Ever tried driving at 20 km/h (12 mph) for long?

SeanW · 18-02-2015 11:23AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Not really, if you reverse the burden of proof and responsibility in an accident, you'll find people act more responsibly.

Re-read pumpkinseeds post - it's clear that making one group responsible for the stupidity of another group makes the protected group behave even more stupidly. Like the banks. Which is the textbook definition of moral hazard. Which you seem to be fine with.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 11:24AM

SeanW wrote: »

I already subsidise your offspring with my taxes.

I know you do.

The funny thing is that I don't actually need it.
I withdraw it as €20's and use it to light my cigars while sending my kids out to dart in front of you as you pass.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 11:26AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Do you know what the definition of "street" actually is? What is a street, dog of tears?

Why don't you enlighten us all?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 18-02-2015 11:28AM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Why don't you enlighten us all?

No, why don't you? Tell us all where you want your child to play

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 11:30AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

No, why don't you?

Well, you seem like you're all geared up to make a point around it's definition - so why don't you define it for us and make your point?

You do have a point, right?

jack presley · 18-02-2015 11:30AM

Traffic goes a lot slower than 20kmph on the M50 most mornings. Maybe all of he kids should play out there?

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 11:33AM

SeanW wrote: »

Re-read pumpkinseeds post - it's clear that making one group responsible for the stupidity of another group makes the protected group behave even more stupidly. Which is the textbook definition of moral hazard. Which you seem to be fine with.

oh oh straw man alert.

No - the strict liability principle that works in many EU countries is that the driver is primarily responsible. There's a strong movement in the UK to amend their own common law code (and hopefully ours will follow) to accommodate this principle.

It's nothing to do with moral hazard. A lot of EU street scapes are designed in order to allow children to play on them - they've gotten away from the idea of fenced areas and pedestrian hostile areas where the car takes center stage. Kids and pedestrians intermingle with cars in a more relaxed atmosphere.

The street scape is devoted to all, not just the private car. In fairness, we are several generations behind our EU neighbours ion this regard - this type of responsible behaviour can blow the car centrics mind.

In fairness, you were the guy spouting on on about 'car hostile' housing estates as I recall some time ago - so I can see where you're coming from in terms of your own priorities.

hairycakes · 18-02-2015 11:34AM

Drivers do need to use more care in housing estates. There was a little girl killed last year locally in a housing estate. It's a horrendous thing to happen. However, lowering the speed limits will only work if enforced, same with any speed issues in this country. In saying that there is a lot to be said for the parents taking a more active role in looking after their kids in housing estates. I have a child myself, she is 5. She is not allowed out the front door, definitely not allowed near the road without me or another adult with her. If she wants to play out there, I will go out with her. If I'm too busy, her friends are more than welcome into my house or back garden to socialise. I will not compromise her safety and I feel I would have to take some responsibility if I let her out without supervision and something god forbid happened. Every time we cross the road I use it to teach her the importance of being safe. I don't think any one of those parents this happened to should feel blame for what occurred and I applaud Jake's parents for trying to do something to protect other kids but maybe it should be used as an opportunity to teach responsibility on both sides.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 18-02-2015 11:35AM

Yes the street is for everyone, it's a public thoroughfare. That's why there are pavements each side for pedestrians.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 11:36AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Yes the street is for everyone, it's a public thoroughfare. That's why there are pavements each side for pedestrians.

paulbok · 18-02-2015 11:36AM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Any driver that knocks down a kid in a residential housing estate is at fault.

Not the kid.

Not the parent.

The driver.

If you drive a 1tonne block of metal in an area where people raise thier families, you better make damn sure you can stop it in time.

I would favour a mandatory custodial sentence of at least 5 years for any driver who kills a kid in such a setting.

So in a scenario where a car is going at 10kmph, and the driver is dilligently watching the road and his surroundings, and a small kid runs out from behind a parked car just as the drivers approaches, giving no time to react and gets run over & killed, you want the driver to automatically get jailed?

It cannot always be that black and white.

By the way I drive in my estate at about 20-25kmph and have no problem with doing so or the proposed lowering of the limits.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 11:40AM

paulbok wrote: »

So in a scenario where a car is going at 10kmph, and the driver is dilligently watching the road and his surroundings, and a small kid runs out from behind a parked car just as the drivers approaches, giving no time to react and gets run over & killed, you want the driver to automatically get jailed?

Your analogy is flawed as such a driver would not knock down and kill a child.

Or perhaps you're aware of such a case and could post up a link to it?

irelandrover · 18-02-2015 11:41AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

THE ROAD IS NOT A SAFE PLACE FOR A CHILD TO PLAY.
The garden, the park, the green. They're all safe places to play.
The road was build as a thoroughfare for mechanically propelled vehicles, not as a playground.

Parents/Guardians need to accept responsibility for their own child and if they are on the road, they need to be supervised.

You cannot place the sole responsibility of your Childs life with a total stranger.
You cannot blame a motorist 100% for the death (God forbid) of a child if the child's parents placed the child in a place that it was reasonable to forsee danger.

The problem is, in estates normally to get to the green you have to cross the road. While playing on the green the ball you are playing with gets hit onto the road.
the design is poor in that the green is surrounded by roads.
It is almost too late to redesign these areas now to make them safe. Therefore reducing the speed limit is the next best thing.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 18-02-2015 11:47AM

irelandrover wrote: »

The problem is, in estates normally to get to the green you have to cross the road. While playing on the green the ball you are playing with gets hit onto the road.
the design is poor in that the green is surrounded by roads.
It is almost too late to redesign these areas now to make them safe. Therefore reducing the speed limit is the next best thing.

And I am all for that. But kids not old enough to understand roads are dangerous need to be supervised. Teach them how to cross the road. Teach them not to race across the road after a ball if there's a car coming. (Most people aren't stupid. You see kids playing, slow the **** down and approach carefully, if you see a ball flying out in front of you, stop, as there's probably a child flying after it). My issue isn't with kids you can see. It's small kids out playing hide and seek, hiding under a car/behind a car, a child that's too small to see should they dart out underneath a car. It's no use blaming anyone in those situations, it won't fix what's after happening. It's why both parents (as primary carers and are responsible for keeping their child safe) and drivers (duty of care towards other road users) are EQUALLY responsible

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 11:51AM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Yes the street is for everyone, it's a public thoroughfare. That's why there are pavements each side for pedestrians.

What about my estate? Laid out with some of the principles of the Essex Design guide. Our estates does not have pavements everywhere. It has been partially acceptable in taking he car from centre stage in our estate - but still very difficult in car soaked society like our own. So roads that meander, rather than go straight, preventing speed being built up.

https://www.essex.gov.uk/Environment%20Planning/Planning/Transport-planning/Infomation-for-developers/Documents/19715_essexdesignguide.pdf

This recognizes that children can and do play sometimes on roads.

SteelyDanJalapeno · 18-02-2015 11:53AM

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I never said less accidents, I said less fatalities.

If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 30kph they have a 50% chance of dying.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 20kph they have a 10% chance of dying.

Source.

You know that source is also in Miles per hour? not KPH,

You're stats should read :

If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 48.2kph they have a 50% chance of dying.
If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 32.1kph they have a 10% chance of dying.

CramCycle · 18-02-2015 11:58AM

SeanW wrote: »

Of course, if you read pumpkinseeds post, you'd see that it's your side that's guilty of the above.

Apologies, I forgot the sarcasm :pac: Really did not think it was needed.

I already subsidise your offspring with my taxes. I don't think its unreasonable not to want to babysit them as well.

The same way my parents taxes subsidised the roads you drive on and the education you were open to. Don't give me that ridiculous my taxes subidised argument, its ridiculous, all of our taxes subsidised all of society, some give more, some give less but no one persons tax goes directly to anyone elses child, it goes into a big pot to be dished out by the people we had the opportunity to elect.

As for the strict liability countries, I think many do not understand how this works. It is in the immediate aftermath and in the absence of proof to the otherwise. If a motorist in any of these countries can prove the negligence of the other party was the sole factor in the accident, the other side will be found as such.

In an estate, 20kmph is not hard to achieve, in many Dublin estates, going faster could be considered dangerous even when you take kids out of the equation. As I said before, if you can't hold your vehicle at 20kmph or under, you clearly can't drive or have clear issues admitting that your just plain impatient, nothing else, again, grow up, your not a child, suck it up.

How many estates are so large that driving at 20kmph would add a significant amount of time onto your journey? Leave that amount of time earlier from your house, it's not rocket science, it's not even complicated by a very young childs understanding of how the passing of time works. If an area you are travelling in generally becomes slightly longer to proceed through, but you want to arrive at your destination at roughly the same time, then leave from your destination earlier.

Viper_JB · 18-02-2015 12:01PM

I find one of the biggest problems in my estate is parking, people park Vans on corners, so drivers can't see around, vast majority of foot paths are covered in Cars, so if a person in a wheel chair or with a buggy is walking they end up on the road...imo this is far more dangerous then the speed issue, I'd never really do more then 30kph in my estate anyways as I spend most of the time trying to weave around cars - but no one ever focuses on the issues like parking...or people talking on the phone seems to be a big one in the estates, it's like they wait until they get into the car to make a call on the way.

I do find it incredible that some parents feel like that should have zero responsibility if their child were to be hurt/killed on the road, I can't understand how anyone would come to that conculsion, if something were to happen to my dog on the road I would feel responsible for it, in saying that he knows better...

CramCycle · 18-02-2015 12:10PM

Viper_JB wrote: »

I find one of the biggest problems in my estate is parking, people park Vans on corners, so drivers can't see around, vast majority of foot paths are covered in Cars, so if a person in a wheel chair or with a buggy is walking they end up on the road

I leave notes on some cars, not that it makes much difference, people have started using my estate the last few weeks as a park and ride spot for UCD and Clonskeagh, parking on corners so that it is difficult to see cars coming around, its ridiculous.

One of my neighbours pointed out that if someone removed their license plates and called the council, it would sort it out but I am more of an abusive message on the window first type of person. I have seen people in Dublin pulling over on blind corners to park and talk. Is it stupidity or zombies who, if they have never been told it is stupid, they will do it until someone tells them not too.

paulbok · 18-02-2015 12:10PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Your analogy is flawed as such a driver would not knock down and kill a child.

Or perhaps you're aware of such a case and could post up a link to it?

How is it flawed? If a kid runs at out at speed from behind a parked car or van just as the driver is approaching that gap (in the parked vehicles) there is no time to react no matter who the driver is.

It's not that unlikely a scenario where there are parked vehicles, esp high body vehicles, yet you want the driver to go to jail for it?

I don't have an example of such a case, that is why I used the word scenario - a postulated sequence or development of events but as you seem to need some sort of proof, here & here .

10Kmph is equal to 2.78Meters per second, roughly a car length.
Based on those sites data, an average reaction time can be anywhere from 1/4 second to 1.5 seconds, but factor in the act of applying the brakes and the vehicle actually stopping and it could be double that so anywhere from 1.4M to 5M travelled from seeing the incident to the car coming to a stop, plenty of distance to run over someone (an impact at that speed is unlikely to kill a child but if they are run over it's a big possibility).

Viper_JB · 18-02-2015 12:14PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I leave notes on some cars, not that it makes much difference, people have started using my estate the last few weeks as a park and ride spot for UCD and Clonskeagh, parking on corners so that it is difficult to see cars coming around, its ridiculous.

One of my neighbours pointed out that if someone removed their license plates and called the council, it would sort it out but I am more of an abusive message on the window first type of person. I have seen people in Dublin pulling over on blind corners to park and talk. Is it stupidity or zombies who, if they have never been told it is stupid, they will do it until someone tells them not too.

Ya and it seems to be the situation that as soon as you say anything to anyone about where they're parked you instantly become the bad guy, doesn't matter if they were parked over your grand mother. Just seems to be out of sheer ignorance that no lobby group brings this up, I feel that a lot of people who demand a slower limit would park like this themselves and not see any problems with it.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 12:34PM

paulbok wrote: »

How is it flawed?

Because it is.

Even taking your worst case 'calculation' and allowing for a 5m stopping distance, if you're not able to see 5m in front of you and come to a stop in time, you really shouldn't be driving.

paulbok · 18-02-2015 12:41PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Because it is.

Even taking your worst case 'calculation' and allowing for a 5m stopping distance, if you're not able to see 5m in front of you and come to a stop in time, you really shouldn't be driving.

It isn't.

I'm not talking about 5M in front of you, try reading the post again. I'm talking about about effectively 0-1M in front of you if someone runs out blindly from behind a parked vehicle.
If someone runs out like that in front of you, there is nothing you can do about it.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 12:43PM

paulbok wrote: »

It isn't.

I'm not talking about 5M in front of you, try reading the post again. I'm talking about about effectively 0-1M in front of you if someone runs out blindly from behind a parked vehicle.
If someone runs out like that in front of you, there is nothing you can do about it.

No reduction in the speed limit is going to solve road accidents or prevent them completely, but reducing the speed to 20 kph can significantly reduce the impact of such an accident.

Dog of Tears · 18-02-2015 12:49PM

paulbok wrote: »

It isn't.

I'm not talking about 5M in front of you, try reading the post again. I'm talking about about effectively 0-1M in front of you if someone runs out blindly from behind a parked vehicle.
If someone runs out like that in front of you, there is nothing you can do about it.

If you can only see 0-1m in front of you - you shouldn't be driving at any speed.

Why don't you expand your analogy to include instances where Scotty beams children down directly in front of you - it would make as much sense.

blastman · 18-02-2015 12:54PM

I get through so much popcorn on threads like this...

Hermy · 18-02-2015 12:55PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

No reduction in the speed limit is going to solve road accidents or prevent them completely, but reducing the speed to 20 kph can significantly reduce the impact of such an accident.

Only if people obey the speed limit.

Skylinehead · 18-02-2015 12:56PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Because it is.

This is a flawless argument....

NomadicGray · 18-02-2015 12:56PM

blastman wrote: »

I get through so much popcorn on threads like this...

I dont know why I read them, just makes me want to mow down the stupid.

Pinch Flat · 18-02-2015 12:59PM

Hermy wrote: »

Only if people obey the speed limit.

Ah come on now - that's a whole different level, people struggling here enough with personal responsibility already without putting the burden of driving within a speed limit on them.

I mean you're asking people to lower their speeds and some here calling for speed camera vans to monitor them. Where will it all end

Ever tried driving at 20 km/h (12 mph) for long?

Comments