Over 30s Kill Children Say IAM
You'd think they'd know better, but the Institute of Advanced Motorists seem to have fallen victim to the 'drive under 30mph' and you're safe doctrine.
According to the IAM, drivers who allow their speed to "creep up" above 30mph on minor roads are unaware of the potentially fatal consequences.
In a confused message, IAM Chief Exec Christopher Bullock stated, "Statistics show that if you are driving within the 30mph speed limit, you are much less likely to kill a child. That’s not the case if you are going too fast. This is not a technical, legal matter, or a petty violation, but something that every driver should remember, especially on the approach to schools. ‘Speed kills’ is too simple a mantra. But inappropriate speed is certainly a potential killer. We welcome the introduction of hazard awareness by the Government into the L test. Existing drivers should recognise that every road with young pedestrians is full of potential hazards."
Mr Bullock cautioned that the growth of safety cameras may have a "de-sensitising" side effect on motorists. "I would hate to think that drivers under pressure are tempted to make up their time by putting their foot down when they are driving in areas without speed cameras. Speed limits only really work by consensus; drivers should watch their speed, whether or not they are going to be caught on camera," he said.
I think its relatively self evident that keeping to thirty or even driving well below that can be an important contribution to safety on a difficult road where pedestrians (and particularly children) have to interact with traffic.
Its absolute bollox to just state you are statistically less likely to kill a child at 30mph than 35mph. Depends what road you're on, doesn't it? Might as well say you are statistically less likely to kill a kid if you ate corn-flakes for breakfast.
Simple statements are for the simple-minded.
quote:Roberto Mixed-Fodder is of course right about this stats bullsh1te.. www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=18033&f=23&h=0
IAM Chief Exec Christopher Bullock stated, "Statistics show th....
>> Edited by CarZee on Tuesday 24th September 12:19
Sorry but I am an advocate of the 30 mph zone in built up residential areas. Thankfully I have never hit a child - or had a near miss - but have had near misses on several occasions with animals including cats, dogs, deer, and ducks. Never hit them because I was able to brake in time as I was not exceeding the speed limit of 30. OK so it is only an animal - but it could be someones pet cat or dog and all you parents out there should try thinking about how you are going to explain to your kid that the flat lump of fur in the road is their beloved Felix or Rover. Most experienced drivers are able to guage their speed in their car without looking at the speedo every few seconds.
However, this should not be targeted specifically at drivers. Parents seem to be getting increasingly slack when it comes to teaching kids about road safety.
Bring back the Green Cross Code man, it may have been a bit kitsch but I bet everyone remebers the rules...
Matt.
quote:
I think that what he is trying to say is that if a child is hit by a car doing under 30 it is likely to survive. If the car is exceeding 30 mph the chances are much higher of the child being killed.
However 2 tonne 4*4s with Bullbars on will kill a kid at a heckuva lot lower speed than that. And what do most parents use on the school run.....
As I have said a hundred times, stick a cop with a radar trap near the school at school run time, and see how many of the parents with the 'speed kills' slogan in their window get nicked
quote:
This is probably not a very well worded Press Release from the IAM.
I am convinced that this must be the case. I would be very dissapointed otherwise.
quote:
Sorry but I am an advocate of the 30 mph zone in built up residential areas
Don't be sorry. 30mph limits can be quite appropriate. So can 20mph, 15mph and 5mph limits. So can 50mph, 60mph and completely unrestricted limits be.
I would have preferred a statement along the lines of:
"Drivers travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions endanger not just their own lives but those of others, possibly children. Even Drivers who travel at under the 30mph limit can endanger children's lives on Housing Estates, residential streets and immediately outisde schools if they are not properly observing any and all hazards and remaining alert. Young children have little ability to judge speed and no understanding of the consequences of their actions. As adult drivers we have a duty to try to protect them from themselves - even if their parents don't keep them properly under control."
Or some such nonsense. Kids do just heave into the road without looking. They are kids. They do that. Its our job to avoid 'em. Where do you find kids? Streets, estates, villages etc. You don't find them on busy urban through routes that are often still 30mph.
Limits aren't bad in and of themselves - but they're a poor substitute for COMMON SENSE. Misapplication of limits for PC reasons is very bad.
quote:
However 2 tonne 4*4s with Bullbars on will kill a kid at a heckuva lot lower speed than that. And what do most parents use on the school run.....
As I have said a hundred times, stick a cop with a radar trap near the school at school run time, and see how many of the parents with the 'speed kills' slogan in their window get nicked
I could not agree more. This is an instance where the drivers should have COMMON SENSE and be travelling at an appropriate (and low) speed. Bet they don't - but who's to say so until we collect some evidence with a radar unit. Madcop?
however on an open road where you can clearly see all pedestrians and its a nice clear sunny day, 30 is not necessarily appropriate... and if i stick to 30 i usually see some parent in my rear view mirror in their 4x4 trying to ram my tvr off the road
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff