Friday 21st September 2001

Please do something!

The death toll on our roads isn't coming down as expected

---

[nubbin]

Maybe we can use these figures to target the safety issue to where 92% of casualties occur - suburban and urban streets, where speeding really does cause problems. That may allow us to have more freedom out of town (dream on, baby!). No doubt, blinkered organisations like T2000 will just say it''s all because of speeding, and nothing to do with drink, stupid kids, gormless pedestrians, rat runs, poor traffic management etc. etc...

[Fatboy]

Add in the fact that speeding is nice and profitable and stopping gormless pedestrians, fixing crap traffic systems etc isn't, and there's no way that'll happen Edited by Fatboy on Friday 21st September 17:09

[philshort]

quote:I would assume that it was the child who ran out without looking as kids play on the streets quite a lot.

While I don't know what happened either, obviously, I do know that if "kids play on the streets quite a lot" and its getting dark then 30mph is WAY TOO FAST. Observation and anticipation can save the lives of those too young or too stupid to look out for themselves. As drivers we have a responsibility for the lives of everyone who may cross our paths. You should always be driving defensively and ready for the unexpected.

[RJO]

I am sick and tired of these hopeless twots who think the driver must look out for every possible eventuality on the roads. There is a bloody road there, it is obvious. It is where cars truck cyclists travel. If you are responsible for someone who may not have the ability to appriciate that a road is a dangerous place then you are responsible for keeping them away from that danger. They are pushing this crap in this country (Australia) as well. We have these meek non drivers wanting road calming devises which only add to noise and air pollution because they don't want to take responsibility for their own kids. Get real.

[philshort]

RJO

quote:I am sick and tired of these hopeless twots who think the driver must look out for every possible eventuality on the roads

Do everyone a favour and surrender your licence to a local police station before you kill someone. Your attitude stinks. Just stop for a minute and try to think how you would feel if your child was killed or injured by someone who could have taken steps to avoid the "accident", i.e. slowed down to a safe speed for the conditions. Even better, try to think how you will feel after you have killed a child. Do you think blaming the childs parents will salve your conscience? Do you think that will let you sleep at nights knowing you could have prevented that childs death? Grow up. If you hit a pedestrian it is your fault. Period. Thats the responsibility you undertake when you turn the key - its not a video game, its real life. And death. Just for info, I am not some do-gooder, and I don't drive like a pensioner. I drive a TVR Chimaera 500, and I drive fast where conditions allow, as often as possible. Which is not very often these days. Edited by philshort on Monday 24th September 17:43

[campbell]

Well may be your are right philshort in that drivers should think a little moreabout what speed they are travaling at thought the back streets of a town when it starts getting dark but as for the main streets there is proper places for people to cross and there in no excuse for running across and risk getting run over for the sake of saving a few seconds. As for wvwey one else I agree with them, there is to many kids playing in the streets and it so easy to say the driver was speeding when he run over the kid, you say if only the driver was going slower the risk of a series accident could have been avoided, well I say the truble starts in the home and if the kid was properly educated it road craft and had some respect for the road since the car has a right to be then their, then there would be less accidents

[philshort]

I feel like I'm preaching, and believe me I am the last person to do that. Maybe its because I have a 17 month old son? Whatever, I do feel strongly about this. There is a time and a place, and a street where kids are known to play, at dusk (when most accidents occur), is neither.

quote:it so easy to say the driver was speeding when he run over the kid

Its easy because in 100% of cases it is true. You run over the kid, therefore you were goinq too fast. QED. If you weren't you would have stopped. I agree totally about keeping kids off the road, education, pedestrian responsibilities etc etc, but driving defensively means expecting the unexpected. The kid probably doesn't know any better; you should, you are in charge of a lethal weapon. For the record, I think traffic calming measures are an abomination, do anything but calm traffic, and should be made illegal. But faced with drivers who so blatantly absolve themselves of their responsibilities (RJO), what choice is there? PS You didn't teach RJO to spell did you Campbell? Edited by philshort on Tuesday 25th September 07:00

[mel]

quote: Its easy because in 100% of cases it is true. You run over the kid, therefore you were goinq too fast. QED. If you weren't you would have stopped.

