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

kneemos

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Who's at fault is irrelevant to be quite frank, if lives can be saved by slightly inconveniencing people then it should happen. Leave your house 45 seconds earlier and get over it.

how many have been killed in housing estates?

Just a little Samba

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No it's not.

Yes, it is. Because the target of the policy is to protect children, who are at the greatest risk of serious injury or fatality from collisions in residential areas, not appointing "blame" to one person or another, it's a simple public health policy, not some great conspiracy to target motorists ffs.

Pherekydes

Just a little Samba wrote: »

It goes on to make a half arsed argument whit no actual facts to back it up.

Anyway here's the original DOT comissioned report with actual evidence and figures, in full with breakdows for people aged 0-14 years, 15-59 years and 60 years +

http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf

The speeds in that document are in MPH.

Where did you get the following data:

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.

EaSwe

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.

Your source link is in MPH, not KPH??

20MPH =32KPH?

Just a little Samba

kneemos wrote: »

how many have been killed in housing estates?

At least one in 2014, Jake Brennan in Killarney, off of the top of my head. But I know in 2014 the figure was around 6 and was up about 100% from the year before.

Can't find links because I'm not in Ireland and google searches keep giving me Asian figures and completely unrelated statistics and I'm not smart enough to work around it at 2am.

Just a little Samba

EaSwe wrote: »

Your source link is in MPH, not KPH??

20MPH =32KPH?

The graph in that post is also for 15-59 year olds and not 0-14 year olds.

Funnily enough when the people get smaller the chances of a fatal injury get higher.

Just a little Samba

I was actually (and still am) searching for the Swedish Vision Zero Initiative figures which ARE in kph and are also borken down into age groups, although I think rather than just 3 age groups it's children, adolescents, young adults, middle age and seniors if memory serves.

But alas, it's like 2 hours past bedtime already.

hadepsx

Sure driving into estate tonight the local lil bitches wouldn't move.I wasn't going fast. Can't win. Then they make that face as ya drive 3 inches past them. Move outta d way ya stupid fcuk.

MythicalMadMan

Just a little Samba wrote: »

The graph in that post is also for 15-59 year olds and not 0-14 year olds.

Funnily enough when the people get smaller the chances of a fatal injury get higher.

I found out today the taller you are the more likely you are to have a free given against you in a football match mad eh

The_Morrigan

Just a little Samba wrote: »

At least one in 2014, Jake Brennan in Killarney, off of the top of my head. But I know in 2014 the figure was around 6 and was up about 100% from the year before.

Can't find links because I'm not in Ireland and google searches keep giving me Asian figures and completely unrelated statistics and I'm not smart enough to work around it at 2am.

Jakie was in Kilkenny city..that was June of last year.
If it stops another tragedy like that I would happily stay in first gear in an estate.

Just a little Samba

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.

Well you're confusing miles and kilometres. And even at the 50% for 30mph I find surprising since the Brits had an ad campaign a few years ago saying it was 80% chance of survival and "It's 30 for a reason".

The_Morrigan

The_Morrigan wrote: »

If it stops another tragedy like that I would happily stay in first gear in an estate.

How far would you be willing to go?

Outkast_IRE

Parents fault many a time unfortunately, too many are fond of leaving their kids " Free Range " around the local area. If they were taught proper road sense and manners i wouldn't mind too much, but clearly the parents could not give too much of a toss.

You can actually see the children who were taught properly will move up onto the footpath at the first sign of a car, whereas some of the others just give you a look that a zombie from the walking dead would be proud of.

The King of Moo

Try to find the positives in the situation, make the best of it.

I suggest putting on your sunglasses, rolling down your window, sliding your elbow onto the sill, playing California Love as loud as possible, and giving the eye to every young one who passes.
It might take a little longer to get home, but by God if you won't be the coolest youngfla in the estate.
#sippingtwenties

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Just a little Samba wrote: »

30 also leads to more fatalities when you run into a toddler because you're too self important to take your time leaving a residential area and decide to to put children's lives at risk. Sure why not 50 or 80?

Or why not keep your child out of the path of oncoming traffic

Pinch Flat

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Or why not keep your child out of the path of oncoming traffic

Yeah we love the ole victim blaming and the thoughts of taking personal responsibility scares the bejesus out of people in this country. This has been brought in across continental Europe and the world is still turning.

Yes children should be versed in road safety but they are what they are - children, the same ones who will run out after a ball or a friend.

We are the adults who drive the cars that can and do kills these children. We have a duty of care to drive responsibly and ensure we don't injure or kill those who may not be old enough to know better.

R P McMurphy

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.

Sounds like it will not do the dual mass flywheel in diesels any favours

2Mad2BeMad

learning to drive in finglas at the moment

the amount of stupid parents who let their 3-8 year old kids run about on the road is unreal (not focusing on finglas alone here its just the area I am learning to drive, I am sure its everywhere)

yesterday while on my last lesson a group of kids between the ages of 5-8 I'd say probably younger just ran onto the road while I was driving at 30kph , all of them just staying in the middle of the road taunting me doing faces etc... as kids do, not moving, I beeped a few times and a mother came out giving me an awfull look as if I was the bad guy

you're kid
is you're ****ing responsibility
if he dies by getting hit on the road due to you're ignorance of not watching him (or letting him play on the road in the first place)
he/she will eventually be hit and not only will a tragic incident happen, but you're ignorance will also traumatise the driver for life

all because you as a parent are too stupid to look after you're own child
if you can't look after you're kid
you shouldn't have one

kids play I get that
but its a ROAD
a thing made for CARS not for children to mess on.

MythicalMadMan

How about a law stating all kids that are out in public must be covered in bubble wrap from head to toe, solve all the problems and kids love bubble wrap.

The_Morrigan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How far would you be willing to go?

We have a 20kmph limit in our estate here...I have no problem dealing with it. However some of my neighbours have and they forget that traffic can come around the corner at them. There have been a few crashes because of their behaviour...One eejit drove into a wall because he had to swerve to avoid an oncoming vehicle.

I don't see what the problem is you shouldn't be going fast in an estate because of the increased hazards like reversing cars, kids, pets, cyclists etc etc. Driving testers bring you into estates for this very reason.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yeah we love the ole victim blaming and the thoughts of taking personal responsibility scares the bejesus out of people in this country. This has been brought in a Ross continental Europe and the world is still turning.

Yes children should be versed in road safety but they are what they are - children, the same ones who will run out after a ball or a friend.

We are the adults who drive the cars that can and do kills these children. We have a duty do care to drive responsibly and ensure we don't injure or kill those who may not be old enough to know better.

I agree that drivers have the responsibility to take care driving and watch out for pedestrians.
Parents have the responsibility not to allow their small child use a road as a playground.

Señor Fancy Pants

This should be a two pronged campaign.

Reducing speed limits for vehicles in residential areas and reducing speeds that people can run on the roads.

If vehicles are limited to 20kph and people are limited to 1/8th kph, we should all be safe.

Gooser14

Ready #22 - Looking at the source data it seems to me that the data is in mph rather than kmh. 30 mph = 48.28 kmh and 20 mph = 32.28 kmh.

whupdedo

Or maybe it will always be the case that kids unfortunately will be involved in accidents which will be sometimes fatal, simly because there kids, id drive at 20 no problem, but I drive a jeep, if a kid comes out in front of me from between 2 cars and even if I'm doing 20 I might not be able to see them, what then

parents need to be responsible for their own kids and drivers need to be as responsible as possible while driving around areas where kids are playing.

Drivers can't always take the responsibility, it's usually the lazy option to lay the blame at the door of the motorist, parents need to take some of the blame as well, including the parents of that young boy in KilKenny

CramCycle

The last housing estate I lived in it was impossible to go over 20 if driving safely, not that stopped people going over it.

If you can't do 20kmph in car or under, you clearly cant' control a vehicle, time to hand over the keys. I can see why is infuriates people but FFS, your adults, behave like adults, and suck it up. I think 30kmph is a good aim to start with (for the speedo reason), but I have no problem if 20kmph is brought in and would welcome it as a parent.

As for those giving out about kids on the street, when I was that age (between 8 and 14) we used to play ball on the street in some housing estates. Car came, you moved over, but I honestly can't recall anyone d*cking about and speeding during daylight hours either, kids haven't changed, no reason to force them to either.

In the estate I currently live in, there are two young families across the street, its great to see the kids all out playing. They make mistakes, some forget to look but most in the estate drive reasonably safe, not sure what happens to those who don't but I have seen words being had before. All well mannered, all friendly, to have a go at the parents for letting their kids have some fresh air and a social life is insanity.

Of course it will be nearly impossible to enforce but it may give the courts precedence to issue blame in a case where it can be shown.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Of course there is! You're risking their lives to let them play the same way as you did many years ago. You don't trust strangers with your kids. Both sides need a little bit of responsibility. Keep your kids off the road and motorists slow down. Win win. No dead kids.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

WTF ?

8Km/h is a fast walk,
Olympic roadwalkers with that fancy waddle and years of training can't do 20km/h

doopa

I think we need to do more to encourage kids to play. They should feel safe to play outside their house. I've seen these 20 km/h zones work really well on the continent where kids can play all day without worrying about getting knocked over. If the question is who should roads in estates be optimised for I would not hesitate to answer the most vulnerable.

Pinch Flat

The Dutch have a simple solution - 15kmhr in "woonerven" (housing estates). Seems to work for them - they put the responsibility on those driving the potentially lethal machines and not on the young children.

But then again they look a long way beyond the magic carpet a private car is considered to be here

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

doopa wrote: »

I think we need to do more to encourage kids to play. They should feel safe to play outside their house. I've seen these 20 km/h zones work really well on the continent where kids can play all day without worrying about getting knocked over. If the question is who should roads in estates be optimised for I would not hesitate to answer the most vulnerable.

Why not ban cars altogether? Have a designated area as you enter an estate for parking and let them hoof it then

doopa

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Why not ban cars altogether? Have a designated area as you enter an estate for parking and let them hoof it then

I haven't advocated banning cars from estates. I have suggested that when balancing the need for kids to have a safe place to play versus the need to have a car parked outside one's house I would err on the side of making it safer to play for children - i.e. that a 20 km/h speed limit is a sensible compromise unlike your strawman.

Dog of Tears

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.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

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.

doopa

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.

Nowhere is safe. They all have risks. The question is how are these risks managed. In general people try to approach risk by mitigating the impact/severity or the likelihood. This example tries to mitigate the risk by reducing the impact/severity. It is a sensible approach.

Dog of Tears

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.

Great straw-manning.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

How is it straw manning? Watch your child. Don't let it get hit by a car. It's not rocket science

Dog of Tears

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's not rocket science

But it is straw-manning.

Seeing as nobody's actually argued against that.

Bipolar Joe

You don't know what that term means.

MythicalMadMan

Dog of Tears wrote: »

Great straw-manning.

Straw man gets thrown around this site far too often, and the comment wasnt straw man not even sure you know what the term means?

Dempsey

Anyone thinking 20kph in estates is practical needs their head examined.

Its not practical and dont give me that think of the children speil. How about parents do some fcuking parenting instead of wanting everyone else to suffer because of their laziness and desire to have less personal responsibility.

Pinch Flat

Dempsey wrote: »

Anyone thinking 20kph in estates is practical needs their head examined.

Its not practical and dont give me that think of the children speil. How about parents do some fcuking parenting instead of wanting everyone else to suffer because of their laziness and desire to have less personal responsibility.

Seems to work in the Netherlands, France and Germany (of the EU countries I've visited and have first hand experience of anyway - I'm sure there are more). They also have to deal with the concept of "strict liability" in a lot of these jurisdictions when it comes to injury by cars of pedestrians, cyclists etc - a concept that would scare the bejebus out of a country that sees the car as the be all and end all and avert thing bows before it, revels in victim blaming and shirks personal responsibility at most junctures.

