Posted on 07/28/2020 9:39:15 PM PDT by Cronos
Read the article - it is a statement by “ Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety “ - https://www.pacts.org.uk/
Given the Muslim propensity for driving into crowds of people, pedestrian safety may not be a completely unwarranted concern.
There are lots of auto manufacturers in the South where unions do not exist.
Toyota has a major plant near Lexington, KY (Camry and Avalon) and a truck plant in Texas. They are building a huge new plant in Huntsville, AL.
BMW has a huge operation outside Greenville, SC.
Kia has a major car plant on I-85 in GA near the AL border. The Hyundai side of the business has a big plant in Montgomery, AL.
Mercedes has a big SUV plant outside Tuscaloosa, AL.
There are probably more, but you get the idea.
Elon Musk is moving his Tesla factory to Austin.
And if England stops American vehicle sales there then we should stop sales of Range Rovers and MiniCoopers here.
Long ago when I was a young Airman I was stationed in the UK and drove a left hand drive car. Biggest challenge was not pedestrians but trying to pass a slow truck or car on narrow, winding roads.
That is funny. Be made of sponges?
My son hit a deer while driving at 70 mph a couple nights ago. The car he was driving did an excellent job protecting the pedestrians, I mean passengers.
My son was driving a friend’s newer Explorer. I haven’t seen pictures but the damage sounds impressive.
Safety should be for the occupants not people or animals outside the vehicle where they don’t belong.
Those are made by Tata and BMW - neither of them British.
Not a practical, let alone ethical policy in the context of British (and most European) cities, where close proximity of motor vehicles and pedestrians is unavoidable. There is no criminal offence of 'jaywalking' in the UK, and pedestrians have priority over cars at junctions etc.
So pedestrians are not responsible for their own actions? The nanny state must take care of them 24/7?
Last I looked, it was pretty stupid to wonder out into the road.
Exactly.
They can’t trade with the EU without huge tariffs and taxes.
Now they want to shit on a deal with us?
Just say no.
It’s a pity, but for them, mostly.
however,
1. "England stops American vehicle sales" -- you do realize that England is just one of the 4 constituent nations in the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland, right? It's not that England itself can decide
2. Britain isn't planning on stopping american sales there - just saying that American vehicles sold in the UK should follow the same standards as British vehicles
Mach E...cool car.
The first electric vehicle I will own...for 3 years.
Safety experts are urging the UK government to exclude American cars from any post-Brexit trade deal.
They say imported vehicles should meet British safety standards for accidents with pedestrians, cyclists and children.
Okay, which is it?
Subaru, Lafayette, IA.
Pedestrians in the UK most certainly are responsible for their own actions, and have a legal duty of care to other road users. But many rural roads in the UK have no sidewalk, and drivers must always be prepared to encounter pedestrians there: while in towns there are many deaths and injuries caused by incompetent or drunk drivers mounting the sidewalk, driving across ‘zebra’ crossings (where there’s a legal obligation to stop for pedestrians) etc. There’s no way in which drivers can avoid responsibility for their conduct of a potentially lethal instrument (the car), or the effects of that instrument when in contact with a vulnerable legitimate road user. To claim otherwise is a ‘might is right’ argument of the most egregious kind.
which is what? I expressed my opinion that this is done to protect British industry. The article states otherwise. you are free to arrive at your opinion based on the facts in the article - both the article pov and mine seem valid
cyclotic - you gave the example of your son hitting a deer.
Now if that had been a pedestrian - at 70 mph, the person would have been killed no matter what.
But if, assume, your son had been driving at 30 mph in a built-up area and hit a jaywalker. Your son committed no crime, but he would still be heartbroken that he hurt someone — even if it was completely the other person’s fault.
Most US driving is on highways - except in the North-east. In the UK, it is different - most driving is in heavily built-up areas.
Different conditions.
In the case of the UK - say your son is driving down a road in London and hits a pedestrian. Even if it is 100% the pedestrian’s fault, I’m sure your son will be relieved that he would not kill someone.
The Pedestrian would still have erred, no doubt.
The car in the UK should save the passengers and secondarily the pedestrian (outsider).
Think of it as Asimov’s 3 laws of autos :)
Ever seen a head on collision at 30 mph?
A few years ago, I was at an auto crash test facility and stood about 20 feet away from a 25 mph test collision.
Violent doesn’t even begin to describe it. We analyzed the slow motion video’s after that.
Putting a bunch of extra safety stuff like soft bumpers onto a car for even a 25 or 30 mph crash is pretty much a placebo.
Yes, of course in those circumstances what’s on the surface of a vehicle isn’t going change the outcome. But a high proportion of car/pedestrian collisions on UK city streets are at low speed - 20mph or less, when ‘soft’ surfacing can significantly affect the severity of any injury.
(By the way, this has nothing whatever to do with the ‘nanny state’. It’s a matter of law, and British law on the interactions between road users derives from the basic Common Law principle of ‘duty of care’, which was established long before a ‘nanny state’ was ever dreamed of!).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.