On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:21:21 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know?
<
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 20:50:07 GMT, Sniper8052 <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> A road is a highway for the passing and repassing of traffic and
>> pedestrians.
>> Aside from that children should not be playing in a street.
>
> Residential roads are the largest areas of public open space in most
> communities.
They are not open spaces they are roads. I have no prob so long as people
remember that and act accordingly. Where I live the children get out of
the road when a car comes and continue after it has passed. If play
streets are going to be set up on dead ends fine that causes no one any
great problems but they must be signed and cordoned.
>
>> A hundred years ago children were being killed by delivery drays and
>> hansom cabs, today it is cars.
>
> But cars in massively greater numbers, even though most of the
> children have been scared off the streets by traffic danger.
Yes hence we need to adjust our ideas of personal liberties to account for
the increase in vehicular traffic as I said.
>
>> British roads are amongst the safest in the world.
>
> Except for children, our child casualty record is poor, and that
> despite the fact that large numbers of children are simply not allowed
> to walk anywhere at all. Some suggest that this restriction,
> inhibiting their learnign of road sense, contributes to the
> statistics.
I think they are pretty safe for all. If parents choose to ignor their
responsibilities to educate and supervise their children 'accidents' will
continue to happen.
>
> You don't need to go back to Victorian times to see children playing
> in the streets. In the 1970s some roads were specifically designated
> as play streets, precisely because they were the largest accessible
> public space available for some communities.
Play streets see above
>
>> In the UK last year
>> there were 171 child fatalities of which some would have been related to
>> vehicle accidents and others would have been caused by the child and
>> beyond all reasonable hope of avoidance.
>
> I suspect we differ on what consititues "beyond all reasonable hope of
> avoidance." In my view when you are driving down a residential street
> or past a school, the fact that a child may run out is reasonably
> foreseeable. It seems to me that many people blame children for
> behaving like children, and rather than making it safer for them to
> behave like children they woud rather restrict their mobility or
> require them to behave like adults. I think that is sad.
Think it sad if you like but a road is a road not a playground. I suspect
we do not differ at all on what constitutes "beyond all reasonable hope of
avoidance." My comment was directed at those little darlings ranging from
eight up that I collect from playing chicken on the dual carriageway by
hiding behind road signs and then return home, well for a long time I
did. Now I take the little darlings to the station and make the parents
come and get them along with a stern warning that social services will be
called if they do it again.
> When I was at primary school I thought nothing of riding my bike a
> couple of miles to see my friends, and some of the journey was along
> the A5. I didn't get killed (obviously) and I was far more
> independent than my children are.
I too went to primary school by myself, down to the crossing lady, cross,
down to the next crossing lady and there I was. I knew how to cross the
road but I still got it wrong age 10, it was my fault, I thought I could
make it so I ran across the road in front of a large car. Bang, I remember
seeing it coming toward me and flying through the air. Guess who it was
Only the minister of education in his Rolls Royce! Took me home and
everything. But it was definitly my fault.
Age 12 I was cycling to Richmond everyday 12 miles each way no problems.
>> Given that the total for all
>> child casualties in the UK was 4,100 and that pedestrian accidents
>> comprised roughly half of these, being 2,381 the statistical chances of
>> being involved in a fatal or personal injury accident are very small
>> indeed.
>
> Road traffic crashes account for one in ten child injury admissions to
> hospital, and half of all child injury fatalities.
So there are 342 child fatalities in the whole UK over 1 year?
>> Allow that 50% of all child casualties are either self caused or related
>> to being a passenger
Self caused: IE Me running out, Kids playing chicken...
> No, thanks. A child being distracted as they cross the road after
> school is not "self-caused", it is reasonably foreseeable and should
> be allowed for.
Yes. Figures used were taken to illustrate statistical analysis. 50%
being the rough differance between non pedestrian and pedestrian
accidents. Analysis was based on using the smallest number of vehicle
journeys against the largest number of pedestrian accidents involving
children. In reality journeys would be two way. Fatalities allowed that
all child deaths were pedestrian deaths where clearly some would have been
passengers in motor vehicles and some the result of unavoidable
circumstance.
>> Clearly one death is a death to many but some responsibility has to be
>> taken in all of this by the parents
>
> And much more responsibility must be taken by those who, after all,
> bring most of the danger to the situation.
Everyone has responsibilities I am not suggesting otherwise. I am
suggesting that if adults want to have children they must be responsible
for them all the time. Children are not toys or possessions if parents do
not want to be bothered to allow time to take them to the park or swimming
pool or to play with them perhaps they should not have children in the
first place and should get on with earning their DINK lifestyle.
Sometimes I think they see their children as an accessory to their success.
>> Yes I have children, no I don't let them play in the street.
>
> Yes, I have children, and yes I allow them to play in the street. And
> I have worked hard to ensure that my street is safe enough for them to
> do so, mainly by excluding non-residents. Strangely, the residents
> seem to display much greater tolerance, vigilance and overall care
> around our children than do those who were only using our road as a
> car park or shortcut.
Yes but then you don't strike me as the sort of person I have mentioned
above, if you were I don't think you would feel as empasioned as you
clearly do. Just remember I see these accidents and visit the blooming
parents. God if I had a magic wand.
Sniper8052
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
http://www.opera.com/m2/
