Experimenting with risk and danger

[westofsouth]

We all know that young children get into trouble occasionally because 'they don't look where they are going'. Both these youngsters apparently were looking where they were going (particularly the second child) and yet still chose a collision course. Why? ......were they experimenting with risk and danger?
The speeding adults imo, were just plain selfish and stupid.

[[XAP]Bob]

Because they looked at the danger (good) but don't yet have the control to stop themselves heading where they are looking.

[Malaconotus]

We all know that young children get into trouble occasionally because 'they don't look where they are going'. Both these youngsters apparently were looking where they were going (particularly the second child) and yet still chose a collision course. Why?

Underdeveloped locomotor control is, as suggested, part of the answer, but even once that is developed children take perhaps a surprisingly long time to develop sensitivity to 'looming'. Basically it takes years of practice to judge speed and calculate relative trajectories to a point of possible intersection. Some sciency explanation here... http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/4/429.short

[hungrydave]

I rode from Bath to Devizes on the canal path on Sunday. It's busy in places but you can see well ahead for most the route - I averaged 13 mph overall, slowing to a walking pace to pass the numerous families. Give them time and space as you pass and there's no problem.

Being part of the national cycle network, I don't think bikes should stay away but you just need ride with a bit if caution and slow down for possible hazards and take care - the metal stake does sound unfortunate though.

The only grief I had was from a guy making no effort to control his dog as I passed (and giving him a smile) and he also wondered left to right across the path. I slowed down to walking pace well in advance and thought nothing of it - he gave me grief for cycling to quickly on a path used by 'dogs and children'. He didn't have the latter - every family I passed had smiled and waved.

It just takes everyone to be a little courteous and we can all get along just fine!!!

[[XAP]Bob]

Our findings have important implications for road-safety policy in terms of the upper limits of vehicle speed that allow children to make accurate judgments, and these findings converge with evidence that the risk of pedestrian accidents involving children is nearly 3 times higher in places where mean speeds exceed 25 mph compared with places with lower mean speeds (Roberts, Norton, Jackson, Dunn, & Hassall, 1995).
These data support the case for reduced speed limits outside schools and in other areas densely populated by children (Department of Transport, 1999). Existing research shows that reducing traffic speeds to 20 mph leads to a 50% reduction in the number of 6- to 11-year-olds who are killed or seriously injured in traffic accidents (Grundy et al., 2009). In part, this reduction is due to speed of impact: Pedestrians have a 90% chance of surviving being hit by a car traveling under 20 mph, but less than a 50% chance of surviving an impact with a car traveling at 28 mph or higher (Toroyan & Peden, 2007).
However, our results suggest that children’s perceptual limitations place them at greater risk of stepping out in front of cars that are traveling at higher speeds. The combined implication is that driving in excess of 20 mph in a residential or school area not only increases the potential severity of any impact with a pedestrian, but also increases the risk that a child will injudiciously cross in front of the vehicle.

This should be defining road safety policy - not some namby pamby maximise traffic throughput nonsense