Schoolchildren in Rochdale teamed up with council and police officers to detect dangerous drivers in a bid to help reduce the number of road casualties around schools in the borough.
Rather than pay a fine and have points added to their licence, some of the drivers opted to explain themselves to the children.
Nine-year-old Millie Wilson, one of the pupils, said: “When we asked the drivers that we caught why they were speeding they didn’t have a good reason. I think they were embarrassed and I hope they won’t speed again.”
Stuart Howarth, Rochdale’s casualty reduction officer, said: “We hope that by organising this joint action we can teach children to be more alert to the dangers on roads and make dangerous drivers improve their behaviour after facing up to the very real, life changing consequences that could result from their actions.”
For more information contact Stuart Howarth on 01706 924605.
Stuart presented this activity to increase awareness amongst both drivers and children. He used established and effective principles of restorative justice – whereby the potential victim of a collision at that time and place was given the opportunity to discuss the potential risk to them with the driver – who was breaking the law at the time.
The feedback from drivers who were stopped as a result of committing an offence was reported to be positive. The opinion of the experienced roads policing officer was that drivers’ responses were more thoughtful and considered than would usually be the case had they been stopped by a police officer alone and given words of advice or a penalty ticket.
In those respects this activity has achieved its (modest) aims along with local publicity to deter other drivers from committing road traffic offences in that area and to bring to pedestrians’ attention that drivers may not be giving driving their full attention.
I do not accept that the road safety profession is “in a mess”; neither because it undertakes some activities to which some people take exception nor because those same people say so. A visit to the Knowledge Centre will show numerous initiatives that have been well researched and evaluated for their effectiveness – achieving their defined outputs as part of the larger programme to achieve the casualty reduction and collision prevention outcomes that we all seek.
Honor Byford, Vice Chair, Road Safety GB
0
My last comment. Ian you may be right you may be wrong, it could be this was the “lesson” the driver needed and he’s finally got the message.
stuart howarth
0
Stuart. In a few years time, one of those children will be a driver, stopped by the police for marginally exceeding the speed limit, with an option to face children and explain why they were “speeding”. How would you expect them to react? And why? Like Ian, I am disturbed by your reluctance to debate the rights and wrongs of a clearly contraversial subject with potentially undesirable consequences.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Actually Stuart you’ve just demonstrated a serious problem with this scheme. If speeding is so dangerous, and drivers fail to respond to being caught, our system prevents that danger by banning that driver. You’ve allowed a repeat speeding offender to stay on the road when the justice system you have interfered with would have banned them.
Ian Belchamber
0
“I am not going to enter the debate re right or wrong; ….This is just one of many sessions that are provided within my Borough and will continue to be provided”
There’s another one, never mind if it’s right or wrong, I’m doing it anyway.
Ian Belchamber
0
I know we have gone off page and are now in the archives but I feel that I should clarify a couple of points, as between 3 contributors the subject has been diluted, magnified and taken in a great deal of different directions.
Re the safety of the children. The Police stopped and spoke to the drivers, and at that time offered them 3 options of fine, course or come in school and talk to the children.
At no point were the children out on the road side, that’s a completely different lesson.
One driver who had been caught speeding on previous occasions really had only one option as their points would have taken them over the 12 and had taken part in a speed course. Some people just don’t learn.
Two more took the school option; the rest chose option 1 or 2.
I am not going to enter the debate re right or wrong; my fellow road safety colleagues and I have a decent idea of what creates debate and stimulated a child’s mind when trying to impart knowledge on this subject. This is just one of many sessions that are provided within my Borough and will continue to be provided.
Stuart Howarth
0
Hugh, although I have been a safety critical control system engineer for 30 years and have lead the team for at least 15 of those, I would NEVER EVEN DREAM of assuming that I am automatically right based only on my opinion of myself. What you have displayed here is exactly the kind of attitude that has got road safety into this mess. A professional listens to all sides and takes views on their merits, not on a misperception of the experience of the person making the points. And this shortly after you were proven wrong about percentiles by some “amateurs”.
Ian Belchamber
0
Hugh
I’m not aware of any crashes triggered by the enforcement of seatbelts or phone use. I am aware of crashes and deaths being triggered by speed enforcement. There are instances of people who have been saved from death or injury by wearing seat-belts. There are instances of crashes which would not have happened had the driver not been on their phone. Wearing seat-belts and not using phones are good things, and children should learn that. Speed enforcement has triggered deaths and there is no evidence that it reduces crashes or casualties. You keep trying to pick holes in my position but you fail every time.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
One last comment on this Eric: Your second comment on this News item included “I have no problem with ‘phones and seatbelts” implying you have no objection to the children being used for those reasons, but to use your reasoning, no collision is CAUSED by a ‘phone and a seatbelt any more than it is CAUSED by speed …it is caused by a driver, so why the distinction? Why isn’t using children for those reasons “misguided and wrong” as well? If you think enforcement leads to “collisions and deaths” why do you “not have a problem” with the children being exposed to danger in an exercise targeting ‘phone and seatbelt offences?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh
My judgement is not clouded by anything – it is underpinned by evidence assembled through years of challenging just the sort of patronising and empty “assurances” uttered by you here.
I did not set out anti-anything. I simply asked questions, which is what all safety engineers do, and realised from the responses that no-one has any evidence that speed enforcement has a net positive road safety benefit. The reason is obvious (to a safety engineer) – no collision is CAUSED by speed so trying to force vehicles to obey speed limits will not prevent any. We know, however, that enforcement has led to collisions and deaths.
And that is why involving children in this stunt was misguided and wrong.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Eric: That’s all very well, but your judgement is always going to be clouded by your own personal feelings on the subject of speed cameras and by association, speed management/enforcement, speed limits, speed measurement etc. A professional safety engineer should be detached and objective, otherwise their conclusions will be unreliable and inevitably, weighted.
Your comments and those of others are taken with good grace and where necessary I and my colleagues have always tried to explain things and correct any misconceptions that members of the public may have, but at the end of the day, the road safety profession is not answerable to you personally and knowledge acquired through ‘reading about it’ is never going to be anywhere near as thorough as that of those who work, or have worked, in this field, day in, day out, for years, or even decades. I’m afraid you’ll just have to accept it.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh
For the record, I have more experience of road safety than you could possibly know, having trained as an advanced driver with RoSPSA (two Bronze, one Silver) in the early 1990s and running road safety events (engaging the public) for the London and Herts group. I have worked on, or been responsible for, the safety of systems (from artillery ranges to civil flight control systems), also since 1990. I based my assessment of this article on my road safety experience and professional safety engineering knowledge, plus the words of the 9-year old quoted, and having read about several similar exercises over the last few years. You have yet to provide any substance to support your views, relying on insinuation and innuendo.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
As I’ve said before Eric, as a member of the public you have no experience of these matters, you weren’t there, you don’t know what was said or what the drivers were doing – you’re the one exploiting a well-intentioned and very useful exercise to reinforce and justify a stance that quite frankly, very few understand or share.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
“I am sure regular readers will draw their own conclusions as to why Eric and Ian are reluctant to look too closely into this positive aspect of speed cameras.“
Why are you so reluctant to look at the negative aspects, Hugh?
And although we have been reassured that the risks have been properly assessed, that “highly respected road safety officer” is carrying out an operation which could still result in an accident. Enforcement activities have resulted in many.
And the potential savings? From 2000 (before speed cameras had really taken off) to 2011, the percentage of fatals with speed as a factor has reduced from 26% to 25%, and serious injuries from 18% to 14%, i.e. reduced by 1% and 4%, completely in the noise. Whereas a more rounded approach could have meaningfully eaten into the 65% of deaths and injuries caused simply by driver error. This is what is truly disgraceful.
Ian Belchamber
0
I’m sorry you think that way, Nick.
I stand by my view that it is wrong to put children in the invidious position of accusing drivers, who may have momentarily gone a few mph over the limit, of being dangerous.
And it’s hardly surprising that the drivers did not have “a good reason” – most were probably driving safely according to the conditions and do not need a “good reason” for behaving in that way.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Eric
Your suggestion that a highly experienced and respected road safety officer would participate in an activity in which children are ‘cynically exploited’ is, in my view, utterly disgraceful.
Nick Rawlings, editor, Road Safety GB newsfeed
0
Thanks Honor but, as I said previously, taking a wider view, this activity instils a simple and misleading message in children that adhering to the speed limit is safe. Also, given that there is no evidence that speed enforcement yields a net collision/casualty reduction, I view this as children being cynically exploited to promote it. That is unacceptable.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Eric: You never did explain exactly what you thought the danger was or what might happen, but it doesn’t matter, as it should be taken for granted that Police Officers and Road Safety Officers involved in any road safety exercise, especially one involving children, would do it ‘by the book’ with all due regard to everyone’s safety ensuring no-one, including themselves, are exposed to risk. It’s what they do everyday – it’s their profession.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Any activity involving school children leaving the school premises during the school day is subject to a planning and risk assessment requirement laid down in the school/education authority Off Site Activities guidance or policy. This is a core part of the professional road safety officers’ training and practice.
I have no doubt that this activity, like all other road safety activities involving children going off the school site e.g. Bikeability cyclist training or pedestrian training, will have complied with these requirements. Core to the work of any road safety team is ensuring that the work we do with members of the community (of any age) is properly managed and that includes preparatory and dynamic on-the-day risk assessments and risk management.
Honor Byford, Vice Chair, Road Safety GB
0
Hugh
You have failed to present any evidence of the positive effects of speed cameras and I have found none during five years of research. I have seen plenty of bogus claims though.
But this is a distraction for this story where no-one has addressed my comments about risk assessment the involvement of children in enforcement.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
I am sure regular readers will draw their own conclusions as to why Eric and Ian are reluctant to look too closely into this positive aspect of speed cameras.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh says “ask if any drivers caught on their mobile cameras driving badly/ dangerously/ illegally (other than speeding offences) were subsequently brought to task, I would hope and expect the answer to be positive.”
Sorry Hugh but if that were the case, they would be publicising it but they have not. In any case, a quick answer to “continually criticise the system without coming up with a better alternative” is that no speed cameras are better than speed cameras. It may not be politically palatable, but the engineering evidence supports it.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Hugh, my SCP / Police force do their very best to avoid communicating. As for “promoting speed cameras”: I’ve said that they don’t even have a significant problem to address even if they could, that they don’t effect those who are hardened deliberate racers / thugs etc as all they have to do is remember where they are and slow down for 50 yards or so! That by far the biggest opportunities lie with problems that aren’t even law breaking. That putting most resource into the wrong solutions is dangerous. I know you’re clutching at straws to find anything positive about speed cameras but to say this is promoting them is stretching it too far.
Ian Belchamber
0
Following my response specifically to Ian but now to Ian, Eric, Dave (Finney) et al, if you were to contact your respective Speed Camera Partnerships and/or Police Authorities and ask if any drivers caught on their mobile cameras driving badly/ dangerously/ illegally (other than speeding offences) were subsequently brought to task, I would hope and expect the answer to be positive. If not, I would be genuinely dismayed and if you were to re-channel your energies to getting them to do more of this, as well as detecting the speeders, you would actually have my support. I know that the authority I used to work with certainly did this and I would hope others have been doing so as well. If so, this must clearly show that the effectiveness of speed cameras goes much further than some would think.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Eric: Your persistent and consistent comments in the past have led me to believe that you had concerns on engineering grounds – benefits versus risks – on road safety initiatives, so I presumed you and perhaps one or two others would be scrutinising Ian’s or anybody’s new ideas and I didn’t want him to just come up with something off the top of his head only to then have to spend time defending it.
It’s similarly disingenuous and unhelpful of anti-speed camera campaigners to continually criticise the system without coming up with a better alternative which is why I asked for suggestions so you can appreciate the difficulties faced by the authorities. How are you getting on with that by the way? Anything yet?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh (a second, supplementary, reply)
It is disingenuous and unhelpful of you to “warn” Ian Belchamber (a fellow safety engineer) that his ideas need to be fully developed and bullet-proof. From the discussions on this website on this subject what seems to be needed is some fresh thinking and, in such a climate, no idea is a bad idea. Only by exploring new ideas will the good ones percolate to the top. We also need to withdraw any schemes of the past that have been implemented but have not worked.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Ian: You’ve just promoted speed cameras! The types of bad drivers you’ve mentioned which you would like targeting need to be caught doing something illegal so that they can be dealt with in some way. Agreed? Well guess what.. these people also break speed limits – guaranteed – and when they do, somewhere, at some time they get snapped by the cameras and they acquire points and if they don’t stop, they get banned.
Bad driving is already being filmed (don’t you watch the numerous “Traffic Cops” programmes?) but it’s inefficient in terms of Police time and manpower and is inherently risky. However, a parked speed camera van does have video cameras running continuously and during a typical session it can record, for later action, the whole gamut of bad /dangerous/illegal driving. Let the offenders come to the cameras – not the other way round.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Eric: You know quite well that the phrases I used were referring to you as they are the ones you’ve used in the past when criticising speed limit enforcement and associated matters, so I was presuming that you would be applying the same tests to any alternative schemes that anyone, particularly Ian, may come up with, to effectively combat accident prone or high-risk driving. I was trying to warn Ian that no matter how good a scheme might seem to him, someone – you possibly, as an engineer – would find flaws in it and he might have to defend it, although it does look now as if you’ve moved your own goalposts and are backtracking anyway.
By chance, do you yourself happen to have any effective road accident initiatives that would stand up to your own rigorous scrutiny?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Ok, a bit more: With that 6% including the kind of dangerous and too frequent speeding we would all like to see targeted, racing, road rage, dangerous overtaking, speeding while drunk, etc. (but which doesn’t typically get detected by current enforcements) I doubt if there is any meaningful ksi reduction available whatsoever by targeting marginal speeding alone. Whereas if we just reduced ksis due to driver error by 12%, which would still leave it as by far the largest factor at over 50%, we would reduce ksis by DOUBLE the amount we would by entirely eliminating speeding ksis (which is clearly impossible). This demonstrates perfectly the futility and human cost of continuing to bark up the wrong tree at speeding, and worse still, misinforming the next generation to do the same. We have a choice: we can use road safety to make money, or to reduce deaths and injuries, it’s one or the other and I would prefer the latter.
Ian Belchamber
0
Hugh
Would you please explain what is behind your “and with absolutely no risk of anyone being killed or injured” comment?
As it stands it looks like setting an impossible barrier. I would support “without incurring an unacceptable degree of risk” but risk is inherent in life. Management of risk is at the heart of much of what we do, especially driving.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
It’s worth you elaborating. As this is so important, perhaps the editor might, on this occasion, allow much greater space than usual? Or perhaps Ian, you could submit separate comments one at a time for each idea?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I’d start by looking at the factors for accidents. I see that exceeding the speed limit is only a FACTOR in 6% of ksis, whereas the factors under simple driver error (failed to look, etc) amount to 65%. So putting disproportionate effort and resource into trying to reduce 6% is absurd for starters when 10 TIMES the injury reductions would be available with a more balanced approach.
You target dangerous drivers by moving among them on the road and filming them, like proper cops used to do. That way, you are not restricted to any location or any type of bad driving. Kids can’t do that. “Can’t afford that” I hear you say, but the simple fact is that you get what you pay for. A very small amount of what is right would be more productive than a large amount of what is not. I have plenty more but reaching word limit. Just common sense really.
Ian Belchamber
0
Ian: Perhaps if you (or anyone else for that matter) does have a ‘silver bullet’ solution, you could share it with us via this column and you would then get some objective feedback.
As you rightly say, the only way to ‘improve safety is to target dangerous drivers’, so how would you do this if you were the authorities? I would remind you that one or two regular contributors will be looking for ‘evidence’, ’net benefits’, ‘scientific trials’ and with absolutely no risk of anyone being killed or injured. It would need to be cost-effective obviously and workable. How would you define, identify and target the dangerous drivers and how would you then deal with them?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh, it wouldn’t make any difference in Dorset if I came up with a silver bullet solution to road safety – the authorities simply don’t listen. Step one is therefore to complain until they do – believe me, this is the only way to start.
Ted, one of the worst problems I see is dangerous speeding near schools, boy racers, white vans, etc. But these kinds of drivers are completely tuned into enforcements and avoid them usually by hard braking. The only way you improve safety is to target dangerous driving, not driving a few mph over the limit probably just at the entrance to a 20 or 30 zone well away from where those drivers would probably have slowed right down where the risk requires.
Ian Belchamber
0
Of course it is important for drivers to pay attention and show good observation skills. Eric/Ian you are right in some ways, but most of the drivers that we stopped didn’t even realise there was a school nearby. They drive at those speeds whether they are in a 20mph/30mph/or 40mph zone and they still don’t use their eyes. So we reminded drivers watch out for your speed and be aware of community areas. This is not just a SPEED issue. Drivers need to show restraint and respect to all road users. If a driver doesn’t care about their speed why would they care about the area they are driving through, or the people in it?
Ted
0
As usual, Hugh resorts to generalisations “included it as just one of the many road safety elements” without seeming to realise that an intervention that increases risk is not a road safety element.
If some of us appear to be obsessed with speed, it is because of the misinformation that is frequently published, falsely claiming speed-related interventions achieve major reductions in casualties.
Evidence, trials and benefits must be brought to the fore, not taken as a given.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Who’s ‘obsessed’ with speed the most? The authorities who have included it as just one of the many road safety elements to be addressed, as reflected in the varied items in the Newsfeed, or those who have set up websites dealing only with speed and who only seem to put pen to paper when the word ‘speed’ is mentioned?
If certain people don’t like what the authorities do in this regard, I suggest they come up with effective alternative ways that drivers can be made to improve their driving. Don’t forget there must be a ‘net benefit’, with plenty of ‘evidence’ and ‘scientific trials’. Oh, and the word ‘speed’ should not be used.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Dave, being hit at 20MPH would hurt a lot. Being hit at 10 would be better. No, if it’s an old frail person that could break bones. Better make it 5? The “the slower you hit someone the less it injures them” logic cannot be used in isolation. And someone watching the road rather than comparing 2 numbers could well be travelling slower anyway where it matters.
Ian Belchamber
0
David
Your comment is predicated on a misleading premise. I would prefer to be avoided by a driver doing 35mph who was looking out for hazards and not distracted, even momentarily, by his speedometer, than be hit at 20mph. A safety policy based on hitting people at slower speeds kills fewer of them is not one that any self-respecting road safety professional should subscribe to. Slower vehicles can increase collisions, as 20mph zones have tragically shown. It is possible to drive safely without a speedometer.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
I think that many of the people arguing here about whether lower speeds make driving safer make some interesting points, but we have got rather lost in the process.
The kind of people who lose their lives most often in lower speed limits are not drivers, they are pedestrians and cyclists. Their survivability and injuries are almost directly related to the speed at which the vehicle that hits them is travelling. I’d much rather be clattered off my bike by a car driver doing 20 mph than 35 mph – it’s as simple as that.
David, Suffolk
0
Hugh,
You might as well filter people to be talked to based on the colour of their shirt as to which side of the speed limit they are at (by a few MPH). Here in Dorset, for example, we have decent dual carriageways away from shops and houses with absurd 30 limits. Because of the money that can be made you will find enforcements here instead of where they could possibly have some benefit (schools, etc). This is one of the unfortunate side effects of the obsession with speed. Those kids would be far better talking to drivers who are distracted with kids, lighting cigarettes, can’t manage to keep their windscreens clean, etc. harass lollipop persons, etc.
Ian Belchamber
0
Ian: As you say, there is far more to it – more than the space in this column allows for elaboration. However, I should emphasise that it is not just concentrating on the ‘fixed number in the circle’ that is important, but speed in any circumstances – even ‘walking pace’ – and experience has shown that those who don’t observe the ‘number in the circle’ are not usually minded to be bothered about their speed anywhere. So rest assured, although the speed limit offence is the trigger for the opportunity to speak to the drivers, the actual message – certainly when I used to be involved – was and should be on all aspects of safe driving, including the speed – illegal or not. Hope that clears it up.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh, everyone at some point is a “speed limit violator” to some degree (probably on every journey), and I’m sure if you surveyed all drivers, speeders or not, they would admit some of the same failings. Many drivers are very safe and won’t cause an accident for their entire driving life. So I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you suggest.
Driving near schools often needs speeds less than walking pace. I cannot believe that there are still some who think that the disproportionate attention given to fixed speed limits in such a complex subject with so many dynamic factors brings the best balance and the best results.
Ian Belchamber
0
Not really chaps…. you’re looking at the motoring world through rose-tinted spectacles and presuming the standard of driving of speed limit violators to be higher than it actually is.
When they’re asked why he/she was exceeding the speed limit, the answer is usually on the lines of:
“Sorry, I wasn’t concentrating”
“I was talking to the kids in the back”
“I had something on my mind” (certainly not driving)
“I don’t normally speed” (classic)
In other words, not paying attention. Not even enough to spot a group of people wearing hi-vis clothing from 50m away and slow down as a precaution. Crucially, when asked “Could you have stopped quickly enough if necessary?”, the answer is invariably a shame-faced “NO” or at best “probably” (not good enough).
So there you are folks… straight from the horses’ mouths…even the speeders themselves admit they weren’t driving safely enough.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
“Reducing speed ….. will provide them with more time to respond to any situation and more time to make decisions and take action before they reach the point of impact.”
Actually, someone more concerned with observation, attention, anticipation may well be travelling slower when a hazard initiates than someone concerned mostly with a fixed number in a circle, even if they had been driving faster a bit further up the road when there was clearly no risk whatsoever. And that person “doing the speed limit” having been given the impression that this is the most important thing, is less likely to take responsibility if they are driving within it. And the statement clearly cannot be used to determine the speed required as this logic can only tell us the limit should be zero. Road safety needs credible, balanced solutions that rewards safe drivers and penalises dangerous drivers, not the other way round.
Ian Belchamber
0
Eric’s concern in fundamentally right. Speed limits are set to very rough guidelines and are virtually never based on maximum safe speed of travel. Safe driving is about driving in a manner that will avoid a crash, and that is a function of the appropriate speed and appropriate clearance distance (following distance in traffic; sight distance on winding rural roads with hedges close to the running lane …). A group of responsible drivers travelling 40 mph in a 30 mph zones because they have judged that to be the safe speed are not a problem – but individual drivers choosing to drive 10 mph faster or 15 mph slower that the majority of vehicles are major safety problems.
John Lambert, Victoria, Australia
0
Road Safety Teams should not leave this as an isolated intervention and indeed we don’t in Bury. It is part of a wider programme of road safety education and training. The children learn that they cannot rely on drivers to stop for them if they make a mistake or stop paying attention. We also explain to the children involved, that speeding does not stop a pedestrian or cyclist being responsible for themselves. We have done this at Primary and High School and the older children get a better understanding of why road safety should still be important to them. As mentioned before they get a good opportunity to work with the police, promoting better citizenship and helping to make their environment safer. Most of the drivers leave happy and we have had many residents in those areas thanking the participants. I don’t think it is cynical, I just think when a driver is told off by the Police or a Road Safety Officer they see themselves as an ‘innocent victim’. When they get that message from a child or teenager, they understand they wouldn’t want their family to be at the whim of a driver’s right foot.
Ted
0
Thanks Eric…not much clearer than it was before. Think you’re on your own on this one.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh
I’m happy to explain my concern, and it relates to the use of children in the speeding element of this activity. You say that no speed cameras are involved, but a speed gun is and there are examples of tragic consequences of driver reaction to being in the sights (Timothy Rowsell being the most recent example; others are on BBC film). What risk are the children exposed to? Taking a wider view, this activity instils a simple and misleading message in children that adhering to the speed limit is safe. Finally, given that there is no evidence that speed enforcement yields a net collision/casualty reduction, I view this as children being cynically exploited to promote it.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Eric – Could you spell out what your concern is? Despite having the purpose of the exercise explained to you twice, why are you not grasping it? I take it you’ve never been present at one of these exercises, so I don’t see how you can know what it said and whether the children could get a “wrong message”. It’s the drivers who get the message anyway. Try and appreciate the positives and don’t waste your time looking for negatives – there’s no camera involved in this story.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Hugh and Honor.
It may be primarily a driver education exercise but I am concerned about what message the children take in (we cannot tell). I have no problem with phones and seatbelts, but the simplistic speed message is misguided. Honor’s second paragraph confirms that she thinks slower equals safer – she obviously never saw my grandfather driving, nor has she seen the increased casualties in 20mph zones. These activities may educate a few drivers but the misleading impressions left on the children is my concern.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
This initiative is not just about speeding. Using a mobile phone whilst driving is proven to reduce attention to the driving tasks. Wearing a seatbelt is proven to significantly reduce the likelihood of injury.
Reducing speed may or may not make a driver intrinsically “safer” (however you define that) but it will provide them with more time to respond to any situation and more time to make decisions and take action before they reach the point of impact. Other road users will have more time to see and react to them too. This increases opportunity for avoidance and reduces likelihood of a collision. It also reduces the potential damage and injury if a collision does still occur.
Any driver who is assessing risk throughout their journey will identify that proximity to a school at the times of day when children and their families are travelling to and from the school is a potentially higher risk situation than at other times and will fully concentrate and adjust their driving – including their speed, to take account of those factors. The drivers who were challenged were either exceeding the posted speed limit, using a mobile phone whilst driving or not wearing a seatbelt.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
I think you might have got this the wrong way round Eric. It is primarily a driver education exercise and it’s not so much teaching the children what makes a safe driver, it’s teaching drivers what makes a safe driver and that their speed (illegal or not) at any particular time and place is a large part of that. Other driver errors tie into that naturally, however bringing driver and vulnerable road user together at the roadside does give a unique opportunity to highlight the dangers to both in a way that no-one could really take exception to.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
I’m genuinely surprised by the amount of cynicism and negativity on this item. Anyone like to elaborate?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
The danger is that this sort of activity instils in the minds of children the view that a slow driver is a safe driver. This a simplistic and misguided approach. Children need to learn what makes a safe driver, and speed is a very small element of that.
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research
0
Bob, many children suffer the consequences of adults’ behaviour – be it excessive drinking, burglaries or speeding drivers. Why shouldn’t their voices be heard and they also be part of the solution? This is part of how children learn about how society works and the responsibility of the individual to society and society toward the individual. If it also makes those drivers acutely aware of who they are putting at risk when they speed near a school then that seems to me an entirely legitimate activity.
Honor Byford, North Yorkshire
0
Will they be lining up children outside pubs to help breathalise people, or ask burglars why they steal?
Bob Bull, Bristol
0
Hi Hugh,
We’ve had a lot of success locally with these ventures. Evidently and thankfully, you didn’t encounter Mr Priest (doesn’t live up to his name) from Mobberley when he drove past a school in Wilmsow where a kid’s court was in action! Check this link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2239070/Businessman-Andrew-Priests-alleged-foul-mouthed-rant-primary-pupils.html
Not the sort of person we want on the roads anywhere, perhaps? The sentence will be interesting.
David Midmer, Wirral
0
Hugh, you say that this initiative works. What evidence do you have that none of the motorists have re-offended?
John Bennett, Herts
0
Nice one Stuart. We are currently doing something similar in Bury and it is working really well. It is a good opportunity for the children to work with the Police and always gets a positive reaction from most drivers and the community. Most drivers said that they felt ashamed, because they know the normal excuses that they give doesn’t work with children.
Ted
0
We did this a few times in the area where I used to work and it certainly works. The drivers were humbled, could obviously not lose their rag with the children and went away all the better for it with no ill-feeling and hopefully took their responsibilities as motorists more seriously. Definitely worth doing.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0