P
Paul Smith
Guest
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:03:53 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Hundreds of kids are killed every by year by cars, which would be lessened if the speed of cars
>> >is reduced, something he is against.
Actually for the last year on record (2001) it was 107.
>> Death and injury would certainly be lessened if the speed of traffic was reduced in exactly the
>> right places.
>Like at the precise place a kid steps out?
Yes. A places of danger. Each year about 75,000 child pedestrians are involved in incidents with
cars. 107 died in the last year on record. Many of those who dies were killed by lawless drivers,
escaping criminals, drunks and reckless folk.
The rest of us do a pretty fair job of making incidents survivable. I take the fact that we do a
"pretty fair job" as excellent evidence of where to make the improvements to do an even better job.
To get fewer dead child pedestrians we must look at what we're doing right and do more of it.
>> Speed cameras and speed enforcement generally appear to reduce the speeds of traffic in exactly
>> the wrong places.
>How would you know. You don't drive in places with speed cameras apart from on holiday.
I know because I study it.
>The nearest one to me probably stops the odd shunt but saves no lives. At least it saves on
>insurance, congestion and police time.
It's more complex.
>> Drivers mostly know the right places and succeed in avoiding accidents, a behaviour that should
>> be encouraged and nurtured.
>rubbish. People avoid accidents they expect. If they cannot avoid accidents they expect then its
>not an accident its recklessness.
The average driver would go about 7 years between accidents. 100 years between injury accidents.
1,000 years between serious injury accidents and 10,000 years between fatalities. That's a fair
score we can improve on. After all the UK roads are the safest in the world.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
>> >Hundreds of kids are killed every by year by cars, which would be lessened if the speed of cars
>> >is reduced, something he is against.
Actually for the last year on record (2001) it was 107.
>> Death and injury would certainly be lessened if the speed of traffic was reduced in exactly the
>> right places.
>Like at the precise place a kid steps out?
Yes. A places of danger. Each year about 75,000 child pedestrians are involved in incidents with
cars. 107 died in the last year on record. Many of those who dies were killed by lawless drivers,
escaping criminals, drunks and reckless folk.
The rest of us do a pretty fair job of making incidents survivable. I take the fact that we do a
"pretty fair job" as excellent evidence of where to make the improvements to do an even better job.
To get fewer dead child pedestrians we must look at what we're doing right and do more of it.
>> Speed cameras and speed enforcement generally appear to reduce the speeds of traffic in exactly
>> the wrong places.
>How would you know. You don't drive in places with speed cameras apart from on holiday.
I know because I study it.
>The nearest one to me probably stops the odd shunt but saves no lives. At least it saves on
>insurance, congestion and police time.
It's more complex.
>> Drivers mostly know the right places and succeed in avoiding accidents, a behaviour that should
>> be encouraged and nurtured.
>rubbish. People avoid accidents they expect. If they cannot avoid accidents they expect then its
>not an accident its recklessness.
The average driver would go about 7 years between accidents. 100 years between injury accidents.
1,000 years between serious injury accidents and 10,000 years between fatalities. That's a fair
score we can improve on. After all the UK roads are the safest in the world.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives