safespeedforlife
Discussion
The idiots at safespeedforlife (Northumberland Scammers) are peddling an advert telling us all to obey the speed limit. I'm sure some of you remember me banging on about the death of David Cameron (no, not that one) who rode his bike out into the road in Newcastle in front of a motorist travelling in excess of the speed limit who ended up in jail. Well, as predicted these turds have made maximum political capital out of it.
The advert they now have goes along the lines of this little girl lost her brother to a speeding motorist who was doing 60 in a 40 and hit him on a pedestrian crossing. The surnames aren't used, but "David" is, and it's more than obvious who they are on about.
However.....the little kid that they are on about was actually hit (at least) 50 yards from a pedestrian crossing and the papers (and IIRC the court heard) said more along the lines of 50mph, not 60.
Given that the exact name is not given (even though the details make it obvious), could I complain to the ASA about the factual errors in the advert?
PS It's great to have an internet connection after 5 months without!
The advert they now have goes along the lines of this little girl lost her brother to a speeding motorist who was doing 60 in a 40 and hit him on a pedestrian crossing. The surnames aren't used, but "David" is, and it's more than obvious who they are on about.
However.....the little kid that they are on about was actually hit (at least) 50 yards from a pedestrian crossing and the papers (and IIRC the court heard) said more along the lines of 50mph, not 60.
Given that the exact name is not given (even though the details make it obvious), could I complain to the ASA about the factual errors in the advert?
PS It's great to have an internet connection after 5 months without!
Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
Very true!
Further to this I found on their site *in support* of cameras:
'Between January 2002 and September 2003, Northumbria Police attended 564 fatal and serious injury road traffic collisions – in 65 of these the major factor was excessive speed.'
So only 11.5% of these accidents involved excessive speed. Note that excessive speed does not mean that they were over the limit, thus we are certainly looking at a figure at or below 10%.
So... road safety policy is centred around reducing a factor in a debatable way which even if it to work in a perfect world and eradicate *all* excessive speed crashes, there is only a 10% drop...
Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
Ach... I do wish parents would realise that roads are not play grounds und that we do need to supervise the very young to make sure they learn to keep safe by example.
But ist like the authorities down in the burbs muttering about reducing a speed limit to 20 mph und installing a camera after a woman stepped into road into direct path of a bus without looking .. crossing per paper on a blind bend.
Und campaigning to close und pedestrianise another main road after a young lad - running from police after a pub fisticuffs - high on ecstasy und three times above legal limits - get run over .. by a police car on fullest lights und sirens.
Neither were above 30 mph speed limits either
But anti-car brigades leap on these to further their battle cry of "cars kill - bicycles don't" Und who ist to say what sort of accident can occur if everyone rode a bicycle. If the injuries as seen on bike races ist to go on.. caused by bunching...
Imagine the state if 32 million drivers suddenly took to a bicycle.
Would not be cyclotopia.. there would be rules, legislation, registration, tests, cameras, very stringently applied high viz/helmet enforcement.. und so on. Und pedestrians hear cars. They do not hear bicycles
Anti-car brigade vision of roads full of bicycles leave me unusually cold with fear. well, according to their website the cameras aren't actually doing anyone any good - infact in one location, after the camera went live it's kille a further four people!
A193 CHURCH BANK, WALLSEND 30 1 9 10 5 9 14
30 is the speed limit
1/9/10 is killed/seriously injured/total before the camera went live
5/9/14 is the most recent data
hmm!
The rest of the figures show a positive improvement there. Mind you, I'm sure there was a car full of kids that ended up crashing beside Church Bank absolutely years ago, which involved all the occupants dying. Iirc it was the driver being inexperienced, hitting a kerb or an undulation in the road and spinning off into a wall.
A193 CHURCH BANK, WALLSEND 30 1 9 10 5 9 14
30 is the speed limit
1/9/10 is killed/seriously injured/total before the camera went live
5/9/14 is the most recent data
hmm!
The rest of the figures show a positive improvement there. Mind you, I'm sure there was a car full of kids that ended up crashing beside Church Bank absolutely years ago, which involved all the occupants dying. Iirc it was the driver being inexperienced, hitting a kerb or an undulation in the road and spinning off into a wall.
"Safe Speed For Life" -> Safe Speed Life Membership, and quite right too.
www.safespeed.org.uk/join <-- NOW! No more excuses! Pay from £4/month now or pay a lot more than that in the future. For goodness' sake people, the "real" Safe Speed is in trouble and needs yer dough! Join now or don't whinge when we get a fan-shit interface. It's almost worth suggesting that SS/ABD members get an avatar to that effect on PH forums. Money where your mouth is and all that.
You still here? (If you "don't like" Safe Speed for whatever reason I'm not really interested, but if you agree with what they say then please, please contribute.)
www.safespeed.org.uk/join <-- NOW! No more excuses! Pay from £4/month now or pay a lot more than that in the future. For goodness' sake people, the "real" Safe Speed is in trouble and needs yer dough! Join now or don't whinge when we get a fan-shit interface. It's almost worth suggesting that SS/ABD members get an avatar to that effect on PH forums. Money where your mouth is and all that.
You still here?
(If you "don't like" Safe Speed for whatever reason I'm not really interested, but if you agree with what they say then please, please contribute.)Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
You can't blame a 7 year old child for the failings (if any) of a parent.
As adults & drivers in a built up area, where we can naturally expect that it is likely that children may be, we must exercise caution & have a moral duty to do what we can to avoid any such collisions. Doing 60 in a 40 (if that's what it was) only serves to make that more difficult, not less, than staying within the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th August 07:06
vonhosen said:
Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
You can't blame a 7 year old child for the failings (if any) of a parent.
As adults & drivers in a built up area, where we can naturally expect that it is likely that children may be, we must exercise caution & have a moral duty to do what we can to avoid any such collisions. Doing 60 in a 40 (if that's what it was) only serves to make that more difficult, not less, than staying within the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th August 07:06
How many drivers think they are safe, simply be keeping to the limit, despite not exercising due caution in other areas?
At the end of the day, chances are the kid would have not made it through being hit by a car travelling within the speed limit.
Personally I wouldn't let a 7 year old kid anywhere near a main road unsupervised. The stupidity doesn't just lie with the driver.
vonhosen said:
Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
You can't blame a 7 year old child for the failings (if any) of a parent.
As adults & drivers in a built up area, where we can naturally expect that it is likely that children may be, we must exercise caution & have a moral duty to do what we can to avoid any such collisions. Doing 60 in a 40 (if that's what it was) only serves to make that more difficult, not less, than staying within the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th August 07:06
It was a 40 mph road. Sure - we know such roads have houses - but it you live on such a road und have kids - then you surely have obligation to ensure child does not stray beyond gate or play on roadside.
Sure your COAST skills will take in anything on the pavement - but as you risk assess in subconscious - you see a child pedalling along a pavement but if that child suddenly decide to ride on the road just as you happen to pass - then not a lot you can have done to avoid the impact at any speed. At 40 mph .. 30 mph ... even 20 mph - this child would have been dead or seriously injured. Speed of the car in this story to me ist not the reason why the driver collided with the driver. Had he been at speed limit - outcome given the speed limit of 40 mph would have been the same tragic one.
Can be all kind of reasons why child was riding bike without apparent parental supervision - I would like to think, for the parents und the child, that this boy was competent enough but perhaps tragically swerved because of a pothole or loose paving slab on the pavement.
Parts of the road are fenced off, within 50 yards of the crash site there is a pedestrian crossing (unused), within 20 yards a pedestrian footbridge (unused) and within 200 yards a subway (unused). My best mate was in the vehicle behind and gave CPR at the scene, he said the kid just rode out into the road (which was busy), to get to the central reservation, and that the bloke never stood a chance.
Of course, if he had actually been going 60 (instead of his actual speed nearer 50) then he would have been past the point in the road where the kid ran out and someone else would have hit him.
Back on topic, should I complain on the grounds that it is factually incorrect?
Of course, if he had actually been going 60 (instead of his actual speed nearer 50) then he would have been past the point in the road where the kid ran out and someone else would have hit him.
Back on topic, should I complain on the grounds that it is factually incorrect?
WildCat said:
Can be all kind of reasons why child was riding bike without apparent parental supervision - I would like to think, for the parents und the child, that this boy was competent enough but perhaps tragically swerved because of a pothole or loose paving slab on the pavement.
The pavement is perfectly smooth, he was out riding bikes with his mates.
jewhoo said:
Back on topic, should I complain on the grounds that it is factually incorrect?
Ha ha... Oh I'm sorry, you actually think the Scameras give a t**s whether the information is wrong or not? I guess you haven't seen their statistics.
You can try, but I think I can guess the type of reply you will get. TBH your best bet would be to get in the local papers (if you can find one who actually thinks "speed kills" is bollox) and discredit them that way.. People need to know the dirty lies they will peddle in the interests of money.
Off Topic - Safespeed. Sounds like you have a bit of an IP dispute possible against them. Looks like they are deliberately using your name.
vonhosen said:
Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
You can't blame a 7 year old child for the failings (if any) of a parent.
As adults & drivers in a built up area, where we can naturally expect that it is likely that children may be, we must exercise caution & have a moral duty to do what we can to avoid any such collisions. Doing 60 in a 40 (if that's what it was) only serves to make that more difficult, not less, than staying within the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th August 07:06
By the same principle you most certainly cannot hold every motorist in that area responsible for the actions of children, and adults, untrained in pedestrian safety.
The ESSENCE of the accident, or to be correct in terminology incident, because there is nothing accidental about ignorance, is the child recklessly crossing a main road unaccompanied.
The speed of any oncoming vehicle is largely academic and unrelated to the essence.
The only preventative measure for this type of behaviour is education, NOT enforcement of speed limits AFTER the death.
jith said:
vonhosen said:
Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
You can't blame a 7 year old child for the failings (if any) of a parent.
As adults & drivers in a built up area, where we can naturally expect that it is likely that children may be, we must exercise caution & have a moral duty to do what we can to avoid any such collisions. Doing 60 in a 40 (if that's what it was) only serves to make that more difficult, not less, than staying within the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th August 07:06
By the same principle you most certainly cannot hold every motorist in that area responsible for the actions of children, and adults, untrained in pedestrian safety.
The ESSENCE of the accident, or to be correct in terminology incident, because there is nothing accidental about ignorance, is the child recklessly crossing a main road unaccompanied.
The speed of any oncoming vehicle is largely academic and unrelated to the essence.
The only preventative measure for this type of behaviour is education, NOT enforcement of speed limits AFTER the death.
Whilst I agree you can't blame a 7 year old fo the failings of it's parents, it IS important to point these failings out. Not doing so leads to older children doing daft things like playing "chicken".
Driver AND child education are BOTH important!
Also, whilst IMPACT speed is clearly related to the level of injury, this is not absolutety related to driving speed.
Driver A drives at 40 in a 40 - is not alert - kids runs out (unavoidably) - impact speed 40
Driver B drives at 50 in a 40 (NOT saying I approve please note) - IS alert - child runs out (unavoidably) - driver slams on brakes - impact speed 30 or possibly even less.
gpshead said:
"Safe Speed For Life" -> Safe Speed Life Membership, and quite right too.
www.safespeed.org.uk/join <-- NOW! No more excuses! Pay from £4/month now or pay a lot more than that in the future. For goodness' sake people, the "real" Safe Speed is in trouble and needs yer dough! Join now or don't whinge when we get a fan-shit interface. It's almost worth suggesting that SS/ABD members get an avatar to that effect on PH forums. Money where your mouth is and all that.
You still here? (If you "don't like" Safe Speed for whatever reason I'm not really interested, but if you agree with what they say then please, please contribute.)
www.safespeed.org.uk/join <-- NOW! No more excuses! Pay from £4/month now or pay a lot more than that in the future. For goodness' sake people, the "real" Safe Speed is in trouble and needs yer dough! Join now or don't whinge when we get a fan-shit interface. It's almost worth suggesting that SS/ABD members get an avatar to that effect on PH forums. Money where your mouth is and all that.
You still here?
(If you "don't like" Safe Speed for whatever reason I'm not really interested, but if you agree with what they say then please, please contribute.)
TAKE NOTICE of this suggestion people!gpshead said:
"Safe Speed For Life" -> Safe Speed Life Membership, and quite right too.
www.safespeed.org.uk/join <-- NOW! No more excuses! Pay from £4/month now or pay a lot more than that in the future. For goodness' sake people, the "real" Safe Speed is in trouble and needs yer dough! Join now or don't whinge when we get a fan-shit interface. It's almost worth suggesting that SS/ABD members get an avatar to that effect on PH forums. Money where your mouth is and all that.
You still here? (If you "don't like" Safe Speed for whatever reason I'm not really interested, but if you agree with what they say then please, please contribute.)
www.safespeed.org.uk/join <-- NOW! No more excuses! Pay from £4/month now or pay a lot more than that in the future. For goodness' sake people, the "real" Safe Speed is in trouble and needs yer dough! Join now or don't whinge when we get a fan-shit interface. It's almost worth suggesting that SS/ABD members get an avatar to that effect on PH forums. Money where your mouth is and all that.
You still here?
(If you "don't like" Safe Speed for whatever reason I'm not really interested, but if you agree with what they say then please, please contribute.)As much as I dislike the current fad of blaming speed for all the worlds ills, I'm rarely impressed with the approach of Safe Speed, either. All the 'press release bickering' does is constantly keep the idea of speed being anti-social in the spot light.
vonhosen said:
Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
You can't blame a 7 year old child for the failings (if any) of a parent.
As adults & drivers in a built up area, where we can naturally expect that it is likely that children may be, we must exercise caution & have a moral duty to do what we can to avoid any such collisions. Doing 60 in a 40 (if that's what it was) only serves to make that more difficult, not less, than staying within the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th August 07:06
No I agree you can't blame a 7 year old boy for this accident. But I feel people have a right to ask why its expected of motorists to be able to anticipate such things, and why it seemingly becomes the motorist's fault when it happens?
I know the motorist in this case was breaking the speed limit but I doubt think the 7 year old was aware of the speed limit and thought "oh the speed limit is 40mph, therefore I stand a reasonable chance of crossing safely". I think the 7 year old was probably just being a little boy, not thinking about safety (as children do), and crossed without paying much attention to the speed of the traffic.
The motorist involved appears guilty of speeding, but I don't really feel the accident was his fault alone.
If I had kids they'd know that if the car didn't kill them, I certainly would, for being near a road without my permission. Or perhaps this boy had permission, in which case I think the parents should be just as liable.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Wednesday 16th August 12:23
Parrot of Doom said:
vonhosen said:
Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
You can't blame a 7 year old child for the failings (if any) of a parent.
As adults & drivers in a built up area, where we can naturally expect that it is likely that children may be, we must exercise caution & have a moral duty to do what we can to avoid any such collisions. Doing 60 in a 40 (if that's what it was) only serves to make that more difficult, not less, than staying within the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th August 07:06
No I agree you can't blame a 7 year old boy for this accident. But I feel people have a right to ask why its expected of motorists to be able to anticipate such things, and why it seemingly becomes the motorist's fault when it happens?
I know the motorist in this case was breaking the speed limit but I doubt think the 7 year old was aware of the speed limit and thought "oh the speed limit is 40mph, therefore I stand a reasonable chance of crossing safely". I think the 7 year old was probably just being a little boy, not thinking about safety (as children do), and crossed without paying much attention to the speed of the traffic.
The motorist involved appears guilty of speeding, but I don't really feel the accident was his fault alone.
If I had kids they'd know that if the car didn't kill them, I certainly would, for being near a road without my permission. Or perhaps this boy had permission, in which case I think the parents should be just as liable.
Edited by Parrot of Doom on Wednesday 16th August 12:23
Well if we believe the ads it's likely he would have been seriously injured anyway in a 40mph limit. I agree that the parents should take part of the blame. Kids will be kids agreed but the parents should realise this too before letting the kid out of their site especially at 7 years old. I see it more and more around the area I live, youngish kids out til 10 at night by themselves allowed to wander the roads, some parents do not seem to care.
vonhosen said:
Parrot of Doom said:
What was a 7 year old boy doing on a bike crossing a 40mph road?
You can't blame a 7 year old child for the failings (if any) of a parent.
As adults & drivers in a built up area, where we can naturally expect that it is likely that children may be, we must exercise caution & have a moral duty to do what we can to avoid any such collisions. Doing 60 in a 40 (if that's what it was) only serves to make that more difficult, not less, than staying within the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 16th August 07:06
Was a 40mph limit though (don't know the area) - but this suggests not a built up area.
I was unlucky enough to witness a child of similar age get knocked down in a 40mph limit a couple of years back. Van driving along (sub 40 I think), girl riding on rode (<10 years old). Girl looks over shoulder, moves about 6 feet to her right, sees van, screams, swerves left - van swerved and braked, clipped back wheel of back. Girl in air. Girl sprawked in road.
Having run about 8 miles at the time, I have never run so fast and been so worried, but the look on the drivers face was horrible -thought he had killed her. Girl was actually totally fine, a bit shaken. Mother appeared a couple of minutes later, wondering why her baby had taken so long to cycle home from around the corner. Stupid bloody woman. Speed wasn't the issue - it was a child being allowed to cycle in the road, unsupervised by somebody who should have had their parenting license revoked!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff