Safe Speed Forums

Caught this on CBBC News websiew (also mentioned on Newsround):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_3680000/3680677.stm

Kids to name dangerous streets

Updated 03 May 2004, 15.50


Kids are being asked to name and shame the streets which are the most dangerous for them to cross.
Children up to the age of 16 are being asked to nominate their nightmare street which has bad - or non-existent - crossings.

Holly, 13, from Bath, said of her worst street: "The traffic is bad. There's a zebra crossing but some cars go past even though you are standing there."

More details on www.transport2000.org.co.uk or www.livingstreets.org.co.uk


Click to try our road safety quiz
Once children have nominated their dangerous streets, the 'winner' will be named in September 2004.

Whoever put forward the winning street will get help from the two organising groups, Transport 2000 and Living Streets, to get something done to make it safer for kids and adults.

Miss the green man

A spokesman for Living Streets said: "Walking to school is one of the best ways for kids to get exercise. But they're only going to walk if they can do so safely.

"There are still some bad crossings near schools where you almost miss the green man if you blink. We need to identify these bad crossings so we can make them safer for school children."

To find out more, visit the Transport 2000 and Living Streets website links on the right of this page.


It is outrageous that the BBC should be promoting the blatantly anti-car and POLITICAL viewpoints of T2000 and Living Streets. If they were to promote the views of Labour, Lib Dems or Tories they'd get shouted down and quite rightly so, but this stinks, the more so in that it's aimed straight at children.

What can be done about this?

You may term it indoctrination but educating children by giving them road safety information can only be a good thing.

How would you phrase a complaint against it?

_________________
It's Champion Man

Eeh Bah Gum! Chumpion Mon!

For once I agree with you on this one point (must be ill )

Looked at the site asking HC questions and nothing wrong there - common sense. Anything that makes a child speed and road aware cannot be wrong!

I have 4 children - aged 16 to 6. We also have foster children. we make sure that all these children understand speed, roads and we really really try to make sure that they understand the Green Cross Code and all aspects of road safety. We hammer road safety into these children and our older children do know that they must prove to us that they have road sense before we will consider teaching them how to drive a car! We may be anti-Gatso - but we are neither blinkered nor really daft!

I would agree that too many fail tp acknowledge zebra crossings, and if the schools and the children notify the authorities that pelican crossings need a re-set on timing - then no problem with that either!

I may like to drive my car fast - and I am not daft enough to suggest I never ever break a speed limit - because I know I do! It can be for variety of reasons - road surface, camber of road ... So long as error is corrected - no problem. But PC Gatso does not see it that way as he is and likes to make money! That is why I am so opposed to this method of so-called road safety. It is a zero! Does nothing to educate the motorist. All it does is alienate as the Gatsos are erected at safe stretches of road where a slight discrepancy hurts no-one apart from the driver and his licence. It comes across as lip-service to road safety and means of reducing number of cars on road. Surely - better solution is to make driving licence harder to obtain But then - £240 from qualified motorists who drive 1-5mph over the posted limit is obviously less lucrative! Wait until we are unable to earn and pay direct taxation, taxes on fuel, VAT on services and other motoring sundries and then see increased local and national taxations to pay for so-caleld subsidised public transport. And this will impact on on our long-hours policy - buses are in very short supply after 6pm

In fact, I am facing £400 pa on school bus fees for my own children and further £400 for a foster child - and that is just to comply with my legal obligation to educate them!

A good, well trained BiB on other hand, will look at whole picture. So - may get lecture and ticking off - but at least preferable to points and potential ban if really unlucky


Chumpion - mate - you need to look at whole picture!

Hmm, doesn't seem such an outrageous thing to me. They're increasing children's awareness of road safety. OK, sure, another street is going to get awful humps and a blanket speed limit where variable limits would be a better idea, but if it 'wins' the award of the most dangerous street, then surely it's one of the more worthy candidates for this treatment!?

I don't think this is anti-car at all, it's not as though they are telling children that driving/drivers are evil, nor are they saying (thankfully!) that excess speed makes the roads dangerous.



Drivers doing that are breaking the law (I think), and certainly if that is happening on roads outside schools then something ought to be done about it.

Overall, the scheme sounds like a reasonably good idea. Road safety seems to be completely absent in the curriculum as it is, so anything helps!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Well, it looks like I'm in a minority on this one!

I do have no problem at all with getting the road safety message over to children - why, I have 2 myself and no desire to be scraping up strawberry jam. However, if the children targetted by this campaign follow the links to Dying Streets and Transport 1900, they'll soon be getting the message that "it's all the fault of those horrible car drivers" that colours anything and everything that those 2 organisations put out.

Frankly, I look forward to this campaign dying on its feet, but I reiterate my surprise that the BBC should be allowing its children's news channels to be used in this way.

Heh, the BBC are the government's playthings, don't forget!

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

This is something new from Trainspotter 2000. They actually seem to be suggesting that speed reductions are not a solution for all road safety issues after all. There's just a hint that engineering improvements can sometimes be better. I'm not sure if it's a case of credit where it's due, or broken clocks being right twice a day. Give 'em the benefit of the doubt for once, I say.

I don't agree with placing cameras in non-accident sites. In fact I deplore it. But I do support the placing of the cameras on accident related sites and this is the practise in most safety camera areas. The evidence for this is the removal of the legacy cameras deployed before the Safety Camera Rules were formed. This was presented by some of the anti-camera press as Chief Police Officers turning against cameras but you should read more into this as I am certain they were told to remove them by DfT.


I do see a large picture but tend not to post it all in one thread.

_________________
It's Champion Man

Hmm! You do not know LanCASH£re (as now being called ) then! They have openly admitted on "lancashireonline" and "prestononline" that they have "interpreted the rules loosely." Slight bump and no injuries - they place a scam. Another of their fave tactics is to reduce speed limit on dual carriageways with no known accident history, not inform the locals of proposed change, offer no explanations at all - then enforce with scams, mobiles, talivans etc. Cousin based in Lancashire Hill country is currently bombarding the Chief CON with localised petitions and letters - and gets standard reply! Then - they like to make even more money by inviting very marginal discrepancies to a "Speed Awareness Course" - and rumours have it that the afternoon"drive" is spent in a cafe - and not on the road! Reps at wife's firm got invite and say they spent most of the afternoon in the local Asda cafe. Not really teaching them how to drive at slower pace - is it? Money for old rope!

Brunstromia? Another member of this family is based there. She sees talivans parked up in the 30mph zone immediately before the NSL speed limit. They catch too many as they start to accelerate on sight of the NSL lollipop. That is not in accident zone, nor is that accident prevention. It is pure revenue raising!

DfT asked for audit of the scameras as it is now politically hot potato. They wrote to the prats and asked them if they were erected according to guidlines. Unsurprisingly, the prats informed them they were! Then we had the story of some London ones being replaced by Smileys and Frowneys! Then the Norfolk story. (The Prats said they were all genuine scams?)

Manchester is a recent Pratnership. So far - they have reduced ideal 40mph roads to 30mph, removed a couple of well-positioned speed cameras at blackspots correctly identified by Manchester's trafpols and placed a truvelo at bottom of a gradient on road which has not seen any accidents according to guidelines. How do I know this for certain? Because my aunt and grandmother live nearby!

And as for claims that these "save lives" - not seen any evidence to support this. Know this from my profession, from my colleagues and from the A&E consultant in this family who is based in busy London hospital. Too many still happen on the scammed roads - in vicinity of scam - cannot say whether or not this is down to being too mithered about speed and braking for the scamera or not. (reminds me - must dig out that article in "Mail")

So no - Chumpion - do not believe for one moment that the Prats are playing fair and square with us! Know from personal experience as ex-Brake member how low they can stoop!