Of late, one of my least favourite people is a certain Harold Scruby. He’s the ‘chief executive’ of the Pedestrian Council - a private organisation started by Scruby.
Scruby, in case you are unaware, is the crank who petitions the government with mostly crackpot schemes for ”improving pedestrian safety”.
I’ve got nothing against people petitioning Government, even crack-pots, Mr Scruby can petition till he’s blue in the face.
My distaste for Scruby’s hot air isn’t just because it’s so rabidly anti-driver (and fails to acknowledge any responsibility on the part of pedestrians); no, my biggest issue with the guy is that I’m anti-stupid. A lot of the stuff that comes from his “Council” is the kind of thing you’d expect out of a university satire newspaper.
The latest steaming nugget to fall out of Scruby is a call to make listening to your MP3 player while driving a criminal offence.
The chief executive of the Pedestrian Council, Harold Scruby, wants to see the devices (MP3s) banned for drivers and for the manufacturers to place warnings on their packaging.
He says the “block-out effect” of headphones compounds the risk posed by listening to music in cars.
“If you take out the audial sense, you remove one of the most important aspects of road safety,” Mr Scruby said. “You wouldn’t hear an ambulance or police car, let alone someone tooting you.”
I’ll skip a comment about the effectiveness of warnings on packaging since I’ve already tangentially covered overwarning people; (perhaps our Mr Scruby can ask the RIAA and AFACT how well that’s going for the “don’t pirate music” labels affixed to every iPod).
I also won’t dispute that someone wearing headphones, especially the noise-canceling ones so popular today, stop you from hearing emergency vehicles. Every time I see some idiot driving along with those telltale white earbuds, I want to knock on the window and start yelling at them to buy an FM adapter or something. It’s one of the dumber things you can do while driving.
The stink I’m smelling is that our Mr Scruby only wants it banned for drivers. Now I’m no otologist, but I am sure that those exact same MP3 player ”unable-to-hear” issues he craps on about, apply equally to pedestrians as to drivers. You know, shouldn’t it also apply to those people who blithely walk in front of buses or in front of motorists, MP3s filling their ears, as they step out without looking.
Where’s the petitioning to make it a criminal offence to cross the road while wearing an MP3 player, because using them “removes one of the most important aspects of road-crossing safety”, Harold?
How about pedestrians take some responsibility for their own actions? Does not some of the responsibility fall to the pedestrian to look after themselves as much as responsibility also falls to the driver? If you listened to Mr Scruby you would not think so.
It’s as if he thinks pedestrians are mentally handicapped, and that all the rest of us have to make allowances because they can’t be trusted not to do something stupid. I think that’s what Mr Scruby would have us believe.
Maybe I just don’t know them as well as their representatives on the Pedestrian Council do. Or maybe I’m too old-fashioned in wanting things to be fair.
Loading ...
Comments
Click here to jump to Add Comment box
How do you get a picture next to your name?
Get a Gravatar. Click here to find out more.
Hear hear. When it comes to drivers and pedestrians, the issue of road safety is most definitely a two-way street (pun intended to the max).
I’m kinda with you on this one, but theres an atitude with car drivers that they ALWAYS have priority, certainly noticed it in Australia and it is definitely the case here (UK).
I actually prferred to be in either the USA or Canada as far as being a pedestrian goes. Its the otherway round with car drivers looking out for pedestrians.
Yeah I agree in many ways - although it should be illegal for pedestrians (to pose a safety hazard for all) to [block their hearing] with any device, it’s not something that can be Policed here in Australia because we have an incompetent and virtually non-existent police ‘force’.
on the other hand, i agree with cupid, and it’s true that Australian’s are pretty much the only ones in the world who don’t acknowledge the existence of pedestrians - I’ve been thru Europe many times and for example in Paris, both cars AND pedestrians ignore red lights (ALL the time!) and in Poland, I remember a mother pushing her baby in a pram, straight onto the road, without looking at our oncoming vehicle..these are common everyday road situations, and it is upto the drivers to understand the language of the road, there are obstacles and in Paris (at least) either everyone follows the rules, or NO-ONE follows the rules, because of this, there’s nearly no mishaps… Australian drivers have a bad attitude of “get out of my way” and that is one of the reasons for a bad road toll.. my 2 cents worth!
The law states that pedestrians legally have the right of way. That attitude somewhat shines through since motorists still give way, albeit with a lack of patience. I see plenty of people sailing through zebra crossings though.
I don’t see a prevailing attitude that a motorist always has priority. My attitude is an acknowledgement that pedestrians have priority, but fark we motorists don’t like it.
I’ve already talked about my attitude towards the motorist/pedestrian right of way here and, clearly, I’m all for cars having priority on the roads aside from in designated pedestrian zones (crossings and footpaths).
This whole war of words stems from the fact that drivers of cars in Australia (and it seems to occur here only) have an overbearing attitude that because they are not at risk of being hurt in a collision with a pedestrian (or cyclist) they can (and frequently do) unreasonably demand right of way - whether it is due to them or not. It is this arrogance and f@*k you attitude that creates the tensions and polarisation of peoples attitudes towards what would otherwise be a sensible civil debate. Sadly, car drivers (not all by any stretch) have a mind set equivalent to a bully. By growing up and acknowledging these factors that are underlying the whole issue might finally put it to rest, save some lives, and allow everyone else to get on with what matters….i.e. whatever rocks your boat!
Its funny how you talk about motorist arrogance, yet you conveniently ignore the hubris of pedestrians.
You say that motorists use the fact that they can’t get hurt in a collision with a pedestrian as justification for “unreasonable” right of way, yet I see the exact same attitude from jaywalkers who think the law of the land (which says pedestrians have the right of way, regardless of if they’re at a crossing that permits them to cross at that point in time) is going to protect them against the laws of physics (which says that small squishy human is going to lose in an impact with heavy and heavy metal battering ram).
How many times do you see pedestrians blithely step into traffic in the CBD at the tiniest whiff of a gap, and then start abusing drivers who have to panic stop from the speed limit and lean on the horn to warn the pedestrian?
I’m reminded of this letter that did the rounds of the Internet, and the support it got globally, to know the perception isn’t only in Australia.
Im not conveniently forgetting anything Alan. I’m setting out the case as to where it stands and the obstacles remaining to an agreed position. Pedestrians can be hideously irresponsible and I’d be foolish not to recognise that. Frankly I think cars should be banned from high pedestrian congested areas i.e. CBD etc. then the whole issue might go away. If you’re saying that its not all the car drivers fault, I agree with you. As a cyclist on Sydney’s roads I can assure you however, that there is a lot more psychopathic behavior by car drivers than any other user. If you are a cyclist you will know exactly what I mean. Alas I suspect you are not. Enough from me though….
I’ve got no issues with private cars being restricted from areas with a high population volumes, like business districts during business hours. As per my other columns, I’m all for public transport over private vehicle commuting. There should an exception process to permit private vehicles access if necessary, but I haven’t really considered how you’d regulate such a thing.
To be honest, though, after almost getting run over by a pair of cyclists while walking down the footpath yesterday I’d ban cyclists from the same areas for the same reason you want to ban cars - they’re a danger to the public with their arrogant disregard for safety. Unlike motorists, there’s no high-vis registration plate nor easy ability to trace a cyclist should they do a hit-and-run in a populated area.
I’d argue that, per capita, drivers aren’t that psychotic compared to other road users. When 99% of road users are cars, of course the view of the number of idiots is going to look large. I see plenty of stupidity on public roads (it’s what fuels this column) and I rack up plenty of mileage every year. When I see a cyclist, if they aren’t causing an obstruction or riding in an erratic manner it’s an exception, rather than a rule.
You’re correct in saying that I’m not a cycling commuter (I used to do it for fun, off the public road) and after seeing the nutbags that are, I don’t want to be. I’ve posted on certain car forums about cyclists and I won’t go into it here, but I don’t believe cyclists should be allowed on the road any more than jaywalkers are. I support the concept of dedicated bicycle lanes, and believe that they should be more widespread, but with the proviso that cyclists are not permitted to ride on the road if no cycle lane exists there.
I’d think cars should have the right of way. Why? It’s simple physics. Stopping a two-ton slab of steel and glass perched on a few bands of rubber going 40mph is a lot harder than stopping a 50kg bag of meat going 2mph. The bag of meat produces fewer fossil fuels getting back up to speed and has more to lose. If self-preservation isn’t in said bag’s DNA, then perhaps studying the history of the Northern Territory’s capital might be in its best interest.
So where do you think they should ride? No cycle lane so no riding on the road yet you complain about being run down by a couple of them on the footpath????
Maybe it because they are being erratic or obstructing that you see them, maybe the majority who are being sensible and behaving are the one who get run over in the weekly hit an runs in Australia. (just a thought)
As to this whole pedestrian, cyclist, car driver, SUV driver, Truck Driver thing goes I find it amamzing that they all see the other as teh enemy. FFS it IS NOT a battle field out their, it actually gives you a good feeling to be courteous to some one and give them an unexpected right of passage and get a nod of thanks despite their mode of transport. Just think, if everyone who read this thread did it, then maybe it might just catch on (yeah right :-()
I for one harbour no ill will towards drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, or any other particular category of road user. Stupidity can be found using all forms of locomotion. Argue against stupidity, not against the mode of travel.
Where they ride is, in general, their problem as a result of their choice to cycle in a land without the supporting infrastructure. That they put everyone else out is selfish in the extreme.
