Are we surprised at this survey ?
Discussion
It doesn't surprise me at all, particularly when I bear in mind that when residents demand action on speeding motorists, it is usually those same residents who fall victim to the resultant speed traps.
We are typically hypocritical in our attitude to speeding. We should be allowed to do it, but not anybody else, as it's not safe.
We are typically hypocritical in our attitude to speeding. We should be allowed to do it, but not anybody else, as it's not safe.
All surveys are useless without seeing the actual statistics behind who was interviewed, how many, etc.
They could have just asked 10 people working for Brake.
Or gone into the public and asked 3 people something like 'do you like to see children run over?' and conclude any 'no' answer means that person wants a lower speed limit enforced.
They could have just asked 10 people working for Brake.
Or gone into the public and asked 3 people something like 'do you like to see children run over?' and conclude any 'no' answer means that person wants a lower speed limit enforced.
"Road charity Brake found 78% of people wanted to see tougher restrictions on speed in residential areas in a bid to reduce accidents and save lives."
It doesn't say who they interviewed, for all we know it could be one residential street that needs, and would benefit from a 20mph zone.
I'm not against 20mph zones, if they are used appropriately. Blanket limits, i'm against.
It doesn't say who they interviewed, for all we know it could be one residential street that needs, and would benefit from a 20mph zone.
I'm not against 20mph zones, if they are used appropriately. Blanket limits, i'm against.
A couple of times in that article they mention:
A further 72% of those who spoke to the road safety charity said they wanted roads in their town or village to be made safer for walking.
In 2012 13 child cyclists were killed and 420 pedestrians died using Britain's roads.
Now, at what point do pedestrians decide that they would rather walk on the road, instead of ... oh I dunno ... a pavement and expect them both to be equally safe?
Totally biased and pointless survey, seeking only headlines and coverage, which ITV.com were stupid enough to provide.
A further 72% of those who spoke to the road safety charity said they wanted roads in their town or village to be made safer for walking.
In 2012 13 child cyclists were killed and 420 pedestrians died using Britain's roads.
Now, at what point do pedestrians decide that they would rather walk on the road, instead of ... oh I dunno ... a pavement and expect them both to be equally safe?
Totally biased and pointless survey, seeking only headlines and coverage, which ITV.com were stupid enough to provide.
If somebody steps onto a train line and gets hit by a train, presumably they'd be branded an idiot.
But if somebody steps onto the road and gets hit by a car, it is the motorists fault, and all cars must be slowed down.
Why aren't they campaigning for pedestrian education or safer footpaths, instead of constant pressure to bring traffic grinding to a halt?
But if somebody steps onto the road and gets hit by a car, it is the motorists fault, and all cars must be slowed down.
Why aren't they campaigning for pedestrian education or safer footpaths, instead of constant pressure to bring traffic grinding to a halt?
10 Pence Short said:
It doesn't surprise me at all, particularly when I bear in mind that when residents demand action on speeding motorists, it is usually those same residents who fall victim to the resultant speed traps.
We are typically hypocritical in our attitude to speeding. We should be allowed to do it, but not anybody else, as it's not safe.
+1. Everyone wants to speed when they're driving but no-one wants speeding drivers careening down their street.We are typically hypocritical in our attitude to speeding. We should be allowed to do it, but not anybody else, as it's not safe.
Plenty of people speeding where I live and I'm sure they'd continue to do so if 20mph signs were put up.
It's the lack of enforcement that is the problem. It creates a culture where people think they can flout the law whenever it suits them...
witko999 said:
If somebody steps onto a train line and gets hit by a train, presumably they'd be branded an idiot.
But if somebody steps onto the road and gets hit by a car, it is the motorists fault, and all cars must be slowed down.
Why aren't they campaigning for pedestrian education or safer footpaths, instead of constant pressure to bring traffic grinding to a halt?
Is that a fair analysis?But if somebody steps onto the road and gets hit by a car, it is the motorists fault, and all cars must be slowed down.
Why aren't they campaigning for pedestrian education or safer footpaths, instead of constant pressure to bring traffic grinding to a halt?
Roads are open to all and thousands of vulnerable (and yes, thoughtless or stupid) individuals are exposed to them every single day. As things stand it isn't realistic to suggest road users as a whole can avoid colliding with one another from time to time. If we accept motorists will collide with other road users, is it not sensible to mitigate the risk of serious injury or death by reducing the likely speed of the impact?
NotStig said:
A couple of times in that article they mention:
A further 72% of those who spoke to the road safety charity said they wanted roads in their town or village to be made safer for walking.
In 2012 13 child cyclists were killed and 420 pedestrians died using Britain's roads.
Now, at what point do pedestrians decide that they would rather walk on the road, instead of ... oh I dunno ... a pavement and expect them both to be equally safe?
Totally biased and pointless survey, seeking only headlines and coverage, which ITV.com were stupid enough to provide.
Is it me or is 420 out of 60 million not that many? In a perfect world it would be zero but obviously that can't happen. A quick google shows 8367 alcohol related deaths in 2012, 148 in the worplace, 640 murders and 6047 suicides in 2011. Ok that does not include injuries, but seems we're doing a fairly good job already without and pointless speed reductions (which in my experience 99% of people ignore anyway)A further 72% of those who spoke to the road safety charity said they wanted roads in their town or village to be made safer for walking.
In 2012 13 child cyclists were killed and 420 pedestrians died using Britain's roads.
Now, at what point do pedestrians decide that they would rather walk on the road, instead of ... oh I dunno ... a pavement and expect them both to be equally safe?
Totally biased and pointless survey, seeking only headlines and coverage, which ITV.com were stupid enough to provide.
In the right areas they are justified. But why not re-educate the green cross code, I survived my way through the late 70's and 80's as a nipper (with the mantra, stop, glance, leggit, er sorry stop, look, listen)whilst cars did more than 20 around me. Prefer 20 limits over speed humps though.
Before they change the speed limits I hope the fill the potholes in.
Before they change the speed limits I hope the fill the potholes in.
People here are convinced that the survey does not accurately reflect the views of the public at large. That being the case, I wonder why I don't hear of surveys by Accelerate stating that the public want speed limits raised?
If all that those who are complaining are going to do is sit and moan and rant on internet forums about Brake instead of actually doing anything about it, then they will only have themselves to blame when speed limits have been reduced further.
If all that those who are complaining are going to do is sit and moan and rant on internet forums about Brake instead of actually doing anything about it, then they will only have themselves to blame when speed limits have been reduced further.
Less than 2000 people killed on roads last year.
Not much - as said before to derisive howls of 'you evil b
d how dare you reduce tragic deaths to a mere statistic. Just wait until it is your child' blah blah blah.
Speed ( excessive for the conditions or merely over the notified limit) is not a predominant cause of collisions. Driver in attention is a greater contributor.
All we know an can verify is faster moving cars have more energy to dissipate/transfer upon impact.
Punish poor, in attentive driving. Punish tailgating. Punish those really really heavily who have accidents. Get them off the roads.
Not much - as said before to derisive howls of 'you evil b
d how dare you reduce tragic deaths to a mere statistic. Just wait until it is your child' blah blah blah. Speed ( excessive for the conditions or merely over the notified limit) is not a predominant cause of collisions. Driver in attention is a greater contributor.
All we know an can verify is faster moving cars have more energy to dissipate/transfer upon impact.
Punish poor, in attentive driving. Punish tailgating. Punish those really really heavily who have accidents. Get them off the roads.
James2593 said:
"Road charity Brake found 78% of people wanted to see tougher restrictions on speed in residential areas in a bid to reduce accidents and save lives."
It doesn't say who they interviewed, for all we know it could be one residential street that needs, and would benefit
This method of using stats to make a point reminds me of Swimbo's comments on how certain beauty products use the same method ( i.e 78% of all women surveyed [ 222]) and if you care to work out the answer , there's a part of a person voting both yes and no . So IMHO, this method of quoting a survey is pointlessand as accurate as the previous quoted stats ( which have been proven to be totally innacurate) that speeding is the cause of ( add your own figure) % of accidents. Add to that the fact that Brake are involved and it's not a large bucket of salt that's needed, but a quarry full. It doesn't say who they interviewed, for all we know it could be one residential street that needs, and would benefit
There was some bloke on the radio this morning from some group called "no 20mph limits" or similar.
They were talking specifically about 20mph limits near schools. He pointed out that only 12% of accidents are due to speed (didn't give a source) and there can be an increase in accidents because people stop paying attention. I suspect they quoted him out of context.
I was looking for the group he was from and found this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
They were talking specifically about 20mph limits near schools. He pointed out that only 12% of accidents are due to speed (didn't give a source) and there can be an increase in accidents because people stop paying attention. I suspect they quoted him out of context.
I was looking for the group he was from and found this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff