British logic...

[Gizenshya]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8406569.stm

This just in: A 20-year British study confirms that driving at only 20 mph does indeed decrease both the number of crashes and the number of total injuries from traffic accidents. (duh!)

Now they are going to go around making more 20 mph zones! ahahahahahahaha

I can't wait till the results of their 50-year, 5 mph results come in! :D

Ohh, and they are anxiously awaiting to see how much their "arrest everyone for life from birth" reduces crime rates for those never exposed to anyone else!

seriously, though, I can't see how they keep a straight face discussing stuff like this :P

[lisati]

It almost sounds like the specialist who learns more and more about less and less and eventually knows all there is to know about nothing at all.

[Tony Flury]

The point is that the impact (in terms of time) of keeping to 20mph - rather than 30mph in heavily residential areas is not particular significant, but the fatal/serious accident rate decreases significantly.

Driving 1 mile in a 30 zone will take 2 minutes, Driving the same 1 mile in a 20 zeone will take 3 minutes - you loose one minute per mile (big deal leave earlier), but you reduce the risk of serious injuries by 40% - sounds like a good deal to me.

[ukripper]

The point is that the impact (in terms of time) of keeping to 20mph - rather than 30mph in heavily residential areas is not particular significant, but the fatal/serious accident rate decreases significantly.

Driving 1 mile in a 30 zone will take 2 minutes, Driving the same 1 mile in a 20 zeone will take 3 minutes - you loose one minute per mile (big deal leave earlier), but you reduce the risk of serious injuries by 40% - sounds like a good deal to me.

I agree to it! Number of times i have seen cars going at 30 miles an hour on really cramped residential streets, just because speed limit is 30 so why not push it until someone gets hit - Too late for senses to return back, the person is dead. 20 miles in London residential area is fair and should duly be applied. Even if people get hit at 20 miles there is 30% less chance to die than at 30 miles hit.

In America it is different they have wide roads and streets. But London ain't same.

[issih]

The pedestrian safety argument is true...and I fully support having 20mph or slower zones around schools, hospitals, care homes, etc, etc. But for more general areas, I do think that 30mph is fine.

For all of this however something that is far far more important than any study would be actually enforcing the existing limits..

Almost no one travels at 30 in a 30 zone..its treated as meaning 35 to 40mph, and that is somehow socially acceptable. If we fix that, then things will be much better. If you must speed, do it on the motorway, where the increase in risk to others is minimal. The limit is low in residential areas as a balance so that if a pedestrian is hit they have a reasonable chance of survival.

In fact given that limits are thoroughly ignored, I'd question the validity of the study anyway, and if this is an attempt to get people to travel at 30 by pretending the limit is 20, then thats just sad.

Oh...quite agree with the above, sometimes 30 is too fast for the road and conditions...and those areas could easily have a 20mph limit, but I'd much rather that driving lessons didn't teach people that they should get up to the speed limit asap....the attitude is the biggest problem

[RabbitWho]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8406569.stm

This just in: A 20-year British study confirms that driving at only 20 mph does indeed decrease both the number of crashes and the number of total injuries from traffic accidents. (duh!)

Now they are going to go around making more 20 mph zones! ahahahahahahaha

I can't wait till the results of their 50-year, 5 mph results come in! :D

Ohh, and they are anxiously awaiting to see how much their "arrest everyone for life from birth" reduces crime rates for those never exposed to anyone else!

seriously, though, I can't see how they keep a straight face discussing stuff like this :P

Don't be such an idiot. 20 milie an hour zones are places where children play/ cross the road. If a child is hit at 20 miles an hour they have 10 times the chance of surviving than if they are hit at 30 mph.
The place where driving at 20 miles an hour causes deaths/accidents is on a motorway or main road. This is obviously not where they are introducing the low speed limits.

Also.. and it's mindboggeling to me that you need this explained to you because it's so incredibly obvious.. the people driving at 20 miles an hour in a 70 mile an hour zone get run into by the people driving at the normal speed.
If it's a 20 mile an hour zone everyone is driving at the same speed so it's not going to cause any more car accidents between cars.

[issih]

Don't be such an idiot. 20 milie an hour zones are places where children play/ cross the road. If a child is hit at 20 miles an hour they have 10 times the chance of surviving than if they are hit at 30 mph.
The place where driving at 20 miles an hour causes deaths/accidents is on a motorway or main road. This is obviously not where they are introducing the low speed limits.

Also.. and it's mindboggeling to me that you need this explained to you because it's so incredibly obvious.. the people driving at 20 miles an hour in a 70 mile an hour zone get run into by the people driving at the normal speed.
If it's a 20 mile an hour zone everyone is driving at the same speed so it's not going to cause any more car accidents between cars.

The OP wasn't saying that at all... It was comedic reductio ad absurdam, with sitting still on a sofa causing no accidents as the "logical" end point, and to be honest there is a point in that...Slower = less accidents is bloody obvious.

Less obvious is how the balance of dangerous/fatal accidents changes at different speeds for various categories of road users and pedestrians.

[mivo]

seriously, though, I can't see how they keep a straight face discussing stuff like this :P

It's almost as good as having "I *HATE* Macs" and "Free your mind" in the same signature. :)

[ukripper]

It's almost as good as having "I *HATE* Macs" and "Free your mind" in the same signature. :)

:lolflag: Now that was funny!

[Paqman]

The kind of places that they're switching to 20mph zones are the kind of places you should be driving at about that speed anyway ie: residential areas with narrow streets, lots of parked cars and kids running about.

It may be "obvious" that lower speed = less accidents, but the road safety policy should be backed up by actual evidence, even if the results do turn out to be in line with common sense.

[73ckn797]

For all of this however something that is far far more important than any study would be actually enforcing the existing limits..

That is what is needed. Then you have to deal with hiring more law enforcement to be able to monitor every street. That means increased taxes to pay for them.

Another solution would be to make the fines/penalties very harsh for any infractions. Maybe people would think twice ....... NO! People would never implement common sense (which is a contradiction in terms since it does not seem to be very common these days).

[Gizenshya]

idiot? easy now, rabbit! I was just poking fun :)

what I was trying to point out was that there was never any mention about any other factors. The slower the speed, the fewer the injuries. Yes. This study quantified that (though, as issih mentioned, with possibly skewed results). What the study doesn't say is what all driving 33% slower changes. Increased pollution, and thus asthma rates, cancer rates, allergies, and blah blah. Increased time on roads, leading to significantly worse traffic jams, and reduced per capita work output. It could reduce the appeal of the city (or cities), and lead to a general level of happpiness decreasing. It would reduce the amount of time family members meaningfully spend with eachother. I could sit here and list a hundred things that would also change by such legislation (or increase in these slow areas).

I'm not saying that these things absolutely negate or outweigh changing the speed limits, or that any one of them in particular would actually be affected... I'm merely pointing out that these things were not considered at all. To make any meaningful decision, all these things (and many, many more), would also need to be studied and quantified. Then, and only then, would the powers that be have enough information to make an informed decision. Anything else, IMHO, is little more than playing craps with the lives of real people.

[xpod]

Our street in South East London is a 20MPH zone but it does practically nothing to slow down the majority of drivers.Some are doing far in excess of 30MPH, never mind the 20MPH limit.
A teenager was actually killed here 2 weeks ago.He was coming out of the school at the bottom of the road when the speeding driver killed him instantly.At the rate most drivers come off the roundabout down there though i`m surprised it`s been the only fatality in the year+ we`ve now lived here.Even all the big signs requesting witnesses to a fatal accident(not what i`d call it) does nothing to curtail the speeds.

[Gizenshya]

PS: I hate you mivo! (though I lol'd!)

and I singled out the brits because it was their study, and their article :p

Unfurtunately, the logic isn't British. It is human nature.

I agree with the attitudes comments. People change when they are on the roads. I think "wreckless" driving laws aren't enforced enough as well.

Ohh, and yeah. I also see another logical fallacy I'm constantly annoyed with. Lawmakers all seem to hold the belief that "if something is illegal, people won't do it." As much as I would like that to be true, and as unfortunate as it is, I strongly feel that lawmakers should take that into consideration when making laws. It is a fact of life that is often never taken into consideration, and I think laws have the potential to be more effective if that phenomenon was taken into account.

Well, my original post may have also contained a little errant yankee arrogance... all in good fun, though.

[issih]

We have very heavy punishment for getting caught already (speed 4 times and you lose your license) and no it doesn't work.

The best fix would be for the government to exert as much influence as possible to make it socially unacceptable to speed...although that message is a very hard one to push.

