Safe Speed Forums

At 5mph you would be overtaken by some pedestrians, and cyclists would be tearing past.

Fisherman,

I know and respect your position, and that's not what I was arguing - although a minor point which could conceivably be argued is whether or not a 5mph limit is enforceable, but that's not my point, so I'm not arguing it.

The driver may or may not have been going too fast, that would have depended on the precise conditions at the time, his vehicle placement etc, things of which I have no knowledge - although an educated guess tells me that the accident was more down to inattentiveness on his part than anything else. But that's still not my point.

Perhaps the best way of illustrating my point is to say that if I found myself in a situation where, despite my best efforts, I was involved in a 'wrong place, wrong time' collision, and the prosecution tried to use that argument against me, I would fight it tooth and nail, because I'd have the immutable laws of physics on my side.

Cheers
Peter

If I recall correctly the testing was done in the actual car, in the same place, within an hour or so. From that the investigator came up with the 15 - 17 mph figure.

my guess is that the 5 mph limit was posted by the supermarket in an attempt to persuade drivers to keep to a walking pace. That seems (to me at least) to be entirely sensible in a crowded supermarket car park. Speaking for myself I could not justify travelling any faster than walking pace in that particular car park when it is busy. The local boy racers use it at night. I have no problems with them ignoring the 5 mph recommmendation then.

I realise there are all sorts of "what if" arguments that can be used in a situation like this. One thing that is certain, is that regardless of whether speed has anything to do with causing an accident, it has a lot to do with the amount of damage caused if there is a collision.

This particular driver was charged with careless driving. He was honest enough to admit, that with the benefit of hindsight, he was driving too fast for the circumstances. The mother spoke up for him and said that he had very little warning of the child running out. She said he had almost come to a halt when he hit the child. That reinforced the investigators view that, had he been at 5 mph there would have been no accident.

he got points and a fine. I don't remember the figures, but i am sure he was not disqualified.
He was very distressed in court and admitted he had been stupid to drive so fast and was lucky it had not been more serious.

Did nobody think to prosecute the parent for allowing his/her child to run into danger?

Safety is the responsibility of ALL road users.

I have already posted somewhere on this site, that I KNOW my children (8 and 12) DO NOT appreciate the dangers in car parks, of drivers looking for spaces to park in, instead of where they are going.

Consequently, my wife and I are constantly nagging them to take care, not to run around in the lanes, and to simply WATCHOUT.

Other parents should be made to do the same, the same as the car driver is expected to respect the speed limit!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

But that's precisely what's wrong with the system.

I do realise where you're coming from, and my argument is not with you.

However, if it so happened that he had killed the child - I have seen what a car's wheels going over a child at low speeds can do - and there had been no evidence that he had been going any faster than 5mph, would he have gotten off scot-free?
And, from what you describe, the actual impact speed was probably a good deal less than 5mph.
The driver who hit my mother and condemned her to a vegetative state for what remained of her life was also doing no more than about 5mph - and he got off scot-free, even though he failed to notice her walking in front of him before he pulled off.
My argument is against those who concoct fatally flawed arguments that make a connection between speed and accidents which simply doesn't exist, whilst turning a blind eye to the real killers.

Cheers
Peter

I have never tried to argue that speed causes accidents.

I have stated that speed is a major component in relation to damage caused when a collision occurs. This is simple physics. I know that there are lots of other variables, not least of which is the difference in weight between the colliding objects.
The fact remains that whatever damage you suffer if you are hit at 50 mph (for example) it will be less than the damage you would suffer if hit at 70 mph by the same vehicle. I am not suggesting that this fact should be used to impose ever lower limits, but it is something we ignore at our peril.

In the case I mentioned the driver himself was clear that he had been driving too fast for the conditions. His opinion was confirmed by the investigator.

lets not forget that this accident took place in a car park. Car parks are the only place where you can (for most of the time) GUARANTEE that there will be a mixture of moving cars and pedestrians. There are no pavements and whether its a small child behind an ordinary car or an adult behind a 4x4, both drivers and pedestrians are going to have very little warning of each others presence in any given place.

All those of us who were there to hear all the evidence are in no doubt that this accident could have been avoided if the driver had set a speed appropriate to the conditions.

And yes, the parent should have had better control of the child.
Anyone who knows how to ensure 100% control of pre school children 24 hours a day please tell the rest us ASAP.

Of course it is very difficult to drive really slowly (5 mph) for reasons stated already. In the same way it is impossible to ride a bike at less than 7 mph on the level with any degree of safety. 5 mph up a steep hill out of the saddle is possible but I need a lot of clearance when being overtaken as I can't keep a straight course!

The speed at impact is a big determinant of outcome, as you suggest.

But crashes don't 'suddenly happen' regardless of preconditions. Crashes happen when people make mistakes. Examination of accident stats reveals that average impact speeds are tiny compared with free travelling speeds.

It doesn't matter what view you take of overall crash stats - the picture is the same. Here's one example. We know that around 50% of pedestrians die in 30mph impacts - yet in the real world, in built up areas, for the last year on record the followin figures apply:

Child pedestrians:

injured: 14,000
killed: 58
percentage killed: 0.4%

With more than half of drivers exceeding 30mph at sample sites, why didn't 7,000 die?

The answer lies in the 'closed loop' speed regulation system that drivers use - they slow down in areas of danger and brake before impact. These behaviours are fundamental to the way that road safety works and are the reason that we didn't kill 7,000 child pedestrians in built up areas last year.

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

Paul,
I don't think we are too far apart. There is nothing in your last post that I disagree with.

I did give a hint about my view when I posted this.

Sure, but you did say:



Now if you had said "speed at impact" we would agree. but 'speed' as such? No way.

Crash frequency and severity of goverened by events in the psychological domain. The physics is entirely benign until a driver - usually more than one driver - makes a mistake. The pattern of crash severity and frequency cannot be explained in terms of physics - instead it must be explained in terms of 'degrees of driver error'. Have a look at this:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/ten.html

And consider this. Near misses outnumber crashes by 10:1 for some definition of near miss. If we average the collision speed of incidents we can see immediately that it's going to be under 10% of free travelling speed.

The physics models just aren't anywhere near realistic enough to be useful. That's THE fundamental flaw in 'speed kills' road safety policy.

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

Fisherman - care to comment on my post?

There was nothing tongue in cheek about it - it is only fair AND sensible to use the courts to ensure everyone plays their part.

In the US, such prosecutions are possible and happen.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Sadly, I am not able to reply.
As a serving JP, it is OK for me to post on a forum that disagrees with the law, as long as I stick to facts about the way the justice system works.

Now that this forum is clearly advocating civil disobedience and encouraging drivers to obstruct a major road, regardless of the possible consequences to emergency service vehicles that may need to use that road to save lives, it is no longer possible for me to participate.

As ALL magistrates say at one time or another, I have to uphold the law as it is, not as I or others might like it to be.

We're not doing that. We're arranging a fully legal, 'white collar' organised non obstructing protest. I'm contacting the local Police today to ask for their asistance. I expect we'll run the protest drive at 56mph in L1+L2 only.

No civil disobedience.

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

The simple answer: "reins".

I'm not saying they should be a legal requirement, but some road safety adverts promoting their benefits in a suitably graphic way would be a great idea. We found them a Godsend when ours were at that stage.

About 3 years ago I was driving down the bottom end of Market Street in Ulverston, which is narrow and cobbled. Totally out of the blue, and displaying an amazing turn of speed, a toddler shot out of a shop doorway and straight in front of my car. Fortunately I was only travelling at about 10mph and was able to stop well short and with no fuss or drama. About 10 seconds later Mother ran out of the shop too, collected up the child and then came to remonstrate with me for "driving like a maniac", notwithstanding the fact that I had been stationary for the entire time I had been in her view!

I never thought about it at the time, as we didn't have such things here then, but what if there had been a speed camera there, and I'd been driving at 29mph on the wet setts (cobbles), checking my speedo...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

What happens if you're crawling round a supermarket car park at a rough 5mph, stop suddenly for an errant child and someone wheels a trolley into the back of your car?

Further to my previous post about advance warning of speed limits - I noticed this morning that the offending signs at Eaglescliffe on the A67 have changed to having a black outer circle instead of a red one. Maybe someone in authority realised their mistake!

Personally I quite like it when you have warning signs about a speed limit - when I drove back from Edinburgh using the A roads because M8 was closed they had warning signs before the actual limit started, and the actual limit start was where it really needed to start not 200 yards before. This was incredably useful for a visiting motorist, Such a contrast with England where the signs appear to be creeping further and further away from their old locations encouraging more and more contempt for their locations.

Surely the 5 mph limit cannot be enforcable if UK cars are allowed to have speedos that only start at 10mph? This one for example ... http://www.edmunds.com/media/roadtests/firstdrive/2004/subaru.sti/04.subaru.sti.dsh.500.jpg comes from a properly certified UK spec car, and there is no way that the driver of this car can drive at 5mph.