walking pedestrian is struck and accelerated to
the speed of the car and then continues forward as the car brakes to a
halt. Although the pedestrian is impacted twice, first by the car and
then by the ground, most of the fatal injuries occur due to the
interaction with the car. ...

Yes, quite possibly.
It's likely that when a large metal object hits a person, the person will be
hurt.

Most pedestrian deaths occur due to the traumatic brain injury
resulting from the hard impact of the head against the stiff hood or
windshield. In addition, although usually non-fatal, injuries to the
lower limb (usually to the knee joint and long bones) are the most
common cause of disability due to pedestrian crashes." (Wikipedia)

Yes, that seems likely too.
That's why there are now rules about leaving a minimum gap between bonnet
and engine - to make it softer.
There are also companies developing external airbags and in time these will
become common features like internal ones.

Your point?



I wonder why the car-drivers are unable to stop?

Usually because someone made a mistake, possibly more than one.

Do they care?

I would have thought so, yes.

But why cannot they be stopped from killing people? Is the mere use of
a car on a public road a virtual licence to kill people? So they care
if they kill someone. Big deal! At least they are alive to care,
unlike their vulnerable victim road user.

Why isn't there a mandatory prison sentence for anyone who kills with
their car, regardless of the circumstances? If motorists don't like it
the solution is simple, don't drive, their choice.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

On 15/08/2012 21:24, Squashme wrote:

Nothing to do with cyclists.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On Aug 16, 8:38*am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 15/08/2012 21:24, Squashme wrote:

Nothing to do with cyclists.


Nothing to do with making cyclists suffer, certainly.

On 16/08/2012 08:13, Doug wrote:
On Aug 16, 7:40 am, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

...



"Most pedestrian crashes involve a forward moving car (as opposed to
buses and other vehicles with a vertical hood/bonnet).

Because most vehicles are cars going forwards.

In such a
crash, a standing or walking pedestrian is struck and accelerated to
the speed of the car and then continues forward as the car brakes to a
halt. Although the pedestrian is impacted twice, first by the car and
then by the ground, most of the fatal injuries occur due to the
interaction with the car. ...

Yes, quite possibly.
It's likely that when a large metal object hits a person, the person will be
hurt.

Most pedestrian deaths occur due to the traumatic brain injury
resulting from the hard impact of the head against the stiff hood or
windshield. In addition, although usually non-fatal, injuries to the
lower limb (usually to the knee joint and long bones) are the most
common cause of disability due to pedestrian crashes." (Wikipedia)

Yes, that seems likely too.
That's why there are now rules about leaving a minimum gap between bonnet
and engine - to make it softer.
There are also companies developing external airbags and in time these will
become common features like internal ones.

Your point?



I wonder why the car-drivers are unable to stop?

Usually because someone made a mistake, possibly more than one.

Do they care?

I would have thought so, yes.

But why cannot they be stopped from killing people? Is the mere use of
a car on a public road a virtual licence to kill people? So they care
if they kill someone. Big deal! At least they are alive to care,
unlike their vulnerable victim road user.

Why isn't there a mandatory prison sentence for anyone who kills with
their car, regardless of the circumstances?

Because that would, to say the least, be unfair, but such things have
never concerned you.

If motorists don't like it
the solution is simple, don't drive, their choice.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

On Aug 16, 11:30*am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/08/2012 08:13, Doug wrote:









On Aug 16, 7:40 am, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

....

"Most pedestrian crashes involve a forward moving car (as opposed to
buses and other vehicles with a vertical hood/bonnet).

Because most vehicles are cars going forwards.

In such a
crash, a standing or walking pedestrian is struck and accelerated to
the speed of the car and then continues forward as the car brakes to a
halt. Although the pedestrian is impacted twice, first by the car and
then by the ground, most of the fatal injuries occur due to the
interaction with the car. ...

Yes, quite possibly.
It's likely that when a large metal object hits a person, the person will be
hurt.

Most pedestrian deaths occur due to the traumatic brain injury
resulting from the hard impact of the head against the stiff hood or
windshield. In addition, although usually non-fatal, injuries to the
lower limb (usually to the knee joint and long bones) are the most
common cause of disability due to pedestrian crashes." (Wikipedia)

Yes, that seems likely too.
That's why there are now rules about leaving a minimum gap between bonnet
and engine - to make it softer.
There are also companies developing external airbags and in time these will
become common features like internal ones.

Your point?

I wonder why the car-drivers are unable to stop?

Usually because someone made a mistake, possibly more than one.

Do they care?

I would have thought so, yes.

But why cannot they be stopped from killing people? Is the mere use of
a car on a public road a virtual licence to kill people? So they care
if they kill someone. Big deal! At least they are alive to care,
unlike their vulnerable victim road user.

