No Access to Home without Several Speed Humps

thorsoak

"When your child is lay dead at the side of the road it's too late to start being a good, responsible parent isnt it?!?!
Blaming the local council for not putting speed bumps in won't bring your loved ones back...."

Let's just turn that statement around, shall we? "When a child is lay dead at the side of the road it's too late to start being a good, responsible driver isnt it?!?!
Blaming the child for running out, that you did not know that children play there, that the council should put speed bumps in won't change ther responsibilities of the speeding driver....

johnson293

Strider590 wrote: »

I agree completely that speeding in area's where children may be present is highly dangerous and irresponsible. I'll stand here all day throwing a torrent of abuse at anyone who disagrees with that.

But I do also think that in this and MANY other things, parents need to stop looking for someone else to blame and looking for the easy way out instead of properly educating and supervising their children!

It doesn't take much to teach a child the dangers presented by roads and traffic, but it strikes me that many simply can't be bothered.

I knew the dangers from a very early age, as im sure the rest of us did.... When your child is lay dead at the side of the road it's too late to start being a good, responsible parent isnt it?!?!
Blaming the local council for not putting speed bumps in won't bring your loved ones back....

We blame computer games for being too violent AFTER we buy them for our kids.
We blame social networking sites for allowing our children to be bullied and abused when we should be the one's vetting what our children see and hear and do online.
We love to blame other people so that we don't have to be responsible parents!!!!!!!

People need to wake up to their responsibilities!!

So, we should teach kids road safety due to the potential danger of speeding motorists - but the council shouldn't put down measures to slow down those same motorists?

The problem is, kids are unpredictable - you can drum road safety into them till your blue in the face, but when their favourite toy or ball rolls into the road, how many of them stop to think before running to retrieve it before it potentially gets crushed?

At least if there are speed humps nearby, you hope that the cars have adhered to them and slowed, so any potential accident is less serious, than if they had been driving at the speed limit or above.

Indout96

Speed kills children

Don't start that old Cr*p again.

I never thought I would say this but I would far rather have speed cameras (and I really hate them) than speed humps, I have always had to drive a (very) long way extra to work as there was only one way in and out without the dreaded humps but now our council who don't have any money to repair pot holes have managed to find some to put in 6 speed humps over a distance of 800 yards. There are 12 houses on the road only 2 of which have children, the rest is industrial and in the last 18 years I have worked here there have been only a couple of accidents, both at the end with no speed humps.
They have all been placed on the same hill that last year everyone was stuck on in the snow so adding humps to get over will really help that problem

Lum

If the goal is to bring speeds below a certain arbitrary number then yes speed cameras would be much better at it.

At least they only hurt the people exceeding that number. Speed bumps hurt almost everybody with the poor and the disabled particularly badly hit, while joyriders/thieves and SUV drivers are not punished at all, despite being the ones most likely to be a danger to your children in the first place.

Even then the speed cameras do not hurt the thieves, only some proper policing will do that.

Rossy.

Indout96 wrote: »

Don't start that old Cr*p again.

I never thought I would say this but I would far rather have speed cameras (and I really hate them) than speed humps, I have always had to drive a (very) long way extra to work as there was only one way in and out without the dreaded humps but now our council who don't have any money to repair pot holes have managed to find some to put in 6 speed humps over a distance of 800 yards. There are 12 houses on the road only 2 of which have children, the rest is industrial and in the last 18 years I have worked here there have been only a couple of accidents, both at the end with no speed humps.
They have all been placed on the same hill that last year everyone was stuck on in the snow so adding humps to get over will really help that problem

WHAT??

Are you right in the head??

How can you seriously ignore the fact that speed kills ???.

Speed humps slow cars = less likely to be seriously hurt. PERIOD

I'm not a fan of bumps - No one is, but if a kid ran infront of my car and i was doing 20 over bumps i'd be relieved if they were less hurt then say doing 30mph with no bumps and they died !

Lum

Stop believing politicians.

The whole "speed kills" thing is a drastic, and inaccurate, oversimplification of a much more complex issue. Many people now believe it thanks to a massive advertising campaign by the previous government who profited fairly well from speed cameras, but there is an awful lot more to road safety than just lowering speeds.

Put simply, crashing into people/things kills the speed only affects the severity.

So if you introduce speed control measures that cause a distraction, e.g. drivers looking out for cameras or concentrating on accurate positioning for minimal back pain as they approach a speed bump then you get more crashes.

Someone doing 40 and paying attention is much less dangerous than someone doing 30 and not paying attention. The former will brake or swerve for the child and either not hit them or hit them at a much lower speed, whereas the person doing 30 will still be doing 30 at the point of impact, which is much more likely to kill.

Consider also that lower speed limits everywhere = longer drives = more people driving whilst tired, something which is more dangerous than driving drunk!

Indout96

How can you seriously ignore the fact that speed kills ???.

If speed kills I would have been dead years ago, inappropriate speed may well be a factor in SOME accidents and I'm not disagreeing that if a child is hit at 20 it stands a better chance than if it is hit at 30 however there are many more factors involved and to simply trot out the "Speed Kills Children" line is something that really riles me.
There is a reason that the road safety films still run the advert with a 20 year old cavalier with no ABS and poor tyres in it, because it is dramatic, it would be far less dramatic with a newer car pulling up in time.
The child is far more likely to be hit these days by someone on their phone or texting than speeding

Lum

Oh god is that advert still going? With the beige Cav that locks up it's wheels and doesn't even bother to try to steer around the child despite the lack of oncoming traffic and an obviously wide road.

Crap driving kills. Driving a poorly maintained 20 year old POS Vauxhall kills. Driving a car with no ABS and without bothering to learn how to cadence brake kills.

flyingscotno1

It is worth mentioning that modern policy is that the street is a living place and residential side streets are where people should be dominant and not vehicles. This means the street should be areas where kids could play football etc and traffic and people give way to each other rather than traffic having a pure right of way. Essentially shared space is re-writing the priority rules. In this instance kids need to be aware of traffic but it should equally give way to them.

Obviously this doesn't apply to every road and situation- that is mainly for side streets which the OP describes, but in urban areas new documentation is coming around that even busier urban streets will be encouraged to be a similar shared space scheme- Ashford Town Centre for example.

There has to be a respect from both sides, but a mindful thought that kids are kids and will make mistakes. I remember several folk I went to school with who simply made a mistake or misjudged traffic.

Rossy.

Lum wrote: »

Stop believing politicians.

The whole "speed kills" thing is a drastic, and inaccurate, oversimplification of a much more complex issue. Many people now believe it thanks to a massive advertising campaign by the previous government who profited fairly well from speed cameras, but there is an awful lot more to road safety than just lowering speeds.

Put simply, crashing into people/things kills the speed only affects the severity.

Oh right i must be imaging it then that speed kills.

Lum wrote: »

Someone doing 40 and paying attention is much less dangerous than someone doing 30 and not paying attention. The former will brake or swerve for the child and either not hit them or hit them at a much lower speed, whereas the person doing 30 will still be doing 30 at the point of impact, which is much more likely to kill.

But here you recognise speed does infact kill

Speed does kill - It's plainly obvious without the like of research and government input. It's common sense. If every drove to the road situation presented then we wouldn't need them as in built up residential areas people would drive slower - sadly that doesn't happen so the council has installed road safety measures.

I honestly cannot believe the fuss they create on here. so what if there are 100 on a road. If it stops people driving like they stole it then it's a good thing.