to be disappointed with Mumsnet's victim road safety victim blaming

[GoldenGoat]

The main killer of children in traffic accidents is cars/other motor vehicles. In fact, the people driving those motor vehicles.
The road safety article on the MN homepage at the moment focuses entirely on teaching children road safety, and I am in no way arguing that this is not important. We do need to teach children to stop, look, listen. To not just step in to the road. To try looking up from their phones occasionally.

However nowhere in that article does it ask adult drivers to consider their speed, to drive and park considerately near schools in particular, to not just whizz around corners when they can see pedestrians approaching a corner.

AIBU to think that MN should be representing both sides of this and calling for safer streets as well teaching children road safety? As the article currently stands, it is essentially victim blaming.

The article if you haven't seen it. www.mumsnet.com/pre-teens/road-safety-for-children

"The onus should never be on people to not get killed"

Sorry but that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard (and I spend a lot of time in AIBU)

If a school was doing a drug awareness campaign they would focus on teaching children the dangers of taking drugs. They wouldn't make the focus of the campaign be about the people who make, traffic and sell drugs would they.

I'm not a driver so may be wrong. But I assumed that drivers are basically considered responsible for not running over pedestrians, even if the pedestrians are in the road. Obviously there are situations where the driver can't be held at fault, e.g. if they tried to stop but the stopping distance was too great (and they weren't speeding), if they swerved to avoid hitting something and unintentionally hit a(nother) person by mistake, if the person stepped out suddenly and they didn't have time to stop, if the person was committing suicide, if the road was too fast (e.g. national speed limit, 50, 70) etc.

But things like if you see someone on the pavement about to step in the road you should slow down, you can't suddenly brake next to a zebra crossing, you should be looking, you're not allowed to speed (as this increases stopping distance among other hazards), you should be in control of the car and not haphazard or distracted, where there are signs warning of animals, children or elderly people likely to be crossing the road you should take extra care, you must wear glasses if you need to and have a clear windscreen in order (in part) to be able to see pedestrians where they shouldn't be, etc.

If somebody steps into the road inappropriately and you have time to slow down and stop you're not allowed to run them over regardless because you're not in the mood, that's what I meant.

Too many 'victims' in the OP, TBH

Yes - silly you.

A big part of being road safe, as a pedestrian, is assuming that there's a twat with a lead foot, around the corner. That's not victim blaming. It's being alert and pro-active. (and it's the same for drivers - on the same junction where, as a pedestrian, I have to always be hyper-alert for twats with lead feet (and equally, for erratic old men, purely on the basis of personal statistics) a driver had to be cut out of a car because of the actions of a twat with a lead foot, the other week.)

Yes of course drivers should take more care in residential areas and where there are loads of pedestrians about. But you can't slow down every time you see a pedestrian loitering on the pavement on the offchance they're going to walk out in front of your car.

My friend's dad killed a child who ran out on the road in front of his car. He just ran out and there was nothing my friend's dad could do. He never drove again - not because it was his fault (he was entirely exonerated) but because he was so traumatised by what had happened.

The OP is ridiculous

YABU

But where does it end?? Do you have a section for car manufacturers telling them to make sure their speedos are clear enough, and warn drivers if they're going too fast?

Do you have a section telling council workers to make sure that all roads are kept in tip top condition as dodgy road surfaces ca lead to accidents?

Is there then to be another section asking teachers to request that their schools all employ lollipop men/ladies out the front to help cut down on accidents?

All good things which could help cut down accidents but have no place in an article on helping children to learn to cross the road.

The clue is in 'road safety for children'. It isn't road safety for drivers...

YABU.

If a driver is doing the speed limit (30mph for example), driving with care and responsibility and accidentally hits a child because the child ran out into the road....not the drivers fault.

Of course it is important to teach children not to run into roads/play in the street. Calling this victim blaming is ridiculous.

I think the idea is that everyone, including children, should be encouraged to take responsibility for their own conduct because that is (i) morally right; and (ii) the only part of the situation they have any control over anyway. Taking responsibility for yourself is not at all the same as accepting you will necessarily be to blame if things go wrong.

Mumsnet is a good site to give parents tips on how to help their children do this. There will be other places (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, for example?) where people give similar advice to drivers.

As someone said earlier in the thread, you can't always cover all angles on a topic. It is ok for campaigns to have a particular target or to focus on a particular constituency.

Yes. YANBU. Notice it on threads too - eg recent one saying pedestrian was BU for wearing dark clothing making her less visible.

Why is teaching safety being seen as victim blaming?

And if a child ran out in front of a car where there was no chance of the vehicle stopping (where it had been driving at the correct speed for the conditions of the road and within legal limits) then it would be the child that caused the accident.

I

Bala - if the pedestrian was on a road where there were no pavements wearing dark clothing then yes they would be to blame IMO - as would any road user who did not illuminate themselves whilst on a road. Obviously I don't know the circs of the case you are quoting but surely each case is not black and white.

Well yes see your point but you can't legislate for other toad users but you can educate your kids as much ds you can. It's a start.

But agree with you too.

As an organisation that represents millions of parents and therefore millions of children, I'd expect MN to do more to improve road safety

So would I, the road-unsafe bastards.

A silly post for a silly OP.

Yeah, if you're stupid enough to run into the road without looking (or stupid enough to let your child dart into the road), it probably is your fault for you or your child getting hit. That's why we need to teach children not to do it.

The world cannot cater to every idiot out there and save them from themselves. You need to take preventative measures to keep yourself safe too.

Also, as a side, drivers are drilled ad nauseam to watch their surroundings when they drive. The first thing I was told in driving class is if you see a ball in the road, hit the breaks, because what comes very closely after the ball? Drivers aren't told to treat every pedestrian like a potential speed bump.

YABU. When a friend of mine knocked down a woman who ran out in front of her, it took a lot to convince my friend that it wasn't her fault. The woman had seen her bus arriving and just went for it without looking. If you don't step out into moving traffic, then you won't get run over. Children (and some adults) need to learn that.

Fucking hell.

I think you are looking to be offended here, OP.

I started a thread about a near miss I had when a lady dressed entirely in black pushed her black pushchair out into the main road in front of me.
Of course she was entitled to dress all in black and have a completely black pushchair, making them both completely invisible to drivers. As long as she was on the pavement - no problem.

But, when she pushed the pushchair out onto a busy road, on a dark, rainy evening, without stopping to look both ways, nowhere near a pedestrian crossing, right in front of an approaching vehicle, her actions became irresponsible.

Hopefully most posters on this thread can appreciate the difference there.

The only way to stop children being killed by people driving cars is to slow down cars in residential areas and enforce those driving dangerously.

Except it isn't is it?

Teaching children to check for moving vehicles stops them being killed.
Teaching children to choose a safe place to cross stops them being killed.
Teaching children to wear bright clothing at night stops them being killed.
Teaching children not to run across a road stops them being killed.
Teaching children not to run into a road after a toy stops them being killed.

If a child does not learn these things, they have a good chance of being killed on the road by a safe driver.

I think most do 3littlefrogs

I go running at night and I wear hi-vis clothing. I obviously hope I don't get run over but I have to make it as easy as possible for drivers to see me. I can't pass all the responsibility onto the drivers for my safety.

When, as a child, I ran across a busy road without looking because I could see my bus it was my own stupid fault and not the driver who was driving perfectly safely until I ran into the side of his car.

Am I the only one who thinks this thread isn't about cars at all?