Why isn't there a mandatory prison sentence for anyone who kills with
their car, regardless of the circumstances?

Because that would, to say the least, be unfair, but such things have
never concerned you.


And the roads are otherwise such fair and just environments.

On Aug 15, 9:24*pm, Squashme wrote:
"Most pedestrian crashes involve a forward moving car (as opposed to
buses and other vehicles with a vertical hood/bonnet). In such a
crash, a standing or walking pedestrian is struck and accelerated to
the speed of the car and then continues forward as the car brakes to a
halt. Although the pedestrian is impacted twice, first by the car and
then by the ground, most of the fatal injuries occur due to the
interaction with the car. ...

Most pedestrian deaths occur due to the traumatic brain injury
resulting from the hard impact of the head against the stiff hood or
windshield. In addition, although usually non-fatal, injuries to the
lower limb (usually to the knee joint and long bones) are the most
common cause of disability due to pedestrian crashes." (Wikipedia)

I wonder why the car-drivers are unable to stop? Do they care?

pedestrians not wearing helmets, it's their own fault. ;-)

On 16/08/2012 14:42, Squashme wrote:
On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Tony Dragon wrote:
On 16/08/2012 08:13, Doug wrote:









On Aug 16, 7:40 am, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

...

"Most pedestrian crashes involve a forward moving car (as opposed to
buses and other vehicles with a vertical hood/bonnet).

Because most vehicles are cars going forwards.

In such a
crash, a standing or walking pedestrian is struck and accelerated to
the speed of the car and then continues forward as the car brakes to a
halt. Although the pedestrian is impacted twice, first by the car and
then by the ground, most of the fatal injuries occur due to the
interaction with the car. ...

Yes, quite possibly.
It's likely that when a large metal object hits a person, the person will be
hurt.

Most pedestrian deaths occur due to the traumatic brain injury
resulting from the hard impact of the head against the stiff hood or
windshield. In addition, although usually non-fatal, injuries to the
lower limb (usually to the knee joint and long bones) are the most
common cause of disability due to pedestrian crashes." (Wikipedia)

Yes, that seems likely too.
That's why there are now rules about leaving a minimum gap between bonnet
and engine - to make it softer.
There are also companies developing external airbags and in time these will
become common features like internal ones.

Your point?

I wonder why the car-drivers are unable to stop?

Usually because someone made a mistake, possibly more than one.

Do they care?

I would have thought so, yes.

But why cannot they be stopped from killing people? Is the mere use of
a car on a public road a virtual licence to kill people? So they care
if they kill someone. Big deal! At least they are alive to care,
unlike their vulnerable victim road user.

Why isn't there a mandatory prison sentence for anyone who kills with
their car, regardless of the circumstances?

Because that would, to say the least, be unfair, but such things have
never concerned you.


And the roads are otherwise such fair and just environments.



Oh a reply that said nothing.
Do you agree with Doug that "Why isn't there a mandatory prison sentence
for anyone who kills with their car, regardless of the circumstances?"

On 16/08/2012 08:13, Doug wrote:
On Aug 16, 7:40 am, "Dr Zoidberg"
wrote:
"Squashme" wrote in message

...



"Most pedestrian crashes involve a forward moving car (as opposed to
buses and other vehicles with a vertical hood/bonnet).

Because most vehicles are cars going forwards.

In such a
crash, a standing or walking pedestrian is struck and accelerated to
the speed of the car and then continues forward as the car brakes to a
halt. Although the pedestrian is impacted twice, first by the car and
then by the ground, most of the fatal injuries occur due to the
interaction with the car. ...

Yes, quite possibly.
It's likely that when a large metal object hits a person, the person will be
hurt.

Most pedestrian deaths occur due to the traumatic brain injury
resulting from the hard impact of the head against the stiff hood or
windshield. In addition, although usually non-fatal, injuries to the
lower limb (usually to the knee joint and long bones) are the most
common cause of disability due to pedestrian crashes." (Wikipedia)

Yes, that seems likely too.
That's why there are now rules about leaving a minimum gap between bonnet
and engine - to make it softer.
There are also companies developing external airbags and in time these will
become common features like internal ones.

Your point?



I wonder why the car-drivers are unable to stop?

Usually because someone made a mistake, possibly more than one.

Do they care?

I would have thought so, yes.

But why cannot they be stopped from killing people? Is the mere use of
a car on a public road a virtual licence to kill people? So they care
if they kill someone. Big deal! At least they are alive to care,
unlike their vulnerable victim road user.

Why isn't there a mandatory prison sentence for anyone who kills with
their car, regardless of the circumstances?

Because English law wasn't written by brain dead halfwits like you?



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."