‘20mph speed limit will make us safer’

The Perry family – parents Lea and Judith with daughters Eloise and Rhiannon – have campaigned for a lower speed limit on the road where son Freddie was killed in an accident last year

The Perry family – parents Lea and Judith with daughters Eloise and Rhiannon – have campaigned for a lower speed limit on the road where son Freddie was killed in an accident last year

First published in News Oxford Mail: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter covering Didcot and Wallingford. Call me on 01865 425425

A FAMILY’S appeal to slash the speed limit on the road where their 10-year-old son was killed is a step nearer to success.

Freddie Perry ran out between two parked cars in Oxford Crescent, Didcot, at about 5.30pm on September 10 last year, and died the following day.

Now after tireless campaigning by the boy’s family, the public are being consulted on a potential 20mph speed limit in the street.

Freddie’s father Lea Perry, 40, a coach driver who lives with wife Judith, 42, and daughters Rhiannon, 15, and Eloise, 11, said: “A 20mph zone will make Oxford Crescent much safer and I can’t see that there would be any objections.

“We want people to be safe and not have to go through what we have been going through.

“Hopefully there will be more 20mph zones in Didcot once this one is introduced.”

Oxford Crescent currently has a 30mph speed limit and the family has been working with Didcot town and county councillor Nick Hards to get the 20mph zone introduced, costing £6,000.

Mr Hards said: “This is something I have been working on for a number of months with the Perry family.

“If the consultation goes satisfactorily, then the cabinet member for transport David Nimmo Smith will decide whether to authorise it.

“Oxford Crescent would benefit from the speed reduction and I think there are merits for doing this on safety grounds, even if you don’t take into account Freddie’s death.

“This would be the first 20mph zone in Didcot and I think the town council would be in favour of seeing more 20mph zones in the town. I have talked to people in Oxford Crescent and they have concerns about speeding traffic and a number of close shaves.”

Mr Hards said that the 20mph zone would include a raised crossing point at the eastern end of the crescent to help people to cross the road and reinforce the speed limit.

Oxfordshire County Council spokesman Martin Crabtree said: “We are consulting on proposals to reduce the speed limit in Oxford Crescent, between Wantage Road and Slade Road, to 20mph, along with associated traffic calming.

“The proposals were drawn up in discussion with the local county councillor, Nick Hards, who has been in regular contact with the parents of Freddie Perry, and local people. “ Mr Crabtree added the proposed traffic regulation order was advertised on June 25 and consultation closes on July 25.

An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph.

The hearing was told Freddie ran out between two parked vehicles, a Ford Galaxy car and a Vauxhall Vivaro van, and the van would have obscured the view of driver Joanne Napper.

  • Our top stories:

Man still fighting for life after Sandford Road bridge fall

Oxford Mail: Thames Valley Police logo

4:41pm Tuesday 30th September 2014

A man was yesterday still fighting for his life in hospital after falling from a bridge and colliding with a vehicle.

Motorcyclist seriously injured in crash with car near Dorchester

Oxford Mail: Ambulance stock image

11:44am Tuesday 30th September 2014

A MOTORCYCLIST has been taken to hospital with serious injuries after a crash with a BMW.

Dismal start troubles Appleton

Oxford Mail:

9:00am Tuesday 30th September 2014

Oxford United’s position in the table is now a concern for head coach Michael Appleton, who has acknow-ledged it is taking longer than expected to improve results.

Derek Measor's wife says his death tore her world apart as killer driver avoids jail

Oxford Mail:

9:00am Tuesday 30th September 2014

A WIDOW whose husband was killed while cycling yesterday told a court it was the worst day of her life.

Girls get some coaching from a top GB runner

Oxford Mail:

8:30am Tuesday 30th September 2014

PUPILS at d’Overbroecks College pulled on their running shoes yesterday as 2002 Commonwealth Games 400m relay silver medallist Lesley Owusu gave them advice on how to succeed in both sport and life.

Rethink on late-night drink levy

Oxford Mail:

8:30am Tuesday 30th September 2014

BARS and clubs in Oxford could soon be charged for serving alcohol after midnight.

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:33am Wed 16 Jul 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph.


Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.
An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph. Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 32

6:41am Wed 16 Jul 14

Dilligaf2010 says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph.


Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.
Completely agree, "Freddie Perry ran out between two parked cars".......
.........the driver wouldn't have had a chance at any speed.
I remember The Tufty Club too, came before the Green Cross Code Man.
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph. Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.[/p][/quote]Completely agree, "Freddie Perry ran out between two parked cars"....... .........the driver wouldn't have had a chance at any speed. I remember The Tufty Club too, came before the Green Cross Code Man. Dilligaf2010
  • Score: 25

7:38am Wed 16 Jul 14

7squatcat says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph.


Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.
A car at 20 mph can stop more quickly, and any collision will be far less dangerous. 30 mph is excessive for a residential area and makes the roads more dangerous and less pleasant.
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph. Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.[/p][/quote]A car at 20 mph can stop more quickly, and any collision will be far less dangerous. 30 mph is excessive for a residential area and makes the roads more dangerous and less pleasant. 7squatcat
  • Score: -24

7:47am Wed 16 Jul 14

livid99 says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph.


Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.
What difference will it make ? It will slow people down on a road where lots of children play, potentially reducing the possibility of another accident. Of course, educating kids to be careful when crossing the road is important, but this tragic accident affected a lot of people, so any efforts to prevent something similar should be praised. Good luck, I hope the 20mph limit is given to this road.
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph. Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.[/p][/quote]What difference will it make ? It will slow people down on a road where lots of children play, potentially reducing the possibility of another accident. Of course, educating kids to be careful when crossing the road is important, but this tragic accident affected a lot of people, so any efforts to prevent something similar should be praised. Good luck, I hope the 20mph limit is given to this road. livid99
  • Score: -11

9:13am Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

livid99 wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph.


Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.
What difference will it make ? It will slow people down on a road where lots of children play, potentially reducing the possibility of another accident. Of course, educating kids to be careful when crossing the road is important, but this tragic accident affected a lot of people, so any efforts to prevent something similar should be praised. Good luck, I hope the 20mph limit is given to this road.
What difference well it make?? None what so ever, do you not read the report, the car was going at 20mph or less, the child ran out between parked cars, tell me what difference would it have made if it was a 20mph zone???? Very tragic and feel for the family,however making this road 20mph would not have helped. Like the other comments, education is needed, be it from parents or the school.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph. Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.[/p][/quote]What difference will it make ? It will slow people down on a road where lots of children play, potentially reducing the possibility of another accident. Of course, educating kids to be careful when crossing the road is important, but this tragic accident affected a lot of people, so any efforts to prevent something similar should be praised. Good luck, I hope the 20mph limit is given to this road.[/p][/quote]What difference well it make?? None what so ever, do you not read the report, the car was going at 20mph or less, the child ran out between parked cars, tell me what difference would it have made if it was a 20mph zone???? Very tragic and feel for the family,however making this road 20mph would not have helped. Like the other comments, education is needed, be it from parents or the school. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: 14

9:34am Wed 16 Jul 14

WitneyGreen says...

A child of ten is old enough to understand not to run out between parked cars. Did his parents and school not teach the Green Cross Code?
A child of ten is old enough to understand not to run out between parked cars. Did his parents and school not teach the Green Cross Code? WitneyGreen
  • Score: 20

10:10am Wed 16 Jul 14

Ralph Jolly says...

A 20mph limit will not make you feel safer. What will make Oxford Crescent safer is two double yellow lines down both sides of the road. You all have garages, use them and stop being so lazy by leaving your cars on the road.

A tragic loss but avoidable. He should have concentrated on crossing the road instead of using his mobile and shouldn't hacve crossed between parked cars.
A 20mph limit will not make you feel safer. What will make Oxford Crescent safer is two double yellow lines down both sides of the road. You all have garages, use them and stop being so lazy by leaving your cars on the road. A tragic loss but avoidable. He should have concentrated on crossing the road instead of using his mobile and shouldn't hacve crossed between parked cars. Ralph Jolly
  • Score: 23

10:38am Wed 16 Jul 14

Richard of Wantage says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
livid99 wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph.


Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.
What difference will it make ? It will slow people down on a road where lots of children play, potentially reducing the possibility of another accident. Of course, educating kids to be careful when crossing the road is important, but this tragic accident affected a lot of people, so any efforts to prevent something similar should be praised. Good luck, I hope the 20mph limit is given to this road.
What difference well it make?? None what so ever, do you not read the report, the car was going at 20mph or less, the child ran out between parked cars, tell me what difference would it have made if it was a 20mph zone???? Very tragic and feel for the family,however making this road 20mph would not have helped. Like the other comments, education is needed, be it from parents or the school.
As part of my job I drive up and down residential roads with parked cars on both sides and children out playing all the time. I'm too aware of the potential dangers and therefore I drive to the road conditions which is 20mph or less. Unfortunately there are less experienced drivers out there who will exceed the safe driving speed for these roads and therefore a mandatory speed limit of 20mph is needed. If your speed is inappropriate for the road conditions then you are part of the problem.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph. Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.[/p][/quote]What difference will it make ? It will slow people down on a road where lots of children play, potentially reducing the possibility of another accident. Of course, educating kids to be careful when crossing the road is important, but this tragic accident affected a lot of people, so any efforts to prevent something similar should be praised. Good luck, I hope the 20mph limit is given to this road.[/p][/quote]What difference well it make?? None what so ever, do you not read the report, the car was going at 20mph or less, the child ran out between parked cars, tell me what difference would it have made if it was a 20mph zone???? Very tragic and feel for the family,however making this road 20mph would not have helped. Like the other comments, education is needed, be it from parents or the school.[/p][/quote]As part of my job I drive up and down residential roads with parked cars on both sides and children out playing all the time. I'm too aware of the potential dangers and therefore I drive to the road conditions which is 20mph or less. Unfortunately there are less experienced drivers out there who will exceed the safe driving speed for these roads and therefore a mandatory speed limit of 20mph is needed. If your speed is inappropriate for the road conditions then you are part of the problem. Richard of Wantage
  • Score: 6

11:39am Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Once again and again and again the motorist was going at 20 or less so SPEED was not a factor. What difference would it have made if the road had been 20mph? This was down to the child running out between parked cars nothing else.
Once again and again and again the motorist was going at 20 or less so SPEED was not a factor. What difference would it have made if the road had been 20mph? This was down to the child running out between parked cars nothing else. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: 12

12:12pm Wed 16 Jul 14

TobyB1960 says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Once again and again and again the motorist was going at 20 or less so SPEED was not a factor. What difference would it have made if the road had been 20mph? This was down to the child running out between parked cars nothing else.
You need to re-read the above comments again, nobody is saying the motorist was doing more than 20mph. A 20mph speed limit may not have saved Freddie but it could make the difference for the next child.
As Richard of Wantage said, you should drive at the appropriate speed for the road conditions and on residential roads it should be 20mph. If you want to speed there are A roads, motorways and race circuits, but not where people live. The biggest problem with motorists who speed it's always somebody else is fault and not theirs own.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Once again and again and again the motorist was going at 20 or less so SPEED was not a factor. What difference would it have made if the road had been 20mph? This was down to the child running out between parked cars nothing else.[/p][/quote]You need to re-read the above comments again, nobody is saying the motorist was doing more than 20mph. A 20mph speed limit may not have saved Freddie but it could make the difference for the next child. As Richard of Wantage said, you should drive at the appropriate speed for the road conditions and on residential roads it should be 20mph. If you want to speed there are A roads, motorways and race circuits, but not where people live. The biggest problem with motorists who speed it's always somebody else is fault and not theirs own. TobyB1960
  • Score: -8

12:25pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

TobyB1960 wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Once again and again and again the motorist was going at 20 or less so SPEED was not a factor. What difference would it have made if the road had been 20mph? This was down to the child running out between parked cars nothing else.
You need to re-read the above comments again, nobody is saying the motorist was doing more than 20mph. A 20mph speed limit may not have saved Freddie but it could make the difference for the next child.
As Richard of Wantage said, you should drive at the appropriate speed for the road conditions and on residential roads it should be 20mph. If you want to speed there are A roads, motorways and race circuits, but not where people live. The biggest problem with motorists who speed it's always somebody else is fault and not theirs own.
You still don't get it. If this accident had been after someone else's death, and a 20 mph zone had been implemented how would it have prevented this one? Can anyone answer this? No, because it comes down to a child running out between cars. Why not make the road 5 mph he might have then survived ? Start looking at ways to make kids not run out between parked cars, that's the problem here not the motorist.
[quote][p][bold]TobyB1960[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Once again and again and again the motorist was going at 20 or less so SPEED was not a factor. What difference would it have made if the road had been 20mph? This was down to the child running out between parked cars nothing else.[/p][/quote]You need to re-read the above comments again, nobody is saying the motorist was doing more than 20mph. A 20mph speed limit may not have saved Freddie but it could make the difference for the next child. As Richard of Wantage said, you should drive at the appropriate speed for the road conditions and on residential roads it should be 20mph. If you want to speed there are A roads, motorways and race circuits, but not where people live. The biggest problem with motorists who speed it's always somebody else is fault and not theirs own.[/p][/quote]You still don't get it. If this accident had been after someone else's death, and a 20 mph zone had been implemented how would it have prevented this one? Can anyone answer this? No, because it comes down to a child running out between cars. Why not make the road 5 mph he might have then survived ? Start looking at ways to make kids not run out between parked cars, that's the problem here not the motorist. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: 8

12:56pm Wed 16 Jul 14

whyhavealltheusernamesgone? says...

For goodness sake! Where is your empathy and compassion. Of course Freddie knew about road safety. But he was 10. 10! A little boy. Playing in the street. It was an accident. Nobody's fault just a horrible coming together of factors that resulted in a horrible ending. No a 20 mph limit wouldn't have saved him. But it could well save someone else in the future and that's what Freddie's parents want to do. Also, as someone else said if residents used their garages and the road was clear of parked cars this would help too.
For goodness sake! Where is your empathy and compassion. Of course Freddie knew about road safety. But he was 10. 10! A little boy. Playing in the street. It was an accident. Nobody's fault just a horrible coming together of factors that resulted in a horrible ending. No a 20 mph limit wouldn't have saved him. But it could well save someone else in the future and that's what Freddie's parents want to do. Also, as someone else said if residents used their garages and the road was clear of parked cars this would help too. whyhavealltheusernamesgone?
  • Score: -5

1:40pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

There really are some dumb people on here, like the last comment and many before by saying " it may save lives later" Read my lips, again, how would it prevented this death or any others? No one has answered that because a 20 mph zone would not have prevented this death or others like it. It was a tragic accident and the cause was a young boy running out between parked cars, address that. It's very simple.
There really are some dumb people on here, like the last comment and many before by saying " it may save lives later" Read my lips, again, how would it prevented this death or any others? No one has answered that because a 20 mph zone would not have prevented this death or others like it. It was a tragic accident and the cause was a young boy running out between parked cars, address that. It's very simple. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: 7

1:59pm Wed 16 Jul 14

faatmaan says...

lets try something different, lets abolish motorised transport, then we will see how people carry on their normal day to day lives, getting to work, shopping, going to places like doctors the list is endless, the point is, the vehicle is a modern day necessity in lieu of high quality public transport (non motorised or motorised). How many times do we find the vehicle at fault when the actions of an OAP or a child cause serious or fatal injury, as far as children go , when I was young we were continually told by our parents to play away from the roads and the odd car that sped by (near 30mph), nowadays a lot of parents abdicate responsibility, time for parents to re engage with the necessity to educate and oversee their childrens behaviour.
lets try something different, lets abolish motorised transport, then we will see how people carry on their normal day to day lives, getting to work, shopping, going to places like doctors the list is endless, the point is, the vehicle is a modern day necessity in lieu of high quality public transport (non motorised or motorised). How many times do we find the vehicle at fault when the actions of an OAP or a child cause serious or fatal injury, as far as children go , when I was young we were continually told by our parents to play away from the roads and the odd car that sped by (near 30mph), nowadays a lot of parents abdicate responsibility, time for parents to re engage with the necessity to educate and oversee their childrens behaviour. faatmaan
  • Score: 18

2:12pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Richard of Wantage says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
There really are some dumb people on here, like the last comment and many before by saying " it may save lives later" Read my lips, again, how would it prevented this death or any others? No one has answered that because a 20 mph zone would not have prevented this death or others like it. It was a tragic accident and the cause was a young boy running out between parked cars, address that. It's very simple.
I think you are totally missing the point that everyone is telling you. The purpose of an speed limit is to provide information to drivers about the appropriate maximum speed in clear conditions for that road and means of prosecuting drivers who travel at inappropriately high speeds that are likely to cause danger to other road users.

The residents of Oxford Crescent do not feel that the current 30mph speed limit is appropriate for the characteristics of their road. This isn't a through road or a major A road, this is a residential street where cars are parked on both sides of the road and people live there. And before you ask pedestrians, kids on bikes, parents with prams, cat and dogs are road users in a residential road.

If reducing speed limits didn't reduce deaths and injuries then we wouldn't have any speed limits anywhere.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: There really are some dumb people on here, like the last comment and many before by saying " it may save lives later" Read my lips, again, how would it prevented this death or any others? No one has answered that because a 20 mph zone would not have prevented this death or others like it. It was a tragic accident and the cause was a young boy running out between parked cars, address that. It's very simple.[/p][/quote]I think you are totally missing the point that everyone is telling you. The purpose of an speed limit is to provide information to drivers about the appropriate maximum speed in clear conditions for that road and means of prosecuting drivers who travel at inappropriately high speeds that are likely to cause danger to other road users. The residents of Oxford Crescent do not feel that the current 30mph speed limit is appropriate for the characteristics of their road. This isn't a through road or a major A road, this is a residential street where cars are parked on both sides of the road and people live there. And before you ask pedestrians, kids on bikes, parents with prams, cat and dogs are road users in a residential road. If reducing speed limits didn't reduce deaths and injuries then we wouldn't have any speed limits anywhere. Richard of Wantage
  • Score: -5

2:15pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required.
Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: 4

2:25pm Wed 16 Jul 14

whyhavealltheusernamesgone? says...

Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival.

http://www.nidirect.
gov.uk/speed-limits
Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival. http://www.nidirect. gov.uk/speed-limits whyhavealltheusernamesgone?
  • Score: 1

2:52pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

whyhavealltheusernam
esgone?
wrote:
Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival.

http://www.nidirect.

gov.uk/speed-limits
Are really thick or just acting it, you keep quoting so called statistics, if another child ran out between parked cars in this road and got hit would it be a different outcome because there was a 20 mph zone?
You should be looking at the cause of this death and reducing that, like better education from parents and schools. Why not reduce it to 10mph then no one would get killed? How about that then. Let's reduce motorways to 30mph that should prevent a lot of accidents. Oh and let's ban all cars in residential streets as well, no one would get killed then. Sometimes accidents happen and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, that's why they are called accidents.
[quote][p][bold]whyhavealltheusernam esgone?[/bold] wrote: Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival. http://www.nidirect. gov.uk/speed-limits[/p][/quote]Are really thick or just acting it, you keep quoting so called statistics, if another child ran out between parked cars in this road and got hit would it be a different outcome because there was a 20 mph zone? You should be looking at the cause of this death and reducing that, like better education from parents and schools. Why not reduce it to 10mph then no one would get killed? How about that then. Let's reduce motorways to 30mph that should prevent a lot of accidents. Oh and let's ban all cars in residential streets as well, no one would get killed then. Sometimes accidents happen and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, that's why they are called accidents. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: 4

2:53pm Wed 16 Jul 14

livid99 says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
There really are some dumb people on here, like the last comment and many before by saying " it may save lives later" Read my lips, again, how would it prevented this death or any others? No one has answered that because a 20 mph zone would not have prevented this death or others like it. It was a tragic accident and the cause was a young boy running out between parked cars, address that. It's very simple.
You appear to be about as smart as your username....
People are not stupid, they know what happened. But the bereaved family are trying to do their bit by making the road a little bit safer by making people drive slower. Is that wrong ? It seems to be according to you judging by your lack of sensitivity. Some people are trying to make some good from a tragedy, but there are always people like you ready to criticise. Sad really.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: There really are some dumb people on here, like the last comment and many before by saying " it may save lives later" Read my lips, again, how would it prevented this death or any others? No one has answered that because a 20 mph zone would not have prevented this death or others like it. It was a tragic accident and the cause was a young boy running out between parked cars, address that. It's very simple.[/p][/quote]You appear to be about as smart as your username.... People are not stupid, they know what happened. But the bereaved family are trying to do their bit by making the road a little bit safer by making people drive slower. Is that wrong ? It seems to be according to you judging by your lack of sensitivity. Some people are trying to make some good from a tragedy, but there are always people like you ready to criticise. Sad really. livid99
  • Score: 3

2:56pm Wed 16 Jul 14

livid99 says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required.
No, it wouldn't - and NO_ONE IS SAYING IT WOULD HAVE.

But a 20mph limit might prevent a future death - is that not worth trying for ?
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required.[/p][/quote]No, it wouldn't - and NO_ONE IS SAYING IT WOULD HAVE. But a 20mph limit might prevent a future death - is that not worth trying for ? livid99
  • Score: 2

3:00pm Wed 16 Jul 14

whyhavealltheusernamesgone? says...

Maybe I am thick. But I try not to be rude ;-)

The "so called statistics" show that children have a greater sense of surviving if hit at 20 mph. It's not a magic cure. Unfortunately for Freddie his accident fell into the 10%. There is no need to drive down Oxford Crescent at 30 mph and it is dangerous to do so. I fail to see how motorways are relevant - I've never seen children playing by the side of a motorway.
Maybe I am thick. But I try not to be rude ;-) The "so called statistics" show that children have a greater sense of surviving if hit at 20 mph. It's not a magic cure. Unfortunately for Freddie his accident fell into the 10%. There is no need to drive down Oxford Crescent at 30 mph and it is dangerous to do so. I fail to see how motorways are relevant - I've never seen children playing by the side of a motorway. whyhavealltheusernamesgone?
  • Score: 2

3:01pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

livid99 wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required.
No, it wouldn't - and NO_ONE IS SAYING IT WOULD HAVE.

But a 20mph limit might prevent a future death - is that not worth trying for ?
You are as stupid as the others. You just agreed a 20mph zone would not have prevented this death and then campaigns for a 20mph zone! Doh
You should really read my posts correctly, I'll repeat for you, if this had happened last year and a 20mph zone was brought in, this tragic accident would have still happened, so explain how it will now prevent other deaths? Why don't you campaign for a 10mph zone? Oh and by the way 'might happen' is not the same as " will happen" .
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required.[/p][/quote]No, it wouldn't - and NO_ONE IS SAYING IT WOULD HAVE. But a 20mph limit might prevent a future death - is that not worth trying for ?[/p][/quote]You are as stupid as the others. You just agreed a 20mph zone would not have prevented this death and then campaigns for a 20mph zone! Doh You should really read my posts correctly, I'll repeat for you, if this had happened last year and a 20mph zone was brought in, this tragic accident would have still happened, so explain how it will now prevent other deaths? Why don't you campaign for a 10mph zone? Oh and by the way 'might happen' is not the same as " will happen" . HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -4

3:02pm Wed 16 Jul 14

livid99 says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
whyhavealltheusernam

esgone?
wrote:
Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival.

http://www.nidirect.


gov.uk/speed-limits
Are really thick or just acting it, you keep quoting so called statistics, if another child ran out between parked cars in this road and got hit would it be a different outcome because there was a 20 mph zone?
You should be looking at the cause of this death and reducing that, like better education from parents and schools. Why not reduce it to 10mph then no one would get killed? How about that then. Let's reduce motorways to 30mph that should prevent a lot of accidents. Oh and let's ban all cars in residential streets as well, no one would get killed then. Sometimes accidents happen and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, that's why they are called accidents.
Homer...when you are missing the point so spectacularly, it might be best to stop. We know about road safety, we know this tragedy would not have been prevented by a 20pmh limit, we know that better education would help. But a future accident may result in someone surviving a hit at 20mph, whereas someone driving at 30 in a residential street would have killed them. That is the aim of this campaign. You probably don't understand that though.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whyhavealltheusernam esgone?[/bold] wrote: Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival. http://www.nidirect. gov.uk/speed-limits[/p][/quote]Are really thick or just acting it, you keep quoting so called statistics, if another child ran out between parked cars in this road and got hit would it be a different outcome because there was a 20 mph zone? You should be looking at the cause of this death and reducing that, like better education from parents and schools. Why not reduce it to 10mph then no one would get killed? How about that then. Let's reduce motorways to 30mph that should prevent a lot of accidents. Oh and let's ban all cars in residential streets as well, no one would get killed then. Sometimes accidents happen and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, that's why they are called accidents.[/p][/quote]Homer...when you are missing the point so spectacularly, it might be best to stop. We know about road safety, we know this tragedy would not have been prevented by a 20pmh limit, we know that better education would help. But a future accident may result in someone surviving a hit at 20mph, whereas someone driving at 30 in a residential street would have killed them. That is the aim of this campaign. You probably don't understand that though. livid99
  • Score: 5

3:06pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

livid99 wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
whyhavealltheusernam


esgone?
wrote:
Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival.

http://www.nidirect.



gov.uk/speed-limits
Are really thick or just acting it, you keep quoting so called statistics, if another child ran out between parked cars in this road and got hit would it be a different outcome because there was a 20 mph zone?
You should be looking at the cause of this death and reducing that, like better education from parents and schools. Why not reduce it to 10mph then no one would get killed? How about that then. Let's reduce motorways to 30mph that should prevent a lot of accidents. Oh and let's ban all cars in residential streets as well, no one would get killed then. Sometimes accidents happen and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, that's why they are called accidents.
Homer...when you are missing the point so spectacularly, it might be best to stop. We know about road safety, we know this tragedy would not have been prevented by a 20pmh limit, we know that better education would help. But a future accident may result in someone surviving a hit at 20mph, whereas someone driving at 30 in a residential street would have killed them. That is the aim of this campaign. You probably don't understand that though.
Still can not answer my question then, tells it all really. So cars drive down that street in a 20mph zone like this one did and another death occurs, then what???? Campaign for 10mph zone?
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whyhavealltheusernam esgone?[/bold] wrote: Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival. http://www.nidirect. gov.uk/speed-limits[/p][/quote]Are really thick or just acting it, you keep quoting so called statistics, if another child ran out between parked cars in this road and got hit would it be a different outcome because there was a 20 mph zone? You should be looking at the cause of this death and reducing that, like better education from parents and schools. Why not reduce it to 10mph then no one would get killed? How about that then. Let's reduce motorways to 30mph that should prevent a lot of accidents. Oh and let's ban all cars in residential streets as well, no one would get killed then. Sometimes accidents happen and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, that's why they are called accidents.[/p][/quote]Homer...when you are missing the point so spectacularly, it might be best to stop. We know about road safety, we know this tragedy would not have been prevented by a 20pmh limit, we know that better education would help. But a future accident may result in someone surviving a hit at 20mph, whereas someone driving at 30 in a residential street would have killed them. That is the aim of this campaign. You probably don't understand that though.[/p][/quote]Still can not answer my question then, tells it all really. So cars drive down that street in a 20mph zone like this one did and another death occurs, then what???? Campaign for 10mph zone? HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -9

3:07pm Wed 16 Jul 14

livid99 says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
livid99 wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required.
No, it wouldn't - and NO_ONE IS SAYING IT WOULD HAVE.

But a 20mph limit might prevent a future death - is that not worth trying for ?
You are as stupid as the others. You just agreed a 20mph zone would not have prevented this death and then campaigns for a 20mph zone! Doh
You should really read my posts correctly, I'll repeat for you, if this had happened last year and a 20mph zone was brought in, this tragic accident would have still happened, so explain how it will now prevent other deaths? Why don't you campaign for a 10mph zone? Oh and by the way 'might happen' is not the same as " will happen" .
I give up. If you still cannot understand, i have no intention of using this sensitive story to get into a slanging match.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required.[/p][/quote]No, it wouldn't - and NO_ONE IS SAYING IT WOULD HAVE. But a 20mph limit might prevent a future death - is that not worth trying for ?[/p][/quote]You are as stupid as the others. You just agreed a 20mph zone would not have prevented this death and then campaigns for a 20mph zone! Doh You should really read my posts correctly, I'll repeat for you, if this had happened last year and a 20mph zone was brought in, this tragic accident would have still happened, so explain how it will now prevent other deaths? Why don't you campaign for a 10mph zone? Oh and by the way 'might happen' is not the same as " will happen" .[/p][/quote]I give up. If you still cannot understand, i have no intention of using this sensitive story to get into a slanging match. livid99
  • Score: 7

3:12pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

You give up because you can not answer a straight question.
You give up because you can not answer a straight question. HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -5

3:16pm Wed 16 Jul 14

livid99 says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
You give up because you can not answer a straight question.
No, I give up because you cannot understand a very simple idea.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: You give up because you can not answer a straight question.[/p][/quote]No, I give up because you cannot understand a very simple idea. livid99
  • Score: 4

3:23pm Wed 16 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Doh, still can't answer a question
Doh, still can't answer a question HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -6

5:18pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

livid99 wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
livid99 wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required.
No, it wouldn't - and NO_ONE IS SAYING IT WOULD HAVE.

But a 20mph limit might prevent a future death - is that not worth trying for ?
You are as stupid as the others. You just agreed a 20mph zone would not have prevented this death and then campaigns for a 20mph zone! Doh
You should really read my posts correctly, I'll repeat for you, if this had happened last year and a 20mph zone was brought in, this tragic accident would have still happened, so explain how it will now prevent other deaths? Why don't you campaign for a 10mph zone? Oh and by the way 'might happen' is not the same as " will happen" .
I give up. If you still cannot understand, i have no intention of using this sensitive story to get into a slanging match.
Took you long enough !
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Very simple question, would a 20mph zone prevented this death? A yes or no answer is all that's required.[/p][/quote]No, it wouldn't - and NO_ONE IS SAYING IT WOULD HAVE. But a 20mph limit might prevent a future death - is that not worth trying for ?[/p][/quote]You are as stupid as the others. You just agreed a 20mph zone would not have prevented this death and then campaigns for a 20mph zone! Doh You should really read my posts correctly, I'll repeat for you, if this had happened last year and a 20mph zone was brought in, this tragic accident would have still happened, so explain how it will now prevent other deaths? Why don't you campaign for a 10mph zone? Oh and by the way 'might happen' is not the same as " will happen" .[/p][/quote]I give up. If you still cannot understand, i have no intention of using this sensitive story to get into a slanging match.[/p][/quote]Took you long enough ! Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 5

5:26pm Wed 16 Jul 14

xenarthra says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Doh, still can't answer a question
What a strange exchange of comments this has been.

HomerSimpson's point seems to be that it is not logical to use this tragic accident as evidence to support a reduction in the speed limit to 20mph, because speed was not a factor here. I agree.

Nevertheless, the distraught parents are clearly eager to make their local neighbourhood safer, so that no other parents suffer as they have. This is also quite understandable.

They have chosen to do this by focusing on speed limits. This is also understandable, since it is a relatively concrete and manageable thing to try to change. Whether any speed limit should be lowered should be decided by an evidence-based balancing of increased safety against increased inconvenience, economic cost and environmental impact. It should not be based on anecdotal evidence and one-off tragedies. That does not mean that these parents aren't in as good a position as anyone else to state the case for a reduction.

I hope the council will come to a sensible, evidence-based decision in this case. A 20mph limit may well be appropriate.

Another area that the family might also want to campaign on is that of pedestrian and driver education. Their personal testimony might have more persuasive force here. But this is a slower and more complex issue to try to influence. So they may decide not to.

I don't understand why people seem to be wilfully misunderstanding each other in these comments. It does not seem very respectfully given the tragic nature of what happened here.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Doh, still can't answer a question[/p][/quote]What a strange exchange of comments this has been. HomerSimpson's point seems to be that it is not logical to use this tragic accident as evidence to support a reduction in the speed limit to 20mph, because speed was not a factor here. I agree. Nevertheless, the distraught parents are clearly eager to make their local neighbourhood safer, so that no other parents suffer as they have. This is also quite understandable. They have chosen to do this by focusing on speed limits. This is also understandable, since it is a relatively concrete and manageable thing to try to change. Whether any speed limit should be lowered should be decided by an evidence-based balancing of increased safety against increased inconvenience, economic cost and environmental impact. It should not be based on anecdotal evidence and one-off tragedies. That does not mean that these parents aren't in as good a position as anyone else to state the case for a reduction. I hope the council will come to a sensible, evidence-based decision in this case. A 20mph limit may well be appropriate. Another area that the family might also want to campaign on is that of pedestrian and driver education. Their personal testimony might have more persuasive force here. But this is a slower and more complex issue to try to influence. So they may decide not to. I don't understand why people seem to be wilfully misunderstanding each other in these comments. It does not seem very respectfully given the tragic nature of what happened here. xenarthra
  • Score: 12

5:35pm Wed 16 Jul 14

robbo81 says...

TobyB1960 wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Once again and again and again the motorist was going at 20 or less so SPEED was not a factor. What difference would it have made if the road had been 20mph? This was down to the child running out between parked cars nothing else.
You need to re-read the above comments again, nobody is saying the motorist was doing more than 20mph. A 20mph speed limit may not have saved Freddie but it could make the difference for the next child.
As Richard of Wantage said, you should drive at the appropriate speed for the road conditions and on residential roads it should be 20mph. If you want to speed there are A roads, motorways and race circuits, but not where people live. The biggest problem with motorists who speed it's always somebody else is fault and not theirs own.
TOBY You start by saying that although speed wasn't a factor that reducing the limit could save someone in the future. But you end by saying the problem with motorists who speed is its always someone elses fault.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with others who posted here. I feel deeply for their loss but if the motorist in this instance was travelling at under 20mph then they were driving to the conditions of the road by driving slower than the speed limit by 33%, the reduction the campaigners are calling for. Statistically a reduction in speed does both reduce a drivers stopping distance and allows more time for reaction. It doesn't account for children running out from between parked cars right in front of you.

A quick look online and most sources state that if travelling at 20mph you would need to allow 67 feet for a safe stopping distance. If most hatchback style cars are about 14ft long then unless a child steps out at least 4 cars ahead, they don't stand a chance.

Unless you made the limit 10 or 15mph very little will help. So I'd agree and say that surely education is better and also use driveways, don't create obstacles in the road if it can be helped.
[quote][p][bold]TobyB1960[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Once again and again and again the motorist was going at 20 or less so SPEED was not a factor. What difference would it have made if the road had been 20mph? This was down to the child running out between parked cars nothing else.[/p][/quote]You need to re-read the above comments again, nobody is saying the motorist was doing more than 20mph. A 20mph speed limit may not have saved Freddie but it could make the difference for the next child. As Richard of Wantage said, you should drive at the appropriate speed for the road conditions and on residential roads it should be 20mph. If you want to speed there are A roads, motorways and race circuits, but not where people live. The biggest problem with motorists who speed it's always somebody else is fault and not theirs own.[/p][/quote]TOBY You start by saying that although speed wasn't a factor that reducing the limit could save someone in the future. But you end by saying the problem with motorists who speed is its always someone elses fault. I'm sorry but I have to agree with others who posted here. I feel deeply for their loss but if the motorist in this instance was travelling at under 20mph then they were driving to the conditions of the road by driving slower than the speed limit by 33%, the reduction the campaigners are calling for. Statistically a reduction in speed does both reduce a drivers stopping distance and allows more time for reaction. It doesn't account for children running out from between parked cars right in front of you. A quick look online and most sources state that if travelling at 20mph you would need to allow 67 feet for a safe stopping distance. If most hatchback style cars are about 14ft long then unless a child steps out at least 4 cars ahead, they don't stand a chance. Unless you made the limit 10 or 15mph very little will help. So I'd agree and say that surely education is better and also use driveways, don't create obstacles in the road if it can be helped. robbo81
  • Score: 4

6:38pm Wed 16 Jul 14

kiddyboy says...

20 mph is fine where there are kids around as they can always do something silly,but 20 mph down st Giles and some other roads is a p#sstake..........pr
obably wont happen as there isn't enough ££££ in it for the council/gov they don't give a sh#t about whose in danger
20 mph is fine where there are kids around as they can always do something silly,but 20 mph down st Giles and some other roads is a p#sstake..........pr obably wont happen as there isn't enough ££££ in it for the council/gov they don't give a sh#t about whose in danger kiddyboy
  • Score: -3

7:15pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Dr Martin says...

livid99 wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
whyhavealltheusernam


esgone?
wrote:
Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival.

http://www.nidirect.



gov.uk/speed-limits
Are really thick or just acting it, you keep quoting so called statistics, if another child ran out between parked cars in this road and got hit would it be a different outcome because there was a 20 mph zone?
You should be looking at the cause of this death and reducing that, like better education from parents and schools. Why not reduce it to 10mph then no one would get killed? How about that then. Let's reduce motorways to 30mph that should prevent a lot of accidents. Oh and let's ban all cars in residential streets as well, no one would get killed then. Sometimes accidents happen and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, that's why they are called accidents.
Homer...when you are missing the point so spectacularly, it might be best to stop. We know about road safety, we know this tragedy would not have been prevented by a 20pmh limit, we know that better education would help. But a future accident may result in someone surviving a hit at 20mph, whereas someone driving at 30 in a residential street would have killed them. That is the aim of this campaign. You probably don't understand that though.
well said Livid99
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]whyhavealltheusernam esgone?[/bold] wrote: Nobody is trying to prevent this death. Obviously. Nothing could have. However, a reduction of 10mph in speed greatly increases a child's chance of surviving if struck by a car. Statistics show that a child hit by a car at 20mph has a 90% chance of survival. http://www.nidirect. gov.uk/speed-limits[/p][/quote]Are really thick or just acting it, you keep quoting so called statistics, if another child ran out between parked cars in this road and got hit would it be a different outcome because there was a 20 mph zone? You should be looking at the cause of this death and reducing that, like better education from parents and schools. Why not reduce it to 10mph then no one would get killed? How about that then. Let's reduce motorways to 30mph that should prevent a lot of accidents. Oh and let's ban all cars in residential streets as well, no one would get killed then. Sometimes accidents happen and there is nothing you can do to prevent it, that's why they are called accidents.[/p][/quote]Homer...when you are missing the point so spectacularly, it might be best to stop. We know about road safety, we know this tragedy would not have been prevented by a 20pmh limit, we know that better education would help. But a future accident may result in someone surviving a hit at 20mph, whereas someone driving at 30 in a residential street would have killed them. That is the aim of this campaign. You probably don't understand that though.[/p][/quote]well said Livid99 Dr Martin
  • Score: 1

10:07pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Major Rhode-Werks says...

Think I'll go with Institute of advanced motorist on this one. Have a look at this report: http://www.iam.org.u
k/component/content/
article?id=20505
Think I'll go with Institute of advanced motorist on this one. Have a look at this report: http://www.iam.org.u k/component/content/ article?id=20505 Major Rhode-Werks
  • Score: -2

11:11pm Wed 16 Jul 14

grandconjuration says...

Major Rhode-Werks wrote:
Think I'll go with Institute of advanced motorist on this one. Have a look at this report: http://www.iam.org.u

k/component/content/

article?id=20505
You, like the IAM and most tabloids, have failed to interpret the statistics properly. Read...

http://www.roadsafet
ygb.org.uk/news/3716
.html

My two favourite statements...

“In 2012 some gullible organisations made the same claim and it was investigated by the BBC “More or Less” programme which concluded that the large increase in the number of 20mph roads and consequent reduction in 30mph roads would be expected to account for any such change.

“There is also public health consensus that 20mph is safer than 30mph. Physics proves it. In the distance a 20mph car takes to stop, a 30mph car is still doing 24mph.”
[quote][p][bold]Major Rhode-Werks[/bold] wrote: Think I'll go with Institute of advanced motorist on this one. Have a look at this report: http://www.iam.org.u k/component/content/ article?id=20505[/p][/quote]You, like the IAM and most tabloids, have failed to interpret the statistics properly. Read... http://www.roadsafet ygb.org.uk/news/3716 .html My two favourite statements... “In 2012 some gullible organisations made the same claim and it was investigated by the BBC “More or Less” programme which concluded that the large increase in the number of 20mph roads and consequent reduction in 30mph roads would be expected to account for any such change. “There is also public health consensus that 20mph is safer than 30mph. Physics proves it. In the distance a 20mph car takes to stop, a 30mph car is still doing 24mph.” grandconjuration
  • Score: 4

8:16am Thu 17 Jul 14

Major Rhode-Werks says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Major Rhode-Werks wrote:
Think I'll go with Institute of advanced motorist on this one. Have a look at this report: http://www.iam.org.u


k/component/content/


article?id=20505
You, like the IAM and most tabloids, have failed to interpret the statistics properly. Read...

http://www.roadsafet

ygb.org.uk/news/3716

.html

My two favourite statements...

“In 2012 some gullible organisations made the same claim and it was investigated by the BBC “More or Less” programme which concluded that the large increase in the number of 20mph roads and consequent reduction in 30mph roads would be expected to account for any such change.

“There is also public health consensus that 20mph is safer than 30mph. Physics proves it. In the distance a 20mph car takes to stop, a 30mph car is still doing 24mph.”
First of all let me say that I don't know how anyone can get over the loss of a child, and having a close friend who lost a child in tragic circumstances I have seen what this can do and I have every possible sympathy for this family.
Your two favourite statements come from Road Safety GB who are surely bound to support reduced speed limits and I fully understand that if 30mph roads are reduced to 20mph then there are more miles of 20mph and less of 30mph for accidents to happen. However, if these 20mph road are so wonderful how come "The number of serious accidents fell by 9% on 30mph roads and 7% on 40 mph roads, and slight accidents fell by 5% and 3% respectively." "Serious casualties in 20mph zones also increased by 29% while slight casualties went up by 19%". Seems one hell of an increase in the 20mph zones compared to the relatively small decrease in 30/40mph zones.
I don't claim to know anything much about physics so can't really argue the point, but I do find it difficult, even impossible, to believe that in the time it takes a car travelling at 20mph to come to a standstill (or decrease its speed by 20mph) a car travelling at 30mph has only decreased its speed by 6mph.
At the end of the day people who obey speed limits tend to be the same people who drive responsibly and even if this road had a 50mph limit, if it had cars parked both sides they would probably still only be driving at 20mph as that is a maximum safe speed for these conditions. People who would drive like idiots down these roads would still drive like idiots and disregard speed limits whatever they are. Once again we come down to being too soft which is why you regularly see people driving dangerously or driving while on the phone etc but if they don't get caught until they cause an accident or get nothing more than a tap on the wrist if they are caught then all the new laws and speed limits in the world won't make a scrap of difference. With the amount of traffic on the roads now perhaps we should start handing out lifetime driving bans for people driving while on mobiles and driving dangerously, with a dedicated team to enforce it. That would maybe help decrease the amount of traffic and make the roads a safer place.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Major Rhode-Werks[/bold] wrote: Think I'll go with Institute of advanced motorist on this one. Have a look at this report: http://www.iam.org.u k/component/content/ article?id=20505[/p][/quote]You, like the IAM and most tabloids, have failed to interpret the statistics properly. Read... http://www.roadsafet ygb.org.uk/news/3716 .html My two favourite statements... “In 2012 some gullible organisations made the same claim and it was investigated by the BBC “More or Less” programme which concluded that the large increase in the number of 20mph roads and consequent reduction in 30mph roads would be expected to account for any such change. “There is also public health consensus that 20mph is safer than 30mph. Physics proves it. In the distance a 20mph car takes to stop, a 30mph car is still doing 24mph.”[/p][/quote]First of all let me say that I don't know how anyone can get over the loss of a child, and having a close friend who lost a child in tragic circumstances I have seen what this can do and I have every possible sympathy for this family. Your two favourite statements come from Road Safety GB who are surely bound to support reduced speed limits and I fully understand that if 30mph roads are reduced to 20mph then there are more miles of 20mph and less of 30mph for accidents to happen. However, if these 20mph road are so wonderful how come "The number of serious accidents fell by 9% on 30mph roads and 7% on 40 mph roads, and slight accidents fell by 5% and 3% respectively." "Serious casualties in 20mph zones also increased by 29% while slight casualties went up by 19%". Seems one hell of an increase in the 20mph zones compared to the relatively small decrease in 30/40mph zones. I don't claim to know anything much about physics so can't really argue the point, but I do find it difficult, even impossible, to believe that in the time it takes a car travelling at 20mph to come to a standstill (or decrease its speed by 20mph) a car travelling at 30mph has only decreased its speed by 6mph. At the end of the day people who obey speed limits tend to be the same people who drive responsibly and even if this road had a 50mph limit, if it had cars parked both sides they would probably still only be driving at 20mph as that is a maximum safe speed for these conditions. People who would drive like idiots down these roads would still drive like idiots and disregard speed limits whatever they are. Once again we come down to being too soft which is why you regularly see people driving dangerously or driving while on the phone etc but if they don't get caught until they cause an accident or get nothing more than a tap on the wrist if they are caught then all the new laws and speed limits in the world won't make a scrap of difference. With the amount of traffic on the roads now perhaps we should start handing out lifetime driving bans for people driving while on mobiles and driving dangerously, with a dedicated team to enforce it. That would maybe help decrease the amount of traffic and make the roads a safer place. Major Rhode-Werks
  • Score: -3

