Unnecessary/Dangerous School Zones

[Manuel]

Maybe the government can spend all the revenue from speeding fines and such to install fences along the road in front of schools which would not permit pedestrians from walking onto the road. The easiest way to cross would be at crossings with the lollipop lady or traffic lights or overpasses.

Oh, but I guess they wouldn't make any money from that...

Speed limits and restrictions are all good and proper, but not everyone is going to adhere to them. The only way they will ever work is if we all put some effort in. Even then, I bet kids will try to cross the road "cause the cars are going pretty slow anyway".

[foxy^roxy]

Originally posted by Stang
It's a bit hard to tell what's classified as a child, especially with high school students on weekends etc. it's not really a problem though, I always slow down to about 40 anyway..

Yeh basically if you see a kid/young adult you slow down. Most of our schools would be in the 50 zoned areas now anyway wouldnt they?

[Stang]

I think so, it would be even less trouble to slow down now, better to theoretically be 30 seconds later than splatter a kid by going 70.

[Merry Vanly Stan]

okay, so to bottom line this..

-> we mostly agree that the concept of school zones is a good idea.

-> we mostly agree that in some cases the implementation of school zones isnt optimal.

:

what constructive suggestions can you give to improve the implementation of school zones?

:

flashing lights
fencing main roads
better classroom/school education of students
more/safer crossings

[Tardinator]

dan, i think you've got it in one.

also maybe look at where the school zones are placed and if in fact a speed drop to 40 is neccesary.

ie. it is a major thoroughfare which is completely fenced off from pedestrian access, with overpasses and traffic lights, then do we really need the school zone in this particular place?

[Stang]

I think flashing lights are best, they get your attention and are more obvious than having times on a sign and having to look around for kids.

[shano2]

I'd go along with flashing lights to draw further attention to school zones.

In fact I can nominate at least one school zone in Blacktown where they have a set of VERY OBVIOUS flashing lights attached to a very large sign and if you are such an ignorant driver to miss these lights I reckon not only do you deserve to be booked for speeding but you should lose your licence and just for your stupidity go to jail for a night to learn the art of anal sex prison style.

[CyberianKnight]

Originally posted by Setanta
I don't have stats, but I do know that when the zone outside the school I teach at had a number of hits before the limit was lowered to 40. Afterwards, none (to my knowledge) and people generally do 40.

As for a red herring - none that I can see. The zone is there to protect life whether you agree with it or not. You seem to think that it's ok to hit someone as long as they are at fault. I don't. Have kids, you'll understand. I hope.

Retroactive abortion spamgirl? After your lack of interest in human life I'd think your being upset about that comment particularly ironic.

Sadly you have once AGAIN failed to address the specific issues that I have raised.

And yes, it is ok to run someone over if you were driving with due care and they were not walking with due care. It is unfortunate and regrettable but that is the way it is. Nothing to celebrate about but nothing to have too many sleepness nights of guilt over either. What little of your 'logic' that you have displayed has been soundly defeated and the rest of my arguments you have failed to even attempt to challenge.

Lets just hope you don't pass on your sense of government sponsored irresponsibility of the self to your charges. There are already enough selfish pedestrians running amok in carparks and city streets who'd jump at the chance to sue you when it is quite obviously their inadherence to the footpath that is at fault.

[CyberianKnight]

Originally posted by shano2
How many of you people who are critical of the positioning of these 40km/h zones are actually parents?

Colyton High school on Great Western Hwy in Sydney's west is another prime example. This school has it's main entrance on another side street (actually it's parallel to the GWH) and only it's oval backs onto the GWH in an 80km/h zone and there are only one or two gates out of the oval section onto the GWH and both are very rarely used, yet there is still a school 40km/h zone there. I am constantly tailgated through that section of road when sticking to 40km/h.

I find myself driving through there almost every day thinking this is a rediculous spot for a 40km/h school zone but it take all of a micro-second for me to think of my own daughter (and how I would feel if any harm came to her due to the ignorance of some idiot behind the wheel of a car who chose only to consider themselves and disobey the speed limit - when the day comes she is in school) and I slow the hell down anyway. I couldn't give a flying **** if it's appropriately positioned or not IT'S THERE, and despite your objections to it you WILL NOT get it changed, and you know it, so slow the **** down.

I agree with the logic that these zones are geared towards the lowest common denominator (kids who don't think).
Everyone should be driving in an appropriate manner for the given conditions. If there is a change in road conditions such as heavy rain (or any rain for that matter) any sensible driver will adjust their driving to suit the conditions. Likewise if you are in a school area where there is a stronger likelyhood the driving "conditions" will present the lowest common denominator, than say an open freeway, drive appropriately and obey the speed limit whether you agree with it or not. It really is as simple as that.

Perhaps when some of you who aren't parents yet have kids later in life your perspective will change a little, and while you may still disagree with these zones you will be far more tollerant of them. I know mine did.

End rant

FWIW the Police have been periodically conduction speed blitz's on mnay of Western Sydney's school zone in both the morning and afternoon. About time.

Cheers
Shane

What if your daughter got run over by someone doing 40km/h because she thought she had the time to cross and wouldn't have believed so if the cars had been zooming past instead? That is a very real possibility so who do you blame then? What thoughts will you have then? The point I am making here is that your argument hinges solely on dubious circumstancial factors that may or may not happen.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, on a multilaned road, what chance does a child or anyone have of making it to the outer lanes of the road without getting hit and yet not be seen by oncoming vehicles who will then have time to stop or evade? I'd say with most if not all of the roads that people are talking about here (the one's that should not have schoolzones) the traffic flow is so dense, especially during school zone hours that they'd already be hit in the inner lanes and the outer lanes need not worry.

[Che Castro]

i think i have to agree with kangz and satanta.

fencing won't always solve the problem, its not as easy as that. This restricts movement of all pedestrians which could even create more risk in some situations.

flashing lights are a good idea.

the point of these kind of laws is to minimize risk to life whilst maintaining reasonable use of the road.

How can it ever be OK to run someone over? Someone's life has ended! It doesn't matter if it wasn't you're fault, if you have any kind of conscience it will be with you forever especially if it was a child.

and speaking of children, they do stupid things no matter what you tell them.

At uni my faculty is on one side of City road, and the Carslaw building is on the other side where we commonly have lectures. The closest crossing is via the wentworth building. But due to the ingenious design of the wentworth building, to get up the the overpass you have to go to the other end and back and up 2 staircases to actually get there.

So really no one bothers and we all just risk running across city rd (four lane major road) to the median strip which is a foot wide or so. Mind you, as architecture students we are always carrying large things like t squares or large folders etc. its quite scary having a truck pass about 30cm away from you while your standing on the foot wide median strip.

There have been incidents of people getting hit in the past, but not whilst i have been there. My point is that it's not just schools that need 40 zones at times.

The problem is that fencing wont solve anything as there are several driveways as well as parking on city road, there is no space for a cross over, the closest traffic lighst are about ~30m away or so. Its a pretty stuffed up situation there.

i think people will almost always put convenience ahead of safety, young children would be even worse.

[Tardinator]

Oh, I'd also like to add that at this particular school zone, there is only bush on the other side of the road from the school, so your only reason for crossing the road is to get to the bus stop, which incedentally the overpass leads right to!

[CyberianKnight]

Originally posted by Che Castro

fencing won't always solve the problem, its not as easy as that. This restricts movement of all pedestrians which could even create more risk in some situations.

How so? We are talking about major multi-laned roads here, no one should cross there anyway unless it is at a designated crossing. The restriction of movement here is moot.

Originally posted by Che Castro

the point of these kind of laws is to minimize risk to life whilst maintaining reasonable use of the road.

I do not classify the intentional disruption of good traffic flow at the build up to peak hour traffic, nor the institution of such zones in already high speed zones to fall under the reasnalbe use of a road. They are high speed roads for utility reasons and allows the transport network to function efficiently which will cut down on congestion, pollution due to constant braking and accelerating and a smoother drive for drivers who are already fatigued after a day's work which increases their crash risk.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Che Castro

How can it ever be OK to run someone over? Someone's life has ended! It doesn't matter if it wasn't you're fault, if you have any kind of conscience it will be with you forever especially if it was a child.
[quote]

I hate to say this but how can it not? A completely selfish idiot can walk right behind your car when you're backing out of a parking space knowing that you are trying to back out yet they still decide in all their wisdom to cross. That is a prime example of a person who deserves to be run over and most likely will get run over in the future. And how did this mentality come about? I can point out that a contributing factor to the development of such an irresponsible mentality with today's delusional pre-occupation with the erasure of all risks and thus responsibility in life. Everywhere you go you see people obsessed with sheltering someone rather than letting them learn a valuable lesson so that they will not do the stupid thing again. We have alarmists who yap on with illogical clap trap when someone imitates a stunt on TV and is hurt or killed.

