Bring back Tufty!

[MattS]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

and they are right, if you cannot stop in time you are going too fast.

at 40mph 80% of accidents are a seriuos injury/fatality
at 30 mph this reduces to about 50%
at 20mph 80% of accidents are minor injury.

Love to know where these statistics come from. Maybe they are right but a lot of what gets trotted out by the anti-motoring brigade is harvested specifically to prove whatever point they wish to prove. Tabloid science if you like.

think if it was your child and you see it in a different light.

Me I was hit by a car when i was 9
March 1982 at 4.50 pm on a tuesday evening, when I looked there was no car coming, and the range of vision was well over 100metres. I survived with no major injuries, the police didnt have sophisticated equipment to work out the drivers speed so did a test on a similar car to see how fast he was going, they got to 48mph over the same distance assuming the driver was travelling at 30 in the run up to where you stop being able to see the road.

I guess I would have been about 7 or 8 when I was hit by a car. Ironically I was pushing my bike across the road at the time. I was in a world of my own and ran across the road on a bend, with a very cursory look to the left. Squeel of brakes, a distinct sense of 'Oh golly gosh' (it was a nice neighbourhood), a whump and I was lieing on the floor under a Triumph Spitfire.

so yes if you cant stop you are going too fast.

Nope. I don't know how fast he was going. Very fast from where I was standing but probably within the limit. I have since driven down the same road and can see that the driver had no chance.

Obviously I was someone's child. Once I was out of hospital they gave me a right telling off. Followed by another from the local Policeman. And another from my school teachers. Of course it would not happen today because I would be too fat to want to go outside, or suffering an eating disorder worrying about my self image. With the hoardes of rapists, kidnappers, peadophiles, germs, dirt, cars, no responsible parent would let their 8 year old wander the streets alone at 7pm on a Summers evening these days

[dry suit diver]

the first one comes from department of transport, i beleive there was lots of research into RTAs and spedd and tyope of injuries.

the sad fact is that if you drive at 20mph it takes so little extra time to get to your destination.

as said hundreds of times on here in the speed/safety camera debates there is a time and place for driving fast. built up areas isn't the place whatever time of the day it is.

anyway we are digresssing from the debate on the ability of people to be able to cross the road.

it isn't hard to teach kids the green cross code, my 6 year old can do it and knows when its safe to cross, she also knows to use pelican/zebra crossings where they exist.

and talking of zebra crossings , thats another one that pisses me off- drivers not paying attention to the road and not stopping, taxis seem to be the worst for this.

[recurve]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

and they are right, if you cannot stop in time you are going too fast.

at 40mph 80% of accidents are a seriuos injury/fatality
at 30 mph this reduces to about 50%
at 20mph 80% of accidents are minor injury.

think if it was your child and you see it in a different light.


Me I was hit by a car when i was 9
March 1982 at 4.50 pm on a tuesday evening, when I looked there was no car coming, and the range of vision was well over 100metres. I survived with no major injuries, the police didnt have sophisticated equipment to work out the drivers speed so did a test on a similar car to see how fast he was going, they got to 48mph over the same distance assuming the driver was travelling at 30 in the run up to where you stop being able to see the road.

so yes if you cant stop you are going too fast.

I'm sorry, but that is a complete load of oblocks! I've been out to plenty of pedestrian v car RTA's where the pedestrian has done something completely unpredictable, and children, together with o.a.p's are probably the worst offenders here. If we drove at a speed that allowed us to brake from ANY potential hazard, then we would never exceed 5mph if there were people on the pavement anywhere near us.

Run into the rear of another vehicle, then yes, I would agree with you.

The original 'Roadcraft' (not the sanitised latest version) says; 'you should always be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear'. While a police trained driver should always allow for hazards (a hazard is defined as anything that contains an element of actual or potential danger) by moderating their speed, that does NOT mean they can always avoid the actions of idiots! And I reckon on the whole that police trained drivers are trained to a higher standard than the majority (that is not to say that they always drive to that standard).

At 48 MPH, a car will cover 100 yards in just over 4 seconds (at 30MPH it will take 6.8 seconds), I reckon you would have been able to walk at least 5 yards in that time, plenty long enough to cross a lane of a road, in fact longer as you say the clear distance was greater than 100 yds.

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

the sad fact is that if you drive at 20mph it takes so little extra time to get to your destination.

If you drive everywhere at 20 instead of 30, it will add 50% to your journey time.


SWMBO deals with the medical side of accidents. If you cross the road and get knocked over, they will look at things like how far from the nearest crossing you were. This gives an indication of how much you contributed to being hit.

I remember working with someone who hit a kit at 40mph. Completely exonerated. Said kid had climbed over the barrier and run across the road in a continuous effort. Driver had no chance. Now should he have been driving at 30? No, the limit was 40 on a straight run of dual carriageway with underpasses. We should not have to keep making allowances for stupid actions.

We have got to have some personal responsibility applied, even to issues when children are involved. Lack of education by their parents for a start. How often have you seen parents with push chair crossing the road from between cars? Guess what you will most likely see/hit?...

Adrian

[MattS]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

the first one comes from department of transport, i beleive there was lots of research into RTAs and spedd and tyope of injuries.

Ahh yes, but where did the DoT get it and what about the research they have not published quite so widely. Sorry, I used to do the odd job for the TRRL and it left me a bit cynical of the selective use of research for political purpose.

the sad fact is that if you drive at 20mph it takes so little extra time to get to your destination.

as said hundreds of times on here in the speed/safety camera debates there is a time and place for driving fast. built up areas isn't the place whatever time of the day it is.

What I dislike about all these things is that they teach people to drive slowly (in fact drive slowly when there is a good chance of being caught), rather than to drive safely according to the conditions at the time. My better half was knocked down a couple years ago and the Police were not at all interested because the driver was within the 30 limit. Personally I would not drive around that particular bend at more than 15 mph at any time and in the conditions 5 mph would be about right.

Maybe it is just me spreading into middle age grumpiness but it seems the more speed limits are lowered the worse people's driving gets. There is actually a bit of research to back that up. Leeds University developed a car that could not exceed the speed limit. Whoever they put in it started driving like a tosser after a couple hours. Personally I just get very annoyed that these days I spend more time in built up areas looking for speed limit signs and speed cameras than I do pedestrians.

anyway we are digresssing from the debate on the ability of people to be able to cross the road.

Ahh yes but it is Saturday and the tides are not great.

it isn't hard to teach kids the green cross code, my 6 year old can do it and knows when its safe to cross, she also knows to use pelican/zebra crossings where they exist.

I had a Cycle Proficiency certificate and an autograph from the Green Cross man. Very proud of them I was - did not prevent me from making a mistake and suffering the consequences. The problem with children is there are so many other more interesting things demanding attention. If you take the attitude it MUST be the motorists fault, how long before those children grow up and start challenging drivers to knock them down - about 5 years by my rekoning.

I still like the sign post I saw in Grenada. Drink and Drive...responsibly

[Paul Brookes]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

and they are right, if you cannot stop in time you are going too fast.

at 40mph 80% of accidents are a seriuos injury/fatality
at 30 mph this reduces to about 50%
at 20mph 80% of accidents are minor injury.

think if it was your child and you see it in a different light.


Me I was hit by a car when i was 9
March 1982 at 4.50 pm on a tuesday evening, when I looked there was no car coming, and the range of vision was well over 100metres. I survived with no major injuries, the police didnt have sophisticated equipment to work out the drivers speed so did a test on a similar car to see how fast he was going, they got to 48mph over the same distance assuming the driver was travelling at 30 in the run up to where you stop being able to see the road.

so yes if you cant stop you are going too fast.

Sorry, but I disagree with this. So if I am driving at 20mph and a kid runs out infront of the car having not bothering to look, it's my fault?

Fair enough if I am doing 40 in a 30 limit - I would be at fault and would deserve what's coming to me. But saying the driver is driving too fast in all eventualities is simply riduculous.
And yes, I have been knocked over by a car (I was on a bike at the time though). I was cycling without lights on my bike - my fault.
I have also seen a child knocked over outside my house. The car had only just started moving and the girl ran out between 2 cars, 3 feet infront of the moving car and was hit. Her fault. Certainly not the drivers.

[frosty the snowman]

Originally Posted by WannabeMermaid

Hmm, I have to agree with this. I am usually a very careful cyclist but the only time I have run red lights on my bike was with the local cycling club. There were about 20 of us, I had no idea where we were going, they were travelling so fast I could barely keep up anyway, if I'd stopped for the lights when they didn't I'd have been well and truely lost.

It scared me silly and I haven't been out with them since, I'm sticking with the triathlon club who (at least my local one) obey traffic signals and wait for you at the tops of hills!

As a cyclist I would ask drivers to bear in mind though, racing bikes can be travelling faster than you expect, the riders are clipped into them (so can't brake very sharply without falling off) and the slightest bump, manhole cover or piece of debris in the road will jolt the bike badly so please give us space when you overtake, don't cut us up at junctions or open car doors into us!

As for people crossing roads without looking, very very irritating both as a driver and a cyclist, although drivers who turn into side roads without checking for people crossing them are just as annoying.

Oh good, something I can rant at. I'm all for people cycling as it's healthy and good for the environment. I'm an occasional cyclist myself but round our way it's like a never ending tour de France. I wonder whether cycling clubs really put much planning into their chosen race routes? Winding country lanes might be scenic but when people are riding four abreast and have no intention of moving over for fear of losing their position in the race, then I'm afraid I'm tempted to invoke my 'road tax payers right of way' rule and use the water cannon secreted under the bonnet of the frostymobile to clear a path. Oh and although it's slightly off subject, race marshalls in their flourescent tabards who signal me to slow down so that I don't interfere with the road hogging cyclists whom they're too unfit to join may expect the same treatment. Ah...that's better.

[swissdave]

Originally Posted by MattS

under a Triumph Spitfire.

Well at least it was a Quality classic car
THE SOLUTION
solution.bmp

[dry suit diver]

nice to see I provoked a debate and some thinking,

I never said we should all drive at 30 or 20 everywhere just where its necesary, as for the kid who climbed the barriers then the little shit got what he deserved. as for my hit well you do the maths and tell me how lucky i am


driving sensibly is part of the equation as is teaching proper road sense to all involved with roads, by some of the comments old people should be left in a dark room to fester as they are not allowed to drive and can't be trusted to cross the road safely

[Adrian Kelland]

Originally Posted by dry suit diver

as for my hit well you do the maths and tell me how lucky i am

I think I must have cat genes;

1) Clipped around the head by the wing mirror of a lorry while I was on the footpath. If I had been 2 inches taller it would have taken my eye out. At least. 8 stitches to scalp - 1 day off school

2) Cycling around a roundabout, car comes out of one of the turnings resulting in a trip across a bonnet and taking out the wing mirror. Light bruising.

3) Stop at zebra crossing. Car stop to RHS, car stops on LHS. Start crossing. Just as I pass the LH car, a lorry goes between it and the path, Those wheels are BIG when you are small and close up! Shock to me and my mother who saw this on the other side of the road. Lorry never stopped.

I'm gong to be a lousy patient when I finally end up getting really hurt

Adrian