Safe Speed Forums

Er, that's what I was picking up on, which is why I said it was absurd, just a bit too obtuse in my description obviously!

Its the same argument as "but I was only parked there for three minutes" ignoring the fact that that's what everybody else says.

I've seen several other people use the 'they would have been somewhere else if faster/slower' claim, it always makes me cringe. It doesn't work because then you have to consider everyone else in the system who was missed who could now be hit.

Sorry Pete but that argument doesn't work!

I don't think I missed it at all; you seemed to be suggesting it didn't matter what speed you were going at if somebody steps out in front of you.

Since when were pedestrian collisions unavoidable

Should we reduce all roads where there can be pedestrians in them to 20mph?

There is no way I can believe that. If you really do believe it then I believe you are applying an element of your own thought process.

Smeggy, with respect, that would only be true if pedestrians constantly ran out in front of you. In reality, it's a very rare occurrence - it's only happened to me twice in 35+ years of driving (neither of them were hit) so it's nonsense to suggest that had I been at a different place at the time that I could have hit someone else. The odds against that are truly astronomical.

When you say "the public" who do you mean?

Magnificent post, Bombus.

People are running out in front of cars all the time, everywhere.

I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. Read my posting again - particularly the last sentence of the first part.

Given the above, you think the best way to prevent an undesirable outcome to this is to slow down drivers?

Again, we can't base the entire subject on one vehicle (i.e. yours).

People are running out in front of cars all the time, everywhere.

KSI rates are not the only idicator of the efficacy or otherwise of speed cameras. That's a blinkered viewpoint. Speeding is aggressive and anti-social and it drives vulnerable road users off the roads. That's why it would be interesting if this campaign now makes its agenda clear- does it support EVERYTHING that Smith said? Up and down the country residents are clamouring for reduced speeds in their neighbourhoods including mine. Selfish gits use my quiet residential road as their own personal racetrack and from my diect personal experience the installation of a camera soon stopped this. Although we know from published studies that accidents and injuries are reduced at camera sites after allowing for RTTM, we should not get sidetracked into thinking that coffins and wheelchairs are the manifestations of the ONLY impact that speeding has on peoples' lives. There's the increased noise. The fact that it discourages walking and cycling. It prevents old people from feeling safe as they cross roads, divides communities, is bullying, anti-social thuggery etc etc. KSI rates are not the sole arbiter of success or failure.

Smeggy, with respect, that would only be true if pedestrians constantly ran out in front of you. In reality, it's a very rare occurrence - it's only happened to me twice in 35+ years of driving (neither of them were hit) so it's nonsense to suggest that had I been at a different place at the time that I could have hit someone else. The odds against that are truly astronomical.

My risk, or lack of, in no way affects the risk of the next person.

Sumptuous.

Excellent post.

I think you should differentiate between the danger of hitting somebody, and the likely effect of hitting somebody.

Sure, the danger of hitting somebody who jumps out in front of you might not change according to your speed, but the effect of hitting them will.

Take it to an extreme, drive past a parked van at 30 mph and get somebody to jump out in front of you, then drive past at 70mph and get somebody to jump out in front of you.

You're going to hit them (rather they are going to hit you) in both cases, but I know which test I'd rather take part in!

Funny how those pro-camera types only focus on this post and disregard the subsequent posts that undo the logic of it.

Seeing that you still miss the point I'll put it another way. People should, and mostly do, slow down for dangerous situations, because of the danger. It's irresponsible to suggest that simply slowing down removes the danger, because it doesn't. It's not enough to simply slow down - one must be extra vigilant, and not take the attitude that just because they're going slowly that they're somehow safe and can therefore relax and enjoy the scenery. That was my whole point.

Given the above, you think the best way to prevent an undesirable outcome to this is to slow down drivers?

Yes.

Make drinking and walking illegal (do you know the percentage of pedestrians hitting cars that are "under the influence ?)
Make using mobile phones and walking illegal.
Make walking with your ears bunged-up with walkman/ipod earpieces illegal.

(do you know the percentage of pedestrians hitting cars that are "under the influence ?)