Squashing kids slower

Seen the new(ish) TV advert to get motorists to slow down ? The tag-line is ‘It’s 30 for a reason’.
The tag-line derives from the (apparent) fact that “If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the survival chance is 80%.” and “if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian’s chances of dying rises to 90%. (this lowers to 80% for a child).” (So they pick a kid – a girl kid – to pull at those hards-as-nails heartstrings). So……there are some stats, and the tag-line is above too.

Which came first then ? The stats, or the speed limit ?
Did they line up 1000 children and “speed” into them at 40mph then mourn the loss of 751 ? (I’m allowing for rounding up) and follow this by a test with some other kids (how did they keep them still ?) at 30mph (with only 249 casualties (that’s the rounding down effect) ?

I’m all for slowing cars down and fining motorists massive amounts of cash while piling on the penalty points so their insurance companies stiff them too, but can we at least get the reasons right ?

“It’s 30 because it would cost a bloody fortune to change all the signs”

One thought on “Squashing kids slower

  1. Wait a minute :

    If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian’s chances of dying rises to 90%. (this lowers to 80% for a child).

    So do they mean to say that when you go from 30mph to 40mph, the chances of dying increases from 20 % (which is 100-chance of survival, quoted as 80%) to 90% ??

    So for 10 extra miles an hour, the chances of dying increases by 70%? They must be kidding us, or maybe it should have been

    “If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the chances of dying are 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian’s chances of dying rises to 90%. (this lowers to 80% for a child).”

Comments are closed.