They have all missed the greatest key to minimising these accidents. The fostering and ingraining as well as the practice of this alien concept called taking responsibility for your own safety! Is that so hard to comprehend much less practice? You have all lost the plot if you believe that measures no matter how ridiculous it is should be taken to prevent deaths and injuries in the world around us. It is those very real risks that allows us to survive, evolve and learn. Create a world with the illusion of safety with ridiculous schoolzones, blanket prohibition on guns and naturally the right to use one to defend one self and all you'd get is nanny state where the masses demand to have their safety taken care of by the polies and will bend over to hand surrender their rights when their illusion of safety dims.

[Fatboy]

Originally posted by CyberianKnight
I hate to say this but how can it not? A completely selfish idiot can walk right behind your car when you're backing out of a parking space knowing that you are trying to back out yet they still decide in all their wisdom to cross.[/B]

Ok, we've established you don't have kids, that's cool, neither do i... so what about parents ??
Dear old mum hits 90, she's partially blind, deaf as a post, and accidently walks behind you as you back out of your parking space and ends up splattered...
What the hell, she shouldn't have been there, so who cares, the silly bitch deserved to be road kill right ??

Mate, unfortunately people are human and therefore fallible. We all make mistakes, we can all be distracted, and we can all be somewhere we really shouldn't be... kids are even worse.

I agree that school zones can be a pain in the arse in heavy traffic, but they are there for a reason... to keep kids safe.
I'd much rather have some goose run up the back of my car than see a young kid robbed of his or her life.

In a perfect world kids would be smarter, drivers would be smarter, and we wouldn't need school zones or traffic cops.
We all know it's not a perfect world...

Cheers,
Paul...

[Marty]

Originally posted by Daveee
Marty, is this the one near where Beecroft rd joins? (at the big triangle park?)
If so its a girls high school with massive brick walls? Once again with a crossing within a couple of hundred meters?

Nah - it's the one just after the freeway (heading south)
everyone comes off the f/way and just won't slow down to 40

I still don't know if i agree or not with the 40 zones - but they're there, and i drive cop bait - so i do 40(ish) - 50 max

[shano2]

CyberianKnight,

What if your daughter got run over by someone doing 40km/h because she thought she had the time to cross and wouldn't have believed so if the cars had been zooming past instead? That is a very real possibility so who do you blame then? What thoughts will you have then?

Of course I'd be devistated but I could not and would not lay any blame at the feet of the driver involved.
If it were proved that the driver was over the speed limit and their speeding contributed to the accident however, the ****er would be mince meat!!!

I did say above (in not so many words) that the lowest common denominator in these circumstances are most certainly the kids who make judgement call that they are most probably not yet mentally equiped to make.
I am in no way excusing the kids from doing the wrong thing, but as a whole it's "our" (everyone's) job as both parents and as more responcible / wiser people in general to look after them by both teaching them what to do and what not to do and also by being aware of what they are likely to do wrong and if at all possible counter it.
Sorry to harp on it but with this in mind it's the lower speed limit in these zones that are designed to give the drivers the ability to react in time to counteract the poor judgement of the kid who runs out in front of them.

Please point out however where I was in anyway critical of those who abide by the speed limit in school zones?
I was only being critical of those who don't..........

.....and how I would feel if any harm came to her due to the ignorance of some idiot behind the wheel of a car who chose only to consider themselves and disobey the speed limit - when the day comes she is in school......

The point I am making here is that your argument hinges solely on dubious circumstancial factors that may or may not happen.

Of course it does. There's nothing wrong with that.
Like I, and others, have said the road rules are geared to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR, i.e. the part of your statement that suggests it MAY HAPPEN.
Of course there's every chance it may not happen and that'd be great if that were the case all the time but the fact is there are occasions where it DOES happen, and it need not necessarily be the fault of the person driving the car involved, so the rules NEED to be in place to protect kids if not to remove the possibility of an injury / death all together then to minimise the chance of either.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, on a multilaned road, what chance does a child or anyone have of making it to the outer lanes of the road without getting hit and yet not be seen by oncoming vehicles who will then have time to stop or evade? I'd say with most if not all of the roads that people are talking about here (the one's that should not have schoolzones) the traffic flow is so dense, especially during school zone hours that they'd already be hit in the inner lanes and the outer lanes need not worry.

I don't see this as entirely relevant. Correct perhaps but not really relevant. The argument still comes down to if it's a 40 zone, DO NO MORE THAN 40 and if anything goes wrong it's the kid at fault.

I'll say it again......

I couldn't give a flying **** if it's appropriately positioned or not IT'S THERE, and despite your objections to it you WILL NOT get it changed, and you know it, so slow the **** down and drive in an appropriate manner for the given conditions.

Cheers
Shane