Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Jun 19, 2026 23:51

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Another typical reaction
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 00:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
From:
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/ ... ragedy.htm

Quote:

THE FAMILY of a little girl killed in an accident near her home in Rochdale have revealed they came close to suffering a second tragedy.

Just two weeks after his two-year-old sister Amama Batool died after being hit by a vehicle in Cook Street, Zain Shah, aged five, collided with a car when he ran out onto the road. He was lucky to escape with a cut to the neck.

Now the family, still struggling to get over the loss of their daughter, have added their voices to the growing campaign for traffic calming measures to be built in local streets.

Father, Tahir Ali Shah, said: “We’re all still deeply upset by what has happened. Every day we go to the tree where the flowers and teddy bears have been laid and cry for her.

“When Zain was hit on Sunday we couldn’t believe this had happened again. He had been holding onto his grandfather when he dashed into the road and collided with a car.

“He was lucky he wasn’t badly hurt, but it just shows how badly we need traffic caliming measures on these streets. We’re praying that this doesn’t happen to any other family.”


More than 100 members of the local community have signed a petition asking for speed bumps put on Roch Street and Cook Street, which are used by drivers as a rat run between Albert Royds Street and Halifax Road.

Tragedy

Christina Abrey, of Bishop Street, said: “My nephew Kaine knew Amama and when he heard what happened he told me his friend had died. When you hear a six-year-old child saying things like that it really brings the tragedy home to you.

“From 5pm these streets become a major rat run and everyone is worried about the traffic.”

Zulfiqar Hussein, also of Bishop Street, said: “We’re not saying that cars shouldn’t come down here. We’re saying they should be careful.

“We’ve been saying speed bumps should be put on these streets for years. Other streets are dangerous, such as the junction of Bishop Street and Canon Street.”

Councillor Jean Ashworth said: “I believe every estate should have traffic calming measures.

“The council has said traffic calming will be put in when Dale Mill is redeveloped, but more children could be killed in the meantime.”

Police arrested a 49-year-old man from Norfolk on suspicion of causing Amama’s death by dangerous driving. He was bailed until 12 October pending further inquiries.

Gez Wood, from Rochdale Council’s strategic housing service, said: “We’ll be installing traffic calming measures on residential streets in this area to accompany the development of housing on the former Dale Mill site. We would be looking to do all the streets from the Dale Mill site to Halifax Road.

“As a result of recent incidents we’re looking at ways to bring forward this part of the scheme so works can be carried out as soon as is practical.

“Members of the Wardlewirth and Hamer renewal area panel, officers and ward councillors take concerns about traffic management very seriously and are keen to resolve concerns when they are raised.”


Usual crap.

1. Child is poorly supervised and ill-educated in road safety.
2. Drivers blamed.

I'm sure not one of the 100 residents who petitioned for the installation of the humps exceeds the limit anywhere else... :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 08:31 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
But of course you CAN'T blame the parents for not supervising their children properly - I meen what do you expect - for them to be watching the toddler 24/7? :D

I've seen something similar to this, but thankfully not so tragic when I lived in south manchester. There was a young asian woman lived two doors down, and on several occasions her toddler was found wandering about on the main road at the end of the street - and we're not just talking a local main road, this was one of the major routes in and out of the city centre...

As tragic as it is, I wish these people would learn that there's only 1 person (or 2 maybe) to blame for the death of an unsupervised baby...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 08:58 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
This is astonishing. Having suffered the tragedy of losing one child there (quite possibly to a genuinely bad driver if the fact the police arrested them is anything to go by) you'd expect any rational parent or other adult responsible for a sibling to make bloody sure they stay out of the road, and yet this lad managed to run out in front of a car. And having allowed him to do so they blame the car and demand traffic calming to make up for their inadequate control, which is equally daft as there's no guarantee at all that a child won't run into the road and get knocked down in the middle of a traffic calming scheme. People need to realise that traffic calming is simply no substitute for road users behaving responsibly, and that includes pedestrians.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:15 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
I have to admit that this is one of the (many) issues that I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about. Motorists are prosecuted when we don't obay the rules, so why shouldn't that extend to all road users (ie pedestrians and cyclists)? I meen, when you're approching a red light at a pedestrian crossing and someone crosses the road in front of you, 20ft from the crossing for instance, and then glares at you expecting you to stop? If there's a crossing there it should be used, and fines should be issued for any pedestrian who disrupts the flow of traffic or causes a hazard by not obaying the highway code. I know its been said before on this site, but pedestrians should be held responsible for their actions when using the roads just like the rest of us, and in the case of a minor, then the parents should be held responsible.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 20:28
Posts: 1267
Location: not too far in front, not too far behind.
I'm sure the cost of humps etc. would outweigh the cost of fences on the pavements - why don't we have more fenced pavements? Is there a reason why pavements can't be fenced on the majority of roads?

Thinking about it, the only reason I can think of is that the areas around the fence gaps would attract more parked cars, as no-one would want to walk 30 yards more to get to their own car.

And residential streets would be a nightmare.

Oh, alright, it wasn't a perfect idea, I'll get my coat.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
handy wrote:
Is there a reason why pavements can't be fenced on the majority of roads?

because it would kill lots of bikers.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:48 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 20:28
Posts: 1267
Location: not too far in front, not too far behind.
johnsher wrote:
handy wrote:
Is there a reason why pavements can't be fenced on the majority of roads?

because it would kill lots of bikers.


can you expand on this? Is it because there is more hard street furniture to hit on leaving the saddle, or is there a specific danger of fenced pavements to bikers?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 17:25
Posts: 94
handy wrote:
Is there a reason why pavements can't be fenced on the majority of roads?


Because people would have to climb fences to cross roads.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:58 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
handy wrote:
can you expand on this?

just another thing that has the potential to stop you rather abruptly.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:06 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
millsee wrote:
handy wrote:
Is there a reason why pavements can't be fenced on the majority of roads?


Because people would have to climb fences to cross roads.


And they already do that, even if there is a crossing 20ft away. Talk about survival of the fittest :evil:

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 19:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
More than 100 members of the local community have signed a petition asking for speed bumps put on Roch Street and Cook Street, which are used by drivers as a rat run between Albert Royds Street and Halifax Road.

Now - thats exactly the same story that pratnerships round my way use to site a mobile camera without any KSI figures.

Just two weeks after his two-year-old sister Amama Batool died after being hit by a vehicle in Cook Street, Zain Shah, aged five, collided with a car when he ran out onto the road. He was lucky to escape with a cut to the neck.

Question to be asked now is, will Social Services investigate, will anyone be brought to task??
Now if the parents had left the child alone in the house and a fire broke out......................

Strange how it is always the driver to blame, never the parents.

Compare this with the cases of the cot death mothers?
One death possible - two against all the odds - ok they were later released on unsafe convictions - but in this case negligance on two occasions???
Pity there wasn't a charge of parenting without due care and attention , or dangerous parenting.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 07:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
botach wrote:
Strange how it is always the driver to blame, never the parents.


Because that means that the parents would have to take responsibility for their children. Look at the mess our schools are in, ASBO's etc. If the parents actually controlled their children, society would be in much less off a mess.

Thats Political Correctness for you.

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 13:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 18:19
Posts: 90
Location: East Yorks
I'm not sure we know enough here. Traffic calming measures would be no good if the vehicle was already travelling at 20 mph. Quotes like 'it's a rat run' don't tell you what speed the vehicle hit the child at, or was travelling at when the child ran into the road. It may be that the driver didn't notice the hazard (small child) and was travelling at an inappropriate speed. In which case, I have little sympathy for the driver. On the other hand, the child may have run into the side of the car. What other factors are at play here? Parked cars obscuring views? Drivers using the side roads to avoid speed cameras on the main roads? It doesn't seem like the child was unattended, but was holding the grandfather's hand when he suddenly decided to cross the road.

We live right on a main road, and I have to say, it's not always practical to hold our 5 year old's hand all the time, especially when walking the dog and holding the hand of our 2 year old at the same time. We have tried to drum the green cross code into him, and he's usually pretty good about it, but that's not to say he couldn't ever walk out into the road. If he was knocked over by a driver who was travelling too fast and not paying attention, I dare say, I would be angry and upset about it too. If he was knocked over by a driver driving at an appropriate speed and who did an emergency stop as soon as practicable, then I would still be angry and upset, but I wouldn't direct it at the driver.

If a large number of drivers are driving at an inappropriate speed down that road, then I dare say, some changes are necessary.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 14:36 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Teepee wrote:
It doesn't seem like the child was unattended, but was holding the grandfather's hand when he suddenly decided to cross the road.

Reins or a wriststrap might have helped. Not like they're hard to find. I've mentioned this before but after the Jamie Bulger killing it seemed like every kid under 8 was on one or the other in public places before parental fears slowly subsided and they all got put away in cupboards. It'd be interesting to know what the pedestrian casualty figures for that age group were like during this time.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 15:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 18:19
Posts: 90
Location: East Yorks
They do help, but they're not foolproof. I sometimes use them with the 2 year old, but it's nigh on impossible with a 5 year old. They have to grow up at some time, so it's a case of trying to make them aware of the dangers. It's the responsibility of both parents and drivers IMHO. Both have a lot to lose by not acting responsibly.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 13:52 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 16:28
Posts: 2
The reason rat runs are so popular is that the major throughfairs have been slowed down so much that the ratruns are now quicker. Open up the major roads to make the flow of traffic quicker and the use of ratruns will decrease.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 18:53 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
voyds9 wrote:
The reason rat runs are so popular is that the major throughfairs have been slowed down so much that the ratruns are now quicker. Open up the major roads to make the flow of traffic quicker and the use of ratruns will decrease.


Totally agree .

Driving through a 20mph estate, with bumps and parked cars, Mrs B and never fail to wonder at the age of the kids we see playing in the street - some as young as two years old --I know it's dead easy to say "our kids never were allowed out at that age " - they weren't.
Often wonder what would happen if Social Services/Hospital Staff were to start taking an active interest( assuming they had the staff) in injuries to kids on roads and questioning the fact that the kid was allowed to be playing/or outside the property, with no secure gate,etc, never mind with supervision.Just as they would if kid had an injury in the house.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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 : 0.032s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]