Well, I wasn't referring to any specific advert, just what I would take to be generally accepted science that if you hit a child with a car doing 30mph the chances are you will do more damage to him/her than if you are doing 20mph?
I'm not saying that hitting them at 60 instead of 70 will make much difference of course. ;-(
So, are you saying that slower *isn't* better?
Cheers, T i m
I'm saying that the claims made for 40-30-20 were lies. Figure 2.3 in
Ok ...
Hmm, it looks to me like it says that at between 10-20 mph the risk is near nil for kids is near whereas at 30 mph it's 4 out of every 100, or have I read it wrong? If you want to refer to specific TV Adverts, I was thinking of the ones where they show the kids sliding along the road?
If you said that driving at 20 rather than 30 mph could save the lives of 96% of the kids that are hit, doesn't that sound worth doing?
Which is presumably why many shared use / 'pedestrian' focused areas are now 20 mph?
Cheers, T i m
The confidence intervals are extremely wide, so no reliable conclusion can be drawn.
If you want to refer to specific TV Adverts,
Only if you could say it reliably, and also show that the number of kids hit does not change.
But the existing downward trend in the number of deaths and serious injuries has not changed significantly.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.