10:29am Thu 17 Jul 14

xenarthra says...

Major Rhode-Werks says... "I don't claim to know anything much about physics so can't really argue the point, but I do find it difficult, even impossible, to believe that in the time it takes a car travelling at 20mph to come to a standstill (or decrease its speed by 20mph) a car travelling at 30mph has only decreased its speed by 6mph."

You're instinct is correct - this is not true. However, I believe what was stated was that in the DISTANCE (not the time) that it takes a car travelling at 20mph to stop, a car going at 30mph would only have slowed to 24mph. The stopping times include an initial reaction time, in which no braking occurs (while the driver's brain processes the hazard and tells his foot to push the brake pedal), during which time the 30mph car will have travelled a lot further down the road than the 20mph car.
Major Rhode-Werks says... "I don't claim to know anything much about physics so can't really argue the point, but I do find it difficult, even impossible, to believe that in the time it takes a car travelling at 20mph to come to a standstill (or decrease its speed by 20mph) a car travelling at 30mph has only decreased its speed by 6mph." You're instinct is correct - this is not true. However, I believe what was stated was that in the DISTANCE (not the time) that it takes a car travelling at 20mph to stop, a car going at 30mph would only have slowed to 24mph. The stopping times include an initial reaction time, in which no braking occurs (while the driver's brain processes the hazard and tells his foot to push the brake pedal), during which time the 30mph car will have travelled a lot further down the road than the 20mph car. xenarthra
  • Score: 1

11:23am Thu 17 Jul 14

MikeOxon says...

The death of any child is a huge tragedy and we should do anything sensible to minimise the risk of future accidents. Unfortunately, it appears that the apparently simply 'solution' of applying 20mph speed limits is unlikely to help. The statistics relating to where these schemes have been introduced are often mis-used but, alas, there is no real evidence that they actually help to reduce accidents

For example,the Government official statistics for 2013 (latest available) show that there were 11,582 serious injuries on roads with a 30mph limit against 420 on roads with a 20 mph limit. The corresponding figures for 2010 were 12,066 (30mph) and 206 (20mph). No doubt some areas that were 30mph limited in 2010 have been converted to 20mph in the intervening period, which could account for some of the large INCREASE in 20mph areas

Unfortunately, however, if we look at the overall figures for BOTH 20mph and 30mph areas, the figures are 12272 in 2010 and 12002 in 2013. Thus, we cannot escape the fact that there has been a 4% decrease in serious injuries in 30mph areas but only a 2% decrease when 20mph and 30mph areas are taken together. The inescapable solution is that there has been a greater reduction in injuries in those areas that have NOT been converted to 20mph zones.

I don't know why this is the case, since it appears counter-intuitive, but the evidence is that 20mph limits will NOT provide the improvement that one would hope for. They are simply a cheap 'sticking plaster' that councils like to apply, so that that they are seen to be doing something
The death of any child is a huge tragedy and we should do anything sensible to minimise the risk of future accidents. Unfortunately, it appears that the apparently simply 'solution' of applying 20mph speed limits is unlikely to help. The statistics relating to where these schemes have been introduced are often mis-used but, alas, there is no real evidence that they actually help to reduce accidents For example,the Government official statistics for 2013 (latest available) show that there were 11,582 serious injuries on roads with a 30mph limit against 420 on roads with a 20 mph limit. The corresponding figures for 2010 were 12,066 (30mph) and 206 (20mph). No doubt some areas that were 30mph limited in 2010 have been converted to 20mph in the intervening period, which could account for some of the large INCREASE in 20mph areas Unfortunately, however, if we look at the overall figures for BOTH 20mph and 30mph areas, the figures are 12272 in 2010 and 12002 in 2013. Thus, we cannot escape the fact that there has been a 4% decrease in serious injuries in 30mph areas but only a 2% decrease when 20mph and 30mph areas are taken together. The inescapable solution is that there has been a greater reduction in injuries in those areas that have NOT been converted to 20mph zones. I don't know why this is the case, since it appears counter-intuitive, but the evidence is that 20mph limits will NOT provide the improvement that one would hope for. They are simply a cheap 'sticking plaster' that councils like to apply, so that that they are seen to be doing something MikeOxon
  • Score: -1

11:43am Thu 17 Jul 14

Canismajoris says...

How about putting speed monitors in all licensed taxi cabs as a start, I regularly see them going around 40mph down Sandford road (the part which is 20mph)
How about putting speed monitors in all licensed taxi cabs as a start, I regularly see them going around 40mph down Sandford road (the part which is 20mph) Canismajoris
  • Score: 1

12:05pm Thu 17 Jul 14

locodogz says...

MikeOxon wrote:
The death of any child is a huge tragedy and we should do anything sensible to minimise the risk of future accidents. Unfortunately, it appears that the apparently simply 'solution' of applying 20mph speed limits is unlikely to help. The statistics relating to where these schemes have been introduced are often mis-used but, alas, there is no real evidence that they actually help to reduce accidents

For example,the Government official statistics for 2013 (latest available) show that there were 11,582 serious injuries on roads with a 30mph limit against 420 on roads with a 20 mph limit. The corresponding figures for 2010 were 12,066 (30mph) and 206 (20mph). No doubt some areas that were 30mph limited in 2010 have been converted to 20mph in the intervening period, which could account for some of the large INCREASE in 20mph areas

Unfortunately, however, if we look at the overall figures for BOTH 20mph and 30mph areas, the figures are 12272 in 2010 and 12002 in 2013. Thus, we cannot escape the fact that there has been a 4% decrease in serious injuries in 30mph areas but only a 2% decrease when 20mph and 30mph areas are taken together. The inescapable solution is that there has been a greater reduction in injuries in those areas that have NOT been converted to 20mph zones.

I don't know why this is the case, since it appears counter-intuitive, but the evidence is that 20mph limits will NOT provide the improvement that one would hope for. They are simply a cheap 'sticking plaster' that councils like to apply, so that that they are seen to be doing something
Crikey Mike – maths really isn’t your forte is it?

The most likely reason for a sharper drop in 30mph road casualties (than the national average) is that the roads (or at least some of them) where these casualties have occurred have been converted to 20mph limits? Whilst – unfortunately - there are no stats available on the increase in road distance covered by a 20mph limit (and the corresponding decrease in 30mph limit road distance) – its reasonable to draw correlation to that fact that the 20mph limits have predominately been introduced in town centres/areas of high population density where the majority of incidents occur?

Keeping the maths very simple for you the number of 20mph incidents has broadly doubled in the period you mention (206 to 420) – if the amount of road covered by 20mph has trebled in this time it would suggest that this limit is safer? If it has only gone up by 50% across this time it would suggest they’re more dangerous. Without this key factor it’s impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from the statistics you’re quoting.