What about the bloke reported in the papers a couple of months ago who ran over his own daughter (can't remember age but about 5 ish I think) when backing into his Garage at less than walking pace !!! Sorry just being pedantic but 100% is a bit OTT and I'm being a picky bastard. Edited by mel on Tuesday 25th September 08:57

[philshort]

That guy wasn't paying too much attention then was he, ergo ANY speed would have been too fast. Another guy could have hit his drive at 50mph and handbrake turned around the kid to a perfect parallel park in the garage. But that guy didn't, he was asleep at the wheel. Which is precisely my point, so thanks for the re-enforcement. Edited by philshort on Tuesday 25th September 09:06

[philshort]

Just in case I haven't made the point clear enough, what I am trying to say is that posted speed limits are not a guarantee that it is safe to drive at that speed. I take as much notice of 30mph speed limits as I do 70mph ones on the motorway, just not for the same reasons. Two wrongs do not make a right, you can't evade your responsibilities just because someone else has.

[campbell]

No philshort I didn't teach RJO to spell there is nothing to worry about it's not contagious I still think the parents need to educate there kids and the drivers that go into built up areas need to keep an eye out for the unexpected, so we as drivers have a duty to educate younger drivers in the art of observation. You say you have a young child and I under stand why you feel so strong about this subject, I too have a young ness and nephew agess 4,2 years old and I love to bits and it make me sike seeing what some people do these little ones but there is no excuse for the parents to let children out on the road at that age and yes we are incharge of a dangerous machine but it's not the machines folt !!

[phil1]

Philshort, Some years ago I witnessed a road traffic accident first hand. A young boy ran into the road from between two parked cars and was hit by the wing mirror of a passing car. The front of the car was already past the point where the child ran out from, but still came into contact. Exactly how slow should this driver have been going to conform to your proposed 100% blame rule? Are you really arguing that all cars should be stationary 100% of the time. You must be otherwise it would be 100% impossible to prevent the above situation. Incidently the child was concussed but not seriously injured, the car was after all only moving at around 20mph. Surely there has to be some level of responsiblity other than just the driver to prevent these accidents. I'm not arguing in favour of speeding, just against the ongoing push of a very simplified 'the driver is always to blame' policy that is so prevalent these days.

[Sparks]

Phil1, I think he is saying observation is required. The driver in your case should have been aware of child(ren) around parked cars and taken the appropriate action i.e to slow down. I tend to agree with philshort. Having been somewhat irresponsible when I was younger, I now fully believe in observation and acting accordingly. I regularly slow to a crawl when traveling down streets with parked cars and kids about. It is also usually met with anger by following drivers. I know my attitude has saved at least one accident. Sparks

[phil1]

Sparks, I agree that observation is required. But if the car is already past the point the child is running out from then it's impossible to stop. Yet the car still hits the child and another driver is unfairly blamed. You say the driver should have been aware of the child. How? A child shorter than the average car stood behind one? Without x-ray vision it just isn't possible. Not 100% of the time. This driver was already 'crawling' and luckily so considering the child only suffered a concussion. But that isn't prevention, it is limitation. Therefore my point is that not every accident is preventable by the driver and 100% blame statements only remove attention from the fact that other measures are needed. Presumably this child wouldn't have run directly into a wall, so presumably if they had been educated to have the same level of respect/attachment of pain involved they might not have. If they are too young to understand, their parents should be protecting them from entering the road. Given that we need a road network, making roads 100% safe for pedestrians is not practical. Preventing pedestrains from entering a dangerous area is surely the answer. Education appears to be the cost effective answer as I can't see the government installing barriers alongside and bridges over every road. I hope I'm never involved in any kind of traffic accident, and would never wish to see anyone, child or otherwise, needlessly endangered, but to achieve this there's need to be issues other than just driver blame addressed.

[Sparks]

phil1, Well reasoned argument, but the observation should run to quite a distance ahead. Also if they were going slower (i.e a crawl 5-10mph) then the child would have appeared in front of them, and they would have stopped. Drive at a speed suitable for your observable path. You would not drive fast through thick fog or smoke (O.K some nutters do) so why shouldn't it be the same when you *know* there could be a potential hazzard waiting to appear from parked cars. I agree that in the case of adults, they should know better, but it is still usually considered the drivers fault, and that is wrong. Children however (parents should educate them better though), have their minds on other things. In an urban area, with footpaths, houses, shops etc speed should be moderated considerably. Just because the speed limit is 30mph, does not mean it is safe to travel at that speed. I think this was the original point. Maybe we will agree to disagree on some of these points. I just hope neither of us is ever unfortunate enough to hit a child. Sparks

[phil1]

Sparks, I think it's all a matter of finding the correct balance. In an ideal world, roads would always be clear with no visual obstructions. Vehicles would be parked off-road, traffic jams wouldn't cause additional blockages, children would be well educated and parents would all be responsible. Footpaths would be well away from roads and pedestrians and vehicles would never have to meet, except of course entering and exiting, at a halt in safe parking area. Of course this extreme means that cars could move at whatever speeds they liked on traffic and pedestrian free roads, with no responsibility other than for their own life. Not likely to happen unfortunately. The opposite end of the spectrum is to slow everything down to a complete halt. No-one would get run over that way either. What worries me is that the majority of blanket statements around at the minute are moving us more and more towards this extreme. Of course we live somewhere in the middle. Drivers should absolutely be educated, tested and required to drive in a safe manner, but wouldn't it be nice if so was everyone else. That way there hopefully wouldn't be cars parked on blind bends, children playing in the road, any drunk drivers, etc. So, getting back to my original point... let's not just blame the drivers regardless. Let's have some focus on some of the other real-world issues, otherwise we will reach the second extreme. At least employment would be increased for all those people with red flags walking in front of cars moving at 2mph!!

[thub]

I tend to agree with Phil1, there's only so much a driver can do and the blame shouldn't automatically be placed on the driver. Unfortunately the majority of pedestrian accidents are because the pedestrian is in the wrong place, not the car. I do recognise the need for the driver to take as much care as they can and I wish many more drove more slowly in residential streets. However, the responsibility for childrens' road safety in particular lies with all of us, whether in our vehicle or not.

[philshort]

phil1 I think Sparks is right, in the kid between cars accident you observed there must still have been room for better observation and anticipation by the driver involved. You do not need x-ray vision to anticipate that someone MIGHT pop out of a gap, you just need to be aware of the possibility. Slow down, move across to leave more room, sound your horn - that's what its there for (not for saying goodbye one last time when you pull away as most people seem to think). Mel - as a biker you must appreciate more than most the need for defensive driving. Personally I think everyone should have to ride a motorbike for two years before they are allowed a car licence. Bikers always make better drivers, as their awareness and recognition of potential hazards is honed by necessity. I stand by the 100% statement. If you run down a kid its your fault, not the kids. Or does someone want to suggest what is an acceptable number of childrens deaths per year?

[mel]

Wow that last one scared me ! Bikers more observant ??? Yes generally but the big thing about a "decent" bike is that you have the power and acceleration to get out of a lot of problems. I've riden since I was a child and crashed a fair few times sometimes I've been knocked off by tossers others I've been going to fast or not anticipated problems well enough. I can honestly say if I had a child of 16 there is no way in the world I would advise that they rode an under powered piss pot moped on the road just to learn a bit of observation before being allowed in a car small bikes, scooters, and mopeds are possibly the biggest risk on the road they may as well paint targets on them. Just think about how many Pizza Boys or Potential Cabbies doing the knowledge you've nearly killed. Running over kids who's to blame ??? Yes very often it is lack of observation but 100% of the time no it can't be. There will always be the totally unexpected or unbelievable event that cannot be avoided. The parents must therefore take some blame for god sake. If Wayne and Waynetter are indoors skinning up and little Johnie aged 4 runs out between two cars on a poorly lit foggy road directly infront of a slow moving car and gets winged, it is unfair to blame the driver. I just pray that no one claiming its always the drivers fault ever hits a kid they might change their tune then. Just a thought this isn't a H&H job is it ?? Edited by mel on Tuesday 25th September 18:17

[mel]

Or what if a child fell off the blind side of a Motorway bridge and you hit them in the outside lane ??? They'd be dead alright and you'd have been doing a fair speed the unexpected is exactly that, no matter how good a driver you are your not psychic.