Safe Speed Forums

I have started this thread as a very interesting topic which I think needs a greater airing has come up in the Anonymous Forum .

The main issue can be summed up thus:

Should the media, out of sensitivity to the relatives of those killed and injured in accidents, self censor their reports so that the true causes of accidents are not apparent to the public?

An example to show what the question is about:

A recent accident occurred near to my office where a local lady estate agent was killed when a careless driver turned left at a junction and strayed onto the other side of the road and hit her almost head on. This was in a 40mph limit area. This had the usual press reporting about lethal speed etc, a floral shrine appeared and the funeral was sympathetically reported.

The later court report on this case (in small print on an inside page) showed that the lady had not been wearing a seat belt and thus, instead of probably walking away, was killed. Was this a missed opportunity to ram home a road safety message? Would it have been wrong to say that her own stupidity contributed to her death?

I am genuinely unclear what I think about this .

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I would like the press to highlight the truth of these sort of incidents. There is far to much fudge reported about all sorts of issues in the media at the moment, presumably to try and stop giving offence either real or perceived.
Government treats us like children and that is the way many people are now reacting. The simplified and misleading road safety campaigns are an example. So many people now think- car accident! Must have been speeding. No more thought required.

I wish our society would grow up and face the truth.

I think it would be a good idea if apprioate to report the real cause off the accident and ram home a safety message at the same time.
I know the putting a safety message across at th same time will not always not be apprioate as no one wants to be told that if their sopn/ daughter etc had worn a selt belt they would be ok.

What about princess Diana? Lots of media space about stupid conspiracy theories, not much about if she had been wearing a seatbelt she would have walked away. Highlighting the seatbelt issue in this high profile case would have saved hundreds of lives IMO.

I'm surprised that the road safety lobby didn't at least make some effort to better publicise the fact that the only survivor from that accident was the only one wearing a seat belt.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Of course it is very sad when someone is killed or seriously injured in an accident, but I think the media would do well to alter their style of reporting. Their current style is helping nobody.

If, for example, a youngster is killed when their car leaves the road and hits a tree, the media portray them as being a victim of the road, as if the road is to blame. In reality the probability is that the driver made a mistake either through inexperience, a general lack of caution, or by driving like a crackpot - but of course we must not say that kind of thing.

With few exceptions I do not subscribe to the 'dangerous road' attitude. The road is a fixed entity, there for all to see, and deal with appropriately. It does not alter and play tricks on an approaching driver, like:

"Ah, here comes TripleS confidently expecting to sweep round this bend at his customary 80 mph. I'll wait until he just arrives at the bend, then I'll tighten it up so that he can't possibly get round it at any more than 50 mph so we'll have the blighter off into the greenery".

I'm always very saddened to hear of people suffering through accidents, especially young drivers, as I can still relate to their exuberance and wish to enjoy spirited driving. I wish more could be done to help them to stay safe at the same time, but we have got to be honest about what goes wrong, and then perhaps things might go a bit less wrong in the future.

Take care, watch the road, look out for each other, and keep it safe.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Think I pointed out on another thread that there is a taboo is speaking ill of the dead in this kind of case (does not apply to suicide bombers and those who go on a manic killing spree before killing themselves - as society rightly shudders and strongly disapproves of these real crimes)

However - accidental death? You do not want to rub into the bereaved that the reason little Johnny died crossing the road was because he lacked parental control and road sense - and you do not want to add to the grief for young Joe's parents that he was an inexperienced muppet who made a fatal mistake either. Or that Fred on his bike weaved on and off the pavement before cycling through the red lights either and that a new batttery in his lights might have helped...

Of course - the unpalatable truth is faced at the inquests into these deaths -and the truth comes out then and is occasionally reported in the public interest.

For the family - "counsellors" are engaged and I think I would question competences of such persons.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

While I have every sympathy with the family, I can see a bigger duty to the wider community who are in a position to learn from the mistake. Perhaps we ought to make rather more of the inquest reports?

The Lady Diana crash reporting annoyed me greatly because as soon as I saw the photos of the road and saw that the driver had crested while cornering I knew how the crash happened. Yet the wider public received NOTHING about the dangers of cornering and cresting at speed. (For those that may not have figured it out, as you crest the thing unweights and that can be enough to unstick either end if you are already cornering. In the case in question, the rear unstuck and was probably further compounded by lift off unweighting the rear.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

True - and problem of this particular crash is being compounded by conspiracy theories. Know the Alma tunnel very well - and if you approach at speed and make an error on cornering - you end up as the Merc did. Of course - the question as to how he lost it seems to revolve around speed of approach, mystery car and the level of allleged alcohol.

Basically it was a driver error - perhaps catalysed by the mystery car - assuming this car actually existed and perhaps also because of the drink issue. (I do not buy into all the conspiracy stuff)

However, I agree - more should be made of the inquest reports as part of the learning curve - but perhaps published at a decent interval to allow the bereaved come to terms and have a certain amount of closure from the incident.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I'm not sure if knowing the full facts quickly of a fatal crash involving a loved family member would make me feel worse. E.g. I wouldn't feel worse knowing he hadn't been wearing a seatbelt or he had misjudged a corner. In fact I would probably feel worse if it was someone elses fault or the car failed somehow.

When reporting a "collision" between a vehicle and a pedestrian, the press invariably give the impression that the vehicle was to blame, without giving the facts.
Inquests are invariably held long after the reports appear, so the media is rarely corrected.

In Bowness, at the junction of Kendal Road, and the A592, the corner pavements are sealed by railings, to force pedestrians to cross Kendal Road a yard or two inside, rather than at the corner.
The railings are ornate and substantial, yet tonight, I drove (cautiously)past as three old ladies and two gentlemen attempted to walk outside the barriers, balancing on the 4 inches between rails and kerb!
If I had driven INSIDE the rails, I would at this moment be in a cell most likely, yet these five idiots have not even received a caution or censure of any kind. If they had stumbled or lost their balance and fell under my wheels, even at a slow speed, I am sure the press report would show them being "struck by a car"!
EVERY road user has to take responsibility for their own safety, as well as that of other users.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

That’s right, Ernest. When cars and people collide, the machines and their drivers are blamed. I think that is because of many things – first, pedestrians pay with their lives, whoever is “at fault”, and it’s hard to feel sorry for a person wrapped in a heavy steel case who runs another person over at speed! Also, we could drive safely to compensate for most mistakes if we wanted to. Without the machines, the pedestrians would not be in any danger, and in any case, very often we drivers are at fault. So, although familiarity may make it seem quite natural to drive a fast heavy machine through a street of people, it’s really quite crazy when you open the doors of perception.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Ah - but basingemate - in the good old days of ponies and traps - pedestrians still walked into the path and got trampled under hoof. Seems to me that pedestrain awareness and behaviour really needs the most education and constant revision.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Pedestrian deaths were a lot, lot higher back in the days of horses and carts as well.

_________________
Carl Prescott

I don't know your part of the world, but it seems a good idea to stay away from there - people drive like maniacs.
In my experience the vast majority of drivers drive with due care and attention, and do not go hooning along streets full of people. Neither I or anyone else on this forum would condone or encourage that sort of behaviour - regardless of what you may think.
So you get the odd idiot - TIBMIN as I believe you call them.
Let's say, for argument's sake that the TIBMIN's accident risk is five times that of most other drivers, and that there's one of them for every ten drivers.
Over a period of time the TIBMIN will have five accidents, and the ten normal drivers will have one accident apiece, total 5 + 10 = 15 accidents.
Now they come along and put speed cameras everywhere. So the TIBMIN now sticks to the speed limit at all times, and his accident risk drops by 20%, so he now only has four accidents instead of five. But, because of reduced hazard awareness and attention to the road ahead, the accident risk of the other ten drivers goes up by 20% - so now they collectively have twelve accidents instead of ten, total 4 + 12 = 16 accidents.
And there's also the risk that the ten normal drivers will turn into TIBMINs, because they start believing that all that is necessary is to stick to the limit, so their hazard awareness and attention goes out the window. Now you have eleven TIBMINs instead of just one, and you end up having 44 accidents.

Or are you absolutely sure that that's not going to happen?

Oh, by the way, in maritime law small boats have to give way to big ships, because it's recognised that, even though a big ship will make matchwood out of a small boat, the big ship takes a hell of a lot longer to stop than a small boat - and also needs a lot more space to manoeuvre.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Basingwerk, sir, if I perform a couple of inept handstands in front of your car as you go about your business and you then mow me down, are you admitting fault? If so where do you live? You see I'd like a new car and a bigger bike and it would be nice to buy my own house so as I know it will be your fault before I start I can feel a hefty law suit comming on.

Interestingly, this reluctance to report the true cause of accidents does not seem to apply to train crashes.

Yesterday two teenagers were killed by a train. BBC Ceefax had no qualms about pointing out that they were drunk, and carelessly walked into the path of a train.

No calls for 'train drivers to watch their speed' or 'safety cameras to protect young people on this dangerous stretch of track'.

The above statement is not accurate, in general, although it does apply in certain specific situations (traffic separation schemes). However, there is much to be learnt, imo, by the road user from the maritime "rules of the road" (officially "The International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea" and colloquially "COLREGS").

In particular, I find the following rules particularly apposite to road safety:

Rule 6
Safe Speed
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels:
(i) The state of visibility;
(ii) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
(iv) At night the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
(v) The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
(vi) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.


and:

Rule 17
Action by Stand-on Vessel
(a)
(i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way of the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii) The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in accordance with these Rules.
(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

This is what happens when you let technology seduce you into wishing to travel around the country at more than a walking pace!!
Basingwerk would have all locomotives travelling at a speed at which they could stop at the drop of a hat (or an inebriated pedestrian).

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

You would'nt want SAFETY cameras there - Steve would be constantly on the phone reporting them for tresspassing on the railway.
Funny how the guardian of our highways has'nt actually managed to reduce any fatalities yet despite all his efforts to pursue people by any means possible!
Are we getting value for money? They spent a big chunk of that £1.6 million earning it.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!