Dempsey

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Seems to work in the Netherlands, Spain and Germany (of the EU countries I've visited and have first hand experience of anyway - I'm sure there are more). They also have to deal with the concept of "strict liability" in a lot of these jurisdictions when it comes to injury by cars of pedestrians, cyclists etc - a concept that would scare the bejebus out of a country that sees the car as the be all and end all and avert thing bows before it, revels in victim blaming and shirks personal responsibility at most junctures.

Love the pseudo integelligent argument that goes on in this forum where if some other European countries have something implemented it must be a good idea for Ireland.

Pinch Flat

Dempsey wrote: »

Love the pseudo integelligent argument that goes on in this forum where if some other European countries have something implemented it must be a good idea for Ireland.

I was replying to your assertion that who ever implements this needs their head examined - empirical evidence from our EU neighbours is a reasonable comparison. But yeah let's ignore the precedent set in other EU countries. I've always said we are more socially immature than our EU peers and some of the comments on here bear out my hypothesis on this.

We seem to adopt a different model - the car is king and all that goes before it should bow in respect. Less of the victim blaming and deflection from what is after all basic personal responsibility would go a long way.

Red Alert

Parents are more interested in ranting about this than disciplining their children. I was taught respect for the road by my parents and my granny from almost before I could talk. When I was in primary school, the only person to get himself badly injured was a typical "expressive" child whose parents were unwilling to impose discipline. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but we are heading towards an elimination of danger rather than teaching people how to deal with it.

The_Valeyard

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Seems to work in the Netherlands, France and Germany (of the EU countries I've visited and have first hand experience of anyway - I'm sure there are more). They also have to deal with the concept of "strict liability" in a lot of these jurisdictions when it comes to injury by cars of pedestrians, cyclists etc - a concept that would scare the bejebus out of a country that sees the car as the be all and end all and avert thing bows before it, revels in victim blaming and shirks personal responsibility at most junctures.

How about the opposite so? Would you also be in favour of introducing the autobahn style of no speed limits? Since it works well in other countries why not have that on the M4, M6, M1, etc

Pinch Flat

The_Valeyard wrote: »

How about the opposite so? Would you also be in favour of introducing the autobahn style of no speed limits? Since it works well in other countries why not have that on the M4, M6, M1, etc

Driving standards are waaaaaaaaaaay higher on the continent. It would mean instant carnage here. People can't even merge or even use the overtaking lane properly here ffs

buckwheat

http://youtu.be/UuM_iSwMof8

Pumpkinseeds

UCDVet wrote: »

Why are these toddlers running free in street? Surely, there are people more equipped to watch these toddlers than strangers driving in a vehicle.

You'd think so but unfortunately not. A couple of months ago I was walking through an apartment complex and there was an unsupervised kid of about 4, running around the street. A woman drove around the corner and managed to break in time, she'd no way of seeing him until he was almost under the car. The father was yapping away on his mobile, oblivious to it all until he heard the brakes. Of course the fcuker followed her down the street shouting abuse at her for driving too fast. She wasn't, if she had been the kid would've been hit. That's an example I've seen all too often, especially among the listless scummer class who choose not to work.

cheekypup

sure they (kids) don't even pay road tax!!!!!!!!!!

Dempsey

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I was replying to your assertion that who ever implements this needs their head examined - empirical evidence from our EU neighbours is a reasonable comparison. But yeah let's ignore the precedent set in other EU countries. I've always said we are more socially immature than our EU peers and some of the comments on here bear out my hypothesis on this.

We seem to adopt a different model - the car is king and all that goes before it should bow in respect. Less of the victim blaming and deflection from what is after all basic personal responsibility would go a long way.

This car is king claptrap is a strawman argument. Maybe you'd rather the EU make all our social decisions for us. Abortions, prostitution, dope and autobahns for everyone!! Empirical evidence supporting all those aswell

Most kids in estates are not supervised and of them a lot should be.