I’ve got no issues with roadwork to nibble away a bit of footpath and a bit of road to put in a cycle lane. However, until that infrastructure gets laid they should stick to cycling off the road and off the footpath. They’re too quick and too dangerous for the footpath, and too slow and to erratic for the road.
Bearing in mind that I make a living out of cars, so I am not a pro green treehugging don’t take a shower type anti car nazi, but it really pisses me of with the attitude like your’s in regards to who can be on the road. It is this sought of selfishness that results in things like that poor bugger getting hit at the servo on Monday for supposed que jumping. Where do you people get your ideas from? I was going down a 60km/h zoned hill on Sunday an my bike at 68km/h (yes I was sitting in the middle of the lane because car drivers throw glass bottles into the curb area)and some dweeb and his mate had to speed up to pass me and throw a (thankfully empty & plastic)bottle at me. I suppose you think that I was to blame and that sort of behavior is fine?? Maybe truck drivers who are bigger than you should start treating you in a like manner? I.e. I’m bigger than you so I don’t have to stop or give way to you? Or is it just that you, like others are feeling insignificant and insecure as the cost of running your favoured mode of transport is become unrealistic and the pushbike sales numbers for the past 3 years have been higher than passenger cars?
“Supposed” queue jumping. Did this person actually jump it, or didn’t they? If they did and they got belted, well, while I don’t condone violence…I can understand why people get frustrated when people selfishly decide to ignore everyone else who had the courtesy to wait and muscle their way in.
As for your bicycle issue, I don’t approve of that either. I don’t recall ever condoning assault. I also don’t approve of you riding on the road, as I’ve said. The two are separate issues.
I don’t condone theft, but at the same time I’m not going to turn vigilante and try to beat up every thief I find…nor will I support anyone who does.
Motorists pay their road tax to use the road. They pay excise on the petrol they use, which is also meant to go into road infrastructure. Motor vehicles, whether it be cars or trucks, have to pay rego so they can be identified when infringing road rules and therefore have some accountability towards their behaviour.
I didn’t ever say cyclists should be off the road because they’re too small. I said they should be off the road because they’re too slow. They create obstructions. They quite freqently ride through red lights, carve up traffic, and all manner of behaviour that would see a motorist (of any vehicle, small car of big truck) lose their ability to use their conveyance.
Its not a matter of “might is right” when it comes to road use. Its a matter of fairness. Pay your dues. Offer some facility to track cyclists when they fail to obey the road rules every other road user is required to. Maintain the same speed everyone else does to improve flow.
Far out Alan, I couldn’t agree with you more; while I know that there are many cyclists out there who do obey the road rules, they certainly seem like the exception to the rule. There’s always the w*nker minority that give the majority a bad name, but nothing changes the fundamental fact that in order to use the road you should A) contribute financially to its maintenance (i.e. registration) and B) be accountable for your behaviour on it (i.e. registration, again).
Do you understand and acknowledge, MondeoXR5, that whilst you may be among the law-abiding and conscientious group of cyclists, the lack of registration is an open invitation for cyclists *unlike* yourself to do whatever they feel like, be discourteous, nearly (or readily) cause accidents, and impede traffic, without getting caught? As Alan stated, if a car (OR truck) were to do this, at least there are the appropriate avenues to correct this behaviour and bring those responsible to justice. Justice? Yeah, we’re potentially talking about people’s lives here, not just stress levels or dinged panels and wing mirrors.
I drive a min of 600 klms per week… and the fact that both Scooters AND bicyclist go between cars, to sit at the front of the traffic, when they are the two SLOWEST conveyances, and therefore the SLOWEST to take off fromt he lights and thereby CREATING traffic… Annoys me no end.
I’m with you Mondeoxr5, I am a young male, and I have to admit, I flog hell out of my car (hey, its a work vehicle.
) but I am very courteous and let people in as often as possible, allow breaks in traffic at streets, alow people out of driveways etc… A lot of my friends and people I have driven with are surpriused by this at first.
and the nod or wave you get, probably 40% of the time makes it worthwhile, I never fail to give a thank you wave, but god there are some arrogant pricks that don’t! lol
I personally wish I lived close enough to work to ride a bike (if I had one), but Alan is right as well, law says no footpaths, and the road isn’t right either, the number of times you see road rules broken, usually within days of me reading an article by a cyclist complaining of the lawlessness of drivers… lol
and how does the “Pedestrian Council” get a higher billing than the NRMA in Minister Daley’s Road Safety Round Table? I am no fan of Harolds self propmoting clap trap at all.
Book the pedestrians.
Come and have a look at MArtin Place any day to see why.
damn right, the law applies equally to pedestrians & Mr Scruby.
The only legal places to cross the road are traffic lights & ped crossings whilst safe to do so, NOT in front a car trying to enter a shopping centre,business or private property….