corradoboy

Sweeping generalization there

Speed may or may not be the primary cause in the death of many children on Britains roads, but I bet if the truth were told, the child would be by far the biggest cause. The inexperience, the ineptitude, the arrogance and many other negative traits in juvenile behaviour can cause, or combine to cause a great many dangerous situations. You must also ask where the child was when the accident occurred ? Less than 1 in 5 pedestrian/car KSI's occurs on a recognized crossing with 86% (last official figure I read) of pedestrians proven to have stepped voluntarily into the path of an approaching vehicle, and as the Green Cross Code, Highway Code, Tufty Club and Cycling Proficiency are not officially on the curriculum, who teaches children road safety ? Politicians are quick to lay ALL the blame on the motorist, and occasionally that may be correct, but their reason for doing so is because it is easy. Cars are easily identifiable, their drivers so too, are insured to thus provide financial recompense and thus are able to carry the burden of responsibility, at the expense of a great deal of the population being able to be dangerously irresponsible

Your speed during 'the rush hour' must surely depend where you live and the type of roads you traverse en-route ! The whole concept of a 'rush hour' is another point of debate. To ease congestion, pollution, increase safety and save many £billions in lost productivity, why can't we move away from a culture which sees such a large proportion of the population needing to travel at the same, brief time period ? If employers were required to have staff starting at 6am, 7, 8, 9 and 10, shops opening at 11am and thus people finishing at 2pm, 3, 4, 5, 6 and then shops closing at 9pm, there would be no 'rush hour', just a steady flow of traffic throughout the day, making everyone's life easier.

j4ckos mate

have a word with yourself, my neighbour puts flowers on a dead childs grave ive seen what it does to people at christmas. so you will be a few miutes late for your sunday paper big deal.

corradoboy

I truly sympathize with anyone whom has suffered such a tragic loss, but I would hope in the same situation I could be realistic once presented with the facts. If my child (God forbid) were to be killed on the roads but it was proven that he caused the accident, then I hope I would be sensible and rational enough to accept that either I didn't teach him well enough, or he possibly made a foolish error. To lay the blame at a possibly innocent third party could be wrong, could send out the wrong message to other children, and could mean remedial measures to prevent further such tragedies were misappropriated. Where the real solution could be to educate children better, we could end up with another fatality, but with a slightly slower vehicle doing the deed.

DYK

[quote=WRX_Dan;7879118]The amount of cars that I overtake in a 60 limit, who then appear on your bumper when I drive at 30 in a 30 limit, drives me mad. They drive at 45 in a 60, and continue at 45 in a 30 WTF are they thinking of???

Ban the F*ckers for life.............

I Agree with that,you get it all the time..what ****'s me off the most is people who enter motorway's at inappropriate speeds.They come along the slip road doing like 40mph,and expecting everyone to move out the way into the middle lane just to let them in.I had some woman the other week as i was driving up the m1,flashing her lights at me because i didnt move into the middle lane,she came down the slip road going very slow,then decides to brake and go even slower causing the cars behind her entering the motorway to have to go round her..Then she has the cheek to start flashing her lights at me as i went passed..it's fooking crazy,i dont know how people are passing their test,and no one should be able to drive on a motorway until they have had a seperate test..

j4ckos mate

but if the car he wandered into was doing say 25 in a 20 instead of 35 ina 30 you might still have a son, of course if he didnt see the child running about between cars it would be his fault but what if he couldnt stop in time?

what if you died in a work related accident but it was your fault, do you think your wife and kid will say oh well never mind.it was his fault for putting his hand in the machine when the council tax needs paying

corradoboy

You aren't offering any answers, just ifs and buts ! We could prattle on like that all day, but I personally think that the single-minded obsession with speed enforcement over and above education, and apportioning a degree of responsibility in EVERY road user will not have as great an effect on avoiding such tragic events. Pedestrians appear to have an arrogant and carefree disregard for their safety, pedal cyclists seem to think traffic laws and rules don't apply to them and our government, law makers and upholders of those laws do little to correct that bad attitude, preferring to target a single factor at the total disregard of all other potential contributing factors.

speedking

But it's the means of enforcement where the problem lies. The use of SPECS cameras means that pretty much everybody's every move will be recorded on a database.

It won't be long before a new subroutine is written that checks average speeds between leaving one 20mph zone and reaching the next. Over the limit = automatic fine. No discretion.

j4ckos mate

the standard of cycling on the road today is nothing short of disasterous

corradoboy

At last we agree, COMPLETELY !

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

If people are unable to drive safely at 30mph thrn they are not fit to drive full stop imo.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

This may sound harsh, but it does have to be said. What was the child doing in the middle of the road? If he was not old enough to be responsible for his actions, where were his parents?

A mate of mine got run over (thank god he lived). Was he angry with the car driver? no. Were his parents annoyed with the driver? no. After his broken leg healed, his dad gave him a clip around the ear and told him to be more careful.

No matter how much money is spent, you CANNOT eliminate all risk to human life. Each person MUST take responsibility for themselves if they don't wish to meet an early demise. That ranges from where you go, when you go, what you eat, what you do. All the help is there, you just have to take it.

If we go down the legislative route each time someone gets hurt, ultimately the only answer will be to ban cars, buses, trains, planes completely. Even push bikes have been known to kill people when one slams into someone.

PeteBrant

Entirely depends on the circumstances surely.

If said child runs into the road carelessly and is hit by a car doing 30 in a 30. Then yes, the child is to blame.

If the car is doing 40 in a 30, then the driver is equally responsible, if not more so.

(p.s. I love the clip round the ear bit. I mean, obviously the broken leg isn't enough to drum the dangers of running into the road, oh no, the clip round the ear will really theach em a lesson )

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

The clip round the ear was quite amusing actually The cast had just come off, and he said he was off out to the shops to celebrate....

*whack* "Remember to look where you are going this time"

(and yes it does depend on the circumstances. If he'd been run over while still on the pavement then he would have had a leg to stand on. As he just wandered out into the road, it was his own daft fault. Speeding cars don't help, but even then you should have the common sense. Its no use being right but dead...speeding cars tend to make lots of noise so are even easier to avoid. Heaven help us when the boy racers get the electric cars of the future )

Leslie

The point that Luminous made is a very good one. The fact that his parents punished the lad underlines the fact that it was his fault and the the parents had no sympathy for his careless behaviour. Are you one of those who believes that children should not get corporal punishment to teach them discipline and good sense as they grow up?

I think that 20 mph limits are quite sensible in the right places where it is dangerous to drive faster. To put them in places where it is safe to drive at 30 mph is plain stupid and unnecessarily restrictive and will encourage drivers to break the law. We have quite a few round here which are exactly like that.

They should put speedcams outside schools, hospitals and elderly peoples' homes etc where the speed limit really should be observed for safety's sake. Sleeping policemen or speed humps are inherently dangerous, are bad for your car, and so many accelerate between them anyway. Typical solution from those who don't really understand about driving anyway. Take some of the speedcams away from the open roads where they are not doing any good but just generating cash.

Les

PeteBrant

I've never felt the need to give my children corporal punishment. My childrens school have never given them corporal punishment. I've never smacked either of my kids.

I have always talked ot them and communicated with them and explained the differtence between right and wrong, and explained why, and taken the time to actually be a Father to them, rather than just hit them, and carry on.

Somehow, though, presumably throuh some miracle, they have not turned out to be feral beasts with no respect for authority. They have managed to turn out as pretty well adjusted teenagers, that have never been in trouble with the police, and always show respect.

The Dad clipping the child round the ear just highlights just what utter nonsense such an action was.

What do you think is going to stop the child from running out into the road again? The fact that he had his legs smashed to bits and ended up in plaster? Or that his Dad gave him a clip round the ear?

Why will encourage people to break the law? Does putting up signs saying "Theives will be prosecuted" have the same effect?

Hiowever, I agree, the areas which have the 20mph limit should be idenitifed and justified.


The trouble is, Les, is that they are only generating cash if people break the law.

It is almost a completely unarguable position. What you are condoning, at its base level, is people breaking the law.

Now I think we can all agree, that the justification for speed cameras shoul dbe for safety reasons. At accident black spots, and outside schools etc. I personally don;t think they belong on a stretch of NSL road that has one accident every decade.

However, when asked [i]why[/] don't you want a speed camera there, your answer, is basically "people should be allowed to speed without gettign fined for it"

We are all guilty of saying it, and it is incredibly difficult to argue it without completely losing the ethical debate.

Jerome

The 20mph limit will only potentially save a childs life if the driver actually hits their brakes. I suspect many drivers will adopt the "I'm driving at the speed limit, so I don't need to concentrate" attitude - especially at such a low speed.

I would also imagine the authorities giving no quarter in their pursuit of drivers in 20mph limits with drivers being done from 20.001mph. Hundreds of thousands more drivers will lose their licences every year I suspect.

I agree that some roads need a 20mph limit, but I cannot trust the authorities to apply these limits appropriately.

As an aside, a traffic cop I spoke to many years ago said that whenever he mounted a speed trap in response to complaints from residents, the vast majority of people he caught were residents - many of whom were the very people who complained about speeding drivers...

GC8WRX

Happened in prestbury 2 years ago, all the rich residents wanted people travelling through "their" village to go at 20mph so as not to endanger the liitle kids, they mithered so much that the cops put 2 CSO's in the village with a camera.

90% of the people caught were residents or freinds of residents!

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

If a speed camera was sighted correctly and doing its job it should never generate a penny !!! IMO that would then be a 100% successful use of a speed camera

Leslie

Lot of points there, and I will try to answer them.

Firstly you are a lucky chap to have such well behaved children, maybe they follow your example which is a normal state of affairs with children and their peers. I congratulate you for that. No point in smacking them if they don't deserve it of course. Does not always happen that way though. Incidentally I would never give a child a clip round the ear since that can be bad for him, a stinger on the leg will do nothing but good if he deserves it. In the case in the OP's post, the father was underlining the fact that the child did wrong and a smack will help him to remember that.

I said that 20 mph signs would encourage people to break the law if they are placed badly in an area which clearly is safe to drive through at 30 mph, and I quoted such areas in my local part of the country. Bad speed limits annoy people and it is so easy to drive at 30 instead of 20 when the road is safe to do so. They are quite likely to do that without realising it. I am just talking about normal human behaviour! You should not put words into my mouth by accusing me of condoning it! I was saying that if we must have speed cameras then put them into areas where there is genuine danger from speeding cars. If it stops them then the job is done. Are you saying that they should be only put up in places where they will generate cash? That is what your post seems to indicate. Is that what you regard as their primary purpose and that that is a good thing?

My views on gross speeding should be well known by now. I certainly do not agree with that sort of behaviour. My real point is that we should have speed cops as we used to have to catch not only dangerously speeding drivers but also for all the other heinous offences such as driving unlicensed, uninsured,non MOT'd cars, or even worse drunk or under the influence of drugs. All those things in fact that they are getting away with at the moment. Speedcams are a cheap replacement for traffic police and are seen largely as cash cows and although I agree that gross speeding is quite wrong on today's crowded roads, the other offences are at least as dangerous or injurious to the rest of us all.

Les

PeteBrant

Whether it is is safe to drive at 30mph or not is irrelevant surely.

If the powers that be have decided that the limit in a given area is 20mph, then that is what it is.

It shouldn't "encourage" anyone.

Why is it possible to stick to a 30mph limit, but not a 20? What physical phenomenom stops you for doing that?

If you can stick to a 30,/40/50/60/70 limit, then you can stick to a 10/20 limit.

No, no, what I said in my post is that I agree, they should be used as SAFETY cameras and be used to lower accidents at black spots, and outsides schools etc.


However, what I was pointing out is that is is incredibly difficult to argue against a placement of a speed camera in any position. Because at then end of the day, the person responsible for placing the camera can say "Why do you have a problem with it?"

And what answer can you give? That it is a cash generator? The reply is simple. Don't speed, and you won't get fined. How do you argue against that?

Obviously the non MoT'd an uninsured vehicles could be caught by ANCR etc. But of course ther eis no substitue for intelligent policing with discretion and experience.

I agree largely with what you are saying Les, all I am pointing out it that is it incredibly difficult to argue against the use of speed cameras, purely because the motivation for doing so is so that people can break the law.

It's like peple moaning about avergae speed cameras. Why? Why are you against it? If you stick to the limit, then you won't have any trouble. People are against it because they want to speed, they want to break the law.

I am against it, because I think there should consideration for the circumstances, but, I know that legally I haven't got aleg to stand on.

PeteBrant

And so we come back to the "Don't speed, don't get fined" argument.


They only raise revenue if people break the law.

_RIP_

So if millions of people all break the law then these of millions people are simply at fault? Is perhaps the law unjust? I subscribe to the latter.

_RIP_

I hear an echo. The echo of sense

PeteBrant

What do you feel is unjust about the 30mph limit?

And I am not convinced that just because lots of people do it, then the law should be changed to accomodate them.

_RIP_

Even some 30 mph limits are there for one reason and one reason only. And it's not saving lives.

PeteBrant

Really.

So what other commonly broken laws do you think are unjust?

No drinking until you are 18 perhaps? Shall we lower it to 16? 15?

No?

Why not? lots of people break it.....


Just because you have a number of people breaking a law, does not make it unjust.

What would you like the speed limit in built up areas risen to?

_RIP_

Apply that to being gay then. Perhaps people who cant spell should be fined It would raise millions and I think its fair not to accommodate them

PeteBrant

What reason?


If you are going to say that its to raise revenue, then again, you are arguing for the right for people to break the law.

The answer to not being caught speeding is as simplw as can be - Don't speed.



For once I really am playing devils advocate, what I am saying here is not necessarily my opinion, I am just demonstrating how difficult it is to argue a point when , legally speaking, you are in the worng.