Anecdotally I’d be interested in any decent estimates of the increase in Oxford Streets coming under a new 20mph limit in this period?
[quote][p][bold]MikeOxon[/bold] wrote: The death of any child is a huge tragedy and we should do anything sensible to minimise the risk of future accidents. Unfortunately, it appears that the apparently simply 'solution' of applying 20mph speed limits is unlikely to help. The statistics relating to where these schemes have been introduced are often mis-used but, alas, there is no real evidence that they actually help to reduce accidents For example,the Government official statistics for 2013 (latest available) show that there were 11,582 serious injuries on roads with a 30mph limit against 420 on roads with a 20 mph limit. The corresponding figures for 2010 were 12,066 (30mph) and 206 (20mph). No doubt some areas that were 30mph limited in 2010 have been converted to 20mph in the intervening period, which could account for some of the large INCREASE in 20mph areas Unfortunately, however, if we look at the overall figures for BOTH 20mph and 30mph areas, the figures are 12272 in 2010 and 12002 in 2013. Thus, we cannot escape the fact that there has been a 4% decrease in serious injuries in 30mph areas but only a 2% decrease when 20mph and 30mph areas are taken together. The inescapable solution is that there has been a greater reduction in injuries in those areas that have NOT been converted to 20mph zones. I don't know why this is the case, since it appears counter-intuitive, but the evidence is that 20mph limits will NOT provide the improvement that one would hope for. They are simply a cheap 'sticking plaster' that councils like to apply, so that that they are seen to be doing something[/p][/quote]Crikey Mike – maths really isn’t your forte is it? The most likely reason for a sharper drop in 30mph road casualties (than the national average) is that the roads (or at least some of them) where these casualties have occurred have been converted to 20mph limits? Whilst – unfortunately - there are no stats available on the increase in road distance covered by a 20mph limit (and the corresponding decrease in 30mph limit road distance) – its reasonable to draw correlation to that fact that the 20mph limits have predominately been introduced in town centres/areas of high population density where the majority of incidents occur? Keeping the maths very simple for you the number of 20mph incidents has broadly doubled in the period you mention (206 to 420) – if the amount of road covered by 20mph has trebled in this time it would suggest that this limit is safer? If it has only gone up by 50% across this time it would suggest they’re more dangerous. Without this key factor it’s impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from the statistics you’re quoting. Anecdotally I’d be interested in any decent estimates of the increase in Oxford Streets coming under a new 20mph limit in this period? locodogz
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Thu 17 Jul 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

Canismajoris wrote:
How about putting speed monitors in all licensed taxi cabs as a start, I regularly see them going around 40mph down Sandford road (the part which is 20mph)
And how do you know what speed they are doing.?
[quote][p][bold]Canismajoris[/bold] wrote: How about putting speed monitors in all licensed taxi cabs as a start, I regularly see them going around 40mph down Sandford road (the part which is 20mph)[/p][/quote]And how do you know what speed they are doing.? HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: -7

2:55pm Thu 17 Jul 14

China is Blue says...

Reading fuller accounts of the inquest it appears that the fatal injury was when Freddie fell and hit his head on the kerb. So, the speed of the car was irrelevant to the outcome; Freddie was not killed by the collision with the car.
Reading fuller accounts of the inquest it appears that the fatal injury was when Freddie fell and hit his head on the kerb. So, the speed of the car was irrelevant to the outcome; Freddie was not killed by the collision with the car. China is Blue
  • Score: 2

5:42pm Thu 17 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

7squatcat wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph.


Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.
A car at 20 mph can stop more quickly, and any collision will be far less dangerous. 30 mph is excessive for a residential area and makes the roads more dangerous and less pleasant.
ERR the driver WAS doing 20mph. Did you not read the story before spouting your anti car bile. It was a tragic accident, but not caused by speed. What do you want next a 5mph limit, nobody would be hurt then. The world changed with the death of the adulteress Diana and the mass grief that followed it, and sadly the lunatics have really taken over the asylum.
[quote][p][bold]7squatcat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: An inquest found in April that Freddie’s death was an accident and heard evidence that the driver of the car which hit Freddie was travelling at about 20mph. Sorry for their loss but as the driver was only doing 20 mph anyway what real difference will it make ? What is needed is road education, as we had when younger (remember the green cross code man), about the dangers of crossing the road, emerging from between parked cars etc.[/p][/quote]A car at 20 mph can stop more quickly, and any collision will be far less dangerous. 30 mph is excessive for a residential area and makes the roads more dangerous and less pleasant.[/p][/quote]ERR the driver WAS doing 20mph. Did you not read the story before spouting your anti car bile. It was a tragic accident, but not caused by speed. What do you want next a 5mph limit, nobody would be hurt then. The world changed with the death of the adulteress Diana and the mass grief that followed it, and sadly the lunatics have really taken over the asylum. The New Private Eye
  • Score: 1

9:20pm Thu 17 Jul 14

MikeOxon says...

locodogz wrote "... Crikey Mike – maths really isn’t your forte is it?"

Possibly :) and thank you for trying to explain things simply. I am well aware that the problem is that we do not know exactly how many new 20mph schemes were introduced between 2010 and 2013. That is precisely why I analysed the data in the way that I did!

I've no idea why you included the phrase "than the national average" because I was using the actual national figures - no reference to averages! I looked at total figures for 30mph zones alone and for 20mph and 30mph zones taken together. If converting 30mph zones to 20mph zones had a strong effect, then the rate of decline in serious injuries should be greater for the combined figures than for 30mph zones alone - they are not!

I'm not trying to make a big point but do not want to raise hopes that introduction of 20mph zones will solve these tragic accidents. Carefully targeted implementation of 20mph zones may help in some cases but, overall, their benefits are unproven.
locodogz wrote "... Crikey Mike – maths really isn’t your forte is it?" Possibly :) and thank you for trying to explain things simply. I am well aware that the problem is that we do not know exactly how many new 20mph schemes were introduced between 2010 and 2013. That is precisely why I analysed the data in the way that I did! I've no idea why you included the phrase "than the national average" because I was using the actual national figures - no reference to averages! I looked at total figures for 30mph zones alone and for 20mph and 30mph zones taken together. If converting 30mph zones to 20mph zones had a strong effect, then the rate of decline in serious injuries should be greater for the combined figures than for 30mph zones alone - they are not! I'm not trying to make a big point but do not want to raise hopes that introduction of 20mph zones will solve these tragic accidents. Carefully targeted implementation of 20mph zones may help in some cases but, overall, their benefits are unproven. MikeOxon
  • Score: -2

12:02pm Fri 18 Jul 14

## Nonny Mouse ## says...

HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Canismajoris wrote:
How about putting speed monitors in all licensed taxi cabs as a start, I regularly see them going around 40mph down Sandford road (the part which is 20mph)
And how do you know what speed they are doing.?
Depth perception, probably. All humans have access to the skill but drivers seldom use it. Bless.
[quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Canismajoris[/bold] wrote: How about putting speed monitors in all licensed taxi cabs as a start, I regularly see them going around 40mph down Sandford road (the part which is 20mph)[/p][/quote]And how do you know what speed they are doing.?[/p][/quote]Depth perception, probably. All humans have access to the skill but drivers seldom use it. Bless. ## Nonny Mouse ##
  • Score: 1

3:53pm Fri 18 Jul 14

HarwellItsGone says...

whyhavealltheusernam
esgone?
wrote:
For goodness sake! Where is your empathy and compassion. Of course Freddie knew about road safety. But he was 10. 10! A little boy. Playing in the street. It was an accident. Nobody's fault just a horrible coming together of factors that resulted in a horrible ending. No a 20 mph limit wouldn't have saved him. But it could well save someone else in the future and that's what Freddie's parents want to do. Also, as someone else said if residents used their garages and the road was clear of parked cars this would help too.
whyhavealltheusernam
esgone? hit the nail on the head.

I have regularly used this road, I will always travel
[quote][p][bold]whyhavealltheusernam esgone?[/bold] wrote: For goodness sake! Where is your empathy and compassion. Of course Freddie knew about road safety. But he was 10. 10! A little boy. Playing in the street. It was an accident. Nobody's fault just a horrible coming together of factors that resulted in a horrible ending. No a 20 mph limit wouldn't have saved him. But it could well save someone else in the future and that's what Freddie's parents want to do. Also, as someone else said if residents used their garages and the road was clear of parked cars this would help too.[/p][/quote]whyhavealltheusernam esgone? hit the nail on the head. I have regularly used this road, I will always travel HarwellItsGone
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Fri 18 Jul 14

HarwellItsGone says...

Hmm OM missed off some of my post . .
I have regularly used this road, I will always travel
Hmm OM missed off some of my post . . I have regularly used this road, I will always travel HarwellItsGone
  • Score: -1

6:49pm Fri 18 Jul 14

MikeOxon says...

locodogz wrote... "Anecdotally I’d be interested in any decent estimates of the increase in Oxford Streets coming under a new 20mph limit in this period?"

There was a detailed report, here in the Oxford Mail on 26th August 2013 that listed casualties before and after the 20mph limit on several streets. Although there was a general reduction in all types of accident, the number of killed or serious injury accidents stayed the same.

There was one fatal accident, 89 serious accidents, and 572 slight accidents leading up to September 1, 2009. Over the same length of time afterwards And in the same period afterwards there was one fatal, 89 serious, and 453 slight accidents.

Figures were available up until June 31, 2013 so the Oxford Mail compared 46 months before and after the September 1, 2009 date.

It's these serious accidents that i have been trying to understand but I agree that my methodology was flawed, in that it did not take into account the reduction of 30mph road mileage when 20mph zones were created. I remain puzzled by the seemingly counter-intuitive results from Oxford.
locodogz wrote... "Anecdotally I’d be interested in any decent estimates of the increase in Oxford Streets coming under a new 20mph limit in this period?" There was a detailed report, here in the Oxford Mail on 26th August 2013 that listed casualties before and after the 20mph limit on several streets. Although there was a general reduction in all types of accident, the number of killed or serious injury accidents stayed the same. There was one fatal accident, 89 serious accidents, and 572 slight accidents leading up to September 1, 2009. Over the same length of time afterwards And in the same period afterwards there was one fatal, 89 serious, and 453 slight accidents. Figures were available up until June 31, 2013 so the Oxford Mail compared 46 months before and after the September 1, 2009 date. It's these serious accidents that i have been trying to understand but I agree that my methodology was flawed, in that it did not take into account the reduction of 30mph road mileage when 20mph zones were created. I remain puzzled by the seemingly counter-intuitive results from Oxford. MikeOxon
  • Score: 0

2:41am Sat 19 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

xenarthra wrote:
HomerSimpsonDoh wrote:
Doh, still can't answer a question
What a strange exchange of comments this has been.

HomerSimpson's point seems to be that it is not logical to use this tragic accident as evidence to support a reduction in the speed limit to 20mph, because speed was not a factor here. I agree.

Nevertheless, the distraught parents are clearly eager to make their local neighbourhood safer, so that no other parents suffer as they have. This is also quite understandable.

They have chosen to do this by focusing on speed limits. This is also understandable, since it is a relatively concrete and manageable thing to try to change. Whether any speed limit should be lowered should be decided by an evidence-based balancing of increased safety against increased inconvenience, economic cost and environmental impact. It should not be based on anecdotal evidence and one-off tragedies. That does not mean that these parents aren't in as good a position as anyone else to state the case for a reduction.

I hope the council will come to a sensible, evidence-based decision in this case. A 20mph limit may well be appropriate.

Another area that the family might also want to campaign on is that of pedestrian and driver education. Their personal testimony might have more persuasive force here. But this is a slower and more complex issue to try to influence. So they may decide not to.

I don't understand why people seem to be wilfully misunderstanding each other in these comments. It does not seem very respectfully given the tragic nature of what happened here.
Probably the most sensible and thought out post on this story. But sadly Xenarthra, our councils work on knee jerk reactions, and populist vote winning actions, as in the 50mph limit from Green Road To Heyford Hill in Oxford. There is no chance of a rational outcome to this, it will be won by the voter friendly 20mph limit. Also with the new 24mph £100 jackpot law, watch out for more 20mph roads coming to a locale near you. Followed by 10mph zones once the money has stopped flowing from the 20's
[quote][p][bold]xenarthra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HomerSimpsonDoh[/bold] wrote: Doh, still can't answer a question[/p][/quote]What a strange exchange of comments this has been. HomerSimpson's point seems to be that it is not logical to use this tragic accident as evidence to support a reduction in the speed limit to 20mph, because speed was not a factor here. I agree. Nevertheless, the distraught parents are clearly eager to make their local neighbourhood safer, so that no other parents suffer as they have. This is also quite understandable. They have chosen to do this by focusing on speed limits. This is also understandable, since it is a relatively concrete and manageable thing to try to change. Whether any speed limit should be lowered should be decided by an evidence-based balancing of increased safety against increased inconvenience, economic cost and environmental impact. It should not be based on anecdotal evidence and one-off tragedies. That does not mean that these parents aren't in as good a position as anyone else to state the case for a reduction. I hope the council will come to a sensible, evidence-based decision in this case. A 20mph limit may well be appropriate. Another area that the family might also want to campaign on is that of pedestrian and driver education. Their personal testimony might have more persuasive force here. But this is a slower and more complex issue to try to influence. So they may decide not to. I don't understand why people seem to be wilfully misunderstanding each other in these comments. It does not seem very respectfully given the tragic nature of what happened here.[/p][/quote]Probably the most sensible and thought out post on this story. But sadly Xenarthra, our councils work on knee jerk reactions, and populist vote winning actions, as in the 50mph limit from Green Road To Heyford Hill in Oxford. There is no chance of a rational outcome to this, it will be won by the voter friendly 20mph limit. Also with the new 24mph £100 jackpot law, watch out for more 20mph roads coming to a locale near you. Followed by 10mph zones once the money has stopped flowing from the 20's The New Private Eye
  • Score: -1

9:13am Mon 21 Jul 14

HarwellItsGone says...

My original comment which failed to display was in relation to the cars being parked either side of the road obstructing the view of traffic. Removing the cars would do more than lowering the speed limit and wouldn't cost £6k. The locals could do this themselves, overnight!
My original comment which failed to display was in relation to the cars being parked either side of the road obstructing the view of traffic. Removing the cars would do more than lowering the speed limit and wouldn't cost £6k. The locals could do this themselves, overnight! HarwellItsGone
  • Score: 1

2:57pm Mon 21 Jul 14

oafie says...

Ten years of age, how awful for him and his parents, ten years of age and he had no road awareness, that too is really awful.

Ok so the mandatory speed limit drops to 20mph and then what, when another young child runs out into a public highway, we drop it to 15mph.

Roads are public highways and parents should make their children aware of this.
Ten years of age, how awful for him and his parents, ten years of age and he had no road awareness, that too is really awful. Ok so the mandatory speed limit drops to 20mph and then what, when another young child runs out into a public highway, we drop it to 15mph. Roads are public highways and parents should make their children aware of this. oafie
  • Score: 2

6:41pm Mon 21 Jul 14

The New Private Eye says...

oafie wrote:
Ten years of age, how awful for him and his parents, ten years of age and he had no road awareness, that too is really awful.

Ok so the mandatory speed limit drops to 20mph and then what, when another young child runs out into a public highway, we drop it to 15mph.

Roads are public highways and parents should make their children aware of this.
Exactly, no more to add
[quote][p][bold]oafie[/bold] wrote: Ten years of age, how awful for him and his parents, ten years of age and he had no road awareness, that too is really awful. Ok so the mandatory speed limit drops to 20mph and then what, when another young child runs out into a public highway, we drop it to 15mph. Roads are public highways and parents should make their children aware of this.[/p][/quote]Exactly, no more to add The New Private Eye
  • Score: -3

12:06pm Tue 22 Jul 14

China is Blue says...

It is sad that Freddie died.

But it seems that the parents want someone to blame. They can't blame the driver as she was travelling at less than 20mph and the police have decided it was a tragic accident and Freddie died when he fell and hit his head on the kerb. Since they can't attack the specific driver they target all motorists who use Oxford Crescent.

Instead, perhaps they should look to themselves. Perhaps they should ask why Freddie wasn't more aware of the dangers of roads. Why hadn't he learnt to not run into the road? Why hadn't he been taught to find a safe place to cross?

Instead of targeting motorists, perhaps a better tribute to Freddie would be to start road awareness classes for children. This would have a wider impact than merely reducing the speed limit on one road.

Teaching road safety to children would have much wider benefits. It would apply to all roads (not just Oxford Crescent). It may even make them better drivers when they eventually get behind the wheel.

Changing the speed limit on one road will achieve little.
Road safety classes will achieve much more.
It is sad that Freddie died. But it seems that the parents want someone to blame. They can't blame the driver as she was travelling at less than 20mph and the police have decided it was a tragic accident and Freddie died when he fell and hit his head on the kerb. Since they can't attack the specific driver they target all motorists who use Oxford Crescent. Instead, perhaps they should look to themselves. Perhaps they should ask why Freddie wasn't more aware of the dangers of roads. Why hadn't he learnt to not run into the road? Why hadn't he been taught to find a safe place to cross? Instead of targeting motorists, perhaps a better tribute to Freddie would be to start road awareness classes for children. This would have a wider impact than merely reducing the speed limit on one road. Teaching road safety to children would have much wider benefits. It would apply to all roads (not just Oxford Crescent). It may even make them better drivers when they eventually get behind the wheel. Changing the speed limit on one road will achieve little. Road safety classes will achieve much more. China is Blue
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree