toots wrote:
Working on the theory that the purpose of the exercise would be to reduce crashes why do they put things up for drivers to read when they should be watching what's happening on the road around them.
Because they are thick.
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Big Yellow Things http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11244 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | toots [ Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Big Yellow Things |
Our council has started putting these big yellow signs up on lamp post etc along the road. They are called 'Accident Route Alert'. They tell you how many crashes there have been along that particular stretch of road. Working on the theory that the purpose of the exercise would be to reduce crashes why do they put things up for drivers to read when they should be watching what's happening on the road around them. My other question is why do they call them crashes and not accidents. I would expect to find this kind of thing in an accident black spot perhaps but we've got them all over the place. Have they popped up anywhere else recently? |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Big Yellow Things |
toots wrote: Working on the theory that the purpose of the exercise would be to reduce crashes why do they put things up for drivers to read when they should be watching what's happening on the road around them.
Because they are thick.
|
|
| Author: | Chester J.D. [ Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We have these things all over the place..... 
|
|
| Author: | toots [ Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ours look bigger than that and say things like 143 crashes in 3 years 
|
|
| Author: | Stationtone [ Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
These signs are more likely to cause accidents motorists have a tendency to brake sharply after reading such signs.I think the money should be spent on something worthwhile. |
|
| Author: | cabbyman [ Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
They use the terms 'crashes' and 'collisions' because they are objective. 'Accident' implies that someone is at fault, albeit unknowingly, and until cause is established blame cannot be apportioned. |
|
| Author: | Bart [ Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
cabbyman wrote: They use the terms 'crashes' and 'collisions' because they are objective. 'Accident' implies that someone is at fault, albeit unknowingly, and until cause is established blame cannot be apportioned.
Think you have that the wrong way around. Accident suggests that no-one is at fault and there is almost always negligence when there is a crash |
|
| Author: | cabbyman [ Thu Apr 16, 2009 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That was, in fact, the way it was explained to me elsewhere a little while ago: www.traffic-answers.co.uk Suffice to say, the reason for the terminology is to do with the apportioning, or not, of blame. |
|
| Author: | agabbycabbie [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The police dont use the term RTA (road traffic accident) any more, it is now a RTC (road traffic collision) more evidence of PC (political correctness) gone mad! |
|
| Author: | toots [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's a little concerning here cos I haven't seen a single one that says there were less than 100 Ooops on a stretch of road. I think Ooops is a better description than collision, crash or accident 
|
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Accident infers it was unavoidable, so it isnt used now, given we sue everybody and everything for anything you cant sue for the unavoidable |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|