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

Hyzepher · 19-02-2015 05:16PM

The vast majority of fatalities in residential areas are to very young children - I'd say 5 and younger. At this age any type of impact is a huge deal. Even a car at 20kph will either kill them or propel them backwards where striking the road, kerb or another car will kill them instead. Usually it's not the impact with the car that kills but the impact of head on ground.

For children of this age it is unreasonable and reckless to allow them to play in the street - supervised or unsupervised. I would go further to say that very young children on bikes should not be allowed on roads - especially when learning.

Regardless of the speed limits in estates - adults who let their kids play on the roads are irresponsible and putting their kids in danger.

If you let your kids play in a space made and used by cars you are an idiot - regardless of how responsible or fast the drivers go.

Kids run, dart, hide and generally play without too much regard for things outside the boundaries of their game. Kids that do this on roads will be hit - no matter what the limit.

tl;dr - don't assume that a lower apeed limit makes your kids safe - be a parent and take your kids off the road

thebaz · 19-02-2015 07:21PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

You should write a strongly worded letter to the Dutch and Danish governments - they have a consulate here as far as I know.

no thanks , I have eneogh EU nanny state waffle

LordSutch · 19-02-2015 07:56PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

50kph.

If you don't mind me saying so, 50 km/h (30mph) is too fast for an estate . . . .

As an experience driver, I would say 30 km/h seems about right.

ianobrien · 19-02-2015 09:25PM

Its pointless going for the lower limits as there is zero enforcement of current speed limits in housing estates. There is a limit of 30kph where my house is and I've never seen any speed checks and the limit is ignored every day.

Dog of Tears · 19-02-2015 09:27PM

LordSutch wrote: »

If you don't mind me saying so, 50 km/h (30mph) is too fast for an estate . . . .

As an experience driver, I would say 30 km/h seems about right.

I was asked what the Speed Limit was in my estate.

Never saw anyone driving here above 30kph.

The_Captain · 19-02-2015 09:37PM

LordSutch wrote: »

If you don't mind me saying so, 50 km/h (30mph) is too fast for an estate . . . .

As an experience driver, I would say 30 km/h seems about right.

I've never driven an experience myself, I have an opel

Pinch Flat · 19-02-2015 09:49PM

My estate is 50 kph which is too high and impossible to maintain without being tailgated or overtaken. The real speed is 60 kph plus. We had a young girl from the neighbourhood killed at 80 kph.

30 kph would be a good start, but it willth it being impossible to maintain the current 50 kph I wouldn't hold out on beinh able to maintain a lower limit without aggressive tailgating or overtaking.

Everyone is in such a rush these days - that kids life is not as important as them getting out of the estate 20 seconds earlier.

bodice ripper · 19-02-2015 09:53PM

Quite annoyed by this idea, seeing as I failed a driving test for failing to drive fast enough in an estate. this is an outrage.

The King of Moo · 19-02-2015 10:01PM

Ah feckin' here!

I've just tried coming into my estate in 2nd gear and at 20 kph, and not only is that an easy feat to achieve, it's a perfectly reasonable speed to drive at in an estate. It's about what I would normally have driven at anyway, for the seconds I spend driving in the estate.

The only explanation I can imagine for people complaining is that they enjoy driving faster in their big vroom-vrooms!

gctest50 · 19-02-2015 10:04PM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

........................
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1547009 (15 kph in some areas)

Considering serious injuries alone, a very high reduction of 78% was found.

78% is a serious improvement - you wouldn't think it'd be that high

Kiwi in IE · 19-02-2015 10:24PM

We rented in an Estate when we first moved here. My son was 2 at the time and watching all the kids, some only a year or two older than he was, playing out on roads and greens without an adult in sight, scared the ****e out of me and motivated me to get the hell out of there before he became old enough to think he was missing out due to not ever being allowed over my dead body, to play on and near roads. On saying that if driving into an estate where there are likely to be unsupervised children around I certainly wouldn't drive at 50km either.

Dog of Tears · 19-02-2015 10:29PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

We rented in an Estate when we first moved here. My son was 2 at the time and watching all the kids, some only a year or two older than he was, playing out on roads and greens without an adult in sight, scared the ****e out of me and motivated me to get the hell out of there before he became old enough to think he was missing out due to not ever being allowed over my dead body, to play on and near roads..

Such a shame you (and now your child) have been conditioned to think that way.

I love living in an estate where children play outside.

Did you mange to find alternative accommodation where children are locked up all the time?

Kiwi in IE · 19-02-2015 10:35PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Such a shame you (and now your child) have been conditioned to think that way.

I love living in an estate where children play outside.

Did you mange to find alternative accommodation where children are locked up all the time?

No actually! I managed to find a lovely house on a half acre section where my child plays freely, going back and forth through the gaps in the hedgerow to play with the lovely children of our lovely neighbours, far away from roads and skangers. But thanks anyway for your concern :P

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 19-02-2015 10:47PM

Parents should be in control of their children's movements 100% of the time.
Can this point be moved beyond and can it be accepted that 100% of parents are NOT in control of their children's movements 100% of the time.
Meaning that reducing the speed of cars in residental areas will reduce the number of children injured and killed.

Driving a car is a privilege that everybody should hold respect for. If there is an accident in a residential area involving a car and a child it is 100% the responsibility of the adult in a charge of a large powerful machine and not a small child who may not know any better.

I would be in favour of reducing the speed limit in residential areas to 10 not 20. I would also put in place mandatory custodial sentences for any driver involved in an accident with a child in a residential area. If you can't control your car in a residential area, you shouldn't have a car.

rizzodun · 19-02-2015 10:55PM

The estate I used to live in had a kid who was always on road, and ran out from behind parked cars a good few times with traffic coming. I had said it to the mother multiple times but it fell on deaf ears, because of this I always drove through the estate at a snail's pace, so much that in the estate I live in now I still have the habit, so I've been driving at 20kmh for a few years now I'd reckon. Not hard at all.

If people find it so difficult how do they manage in heavy traffic which can crawl even slower?

jack presley · 19-02-2015 11:00PM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I would be in favour of reducing the speed limit in residential areas to 10 not 20. I would also put in place mandatory custodial sentences for any driver involved in an accident with a child in a residential area. If you can't control your car in a residential area, you shouldn't have a car.

I had a kid on a bike crash into the side of my car as he flew (not literally) out of a side road in my estate. He crashed into the rear of the car he went and over the boot, fairly shaken up but not hurt. I was going quite slow but ironically had I been going faster I would have been passed the junction before he dashed out but that's not the issue. My question is should I be locked up for this incident as technically it was an accident and it did involve a kid?

rizzodun · 19-02-2015 11:03PM

jack presley wrote: »

I had a kid on a bike crash into the side of my car as he flew (not literally) out of a side road in my estate. He crashed into the rear of the car he went and over the boot, fairly shaken up but not hurt. I was going quite slow but ironically had I been going faster I would have been passed the junction before he dashed out but that's not the issue. My question is should I be locked up for this incident as technically it was an accident and it did involve a kid?

Bloody hell I hate that argument, "I hit a car doing 100kmh but if I was allowed do 120 I would've been past the junction before they pulled out in front of me...."

No you should not be locked up, because the idiot crashed into you, not an excuse to speed through an estate though.

Yiikes · 19-02-2015 11:05PM

12mph. Not going to be enforced and local communties would much rather the gards do something else than harass their neighbours with 3 penalty points and a €80 fine for doing 23km/h in their recently built wide empty estate roads. Nice idea in theory, unworkable and would sour relations between the public and the gards enforcing it.

Slowing the 20-30 is a good idea near parked cars or in the presence of kids on bikes or playing ball in a nearby pitch but not required 100% of the time to drive safely.

Never going to happen.

jack presley · 19-02-2015 11:05PM

rizzodun wrote: »

Bloody hell I hate that argument, "I hit a car doing 100kmh but if I was allowed do 120 I would've been past the junction before they pulled out in front of me...."

No you should not be locked up, because the idiot crashed into you, not an excuse to speed through an estate though.

I was kind of joking with the comment you bolded. Some of the suggestions on this thread have been ludicrious and I was responding to another one of them.

rizzodun · 19-02-2015 11:07PM

jack presley wrote: »

I was kind of joking with the comment you bolded. Some of the suggestions on this thread have been ludicrious and I was responding to another one of them.

Sound so, jumping back into my box! :pac:

thebaz · 19-02-2015 11:11PM

Any driver worthy of a licence and sober, should be well capable of controlling ther car at 30 km/h , despite the emotive cry of calling for 20 now 10 km/h limits.
Accidents happen , and will happen, even if limit goes to 20 or 10 .

Nobody wants the loss of any child , but the reality is we live in a society where cars are used as a mode of transport by many in there daily life , most who have children too.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 19-02-2015 11:21PM

jack presley wrote: »

I had a kid on a bike crash into the side of my car as he flew (not literally) out of a side road in my estate. He crashed into the rear of the car he went and over the boot, fairly shaken up but not hurt. I was going quite slow but ironically had I been going faster I would have been passed the junction before he dashed out but that's not the issue. My question is should I be locked up for this incident as technically it was an accident and it did involve a kid?

No of course not, let common sense prevail, a kid crashing into the side of your car means there is literally nothing you can do to avoid such an accident.

jack presley · 19-02-2015 11:23PM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

No of course not, let common sense prevail, a kid crashing into the side of your car means there is literally nothing you can do to avoid such an accident.

Your previous post said anyone involved in an accident with a kid in a residential estate should be jailed. So you now don't think that should happen?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 19-02-2015 11:30PM

jack presley wrote: »

Your previous post said anyone involved in an accident with a kid in a residential estate should be jailed. So you now don't think that should happen?

Pedantic much? I said it in the context of speed in a thread about speed in a residential area. If your driving along and a child injures themselves by throwing a rock at your car it is hardly the drivers fault the child injured themselves throwing a rock at your car.

jack presley · 19-02-2015 11:36PM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Pedantic much? I said it in the context of speed in a thread about speed in a residential area. If your driving along and a child injures themselves by throwing a rock at your car it is hardly the drivers fault the child injured themselves throwing a rock at your car.

Earlier in the thread, some were advocating a law similar to what you suggested because it works fabulously in the Netherlands and elsewhere on the continent where the solutions to all of Ireland's problems lie.

So basically you're saying each case should be judged on its own merits? Which is the way it should be.

murphm45 · 19-02-2015 11:44PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Doing 20 km/h is the same as a fast walk or a slow jog. Its not realistic, its not practical, and its on the cusp of 2nd gear in many cars, which has your engine revving too high.

30 km/h would make perfect sense IMO.

Sorry if someone mentioned this bit what pace do you walk at?!! This is marathon winning pace far from slow jog pace!

Personally I think a limit of 20 is too low and because it is ridiculously low it will just be ignored. A 30 limit will probably be largely ignored too but it has a better chance of being adhered to and will be more effective

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 19-02-2015 11:47PM

jack presley wrote: »

Earlier in the thread, some were advocating a law similar to what you suggested because it works fabulously in the Netherlands and elsewhere on the continent where the solutions to all of Ireland's problems lie

I think cherry picking what works best in certain parts of the world and trying to apply it here to see if we can replicate a successful policy is always a thing worth exploring.

I just have the view that residential areas are a communal living space for everyone and not JUST for cars. That doesn't mean I think 8 year olds should be allowed build sandcastles in the middle of the road, but I think it should mean that if a child runs out onto a road to get a football back that there should be no big fear for their lives because of motorists. Just some common sense, keep speeds way down where lots of children live and play, and outside of these areas cars can go whatever speed.

Yeah_Right · 20-02-2015 12:07AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

My estate is 50 kph which is too high and impossible to maintain without being tailgated or overtaken. The real speed is 60 kph plus. We had a young girl from the neighbourhood killed at 80 kph.
.

So a child was killed by someone going 80km/h in a 50km/h zone and dropping the speed limit to 30 or 20 km/h would have prevented this?

Just out of curiosity, how old was the child and what time did this happen?

You seem to have a real hatred for cars so I'm wondering, have you ever driven one and do you ever ride in one of the these "one tonne child killers"?

Pinch Flat · 20-02-2015 12:45AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

So a child was killed by someone going 80km/h in a 50km/h zone and dropping the speed limit to 30 or 20 km/h would have prevented this?

Just out of curiosity, how old was the child and what time did this happen?

You seem to have a real hatred for cars so I'm wondering, have you ever driven one and do you ever ride in one of the these "one tonne child killers"?

Nobody is saying accidents will be prevented - they do and can happen and will continue to happen. But the impact a car has on a child drastically reduces with speed. It's basic physics and I'm not going to try and explain it to you - although any junior cert science book would have a good stab at it.

I drive a car and have done so since about 1987 if my memory serves me correctly. I have no hatred of cars, however cars do kill a lot of people, children included, if driven irreponsibly. A lt of these accidents are preventable. Thankfully in all my years of driving I've not had as much as a parking ticket.

What you might be getting at is the fact that I prefer to walk or cycle in a lot of circumstances where someone else would perhaps use the car - so I would consider myself less car dependent than many out there.

Yeah_Right · 20-02-2015 01:32AM

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Nobody is saying accidents will be prevented - they do and can happen and will continue to happen. But the impact a car has on a child drastically reduces with speed. It's basic physics and I'm not going to try and explain it to you - although any junior cert science book would have a good stab at it.

I drive a car and have done so since about 1987 if my memory serves me correctly. I have no hatred of cars, however cars do kill a lot of people, children included, if driven irreponsibly. A lt of these accidents are preventable. Thankfully in all my years of driving I've not had as much as a parking ticket.

What you might be getting at is the fact that I prefer to walk or cycle in a lot of circumstances where someone else would perhaps use the car - so I would consider myself less car dependent than many out there.

Thanks for answering my last question. How about the first 2?

So you do drive. Yet anyone who does drive, is a car worshipper according to you?!? And demands that everyone in a housing estate bows before them?!? How is self-loathing working out for you?

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

Comments