Safe Speed Forums

Injured speedwatch volunteer vows to carry on
May 18, 2011

A 74-YEAR-old Speedwatch volunteer who was hit by a car that mounted a pavement in Guildford has said he is more determined than ever to help tackle speeding.
Brian Carroll was clipped by a car outside the Royal British Legion Club in Northway, Westborough, as he held a speed gun.
Mr Carroll, with three other volunteers, were finishing their Speedwatch operation just before 7.50pm on Thursday (May 5) when a black Lexus LS400 mounted the pavement and clipped the pensioner’s leg.
The driver continued to drive half on the pavement and half on the road before parking around 25 metres away and going into the club building.

Mr Carroll said: “I was holding the speed gun and facing the other way. All of a sudden, the other volunteers shouted, ‘Get out the way, Brian’. Then the car hit me in the back and the legs and carried on up the pavement.”
Mr Carroll, who said he was taking painkillers, added the incident had not put him off continuing as a volunteer.
“I’m more determined to get out there,” said Mr Carroll.
“We have to help keep the speed down, as you never know if a child could have been there.”

PC Joe McGregor, of the roads policing unit, said: “Thankfully, the Speedwatch volunteer was not badly injured as a result of this incident but the situation could easily have been a lot worse.
“While we are keen to speak to anyone who witnessed the collision, we also want to build up a picture of the manner in which the driver was driving prior to the incident.”

Anyone with information about the incident is asked to contact Surrey Police on 0845 125 2222, quoting reference GD/11/4379. Alternatively, call Crimestoppers anonymously and free of charge on 0800 555111.
A 67-year-old man from Guildford has been arrested in connection with this incident.
He has been released on bail to return to Guildford police station on Tuesday, June 28.

Has it really not occurred to them that speed does not sound like it was of any 'issue' in this instance.

The person went into a building after parking so it seems that perhaps they were (somehow) unaware that they had knocked someone.

Just how by checking people's speed, will this have prevented this incidence.

Assuming that they were wearing hi-vis attire just how much more visible could they have been ?

Nowhere in your quote is it claimed that the incident is speed related

“I’m more determined to get out there,” said Mr Carroll.
“We have to help keep the speed down, as you never know if a child could have been there.”

The fact that the driver was happy to drive onto the pavement suggests that he has very little regard for pedestrians and is quite likely to discount the incident, especially if his car was undamaged.

I think that the hi visibility was the cause of the accident. The driver, like so many on here, obviously dissaproves of Speed Watch and wanted to give the volunteer a fright. He probably only intended to frighten the volunteer but misjudged it

I cannot see your links here can hold true ? Many people park on pavements to allow room for all road users even if it has restricted some pavement width, but it maybe a best balance situation

Gosh that is a leap of assumption isn't it !

Whilst some people might disapprove of Speed Watch no one here has ever said that (that I am aware of), they wish any harm on those that carry out their very misguided purpose. Why might you assume that people here would ?

Get Surrey here

Not quite inattention, although how and where he is operating the equipment at the side of the road was clearly not safe and was putting himself in danger.

If a pedestrian cannot be safe - from cars - on the pavement where, on the highway, can he be safe

If a pedestrian cannot be safe - from cars - on the pavement where, on the highway, can he be safe

But this is the very point, rather than being a pedestrian only in one spot for a very minimal time frame they were there for extended periods

A pedestrian ought to be able to spend his entire life on the pavement without being in danger of being struck by a motor car.

A pedestrian ought to be able to spend his entire life on the pavement without being in danger of being struck by a motor car. That is the whole point of segregating the highway into carriageway - for vehicles - and pavement - for pedestrians. Your argument that a pedestrian is putting himself in danger by loitering at the same spot (on a pavement) is quite disengenouos.

Does that help you better understand my point?

Is it not true too that as a general 'rule' our hearing is less sensitive and less capable as we get older, so might also he have been less capable at hearing the close approach of a vehicle and hence his worried colleagues calls for concern, as he did nothing !