Bid to protect secondary pupils from road accidents (From Daily Echo)

11 to 16 year old children should know the Green Cross Code. Many times I have driven passed the school in Green Lane to have students from the school there walk ,run or cycle into the road in front of me, any attempt to admonish them is met with verbal abuse and hand gestures.

I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

Where did he say that?

Georgem wrote:

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

Where did he say that?

Thank-you Georgem. Unexpected consideration from you - what are you up to ?

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

As Georgem points out, I did not say "saving children's lives is an expensive waste of time". I said this SCHEME is an....etc.
The SCHEME, SCHEME, SCHEME ! Got it ?

Most teenagers will yawn at the video, send text messages during the lecture, and lose the follow up work. What planet are you from, dand_uk ?

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

Wow. That's one of the most hilariously obvious straw men I've ever seen. Bravo.

Looking at the way I see a lot of people crossing the road it's clear that many of them didn't have the benefit of watching terrifying public information films when they were children.

BillyTheKid wrote:

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

As Georgem points out, I did not say "saving children's lives is an expensive waste of time". I said this SCHEME is an....etc.
The SCHEME, SCHEME, SCHEME ! Got it ?

Most teenagers will yawn at the video, send text messages during the lecture, and lose the follow up work. What planet are you from, dand_uk ?

When I was 14 we had a film shown to us about railway lines. Kid in our school nearly got himself killed in the early 90s.

The scheme will not be a waste of time or money if it is done right. I strongly believe the film and the Police talk we got DID save lives.

If they yawn, who cares. Take their phones off them before they enter. Job done.

Ah! remember David Prowse and the Green Cross Code Man, perhaps a more up to date version could get the message across?

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

Where did he say that?

Thank-you Georgem. Unexpected consideration from you - what are you up to ?

I'm not up to anything. Pay closer attention, you'll notice I'm all about WHAT I agree or disagree with, not WITH WHOM I agree or disagree with. I doubt this is the first time we've shared a common view.

Georgem wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Georgem wrote:

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

Where did he say that?

Thank-you Georgem. Unexpected consideration from you - what are you up to ?

I'm not up to anything. Pay closer attention, you'll notice I'm all about WHAT I agree or disagree with, not WITH WHOM I agree or disagree with. I doubt this is the first time we've shared a common view.

I used 'with' twice :-( grammar fail

cantthinkofone wrote:

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

Wow. That's one of the most hilariously obvious straw men I've ever seen. Bravo.

It's up there with "Why do you hate freedom?", isn't it

If it saves one childs life, it's money well spent.

Surely we should get behind this campaign especially parents.

I still to this day, joke about a saying my mother had whilst crossing the road, she'd always say 'to the middle' after double checking the road was still clear she'd say 'and straight over' always stands in my mind, so educating kids does work!

"...council research that found 75 per cent of road accidents involving secondary pupils were due to students not paying attention to the road by using mobile phones or listening to music..."

This is (a) victim blaming and (b) pure fiction. I can't find the 75% figure anywhere in the report which is a mix of dry casualty stats and subjective observations like "attention of children was generally observed to be poor when using the footway".

Well, what about drivers? I bet if HCC had observed drivers too they'd also find many using iPods, mobile phones, chatting, poor attention. Unlike school children, drivers are in control of 1-2 tons of fast moving metal and every extra mph makes any impact worse on the child that gets in the way. When school children are likely to be on footways, 20mph is an appropriate speed limit and even that may be too much when footways are full of kids.

So why is StreetSense primarily aimed at kids? It's rather like telling young girls to cover up and look out or they'll be raped. We need to tackle the source of the danger first.

I'm pleased to say this project also recommends some infrastructure improvements and lowering some speed limits. Let's have 20mph around all schools and homes. And roads designed for pedestrian safety and convenience even if it is at the expense of drivers' precious seconds.

They have been saying that the blanket Speed Restriction of 20 mph in built up areas in Portsmouth, has led to an increase in accidents, I don't know the full details of where the accidents are happening but presumably from speeding elsewhere to make up for lost time!

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
They have been saying that the blanket Speed Restriction of 20 mph in built up areas in Portsmouth, has led to an increase in accidents, I don't know the full details of where the accidents are happening but presumably from speeding elsewhere to make up for lost time!

Why do so many parents collect 11-16 year olds from school in a car?

The biggest issue is parents parking and obscuring the childrens view of traffic.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
They have been saying that the blanket Speed Restriction of 20 mph in built up areas in Portsmouth, has led to an increase in accidents, I don't know the full details of where the accidents are happening but presumably from speeding elsewhere to make up for lost time!

There's evidence that people pay less attention at lower speeds. Maybe it's that.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
They have been saying that the blanket Speed Restriction of 20 mph in built up areas in Portsmouth, has led to an increase in accidents, I don't know the full details of where the accidents are happening but presumably from speeding elsewhere to make up for lost time!

20mph did not lead to an increase in danger... all the statistics showed that 20 improved Portsmouth safety. Only one accident figure went up: pedestrians seriously injured per year was 3, or something like that after 2 the previous year. Statistically insignificant but you can bet newspapers jumped on this figure instead of the more reliable numbers showing Portsmouth is now safer and more pleasant.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

you are a pen1s. you are one because you assume drivers do not endanger kids by their driving.... what a huge tool you are....

business-guru wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

you are a pen1s. you are one because you assume drivers do not endanger kids by their driving.... what a huge tool you are....

Well, if it's drivers endangering kids, what use is attempting to educate the kids?

Georgem wrote:

business-guru wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

you are a pen1s. you are one because you assume drivers do not endanger kids by their driving.... what a huge tool you are....

Well, if it's drivers endangering kids, what use is attempting to educate the kids?

Maybe to make the kids more aware of idiots driving cars rather than assume all car drivers are perfect?

business-guru wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

you are a pen1s. you are one because you assume drivers do not endanger kids by their driving.... what a huge tool you are....

Honestly. Just what have some of you got for brains ? Just look around you and stop playing "Emporor's New Clothes" !

All these promotions, schemes, national curriculums and God knows what else that have been drummed up for the benefit and improvement of the young over the last 40 years HAVE NOT WORKED.

Many ordinary, decent children carry weapons with them out of fear for their safety. Virtually every child has been offered drugs by the time they are ten, and by then many are experimenting with sexual activity. No one seems to be able to spell, construct sentences, or do mental arithmetic. There is little respect for parents, teachers, or the law. Did I mention cigarettes and alcohol, **** videos, etc ? How many "kids" have not seen dozens of 18 videos by the time they are 14 ?

Just look at young people on the streets, their behaviour - they are just pleasing themselves, and have no thoughts about whether or not they are disturbing others.

What about you parents ? How many of you have allowed under 16's to go to parties unsupervised ? How many have given them alcohol, and let them watch unsuitable videos ? How many of you let them get away with rudeness, swearing, and disobedience ? How many of you have allowed your under 16 daughters to wear unsuitable clothing that would be more appropriate for older age groups ?

The answer to all of those questions is MOST of you ! And then you start feeling guilty, and support all these stupid "improving" schemes to ease your consciences.

The worst aspect of all this is that you will come down like a ton of bricks on me for saying it, simply because you cannot face the truth and your shame.

OPEN YOUR EYES !

Stop kidding yourselves ! Very few young people show the level of self-discipline and maturity of thinking that you would like to see.

BillyTheKid wrote:

business-guru wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

you are a pen1s. you are one because you assume drivers do not endanger kids by their driving.... what a huge tool you are....

Honestly. Just what have some of you got for brains ? Just look around you and stop playing "Emporor's New Clothes" !

All these promotions, schemes, national curriculums and God knows what else that have been drummed up for the benefit and improvement of the young over the last 40 years HAVE NOT WORKED.

Many ordinary, decent children carry weapons with them out of fear for their safety. Virtually every child has been offered drugs by the time they are ten, and by then many are experimenting with sexual activity. No one seems to be able to spell, construct sentences, or do mental arithmetic. There is little respect for parents, teachers, or the law. Did I mention cigarettes and alcohol, **** videos, etc ? How many "kids" have not seen dozens of 18 videos by the time they are 14 ?

Just look at young people on the streets, their behaviour - they are just pleasing themselves, and have no thoughts about whether or not they are disturbing others.

What about you parents ? How many of you have allowed under 16's to go to parties unsupervised ? How many have given them alcohol, and let them watch unsuitable videos ? How many of you let them get away with rudeness, swearing, and disobedience ? How many of you have allowed your under 16 daughters to wear unsuitable clothing that would be more appropriate for older age groups ?

The answer to all of those questions is MOST of you ! And then you start feeling guilty, and support all these stupid "improving" schemes to ease your consciences.

The worst aspect of all this is that you will come down like a ton of bricks on me for saying it, simply because you cannot face the truth and your shame.

OPEN YOUR EYES !

Stop kidding yourselves ! Very few young people show the level of self-discipline and maturity of thinking that you would like to see.

The adults are far worse than the kids, so how to fix the problem?

Billy, many children carry weapons, as an old school teacher as you claim to be, I trust you've reported those who you have witnessed carrying weapons.

I would hope you aren't listening to the odd few in London as reported in the media.

I would very much doubt Hampshire kids on the whole carry weapons to school, you'll always get the odd one of course, much like you get the odd teacher who's barking mad!

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

As Georgem points out, I did not say "saving children's lives is an expensive waste of time". I said this SCHEME is an....etc.
The SCHEME, SCHEME, SCHEME ! Got it ?

Most teenagers will yawn at the video, send text messages during the lecture, and lose the follow up work. What planet are you from, dand_uk ?

When I was 14 we had a film shown to us about railway lines. Kid in our school nearly got himself killed in the early 90s.

The scheme will not be a waste of time or money if it is done right. I strongly believe the film and the Police talk we got DID save lives.

If they yawn, who cares. Take their phones off them before they enter. Job done.

Was the kid in the film called Robin or something close to that?

IronLady2010 wrote:
Billy, many children carry weapons, as an old school teacher as you claim to be, I trust you've reported those who you have witnessed carrying weapons.

I would hope you aren't listening to the odd few in London as reported in the media.

I would very much doubt Hampshire kids on the whole carry weapons to school, you'll always get the odd one of course, much like you get the odd teacher who's barking mad!

Whether you are a real person, or, as I suspect, a drama student in role, you are choosing to look at life throught the proverbial "rose tinted" !

I was a teacher in the secondary sector for about thirty years before I decided to retire. I taught subjects that gave me the opportunity to talk to students informally, so my rant is from first hand knowledge and experience. I don't wish to give away my identity, so I will not be demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that I actually do know what I'm talking about, and that I do know a d amned sight more than you do about it.

BillyTheKid wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
Billy, many children carry weapons, as an old school teacher as you claim to be, I trust you've reported those who you have witnessed carrying weapons.

I would hope you aren't listening to the odd few in London as reported in the media.

I would very much doubt Hampshire kids on the whole carry weapons to school, you'll always get the odd one of course, much like you get the odd teacher who's barking mad!

Whether you are a real person, or, as I suspect, a drama student in role, you are choosing to look at life throught the proverbial "rose tinted" !

I was a teacher in the secondary sector for about thirty years before I decided to retire. I taught subjects that gave me the opportunity to talk to students informally, so my rant is from first hand knowledge and experience. I don't wish to give away my identity, so I will not be demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that I actually do know what I'm talking about, and that I do know a d amned sight more than you do about it.

Dik, do one.

Cyclestrian wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote: They have been saying that the blanket Speed Restriction of 20 mph in built up areas in Portsmouth, has led to an increase in accidents, I don't know the full details of where the accidents are happening but presumably from speeding elsewhere to make up for lost time!

20mph did not lead to an increase in danger... all the statistics showed that 20 improved Portsmouth safety. Only one accident figure went up: pedestrians seriously injured per year was 3, or something like that after 2 the previous year. Statistically insignificant but you can bet newspapers jumped on this figure instead of the more reliable numbers showing Portsmouth is now safer and more pleasant.

At least at 20 mph an accident is less likely to cause a fatality, there always statistics and lies in these situations.

The Salv wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

dand_uk wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Tiz wrote:
I say let Darwinism take it's place. If these dim 11 - 16 year olds can't cross a road safely at their age, let them take their chances, losers are removed from the gene pool.

Well said.

The whole scheme is just an expensive waste of time. It could be very effectively covered in tutor time, or through PSE at no extra cost. This is just some career person wanting to add something else to their CV.

How can you say saving the life of children is an expensive waste of time?

As Georgem points out, I did not say "saving children's lives is an expensive waste of time". I said this SCHEME is an....etc.
The SCHEME, SCHEME, SCHEME ! Got it ?

Most teenagers will yawn at the video, send text messages during the lecture, and lose the follow up work. What planet are you from, dand_uk ?

When I was 14 we had a film shown to us about railway lines. Kid in our school nearly got himself killed in the early 90s.

The scheme will not be a waste of time or money if it is done right. I strongly believe the film and the Police talk we got DID save lives.

If they yawn, who cares. Take their phones off them before they enter. Job done.

Was the kid in the film called Robin or something close to that?

I honestly cant remember the names... there was a scenario where a group of teens crossed the tracks not watching what they were doing (iirc reenactment) and the lad stepped on the live rail...

..then there was the girl who crossed through the hole in the fence rather than the bridge a few feet away.

Later in the talk the Cop showed us a few slides, some were grisly enough but it made me wonder what they WERENT showing us.

Thats stuck with me ever since. Even the little s*ds in my year went quiet during it.