|
But 20mph speed limits are hardly ever adhered to! Where I live the police don't even bother with cars parked on double yellow lines. In my road we have campaigned for several years to get humps installed and they are due to be built in the New Year. Yes there may well be more noise and pollution but that's a reasonable price to pay for slower traffic.
|
|
Does anybody know what percentage drop house prices fall when there are speed humps locally, I do remember seeing somewhere it amounts to about 15% but i can't remember where i saw that.
|
Really ?
If that is the case there is a house I am trying to buy. How do I get speed bumps put in outside it ?
Sounds like rubbish to me, but if it works all well and good.
|
|
From what i remember, people saw the speed humps and then drew the conclusion that the area is a major joy riding haunt. eg high car crime etc. and then decide its not a nice area to live.
|
|
|
|
I live on a road that services some 220 homes and a golf club. The road was deemed to have a speeding problem so the builders introduced ‘Table Top’ junctions and ‘Build Out’ points on alternating sides of the road.
Pardon me for not being rich enough to live on a road that services a golf club, but could someone explain to me what "Table Top" junctions and "Build Out" points are ?
|
Both of these have appeared on my route to work (which goes nowhere near any golf clubs) in the last twelve months.
The table top junction in my case is a T-junction the centre of which is raised above normal road level by about 8-10 inches which means a climb up to the junction when approaching from any direction. The builders have obviously recognised the inherant dangers of loss of control because the whole thing has been coated in an anti-skid surfacing material. I'm not sure what the effect is supposed to be other than that at night nearby householders will be treated to a flash through the living room window from the headlights of every vehicle that climbs up onto the thing.
The 'Build Out' points here have been added at bus stops and are simply extension to the pavement which jut out into the road two or three feet. This has the effect of blocking the road completely when a bus stops and I think is meant to stop streams of cars overtaking the bus and ignoring the "please let me out" signs stuck to the back. Build Outs I have seen elswhere not connected with bus stops seem to be there to induce a sort of slalom effect. I imagine the idea of frequent near misses with oncoming traffic is meant to keep you alert.
|
I have tried and tried to think of a reason against speed bumps but I really cannot think of one. What is the problem with them for drivers?
Most children are killed and injured by cars driven by "normal" drivers, the majority of whom will be speeding. You are more likely to be unable to stop in time if you're speeding and slowing down reduces the chances of an accident - this is fact.
So, why would anyone be against this. I don't enjoy speed bumps but they DO work. Theres nothing on earth that would prevent a joy-rider from slowing down as, obviously, they simply do not care how much damage they cause, but then again, most accidents occur with "normal" drivers.
Its the run-of-the-mill drivers that are involved in the majority of accidents and I usually find it hard to adhere to 30mph myself on an open, level road. Speed bumps automatically slow me down.
True, the ride is bumpy and a pain in the but, but its slower and I find I can ride over the bumps at around 25-30 mph: which is a good speed for a residential area. There is no one that could argue otherwise; its just a fact.
I would much rather hear my wheels bump slightly then hear a head crack on my windshield. Yes, they're never going to stop ALL accidents but they can help prevent a lot of them.
Patricia
x
|
Good post, Patricia. A child in the UK is somewhere between 10 and 100 times more likely to be killed as a pedestrian by a motor vehicle driver than by a paedophile. That's not counting those seriously injured and left permanently disabled. Somehow, in the minds of Joe Public, one is acceptable while the other is not. While I doubt if any driver deliberately sets out to kill/maim a child, the fact is that the majority of drivers deliberately break the law when it comes to speed limits in places where children are likely to be present.
I've often thought that the greatest safety features for some drivers would be no driver's seatbelt and a sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel.
|
Good post, Patricia. A child in the UK is somewhere between 10 and 100 times more likely to be killed as a pedestrian by a motor vehicle driver than by a paedophile.
The difference is that a child killed by a car is almost certainly to be at fault in the colision.
Are you saying that victims of paedophiles are in someway culpable?
is not. While I doubt if any driver deliberately sets out to kill/maim a child,
He doesn't. In 85 per cent of incidents the driver isn't to blame.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
As I posted in another thread, we use the road by licence, whereas the child uses the road by right. I would dispute your claim that a child is almost certainly to be at fault, and please don't be so ridiculous as to suggest that I think that victims of paedophiles are in any way culpable.
The vast majority of child pedestrian fatalities occur in built-up areas, just where any driver with half a brain might expect children to be. The fact is that children will be children, no matter how much we try to drill road safety into them. We cannot assign to them the same degree of responsibility that we expect of adults, so we should all drive accordingly.
|
I would dispute your claim that a child is almost certainly to be at fault
Ok I wnet with the Govts figure of 85 per cent. Tell me yours and the size of the sample you used to calcluate it.
, and please don't be so ridiculous as to suggestthat I think that victims of paedophiles are in any way culpable.
You appeared to be claiming there was no difference. It's not a huge leap of loginc.
The vast majority of child pedestrian fatalities occur in built-up areas, just where any driver with half a brain might expect children to be.
Just where a well supervised child might expect a car to be.
The fact is that children will be children, no matter how much we try to drill road safety into them. We cannot assign to them the same degree of responsibility that we expect of adults, so we should all drive accordingly.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a child to not jump in front of a car. If it can't be trusted it's parent should supervise it.
Expecting the motorist to avoid incidents that he has little control over is a recepie for more dead kids.
The argument for giving the motorist the responsibility for pedestrain deaths is revenue.
The argument for giving the people to blame for pedestrian deaths (the pedestrians) is that there will be less deaths.
I'm looking forwad to hearing your *more accurate* figure for pedestrian deaths though.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
|
>>In 85 per cent of incidents the driver isn'tto blame. --
If the driver is speeding, then how can he/she not be to blame?
I agree wholeheartedly with Patricia and Wowbagger on this.
HF
|
>>In 85 per cent of incidents the driver isn't >> to blame. >> -- If the driver is speeding, then how can he/she not be to blame?
I think we can conclude from that statistic that the driver isn't speeding in 85 per cent of cases!
Anyway what kind of moron parent would let their child cross directly in front of a speeding car?
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
I think we can conclude from that statistic that the driver isn't speeding in 85 per cent of cases!
>>
I have no statistics, so I can't really comment on that.
Anyway what kind of moron parent would let their child cross directly in front of a speeding car?
>>
And what kind of moron driver would not slow down and take the utmost care in places where children are likely to be around? Not *all* children can be supervised at *all* times by their parents. Take, for example, a young secondary school kid on his/her way to school. It's children in this age group, I think, that tend most often to be victims. Maybe they *are* partially to blame by not concentrating properly on the roads, they are not adults and do not behave as such, but at the same time drivers are aware of this and should allow for it.
HF
|
And what kind of moron driver would not slow down and take the utmost care in places where children are likely to be around?
Ok. My plan is for Parents to take responsibility for own children.
Your plan is to let speeding drivers take responsibility for *other peoples* children.
I know who I'd trust out of those two groups.
Not *all* children can be supervised at *all* times by their parents.
But speeding drives can be relied on to look out for children. I'm sure many can but not all.
Take, for example, a young secondary school kid on his/her way to school. It's children in this age group, I think, that tend most often to be victims.
>>Maybe they*are* partially to blame by not concentrating properly on the roads,
In 85 per cent of cases they are *fully* to blame!
they are not adults and do not behave as such, but at the same time drivers are aware of this and should allow for it.
I think asking speeding drivers to look out for other peoples kids is gonna be as much use as giving your video to the local fence for safe keeping.
I suspect the reason I wasn't run over as a kid was that I was relatively well supervised until I could be trusted. The near misses I had were entirely my own fault.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
Your plan is to let speeding drivers take responsibility for *other peoples* children.
No! My plan, or at least my wish, is for drivers not to speed, and to behave responsibly, when and where children are likely to be around. Or, in fact, where any pedestrians are likely to be around.
But speeding drives can be relied on to look out for children. I'm sure many can but not all.
No, they can't, but they shouldn't be speeding in the first place.
In 85 per cent of cases they are *fully* to blame!
Maybe you are right, Toad, but maybe if the drivers in some of these cases had been more careful and forward-seeing, the accident could have been avoided.
I think asking speeding drivers to look out for other peoples kids is gonna be as much use as giving your video to the local fence for safe keeping.
Agreed. Speeding in certain places is negligent and dangerous and the only way to stop people doing it is to penalise them more harshly.
HF
|
Its fair to do 20 where its obvious there are kids running out. Its fair to do 30 in busy areas, or in fact anywhere where there are likely to be pedestrians. Kids will run out and it will be their fault but they know no better and they dont deserve to be ran over for their age-infuenced poor observational skills. Therefore you should slow down.
30 or 40 when there are kids about is in my opinion far worse than 120 on a clear stretch of motorway.
|
|
Any thoughts on the poor clueless adults who run out into the road without noticing the car bearing down on them? I regularly drive at 15-20mph in residential streets (cars parked on both sides)on the morning commute due to the number of children on those streets and the limited visibility. So why do I always find myself braking for adults eager to meet their nirvana on my bonnet? By far the worst are those late for work and keen to get to their car parked opposite their house.
Fortunately I watch the pavements as much as the roads so tend to be slowing before they make their lemming-like lunge across the tarmac.
And no, I dont have my own traffic jam behind me - I just drive smoothly and progressively without aggression.
Except towards taxis. But they dezserve it. :op
|
Any thoughts on the poor clueless adults who run out into the road without noticing the car bearing down on them?
Yes, I agree, they are stupid and totally at fault if they are hit by a non-speeding driver. As are the ones that *do* notice the car, but carry on regardless, arrogantly assuming right of way and forcing the driver to slow down.
HF
|
Just one point on this issue. Highway code, paragraph 146:
"Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way."
This is a rule that is ignored by the majority of drivers, at least round here.
To Toad I would say this. You have a particularly twisted brand of logic, and consistently fail to address the issue. I will only quote the following from the highway code:
Paragraph 180:
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclist and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, elderly and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.
Paragraph 181:
In urban areas there is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive with the safety of children in mind at a speed suitable for the conditions. [my note: this may be lower than the speed limit]
Paragraphs 182 and 183 are well worth reading and taking to heart, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Kids don't know better though.
|
|
|
|
|
Any mention of children in accident statistics seems to automatically induce an emotional response.
Somehow we seem to value a child above an adult.
OK, the potential has been lost, but from an economic viewpoint a young adult whose schooling and training has already been completed and perhaps leaves a widow and young family is at least equally valuable.
Lets have some equality. All human life is precious and we should be looking to avoid all accidents rather than pile special measures into the hundred yards either side of schools and justify them by playing on emotions.
N.B. None of the fatal accidents which have affected me personally have involved children. The count goes something like; one teenager; two young adults without children; one early middle-aged with young family; one elderly.
I conclude that resources are being misdirected to gain public support rather than achieve results.
|
BrianW,
I agree.
Any fatal accident is a tragedy and of course we should try to find ways of avoiding all such cases.
HF
|
BrianW,
I think the emphasis is placed on children because they perhaps are likely to be paying less attention to potential dangers from the traffic around them. Things like ice cream vans and their mates across the road can grab the focus of their attention to the exclusion of just about anything else. Similarly teenagers can slip into the "I'm invincible" frame of mind, apparently generating a belief that they will win out in the event of a collision with a ton of metal on wheels. Maybe current road safety advertising does play a bit on the emotive side of the argument, but children are still 'learning the rules' so may be deserving of extra vigilance.
|
|
I might add that children under the age of sixteen account for 22% of the population, but 44% of pedestrian fatalities.
|
|
|
|
consistently fail to address the issue
The issue is: How do you stop so many pedestrian deaths.
Solution, find out what causes pedestrian deaths and adress it.
Q: What causes pedestrian deaths?
A. Almost always the behaviour of the pedestrian.
Therefore my solution based on avaialble facts is: Address the behaviour of the pedestrian or where this behaviour is impossible to address ensure supervision by someone who can make sensible life and death decisions.
The fact that other people come up with different solutions (all of which seems to require responsible behavious from the very people who are showing themslves to be irresponsible) say a lot.
Agree with BW! Why's a child more important that an adult. An child has potential. An adult has already fulfilled it! A child may grow up to be a releigous leader or great scientist. It might also grow up to be a mass murderer.
Parents seem to spend their whole lives whineing about other people responsibilities to thier children.
It's the TV companies responsiblility or the schools or drivers. You made the choice to have children. Face up to it.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
The trouble is, we all have a duty to ourselves and those around us. A classic example is Health and Safety in the workplace, which is based on the principle that we are all responsible for the safety of ourselves and our colleagues. You see a hazard on the floor and walk around it, congratulating yourself on avoiding the accident and assuming all that follow will be as quick-witted as you. By not dealing with the hazard you are as culpable for any subsequent injury to the less observant colleague who trips on the hazard ten minutes later as the person who created the hazard in the first place.
Taking that back to the road, you witness a pedestrian giving less than 100% attention to the road. If you assume they will be as aware of the hazard as you are and they subsequently bounce off your bonnet, you are equally or more at fault than they are. In most instances, accidents arise because all parties assumed the others were going to address the hazard. Always assume that your car is invisible and drive accordingly. If you are already on the brakes by the time the hazard occurs, you are already halfway towards stopping the accident.
Cars have lovely wide windscrees and side windows to provide a wide field of vision. Take into account everything happening in front of you, not just on the tarmac, and you can avoid the "unavoidable".
The simplest survival rule on the road is one I use when I occassionally commute on my mountain bike; If I can't make eye-contact with the next "hazard" (be it pedestrian or motorist) I assume I have not been seen and act accordingly. In a car you can safely assume that the pedestrian facing away from you or coming through a gateway has not seen you.
The chances of this kind of approach reaching all motorists is slim, but if just one person reading this today takes this approach, it will be an improvement.
No Dosh (no idea)
|
|
|
Parents seem to spend their whole lives whineing about other people responsibilities to thier children.
Some do, some don't.
It's the TV companies responsiblility or the schools or drivers. You made the choice to have children. Face up to it.
The fact is that a parent cannot supervise his/her child 100% of the time. Once they get to school age, they *have* to go to school. I have two children who go to different schools. Since I am unable physically to travel to two different places at the same time, to escort them both, the eldest *has* to take the school bus. At which times, I would like to think that other drivers were considerate enough to think of his safety above the fact that they might be running a bit late. And I would hold any driver responsible for any harm they might cause him, either walking to the bus-stop or on the bus itself.
Does this make me irresponsible? Does this mean that I should never have had my children in the first place?
HF
|
The fact is that a parent cannot supervise his/her child 100% of the time.
- But a load of strange drivers can?
And I would hold any driver responsible for any harm they might cause him, either walking to the bus-stop or on the bus itself.
- And this is where we will never agree. When I was a lad I was well educated in road safety. The attitude 'Other drivers are responsible for my kids' and pushing the little mites onto the dual carriageway leaving the responsiblilty to about 50 million strangers is wrong.
Does this make me irresponsible?
- Since you feel you can "hold any driver responsible" for your children on the roads it doesn't matter, does it? You can be as irresponsible as you like - they will look after your kids.
My parent didn't feel that way and taught me to be careful and how to be careful. Different parenting stratiegies that's all.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
Toad, you are twisting the argument, and you know it. Nobody is suggesting pushing little mites onto the dual carriageway. We are talking about urban and residential areas, and other areas where it is quite reasonable to expect children to be present.
You ask if it makes you responsible. If you do not abide by the highway code (sections quoted earlier) the, yes, it does make you responsible, at least in part.
|
|
|
>>- But a load of strange drivers can?
That's not what I was trying to say.
- And this is where we will never agree. When I was a lad I was well educated in road safety. The attitude 'Other drivers are responsible for my kids' and pushing the little mites onto the dual carriageway leaving the responsiblilty to about 50 million strangers is wrong.
My kids are well-educated in road-safety too. I just feel that drivers should have a resposibility, and a duty of care, to others on the road, including all pedestrians.
- Since you feel you can "hold any driver responsible" for your children on the roads it doesn't matter, does it? You can be as irresponsible as you like - they will look after your kids.
I think we'd better just agree to differ on this Toad. You seem to be trying to turn this into a slanging match and I really don't want or need that.
HF
|
|
|
>>My parent didn't feel that way and taught me to be careful and how to be careful. Different parenting stratiegies that's all.
Good.
But did they teach how to never make mistakes or lose concentration ? Did they teach you how to deal with a road user that makes a mistake or loses concentration ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see your point, Brian, and can agree to a large extent. However, I think one reason that children tend to be regarded as a special case is that children (at least up to a certain age)lack the abilities that adults have in terms of hazard perception, ability to judge the speed of approaching vehicles, etc.
|
Wowbagger
You are right, but that is what parenting is about.
I have got my two safely (apart from letting my toddler daughter fall over a quayside, but tha is off-topic) to adulthood.
I paid for them to have driving lessons.
I try to set a good example and consider that I have done my duty.
However, despite this and since achieving the age of majority, one child has collected three points for a red light offence, has fallen off his motorbike a couple of times and has written off his car.
The other child has done in the steering of her car by running into an island and has rear-ended a car when on a scooter.
There is only so much one can do!
Sometimes one is tempted to conclude that children are a sexually transmitted disease!
|
Yes, good parenting is important. But however good a parent you are, you can't alter the fact that childrens' perception of hazards and speed, not to mention their attention span, is not up to that of an adult.
As I noted earlier, children are 22% of the population, but account for 44% of pedestrian deaths. This seems to suggest there is a problem. I don't want to overblow this, the figures are much lower than a few years ago (but I wonder how much of the reduction is due to kids being driven to school, rather than any safety improvement), but the original thread here concerned measures to ensure that drivers reduced their speed in areas where there is likely to be a problem.
I like to think of children as being a natural hazard [in more ways than one!] rather like, for example, ice on the road. The highway code tells us they are a hazard, they've been getting hit and killed for decades, but even near schools many drivers fail to drive appropriately.
|
Of course all life is as important.
However, you are more likely to kill someone of small stature due to the impact area and the bonet being level with the head. But in any event, it is a fact that there are more children killed on the road, on average, than adults. Children play near roads, they hang out on roads. Of course its the parent's responsibility to take ownership of protecting their child/ren but its MY conscience that would be the downfall of me.
I do not believe I could ever get over killing anyone (or indeed running anyone over for that matter) even if I was driving under the speed limit and even if it was 101% their fault. The fact that they were in the wrong would have no impact on how badly I would be affected, or indeed, the fact that it was their parent's fault. I accept that there is a lot of bad parenting around, but that would not make me feel better if I hit a child. Its shared responsibility; we all have a duty to protect safety.
It is a fact that are more likely able to avoid a collision if you are driving slower, rather than faster, and driving over the speed limit thuse enhances your chances of hitting a padestrian if they step out into the road at the wrong time. But that does not make it a valid consequence if they, then, get hit by a car. We do not have the death penalty for convicted murderers, nevermind a "serves you right" attitude for someone making a dreadful mistake who then gets killed by a car. I cannot see the logic of this argument.
But in any event, *I* would not want to take on the burdone of killing someone's daughter/son/mother/uncle/wife/husband ... and if I can have enhanced chances of avoiding doing so because there is a speed bump that forces me to slow down, then bring on the concrete.
Patricia
x
|
"driving over the speed limit thus enhances your chances of hitting a pedestrian "
Speed limits are a compromise. Only in exceptional circumstances will they be appropriate. 99% of the time they will be too fast or too slow. If there are pedestrians in a position where they could constitute a hazard then the chances are you should be travelling slower than the arbitary limit in any case.
"if there is a speed bump that forces me to slow down, then bring on the concrete."
If you need speed bumps to slow you down you are not reading the conditions correctly, otherwise you would either be driving at the speed limit or slower.
|
Agreed BrianW,
If you need outside help to maintain a safe speed, then you shouldn't be driving. Eg the speed limit by a school may be 30mph it doesn't make it 'right' to travel at that speed at kicking out time. Anybody with any sense and driving ability would slow down to increase the amount time for obsveration. If you need the council to make your decisions about speed you should take a bus.
|
|
Tone, you've cracked it! A solution to the congestion problems at last! Getting all these morons on the bus should empty the streets nicely.
|
I do not believe I could ever get over killing anyone (or indeed running anyone over for that matter) even if I was driving under the speed limit and even if it was 101% their fault. The fact that they were in the wrong would have no impact on how badly I would be affected, or indeed, the fact that it was their parent's fault.
I am a little undecided on this issue. I think that the speed limit and how much over/under is not the issue here. The person who is moving fastest (car vs pedestrian) or who has the capacity to cause more damage should always be aware of that fact and be prepared to take evasive action even if it is not their "fault". I suppose that this is pretty much like the EUs plans to make drivers liable in all crashs involving pedestrians/cyclists, which IMHO is flawed.
I like you would hate to have the burden of having killed someone with me. Although I drive above the speed limit most of the time, 30 means what it says and I stick to the limit. I know that this is not a fail safe way of thinking but I hope that it reduces the chances of me running someone over.
|
"Toad, you are twisting the argument, and you know it. "
It kept you both occupied for an afternoon though!!!
My work here is done, night all!
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
It kept you both occupied for an afternoon though!!! My work here is done, night all! ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Thank you for your kind consideration in providing the afternoon's entertainment ;)
HF
|
|
|
|
|
They are good things and have slowed me down in the past when I was more focused on delivery times (I used to deliver fast food) than on my speedometer. They can be placed inappropiately though, as Ive already suggested on this topic - I mentioned how the 'big' bumps were on the main road and the 'little' ones on the residential streets. Should be the other way round. And some just don't need to be there.
|
|
|
|
Both of these have appeared on my route to work (which goes nowhere near any golf clubs) in the last twelve months. The table top junction in my case is a T-junction the centre of which is raised above normal road level by about 8-10 inches which means a climb up to the junction when approaching from any direction. The builders have obviously recognised the inherant dangers of loss of control because the whole thing has been coated in an anti-skid surfacing material. I'm not sure what the effect is supposed to be other than that at night nearby householders will be treated to a flash through the living room window from the headlights of every vehicle that climbs up onto the thing. The 'Build Out' points here have been added at bus stops and are simply extension to the pavement which jut out into the road two or three feet. This has the effect of blocking the road completely when a bus stops and I think is meant to stop streams of cars overtaking the bus and ignoring the "please let me out" signs stuck to the back. Build Outs I have seen elswhere not connected with bus stops seem to be there to induce a sort of slalom effect. I imagine the idea of frequent near misses with oncoming traffic is meant to keep you alert.
Thanks for the info.
I've seen a road with build-out points (the reason for which was not apparent) and my thoughts at the time were that it was crazy to force drivers towards oncoming traffic instead of allowing them to continue to drive a normal distance from the left-hand pavement.
As for the table-top junction (which I've never seen) this sounds like sheer madness. I thought that the idea of road safety measures was to enhance driver control not to put it into jeopardy. Eight to ten inches high ? Jeez !!
|
Better yet (which I forgot to mention before) one of the arms of the table-top junction has a zebra crossing about 4 feet in from the top of the ramp! It must be a rather frightening prospect for pedestrians to see a car come bouncing up the ramp as they cross the road.
I wouldn't mind betting that whoever designed the thing has never had to use it either in a car or on foot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
