Safe Speed Forums

One of the big problems is that pedestrians DO have priority.

The tortuous and distorted logic of the above post means that further discusion of this point will be fruitless.


This is entirely wrong. People chose the car because it is safer, faster, more comfortable (and drier in wet weather), more convenient and finally, because they have the choice.

Separating pedestrians, cyclists and cars will probably enhance safety.

but it should not be at he expense of other people's safety.

Pedestrians do walk out into the road from behind parked cars. (One way of preventing this is not to park cars on the road.) There is a whole raft of legislation there to protect them, one of which is the speed limit. You cannot say "I'm driving at a speed that I judge to be safe, but it's someone else's fault if they get hurt."

PR372: Road safety culture shock stage two. Not enough dead children.

news: for immediate release

It is perfectly clear that people all over the country are re-evaluating their
opinions about road safety policy following revelations yesterday and today.

But we have only just begun back on the road to real road safety.

Television advertisements tells us (quite correctly, as it happens) "If you hit
me at 30 there's a 20% chance that I will die. If you hit me at 40 there's a
20% chance that I will live."

Department for Transport data published yesterday [1] tells us that 11,000
child pedestrians were injured in built up areas (30mph AND 40mph speed limits)
in 2005. We we should expect that more than 20% of those child pedestrians were
killed. Right? That's 2,200 dead children.

But reality is entirely different. 47 child pedestrians were killed in built up
areas, amounting to 0.47% of the total. That's one fiftieth of the implied
claim.

The real world behaviour that saves the children isn't 'sticking to the speed
limit' if it was we would have killed thousands. The real world life saving
behaviour is drivers slowing down in areas of danger and braking before impact.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the real world, many minor crashes
are unreported, many more take place with no injury and are unreported and
countless thousands of incidents take place where appropriate driver behaviour
ensures that the child isn't hit at all. So we end up with something like:

Built up areas:

11,000 Child pedestrians injured and reported
20,000 Child pedestrians injured and unreported (estimate)
20,000 Child pedestrians hit but not injured (estimate)
200,000 Child pedestrians involved in 'near misses'. (estimate)
-----------------------------------------------
250,000 total incidents resulting in 47 deaths.

It doesn't even matter if the estimates are not very accurate. It is OBVIOUS
that a great many incidents take place with very few deaths because of drivers
responding to the situation ahead. This 'driver response' is at the true core
of road safety.

But if the DfT implied claim were true we would have 50,000 dead child
pedestrians, not 47.

And it doesn't even stop there, because a significant but unknown proportion of
the deaths are due to 'rogue drivers' - possibly disqualified, in stolen cars,
blind drunk, unlicenced, underage or whatever. The risk mitigation behaviour of
an 'ordinary' driver is even more effective.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The Department for Transport calls it their
'20,30,40 message' I call it deliberately misleading. They think it justifies
speed camera policy, I think it damages road safety by forcing road users to
concentrate on the wrong safety factor."

"They trot out this rubbish because they are welded to a false belief system.
Let me tell them right now that false beliefs will not save lives."

"Department for Transport is not fit for purpose."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

[1] RCGB 2005 published yesterday (see table 24)

Pedestrians do walk out into the road from behind parked cars. (One way of preventing this is not to park cars on the road.)

There is a whole raft of legislation there to protect them, one of which is the speed limit. You cannot say "I'm driving at a speed that I judge to be safe, but it's someone else's fault if they get hurt." You can travel in the warm, dry, effortless car for your convenience, but it should not be at he expense of other people's safety.

I know that motorists drive five miles instead of cycling, (or one mile instead of walking) because they find it more convenient and are bone idle

Big Tone,

It would be unfair if your post was aimed at Dondare, I don’t recall him/her baiting or resorting to ad-hominem.

Nobody here has said that people should travel in cars at the expense of other people's safety. Most of the comments have said that safety is a shared responsibility - what is wrong with that?

And another thing!

To be frank, I don't like the implication on the TV that I would ever hit someone at 30 mph in the first place.

If little Johnny did leap out in front of you while you are driving, unless you are a complete idiot, most of us most of the time would surely scrub some speed off - wouldn't they?

Do they just assume that no-one bothers to brake when someone jumps in front of you? Is it going to become 20 mph everywhere because there are those who just don't like breaking or have the reactions of a sloth? (actually, I know some who cringingly do, so perhaps I've answered my own question).

I know, in modern cars, even if I get to the brake for only a fraction of a second I would scrub significant speed off. My ex Mazda felt like it could stop on a sixpence! Completely different to my first car, a Morris Marina. Never mind that total braking distance rubbish in the Highway Code. That was done in something like a Ford Anglia in 1964 wasn't it? With modern cars, it's like comparing a Spitfire to a MIG.

Rant over for today...

Modern cars have ABS which actually increases the stopping distance, it's considered safer because there's less chance of an uncontrollable skid.

That's not entirely correct. Some of the earlier ABS systems did slightly increase the stopping distance in a straight line but that is not the case anymore. Most newer cars with ABS and EBD (Electronic Brakeforce Distribution) can achieve close to 1G deceleration in the dry. That's all that is posssible without sticky tyres or downforce like racing cars. A lot of older pre-ABS front wheel drive cars deliberately had the rear brake forces crippled to help prevent the car from spinning under heavy braking. Some of the worst could only do 0.85G.

Most of the newest stuff has EBA (Emergency Brake Assist) which monitors the accelerator pedal position and if it is released very quickly followed by the appication of the brake pedal assumes that you are doing an emergency stop. The EBA puts maximum pressure to the brakes and then lets the ABS prevent a skid. This can reduce the stopping distance significantly.

Many years ago there was almost total segregation between vehicles with engines and everyone else. Everyone else used the well-made, well-maintained and perfectly fit-for-purpose carriageway; and the vehicles with engines used the well-made, well-maintained and fit-for-purpose railway. The earliest motorcars were not regarded as new-fangled "horseless carriages", they were classed as light locomotives and regarded as an absolute menace. Hence the need for them to be licenced. Hence the need for them to be controlled. The condition for allowing engines of this sort onto the public road was that they did not travel at speeds which placed others in danger, hence the flagman. But at some point a predecessor of Safespeed got the flagman removed so that motorists could use their own judgement as to how fast they should be going... and it's been death and destruction ever since.
The driver is there conditionally, the pedestrian is not. Legally and morally as the operator of a piece of heavy machinery in a public place it's up to the motorist to take care.

You can blame the ped if you want, just make sure that you weren't doing anything wrong yourself, or anything that the law might regard as being wrong.

One of my wife's colleagues very recently had the huge misfortunte to kill a pedestrian. My wife's colleague is a (motor) biker. In trying to avoid the pedestrian he came off his bike and was injured (as well as the bike bing damaged). Other witnesses and whatever measurements the police took all agreed that he was travelling WELL WITHIN the speed limit. No charges of any description are being brought against him. The pedestrian was found to have been several times over the blood alcohol limit (had he been a driver) at the time of the accident.

I assume you wouldn't for one minute suggest that this was the motorcyclist's fault - but if you DO, then I hope you will agree that it is only fair that pedestrians are legally obliged (as drivers are) to carry a minimum of third party insurance? Just remember, the pedestrian wasn't the only "victim" here!

Your arguments for those despicable "motor carriages" only being allowed to use the road as a concession doesn't really stand up (to my mind) especially well because long before those "abominations" graced our roads, there were plenty of pedestrians knocked down by horses or horse/carriage combinations. What pedestrians need to understand is that the motorist pays for the maintenance of those raods that you feel they have a right to wander aimlessly into with impunity.