Safe Speed Forums • View topic - School Kids involved in Speed Enforcement

View unanswered posts | View active topics

Board index » News » Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy News

All times are UTC [ DST ]

School Kids involved in Speed Enforcement

Moderators: Moderators, Moderators

Page 1 of 3

[ 42 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Author

Message

Nemesis

Post subject: School Kids involved in Speed Enforcement

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 17:33

Member

Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 14:04
Posts: 216
Location: Manchester

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6684465.stm

Quote:

Speed cameras may be the curse of many road users but a group of schoolchildren and their parents are convinced they are life savers.

Four-year-old Thomas Drew was knocked down and killed by a car five years ago when he stepped into the road outside Hindlip Primary School in Worcester.

At least three other children have been hit by traffic near the school.

Hindlip's parents campaigned successfully to cut the speed limit near the school from 40mph to 30 but drivers were still flouting the law.

"One of my really worst fears as you can imagine is trying to get across the road in the morning with a four-year-old in one hand and a six-year-old in the other," said parent governor Julia Letts.

"Things come whizzing along, you get to the middle of the road and you are stranded.

"There's cars coming that way and nobody stops to let you cross and you're just willing your four-year-old not to run out and eventually some kind soul lets you cross.

"That's like, phew, another morning and we've got safely across the road."

Thomas Drew's mother Sarah has no doubt what is needed, "We would like to see more than just the speed limit being reduced.

"We'd like to see lights and we'd like to see safety railings for children - even a lollipop lady or just anybody to make sure our children are safe."

Parents wanted a speed camera to be put outside the school but claim they were told another child would have to die before the right criteria were met.

So the children and parents conducted their own experiment using a dummy speed camera to try to slow down the traffic and prevent any more accidents involving their classmates.

Their efforts were filmed by the BBC for a documentary.

Firstly Robert Johnston from the Institute of Transport Studies used a speed gun to catch the speeders.

It was discovered that drivers routinely ignored the 30mph limit and nearly 40% were found to be going over that speed.

Then the children built a fake camera and put it on the side of the road.

With the home made camera in position, the vehicles travelled at an average of 27mph with only 12% of drivers breaking the limit.

After the children presented the results of their survey to Worcestershire County Council, it started its own survey of the school's traffic problems.

After a meeting between council officials and the school it decided on a three point plan to improve road safety.

A solar-powered, speed-activated sign that flashes up drivers' speeds as they go past, and which also displays the correct speed limit is going to be set up.

Clearer signs will be painted on the road on the approaches past the school and bushes along the carriageway will be cut back to improve views both for motorists and for pedestrians.

Across the UK a child pedestrian is killed or injured every 30 minutes. Hindlip parents are now hoping their children will at least be a little safer.

Excuse me whilst I go vomit violently!

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Top

Mike_B

Post subject: Re: School Kids involved in Speed Enforcement

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 18:21

User

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:46
Posts: 125

Quote:

Four-year-old Thomas Drew was knocked down and killed by a car five years ago when he stepped into the road outside Hindlip Primary School in Worcester.

At least three other children have been hit by traffic near the school.

Surely better to treat the cause (stepping into the road) rather than any symptoms. I imagine railings and a proper crossing would be a more effective prevention.

Quote:

"That's like, phew, another morning and we've got safely across the road."

AAArrrgghhh. Someone teach that woman English,please.

Mike.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

Top

Zamzara

Post subject:

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 18:25

Life Member

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339

Even leaving aside the manipulation of small children, it's a horrible, horrible mess of statistics and misunderstandings.

Quote:

It was discovered that drivers routinely ignored the 30mph limit and nearly 40% were found to be going over that speed.

Then the children built a fake camera and put it on the side of the road.

With the home made camera in position, the vehicles travelled at an average of 27mph with only 12% of drivers breaking the limit.

If speeding drivers are the major threat to those crossing, then 12% of thousands of vehicles speeding is no better than 40%, since it only takes one vehicle to kill someone.

If 12% of people are speeding past a camera, then there is something wrong with the road, the limit, and/or the crossing facilities.

Quote:

Across the UK a child pedestrian is killed or injured every 30 minutes. Hindlip parents are now hoping their children will at least be a little safer.

One of those statistics that sounds meaningful, but isn't, because of the vast gulf between being killed and being injured. It's like saying every year 150 footballers are killed or injured while playing, or every second a child eats pizza or is killed. Unless you state how many are killed, it is worthless information.

Top

orange

Post subject:

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 20:07

Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 15:49
Posts: 393

Just watched the programme on BBC1.

