I can tell my speed by the engine note/volume. SWMBO habitually speeds in 30s, I now drive like a vicar. Anyone who needs to look inside to check they are doing 30 must lack awareness/knowledge of the car, and the ability to judge speed by the rate things go past outside, IMHO.
I'll liken it to flying - I know some people who are real wizards on Flight Simulator, but put them in a real aircraft and they are hopeless. They never look out of the window, and can't use external visual references to get the aircraft to the right attitude. I know some great pilots who are hopeless with Flight Sim, but I know who I'd rather fly with.
|
|
|
All I can say is in the past 6 months I have had the opportunity to kill at least lots of kids under 20.. dawdling in roads, dleiberately crossing in front of cars or staionary in the middle of the road.
The education system and parents mean more higher grades.. but seem to fail to teach SOME children the rudiments of safety.
Of course I did take avoiding action: if I was tired or drunk or under drugs it may well have been different. (I don't take drugs or drink and drive!)
I can't recall these opportunities 20 years agp.
madf
|
|
Natural selection will take its course.
|
People need to learn to be responsible for their actions, this includes both the driver and the children.
Peoples attitudes have changed, larger modern cars seem to make people drive more aggressively and more reliant on the cars technology to save them.
I pass a primary school every day on my way to work. You would be amazed at how people park, right up to the school entrance covering the entire zig zag area. Of course these are mostly 4x4s and completely block the view for any cars trying to get out of the gates I've had a few close calls over the years with cars pulling out, luckily I always slow to around 20mph as I'm aware of the danger. I'm not really the complaining type but it's so bad I'm considering writing a letter to the school.
So the point is, with parents like that with such a disregard for road safety, what chance do the children have?
As a parent I believe that I too am responsible for teaching my children good road safety.
|
We have school within 100 metres for 7-13 year olds.
It's a 30mph limit.
The number of muppets going up or down at 50mph +.
The odd muppet which passes another car at 60 - and it's a blind sweeping corner.
Imo many of these drivers need to be locked up, their cars destroyed and them made to do long periods of public service duty to remind them that obeying the law s not optional.
(No speed cameras or police despite repeated complaints so shows you how much road safety really means ).
madf
|
The answer to this, as a couple of others here have hinted, is simple: third gear. Most of the drivers I've ridden with who routinely break the 30 limit because 'the car is happier at 35' are doing it in fourth, where there's no engine braking to speak of, and not enough engine noise to let the driver judge the speed easily.
Once you know how your engine sounds at, and just above, 30 in third, you scarcely need to look at the instruments to know you're at the right speed. And if your ears tell you you've nudged above the limit, you need only lift the right foot and there's enough engine braking to bring you safely and unspectacularly down to the right speed. Works perfectly in our big diesel, our puny petrol and in every other car I've driven, bar a few automatics.
So no more bleats about 'having to check your speedometer', please!
|
As some people have touched on
""""""""""""" Increase in children killed on road""""""""""
a lot of kids of today think they are harder than a car /bus and i vehemently believe that they are of the opinion that being struck by a vehicle aint gonna hurt
well for what its worth ,it does hurt children and usually big time at that
theres too much parental mollycoddling ,why when i was a child i often jumped off the top of the local slide and it aint dun me any harm,i say it aint dun me any harm
|
|
|
Third Gear: I think someone tried that....
tinyurl.com/245sq9
|
|
|
The answer to this as a couple of others here have hinted is simple: third gear.
and automatic cars?..........i don't habitually use the manual selection in my auto.......if i want to slow down i use the brakes........cheaper to replace discs/pads that an auto gearbox
|
I don't normally look at the speedometer, although more than I used to because of cameras. It's always apparent where one has to go gently and where one needn't, and the traffic density and deliberately hampered traffic flows in London impose a gentler driving style than the one you could adopt in the seventies.
I don't find it necessary to use more fuel driving in a low gear to stay safe. On the flat my car will waft along at 33 indicated, about 1300 rpm I think, in fifth. Obviously on any kind of upslope one is in another gear. But surely the judgement of speed is visual and independent of engine noise or lack of it?
|
|
|
|
You lock down into a lower gear - I can't see how this would damage the gearbox. Using the tiptronic function on downhill sections of road and knocking down a gear or two is actually advised in the Audi A3 manual.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with deepwith. Some 16 year olds seem to think it is a macho thing to force a car to stop.
|
Some 16 year olds seem to think it is a macho thing to force a car to stop.
Up to 30 year olds, I notice, and down to about 10 in some areas. Just drive down Campden Hill Road at Holland Park Comprehensive letting-out time if you don't believe me, and try to get through some of the nearby streets...
Actually lots of people seem to be standing in the road these days. It's the latest thing. End in tears if you ask me.
|
|
|
Increase in children killed on road - Aretas
the o.p. has managed to trap you all in to the classic use of statistics to make a headline which on closer examination does not support the thesis.
the actual staistics, in summary: ......
