the sensible majority wrote:
Your children are statistically far far more likely to be killed or hurt by the smartly dressed man in the suit, cutting through the nieghbourhood at 40mph in the 30mph limit that any of the people that give you nightmares.
On average, two women per week are killed by a male partner or former partner.
One incident of domestic violence is reported to the police every minute.
In 90% of domestic violence incidents, children were in the same or the next room. (British Crime Survey, 1992)
In over 50% of known domestic violence cases, children were also directly abused - NSPCC (1997) found a 55% overlap; Farmer & Owen (1995) found 52% overlap.
Domestic violence means children are likely to be hurt and damaged for life (mental scars). There's a greater danger from this than of the "man in the suit", especially if this man is paying attention to where he is going. Why do you assume that he is more dangerous than the over-worked mother with 3 kids messing about in the back that she has to keep taking her eyes off the road to look at? Or the man / woman who's been up all night working a late shift at the hospital / factory?
And why is he "cutting through" and not just driving? Immotive language can make you think your argument is being supported, but it's not.
If the children weren't in the road they wouldn't get hit, either. I'm a primary school teacher so don't say I have an uncaring / irresponsible attitude to children. If they are taught to walk on the pavement, cross at appropriate places and not play by the road the accident rates would fall. I see problems outside the school gates everyday, caused not by speed but by poor driving. Numerous cars parking (often illegally) in places that block visibility so crossing the road is even more dangerous. Turning in the road where children are crossing. Mounting the pavement - forcing some to go into the road, as well as endangering anyone on the pavement. The list goes on. But it's safe, because there's a 20mph limit! Rubbish, as I can testify as I was hit by a reversing parent recently. Not hard, and no-one was hurt. But if my hip was a 6 year-old child's head instead things would be different.
Yes, someone travelling at 40 is more likely to kill a child than if they hit them at 20. Yes, they need longer to stop. No-one here'll deny that, but if the conditions are appropriate and the driver is paying attention then 40 is no more dangerous than 20. You could argue the opposite, as other road users won't be getting frustrated, tailgating and overtaking, leading to being distracted from other dangers. I drive according to the conditions and don't want to be in fear of fines and driving bans for a few MPH. Next time you're out in the car, try driving without looking at the speedometer. I do, and I find I'm far more aware of any dangers and whilst I may creep over the limit, I often find I drive under it too when there's a hazard because I'm not thinking "30's the limit therefore I'm safe".
Speed limiters won't help. As another poster said, the national limit on motorways is 70 so you'd still be able to speed in towns. If they were fitted with GPS speed limiters to control speeds in towns there's still problems. E.g. not all systems are accurate all of the time, in all of the places. Imagine pulling onto an urban DC with a 70 limit, trying to accelerate but your speed limiter stops you at 30 and the traffic you should be merging in with merges into your rear bumper and causes a pile-up?
Speed isn't the problem, it's inattentiveness, poorly maintained cars and roads, a lack of education for drivers and pedestrians alike.
I feel like I've wasted my time typing this in a way, as most people who view it will agree with the general point I'm making. I just hope "sensible majority" sees the sense in it. [/b]
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
