Speeding Neighbours
03 June 2005, 06:33 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
Ah, that old chestnut.....
Bollox.
If you cannot supervise them (and we are talking young kids here) they should not be in a position where they can run onto a road.
How difficult is that?
Bollox.
If you cannot supervise them (and we are talking young kids here) they should not be in a position where they can run onto a road.
How difficult is that?
OK - Kids aged 4 and 2 are playing in the garden, which is completely fenced in and has single gate at the side of the house giving access to the road. Gate is closed with a large push bolt on out of the kids reach. Older kid from up the street kicks ball into garden, then opens gate to retrieve ball. 2 year old dashes out immediately the gate is opened. Takes me 5 seconds to catch up, by which time 2 year old is standing in front of a moving car - What would you suggest I do? Superglue the kids together and then chain them to the kitchen table?
03 June 2005, 07:05 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
Nor will it be an accident. For it to be an accident, that would suggest it could not have been avoided.
However, I do partly agree with some of your comments. It does seem these days that kids are not educated in road sense, and are less aware than "back when I was young". Parents do have to take some responsibility for trying to educate children, and it isn't always a car drivers fault. I've been in a queue of traffic, travelling sensibly spaced at 20mph, when a kid who was crouched behing a parked car ran in front of me, clipping the back of the car in front. I stopped (but was somewhat shocked) - but can you blame the guy in front? No.
That's not to say I condone driving at inappropriate speeds or without awareness in residential areas where kids are likely to be playing.
03 June 2005, 07:22 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hades
It does seem these days that kids are not educated in road sense, and are less aware than "back when I was young".
There is probably x times more traffic on the roads than "when you were young", and yet child road deaths have decreased. Hmm....so does that suggest children "are less educated in road safety"???
"Back when you were young", you had a childs view of the world and probably weren't of an age where you could do a complete statistical analysis of road behaviour & injuries/deaths (unless you were a 6 year old mathematical genius?!)
Now you've grown up, you have an adults view of the world, and are FAR more aware of the dangers & consequences of everything. You probably don't remember being a bit less sensible when you were 6 years old.
It's like the old chestnut of "there being more paedophiles around than when I was young". Total & utter rubbish.
03 June 2005, 07:39 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by imlach
(unless you were a 6 year old mathematical genius?!)
You're right, it's not something I can prove - hence the word "seem". However, I'm partly basing that statement on people who knew me/my friends when young and are comparing that to e.g. my 7 year old nephew and his friends.
Again, I may be wrong, but I believe these days if you were to compare adverts on TV, there's a lot more "speed kills kids" type adverts, 15 or 20 years ago there was a lot more "green cross code" and the like. TV adverts also prove nothing, but are likely to play a part in the awareness, I'd suggest.
I don't generally hold stock with theories of "everything was better in the old days", but I do think things now are a lot more biased towards the motorist being to blame for almost everything.
03 June 2005, 08:27 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hades
Again, I may be wrong, but I believe these days if you were to compare adverts on TV, there's a lot more "speed kills kids" type adverts, 15 or 20 years ago there was a lot more "green cross code" and the like. TV adverts also prove nothing, but are likely to play a part in the awareness, I'd suggest..
03 June 2005, 08:51 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll ignore your condescending question in your post and try and stick to sensible debate around the rest of it.
When I'm with the nephew I have kiddies TV on, and haven't seen the kiddies road safety ads. Statistically not a very significant sample, I'm sure, but I can only base my views on my experience. Also generally seems shared with others I've spoken with, including a number of friends who now teach infants/primary school. I'm not saying it's proven fact, it's just my opinion, which I know some others share. Some will doubtless disagree, but I don't believe they could prove their viewpoint either.
However, I'd bet good money - if you can find someone independent who can prove it - that there are more "speed kills kids" ads now than there were 20 years ago, and that the ratio of these to green cross code/tuftie club type adverts is higher than it was 20 years ago.
When I'm with the nephew I have kiddies TV on, and haven't seen the kiddies road safety ads. Statistically not a very significant sample, I'm sure, but I can only base my views on my experience. Also generally seems shared with others I've spoken with, including a number of friends who now teach infants/primary school. I'm not saying it's proven fact, it's just my opinion, which I know some others share. Some will doubtless disagree, but I don't believe they could prove their viewpoint either.
However, I'd bet good money - if you can find someone independent who can prove it - that there are more "speed kills kids" ads now than there were 20 years ago, and that the ratio of these to green cross code/tuftie club type adverts is higher than it was 20 years ago.
03 June 2005, 08:56 PM
#97
No, I dont have a Scoob, have had some fast cars and am on a Saab 9-3 Turbo at the mo, it will do 145 miles per hour or therabouts, I enjoy its performance, torque, nice turbo rush but on road where its safe to do so and within-ish the speed limits, I do 85-90 on the Mway but then there are no kids on the motorway, if there is then its quite unusual.
However I really just dawdle in resedential areas, have been overtaken a few times but a couple of times I have seen benefits, only a couple in 17 years of driving but its worth it, for me it stems from me killing a puppy within my first year of driving, really shook me up driving over a little dog and seeing its agony, a kid threw a ball into the road, it followed, straight into the path of my MK1 Capri, I wasnt speeding, just chilling listening to the 8 track (honest), the owners were distraught but still sympathised with me, they didnt blame me one iota but that has stuck with me and I have thought many times, what if it had been a child and not a dog ? dont get me wrong, Dogs are like family members to some but it isnt the same.
However I really just dawdle in resedential areas, have been overtaken a few times but a couple of times I have seen benefits, only a couple in 17 years of driving but its worth it, for me it stems from me killing a puppy within my first year of driving, really shook me up driving over a little dog and seeing its agony, a kid threw a ball into the road, it followed, straight into the path of my MK1 Capri, I wasnt speeding, just chilling listening to the 8 track (honest), the owners were distraught but still sympathised with me, they didnt blame me one iota but that has stuck with me and I have thought many times, what if it had been a child and not a dog ? dont get me wrong, Dogs are like family members to some but it isnt the same.
04 June 2005, 12:20 AM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Between the Fens and the Wolds.
Posts: 3,027
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never forget a similar experience to Douglash.
Kid on a bike came hurtling out from behind a hoarding round a building site. Flew straight into the side of my car. Sh!te , did he scare me ! But I got his address out of him and arrived there about the same time he did. Made it abundantly clear to his parents that they very nearly didn't have a son any longer. Think they got the message. Seems he was going to visit a mate down a passageway across the road, must have done this silly stupid trick numerous times before, but I happened to be "in the way" that particular day.Took me quite a while to get over the shock though. Only glad that I was going fairly slowly and that there was no damage to either the kid or the car.
Kid on a bike came hurtling out from behind a hoarding round a building site. Flew straight into the side of my car. Sh!te , did he scare me ! But I got his address out of him and arrived there about the same time he did. Made it abundantly clear to his parents that they very nearly didn't have a son any longer. Think they got the message. Seems he was going to visit a mate down a passageway across the road, must have done this silly stupid trick numerous times before, but I happened to be "in the way" that particular day.Took me quite a while to get over the shock though. Only glad that I was going fairly slowly and that there was no damage to either the kid or the car.
04 June 2005, 01:31 AM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fast bloke
OK - Kids aged 4 and 2 are playing in the garden, which is completely fenced in and has single gate at the side of the house giving access to the road. Gate is closed with a large push bolt on out of the kids reach. Older kid from up the street kicks ball into garden, then opens gate to retrieve ball. 2 year old dashes out immediately the gate is opened. Takes me 5 seconds to catch up, by which time 2 year old is standing in front of a moving car - What would you suggest I do? Superglue the kids together and then chain them to the kitchen table?
My gate has one. Cost about a fiver. Cheap, if it saves a life, I'd say. Has the added benefit of improving security too.
I'm sorry you think that asking for parents not to condone their kids playing on the road and asking for parents to be more responsible and to actually think, rather than just assume is "****e" fast bloke.
I'll say again because it looks to have passed you by. I wholehartedly agree that the motoists need to exercise more care in such situations. But its not just the motorists that need to exercise more care, its the parents as well.
If you think that is "****e", then its no wonder the uk is going to the dogs.
04 June 2005, 02:12 AM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Diablo
Padlock?
My gate has one. Cost about a fiver. Cheap, if it saves a life, I'd say. Has the added benefit of improving security too.
I'm sorry you think that asking for parents not to condone their kids playing on the road and asking for parents to be more responsible and to actually think, rather than just assume is "****e" fast bloke.
I'll say again because it looks to have passed you by. I wholehartedly agree that the motoists need to exercise more care in such situations. But its not just the motorists that need to exercise more care, its the parents as well.
If you think that is "****e", then its no wonder the uk is going to the dogs.
My gate has one. Cost about a fiver. Cheap, if it saves a life, I'd say. Has the added benefit of improving security too.
I'm sorry you think that asking for parents not to condone their kids playing on the road and asking for parents to be more responsible and to actually think, rather than just assume is "****e" fast bloke.
I'll say again because it looks to have passed you by. I wholehartedly agree that the motoists need to exercise more care in such situations. But its not just the motorists that need to exercise more care, its the parents as well.
If you think that is "****e", then its no wonder the uk is going to the dogs.
Aha - now we need to go down the 'taking out of context line again'
I agree with the (main) point of that post, and would go further to say that the main responsibility lies with the parents. My post was in response to your "That old chestnut.... bollox" post. My kids are my main focus in life. Everything else is geared round them. Work, holidays, finances, care - all have one goal - what is best for my kids. However - in the 10 cumulative years that I have had this focus, there have been three occasions when one or other of them have made it as far as the (very quiet) road while not under 100% control. That is going to total maybe 20-30 seconds in 3 hundred million seconds.
All I am asking is that you as a driver appreciate that while you are driving through a residential area that you should adjust your speed so that should some neglectful father like myself manage to throw his kids in front of your car, at least you can save yourself the heartache of killing a small child. I have not at any point said that it would be your fault if you did happen to mow down a few stragglers,..... merely that if EVERYONE took responsibility for their own actions (parents and drivers included) then maybe there would be one less dead kid this time next year?
04 June 2005, 07:24 AM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course I agree about the road sense and Green Cross Code business and am on record in this thread about that.
You can't expect a perfect situation however especially where children are concerned and in a residential area I believe it is the responsibility of the car driver to make due allowances for that in the way that he drives, especially with respect to his speed.
Les
You can't expect a perfect situation however especially where children are concerned and in a residential area I believe it is the responsibility of the car driver to make due allowances for that in the way that he drives, especially with respect to his speed.
Les
04 June 2005, 12:22 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I wouldn't feel better about killing a kid just because I could say it was "not my fault". Avoiding any accidents that are due to someone else's foreseeable mistakes is what makes a really good safe driver - and kids running around in urban areas is eminently foreseeable.
To go into standard risk management terms: the total threat of these accidents is consequence times probability.
1. the probability of the accident can be reduced by educating kids, etc. However, whilst it may be possible to make the probability very low, kids are kids and it will never be zero
2. the consequence can be reduced by (a) the way people drive (awareness to avoid/reduce the impact in some situations) and (b) the speed at which people drive (reduce the damage in the event of an impact)
All I'm saying is that to reduce the total threat, you need to reduce both areas. It seems to me these days "we" (the nation/politicians whatever) concentrate a lot more on the speed, i.e. point 2 (b), and not so much on points 2(a) or point 1. All need to come down as far as practicable to minimise the number of kids injured/killed.
To go into standard risk management terms: the total threat of these accidents is consequence times probability.
1. the probability of the accident can be reduced by educating kids, etc. However, whilst it may be possible to make the probability very low, kids are kids and it will never be zero
2. the consequence can be reduced by (a) the way people drive (awareness to avoid/reduce the impact in some situations) and (b) the speed at which people drive (reduce the damage in the event of an impact)
All I'm saying is that to reduce the total threat, you need to reduce both areas. It seems to me these days "we" (the nation/politicians whatever) concentrate a lot more on the speed, i.e. point 2 (b), and not so much on points 2(a) or point 1. All need to come down as far as practicable to minimise the number of kids injured/killed.
Last edited by hades; 04 June 2005 at 12:25 PM.
04 June 2005, 02:06 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=FlightMan]
Do i??
Good question and if you'd bothered to read my posts after this statement you'd see that i do,i never said speeding round town was a good thing to do,or that drivers shouldn't have to look out for kids but you seem to have jumped on the he's got no kids bandwagon so what does he know about it
so with parents having attitudes like yours why should "anyone" bother looking out for your kids,let alone people that don't even have them
Originally Posted by RB5 Paul
I'm with spoon on this one,teach your kids that if they run in the road and hit a lump of metal moving at xxmph it's gonna do more damage to them than it is to the metal,unfortunatly i can't help with this argument as i am a stereotypical non child having adult .
You say you dont have kids, well as someone who does, let me try and explain what its like.
As someone with kids let me try and explain to you what its like. You tell them about the dangers of roads. You explain what will happen if they get hit by a car. I showed my 5 year old what happens to a nice juicy red apple when it gets run over by a car. I explained that it can't be put back together again, etc. But i dont trust her, because she is 5 years old.
4 months ago, walking back from school with my daughter, and another kid who was playing with a ball. He was bouncing it as he walked along with his mum and me. Well, it bounced into the road, and he jumped off the pavement to get it.
Now, there were no cars running, he got his ball back. And a b0llocking from his mum. ( who has given him the road safety lecture )
Why did he do it? Because he is a kid! Kids do not think like you and me. If its our ball, we think, ***** gone/ROAD/NO CARS/get it. Kids think
***** gone/get it. Sometimes they're lucky, other times they aint.
Its all about responsibility. We all have a responsibility to drive sensibly, particularly in urban areas, especially near schools. I have a responsibility to teach my children to be safe when walking across or by roads. When my daughter can spell responsibility, I'll expect her to act accordingly, at all times. Even when her ball bounces into the road. Until that time, she's vulnerable. Fact of life. I accept it.
I take my responsibilities seriously.
Do you?
.You say you dont have kids, well as someone who does, let me try and explain what its like.
As someone with kids let me try and explain to you what its like. You tell them about the dangers of roads. You explain what will happen if they get hit by a car. I showed my 5 year old what happens to a nice juicy red apple when it gets run over by a car. I explained that it can't be put back together again, etc. But i dont trust her, because she is 5 years old.
4 months ago, walking back from school with my daughter, and another kid who was playing with a ball. He was bouncing it as he walked along with his mum and me. Well, it bounced into the road, and he jumped off the pavement to get it.
Now, there were no cars running, he got his ball back. And a b0llocking from his mum. ( who has given him the road safety lecture )
Why did he do it? Because he is a kid! Kids do not think like you and me. If its our ball, we think, ***** gone/ROAD/NO CARS/get it. Kids think
***** gone/get it. Sometimes they're lucky, other times they aint.
Its all about responsibility. We all have a responsibility to drive sensibly, particularly in urban areas, especially near schools. I have a responsibility to teach my children to be safe when walking across or by roads. When my daughter can spell responsibility, I'll expect her to act accordingly, at all times. Even when her ball bounces into the road. Until that time, she's vulnerable. Fact of life. I accept it.
I take my responsibilities seriously.
Do you?
Do i??
Good question and if you'd bothered to read my posts after this statement you'd see that i do,i never said speeding round town was a good thing to do,or that drivers shouldn't have to look out for kids but you seem to have jumped on the he's got no kids bandwagon so what does he know about it
so with parents having attitudes like yours why should "anyone" bother looking out for your kids,let alone people that don't even have them
04 June 2005, 02:11 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fast bloke
Aren't you the lucky one that the guy in the car you ran out in front of was going slow enough not to kill you? - Your story illustrates my point - with the best will in the world, it is impossible to control kids completely 24/7. It would be nice if the people who actually understand the potential outcome of of a kid/car collision would behave responsibly. My kids now understand this, and behave appropriately. Unfortunately the tosser next door is either too stupid to understand it, or too irresponsible to care
I wasn't saying that kids don't ever run out and yes i was lucky,i was making a point that instead of ranting and raving at the innocent driver my mum apologised to him and gave me a right roasting,i have never seen anyone apologise for their childrens behavior or actions recently.
Sign of the times i suppose
But thats a completely different thread subject really
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM