On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:07:54 +0100, Yes, I know. But I read it years ago and I've never been able to find it again; no idea where I read it at all.
Yes, but this is the point (and why I think the statistic could be accurate). It doesn't take very much difference in speed to go from a "child almost certainly dies" to "child almost certainly lives".
So its almost inevitable that most child pedestrian baneities (which tend to happen in urban areas where traffic speeds are close to the tipping point between probably bane and probably not bane) will be from cars that don't brake at all.
And it's not surprising from a psychological point that the children are more likely to react when they are about to be hit - both the sound and sight (even in peripheral vision) of a car bearing down on a child will trigger their natural flight instinct.
You are talking about another case where the reaction avoids the accident. My guess (but it's only a guess) would be that more near misses are not collisions because of the drivers reactions than because of the childs reactions.
Tim.
-- and there was light.
