Elderly pedestrian who died after Canford Cliffs collision was "an absolute gentleman" (From Bournemouth Echo)

I mean, really, how do you manage to run over a pensioner in broad daylight? It's not like he ran out into the road with no warning. It's a residential area, and drivers have a responsibility to drive carefully and expect people crossing the road. Have a look in the Highway Code.

No wonder kids have to be driven to school, and our streets are so congested. Why would parents allow their kids to walk around streets like ours?

I'm sure the driver of the van will be 'devastated', and be of perfectly good character. Well, apart from the points on his licence from speeding because, hey, speeding isn't really that serious.

FNS-man wrote:
I mean, really, how do you manage to run over a pensioner in broad daylight? It's not like he ran out into the road with no warning. It's a residential area, and drivers have a responsibility to drive carefully and expect people crossing the road. Have a look in the Highway Code.

No wonder kids have to be driven to school, and our streets are so congested. Why would parents allow their kids to walk around streets like ours?

I'm sure the driver of the van will be 'devastated', and be of perfectly good character. Well, apart from the points on his licence from speeding because, hey, speeding isn't really that serious.

What a stupid, presumptive post that was. There are many reasons this could have happened, and while I would admit that driver error is a possibility, it is not the only possible cause. Until the police have finished their investigations, comments like this are both ignorant & insensitive. Also, could you please explain how you seen to know that the driver has points on his licence for speeding, or has ever been convicted of any motoring offense? My own, thoughts and condolences are with Mr Hudsons family and friends.

Mr.Gibbs although you comment is most informative i believe need to read more carefully before labelling someone as stupid,presumtive,ig
norant & insensitive and having read a lot of FNS comments non of those apply.However the point being made is that car drivers of which i am one usually get a punishment that does not fit the crime eg.points,fine etc, certainly we have seen many cases that follow this pattern,it also goes without saying really that all our thoughts are with the family and friends of the gentleman

mgibbs wrote:

FNS-man wrote: I mean, really, how do you manage to run over a pensioner in broad daylight? It's not like he ran out into the road with no warning. It's a residential area, and drivers have a responsibility to drive carefully and expect people crossing the road. Have a look in the Highway Code. No wonder kids have to be driven to school, and our streets are so congested. Why would parents allow their kids to walk around streets like ours? I'm sure the driver of the van will be 'devastated', and be of perfectly good character. Well, apart from the points on his licence from speeding because, hey, speeding isn't really that serious.

What a stupid, presumptive post that was. There are many reasons this could have happened, and while I would admit that driver error is a possibility, it is not the only possible cause. Until the police have finished their investigations, comments like this are both ignorant & insensitive. Also, could you please explain how you seen to know that the driver has points on his licence for speeding, or has ever been convicted of any motoring offense? My own, thoughts and condolences are with Mr Hudsons family and friends.

Please suggest how he could have run the guy over and killed him without it being his fault.

FNS-man wrote:

mgibbs wrote:

FNS-man wrote: I mean, really, how do you manage to run over a pensioner in broad daylight? It's not like he ran out into the road with no warning. It's a residential area, and drivers have a responsibility to drive carefully and expect people crossing the road. Have a look in the Highway Code. No wonder kids have to be driven to school, and our streets are so congested. Why would parents allow their kids to walk around streets like ours? I'm sure the driver of the van will be 'devastated', and be of perfectly good character. Well, apart from the points on his licence from speeding because, hey, speeding isn't really that serious.

What a stupid, presumptive post that was. There are many reasons this could have happened, and while I would admit that driver error is a possibility, it is not the only possible cause. Until the police have finished their investigations, comments like this are both ignorant & insensitive. Also, could you please explain how you seen to know that the driver has points on his licence for speeding, or has ever been convicted of any motoring offense? My own, thoughts and condolences are with Mr Hudsons family and friends.

Please suggest how he could have run the guy over and killed him without it being his fault.

Is that a serious post from FNS-man? If so, it should be removed. It is wholly inappropriate to accuse the driver, who MAY have been totally not at fault in this unfortunate incident.

I was not there, so do not know the circumstances. I respectfully suggest that you were not there either (or were you? - if so, pass your information to the Police), so your comments are therefore without apparent foundation.

In such circumstances, thoughts should be with the deceased's family, and, also, potentially with the driver and his family. Don't rush to judgment.

Highway Code, which apparently is followed religiously by drivers:

152
Residential streets. You should drive slowly and carefully on streets where there are likely to be pedestrians, cyclists and parked cars

205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.

So, it was "heaving with rain" and they hit a pedestrian with enough force to shatter the windscreen and bend the bonnet. Was the driver going "slowly and carefully"? If so I really don't know how he could have killed this guy.

FNS-man wrote:
Highway Code, which apparently is followed religiously by drivers:

152
Residential streets. You should drive slowly and carefully on streets where there are likely to be pedestrians, cyclists and parked cars

205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions.

So, it was "heaving with rain" and they hit a pedestrian with enough force to shatter the windscreen and bend the bonnet. Was the driver going "slowly and carefully"? If so I really don't know how he could have killed this guy.

Ok, first things first. the stopping distance for a vehicle travelling at 20mph is 40ft, due to the weather conditions at the time, doubling that would not be unreasonable. So had a pedestrian who may have had impaired vision or hearing stepped into the road within this distance, they could quite easily have been hit even if the driver had been travelling 10 mph below the speed limit which a cautious driver may well have done. Secondly damage to the vehicle is no indication of the force of impact. Most modern vehicles are designed with pedestrian safety in mind. The bonnet and windscreen are designed to crumple & deform in a collision, absorbing as much of the impact as possible. An impact with a 50kg+ person at as little as 10 mph would impart more than enough energy onto the bonnet & windscreen to cause severe damage to both. Thirdly, Mr Hudson may not have died from injuries sustained by striking the vehicle. Many elderly people die as a result of falls from standing or walking. Until a post mortem is carried out, there is no way to determine cause of death. Accident investigation requires a high level of skill and judgement, even when all of the fact are known. To sit at a computer screen and pass judgement as to the drivers guilt without all of the relevant information is foolish and irresponsible.

So a guy who goes for a paper and crosses a busy road every day decides to walk out without looking, and the poor van driver who is on the lookout for pedestrians slams on the brakes? Total fantasy.

40ft is no distance at all, and the elderly gent appears to have got a fair distance across the road as he wasn't just clipped.

Driving safely he shouldn't have been hit at all. Desperate justification of poor driving. It's so galling when deaths on the road occur that unless someone is drunk then it's never the driver's fault, always an 'accident'. When the 'accident' could have been avoided by the driver paying more attention.

"Thirdly, Mr Hudson may not have died from injuries sustained by striking the vehicle. Many elderly people die as a result of falls from standing or walking."

Poor old man
He had an "accident"
With a white van man
But that's OK
Because he was old
And he would have died anyway

To slightly misquote Morrissey.

FNS-man - you must be one sour individual to twist words like that.

As I said previously, you have no EVIDENCE for your outrageous claims, and flatly refuse to accept reasoned arguments against them.

I could quote the (real) example of a man who deliberately stepped out in front of a bus and was killed. The bus driver had no chance of avoiding him, yet, by your twisted logic, it would have been the driver's fault automatically. In that particular instance, you would have been wrong.

So the visually and hearing-impaired gent is now suicidal?

Desperately trying to justify why it's OK to kill someone in a car by not paying attention?

I did not suggest that at all. Also, there is no desperation from me whatsoever. I just proved that your theory can be flawed, but you are not able to see it.
You consistently twist things, it is pointlessarguing with someone who has such a closed mind.