Safe Speed Forums

Have you a link, please?

_________________
All views expressed are personal.

THIS is from a .pdf file (DfT) about airport emissions....however it contained the above page/s. Someone may like to save it !

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

If one group are disproportionately represented in casualty statistics then there is probably something about that group that is wrong, not the overall population. Teaching children not to walk out in front of cars would be a start. We should not act on the many for the failings of the few.

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

Child casualties show a steady fall for the past ten years.
So do most others, apart from 1994 [ish].

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=4031

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Nobody is saying that this is not equally important. However, when a car hits a child, it's nearly always going to be the driver's lack of attention at fault, they have been trained and passed a test to prove that they can look out for hazards such as children about to run in to the road.

If you see a child about to run in to the road, you should slow to an appropriate speed so as to be able to stop in time if they do.

Once again, for anyone who didn't see it in the other thread, thewurzel is a troll who has been deliberately and prolifically irritating people on PH for a couple of months. He seems to be desperate to emulate Spindrift. IMHO there isn't any point in trying to debate with him, because he takes great delight in pushing people's buttons, he doesn't understand the first thing about accident statistics or any of the other science (yet he still loves cameras for some reason), and when he's beaten he just starts talking rubbish rather than conceding the point.

This is not a case of automatically dismissing someone because they're in favour of cameras (which is the standard, demonstrably false, "sour grapes" complaint that you hear from trolls who don't like being labelled as such), it's a case of automatically dismissing someone because they've shown themselves to be nothing more than antagonistic, over and over again.

Ask him if he ever speeds and he says "No". Ask him about RTTM and he'll show that he doesn't understand it without actually admitting it. Ask him about the statistical fraud committed by SCPs etc in the media and he'll deny that it's ever happened. He's even called most PHers racist. You get the idea.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

If you believe this, then there seems little point in further discussion.

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

New user,

From your figures it would follow that a further reduction in urban speed limits could improve the figures even more. A reduction to 10mph on urban roads would be a start, but a zero tolerance policy could reduce the accident figures to zero.

Maybe it is time for a 0mph limit on urban roads, including public transport and bicycles. This way we could go from being one of the safest countries in Europe for child pedestrian casualities to the very safest.

Maybe this is the way to move forward?

C.

_________________
More rules and regulations please! (Not)

When does he stop being a new user, and what are you going to call him then?


That's certainly the logical extreme of what the "slower is safer" brigade keep suggesting. It's yet another basic way in which one of their core arguments can be shown to be totally ludicrous.

Whenever a speed limit is reduced to 20mph they always say it's "perfectly fair" and "safer than before". Presumably reducing it further would also be "perfectly fair". So where between 20mph and 0mph would it stop being "perfectly fair" and start being "too much"? Nowhere, I suspect. Yet they claim not to hate cars. Of course they don't, they just want them prohibited from going anywhere.

Oh, and on first evidence, I don't think "20mph" is a troll. Which kind of makes a mockery of malicious, feeble, tired claims that anyone who disagrees with Safe Speed is branded a troll. Only the trolls are usually branded trolls; after all, we've all had enough practice at identifying them.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Long live the ludites!

(lets hope the government repeat the trials,exicutions and penal transportations)

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Bombus,

I think it's known as reductio ad absurdum.

C.

_________________
More rules and regulations please! (Not)

Nope, because if I'm in my car at 0mph and a pedestrian runs into me they will still say it's my fault.

The only answer is to ban cars. It's obvious really.


Maybe we should adopt the 'Right-of-way for other vessels' used at sea, whereby small ships are required to give way to big ships?

Pedestrian!!! FFS Don't jump in the road - you are smaller and more agile than a car and more likely to get hurt! Comprende?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Please explain your reasoning for thinking this way, referencing how you would react in the driving theory hazard perception test when seeing some children on the pavement.

No it isn't, and nobody has ever suggested this (except the "I should be able to drive as fast as I want" types)

Nobody is arguing for a constant reduction in limits any more than this site is arguing for increased minimum limits.



20mph is about right for a minimum, IMO. I've never seen anybody argue for reducing it further on the grounds of safety.



Oh good, this argument again. To counter, you hate obeying the law, so you must hate cars too.

Wurzel,

I hope you are not just trolling this site for an argument. The good folks here have suffered enough of that in the past.

C.

_________________
More rules and regulations please! (Not)

Nope, not deliberately anyway, though I can see that my views on this subject may provoke that in some people.

I don't like being called anti car because I don't like speeding, though

I was advised by some on PH to take a trip over here, and assured that I wouldn't be shot down in flames for holding differing views - which has largely been true so far except for one poster who seems to have taken an irrational dislike to me

Do you have a source for this? I've seen reports (which admittedly I can't link to either) saying that even after the 20 mph programme, Hull still had a relatively high rate of child pedestrian casualties.


I recall reading we were about in the middle, and certainly not one of the most dangerous.

And isn't a lot of this down to exposure anyway - the design of urban areas in other countries makes it less likely that children will have to cross main roads? That's nothing to do with drivers.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

The hull figures are highly suspect; for one, I don't think they've taken into account any confounding factors. Such as traffic avoiding the route altogether because of suspension damaging humps, but also, more importantly, whole estates have been virtually shut off to through traffic so the accidents are just happening elsewhere. The fatality stats on the ABD website suggest fatalities are going up, not down.

Driver!!! FFS Look out for pedestrians who may move in to the road, and adjust your speed so that you can stop in time if they do, you are the one driving a ton of metal at speed. Comprende?

Safer is safer, speed humps wouldn't be there without the lower limit. People avoiding an area they don't really need to be in (imagine if all through traffic only used the main roads, even if it was quicker by a few seconds to cut through an estate ), it would be a massive improvement for road safety. I'd love to see a situation where children could comfortably play in the road in the average residential street again.