STOP THE SPEEDING MENACE
Discussion
Obviously a slow news day, here is the editors choice from the Hillingdon Times:
www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/display.var.649785.0.kill_your_speed.php
The body of the article has some good points, but then ends with these last two paragraphs, which IMHO is the most condescending piece of journalism I've read for a long time.
[quote]STOP THE SPEEDING MENACE
A child is hurt or killed on UK roads every 16 minutes. Driving slowly around communities is a life-saving act and the action of a responsible citizen, yet surveys by Brake the road safety charity and the Department for Transport show that most drivers speed a little bit and think their speeding's OK'.
Think again. If you hit someone on foot at 35mph, you are more than twice as likely to kill them as at 30mph, and, even at 30mph, a child you hit only stands a 50/50 chance of survival. 20mph or below is the only responsible speed where kids might be about. SLOW DOWN.[/quote]
Why only comments sort from Brake and Dept. of Transport? I think we already know that one.
Would anyone who can write more eloquently than me (Paul?) care to reply to them?
www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/display.var.649785.0.kill_your_speed.php
The body of the article has some good points, but then ends with these last two paragraphs, which IMHO is the most condescending piece of journalism I've read for a long time.
[quote]STOP THE SPEEDING MENACE
A child is hurt or killed on UK roads every 16 minutes. Driving slowly around communities is a life-saving act and the action of a responsible citizen, yet surveys by Brake the road safety charity and the Department for Transport show that most drivers speed a little bit and think their speeding's OK'.
Think again. If you hit someone on foot at 35mph, you are more than twice as likely to kill them as at 30mph, and, even at 30mph, a child you hit only stands a 50/50 chance of survival. 20mph or below is the only responsible speed where kids might be about. SLOW DOWN.[/quote]
Why only comments sort from Brake and Dept. of Transport? I think we already know that one.
Would anyone who can write more eloquently than me (Paul?) care to reply to them?
'A child is hurt or killed on UK roads every 16 minutes'
60 minutes in an hour, 1440 minutes in a day, 525600 minutes in a year. So thats 32,850 children 'hurt or killed'.
I dont think so.
And why lump the 'hurt' and 'killed' in together? Havent they got the split?
Why cant these people ever work with 'real' facts? I like real facts and would pay attention to them. So why not print (for example) 467 kids killed and (for example) 32,383 hurt if those were the figures. They just make it up dont they?
60 minutes in an hour, 1440 minutes in a day, 525600 minutes in a year. So thats 32,850 children 'hurt or killed'.
I dont think so.
And why lump the 'hurt' and 'killed' in together? Havent they got the split?
Why cant these people ever work with 'real' facts? I like real facts and would pay attention to them. So why not print (for example) 467 kids killed and (for example) 32,383 hurt if those were the figures. They just make it up dont they?
page3 said:
Think again. If you hit someone on foot at 35mph, you are more than twice as likely to kill them as at 30mph, and, even at 30mph, a child you hit only stands a 50/50 chance of survival.
well I've thought again and I've decided that the best strategy is to not hit anyone at all, whether at 35, 30 or 20mph so I'm going to try to be observant, careful and avoid running a child over - irrespective of my speed..... 
actually that's what I have been doing for the last 27 years and it seems to have been quite successful. 
I cannot believe educated people trot out such utter sensationalist tripe with freakish regularity.
A few will say: 'I'm sure their intentions are good'. See, I'm not sure they are. Would well meaning individuals persistently try to perpetuate such narrow-minded propaganda?
They aim their over-simplistic and emotionally charged arguments at one group of people and one group of people only. It has to stop and we all have to start to looking at the broader picture.
A few will say: 'I'm sure their intentions are good'. See, I'm not sure they are. Would well meaning individuals persistently try to perpetuate such narrow-minded propaganda?
They aim their over-simplistic and emotionally charged arguments at one group of people and one group of people only. It has to stop and we all have to start to looking at the broader picture.
page3 said:
Think again. If you hit someone on foot at 35mph, you are more
than twice as likely to kill them as at 30mph, and, even at 30mph,
a child you hit only stands a 50/50 chance of survival.
20mph or below is the only responsible speed where kids might
be about. SLOW DOWN.
Can't disagree with that. I'm rarely doing more than 25 mph
in the 30 limits.
In fact, for my money, they could change all the 30 limits
to 20 mph limits.
What I really object to is silly speed restrictions on faster roads.
I've seen dozens of cases where NSL roads have had
silly 40 mph limits applied.
Lots of rural Oxfordshire is an example, I understand.
I posted the following on SafeSpeed earlier, but it seems relevant so here goes:
I've been having discussions recently with a friend (mature bloke) who has gained a PhD this year for a critique of "green politics". One side point he picked up is also true of most current politicians - the "it's true because I say so, and if you disagree with me you are obviously dangerous" syndrome. This behaviour is normally backed up by "research" (often from Universities). What distinguishes this research from the more valid kind is that the authors normally appear to have decided what the conclusions they wish to come to are, and then find research evidence and arguments that back them up. Also, conclusions are reached by ignoring the inconvenient.
Here's an example from Mosedale, J. and Purdy, A., (2004) Excessive speed as a contributory factor to personal injury road accidents,Transport Statistics: Road Safety, Department for Transport.
Firstly, no prizes for guessing the conclusions of the paper!
BUT it contains:
"The term excessive speed can be interpreted as meaning either excessive for the conditions/location or exceeding the speed limit. It is not possible to differentiate between these two aspects. (So we'll just treat them as the same thing - my comment!) Furthermore excessive speed is not easy to determine after the event and may be implied (sic - my comment!) by other contributory factors such as driving too close, agressive driving, behaviour - careless, reckless, thoughtless and behaviour - in a hurry. The percentage of accidents in which excessive speed is explicitly cited as being a contributory factor might therefore underestimate its importance. (!! - my comment)"
Having said the figures are almost limitlessly interpretable, they then interpret them to gain the outcome they (or their funders) desire. Apparently this is common in "green" research (and government research judging by this example).
My friend says that there are serious cultural and political aspects that need to be understood here, and that greens will use "science" when it suits their arguments, but are in essence "anti-scientific" in their approach to things.
>> Edited by Prof Beard on Monday 14th November 00:22
>> Edited by Prof Beard on Monday 14th November 00:23
I've been having discussions recently with a friend (mature bloke) who has gained a PhD this year for a critique of "green politics". One side point he picked up is also true of most current politicians - the "it's true because I say so, and if you disagree with me you are obviously dangerous" syndrome. This behaviour is normally backed up by "research" (often from Universities). What distinguishes this research from the more valid kind is that the authors normally appear to have decided what the conclusions they wish to come to are, and then find research evidence and arguments that back them up. Also, conclusions are reached by ignoring the inconvenient.
Here's an example from Mosedale, J. and Purdy, A., (2004) Excessive speed as a contributory factor to personal injury road accidents,Transport Statistics: Road Safety, Department for Transport.
Firstly, no prizes for guessing the conclusions of the paper!
BUT it contains:
"The term excessive speed can be interpreted as meaning either excessive for the conditions/location or exceeding the speed limit. It is not possible to differentiate between these two aspects. (So we'll just treat them as the same thing - my comment!) Furthermore excessive speed is not easy to determine after the event and may be implied (sic - my comment!) by other contributory factors such as driving too close, agressive driving, behaviour - careless, reckless, thoughtless and behaviour - in a hurry. The percentage of accidents in which excessive speed is explicitly cited as being a contributory factor might therefore underestimate its importance. (!! - my comment)"
Having said the figures are almost limitlessly interpretable, they then interpret them to gain the outcome they (or their funders) desire. Apparently this is common in "green" research (and government research judging by this example).
My friend says that there are serious cultural and political aspects that need to be understood here, and that greens will use "science" when it suits their arguments, but are in essence "anti-scientific" in their approach to things.
>> Edited by Prof Beard on Monday 14th November 00:22
>> Edited by Prof Beard on Monday 14th November 00:23
Balmoral Green said:
'A child is hurt or killed on UK roads every 16 minutes'
60 minutes in an hour, 1440 minutes in a day, 525600 minutes in a year. So thats 32,850 children 'hurt or killed'.
I dont think so.
And why lump the 'hurt' and 'killed' in together? Havent they got the split?
Why cant these people ever work with 'real' facts? I like real facts and would pay attention to them. So why not print (for example) 467 kids killed and (for example) 32,383 hurt if those were the figures. They just make it up dont they?
A child is hurt or killed, it doesn't say how or why!
Hurt on a UK road. So if a kid falls of their bike on the road, a kid is hit by a car, a kid trips on his laces. Is kid upto the age of 16?
You can easily say laminate flooring kills or injures a person every 15 seconds and probably be right when you cherry pick figures or "assume" things.
The thing that really gets me is that on my cul de sac, I drive 20mph max, but I don't look at my speedo to decide how fast to go, I just read the road ahead and it ends up with me judging 20mph as appropriate most average conditions.
Next door neighbours kids roll out into the road off their shallow drive on skateboards etc, luckliy I stop before their death slide into the road from behind a hedge.
However, the childrens dad bombs past at 30mph+ usually, and cuts the junction into the cul de sac often almost hitting me and my partner.
I can't believe the media make everything seem so black and white. Maybe if they foccused on the truth and did something constructive then the world would be a better place, but as they just sensationalise and make something out of nothing, they just put stupid ideas in stupid people's heads.
Maybe if half these parents who complain actually drove slower and practice what they preach, or taught their kids roads are dangerous, then we'd see child deaths drop much more quickly than flogging a dead horse that is minor speeding by attentive safe drivers!
Dave
Yugguy said:
Give the parents of road kill kids a choice. Jail for negligence, or adopt a spare Brazilian kid and be staralised.
Not only are you an idiot, but an illiterate one at that.
Anyone can make a typo. So you believe its clever to wreck a transport system based on roads by allowing irresponsible parents to let their offspring run about unsupervised? I may be an idiot but these people are less than animals. Human life is very precious but if the only reason for having a family to get state benefits and produce another generation of chavs. Then I for one am in favour of imposing the responsibilities these people should assume automatically.
Yugguy said:
Do you have children? Do you know what they are doing 100% of the time? Are they brought up so well that they NEVER do anything foolish? Are they as insensitive as you?
Well, if you can't keep an eye on them 100% of the time, and they can't be 100% responsible for themselves, then accidents will happen, and it's only a matter of time until it's leathal.
Parents need to be responsible if they can't be there 100% of the time, and the child has not been taught how dangerous the roads are.
When I was young if I left the garden for the footpath I really knew about it!!! My mum didn't let me near the road unless she was there with me upto the age of 4. I soon learnt road safety at school from teachers and that stop look listen stuff on the TV they showed us.
Get a grip mate. Road safety is in the hands of an individual. Even now I don't trust anyone on the road. Traffic lights, still have a quick glance to the sides for red light runners. Green lights at ped crossings, still look left and right for cars etc.
If you don't have respect for danger, you will be a victim of it. To try blame everyone else for accidents except the person who had the accident, you'll never stop until we are all wrapped in cotton wool in padded cells, with big brother watching us to make sure we don't try walking as we may trip up and break our necks!
Dave
Yugguy said:
Do you have children? Do you know what they are doing 100% of the time? Are they brought up so well that they NEVER do anything foolish? Are they as insensitive as you?
I have children and they have been taught the "Green Cross Code" from an early age. When they were too young to learn this, my wife and I either kept an eye on them 100% of the time, or ensured they could nowhere near a road unsupervised.
Safety is down to the individual and not the nanny state pandering to the stupid. Accidents happen for sure, but that's the price of freedom. Clogging up the whole population with petty rules and generally excessive control on the entire population to protect the stupid minority won't work.
Yugguy said:
Referring to the loss of life of a child in an accident as "road kill" is still a very offensive thing to say.
Do you think that nonegreen was perhaps being a little ironic in his original post, showing how this type of debate can become twisted by the 'speed kills' brigade playing the emotion card without having hard evidence to back it up?
>> Edited by Nuggs on Monday 14th November 14:38
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff