Safe Speed Forums

OK I am confused, how does quoting a mediacl doctor with no specialist knowledge of the mechanics of road safety engineering prove that 20mph limits would do anything for road safety?

I believe that in all the trial areas that you mention, casualties were reduced slightly, but accident frequency went up alarmingly.

believe that in all the trial areas that you mention, casualties were reduced slightly, but accident frequency went up alarmingly.

Not in the posted evidence, what's your source please?

If my mum had taught me the green cross code, you wouldn't hit me.

You think every child killed on the road is to blame for their own death?

Next Tuesday is the anniversary of the day a speeding driver – drunk and out of control – mowed down his son on a Preston road. He later died in hospital.

Jamie Foster was just eight years old.

His death tore Allan's family apart. What should have been a happy celebration has forever been tainted with memories of the tragedy.

Rarely a day goes by when he does not think about his son – who would now have been 22 had he lived.

And while drink played a part in his death, speed was undoubtedly a major factor.

On that day, young Jamie became statistic – one of the 1,200 killed on roads because of speeding every year.

http://www.lep.co.uk/features/Speeding- ... 3566590.jp

Your victim-blaming is distasteful.

I will apologise, I can't find the original release, which was spinning in favour of 20mph limits. The wording was along the line of - casualties reduced by x% in 20 mph whilst (x + y)% reduction in traffic flow. Obviously I don't recall the values of x or y, but if traffic flow reduces and accidents remain constant, then accidents have significantly increased.

At the time I did look up the research, but it is long lost in the annals of time now.

Perhaps I could recommend you the book "how to lie with statistics".

If my mum had taught me the green cross code, you wouldn't hit me.

A speeding motorist ran over a three-year-old boy playing in the road and carried on his journey without stopping, a jury has been told.

Darren Jenkins, 25, denies causing the death of Joshua Venn-Howells by dangerous driving in the St Mellons area of Cardiff in July last year. Mr Jenkins told police he was aware he had hit something but did not know what, Cardiff Crown Court heard.

Joshua was injured in the crash and died in hospital the following day.

Tom Crowther, prosecuting , said it was their case that Joshua was "clearly visible" as the driver of the car behind Mr Jenkins, of Roath, Cardiff, had been able to see him in the middle of the road.

He told the jury they would hear evidence that Mr Jenkins was speeding at the time of the collision which happened in a 30mph zone on Willowbrook Road on 27 July. The court heard it was "a massive failure of responsibility" of Mr Jenkins as a qualified driver which led to the death of Joshua, the second youngest of six children.

http://current.com/items/89129094/speed ... ove_on.htm

You think that every child killed on the road isn't to blame for their own death?

Your subject diverting is distasteful.

I wouldn't let my daughter play in the road, but then I'm strange like that.

Perhaps I could recommend you the book "how to lie with statistics".

You claim dishonesty's involved but state you've forgotten the evidence that demonstrates this. Isn't that rather dishonest in itself?

Research by the Department for Transport has shown that 20mph zones reduced average traffic speeds by 9 mph, annual accident frequency fell by 60%, the overall reduction in child accidents was 67%, and there was an overall reduction in accidents to cyclists of 29%.

It's here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal ... tsandzones

You think that every child killed on the road isn't to blame for their own death?

When did I say that please? What did I post that supports that rather strange contention. Your signature tagline says that children taught the green cross code don't die. You are quite wrong.

Well since I never said children taught the green cross code don't die, by implication you infer the reverse is true. When you argue a case that hasn't been made, you will find that people don't understand your point.


No I did not claim dishonesty, I stated that the release had deliberatley spun the statistics in a favourable light. I had indeed forgotten where the evidence of this was, but you provided the link to the statistics I was referring to. A careful read will show that the stats are spun to make an increase appear to be a decrease.

1/

Do you accept that children can be killed by drivers even when the child has done nothing wrong? Your tagline indicates the precise opposite and you appear reluctant to answer thre question.

2/

Where is the evidence that the reserach is dishonest and accident rates were higher? Third time, it's a pretty serious allegation and has been made several times on this thread already but nobody seems able to show that it's even remotely true...

So, graball, politely, why did you claimn only a five year old would support the Swedish initiative that, incontrovertibly, saves lives> You dismissed the idea out of hand when you finally understood the concept, you refused to say why or in what way the evidence was flawed. That to me indicates a closed mind, your unpleasant personal attacks indicate something much worse.....YOUR WORDS



MY WORDS......even a five year old wouldn't be naive enough to believe in zero deaths

Can you spot the difference? I can

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Of course they can, and to make it clear my tagline doesn't say anything of the sort.
You have stated - "Your signature tagline says that children taught the green cross code don't die", well I am sorry it doesn't say that at all.

You provided the evidence in the link you posted, simply read the document along with the references.

Anyway, to return to the original question, could you do me the courtesy of answering my original question with regard to the doctors.

Note that the driver who killed Jamie Foster was drunk, whilst Darren Jenkins was only three years old, playing in the road. Emotive calls, after such tragedies, for lower speed limits and cameras are common, and even understandable, but I am sure that we can agree that raw emotion is not a good leader for policy. I'd be interested to hear how you think a 20mph limit would have moderated a drunk driver, or a driver who was already allegedly exceeding the 30mph limit. Would the lower number somehow magically garner obedience?

Surely a more common-sense approach would be to target the causal factors, rather than the aggravating ones. Its not okay to accept accidents, so long as they don't kill people, when the opportunity is there to eliminate accidents altogether. We need to treat the disease, not just the symptoms.

I am sure that we would all agree that sometimes 20mph is a safe maximum for tight residential streets, with children playing, poor visibility due to parked cars, etc. In such circumstances one would expect to see the vast majority of responsible drivers (lets say 85% for argument's sake ) driving at or below 20mph and as such it may well be an appropriate limit. Nobody here will disagree with appropriately set limits. The problems arise when limits are not appropriately set, and as such all limits lose a little bit of credibility in the eyes of the driver.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You provided the evidence in the link you posted, simply read the document along with the references.

The research says accidents decrease.

You claim they have increased and refuse to say where the evidence states this, despite being asked politely four times now.

A doctor is well used to seeing the damage a speeding driver does to a child's body, his medical training will have informed him that humans are able to withstand collisions at their fastest running speed. Impact with a steel box at speeds higher than 20mph have a devastating effect on the human body , any doctor would know this.

You have as your signature:

If my mum had taught me the green cross code, you wouldn't hit me.

Do you accept that this is not true in all circumstances, and would you agree that someone who feels that any child killed on the roads must be at fault ought to hand his licence in and get off the roads?

I do.

You imply dead children must have been to blame, which is chilling, callous indifference to human suffering.

This is a rather fallacious argument, since devastation can occur at any speed with a heavy steel box! It would be worth remembering that everything must be a risk/benefit compromise, reducing the risk as far as possible without removing the benefit. To blanket everywhere with inappropriately low limits, just in case an accident occurred, would be akin to reinstating the red flag act.

I say again, it is preferable to prevent accidents than mitigate them.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

A careful read will show that the stats are spun to make an increase appear to be a decrease.

Where does the research say this please?

Fifth time.

How does this help him establish on a given road whether an engineering solution or a speed limit review or indeed greater enforcement of the exising limits etc. would be the best route for casualty reduction?

I could make an analogy that I am well used to seeing a plasterer plaster a wall, I am still unable to do it myself.

You're flogging this one with a frustrating lack of understanding. Quit the righteous indignation and look:

Fault does not make someone alive or dead, so the issue of fault is moot. Whilst a victim of an accident may not be at fault, there is almost always something they could have done to change the outcome. It is about taking reasonable steps to protect oneself from the numpties.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.