On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:07:29 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? <
[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 09:44:30 GMT, Sniper8052 <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <opsfyioywv2wix5t@hogwarts-83efbf>:
>
>>> Residential roads are the largest areas of public open space in most
>>> communities.
>
>> They are not open spaces they are roads.
>
> They are open spaces. Public rights of way, not rights of way
> exclusively for motorised traffic. And the success of home zones in
> both saving lives and building communities suggests that it is
> precisely the idea of roads as car-owned space which is the problem.
I say they are roads but I will qualify that by your argument accepting
that some roads can be amenities where the passage of vehicles can be
reasonably reduced or eliminated except for access to allow deliveries and
residents to enter premisis.
You snipped a bit here which illustrated that I was not wholly opposed to
'play streets' which was unfair.
>> 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.
>
> With guard towers and barbed wire on the gates to keep paedos out,
> presumably. It's a depressing vision you have there, where the
> Almighty Car has more rights over a community's roads than do the
> members of that community.
No, so the motorists know they can't go down there, a swinging gate with a
padlock would be enough perhaps with a sign to say when the road was open
and closed to traffic.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Again, I think we differ on precisely which personal liberties should
> be curtailed. In my view the liberty of the car driver, as the one
> very evidently bringing most of the danger to the situation, is the
> better candidate for restriction.
It is my belief that parents should be responsible for their children at
all times which includes whilst at play and that drivers have a
responsibility, a very great responsibility to act and drive sensibly.
Unfortunately very many parents and very many drivers ignor their
responsibilities. I do not think that either group can exclusivly blame
the other when each must share a portion of the responsibility.
>
>>>> 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.
Child casualties fell by 8 per cent. The number of children killed or
seriously injured in 2003 was 4,100 (down 11 per cent on 2002). Of those,
2,381 were pedestrians, 16 per cent down on 2002. There were 171 child
fatalities, 4 per cent fewer than in 2002.
>> 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.
>
> And I believe you are profoundly wrong. First, the people who are
> ignoring their responsibilities are in the main the drivers not the
> parents; most parents have responded to the increasing arrogation of
> ownership of public highways by motor traffic, and this response has
> usually taken the form of restricting their children's independent
> mobility (an effect also experienced by the elderly).
> Second, the
> measure of "safety" which you use includes as a benefit the fact that
> many roads are now so dangerous that only motorists dare use them.
Can you explain your argument in relation to what you think I am saying
here as I don't understand what your trying to say IE .. Second, the
measure of "safety" which you use..
Ta.
> Do you honestly think that urban roads are safer now than they were in
> the 1950s when children could play a game of football in the street?
No. I say the road environment has changed because we in general (not as
motorist and the other lot) expect a greater level of personal freedom
through private transportation and this means we need to change the way we
interact with the road system or, through discussion, the way we manage
that road system.
> Meyer Hillman has discussed this many times. In other European
> countries they manage to achieve substantially lower child road death
> rates with much less restriction on independent mobility.
Could you example this I seek more knowledge.
>>> 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.
>
> What is sad is that you, and many others, apparently view the
> existence of a right of way as automatically excluding the possibility
> of any other use.
Hmmmm, Thinks... I did give some thought to play streets above but fair
point I think parents should take their children to the park, to 'play' at
friends houses for walks to the shops etc untill they are safe in the
traffic environment. I was raised to think of this as normal behavior.
> Where this has been challenged, with home zones for
> example, the result has been an improvement in both traffic safety and
> community spirit. I have no desire to pursue the American model where
> one lives in a series of air conditioned boxes, some of which may be
> motorised to facilitate movement between the others without the
> tedious inconvenience of exercise.
>> 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.
>
> This is not representative of the majority case. When I was a lad
> some of my acquaintances were wont to play chicken on the local
> railway line. We thought they were mad, and still do. The deliberate
> seeking of danger is different - yet in some ways it is not a surprise
> that they would do this, after a lifetime of being told that cars are
> scary monsters and roads are part of some dangerous adult world; they
> have not learned road sense because they are discouraged from doing
> so, but they see the road as some sort of forbidden territory.
> Children always push boundaries and we rarely do them a service in the
> long term by being excessively protective.
No it's not representative but it accounts for some of the figures and
shows some accidents are reasonably unavoidable.
>>> 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.
It was saturday, I ran out from between parked vehicles and really I
didn't give him a chance, I knew I had got it wrong but it was too late by
then.
> Really? You don't think he bears any responsibility, having
> presumably seen you about to cross and knowing there was a school
> nearby? One of the most pernicious myths of road "safety" is that
> when a child runs out, the driver can do nothing. Sometimes that may
> be true, but often the driver should already have taken action to
> ensure that if this reasonably foreseeable event should happen, a
> crash can be averted.
Yes in all cases a driver should be driving at a speed condusive to their
stopping within the distance they can see to be clear, if they are and
they still can't stop in time you have given that there may be some
occasions where the 'accident' may have been unavoidable.
>
> Remember who gets all the benefit from the presence of their car on
> the road, and who brings all the danger to the situation
Possibly most but unfairly all unless you ban cars completely.
>>> 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?
>
> Read it again. The major killers of children are congenital defects
> and cancer (which puts your concerns about traffic into some sort of
> perspective), but an "accident" involving a car is many times more
> likely to result in death than any of the other forms of accident
> which children suffer.
>
> Sources for this are HASS/LASS and DoH admissions data.
Good evidenced.
>> Self caused: IE Me running out, Kids playing chicken...
>
> In the same way that the victims of bullying are "self caused" by
> failing to run away?
That's not fair or relevent.
>>> 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.
>
> 2002/2003 injury admissions for England:
>
> Cycling: 5,804 (approx. 50/50 road and off-road)
> Pedestrian: 3,429
> Other land transport: 3,465
> Non-transport: 77,512
ROAD CASUALTIES GREAT BRITAIN 2003: MAIN RESULTS
The number of deaths rose, by 2 per cent from 3,431 in 2002 to 3,508 in
2003. 37,215 people were killed or seriously injured in 2003, 6 per cent
fewer than in 2002. There were 290,607 road casualties in Great Britain in
2003, 4 per cent fewer than in 2002.
Road traffic levels were 1 per cent higher than in 2002 and consequently
the overall casualty rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres was 5 per
cent lower than in 2002.
Child casualties fell by 8 per cent. The number of children killed or
seriously injured in 2003 was 4,100 (down 11 per cent on 2002). Of those,
2,381 were pedestrians, 16 per cent down on 2002. There were 171 child
fatalities, 4 per cent fewer than in 2002.
Pedestrian casualties were 36,405 in 2003, 6 per cent lower than 2002.
There were 774 pedestrian deaths, about the same level as 2002. Serious
injuries fell by 9 per cent to 7,159.
The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 12 per cent to 114. Total
casualties among pedal cyclists fell marginally in 2003 to 17,033.
There were 28,411 two-wheeled motor vehicle user casualties in 2003, 58
more than in 2002. The number of seriously injured increased by 1 per cent
to 6,959 but the number killed increased by 14 per cent to 693.
The number of deaths among car users in 2003 was 1,769, 1 per cent more
than in the previous year. The number of seriously injured fell by 9 per
cent to 15,522. Total casualties among car users were 188,342, 5 per cent
lower than 2002. Provisional traffic estimates show a 1 per cent rise in
car and taxi traffic.
There were 214,030 road accidents involving personal injury in 2003, 3 per
cent less than in 2002. Of these, 32,160 accidents involved death or
serious injury.
> The largest source of child injury admissions is trips and falls, but
> the largest single source of child injury deaths (accounting for half
> of them) is road traffic crashes.
>
>>>> 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.
>
