Road safety(children) in The Times
Yorkshireman
Posts: 999
(Thanks to Spen 
)
(Pic of child on bike ommited)
Last year, official figures reveal, the number of children killed on British roads (ie, under-15s who were pedestrians, cyclists or travelling in cars) increased by 20 per cent. In other words, 169 children died – 28 more than in the previous year. The number killed while riding a bike rose by 55 per cent.
How can this have happened? When the Government is installing ever more speed bumps and safety cameras, when a series of slick, high-profile TV adverts tell us to “kill our speed, not a child”, why are fatalities rising? Health campaigns have been urging children to walk or cycle to school and not be driven there. Might the antiobesity campaign be having a tragic side-effect, inadvertently putting young people in danger on the roads?
Before panicking, we should remember that road casualty figures have been falling steadily in this country over the past ten years. In 1996 the number of child pedestrians killed or injured was 18,510. By last year this had dropped to 10,131. Although the figure for deaths rose last year, the total number of children injured on the roads fell by 9 per cent – and the Department for Transport points to the fact that 169 child deaths in 2006 is about the same as 2004, when there were 166 deaths, which was then the lowest figure of recent years. Meanwhile, traffic levels have been rising.
All the same, we have one of the worst records in Western Europe for child pedestrian fatalities. The International Road Traffic and Accident Database reveals that British drivers kill about twice as many child pedestrians per head of population than drivers in France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands. Only Austria, Portugal, Poland and Eire fare worse than us.
The Swedish Road Administration has launched a strategy – “Vision Zero” – which treats road deaths as ethically unacceptable and disagrees that they should be seen as inevitable. Its long-term aim is to reduce child pedestrian deaths to as close to nought as possible. For the past two years the figure has not exceeded 10 deaths, in a population of 1.5 million children.
Moreover, in Sweden every effort is made to keep cyclists and traffic separate. In cities, where that isn’t always possible, there are many more 30km/h zones. Other measures include random breathalyser tests and street reconstruction. The consequence of these measures is that in 2006 the overall number of fatalities on Swedish roads was 431 – the same as in 1931, even with millions more vehicles on the roads.
Notwithstanding the undeniable improvements here, we don’t come close to the Swedish model. So what are we still doing wrong?
Well, road safety campaigners would agree that we are still not clamping down hard enough on speeding drivers – and that the British are still obstinately in love with the high-powered car.
Before apportioning blame elsewhere, though, perhaps we parents should examine our own behaviour. In a car-dominated age, are we failing to teach our children basic road safety as thoroughly as our parents did? In the 1970s and 1980s most children had the Green Cross Code drilled into them at school and by their parents. What middle-aged adult cannot recall reciting the mantra “Look right, look left, look right again and if it’s all clear, walk straight across”? Now, this seems to be accorded less importance. The perception of many parents is that the greatest risk to their children comes from paedophiles, drink, drugs and knife-wielding gangs. In fact, of course, a child is far more likely to die in a road accident.
Death on the roads is the second-biggest killer of 5 to 14-year-olds after cancer and other tumours. And if you are one of those parents who drives your children everywhere, then pedestrian safety inevitably becomes a lesser part of your life.
Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation, says: “Road safety is so basic that it is overlooked sometimes.” It has also become customary for teenagers to wander the streets or cycle while listening to their iPods, though studies suggest that using an iPod or mobile phone while on the move makes you much more likely to be involved in an accident.
Although road safety classes and cycling proficiency courses are still offered in schools, campaigners say that their availability has become more haphazard because of funding problems and the performance pressures on schools.
Kevin Clinton, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, says: “Parents may need to acquire more road awareness. The example that they set is crucial, but you often see parents standing in the middle of roads between two lanes of traffic, trying to cross.”
So where does that leave us with walking and cycling to school? Should we discourage our children from doing so, knowing that if we take them by car they may be fatter but at least they will be relatively safe (Britain has one of the lowest rates of caruser casualties in Europe)?
According to accident experts, it is impossible to say at this stage whether any increase in the number of children walking and cycling to school affected last year’s increased death toll. Clinton says that the sudden increase, though surprising, is unlikely to have a single cause.
In other countries where it is far more common for children to cycle and walk, casualty figures are not necessarily higher – in some cases, quite the opposite. When the number of cyclists reaches a critical mass, apparently it becomes much safer to travel that way. The truck driver who doesn’t see the cyclist alongside him at a junction will reach a point where he expectsthere to be one and takes more care. The problem is that in this country we have not yet reached that point.
In any case, studies suggest that most accidents involving child pedestrians and cyclists don’t happen on the way to school. According to the AA, 80 per cent of accidents involving children occur during the school holidays, at weekends and in the late afternoons and evenings on school days. Children in inner cities are at much greater risk, as they make more journeys on foot and spend more time playing on the street. Boys are more likely to become casualties than girls.
As Edmund King says, there is a dilemma for parents. If children walk or cycle to school they are at more risk, but if they are driven they fail to develop adequate road sense. The RAC’s view is that if you teach children proper road safety you are equipping them for life. “It’s the basic things that count,” he says. “Sometimes we make safety messages oversophisticated.”
Because of the way in which British towns have been built, children in this country are more likely than their peers in other countries to live near fast roads. A road safety report in 2005 also found other differences in the way that British children use the streets compared with French and Dutch children:
— British children spend more time near main roads, busy roads and roads with faster traffic than their European equivalents.
— British children are less likely to use a marked crossing when choosing a crossing point.
— British children are less likely to be accompanied by an adult, and more likely to be accompanied by other children who might distract their attention (20 per cent of British children “hang about” in the street, on foot or on cycles).
“We can’t tell yet whether there is a trend, but the fact that (child fatalities) have risen is worrying,” says Cathy Wheeler, policy manager for the campaign group Brake.
“Yes, we are using more speed cameras, but there is a difference between perception and reality. The perception is that there are cameras everywhere but actually they are on a tiny percentage of roads. And yes, there are more 20mph zones now, but we haven’t imposed them everywhere there is a school.”
Putting too much emphasis on whether we are teaching children road safety well enough avoids the real issue of speed, say campaigners, and veers towards “victim blaming”. A report from the Health Development Agency in 2003, based on a review of worldwide research, concluded that a 20mph speed limit on residential roads could save 13,000 children a year from death or injury.
Ultimately, almost everything comes back to the way we drive. As campaigners are fond of saying: “The best traffic-calmer in the world is the motorist’s right foot.”
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li ... 139332.ece
Good - Bad - Bit of everything? Or a 'journalist' cut and pasting to fill a bit of space (I'm sure a lot of those 'bites' look familiar :? )
)(Pic of child on bike ommited)
Last year, official figures reveal, the number of children killed on British roads (ie, under-15s who were pedestrians, cyclists or travelling in cars) increased by 20 per cent. In other words, 169 children died – 28 more than in the previous year. The number killed while riding a bike rose by 55 per cent.
How can this have happened? When the Government is installing ever more speed bumps and safety cameras, when a series of slick, high-profile TV adverts tell us to “kill our speed, not a child”, why are fatalities rising? Health campaigns have been urging children to walk or cycle to school and not be driven there. Might the antiobesity campaign be having a tragic side-effect, inadvertently putting young people in danger on the roads?
Before panicking, we should remember that road casualty figures have been falling steadily in this country over the past ten years. In 1996 the number of child pedestrians killed or injured was 18,510. By last year this had dropped to 10,131. Although the figure for deaths rose last year, the total number of children injured on the roads fell by 9 per cent – and the Department for Transport points to the fact that 169 child deaths in 2006 is about the same as 2004, when there were 166 deaths, which was then the lowest figure of recent years. Meanwhile, traffic levels have been rising.
All the same, we have one of the worst records in Western Europe for child pedestrian fatalities. The International Road Traffic and Accident Database reveals that British drivers kill about twice as many child pedestrians per head of population than drivers in France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands. Only Austria, Portugal, Poland and Eire fare worse than us.
The Swedish Road Administration has launched a strategy – “Vision Zero” – which treats road deaths as ethically unacceptable and disagrees that they should be seen as inevitable. Its long-term aim is to reduce child pedestrian deaths to as close to nought as possible. For the past two years the figure has not exceeded 10 deaths, in a population of 1.5 million children.
Moreover, in Sweden every effort is made to keep cyclists and traffic separate. In cities, where that isn’t always possible, there are many more 30km/h zones. Other measures include random breathalyser tests and street reconstruction. The consequence of these measures is that in 2006 the overall number of fatalities on Swedish roads was 431 – the same as in 1931, even with millions more vehicles on the roads.
Notwithstanding the undeniable improvements here, we don’t come close to the Swedish model. So what are we still doing wrong?
Well, road safety campaigners would agree that we are still not clamping down hard enough on speeding drivers – and that the British are still obstinately in love with the high-powered car.
Before apportioning blame elsewhere, though, perhaps we parents should examine our own behaviour. In a car-dominated age, are we failing to teach our children basic road safety as thoroughly as our parents did? In the 1970s and 1980s most children had the Green Cross Code drilled into them at school and by their parents. What middle-aged adult cannot recall reciting the mantra “Look right, look left, look right again and if it’s all clear, walk straight across”? Now, this seems to be accorded less importance. The perception of many parents is that the greatest risk to their children comes from paedophiles, drink, drugs and knife-wielding gangs. In fact, of course, a child is far more likely to die in a road accident.
Death on the roads is the second-biggest killer of 5 to 14-year-olds after cancer and other tumours. And if you are one of those parents who drives your children everywhere, then pedestrian safety inevitably becomes a lesser part of your life.
Edmund King, of the RAC Foundation, says: “Road safety is so basic that it is overlooked sometimes.” It has also become customary for teenagers to wander the streets or cycle while listening to their iPods, though studies suggest that using an iPod or mobile phone while on the move makes you much more likely to be involved in an accident.
Although road safety classes and cycling proficiency courses are still offered in schools, campaigners say that their availability has become more haphazard because of funding problems and the performance pressures on schools.
Kevin Clinton, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, says: “Parents may need to acquire more road awareness. The example that they set is crucial, but you often see parents standing in the middle of roads between two lanes of traffic, trying to cross.”
So where does that leave us with walking and cycling to school? Should we discourage our children from doing so, knowing that if we take them by car they may be fatter but at least they will be relatively safe (Britain has one of the lowest rates of caruser casualties in Europe)?
According to accident experts, it is impossible to say at this stage whether any increase in the number of children walking and cycling to school affected last year’s increased death toll. Clinton says that the sudden increase, though surprising, is unlikely to have a single cause.
In other countries where it is far more common for children to cycle and walk, casualty figures are not necessarily higher – in some cases, quite the opposite. When the number of cyclists reaches a critical mass, apparently it becomes much safer to travel that way. The truck driver who doesn’t see the cyclist alongside him at a junction will reach a point where he expectsthere to be one and takes more care. The problem is that in this country we have not yet reached that point.
In any case, studies suggest that most accidents involving child pedestrians and cyclists don’t happen on the way to school. According to the AA, 80 per cent of accidents involving children occur during the school holidays, at weekends and in the late afternoons and evenings on school days. Children in inner cities are at much greater risk, as they make more journeys on foot and spend more time playing on the street. Boys are more likely to become casualties than girls.
As Edmund King says, there is a dilemma for parents. If children walk or cycle to school they are at more risk, but if they are driven they fail to develop adequate road sense. The RAC’s view is that if you teach children proper road safety you are equipping them for life. “It’s the basic things that count,” he says. “Sometimes we make safety messages oversophisticated.”
Because of the way in which British towns have been built, children in this country are more likely than their peers in other countries to live near fast roads. A road safety report in 2005 also found other differences in the way that British children use the streets compared with French and Dutch children:
— British children spend more time near main roads, busy roads and roads with faster traffic than their European equivalents.
— British children are less likely to use a marked crossing when choosing a crossing point.
— British children are less likely to be accompanied by an adult, and more likely to be accompanied by other children who might distract their attention (20 per cent of British children “hang about” in the street, on foot or on cycles).
“We can’t tell yet whether there is a trend, but the fact that (child fatalities) have risen is worrying,” says Cathy Wheeler, policy manager for the campaign group Brake.
“Yes, we are using more speed cameras, but there is a difference between perception and reality. The perception is that there are cameras everywhere but actually they are on a tiny percentage of roads. And yes, there are more 20mph zones now, but we haven’t imposed them everywhere there is a school.”
Putting too much emphasis on whether we are teaching children road safety well enough avoids the real issue of speed, say campaigners, and veers towards “victim blaming”. A report from the Health Development Agency in 2003, based on a review of worldwide research, concluded that a 20mph speed limit on residential roads could save 13,000 children a year from death or injury.
Ultimately, almost everything comes back to the way we drive. As campaigners are fond of saying: “The best traffic-calmer in the world is the motorist’s right foot.”
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li ... 139332.ece
Good - Bad - Bit of everything? Or a 'journalist' cut and pasting to fill a bit of space (I'm sure a lot of those 'bites' look familiar :? )
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat... but the wind is mostly in your face!
Lincolnshire is mostly flat... but the wind is mostly in your face!
0
Comments
-
Just read this article myself and was going to post it! No doubt some safe speed idiot will state that it shows speed cameras don't work and everyone should be allowed to drive at 100mph whenever they want.
I do think perhaps it shows that the wrong roads are being targeted by the police because I assume most of the hanging around talked about in the article is in residential roads.
I also think that it displays the need to properly train kids on road safety - join the Tufty club anyone?0 -
shouldn't be surprised really if you think about it.
for the last 10 years, kids have been carried round in cars, watching DVDs/playing gameboys with no concept of how traffic works. When I was a lad, mum walked me to school, told me how to act safely etc, so I was educated early on. These molicoddled kids are now at an age where 10 years on they want to go out alone and see a world wider than their back gardens - hence evenings/weekends/holday times. But they have no experience or teacher, so their mistakes are costly.
secondly, i've seen youths deliberately trying to dodge cars - the closer the miss, the more kudos. boys will be boys, but this is just idiotic. Couple this action with the road-raged idiot who wants to teach em a lesson and catastrophe!0 -
And add in idiot (and legally wrong) belief in roads only being for cars....If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K0 -
The problem here is the usual one where simple numbers/statistics are used.
Where are these child deaths occuring?
Under what circumstances?
Definition of "child"?
Again, the carping on about "speed", as if by sticking to the limit automatically means that you're driving "safely"
"But Officer, I was driving at exactly 29mph, I was watching my speedo all the way down the High Street to make sure I didn't speed past the Gatso"
Interesting that they note that fatalities increase out of school hours, which suggests that the 20mph outside schools limit is an irrelevance.
Perhaps scrapping British Summer Time may be more effective, meaning lighter evenings?
Maybe if fewer playing fields were being sold off for building land, we'd have fewer child casualties?
Certainly teaching all road users to be aware of their actions would be a good thing.Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
pigman wrote:shouldn't be surprised really if you think about it.
for the last 10 years, kids have been carried round in cars, watching DVDs/playing gameboys with no concept of how traffic works. When I was a lad, mum walked me to school, told me how to act safely etc, so I was educated early on. These molicoddled kids are now at an age where 10 years on they want to go out alone and see a world wider than their back gardens - hence evenings/weekends/holday times. But they have no experience or teacher, so their mistakes are costly.
secondly, i've seen youths deliberately trying to dodge cars - the closer the miss, the more kudos. boys will be boys, but this is just idiotic. Couple this action with the road-raged idiot who wants to teach em a lesson and catastrophe!
Spot on.
I'd hazard a guess that speed has got sod all to do it, and (lack of) education has everything to do with it.
It is far better to prevent an accident than mitigate it's severity (not that I'm saying we can't do both).Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Interesting stuff. The link between selfish speeding idiots and child fatality rates is underlined by the incredible success of the 20mph zones in Hull- opposed by the crapspeed criminals and Paul "Blood on his hands" Smith.
Accidents down, injuries down, deaths down. Plus the classic red herring introduced above demonstrating nothing so much as the paucity of the crapspeed argument.
"Obey speed limits"
"Oh! I see! So what you are saying is that if I drive under the limit I must be safe!"
Errr, no, that's garbage you've just plucked out of thin sir.0 -
i Love the inclusion of the Swedish stats.
yes "Noll Vision" seems to be helping but is is still nanny state controlling what you can do.
there are also other things you should be aware of. All kida under 15 have to wear a helmet when on a bike.
and the avaerge Swede drive just under the speed limit.
Saying that the Goverment is looking to raise some speed limits.
and finally there is hardly any reason for anyone to cycle on a road in Sweden as there is very comprehensive cycle routes."Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown0 -
nicklouse wrote:i Love the inclusion of the Swedish stats.
yes "Noll Vision" seems to be helping but is is still nanny state controlling what you can do.
there are also other things you should be aware of. All kida under 15 have to wear a helmet when on a bike.
and the avaerge Swede drive just under the speed limit.
Saying that the Goverment is looking to raise some speed limits.
and finally there is hardly any reason for anyone to cycle on a road in Sweden as there is very comprehensive cycle routes.
Mornin' Nick
Hm, "just under speed limits", whereas over here most? drivers seem to want to drive just? over - Perhaps that is showing some nationalistic general attitude differences? Cycle routes/paths over here (excluding Sustrans for obvious reasons) are a real pain (and can be a danger) due to having cyclists too often having to give way at drive entrances etc - just a thought Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat... but the wind is mostly in your face!0 -
Press Releases
Which antisocial behaviours are the British public most concerned about? University of Reading finds out
Release Date : 11 December 2006
Speeding is top of the league when it comes to antisocial behaviour, a University of Reading study has shown.
Thames Valley Police approached psychologists at the University of Reading and asked them to analyse the British Crime Survey - which considers the concerns of more than 17,000 people across the UK.
http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsande ... PR3936.asp0 -
Interesting.
A quick straw poll at work shows that the number one anti-social concern amongst my colleagues is scrotes causing trouble on the streets safe in the knowledge that they will get away with it.
No-one mentioned driving, but then I didn't hand out an easily skewed multiple choice questionnaire, I just asked the question.
:idea:Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
All kida under 15 have to wear a helmet when on a bike.
and the avaerge Swede drive just under the speed limit.
Compulsion has a known effect- cycling rates go down, head injuries correspondingly so, triumphant celebrations are announced. Classic fudge of the data.
I wonder how the incidents of residents campaigning for speed cameras corresponds to residents marching for more policing of street crime?
I can find twenty pro-speed camera protests in the last few months, I guess you can do the same BigBlackBoys?0 -
rothbook wrote:All kida under 15 have to wear a helmet when on a bike.
and the avaerge Swede drive just under the speed limit.
Compulsion has a known effect- cycling rates go down, head injuries correspondingly so, triumphant celebrations are announced. Classic fudge of the data.
Sorry Bollocks. you should see the number of bikes out side Swedish schools.
just about no kids are dropped of by car.
it bepends on the mentality of the People.
Not wearing an cycle helmet in Sweden is not normal."Do not follow where the path may lead, Go instead where there is no path, and Leave a Trail."
Parktools :?:SheldonBrown0 -
. you should see the number of bikes out side Swedish schools.
Greater or fewer than after compulsion?0 -
rothbook wrote:I wonder how the incidents of residents campaigning for speed cameras corresponds to residents marching for more policing of street crime?
I can find twenty pro-speed camera protests in the last few months, I guess you can do the same BigBlackBoys?
You utter cock.
What does that have to do with the fact that no-one I asked mentioned driving?
I could use your piss poor logic to prove anything.
If giving up cycling would end world hunger, war and poverty, would you:
a: give up cycling
b: stab yourself to death
c: slaughter your loved ones
Please select the answer that you agree with the most.
I can conclude that 100% of people polled want to give up cycling.
See how easy it is?
You're an idiot, plain and simple. A fanatical moron.
Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Aw C'mon MattBlackBigBoysBMX, Rothers isn't a total moron .... He has a day off now and then Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat... but the wind is mostly in your face!0 -
Yorkshireman wrote:Aw C'mon MattBlackBigBoysBMX, Rothers isn't a total moron .... He has a day off now and then
Just not in the mood for his schoolyard name calling today, I R poorly.
Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Yorkshireman wrote:Aw C'mon MattBlackBigBoysBMX, Rothers isn't a total moron .... He has a day off now and then
Just not in the mood for his schoolyard name calling today, I R poorly.
Ah! Hope you feel better soon :idea: Want to borrow my (newly sharpened) pointy poking stick :twisted:Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat... but the wind is mostly in your face!0 -
What does that have to do with the fact that no-one I asked mentioned driving?
The fact that your office straw poll, which you are plainly lying about, is not representative of the feelings of the general pubic, that's why you carefully avoided answering the question.
Now.
Prove me wrong.
City the local residents marching against "street scrotes" versus the residents I can cite marching against the kind of idiot boy racers you are so keen to defend.0 -
Just not in the mood for his schoolyard name calling today,
Errr, what schoolyard name calling please?0 -
No-one mentioned driving, but then I didn't hand out an easily skewed multiple choice questionnaire, I just asked the question.
There was no questionnaire, why are yoiu telling lies please?
Even if there was , what evidence do you have that it was "skewed"?
Yoiu mean it was corrupt?
And your evidence for this is?
A serious allegation against the University Of Reading, any actual proof?
This is what the University says:
Press Releases
Which antisocial behaviours are the British public most concerned about? University of Reading finds out
Release Date : 11 December 2006
Speeding is top of the league when it comes to antisocial behaviour, a University of Reading study has shown.
Thames Valley Police approached psychologists at the University of Reading and asked them to analyse the British Crime Survey - which considers the concerns of more than 17,000 people across the UK.
Speeding traffic was rated as a significantly greater problem than all other antisocial behaviours, with 43% of the population regarded speeding traffic as a 'very' or 'fairly big' problem in their area.
Furthermore, the perception of speeding traffic as the antisocial behaviour of most concern was held by both men and women - young, middle aged, and old.
The study's authors, Dr Damian Poulter and Professor Frank McKenna from the University of Reading's Psychology department, replicated the findings in a second survey, which also found that 85% of respondents felt travelling immediately above the speed limit on residential roads was unacceptable behaviour.
Professor McKenna said "It would appear that we have greatly underestimated the degree of public concern over speeding.
"In comparison to concerns such as intimidation, vandalism, harassment, disruptive neighbours, drunkenness and drugs, speeding is the number one concern."
Malcolm Collis, head of the Specialist Units, Thames Valley Police Roads Policing Department, said: "This justifies our tough stance on enforcing the speed limits on the roads in the Thames Valley. The driving force behind this is our determination to reduce the numbers of people who are killed or seriously injured on our roads. We will continue to carry out speed enforcement and promote our driver improvement diversion scheme, to help people through education stay safe on our roads."
Respondents also reported strong support for enforcement, with 80% of respondents agreeing that speed enforcement was acceptable practice on 30mph residential roads. This is in line with previous evidence that the public accept the practice of speed enforcement.
The survey examined a wide range of issues (16 in total) including intimidation, damage to property and vehicles, noisy neighbours, drugs, drunkenness, and litter.
Dr Stephen Ladyman MP, Minister for Transport, said: "This research firmly demonstrates the considerable level of concern about speeding traffic in local communities. We remain committed to reducing speeding and the misery it can cause through a variety of means including engineering, education and enforcement."
Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes, Head of the Association of Chief Police Officers Uniformed Operations Business Area welcomed the study, saying, "For too long we have allowed the so called voices of the motorist to dominate the debate.
"This important research clearly shows that the wider public strongly support speed enforcement and are concerned not only about reducing casualties, but clearly see excessive speed as anti social. This information should inform policy at every level, and police and local authority priorities should be re-examined in the light of this information".
Robert Gifford, executive director for PACTS, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said: "I welcome the publication of this research. It strongly supports both police and government action to reduce excess speeding and save lives on our roads. It is good to know that once again public opinion backs tough action."
Kevin Clinton, RoSPA Head of Road Safety said "The public are right to be concerned about speeding drivers. Even in good conditions the difference in stopping distance between 30 and 35mph is an extra 21ft - more than two car lengths. Small
amounts above the speed limit can turn a near miss into a child being knocked down."
Jools Townsend, head of education at road safety charity Brake, said: "It comes as no surprise that the public are extremely concerned about speeding. Breaking the speed limit or going too fast for conditions is a contributory factor in 26% of fatal crashes, so the public have every reason to be worried about this issue. We urge the Government to listen to the public, and provide police with the resources they need to properly enforce our speed limits. We are also calling for the urban speed limit to be reduced to 20mph, to help prevent the tragic deaths and injuries of countless children and other vulnerable road users on residential roads."
The paper is published in the journal Accident, Analysis and Prevention.
Ends
Notes for editors:
Lucy Ferguson, Senior Press Officer, Reading University 0118 378 7388 L.Ferguson@reading.ac.uk
Annie Tysom, PR Officer, Thames Valley Police 01865 846350 annie.tysom@thamesvalley.pnn.police.uk
Professor Frank McKenna
Tel: +44 (0)118 378 8530
Email: f.p.mckenna@rdg.ac.uk
Dr. Damian Poulter
Tel: +44 (0)118 378 6798
Email: d.r.poulter@rdg.ac.uk
http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsande ... PR3936.asp
Professor McKenna or Dr Poulter accepted bribes?
Skewed the questionnaire?
What?
Another pro-speeding troll made the same allegation but sadly ran away when he was asked for evidence.
I'm sure you won't run away bigblackboys.
Post your evidence here please, or admit you're a liar, as you prefer.0 -
When you're ready.0
-
Take your time0
-
Has anyone seen a copy of the questionnaire? The actual questions and answer options are sometimes interesting and do sometimes show a bias ie Ask the 'right' question to get the 'right' answer (I'm not implying that is the case here - I haven't seen the questionnaire).Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat... but the wind is mostly in your face!0 -
rothbook wrote:What does that have to do with the fact that no-one I asked mentioned driving?
The fact that your office straw poll, which you are plainly lying about, is not representative of the feelings of the general pubic, that's why you carefully avoided answering the question.
Now.
Prove me wrong.
City the local residents marching against "street scrotes" versus the residents I can cite marching against the kind of idiot boy racers you are so keen to defend.
I don't work in an office.
The people I work with are a fairly good cross section of the general public, albeit lacking in those too young or too old to work.
Your question was totally irrelevent to the point I was making.
I would never defend idiot boy racers.
Next!Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
rothbook wrote:Just not in the mood for his schoolyard name calling today,
Errr, what schoolyard name calling please?rothbook, twice wrote:bigblackboys
Grow up.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
rothbook wrote:There was no questionnaire, why are yoiu telling lies please?
43% of the population regarded speeding traffic as a 'very' or 'fairly big' problem in their area
So when over 7000 people were asked how bad the problem of speeding was, they all chose, despite having one of the most diverse languages in the world available to them, to answer either "very" or "fairly big"?
That doesn't sound like the results of a questionnaire, does it rothbook?
(Given you're a bit thick/deluded, I'll concede that to you, it may not ) Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
rothbook wrote:Post your evidence here please, or admit you're a liar, as you prefer.
You post the entire report, with questions asked, and background demographic stated, and once I've had a read, I'll comment specifically on it's legitimacy.
Or can't you prove that the findings that you want to use are of any value?
I'm sure using your logic that makes you a liar.
I wouldn't possibly suggest such a thing, I'm content to know that you are a cock instead. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
So when over 7000 people were asked how bad the problem of speeding was, they all chose, despite having one of the most diverse languages in the world available to them, to answer either "very" or "fairly big"?
Nope.
It was 17,000 and 43% answered in the way you mention.
Why are you telling lies please?
And why are you obsessed with big black boys?
You post the entire report, with questions asked, and background demographic stated, and once I've had a read, I'll comment specifically on it's legitimacy.
You mean you said the report was "skewed" but you now admit you have no idea what was in the report.
Why, that makes you a liar, as well as a strange pro-speeding goon who likes big black boys, how very rum.
So when over 7000 people were asked how bad the problem of speeding was, they all chose, despite having one of the most diverse languages in the world available to them, to answer either "very" or "fairly big"?
That doesn't sound like the results of a questionnaire, does it rothbook?
Errr, yes it does. You would have a series of answers : say very, fairly big, not much, none at all, that's how these things work. I'm surprised you've never come across this form of data collection before.
So, back to your claim that the University Of Reading corrupted the survey.
How's it going with your search for evidence?0 -
rothbook wrote:So when over 7000 people were asked how bad the problem of speeding was, they all chose, despite having one of the most diverse languages in the world available to them, to answer either "very" or "fairly big"?
Nope.
It was 17,000 and 43% answered in the way you mention.
Why are you telling lies please?
And why are you obsessed with big black boys?
You post the entire report, with questions asked, and background demographic stated, and once I've had a read, I'll comment specifically on it's legitimacy.
You mean you said the report was "skewed" but you now admit you have no idea what was in the report.
Why, that makes you a liar, as well as a strange pro-speeding goon who likes big black boys, how very rum.
So when over 7000 people were asked how bad the problem of speeding was, they all chose, despite having one of the most diverse languages in the world available to them, to answer either "very" or "fairly big"?
That doesn't sound like the results of a questionnaire, does it rothbook?
Errr, yes it does. You would have a series of answers : say very, fairly big, not much, none at all, that's how these things work. I'm surprised you've never come across this form of data collection before.
So, back to your claim that the University Of Reading corrupted the survey.
How's it going with your search for evidence?
You really ain't too bright are you sonny?
What's 43% of 17,000?rothbook wrote:There was no questionnaire, why are yoiu telling lies please?rothbook wrote:Errr, yes it does [sound like a questionnaire].rothbook wrote:So, back to your claim that the University Of Reading corrupted the survey.
I never made that claim, you have just proven yourself again to be a liar.rothbook wrote:How's it going with your search for evidence?
I never made any specific claim, so I do not need to search for any evidence.
I will say however, that if I wanted unbiased analysis of some data, I wouldn't approach someone who has a financial interest in the conclusion.
edit to add above smiley, and to add that you really are a childish cretin. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
You never quite summon up the courage to say what you mean, do you.
I will say however, that if I wanted unbiased analysis of some data, I wouldn't approach someone who has a financial interest in the conclusion.
Professor McKenna or Dr Poulter accepted bribes?
Skewed the questionnaire?
What?
Another pro-speeding troll made the same allegation but sadly ran away when he was asked for evidence.
I'm sure you won't run away bigblackboys.
Post your evidence here please, or admit you're a liar, as you prefer.0
This discussion has been closed.
