I would tell the children:
"This is exactly why you should learn to cross the road safely. Even despite the prolific number of speed cameras, drivers will still exceed the limit. Far better that you don't get hit by a car in the first place, remember to look both ways before crossing, otherwise you may die"
BTW - I have children, my first line of defence is to teach them how to survive crossing the road. Watching a speeding motorist go to jail for the rest of his/her life won't bring a dead child back to life.
We need to educate both the drivers and the children.
My main concern is that this will make children think that the onus is on the driver to ensure their safety. (While there is an onus on the driver I don't think that children should be aware of it).
Edited by moonshine {P} on 13/11/2007 at 12:17
|
So there was a group of children in hi-viz vests at the side of the road and the driver stilll chose to speed? Pathetic.
My daughter's primary school is surrounded by a chaos of badly parked cars each morning and afternoon, many of them large 4x4's which restrict visibility. Despite this, many drivers see fit to drive past at more than 30mph. It is very difficult for adults to cross safely, let alone children. Last year a girl was hit by a car, although fortunately was not seriously injured. Anything that can be done to get these numbskulls to slow down and drive more carefully has my backing.
|
My daughter's primary school is surrounded by a chaos of badly parked cars each morning and afternoon many of them large 4x4's which restrict visibility. Despite this many drivers see fit to drive past at more than 30mph.
Exactly the same for me!
4 PROPERLY placed speedbumps along the road - which is about 800m long, dead straight, and has a primary school, two pre primary school, plus a prk.
However, as we know, 4x4s don't need to slow down.
What is even worse, in the space of 100 yds, there are FIVE "No U-turn" signs.
Guaranteed I see about 3 moron U-turners during the 2 minutes it takes to drop of junior!
|
I think that in general, the arrogance of someone who thinks the law does not apply to them will not be softened by a few children. Taking that persons license away however, will get their attention and in future, perhaps they will follow the law.
And no, I couldnt care less if their job depends on their license - maybe a spell tossing burgers in Burger King will persuade them that speeding isnt worth it.
|
|
|
Infants and junior school near me has its own underpass under the A road, recently the speed has been brought down to a 30 mph limit,there is a lollipop lady watching the kids across the road and nobody uses the underpass and its clean,work that one out.
|
...............nobody uses the underpass and its clean work that one out.
>>
No too difficult, (it being clean), it may have something to do with the fact its not used!
|
No intelligent London child over five or six would dream of expecting traffic to stop for them or cross the road in front of anything moving unless it was a long way off.
They are still liable to get distracted and careless when playing football, fighting etc. though. And in some areas little monkeys on bikes or on foot make a point of being cheeky with the motor traffic, sometimes alarmingly so. It is fashionable among the London youth of all classes to stand about in the road.
|
|
You don't see any Tufty or Green Cross man, or even Cycling proficiency courses these days. It's little wonder we see thoughtless drivers once they reach 17, they've never had to worry about discipline in traffic until now.
|
You don't see any Tufty or Green Cross man or even Cycling proficiency courses these days. It's little wonder we see thoughtless drivers once they reach 17 they've never had to worry about discipline in traffic until now.
WRONG! My three kids all had extensive road safety training (all since 2000). This included videos about road safety, a 'mock' road crossing complete with traffic lights etc. Oh, and they all did cycling proficiency test. They all know the Highway Code pretty well too! Far more extensive than in my young days. You don't see the 'Tufty' ads on TV though (commercial break airtime too valuable now I guess) - its all done in schools now.
The problem with kids is that they behave like children - i.e. mess about, get distracted, behave spontaneously without thinking. They also tend have a poor ability to judge speed and distance. The death penalty is rather a severe punishment for these inadequacies, don't you think?
|
|
Maybe in your area, but not in ours, and I can only speak from experience. When I was growing up they had stuff on the tv that emphasised road safety for all, Tufty for kids, Reginald Molehusband and the Weaver Bird for adults. Nowadays we get moronic ads aimed at drivers, but nothing for pedestrians. The BBC doesn't have commercial breaks, so there's no excuse for a public service organisation not to show road safety ads.
|
Maybe in your area but not in ours
So you've been into the local schools and checked this out have you? I think you'll find that road safety is taught nationwide in all primary schools. I also think its more effective than TV advertising since it targets the appropriate audience and they get to spend longer on the topic than a 30second advert.
|
www.kerbcraft.org/
This is on the curriculum around here, PCSO some Council bod and a load of little angels all seen in their HiViz vests quite regularly.
|
Gimmick.
If speeding on the stretch of road in question is a genuine problem and has caused accidents, install the usual photographic equipment. Enforce the law rather than messing around with this sort of thing.
The aim here would seem to be to get the kids to go home and bleat at Mummy and Daddy about it, just like we did in 198whenever it was when the anti-smoking lady came round to our school. My mother's response was to light another Silk Cut and inform me that as a taxpaying adult she would make her own decisions on the matter, thank you very much. Some years later, I myself took up smoking and was on anything up to 50 a day for about 10 years before I quit. So I am unconvinced that such tactics actually work.
|
|
It's little wonder we see thoughtless drivers once they reach 17 they've never had to worry about discipline in traffic until now.
>>
Worry about discipline at all, no chance, I blame the parents.
Is it police policy to always assume the motorist is in the wrong?
Edited by Old Navy on 13/11/2007 at 16:57
|
Is it police policy to always assume the motorist is in the wrong?
When the motorist is speeding, then yes!
|
|
When motorists, wrongly, believe they own the sole right to the roads, then vulnerable users are at risk. Time the onus was replaced, squarely on the users of mechanical vehicles. Then there might eventually be fewer vehicles on e.g. silly runs to school, as drivers will make allowances for children and the elderly et al, and parents will be more relaxed about children using the highways.
Edited by nortones2 on 13/11/2007 at 19:42
|
But if he can't speak English, has no documents and is obviously intoxicated or seriously ill, then no, even if knocking sounds and muted screams are heard from the boot and a pool of dark red fluid seems to be spreading around the rear of the car.
'Mind how you go sir.'
'Oublioudnik!'
VROOOM!
|
VROOOM!
This message was a not entirely serious response to Aprilia's, not nortones's.
|
Recently here, the police decided to have a blitz on speeding drivers near schools during childrens' arrival and departure times. They publically stated their intentions, and made sure that various media carried the message. Didn't do much good, except for the Government finances. They even caught a school-bus driver, of all people.
|
|
where was the lollypop man/women when all of this kicked off?
|
|
|
|
|
|
