Safe Speed Forums

Wurzel, I suggest you consider some of my experiences with children who think it's funny to run out in front of a moving car. Of course we'll just cut the speed limit to 20mph and then when a child is knocked down by a car travelling at 18mph, we'll have the limit reduced to 12mph.


A few months ago, I was driving on a road just around the corner from where I live. The road had parked cars either side, so I kept my speed to 15mph. All of a sudden, a mischievous little ginger-haired scamp ran out in front of me from behind a parked car. It was close…very close, say about the length of 1.5 Peugeot 206’s when I stamped on the brake pedal. The little ba...sorry, scamp seemed to think it was highly amusing.

Fairly recently, I was driving through a busy shopping precinct after dark. Two young boys thought it was a great big joke to step off the pavement straight into my path. Again, I braked sharply and I observed that they had such delightful, happy grins on their faces as they endangered their own lives.

This kind of behaviour from children HAS TO STOP. They seem to think it’s funny but I’m utterly fed up with having to drive with one foot hovering over the brake pedal as a precaution against mischievous children or nutter motorists. Why can’t our wonderful, benevolent Government introduce legislation to nanny children into not stepping onto busy roads for fun?

What am I supposed to do if I'm given very little tme to react to a hazard like that? Brake sharply of course. 20mph may not make much difference in that it will never prevent children playing chicken with the traffic.

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

CJG

_________________
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.

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

Claire's going to hate me! We take up lots of e-space with this ya know.

_________________
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.

No disagreement there, but consider how many children you pass on an average trip, compared to how many act like that.

We should not ignore children's safety just because of the actions of a small minority.

Weepej

Only the hard of thinking confuse average speed with peak speed. The point of reachning 30 or 40, where permitted is to increase average speed.

Clearly you are not an engineer or scientist in your day job. But with the DfT having proposed speed limits setting to the mean speed of traffic when competent traffic engineers had used the 85th percentile for decades shows you are not in a minority of one.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

I'm driving a tonne of metal, use some common sense and dont jump out in front of me. Why do you consider it the drivers responsibility to police idiocy in others? Being stupid enough to walk out into a road without looking means you can't predict when or if it'll happen as a driver at any speed. It is more (far, far more) important to make sure people do NOT walk out in the road in the first place.



Perhaps this is your main problem. You think that because parents used to be ok with their kids playing in the road it was safe to do so.

Did accident rates not used to be a LOT higher than they are now? Children have never been able to "comfortably play in the street", playing in a road (which is built for cars) is never going to be safe - it wasn't back in the 50's, 60's or 70's and it certainly isn't now (with many million more cars on the road). Even if no one ever used my road as a through road you've still got 200 residents most of whom own cars who will be leaving and returning at some point...

I think you're viewing roads in far too a smplistic manner mmltonge. Roads are not necessarily there purely to convey traffic. They cover a myriad of other uses as well, including being communal areas (where children can play!) where all sorts of community activities can take place. Of course I'm only talking abour residential roads, dual carriageways, motorways and the majority of rural roads wouldn't fall under this category. But then this is where the "roads are for cars" argument collapses, it's just too simple for such a complex system.

Roads are far more than just a means to get from A to B, unfortunately the more people believe this to be roads only function, the more people will see the breakdown in community relations.

There has to a be a degree of responsibility ascribed to both driver and pedestrian. Going back to my previous point I would suggest that this degree of responsibity could vary from road to road. I.e. on a motorway it is reasonable to expect there to be no pedestrians walking out into the road, a collison between a car and pedestrian is likely to result in no charges being brought against the driver because such a hazard should't be on the motorway. By contrast in an urban residential road then the responsibility of the driver to avoid pedestrians is increased, and should a car hit a pedestrian in the majority of cases I would suggest a far higher degree of responsibity be put on the driver.

Please note, the above does not in anyway abdicate the pedestrian from excersing their own degree of caution and "common" sense on the roads.

Folks,

In some countries (the US and Poland that I know of) there is an offence of jaywalking. I don't know what they do about children though, maybe fine the responsible adult?

C.

_________________
More rules and regulations please! (Not)

I'd like to think that ALL road users should exercise more caution towards each other, rather than us having to single out one group for criticism, whether it be children, parents, motorists, whatever.

It's not in society's interest for any group to be let out of taking care on the roads, and it's not in TPTB's interest to give the impression that any group is more responsible than another.

On one hand, a lot of drivers seem to think ABS will get them out of trouble on hazard-rich roads, but on the other hand kids DEFINITELY seem to take less care round traffic than they used to. Some even seem to gain some relish from it.

Presumably it's "cool" to jump out in front of cars. Talking of which, judging by the sorts that I see cycling without lights (and the frequency of it), I had suspected that that was "cool" as well - and I heard it from a 14-year-old himself the other day. You're not even allowed to have lights on your bike at all apparently. IDIOTS! They really do think they're invincible and that road accidents "hardly ever happen", don't they? Still, the authorities' (and other car-haters') tendency to blame everything on the motorist doesn't exactly persuade them that they need to snap out of it. Perhaps they should think of the children, instead of their own prejudices.

_________________
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)

I'm afraid I strongly believe you are living in a fantasy world. A street (road) is built primarily for cars. The only times it should ever be used for "communal" activities is if the street has been closed off to cars, for the duration of the activity, entirely. In a cul de sac you might well find kids playing on the road, but that doesn't mean it's because the road was built for that purpose.

It's when people start trying to over-complicate roads that the problems arise.

Roads = Cars, Bikes and other means of getting around which don't include walking. You may cross a road as a pedestrian but for god sake look first

Pavements = For pedestrians

Gardens, Parks, Leisure Centres, Woods etc = Communal activity areas.

---

As for the responsibility being on the driver, regardless of whether the PC brigade agree or not, the responsibility falls first with the pedestrian. Who is it making the decision to step out without looking? It's the pedestrian and therefore it is the pedestrian who has taken it upon themselves to avoid being run over. When I am a pedestrian (which is more often than I am a driver) the onus is on me to look before I cross. The responsibility of the driver is to drive in a manner which means they can avoid an accident which is avoidable. It is not for the driver to be constantly lowering their speed and sitting on their brake pedal simply because pedestrians aren't careful or educated enough. IMO

PS - Incase anyone is interested I emailed Brian Paddick (the Lib Dem mayoral candidate) regarding 20mph limits and too much bullshit for the motorist. His stance on anti-motorist measures and all responsibility being put on the driver is

"The balance has swung too far in favour of pedestrians"

though he feels, with regards to 20mph limits, "I believe traffic on through routes should obey the 30mph limit whilst residential areas should normally be 20mph."

I think it is probably you who is living in the fantasy world. Though I appreciate that your world is the one that is most often sold to drivers in the media!

I've worked with quite a few planners in my professional life and I don't think you'll find any of them who agree with your definitions. I know it isn't exactly an accurate or reliable source of information, but this Wikipedia article seems to sum up the approach most professionals take and it fits in with my world-view too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street

I think the key distinction is that made between "streets" and "roads". The former are not purely for transportation (no matter how much people believe they should be), the latter are more likely to serve primarily as transportation routes.




As I said earlier I think the difficulty here lies with the relative users of the road. From your point of view, roads are for cars, traffic etc... therefore pedestrians are effectively encroaching on your space. Understandably you will therefore feel they should shoulder the responsibility to look where they're going.

On the otherhand, if it is a residential street, then it is likely that pedestrians will be locals and regular users of the road (both for transport and other uses), they will feel that they have as much "ownership" over the road as anyone using it in a car (possibly more so, but that's another debate). Hence a conflict arises. A certain degree of empathy for both users needs to be encouraged to diffuse this conflict.

I agree with your point about education and being careful, but I think you could be pushing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. There needs to be equality with regard to the responsibilities of road users.

you seem to talk a lot of new labour speak

at least you haven't called for a 'debate' yet.

If I recall from uni town planners were not quite mathematically gifted to be engineers or creative enough to be architects. I also seem to remember a lot of cutting and pasting of benches and shrubs and not many hours in lectures.

But if you want to look up to them thats fine with me.

Everyone is responsible for their own safety and the safety of others. Everyone must assess the risks and behave accordingly. There is no need for a 20mph limit in a residential area, there should be enough visual cues for a driver to adjust their driving in accordance with the risks.

Was this aimed at me? Is there anything specific that you disagree with, or did you just want to accuse me of using "new labour speak" (a definition of that would be useful!), and insult a particular profession and thought you'd use my post as an excuse?

For the record, I have met a few town planners and as in all professions there have been some good ones and some bad ones.



I don't think I'd disagree with any of this, but equally I'm not going discount the use of 20mph limits in a residential area just because they aren't appropriate in some/many places.

the first bit was yes, new labour speak is not specfic but tends to make liberal use of words like, 'debate', 'engage', 'empathy' and phrases such as 'encroaching on your space'.

Lets just say the town planners in uni were generally held in low regards....its not really a 'blue chip' degree is it.

20mph limits serve no real road safety purpose. They are simply a means of placating militant housewives, giving local officials a warm sense of achievement and SCP's a revenue stream.

glad we seem to agree on the substantive point though.

Thanks for the definition, to be honest I was slightly offended to be compared with new labour. That's about as far from my ideals as ideologies go. Nothing wrong with using the words/phrases you've picked out in the correct context though. Okay so maybe the over use of such words/phrases does put negative connertations on them, but I'm going to use them if they are appropriate, even if they are used in the propaganda pumped out by the state.

Sorry, misappropriation of language is one of my bugbears!



I admire your honesty, but I don't think I can agree or disagree. I didn't really meet any town planners at uni, and my qualifications are often lumped in the "mickey mouse" category, so can't really comment from the higher moral (?academic) ground anyway!

I hope that wasn't too much of a Nu-labour way of avoiding answering that particular question! Just out of idle interest is there an equal and opposite way of speaking called "Neo-con"?



Now, I can't agree with this. Firstly because I don't think the SCPs have a way of gaining revenue from the enforcement of these (though I could be wrong here) and secondly because it's generalising horribly. Just because 20mph limits may not have worked in some places, it doesn't mean they'e not going to work in other places. At least keep the option available rather than writing it off completely.



We may be coming from completely opposing viewpoints but there's still common ground. There is yet hope for society!

I dont read the newspapers often and certainly haven't been "sold" anything with regards to my views. They are my views and I have formed them during my life with experience, common sense and input from informed others.



I've worked with and am related to an awful lot myself, and they have helped me form my opinion. So this point is useless.



Don't assume most, some will some wont.



Well, a street will consist of a road, pavement and housing/front gardens/rear gardens. So if you want to claim that in that sense streets are built for communal activities, just not the road section of them.



I have never thought "that guy is enroaching on my space, so i'll hit him and it's his fault". It's nothing to do with enroaching on MY space, it's about pedestrians stepping out in front of 1 tonne + lumps of metal. That is just plain stupidity and lack of shouldering responsibility. Once they have made that stupid decision I'll make every effort to avoid them, but if I can't then I'm afraid I'll consider it their fault where appropriate. Obviously if I had no hands on the wheel and was looking at a newspaper it's my fault incase that comes into it.



I don't consider the road MINE or anyone elses, however a road (note: not street, and I don't mean pedestrianised city centres etc) is built with transport in mind, not pedestrians. The street on which I live does not belong to me and I do not feel ownership over it as you suggest people would. The road section of the street in which I live is for cars, it is not for me or the other locals to skip around on simply because our houses are located here...



You think that suggesting pedestrians are responsible for not walking out in front of cars is pushing the pendulum too far? Oh dear, what has it come to.

Let me clarify.

If someone has made an informed judgement to cross a sensible distance ahead of my vehicle then it's my responsibility to slow down and avoid them.

If someone runs out into the road with little room available then it is entirely their own fault if they are hit even if I am able to hit my brakes and slow down a bit.