Child casualties fell by 9 per cent. The number of children killed or seriously injured in 2006 was 3,294 (down 5 per cent on 2005). Of those, 2,025 were pedestrians, 5 per cent down on 2005. 169 children died on the roads, 20 per cent more than in 2005, this was about the same level as 2004 (166) which at that time was the lowest ever recorded figure.
.....
in other words, when you are dealing with small numbers, a slight change in the raw numbers gives a seemingly large percentage change.
and you should not look at one year in isolation. you have to look at the long-term trend.
(the same point has been made about global-warming where so many lay people and journos just fail to understand the statistical arguments ).
|
|
Totally agree with you about statistics, unless of course your child is one of the casualties caused by nothing being done while a trend is found!
|
unless of course your child is one of the casualties caused by nothing being done while a
trend is found!
eh?? sorry, but i don't understand your comment at all!
what are you talking about? or what have you been smoking in your car?
|
Quite simply that the powers to be can pour over stats. for as long as they like waiting for a trend to appear. In the meantime nothing gets done. Maybe there are times when a knee jerk reaction can actually be the right course of action..
Me, smoking in the car, wasn't me....
|
for as long as they like waiting for a trend to appear. In the meantime nothing gets done. Maybe there are times when a knee jerk reaction can actually be the right course of action..
the trend is that child casualties and deaths are falling.
the actions taken so far include euro-ncap pedestrian safety targets getting tougher, and more local authorities employing 20mph zones around schools.
however, you fail to say what "knee-jerk reaction" is now needed tht would "actually be the right course of action". please do enlighten me.
please no smoking in the car when passing schools, and/or near pedestrian crossings.
p.s. the stats do not give a breakdown as to the drivers who were at fault. i seem to recall from newsreports that quite a few child deaths involve hit&run incidents where a "joyrider" or "boyracer" or a "drunk" driver were in charge of the vehicle.
|
the trend is that child casualties and deaths are falling. the actions taken so far include euro-ncap pedestrian safety targets getting tougher and more local authorities employing 20mph zones around schools.
Dalglish
You seem to be implying that 'speed kills' - i.e. set a low speed limit and casualties fall. That's fighting talk in this forum....
|
Dalglish You seem to be implying that 'speed kills' ...
not at all. re the 20mph zones, i am merely reporting actions taken by councils which they claim are responsible for reducing the children fatality stats. as per the surrey.c.c. report referred to in another post,
Safety
Surrey's road safety and speed management initiatives have led to a marked decrease in casualties on our roads. They include:.....
....
Completion of nine 20 mph zones in urban and rural areas in Guildford, Woking, Spelthorne and Reigate & Banstead, cutting accident figures by as much as 50%.
Construction of the first Home Zone in Surrey at Nutley Lane, Reigate, improving safety and amenity for residents.
Installation of interactive electronic road signs in Runnymede as an innovative way of reducing driver speeds in the borough
Excellent progress in implementing the Safe Routes to Schools initiative across the county, with over 100 schools signed up to the programme in the last four years.
Public road safety campaigns targeted at child safety, speed, drink driving, driver fatigue, in-car safety and motorcycling.
...
|
Perfect knee jerk reaction
I have always said that children should be kept indoors till they are 5 or 6 then sent to a government approved school till they are 16 then sent straight to prison - not only would that cut down road accidents involving children but also cut crime rate :-))
Seems a good idea to me.
|
in surrey (the county that hj lives in), figures for 2006 are given in reports found at
tinyurl.com/2y8jln {Shortened link to www.surreycc.gov.uk - DD}
although the child fatalities in surrey showed a marked reduction, surrey.c.c are careful not to claim credit but to attribute that to " ... random fluctuations that occur from year to year in road safety statistics .... "
quote: .....
In 2006 a total of 6,848 people were reported as injured in road collisions in Surrey. 583 people were killed or seriously injured, 0.2% less than the 2005 figure of 584 and 37.5% less than the baseline figure of 932 23 children under the age of 16 were killed or seriously injured, 42.5% fewer than the 2005 figure of 40 and 73% less than the baseline figure of 85 6,265 people were slightly injured, 0.1% fewer than the 2005 figure of 6274, and 5.6% less than the baseline figure of 6635
.....
Although the overall KSI reduction is disappointing, only 52 fatalities occurred in 2006 which is the lowest ever recorded in Surrey, and 12 fewer than in 2005. It should also be noted that it is typical for there to be random fluctuation from year to year in road casualty statistics, and therefore overall performance should be considered over the longer-term.
.....
Children Killed and Seriously Injured
Figure 2 describes the progress towards the Government?s 2010 child KSI target, and Surrey County Council?s 2007 child KSI target. Data for Highways Agency roads is not shown separately on the chart, as the numbers are very small (small changes in the absolute numbers of casualties equate to large percentage changes).
It can be seen that the child KSI casualty reduction performance is well on course to achieve the Government?s target for 2010, and Surrey County Council?s ideal interim target for 2007. It should be noted that the relatively low numbers of child KSIs are especially susceptible to random fluctuations that occur from year to year in road safety statistics. The low number of child KSI casualties experienced in 2006 is exceptional when compared to previous years.
....
etc., etc, etc.
|
|
At the comprehensive school on the road where I work, they look you in the eye and walk straight in front of you at the last minute with THAT look on their face. No wonder there is such an increase when they are brainwashed that they can do no wrong and everything is the driver's fault.
|
We could solve this by persecuting the stupid children rather than the motorist for a change. Ok, so we can't raise revenue by fining them which will come as a shame for the government, but kids need to be taught that walking in front of cars is a bad thing to do.
My parents taught me how to cross the road. It's why I am alive today and wasn't squashed under a car when I was younger. It's not hard, but it does require parents to turn Trisha off, put down the ciggerette, and teach their kids a few things.
|
|
Some 16 year olds seem to think it is a macho thing to force a car to stop.
Driving yesterday past Norwich football ground at abut 25mph. Road clear Crowd of 7 or 8 children messing about on edge of pavement . Started to slow and sounded horn. Oldest kids ran across road in front of me shouted abuse, v signs etc. Braked hard. Two youngest kids - about 6 years old followed example of their mates ran across road almost directly in front of car. Stopped ten feet from them. All ran off
|
I'm into my third decade of driving and kids have always larked about. Especially when they come out of school. 20-30 years ago a lot of kids rode bikes to and from school and you used to get the Kamikaze teenagers who would cycle straight across the front of the car. Got worse then they turned 16 becasuse they bought Yamaha FS1E moped ('fizzies') that were unrestricted in those days. Being overtaken by a 16 year old doing about 50mph was not unusual! 30 years ago I saw one of these lads get knocked off and went to assist him - bone was poking out through his thigh. I think he spent 6 months in hospital.
I'm sure BR's all lead an exemplary childhood though and took every precaution when crossing the road!
|
Can someone confirm that the original quoted statistics were indeed refering only to child pedestrian deaths, rather than total child deaths arising from vehicle accidents?
So they do not include poorly secured children in cars, or those hit my other objects?
"Death on the roads" usually means total deaths, not literally death "on" the road.
|
As you suspected the quoted statistics are total child deaths in accidents on the road rather than child pedestrian deaths.
The DoT report is available here:
www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227864/...f
The total child deaths can be broken down into:
Pedestrians: 71 killed up 13% on 2005
Cyclists: 31 killed up 55% on 2005
The remainder are presumably passengers in cars or buses: 67 killed up 16% on 2005.
However, as with all statistics it depends on how you look at them. Others have already pointed out that the 2005 figures were the lowest ever. The 2006 figures are substantially lower than the 1994-98 average used as a baseline (260 child deaths per year).
It is also worth considering the number of children being seriously injured on the roads. In 2005 there were 3,331 children seriously injured. This dropped to 3,125 in 2006. The 1994-98 average was 6,600.
|
Good question, Cliff. I heard recently (Radio 4, I think) that, of child fatalities on the roads, slightly more than half were passengers in vehicles. I can't say that these are the same stats as relate to the letter referred to above.
I am reminded that when they speak of "X,000 deaths and serious injuries on the roads", the word "deaths" always comes first and, I suspect, is the only word remembered by many people. And when did you last hear such stats expressed sensibly in terms of X per million miles/km driven?
|
And when did you last hear such stats expressed sensibly in terms of X per million miles/km driven?
>>
It isn't directly quoted in the DoT report but you can work it out from the information they provide.
For example:
In 1996 3,598 people were killed on the roads with a further 44,499 seriously injured. Total motor traffic was 441.5 billion vehicle km. Therefore, there were 109 people killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle km.
In 2006 3,172 people were killed on the roads with a further 28,673 seriously injured. Total motor traffic was 501.7 billion vehicle km. Therefore, there were 63 people killed or seriously injured per billion vehicle km.
|
>...slightly more than half were passengers in vehicles.
Could this also reflect the amount of time today's children (mine included, to some extent at least) spend in cars? I hope as mine get bigger (first one is now six) I'll let them walk alone to school and to friends' houses, but I suspect I'll still end up doing more chauffeuring than is good for them or me.
|
Why don't cars have head up display of speedo?
|
>>Why don't cars have head up display of speedo?
I believe it is currently considered as too expensive to engineer and install
|
Did Dalglish intend to make the point that Surrey as a county is not speed camera crazy ..
not only is it not speed camera crazy, but it is also not too crazy about collecting fines from those caught speeding by the few scameras that they do have. (taking following reports as fact)
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6239786.stm
Speed camera fines rose to £114.6m last year even though fewer fixed penalty notices were issued to motorists, a survey has indicated.
The total was 1% more than in the 2004/05 financial year because more fines were collected.
The Philip's road atlas company figures showed the areas paying the highest and lowest in fines per person were North Wales (£5.82) and Merseyside (£0.80).
The government said research had proved that cameras saved lives.
Some areas had a 100% rate for collecting fines, although Surrey managed only a 47% success rate.
so it seems that the message is that if you want to live in a leafy low-crime county which also treats motorists with respect, and which boasts very low traffic accident & death stats, move to hj's patch!
|
|
|
|
|
|
