Safe Speed Forums

With 11,000 child pedestrians injured last year and 47 deaths in built up areas, clearly the vast majority of us are not striking them at the '20% die at 30mph' level - If we were it would have been well over 2,000 deaths.

But the proportion 47/11,000 = 0.42% is a massive overestimate of reality, because:

- Injuries are under-reported by around a factor of 3. (=30,000)
- Many accident don't result in an injury at all (another 20,000?)
- The vast majority of incidents result in no impact (another 200,000 perhaps)

Show me ONE SHREAD of evidence that a significant part of our road safety problems are caused by 'people driving far too fast' in urban areas.

I've been looking for well over 5 years, and I haven't seen one yet.

I think a cheaper way of doing it would be with GPS. Just programme the restricted area into each car's GPS receiver and as soon as it is inside that area, it could be made to slow down. Whether or not anyone would BUY a car like that is another matter entirely.

What? No reply to this? Why's that then?

If 30mph + braking + 13-15mph impact speed gives nasty injuries then 10-15mph + braking is first of all likely to avoid the impact in the first place, but if one does occur, it'll be less severe.

If you think 11,000 injuries (possibly 30,000 if the x3 is to be believed) is acceptable then I don't know what to say. Regardless of whether they're broken arms or permanent disabilities, limiting speed in urban areas to BELOW the point where serious injuries are highly likely given an incident, then this figure would tumble.

If 30mph + braking + 13-15mph impact speed gives nasty injuries then 10-15mph + braking is first of all likely to avoid the impact in the first place, but if one does occur, it'll be less severe.

My proposal have a lot more realism than your philosophy allowing drivers to do pretty much whatever they like.

They're not going to be half asleep in an environment like the aforementioned picture!!!!

That's very true (I would hope!!)

If the proportion of dead child pedestrians was even 5% you would be right. It isn't and you're not.

We're ALREADY operating our roads successfully on an entirely different set of parameters.

You only seem interested in deaths, what about injuries? Are they acceptable (in some of the more extreme cases I think death would have been a better alternative)

The whole thing is a logical fallacy. If the very best drivers would travel at 15mph in a situation like this, which is what we should all be aspiring towards...

Which of the following would you rather have if you had three options, all three being mutually exclusive:

Speed humps
Speed cameras
Speed limitation system

Would now be a good time to remind everybody of how successful Mondermann "Shared Spaces" have been?

The UK equivalent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_zone

and:

http://www.homezones.org.uk/

Designing for People and Vehicles
G13. The design of the Home Zone should make motorists feel that they are a “guest” in the street, and must
make it difficult for them to travel at speeds of more than 10 mph. Vehicles must be accommodated within
Home Zones as an integral part of daily life, but must share the space with people on foot.
G14. Home Zones must be designed to be accessible to, and usable by, disabled people of all types.
G15. Drivers usually expect to have priority over any part of the street between raised kerbs and therefore a
continuous raised kerb should not normally be provided throughout the Home Zone.
G16. Home Zones must be legible to blind and visually impaired people.
G17. The route for vehicles through a Home Zone should be as narrow as is practicable, with a minimum of
width of 3m.
G18. Home Zones must be designed to cater for occasional use by large vehicles.
Parking
G19. Some on–street parking should normally be provided in Home Zone streets.
G20. On–street car parking should be arranged so that it does not dominate views of the street or impinge
upon the other activities that will take place in a Home Zone.
G21. In new developments, the total amount (both on and off–street) of car parking to be provided in the
Home Zone should be determined from the number and type of dwellings and the application of the
appropriate parking standards.
G22. Opportunities for indiscriminate parking should be removed through the design and location of street
furniture, planting or other features, so that it is only possible to park within the designated on–street spaces.
Designing for Safety
G23. In locations where it is considered necessary to maintain visibility, a stopping sight distance of 12m
should be applied. Significantly longer views will encourage drivers to increase their speeds and should be
avoided where possible.
G24. Until further experience is gained, it is advised that speed control measures within Home Zones should
be provided at a spacing of up to around 30m.

Call that equivalent? It's just anti-car and very very sad.

From: http://www.homezones.org.uk/public/down ... ummary.pdf