[RabbitWho]

idiot? easy now, rabbit! I was just poking fun :)

I responded in the same tone as your original post!




what I was trying to point out was that there was never any mention about any other factors.
Because it's obvious.
Let me simply this and put it in another context so you will realise how silly you look:

"We're making asbestos illegal."
"HA HA! British logic! They make asbestos illegal and now peoples houses won't be fireproof! hahhahaha"
"Asbestos causes cancer."
"I know, the point I was trying to make was that they didn't mention that asbestos caused cancer."

[Gizenshya]

Well, I'm not really sure what to say to that, rabbit. should I apologize for not being clear, or for your lack of humor? ;)

seriously, though. you don't believe me? ok. Thank you for informing me.

Your analogy was horrible, btw.

[SuperSonic4]

We have very heavy punishment for getting caught already (speed 4 times and you lose your license) and no it doesn't work.

The best fix would be for the government to exert as much influence as possible to make it socially unacceptable to speed...although that message is a very hard one to push.

They've done it for drink-driving and seatbelts so it can be done.

The biggest menace on our roads (like on our streets) is chavs

[Gizenshya]

isn't that british slang for an std?

[ukripper]

The biggest menace on our roads (like on our streets) is chavs

:P No doubt! Drunk disorderly

[ukripper]

isn't that british slang for an std?

Way to go chavs with crabs/std!;)

[gn2]

~ I singled out the brits because it was their study, and their article :p ~

I'm British, that article was nothing to do with me......

[Paqman]

what I was trying to point out was that there was never any mention about any other factors.

Just because they weren't within the scope of a particular study, doesn't mean they weren't part of the decision making process.

[RabbitWho]

Your analogy was horrible, btw.


like your face!

[forrestcupp]

I thought they used kilometers per hour in the UK.


Don't be such an idiot. 20 milie an hour zones are places where children play/ cross the road. If a child is hit at 20 miles an hour they have 10 times the chance of surviving than if they are hit at 30 mph.
So they need to up the speed limit to 55 mph on city streets so the children will be too afraid to play in the streets. Eliminate the pedestrians, eliminate pedestrian accidents. ;)


I did enjoy the argument that slower speed limits causes more pollution. :lol:

[nothingspecial]

I thought they used kilometers per hour in the UK.




Nope, we use miles.

And feet, and inches.

And stones, and pounds.

The powers that be try to stop us, but I haven`t a clue how many kilos I weigh.

And I just sold my car because I`m sick of sitting in the stupid thing and paying through the nose for the privilege. I`m going to get me a scooter (possibly)

[ukripper]

I have driving licence since 5 years but got no car. I don't feel the need of having one in London, I believe the public transport in London is just great (you do get rush hour problem but Pic line has never disappointed me). For me, there is no need for a car until or otherwise if i have to commute everyday outside the city which honestly, I don't. 24 hour bus services to and from the city is also great. Credit to our Mayor where it is due!

Only thing bothers me is speeding drivers who run kids and other pedestrians over.

[SuperSonic4]

isn't that british slang for an std?

Not in my post.

Chavs are unemployed, chain smoking, underage sex, teen pregnancies, anti-social behaviour, heavy drinking and drive terrible cars on which more has been spent on accessories than the value of the car itself

[John Bean]

The powers that be try to stop us, but I haven`t a clue how many kilos I weigh.

Too true, it'll be generations (if ever) before everyone stops using stones and pounds for body weight and feet and inches for body height, no matter what the powers that be say.

Miles - along with pints of beer or milk - are different because they are official UK exemptions from EU metrication, but there are endless unofficial mixes of everyday units. One of my favourites is timber - 3 metres of 2x1 anyone? ;-)

[SuperSonic4]

Nope, we use miles.

And feet, and inches.

And stones, and pounds.

The powers that be try to stop us, but I haven`t a clue how many kilos I weigh.

And I just sold my car because I`m sick of sitting in the stupid thing and paying through the nose for the privilege. I`m going to get me a scooter (possibly)

Nothing is weighed in kilograms, nor stones ;). Mass can be though :KS

I don't know how you managed to drive in London, whenever I am there I just take the tube



Miles - along with pints of beer or milk - are different because they are official UK exemptions from EU metrication

Especially for milk and fruit/veg if you look carefully you will note that they are sold in metric. It just so happens that it's sold as 568ml which happens to be 1 pint. The EU exemption applies only to metric only

[forrestcupp]

Nope, we use miles.

And feet, and inches.

And stones, and pounds.

The powers that be try to stop us, but I haven`t a clue how many kilos I weigh.


I wondered about that. It's weird that Canada uses metric, then. I thought Canada was pretty much a big colony. :)

[RiceMonster]

I wondered about that. It's weird that Canada uses metric, then. I thought Canada was pretty much a big colony. :)

We just knew that Metric is superior :p.

[Paqman]

Nope, we use miles.

And feet, and inches.

And stones, and pounds.

The powers that be try to stop us, but I haven`t a clue how many kilos I weigh.


Technically Britain is metric, just like the rest of the world (with a few notable exceptions). It's only a few odd things like roads and railways that still use miles. Not that the average Brit seems likely to embrace the metric system any time soon.

[squilookle]

There is far too much emphasis on speed.

Although it is obvious that driving slower in residential areas will reduce accidents/injuries, we should just be slowing the drivers hands and congratulating ourselves on a job well done.

Here are my personal experiences:

I live in a 20mph zone and I very frequently turn into my street and find the kids walking down the middle of the road -sometimes they see the car coming and just stare at you, knowing you can't just run them down. The pavements are clear, there's no reason they can't walk on them.

I've had a lad at the end of the street come flying out infront of me on a skateboard from a driveway, and there was once a lad riding down the pavement on a scooter in front of me - he saw someone he knew on the other side of the road and just turned the scooter into the road to cross it, right in front of me and without looking, causing me to have to break sharply. I didn't hit him but it was close.

I rarely get faster than 15 mph driving on my street, due to pot holes and the road being quite narrow.

Also, not on my street, I was the passenger in a car once where a kid got run over - he ran into the road, right in front of the car without looking. We were going about 20mph.

We need to teach road safety much better than we are doing. That would also decrease the number of accidents, without defeating the object of having a car.

[alphaniner]

...

We need to teach road safety much better than we are doing.

The behaviour of those kids seems to me more a lack of discipline than a lack of road safety awareness.

[SuperSonic4]

There is far too much emphasis on speed.

Although it is obvious that driving slower in residential areas will reduce accidents/injuries, we should just be slowing the drivers hands and congratulating ourselves on a job well done.

Here are my personal experiences:

I live in a 20mph zone and I very frequently turn into my street and find the kids walking down the middle of the road -sometimes they see the car coming and just stare at you, knowing you can't just run them down. The pavements are clear, there's no reason they can't walk on them.

I've had a lad at the end of the street come flying out infront of me on a skateboard from a driveway, and there was once a lad riding down the pavement on a scooter in front of me - he saw someone he knew on the other side of the road and just turned the scooter into the road to cross it, right in front of me and without looking, causing me to have to break sharply. I didn't hit him but it was close.

I rarely get faster than 15 mph driving on my street, due to pot holes and the road being quite narrow.

Also, not on my street, I was the passenger in a car once where a kid got run over - he ran into the road, right in front of the car without looking. We were going about 20mph.

We need to teach road safety much better than we are doing. That would also decrease the number of accidents, without defeating the object of having a car.

I agree, while running the children over should be allowed under Darwin's law in this situation I fear for the psychological effect on the driver

[madnessjack]

The biggest problem with Britain's roads are the amount of cars on it

[Exodist]

The point is that the impact (in terms of time) of keeping to 20mph - rather than 30mph in heavily residential areas is not particular significant, but the fatal/serious accident rate decreases significantly.

Driving 1 mile in a 30 zone will take 2 minutes, Driving the same 1 mile in a 20 zeone will take 3 minutes - you loose one minute per mile (big deal leave earlier), but you reduce the risk of serious injuries by 40% - sounds like a good deal to me.

If I have to drive 20mph, there is going to be a serious increase in automobile accidents and death due to my road rage!

[toupeiro]

Be careful what you say about the Brits logic, it'll get you into a lot of Barney on this forum..


Barney Rubble....

Trouble!

(For the records, most countries use the metric system. What does that say about our logic? The brits from what I understand use a combination of both. After all, Ft, in, and lbs are called the IMPERIAL system. :P)

[Quake]

It's simple, ban any motorised vehicles... only horses are allowed.

Better yet, only walking is allowed...

[murderslastcrow]

If people were just more conscious of traffic laws, we'd probably be fine with a 50 MPH limit almost everywhere. But people are stupid, and cars are crazy dangerous in any logical circumstance.

Where education fails, there will be laws to step in. I really think the bulk of the problem lies in irresponsible driving and people not being careful enough while operating motor vehicles.

I hope this is only a temporary solution.

[xpod]

I'm British, that article was nothing to do with me......

Now theres something you dont often see, a Scotsman calling himself British.;)

[nothingspecial]

I don't know how you managed to drive in London

Who said I ever drove in London?


I`m not daft, driving in Manchester is bad enough.

[t0p]

Nope, we use miles.

And feet, and inches.

And stones, and pounds.

The powers that be try to stop us, but I haven`t a clue how many kilos I weigh.


In the UK, many people use feet, inches, pounds, etc - and like you said, "the powers that be try to stop us". So we use many Imperial units of measurement unofficially. The official units of measurement in the UK are metric.

But distance is different. We use the metric units some of the time (eg metres); but we also use miles. Not unofficially: road signs use miles rather than kilometres. So we have official units of measuring distance that are mixed metric and Imperial. Odd.

[Gizenshya]

squilookle,

You bring up some good points. Your emphasis on speed statement takes into consideration other things that I didn't think of. The article effectively claims that speed is the only factor in accidents. They didn't quantify that at all, and I strongly doubt that any regression analysis about traffic accident causes would lead to an r-squared value of 100% for speed.

Your point about pedestrians is excellent. I can't help but agree with you that the slower the traffic speed, the number of pedestrians goes up, and their respect for traffic laws and dangers goes down. I've never seen anyone casually walk across an interstate (motorway). I would think this phenomenon would also compound traffic jams, and further reduce actual mean speeds.

These points further show how the basic logic behind the original recommendations is flawed.

Someone said that they may very well have taken other thinhgs into consideration. Well, perhaps, yes. But, the article did not hint at this possibility. In fact, the logic was clearly stated as effectively "a single study of one aspect of the effect of speed in vehicular accidents shows that if speed is reduced, accident-caused deaths are less likely. Therefore, we recommend that there need to be more 20 mph zones." There is obviously a missing step in the logic. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they took other things into consideration to make a valid recommendation... but I just can't.

If they did, though, go them. But my point with the thread is more pointing out the flaw in that logic, than any flaw in the decision to reduce speed to 20 mph. The article just reminded me of how annoying that logic is, especially because it runs so rampant with legislators.

[SuperSonic4]

These points further show how the basic logic behind the original recommendations is flawed.


The logic is probably sketchy at best but don't forget what the propaganda machine tells us. It's implied that Lower Speed = Less Deaths and therefore reduction in speed will reduce deaths and to smeg with the other factors.

In a world of science the results would be taken at face value but politics is involved. There must be a general election (which decides the government) by June 3rd 2010 and our MPs [Members of Parliament] have a terrible reputation which the common man does not grasp as being beyond their control. I shan't go deeply into politics lest it causes the thread to be closed but winning votes is more important than logical procedure, especially with the aforementioned election and the message "We want to reduce child deaths" is always popular.

note to mods: if this post goes too far into politics please remove the offending section rather than close the thread please :)

[blur xc]

squilookle,

You bring up some good points. Your emphasis on speed statement takes into consideration other things that I didn't think of. The article effectively claims that speed is the only factor in accidents. They didn't quantify that at all, and I strongly doubt that any regression analysis about traffic accident causes would lead to an r-squared value of 100% for speed.

Your point about pedestrians is excellent. I can't help but agree with you that the slower the traffic speed, the number of pedestrians goes up, and their respect for traffic laws and dangers goes down. I've never seen anyone casually walk across an interstate (motorway). I would think this phenomenon would also compound traffic jams, and further reduce actual mean speeds.

These points further show how the basic logic behind the original recommendations is flawed.

Someone said that they may very well have taken other thinhgs into consideration. Well, perhaps, yes. But, the article did not hint at this possibility. In fact, the logic was clearly stated as effectively "a single study of one aspect of the effect of speed in vehicular accidents shows that if speed is reduced, accident-caused deaths are less likely. Therefore, we recommend that there need to be more 20 mph zones." There is obviously a missing step in the logic. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they took other things into consideration to make a valid recommendation... but I just can't.

If they did, though, go them. But my point with the thread is more pointing out the flaw in that logic, than any flaw in the decision to reduce speed to 20 mph. The article just reminded me of how annoying that logic is, especially because it runs so rampant with legislators.

A while back I actually read a pretty good report that supported this viewpoint. In a nutshell, they stated that most drivers will generally drive what speed they feel is safe, regardless of the posted speed. Some drivers will obey the laws and drive the posted speed limit. This variance in speed between cars creates an unsafe condition- fast cars irritated by slow cars, tempted to pass unsafely, etc... That, and the low posted speed limit gives residents and pedestrians a false sense of safety.

I lived on a fast street corner- the speed limit on my left was 55mph, the right 40mph. Kids played in the street, but for the most part stayed on the shoulder. Several years ago, they built a new high school a few miles down the road, and my street turned into the morning through way to get kids to and from school- at that time they increased the speed limit to 45.

Now, I know this doesn't directly apply- I'm not a nascar fan but was watching one race that was notorious for big multi-car pile ups. They would run restrictor plates on the engines to slow the cars down, which made them all bunch up close to each other. When one car spun out, it took all the car behind it with them. They finally removed the restrictor plate rule and this event, letting the cars go faster which spread out traffic and reduced the number of vehicles involved in accidents.

Sometimes going faster is safer...

In my personal experience, I've been in about 3 accidents that were my fault. Each time I was going under 5mph. Going slow makes me compalcent, and makes me pay less attention. If I'm going fast- I'm focused at what I'm doing.

I live in Southern California, the land where the normal freeway speeds are around 80mph...

BM

[markp1989]

i think that more money should be used in educating people how to cross the road properly . you would be suprised how many kids parents drive them every where, so when the kids go out on foot they have absolutely no road sense, if green cross code was part of the school ciricilum then it would save alot of pedestrian related incidences , alot of which are caused by the person crossing the road where they shouldn't.

i agree with a few other posts, that it should be 20mph around schools, old people homes, parks etc, but 30mph is fine for *most* residential places.

i dont buy most of the statistics posted in these sort of things, they are always interpreted in away that is bias to what ever the person is making the study wants to change.

[handy]

Kids live in their imagination more than they do in what adults perceive as the real world.

Children's predominant brainwave patterns are slower, their consciousness is far more inwardly focussed.

Education doesn't change this, it changes as the years go by, & the Beta brainwave patterns become predominant in waking consciousness (outwardly focussed & aware - to varying degrees).

As far as driving is concerned, there is a broad range of inherent skills that people may have, these also change with experience (usually for the better) & with age, (for the better to a point, then they deteriorate).

There also exist the broad range of variables of vehicular build quality; the in car ambiance which may contain possible distractions; the drivers state of mind - is the driver focussed here & now or in the past or as is most likely in the future? Is the driver tired, hung over, drunk or otherwise drugged?

The law makers have to analyse the statistics that they have access to, which is of course a continually growing resource & try to come up with rules that protect people as best as they can. (Though there can certainly be some debate on that subject I know).

People driving slower where children live/play are educated is an excellent idea.

Travelling slower gives both the driver & the child/pedestrian/cyclist/motorist/etc, more time to avoid an accident.

The road rules are made to cater to the widest range of people, & attempt to give them the best chance of avoiding an accident.

If slowing the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph saves one life, it is worth it. For people that find the slow zones to be inconvenient, it is worthwhile remembering that it may be you, or a member of your present or future family who's life is saved from injury or death.


& as far as what goes on in a racetrack is concerned, it is really not applicable to this discussion; people that have trained & gained their motor-sport licenses, are more highly skilled than you average driver by far. If they also happen to be racing in a professional team, that means they can drive well enough to actually qualify & be allowed on the grid/rolling start.

This also means that they have reflexes, hand eye coordination & focus that is far beyond the ability of the so called normal person.

Having purpose built cars, with safety features beyond those of any production car; full harness seat belts; fitted seats & a crash helmet. Also usually these days the various types of pro-race cars have radio contact with the pits that can often warn them of danger ahead...

[etnlIcarus]

The article effectively claims that speed is the only factor in accidents.Wow, not even close.


Sometimes going faster is safer...

In my personal experience, I've been in about 3 accidents that were my fault. Each time I was going under 5mph. Going slow makes me compalcent, and makes me pay less attention. If I'm going fast- I'm focused at what I'm doing.You've been reading blur xc: arguing for the use of meth as a driving aid. in reducing road fatalities. :P


Kids live in their imagination more than they do in what adults perceive as the real world.

Children's predominant brainwave patterns are slower, their consciousness is far more inwardly focussed.

Education doesn't change this, it changes as the years go by, & the Beta brainwave patterns become predominant in waking consciousness (outwardly focussed & aware - to varying degrees).You've basically just reduced an already poorly understood and necessarily constrained field of [e]nquiry, to the level of pop-psychology or phrenology.


Kids live in their imagination more than they do in what adults perceive as the real world.Young children have less a wealth of knowledge; less a frame of reference to work with, when interpreting their environment. A child's imagination is not an end unto itself, or some exercise removed from the aim of understanding the external world; rather, imagination represents a precursor to more developed critical thinking skills, in an attempt by children, to understand their environment. Besides your exaggeration, it's a terrible dichotomy.


Children's predominant brainwave patterns are slower, their consciousness is far more inwardly focussed.You've neglected the rather important caveat that by the age of 5-7, brainwave patterns in children have largely conformed to those of adults. "Inwardly focussed", is also rather inept terminology: outside of it's usage as a synonym for the rather vacuous, "spiritual", it can really only describe introversion, which wouldn't be an appropriate description, either.


Education doesn't change thisOf course, theta waves are associated with heightened states of learning; the absorption of information and general awareness of one's surroundings, the former of which being a widely recognised phenomenon in young children. Comprehension and utilisation of information is more associated with beta waves but we aren't exactly talking about complex mathematical concepts, here. Plus, if 6yos are running around on the streets, speed limits are the least of London's problems.


the Beta brainwave patterns become predominant in waking consciousnessBeta waves are not, "predominant", in a general state of consciousness; it depends on the individual, their activity levels, the time frame, fatigue and the time, with regard to sleep patterns and the individual's 'body clock'. Some people will spend the majority of their waking hours in the beta band but that's simply not a generalisation you can make.

[lisati]

isn't that british slang for an std?
There was a time here in New Zealand where "STD" meant making a phone call using "Subscriber Trunk Dialling"


So they need to up the speed limit to 55 mph on city streets so the children will be too afraid to play in the streets. Eliminate the pedestrians, eliminate pedestrian accidents. ;)
This hit a bit close to home. One of my young nephews got knocked over a by a car a year or two back in a 50km/h zone (thats roughly equivalent to a 30mph zone), the speeding traffic didn't seem to put him off.

[hobo14]

Lower speed limits undoubtedly save lives.
The slower, the safer.

But like the OP said, what happens when someone points out that 5mph is even safer?

Would anyone accept all metropolitan streets having a 5mph speed limit, if it meant a death toll of 0 on city streets?
I don't think so.

You can't sterilise the world; you can't lower speed limits that much because at some number of mph (5, for example), a large number of people will say "slowing all of us down more isn't worth saving a small number of lives". Sounds bad but it's true, and perfectly logical.

It's like wiping out crime by putting everyone under house arrest.

[lisati]

i think that more money should be used in educating people how to cross the road properly . you would be suprised how many kids parents drive them every where, so when the kids go out on foot they have absolutely no road sense, if green cross code was part of the school ciricilum then it would save alot of pedestrian related incidences , alot of which are caused by the person crossing the road where they shouldn't.


I was mildly alarmed recently when I was out walking. A teacher was taking some young children across a driveway to a preschool, and told them, "Look left, look right, look left". That's the opposite of what I was taught: because we drive on the left in NZ, the car that's most likely to hit pedestrians first will be coming from the right.

[markp1989]

I was mildly alarmed recently when I was out walking. A teacher was taking some young children across a driveway to a preschool, and told them, "Look left, look right, look left". That's the opposite of what I was taught: because we drive on the left in NZ, the car that's most likely to hit pedestrians first will be coming from the right.

a while ago in the town cenre i saw a primary (5-6 year olds) school trip, and the teachers, rather then crosing at the lights, and teaching the children to wait for the green man to show up, 1 of the teachers stod in the road to stop the trafic whilst the other on lead the children across road (which was a busy 2 lane road)

now as alot of what children learn are from imatating teachers, and other authority figures, they might think its ok to do act similar when they are out on there own.

my mum used to be a child minder for a few 1st school children in this area, she used to complain that the 4-5 year olds she picked up had absolutly no road sence, and she used to teach them how to cross the main road, because they didnt know how, because they had been driven every where by there parents to they never needed to learn how to cross properly.