More lies from Road Safety Week

[jewhoo]

This morning the 7.30 edition of Look North (NE & Cumbria) broadcast a factual error. This road safety week has brought up exactly what was predicted - mothers saying "think of the chiwdwen". For those of you that remember, you'll know that I've posted about this before. David Cameron, 7, was hit by a car on Stamfordham Road in Newcastle last year. The driver got 5 years for DBDD. His car had defective brakes and tyres and he was breaking the speed limit. David Cameron suffered from a disability and rode his bike into the road (ignoring the ped. xing, road bridge and subway all nearby) and was hit by this car. Tragic accident.

So what happens this morning? The presenter starts off..

"This week is Road Safety Week blah blah urging drivers to slow down blah blah highlighting the case of David Cameron who was killed on a pedestrian crossing by a speeding driver". Obviously the implication being that he was crossing on the green man and a speedophile mowed him down when in actual fact he was 50 yards from the crossing and rode out into the traffic.

THis in on the bbc site, I've deleted the irrelevent bits

bbc said:

Bereaved parents' slow down plea The parents of children who have been killed in road accidents are urging North East drivers to slow down. It comes at the regional launch of Road Safety Week. Taking part is Debbie Cameron whose son David was killed riding his bike, and Harry and Maria Cape whose daughter Helen was killed while out jogging. They will line up at their school gates carrying placards saying "20's Plenty". It is part of the campaign to urge people driving in communities to slow down to 20mph. "David's death caused indescribable suffering to my family and the pain never goes away" Debbie Cameron Statistics show that at this speed, most children hit will survive - at 40mph, most will die. David Cameron, seven, was killed on his bike near his home last year when he was hit by a car. The driver, Mark Tye, 22, was sentenced to five years in prison for causing death by dangerous driving. Debbie Cameron said: "But most drivers think it's okay to speed a little bit and never think they will kill a child. "If every driver across the North East makes this commitment today, we will be working as a community to stop needless tragedies like the death of my son."

"The parents of children who have been killed in road accidents are urging North East drivers to slow down" I doubt that all, or indeed many were killed by people beaking the speed limit.

"David Cameron, seven, was killed on his bike near his home last year when he was hit by a car. " This is a campaign to slow down drivers in communities, David was killed on a 40 limit DC that is a main arterial route into Newcastle, hardly "in a community"

"If every driver across the North East makes this commitment today, we will be working as a community to stop needless tragedies like the death of my son." I for one will not commit to driving at 20mph. I'll drive at an appropriate speed thanks. That means 5mph when conditions dictate. Maybe Mrs Cameron should try and set up a campaign to teach kids how to behave around roads? I know this sounds harsh, but I would suspect she doesn't want to take any responsibility for the death of her son (only natural I suppose) when he was out on his bike near a major road, unsupervised (when he had a disability), and clearly with no idea of how to behave around a road (he decided not to use the pedestrain crossing, road bridge or subway).

Edit: Oh yeah, I've e-mailed look north about their factual error

>> Edited by jewhoo on Wednesday 9th November 08:48

[Yugguy]

Regardless of whose fault it actually was, it is true that you're more likely to survive a 20mph hit than a 40. So isn't that alone a case for lower limits in residential areas?

I've recently become a Dad. I love my daughter completely but I know that as much as I will try to teach her road sense and watch her all the time, one day she may run out into the road and a lower limit might save her life.

[dougc]

There is certainly the case for better driver and pedestrian training. As jewhoo has mentioned, driving at the appropriate speed for the conditions that you find yourself in is the best way. This may mean that the typical 'outside a school' example may dictate a speed of 15mph if its 8:30 or 4 o'clock whereas 40mph may be more appropriate at 2am.
As for survivability, I'm sure you would agree that the best speed to hit a pedestrian at is 0mph. Rather than obsessing about the speed at which collisions happen, perhaps a bit of work into preventing them happening in the first place would be good - better driver observation, hazard perception, knowledge of the vehicle, pedestrians using measures provided for them to cross the road etc. Current thinking is that simply lowering a limit will reduce casualties. Personally I see this as being short sighted and in many cases dangerous.

[count duckula]

Maybe the children need more education on crossing the roads, maybe some pelican crossings and TEMPORARY speed limits during school opening and closing times, not a blanket limit of 20.

Malc

[jewhoo]

All good points. I would like to point out however that although a lower impact speed does mean reduced likelihood of injury, it doesn't mean reduced chance of accident so long as the speed is not above the safe-speed limit for any set of circumstances. Remember an accident is the exact coincidence of a very specific set of circumstances from a infinite range of possibilities, not something that can be prevented by always doing one thing differently.

[Yugguy]

I absolutely agree with variable limits. But you have to remember,no matter how much education you give kids, they will occasionally do extremely stupid things, because they're kids.

[MMC]

Yugguy said:

Regardless of whose fault it actually was, it is true that you're more likely to survive a 20mph hit than a 40. So isn't that alone a case for lower limits in residential areas? I've recently become a Dad. I love my daughter completely but I know that as much as I will try to teach her road sense and watch her all the time, one day she may run out into the road and a lower limit might save her life.

I do know exactly what you mean. Children are - thankfully - just about still allowed to be children and run around having fun. There's no doubt at all in my minds that they should be allowed to do so near where they live. But the difficulty is several-fold here... Road safety is, sadly, never as simple as it seems.

Firstly, lower limits won't make a jot of difference. Government advice on setting speed limits used to explain that a limit won't affect speeds if the road characteristics indicate a higher speed. Here in Oxon, we have 30 limits on many straight, clear roads - they're ignored. In my view, shared space schemes (www.shared-space.org) help immensely in areas with volumes of traffic - they allow drivers to travel without being humped and bumped, but reduce speeds reasonably and equitably. Reasonably people will slow down where they should - in residential areas where there are residents about. Idiots will not - but neither will they slow for a limit, bumps or anything else - even cameras. But there's no mechanism to stop idiots owning cars...

Next, it seems that few pedestrians - children or adults - are hit at free travelling speed. Drivers brake - and HARD - if they see someone in the road or about to run out. The problem is that now they may not see someone about to run out because they're concentrating on their numerical speed - their concentration is compromised (to whatever extent) by frequent speedo reference and constant speed adjustment to the speed limit. That makes them less able to check for hazards.

The numerical speed doesn't matter a damn - it's the speed relative to the conditions, driver's state of mind, density of pedestrian movements, traffic movements etc that really matters, and that's not measurable in MPH.

I've no argument at all about driving at 20mph (or much, much less) in residential areas, but a 20mph limit won't help, 20mph is not a safe speed, and having drivers concentrating on achieving it won't make them safe either.

We're back to altering the road environment (www.hamiltonbaillie.co.uk and www.sharedspace.org) and training and education. Anything else is just fiddling with the symptoms without curing their cause.

[kevinday]

Yes they will, which is why they need constant attention. A child cannot run into the road if there is a closed gate preventing access, or, if when walking along the road they are taught to haold hands with an adult at all times.
Parents should educate their children, from a very early age, constant reminders etc. My son is not yet 5 so we tell him every time, and insist upon him holding hands when out in a public place with vehicles around.

[7db]

It sounds like not all the facts are being presented here -- he was sent down for (death by) dangerous driving - not speeding, not defective vehicle.

I have absolutely nothing to say about whether he was going too fast when he hit the (think of the) child.

That hasn't been said before elsewhere.

[BliarOut]

Yugguy said:

Regardless of whose fault it actually was, it is true that you're more likely to survive a 20mph hit than a 40. So isn't that alone a case for lower limits in residential areas? I've recently become a Dad. I love my daughter completely but I know that as much as I will try to teach her road sense and watch her all the time, one day she may run out into the road and a lower limit might save her life.

I'm with you on driving safely around kids, my young daughter slipped her mums hand and ran into the road. Fortunately the driver was alert. It's not the speed limit that saved her, it was the drivers reaction to my daughters mistake. We should be teaching observational skills and hazard perception around schools, not blind limit adherence. Anything that forces the drivers eye away from the road is a bad idea.

[Yugguy]

Yep, I can see the point about better training. problem with limits is often drivers will a) spend more time looking at the speedo than the road but more importantly b) drive at that limit at all times regardless of wether at one particular time slower would be better.

[jazzyjeff]

Yugguy said:

Yep, I can see the point about better training. problem with limits is often drivers will a) spend more time looking at the speedo than the road but more importantly b) drive at that limit at all times regardless of wether at one particular time slower would be better.

Sorry, but in my view this is complete rubbish - if you are anywhere near a good driver you don't need to constantly refer to your speedo to check how fast you are going, most people can feel when they're driving at a constant speed for a start. Plus if you're reasonably witted and not ready for the EMI then reference to a speedo, recognising (and if necessary adjusting) your speed should take less than a second.

If one can't manage something simple like this then one shouldn't be on the road. And if the argument is whether the average driver is capable of the above or not, then if they're not, it furthers the argument for blanket lower speeds as it gives the numpty greater reaction time..!

[BliarOut]

jazzyjeff said:

Yugguy said: Yep, I can see the point about better training. problem with limits is often drivers will a) spend more time looking at the speedo than the road but more importantly b) drive at that limit at all times regardless of wether at one particular time slower would be better. Sorry, but in my view this is complete rubbish - if you are anywhere near a good driver you don't need to constantly refer to your speedo to check how fast you are going, most people can feel when they're driving at a constant speed for a start. Plus if you're reasonably witted and not ready for the EMI then reference to a speedo, recognising (and if necessary adjusting) your speed should take less than a second. If one can't manage something simple like this then one shouldn't be on the road. And if the argument is whether the average driver is capable of the above or not, then if they're not, it furthers the argument for blanket lower speeds as it gives the numpty greater reaction time..!

And at 30 MPH, that second means the car has travelled 13.2 metres. To me that time could have been better spent observing the road. Most of us if we did check our speed would probably find it was below 30 when appropriate anyway. The problem arises when scameraships blindly ping anyone momentarily above the limit. It's that threat which is causing drivers to take their eyes off the road and leaves less time for safe driving practices. Accidents don't happen in a second, they happen in a split second and that's what makes observation more important than speed IMO.

[GreenV8S]

jazzyjeff said:

Sorry, but in my view this is complete rubbish - if you are anywhere near a good driver you don't need to constantly refer to your speedo to check how fast you are going, most people can feel when they're driving at a constant speed for a start. Plus if you're reasonably witted and not ready for the EMI then reference to a speedo, recognising (and if necessary adjusting) your speed should take less than a second. If one can't manage something simple like this then one shouldn't be on the road. And if the argument is whether the average driver is capable of the above or not, then if they're not, it furthers the argument for blanket lower speeds as it gives the numpty greater reaction time..!

Sorry, but in my view this is complete rubbish. I can easily judge an appropriate speed without looking at a speedometer, although I would still want to look at a speedo from time to time to 'recalibrate' my sense of speed when entering a significantly different speed regime. But without instruments I couldn't tell you whether I was doing 30 mph or 34 mph.

A brief glance at a speedo, pause long enough to register the numbers, look up and refocus on the surroundings, takes almost a second. I do NOT want drivers around me taking their eyes off the ball for a second one or more times on the approach to a hazard, I want them concentrating on the hazard.

[jazzyjeff]

Matey, checking your mirrors takes almost a second... you telling me you don't bother doing that either?? Now who's talking rubbish?

JJ

[jewhoo]

7db said:

It sounds like not all the facts are being presented here -- he was sent down for (death by) dangerous driving - not speeding, not defective vehicle. I have absolutely nothing to say about whether he was going too fast when he hit the (think of the) child. That hasn't been said before elsewhere.

Re-read my post - he was speeding, about 55 in a 40 IIRC. The policeman said in court that the defective tyres and ABS system didn't contribute at all to the accident, it was all down to speed.

[swilly]

Its odd but, if kids play on a railway and get mown down by a train, why do the train drivers not get blamed?!?!?

Why is there not a public outcry against speeding trains?!?!?!

Why are roads viewed as different environments to railway tracks, when there is a lot more road and a lot more traffic on those roads?!?!?!

Why is it considered acceptable for children to be allowed anywhere near an environment designed for the movement of large, fast moving, boxes of steel?!?!?!

[GreenV8S]

jazzyjeff said:

Matey, checking your mirrors takes almost a second... you telling me you don't bother doing that either?? Now who's talking rubbish? JJ

To be honest, it's still you. Yes of course I check my mirrors. This involves taking my eyes away from the scene in front, but I can still see things in front using peripheral vision, and I don't need to refocus my eyes to the extent needed to check the speedo. In any case, I focus my attention according the hazards around me. On a busy motorway I'll be checking all the mirrors very often to keep track of the vehicles around me. When I'm passing parked vehicles I'll concentrate on looking for potential hazard in front of me. In any case when I look in the mirrors I do it to look for genuine hazards, and doing so improves my safety. Looking at the speedo helps keep my license safe from scameras but does nothing at all to make me a safer driver, quite the opposite in fact.

[volvos70t5]

Did the driver spot the child at the side of the road?
Did he anticipate that the child would enter the road?
Could the driver stop ni the distance he could SEE to be clear?

We (as in drivers) need to adjust our speed when we COULD come into conflict with other roads users.

A guy with faulty brakes, at 15mph over the limit kills a child who enters the road on a 40mph dual carriageway. Am I the only one who thinks this guy needs punishing?

[Davel]

At the risk of repeating myself, the driver is automatically seem as the culprit even when he/she often isn't.

Yes speeds should be contained in built up areas and around schools but-

Children these days do not seem to have much safety awareness themselves. This is because, due to the many perverts etc out there, children are usually accompanied by parents on their walks to/from school. The parents, and rightly so, watch their every move and tell them when to cross the road and when not to. So, when the parents are not with them for whatever reason, the child often doesn't think of the implications of simply stepping out into the road.

When we were kids, we walked or bicycled to school alone. We were more aware of the road conditions. We played in woods and near streams quite safely whereas now the kids have to be within monitoring distance of an adult or someone watching out for them.

Yes motorists and bikers should act responsibly in these areas but so should the children and other road users..