Did you know that National Road Safety Week begins on May 13th? Don't feel bad if this is news to you as I can only find two significant references to it on the internet and have yet to see or hear an advertisement. The two I did find are the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canada Safety Council web sites. Even these two organizations don't agree on the start and end dates of the program.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police plan targets impaired driving, occupant restraints and aggressive driving. Local police are encouraged to invite the media to attend planned enforcement actions to raise public awareness of road safety. The secondary message is to raise awareness of Road Safety Vision 2010, Canada's effort to have the safest highways in the world in only two more years.

The Canada Safety Council has an entirely different focus, aiming at youth, as collisions are the number one cause of death for that age group. Their campaign delivers the slogan Buckle Up and Buckle Down. It encourages young people to resist peer pressure and always wear a seat belt as well as getting them to concentrate on the driving task and ignore distractions such as cell phones, GPS and video systems.

If past performance is any indication, there will be on average more than one person killed and 78 people injured per day this year in the Province of British Columbia. Does the lack of promotion by road safety agencies mean that we are losing sight of the tragedies that happen on our roads every day? Do you and I passively accept that there is a very real risk that we won't complete our next trip and instead wind up in the hospital or the grave?

Make next week your personal road safety week and do something to increase your driving skills. From as little as resolving to pay more attention to as much as signing up for hazard avoidance training at a driving school, do something, your life may depend on it.

A number of readers contacted me after last week's column where I told about a man walking behind me when I was preparing to back out of a parking stall. These readers all told me that I should back into parking stalls rather than driving forward into them. The benefit of doing this is a far better view of the world when I try to leave the stall. I don't care for backing up when I don't have to but if you sit and think about the suggestion, it starts to make a lot of sense!

When you are backing into a parking stall there isn't any traffic in it already. You only have to pay attention to stationary objects behind and on either side. When you are backing out, not only do you have to pay attention to traffic coming from both sides behind you, you have to make sure the front of your vehicle doesn't rub those stationary objects on either side as well. This divides your attention and is more likely to result in a problem.

Yes, there will be inconsiderate drivers who follow you into the parking lot and won't want to give you the room to back into your chosen stall.
However, you are stopped and so are they. Wait politely with your signal on and hopefully they will figure it out and go around you. Problem solved.

Signal lights? In a parking lot? Defensive drivers signal all their intentions, even when the law does not require them to do it. Is there a better way to tell other drivers what you intend to do? The blinking light will also attract the attention of pedestrians better than a steady white back up light.

The only question I had was what do I do when I want to put items in the trunk of my car and there isn't enough room between me and whatever I have backed up to? It turns out that this is simple to solve too. Simply drive forward a couple of feet and there you go, lots of room to load a trunk. If you are judicious, you will not be far enough out of the space to create difficulties for the traffic that may pass in front of your vehicle.

One last thought, and that is backing into a parking stall is a required skill if you are ever called in for a driver re-examination.

I observed a man in a parking lot this evening which made me think about how little care we sometimes take when we are pedestrians. I was preparing to back out of my parking spot and had put my truck in reverse, then did a scan to the rear before I started letting up on the clutch. A male crossing behind me did not slow or even bother to look to see what my intentions were. Perhaps he didn't even think to notice that my truck was idling and the backup lights were on.

The most recent collision statistics published by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia are for the year 2005. During that year 1,857 pedestrians were injured and 68 died in collisions. One might guess that children would be the most likely victims due to being impulsive and inexperienced. This is not the case as the majority of fatalities involved pedestrians over the age of 50. Older pedestrians were also in the majority when the injured were counted as well.

Why is this happening? Contributing factors on the pedestrian side included making an error or being confused, being under the influence of alcohol and failing to yield the right of way. On the driver's side it was being inattentive, failing to yield the right of way and making an error or being confused.

I walked part way to work this morning and encountered a woman leaving a driveway I was about to cross. She noticed that I had checked my stride and was making eye contact before I moved into her path. She must not be used to this as she called to me and told me that I didn't need to worry, I could cross and she wouldn't hit me. I appreciated the communication and was confident that I could pass in front of her safely.

The underlying idea here is that a pedestrian has to take responsibility for their safety, even if it means giving up your right of way to an inconsiderate or inattentive driver. Keep your head up, make eye contact and never move from a place of safety unless you are absolutely certain the drivers have seen you and present no threat of collision. You may also wish to consider not using items that draw your attention elsewhere such as music players and cell phones when you are walking on a highway.

I spoke to a woman this week who was upset at the way the police had handled the clearing of an out of control party at a residence. The officer had advised all the teens that they must leave immediately and would not listen to reasons for doing anything other than that. She was upset because this forced the teens to drive away from the party while impaired.

I will not discuss his behaviour, but instead, that of those who placed him in this position.

The last time I checked, the legal drinking age in British Columbia was 19. Had the law been followed, the majority of the teens at the party would not have been in this situation to start with.

The Graduated Licensing Program requires that its participants have no alcohol in their blood at the time of driving. Why would a teen in the GLP choose to go to a party and consume alcohol knowing that they were going to drive away from it at some time during the evening?

The officer did not force the teens to get into their cars and drive.
The majority of them had two good legs, and assuming that they were parked legally, could easily have walked home and returned to pick up their vehicles the next day. They could also have used their cell phones to call for rides.

Full blame must not be placed on the teens. After all, they received permission to use the vehicles involved from their parents. I dare say that there is a duty of care placed on the parents whenever they hand over the car keys or sponsor the ownership of a vehicle.

Common sense and courtesy toward the neighbours by the party goers would also have meant that the police would not have known about the gathering in the first place.