They focussed on two schools, where the main problem seemed to be that there was no safe crossing point on the road outside the school. So, in order to solve this, they mounted a speed survey and went on at length about speeding, how much safer 20 mph is than 30, and so on.
What the schools actually needed was a crossing, not any form of speed management; I almost switched off in anger as they went on and on about how "speed kills".

Then, they talked to relatives of people who had been killed in road accidents.
In one of these, the child had jumped out into the road in front of a non-speeding car and been killed. In response, the parents were trying to get a speed camera installed.
In another, three friends had been walking home at night in the dark on an unlit country road, using a mobile phone to see where they were going. One of them got hit and killed, but the parents were campaigning for the driver's sentence to be increased. Nothing was mentioned about the obvious danger of walking on an unlit country road in the middle of the night.
The final case involved a 17-year-old chav who had been speeding and had mounted the pavement and killed a girl. This was the only case that could potentially have been prevented by speed management.

In between these segments, the programme went on and on about speed and how best to reduce it, trotting out the usual things like "26% of fatal accidents are caused by speeding drivers" (so why not talk about the other 74%?) and "speed cameras reduce deaths by 35%".

Completely biased, and quite disgraceful reporting by the BBC. I'm quite tempted to make a formal complaint.

Top

botach

Post subject:

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 20:23

Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK

And getting a crossing installed with no casualty figures to back it up . A lot of this type of road -it's not the speed, but the volume of traffic, at the time when children are setting out for school.Sort of the school run meets the school walk.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Top

Mike_B

Post subject:

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 20:28

User

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:46
Posts: 125

Don't forget.. a crossing costs money, whilst a camera makes money.

Which do you think will be the preferred option?

Mike.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

Top

botach

Post subject:

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 20:37

Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK

Mike_B wrote:

Don't forget.. a crossing costs money, whilst a camera makes money.

Which do you think will be the preferred option?

Mike.

Depends on the road, Mike - got one near me , near a school, where at the danger times, it's not possible to do more than 15mph( possibly even as low as 5) due to some ingenious road design for parking and buses, yet at other times it's quite safe to do the limit, and possibly more ( like at 2 am). And the road design came after the mobile van and the camera. But what gets the credit for the congestion induced speeds (which imho actually make things less safe, due to added blind spots introduced)---no prizes - its PC Gatso.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Top

D1028

Post subject:

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 20:37

New User

Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 20:19
Posts: 3

Hi

I'm a longterm lurker but two things have prompted me to register:

Firstly the dreadful piece of journalism that has just been given an hour of primetime TV on BBC1. I sat through it getting angrier and angrier at the misguided claptrap being presented as hard facts. The knowledge that this will be used to promote a road safety message that is likely to result in even more death and injury on our roads makes me very depressed.

Secondly, in a week that has seen another fatality betwen J16 and 17 on the M4, the sight this morning of one of Wiltshire's vans sat on the bridge nearest the crash site. It was 8.00am and the heavy morning rush hour traffic was travelling reasonably well until the sight of the van had everyone jamming the brakes on.

I was a fully qualified ADI until I got fed up with this country's attitude to road safety. I tried to teach my pupils that driving was a life skill that involved you making decisions all the time about hazard perception. Road safety policy now seems to teach that as long as you don't break the speed limit everything else is ok.

I really do fear for the future.

Top

Zamzara

Post subject:

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 20:56

Life Member

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339

Welcome!

Top

Nemesis

Post subject:

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 21:00

Member

Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 14:04
Posts: 216
Location: Manchester

D1028 wrote:

I was a fully qualified ADI until I got fed up with this country's attitude to road safety. I tried to teach my pupils that driving was a life skill that involved you making decisions all the time about hazard perception. Road safety policy now seems to teach that as long as you don't break the speed limit everything else is ok.

I really do fear for the future.

You'll like it here. I'm normally more of a lurker myself as there are many other members who can argue the cause into words much more succintly than I can. However, I had a couple of incidents earlier this week (see the Speed Awareness Course thread), that may result in a NIP for me whilst the guy that ran me off the road the day after will be totally undetected - has made my blood more than boil over the last few days.

And then I read this crap on the BBC which made me completely despair! Reading the above comments I'm actually glad I missed the documentary for the sake of my blood pressure.

Incidentally on the subject of crossing roads, surely I'm not the only pedestrian that hates slow trundling unbroken queues of cars - the direct result of an artificially low limit? Waiting to try and cross, I'm thinking 'will you please hurry up and get past me so that I'm not standing here all day'.

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Top

R1Nut

Post subject:

Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 21:06

User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816

Question for moderators: Shouldn't this be linked/moved to this thread?

{Edit by Roger: Thanks - I've locked that thread and requested that discussions continue here.}

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Top

semitone

Post subject:

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 07:43

User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643

I saw the program on BB1 last night and just wanted to scream at someone. It's one of the worst pieces of journalism I have seen in ages.

The traffic outside the school did make crossing the road very difficult, but it was volume not speed that caused the problem. The data for traffic speeds before the 'speed camera' was installed was taken by a man with a laser gun hiding in the bushes and no children in sight. The data after the 'speed camera' was installed was taken by the man with the laser standing on the pavement with a dozen young children all wearing fluorescent jackets. MOST drivers slow down when they see a large group of young children by the side of the road and even more so if they see a man with a speed camera, so surprise, surprise they 'proved' that the 'speed camera' slowed the traffic!!

I have three small children and I know how difficult it can be keeping them all under control by a busy road. Children will do stupid things and get hurt if the adults aound them don't control them when necessary. Trying to put all of the blame onto drivers will not help. It would help if it had not become unacceptable to control other people's children. Personally if I saw any child just about to run into the road I would stop them and argue about it later, but many people are scared that they will be accused of being a peodophile if they touch a child.

The driver who killed the girl on the country road was found not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving because there was no evidence that he had been driving dangerously before the accident. The thing he did that was very wrong was to drive off afterwards but that has nothing to do with speed or speed cameras.

The seventeen year old chav was doing 80mph in a 30mph limit so I can't see how a 20mph limit would have helped. That driver need to be locked up until he changes his attitude.

Top

diy

Post subject:

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 08:40

Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050

this is my proposed complaint, I encourage everyone to follow:

Crash: One fatal day on the Roads BBC 1 25/06/07 19:00 - 20:00

What a disgraceful one sided view of Pedestrian Road Safety. The program made no attempt to present a broad and independent view of Pedestrian Road safety, but simply followed the Speed Kills hype calling for more speed cameras, lower speed limits and generally fuelling the anti car, anti driver propaganda.

In the TRL demonstration, why did the program not mention the fundamental difference between impact speeds and free travelling speeds when demonstrating the effects of a vehicle hitting a child at 20, and 40 mph? There is no link between low impact speeds and low free travelling speeds as implied when discussing the ‘value’ of 20 mph zones along side the research. You failed to mention that 90% of accidents happen below 10mph (Impact speed) and even most motorway accident impact speeds are below 20mph.

There was no reference to any alternative views of road safety – no comment from SafeSpeed the Institute of Advanced motorists or even RoADA. Very one sided.

In the school scenario you implied that a speed camera would have saved the child fatality that occurred and only made passing reference to the fact that the driver was not speeding. It was clear to anyone that the need was for a pedestrian crossing to allow children to cross safely not simply lowering the speed limit to 20mph 24/7.

In the case of the teenagers hit by the van driver prosecuted for dangerous driving, you made no comment on the dangers of walking on unlit roads at night. You down played the fact that the driver’s prosecution was for leaving the scene in a dangerous manner. Yet quite clearly a more responsible driver could easily have killed these people in the same scenario.

Save driving and road safety in general is far more complex that simply getting drivers to drive slowly. Drivers need to focus on road hazards, not their speedo. This program will do nothing to improve road safety.

Top

jomukuk

Post subject:

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 09:03

User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244

Yes. Very nice letter. The BBC has changed in the last few months. Have a look at the new "governors": BBC Governors

Top

SafeSpeed

Post subject:

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 09:09

Site Admin

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed

The programme didn't show in Scotland, so I haven't seen it. I did, however know it was being made...

Quote:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: "Speed"
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:42:23 +0000
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: info@juliabradbury.com

Hiya,

I understand you are working on a documentary called 'speed'.

I would appreciate a chat with the producers of the programme.

Please put me in touch. I'm on 01862 893030.

--
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed

web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
---------------------------------
promoting intelligent road safety

Quote:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: "Speed"
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:39:22 EST
From: Directfox1@aol.com
To: psmith@safespeed.org.uk

Dear Paul
You should contact carl.johnston@bbc.co.uk who is the producer of the show which is now entitled Crash.
Thanks
Best
Gina

Quote:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 'Crash'
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:53:12 +0000
From: Paul Smith <psmith@safespeed.org.uk>
Organization: Safe Speed
To: carl.johnston@bbc.co.uk

Hi Carl,

I understand you are working on a BBC TV programme called 'Crash'.

Road safety is very much my area of specialisation, and I believe that the
authorities are letting us down badly.

When you carry out the standard industrial technique of 'root cause analysis'
applied to road crashes you almost always end up in one of two places:

- bad driver attitude
- insufficient driver skill

Only policies that properly manage these root causes can be expected to deliver
sustainable benefits. But that's not what we're getting.

I'm on 01862 893030.

--
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed

web: http://www.safespeed.org.uk
---------------------------------
promoting intelligent road safety

No reply was received, and I don't believe I followed it up.

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

Top

Rigpig

Post subject:

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 09:45

Member

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire

SafeSpeed wrote:

The programme didn't show in Scotland, so I haven't seen it.

You would have been hopping mad, in fact you would have been so mad you would have forgotten to hop!
I wouldn't go so far as to accuse the BBC of absolute bias, they have screened programmes questioning the accuarcy of speed gun before haven't they, but this one was a bit much for even me to swallow! In order to present its 'evidence' that there was a problem with speeding drivers it drew on a number of fatalities to prove the point namely:
1. A little lad who was excited about getting his toy gun he had left behind stepped into the road in front of a car and was killed. The driver wasn't speeding.
2. A young lass walking along a unlit narrow road killed by a passing van which then sped off, driver in a panic.
3. Another lass killed by a young kid doing 80 in a 30, her boyfreind's brother was seriously injured and hasn't yet been able to go back to work in the army.

IMHO, none of these tragic stories helped to support the claim for traffic calming, speed cameras whatsoever although it appeared that a crossing or something was required near the school that was featured as a good number of drivers were not slowing down until they saw the TV cameras and the group with the speed gun.

In between the various segments a number of 'factoids' were presented, many of them brandishing statistics that were impossible to quantify or contextualise. Unfortunatley many who viewed the program won't attempt to asee beyond them.

In a land where intolerance and lack of respect constantly square up to one another this program and others like it will help to escalate the 'war' that has broken out between different groups of people, in this case drivers and pedestrians. The absurd thing is that the two armies are amorphous; as soon as a driver gets out of his/her car they become a pedestrian and vice versa. We need holistic approaches to these issues such that as a pedestrian we are taught the correct way to cross the road from a young age, and are given the means to do so safely, and as drivers our need to travel is recognised but we are taught to respect the vulnerability and feelings of those outside of our vehicle.

Top

semitone

Post subject:

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 13:17

User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643

I found myself screaming at the television last night (not something I normally do), so this morning I sent of my complaint to the BBC. This sort of emotional claptrap does nothing to improve road safety.

Paul, I hope you can find a copy of the program so that you can watch it and contact the producers again.

Top

Mike_B

Post subject:

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 15:11

User

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:46
Posts: 125

There is a thread running in the BBC's Points of View forum if anyone wants to make their feelings known there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... ad=4193289

I've had my say. I'm off to make a formal complaint now.

Mike.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

Top

Mike_B

Post subject:

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 21:31

User

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:46
Posts: 125

Complaint made:

----------------------------------

The most biased programme I have watched for a long time. In the programme maker's desire for us to 'think of the children' so much of any substance was lost.

The crash tests took no account of braking, not all accidents in a 40mph limit will take place at 40mph.

The statistics used were not explained, nor any context given. Having them read out by young children was manipulative at best. 53% of pedestrian accidents have 'not looking properly' as a factor. This is twice that of excess speed (26% according to the programme). And yet no call was made to address that issue for example.

No mention was made of the dangers of walking on an unlit road, at night (and with backs to oncoming traffic to boot). In short, anything not in line with the mantra of "Speed Kills" was glossed over.

There appeared to be no 'right to reply' and no input from anyone with a contrary opinion to that of reducing speed being the only solution.

It was obvious from first sight to my mind that the children with issues outside the school needed a crossing not a speed camera.

I have many, many more points I could make but, to be honest I'm just too disgusted at this appaling 'documentary'. BBC, you should be ashamed of yourselves. You seem to have signed up completely to the "Speed Kills" and "Global Warming" bandwagons.

I used to hold the BBC in extremely high regard, however in recent years your reporting and programme making appears to me to have become more political and less factual.

---------------------

The thread on the BBC forum has already attracted a trolling comment

Mike.

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

Top

CJG

Post subject:

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 22:34

User

Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 21:15
Posts: 699
Location: Belfast

semitone wrote:

I normally reserve shouting abuse at the telly for broadcasts about John Prescott, but that ridiculous programme was an exception. It's all very well saying, "Won't somebody think of the children?", but what really annoyed me was the fake speed camera. I thought that fake speed cameras were illegal, so why haven't the police collared that reporter and the teacher for breaking the law? Secondly, what legal right has someone from "The Institute for Transport Research" have to stand behind a tree and operate a radar gun?"

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Top

Page 1 of 3

[ 42 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Board index » News » Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy News

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Jump to: