Would you stop for Mark Parton? [With poll]

Leon Arundell 5 March 2012 24

On Thursday 2CC’s Mark Parton argued that we police should not book drivers who fail to give way to pedestrians. He called it “common sense” for walkers to give way to drivers.

Do you agree with him?

Next time you see Mark Parton on a pedestrian crossing, will you:

A: stop to let him cross?

or

B: keep driving so that he can show his common sense and get out of your way?

If you see Mark Parton at a pedestrian crossing do you

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
24 Responses to Would you stop for Mark Parton? [With poll]
Filter
Order
GardeningGirl GardeningGirl 11:43 pm 12 Mar 12

Sandman said :

Alderney said :

Isn’t the principle similar to that on the water (which is power gives way to sail gives way to oar)?

How the hell do you make that comparison? The reasoning on the water is that power has more control than sail. Sailboats don’t have brakes where a powerboat can reverse the prop to slow down.

Common sense on the road would dictate that “If the other bastard is bigger than you and there’s a possibility he won’t stop, let him have right of way”. No point arguing semantics when you’ve been squished by an Action bus because you were busy changing songs on your iPod when you stepped off the curb.

Case in point for idiots in this city. I drive a reasonable sized van and a couple of weeks ago I was reversing out of a spot where turning around wasn’t an option. The van has LED reverse lights clearly visible as well as a pretty loud reversing buzzer and an additional rear facing driving light that activates with the reverse lights From previous experiences I was reversing pretty slowly and sure enough this moronic woman WITH HER KIDS steps off the footpath right behind me. Had it not been for the reversing camera with dash mounted screen those kids would have had a pretty rotten day.

That’s awful, not just the risk in that particular incident but what is the mother teaching the kids for the future, that they can do what they like and everyone will always watch out for them so nothing bad will ever happen? No wonder we have idiot drivers when we have idiot parents who don’t even teach their kids how to deal with traffic when they are at their most vulnerable, ie small pedestrians.

Sandman Sandman 9:41 pm 12 Mar 12

Alderney said :

Isn’t the principle similar to that on the water (which is power gives way to sail gives way to oar)?

How the hell do you make that comparison? The reasoning on the water is that power has more control than sail. Sailboats don’t have brakes where a powerboat can reverse the prop to slow down.

Common sense on the road would dictate that “If the other bastard is bigger than you and there’s a possibility he won’t stop, let him have right of way”. No point arguing semantics when you’ve been squished by an Action bus because you were busy changing songs on your iPod when you stepped off the curb.

Case in point for idiots in this city. I drive a reasonable sized van and a couple of weeks ago I was reversing out of a spot where turning around wasn’t an option. The van has LED reverse lights clearly visible as well as a pretty loud reversing buzzer and an additional rear facing driving light that activates with the reverse lights From previous experiences I was reversing pretty slowly and sure enough this moronic woman WITH HER KIDS steps off the footpath right behind me. Had it not been for the reversing camera with dash mounted screen those kids would have had a pretty rotten day.

Leon Leon 11:17 pm 07 Mar 12

Apologies for the typo. I meant to delete the word “we.” I wasn’t trying to impersonate a police officer. Honest!

Aeek Aeek 11:49 pm 05 Mar 12

davo101 said :

236(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.

236(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.

Read carefully. Move into, and unreasonably = if they are already there and have reason to be there, they aren’t committing an offence.
Also, driver is defined to include rider.

Additionally, them being in the wrong doesn’t absolve you of making a reasonable effort to avoid the collision.

LSWCHP LSWCHP 9:54 pm 05 Mar 12

Primal said :

CatlikeTread said :

The Golden Rule Applies.

“Every man for himself”?

He who has the gold makes the rules.

Primal Primal 8:03 pm 05 Mar 12

CatlikeTread said :

The Golden Rule Applies.

“Every man for himself”?

CatlikeTread CatlikeTread 6:43 pm 05 Mar 12

The Golden Rule Applies.

Deref Deref 4:44 pm 05 Mar 12

Erg0 said :

I pity anyone who relies on AM radio for their defintion of “common sense”.

+1

Or anything else, for that matter.

Sgt.Bungers Sgt.Bungers 4:21 pm 05 Mar 12

Anyone know where I can find a copy of this broadcast? I plan to counter argue.

Chop71 Chop71 3:55 pm 05 Mar 12

who?

rhino rhino 3:41 pm 05 Mar 12

Even at pedestrian crossings, I often pretend to not be crossing and just walking parallell to the road if it seems like me stepping out and making the car stop would cause him more of a delay than it would cause me. I then cross when there are no cars, which is usually 5 seconds later. Some people are selfish. It is very easy to stop and start whilst walking, but in a car, it takes more time and petrol money and co2 etc. Often you find that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic and if you stop the car, they will end up waiting there for 2 minutes until more pedestrians stop crossing.

SnapperJack SnapperJack 3:40 pm 05 Mar 12

Erg0 said :

I pity anyone who relies on AM radio for their defintion of “common sense”.

… and FM with its moronic “morning zoos” and crazy calls has a lot more common sense, doesn’t it?

Alderney Alderney 2:32 pm 05 Mar 12

davo101 said :

Alderney said :

One cannot be fined for crossing anywhere unless one is within a certain distance of a marked crossing; then it’s jaywalking. But the pedestrian still has right of way over the vehicle.

Wrong. From the Australian Road Rules:

236(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.

Offence provision.

236(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.

Offence provision.

I am willing to conceed my second sentance to be incorrect. I stand by my statement regards the first (as long as one is not obstructive vehicles of course :)).

Thumper Thumper 1:52 pm 05 Mar 12

EvanJames said :

The poll is flawed. There is no way I’d ever run over a dog.

What if a dog was driving the car?

Simmo Simmo 1:35 pm 05 Mar 12

Alderney said :

It is in the Australian Road Rules that if you are crossing on a side street and a vehicle is turning in to that street the vehicle is compelled to give way to you.

I believe that to be the case, and rightly so. Especially in Canberra where a car turning into the side street probably wouldn’t indicate so the pedestrian couldn’t know before hand that the car was coming. Elsewhere on the road where there is no crossing then lookout pedestrian because if I brake or swerve it will be at the last minute. Is it too hard to pick a gap in the traffic? Mind you, I would run down any of the breakfast radio teams from 104.7 or 106.3. They sound like idiots.

EvanJames EvanJames 12:57 pm 05 Mar 12

The poll is flawed. There is no way I’d ever run over a dog.

davo101 davo101 12:52 pm 05 Mar 12

Alderney said :

One cannot be fined for crossing anywhere unless one is within a certain distance of a marked crossing; then it’s jaywalking. But the pedestrian still has right of way over the vehicle.

Wrong. From the Australian Road Rules:

236(1) A pedestrian must not cause a traffic hazard by moving into the path of a driver.

Offence provision.

236(2) A pedestrian must not unreasonably obstruct the path of any driver or another pedestrian.

Offence provision.

Solidarity Solidarity 12:23 pm 05 Mar 12

If he’s on foot i’ll try and avoid him.

If he’s on a bicycle, full throttle ahead.

Alderney Alderney 12:16 pm 05 Mar 12

Isn’t the principle similar to that on the water (which is power gives way to sail gives way to oar)?

A car must always give way to a pedestrian, despite the stupidity of the pedestrain and where he/she chooses to cross. One cannot be fined for crossing anywhere unless one is within a certain distance of a marked crossing; then it’s jaywalking. But the pedestrian still has right of way over the vehicle.

It is in the Australian Road Rules that if you are crossing on a side street and a vehicle is turning in to that street the vehicle is compelled to give way to you.

Thumper Thumper 11:54 am 05 Mar 12

What a strange post….

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site