Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Oct 29, 2026 04:17

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 02:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
And don't forget the 99.6% performance is based on reported injuries -v- deaths. In the real world there are zillions of incidents that end in no injury or no impact and no report - yet all the fatalities are recorded. That probably makes the real ratio better than 99.95% survive.


Well yes, we've discussed this before in the 12mph thread. The greater the number of near-miss categoris you choose to include, the better the overall ratio looks.

SafeSpeed wrote:
If you look at the models in the Safe Speed forum threads cited earler, it appears to be hugely insufficient to brake before impact.


Well, WRT braking I did say usually, but OK there's probably more to it than that. But this isn't the point beign made in the report is it? It is noting that, whatever drivers think they do (in terms of speed adjustment) in the vicinity of child pedestrians isn't what they actually do. Nonetheless, it would seem that what they actually do does is still sufficient to mitigate the outcome in huge numbers of incidents.


My suspicion (no more than that) is that the kids in the experiment were not threatening enough to represent a 'real' danger in the drivers minds.

I know I'm aware as a driver of where pavement children's attention seems to be. If they were looking at someone on the other side of the road (for example) the alarm bells would ring loudly.

I'm guessing that if the experiment were re-run with such a scenario we'd see very different results.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 08:53 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
SafeSpeed wrote:
[My suspicion (no more than that) is that the kids in the experiment were not threatening enough to represent a 'real' danger in the drivers minds.

I know I'm aware as a driver of where pavement children's attention seems to be. If they were looking at someone on the other side of the road (for example) the alarm bells would ring loudly.

I'm guessing that if the experiment were re-run with such a scenario we'd see very different results.


Precisely. On a fairly wide road with few or no parked cars and good visibility, one can see children in good time and fiure out what they're going to do. It's the ones you can't see until it's too late that are the problem.
Anyway, IIRC, this study took place in New Zealand. Could it be that kids are better behaved there, and/or visibility on the roads is better?

Regards
Peter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
Rigpig wrote:
r11co wrote:
An alternative viewpoint. Could it be that this is indicative of the overreaction to circumstances some people exercise because they think they should rather than they know they need to


I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. If you're suggesting that, when questioned directly in a survey etc, people tend to say whatever they think the proper answer is, not what they actually belive, I'd agree.
If that's not what you meant, could you elaborate please - I'm a bit hard of understanding today :wink:


Sort of! What I was trying to say is that, due to 'peer pressure', risk of undue punishment, or simply misinformation, there is an expectation that we should behave in a certain way in certain circumstances whether it is necessary or not, and the real reason for the action gets forgotten, then it becomes an absolute rule that some people (for a lack of reasoned thought) follow.

The way some people in here trumpet always rigidly complying with the speed limit even although they and everyone else knows that driving conditions are not rigid and unchanging.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 13:25 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:35
Posts: 92
Location: Midlands
r11co wrote:
What I was trying to say is that, due to 'peer pressure', risk of undue punishment, or simply misinformation, there is an expectation that we should behave in a certain way in certain circumstances whether it is necessary or not, and the real reason for the action gets forgotten, then it becomes an absolute rule that some people (for a lack of reasoned thought) follow.


Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with very cold high-pressure water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result -- all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm!

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. None of the monkeys that are beating him have any idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not?

Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here.

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 01:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
Which is precisely why you should question everything!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 01:57 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
r11co wrote:
Which is precisely why you should question everything!


Right... Too many monkeys.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.020s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]