More lies from Road Safety Week
Discussion
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
"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
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
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.
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.
volvos70t5 said:
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?
The fault with his brakes was that the ABS didn't work and his rear tyres were baldy. The reason I know about this incident is because my best mate was the car behind the one that hit the kid (he stopped and gave CPR but it was already too late). The mother claimed in court that the driver was swerving around all over the place, weaving in and out of traffic. According to my mate the bloke overtook hiim and pulled across into his lane and the kid rode out into the road from behind a railing, and the driver had no chance to avoid hitting him.
As for deserving to be punished....well he was a decent amount over the limit and had an MOT failure of a car, so yes he should have been - if you know your car isn't roadworthy then you shouldn't drive it. Interesting that the police said that this had no bearing on the accident though.
telecat said:
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?
The fault with his brakes was that the ABS didn't work and his rear tyres were baldy. The reason I know about this incident is because my best mate was the car behind the one that hit the kid (he stopped and gave CPR but it was already too late). The mother claimed in court that the driver was swerving around all over the place, weaving in and out of traffic. According to my mate the bloke overtook hiim and pulled across into his lane and the kid rode out into the road from behind a railing, and the driver had no chance to avoid hitting him.
As for deserving to be punished....well he was a decent amount over the limit and had an MOT failure of a car, so yes he should have been - if you know your car isn't roadworthy then you shouldn't drive it. Interesting that the police said that this had no bearing on the accident though.
Well he was driving with out due care and is bang to rights. The fact his car was a deathtrap merely lessens his chance of any excuses for this being listened to.
I don't think "due care" covers this. The eye-witness basically clears the driver and you still think he was bang to rights?? I think he was negligent with regard to the condition of his vehicle but little else.
Yes, but he was breaking the speed limit so in the eyes of the law......
The accident was caused by the kid without doubt, therefore the kid (or rather the parents) are responsible, but what's the chances of the driver not being bent and sent in this day and age?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff