a few bad apples?

[Paulie Tandoori]

Where did I say I saw no problem with it?

I was using the statistic to question Major Tom's assertion that "quite a large number" of children are killed every week which the average reader would not perceive as meaning 1.48.

I note that you trot out the standard, knee-jerk "Speed kills" phrase. It is simplistic bollocks. Many of the children killed are killed by cars driving at an inappropriate speed within the speed limit. Read my previous posts if you want to know more.

(1) your quote was "you're talking bollocks", i took that to mean that you were refuting the central theme of MT's thread, namely that cars travelling at fast speeds are dangerous things and harm/kill/seriously injure many many people every year.

(2) 166 kids killed a year actually equals 3.19 kids per week i.e. twice your stated figure and imho, that is quite a large number of kids to be killed by cars.

(3) the fact that kids are killed by cars driving dangerously whilst under the speed limit does not diminish in the slightest the simple fact that many drivers drive too fast, both in urban 20mph zones and on motorways, and on most roadways in between, and in doing so, place many other people at great risk, especially children in urban settings when the 20mph limit is consistently flouted and ignored. Haven't you seen the ads about "Kill your speed, not a child"? - if it's such a knee jerk phrase, why is it central to such campaigns to make motorists more responsible for the carnage they cause on other road users on a daily basis?

 

[detective-boy]

(2) 166 kids killed a year actually equals 3.19 kids per week i.e. twice your stated figure and imho, that is quite a large number of kids to be killed by cars.

He was talking, I presumed, about kids as pedestrians killed by cars. Of the 166 killed, 77 were pedestrians. That is where the 1.48 per week came from.

Haven't you seen the ads about "Kill your speed, not a child"? - if it's such a knee jerk phrase, why is it central to such campaigns to make motorists more responsible for the carnage they cause on other road users on a daily basis?

Because it is simplistic and people remember it. It is, in fact, shorthand for "Inapproriate speed kills" but that is less catchy and many people are considered to be unable to judge what is, and what is not inappropriate.

Simply exceeding the speed limit does NOT, of itself cause deaths. It MAY, if inappropriate for the circumstances but then so may travelling at 29mph in a 30 limit if inappropriate for the circumstances.

The issue is more complex than the simplistic slogan.

If speed kills per se why are police drivers allowed to exceed the speed limit on emergency calls? Why does every single emergency call not result in people dying? Why is MIchael Schumacher not dead? ...

I am NOT arguing that there should not be speed limits, nor am I arguing that people should not be prosecuted for exceeding them. I AM arguing that the current system (especially in relation to camera based enforcement) is inflexible and, as a result, falls into disrepute. There is no way a police patrol would normally report someone for 50mph on a clear, dry, well-lit 40mph dual carraiageway at 3am (they would get a warning). A camera would report you regardless, even though it would not issue a warning to someone travelling at 39mph during the rush hour, bullying other vehicles to let them past.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Someone I work with has just been telling me, with tears in his eyes, about his 16-year-old cousin who has been killed in a hit-and-run accident that happened on Monday at about 5pm in Stratford.

And tbh, I couldn't give a shit whether phrases I use are simplistic or knee-jerk, all I know is that car drivers repeatedly kill and seriously injure pedestrians and cyclists without any real punishment, and apologists come up with all sort of crap about "why speed cameras this" and "inappropriate speed limits that" without addressing the real and heartbreaking fall out caused by the carnage of car drivers.

 

[Major Tom]

The issue is more complex than the simplistic slogan.

But only a pedant or an apolgist for speeding motorists would bother to point this out.

 

[Major Tom]

He was talking, I presumed, about kids as pedestrians killed by cars. Of the 166 killed, 77 were pedestrians.

"He" was talking about all kids killed by motor traffic - including passengers. Since kids are unlikely to be drivers, I don;t suppose many were responsible for the accident.

Also as I've pointed out twice - I meant to say 'killed and injured'. I simply missed off 'and injured' because i was posting far to hastily.

Anyway - I take your point: It's OK to kill 77 kids a year, but not 166.

 

[axomoxia]

But only a pedant or an apolgist for speeding motorists would bother to point this out.

Yes, we can't have "slow down to a speed where you won't kill anyone", only "Keep the speed limit".

Thanks for making my life so much safer

Andy

 

[Major Tom]

Yes, we can't have "slow down to a speed where you won't kill anyone", only "Keep the speed limit".

Thanks for making my life so much safer

Andy

I've always advocated 20 mph limits throughout urban areas, together with a duty of care for motorists to drive safely - with extremely harsh penalties for those who risk other's lives - bans and jail sentences.

that and a rise in the cost of motoring (to reflect the true costs) may deter many of the loonies currently plaguing our roads.

 

[detective-boy]

.... and apologists come up with all sort of crap about "why speed cameras this" and "inappropriate speed limits that" without addressing the real and heartbreaking fall out caused by the carnage of car drivers.

But, Paulie, because so many people think that "Speed kills" they ignore everything else (e.g. jumping red lights, using mobiles whilst driving, driving too close to cyclists and all the other things that (at least as much as, and many significantly more than, speed really DO kill). Speed can be detected by cameras. Most of the other things need policing by patrols.

Because so many people (especially politicians) live in the belief that [only] Speed Kills they seem to think that more and more cameras and more and more speed enforcement will reduce road deaths. And many, many people really do now believe that as long as they are not exceeding the arbitrary speed limit then they CANNOT be at fault.

It won't. And that is why I argue against it as a simplistic, single issue slogan and approach.

 

[Major Tom]

He was talking, I presumed, about kids as pedestrians killed by cars. Of the 166 killed, 77 were pedestrians. That is where the 1.48 per week came from.

“The number of people killed and injured in road crashes is widely thought to be much higher than the official statistics (based on police records) show. Hospital road casualty figures would represent a far more reliable record of road crash incidence and a three year study by TRL (Report 173) comparing hospital and police data has concluded that the numbers of people injured in road crashes may be as much as double the official figures, with those of seriously injured almost three times higher.”
http://www.roadpeace.org/partaffi/saferstr.html

 

[Major Tom]

Most of the other things need policing by patrols.

SAFER STREETS COALITION

as a minimium requires:

"Real Government leadership on this issue. Policies must reflect both the road danger and casualty reduction imperative as well as the wider health, environmental and social benefits of reduced speeds. This will require much more effective joined-up government action than in the past, with commitment of ministers from areas such as health, education, employment, environment, urban and rural affairs, working together to make our streets safer.

A review of speed limits across the country, to introduce speed limits which are appropriate for each road. We expect that this would confirm 30mph limits in villages and much wider use of 20mph limits e.g. in residential areas, around schools, on main shopping streets. We would also expect to see significant reductions in the speed limits on a very large number of our rural roads through a lowering of national limits and the re-assignment of roads according to a new rural road hierarchy.

Enforcement of speed limits given a much higher priority e.g. through the use of cameras, more resources for the traffic police, and more frequent and stiffer penalties for speeding offences, to act as a deterrent.
Collection of statistics, which would accurately reflect the true level of death and injury on our roads.

A recognition of the fact of death or injury in the charges brought against a driver responsible for road death or injury.

Increased funding for well-designed traffic calming in town and country and pedestrian priority schemes which take into account the needs of all pedestrians and cyclists, as well as for measures such as safer routes to school and workplace travel plans which reduce overall traffic levels.
Government taking a lead on changing attitudes to dangerous driving (in particular to speed) and more generally to over-dependence on cars, e.g. by making substantial revenue funding available for local and national awareness campaigns on these issues."

Why does D-Boy believe that use of police patrols is the only answer?

 

[Cobbles]

VEHICLE SPEEDS IN GREAT BRITAIN: 2005
The Department for Transport today published National Statistics of vehicle speeds in Great Britain in 2005. These statistics relate to the speeds at which drivers choose to drive in free-flow conditions generally across the road network. The latest figures show that the proportion of motorists exceeding the speed limit in 2005 changed very little from 2004 although driving in excess of the speed limit remains at a high level on all types of road.

The main features of the new statistics released today are:
On roads with 30 mph limits (built-up)
On roads with a 30 mph speed limit 50 per cent of cars exceeded that limit in 2005 compared with 53 per cent in 2004; 21 per cent travelled faster than 35 mph, compared with 22 per cent in 2004.

On 30 mph roads, half of motorcycles exceeded that limit in 2005. Twenty six per cent of motorcycles were travelling at more than 35 mph in 2005 compared with 24 per cent recorded in 2004.

The survey also reveals a high incidence of speeding by heavy goods vehicles on built-up 30 mph roads: 46 per cent of 2-axle heavy goods vehicles exceeded the speed limit, 18 per cent by more than 5 mph.

On roads with 40 mph limits (built-up)

On 40 mph roads 25 per cent of cars exceeded the limit, with 9 per cent exceeding 45 mph, a reduction from the 27 and 10 per cent respectively recorded in the last three years (2002 - 2004).

Thirty four per cent of motorcycles exceeded the 40 mph limit compared to 38 per cent in 2004. Seventeen per cent of motorcycles on 40 mph roads were travelling at more than 45 mph in 2005. This is a reduction from the 19 per cent recorded in 2004.

On other roads (non-built-up)

More than half the cars on motorways and 48 per cent of cars on dual carriageways travelled faster than the speed limit; 19 per cent were travelling faster than 80 mph on motorways, and 13 per cent on dual carriageways.

The proportion of motorcycles travelling at more than 80 mph on motorways has remained stable. Twenty seven per cent in 2005 compared with 28 per cent in 2004; whilst on dual carriageways the proportion rose from 21 per cent to 25 per cent.

On major, non-built-up single carriageway roads, 77 per cent of articulated HGVs were exceeding their 40 mph limit (27 per cent by more than 10 mph). The average speed recorded for articulated HGVs on these roads was 46 mph, just 3 mph less than the average speed of cars (49 mph), for which the limit is 60 mph.

Full details at http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_611476.pdf

Given all of that - why are cyclists being so demonised?

Simple answer - Bigger roads + higher speed limits = less frustration +fewer speeders.