Road Traffic Incident - Underhill Road/Lordship Lane - 17th August

[Lois Pallister]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think the incident described by a speeding

> car overtaking two buses and a car at speed had

> anything to do with the 20mph speed limit. In

> fact, it could be argued that had the oncoming car

> that had to brake and swerve been exceeding the

> 20mph speed limit, which they might have been this

> information is not given, the outcome could have a

> lot more serious.

I'm not sure that Barry Road shouldn't be a 20mph limit as it's ages since I drove down that road and it did seem pretty congested what with the buses and parked cars, so I'm not suggesting that the 20mph limit isn't suitable for this road.

But I don't understand why you would think the incident would have nothing to do with that speed limit. Are you suggesting that if the limit was still 30mph this offender would have performed the same manoeuvre only at 50mph in order to get past them all?

Do you not think it possible that to this type of driver the 20mph limit is like a red rag to a bull?

This is why if these limits are to be imposed, enforcement is paramount.

We need to get rid of the 2001 law that stipulates that all the cameras need to be painted yellow so they can be seen with ample time to slow down for them. Then it might be possible to have less visible cameras that can be moved from road to road, maybe even with the posts for them also being moved now and then so that the driver is never sure where a camera is until it flashes to catch them out.

Add to that an increase in both the fine (which would help to offset the setup cost) and the points on the licence and I feel that most of those who break the limits would stop doing so. And if that were the case we could also see the end of the road humps and other traffic calming monstrosities.

Also another thing that seems ridiculous to me is that the speed awareness courses are not offered to the worst offenders. Yet surely these people are the ones who need it most!

I've known of 4 people who have gone on the course to avoid points on their licences. They all were dreading it and saw it as a pain but they all returned waxing lyrical about how good it was and how glad they had done it. Not one of those people had been doing the speed limit +10% +9mph, which is the criteria for being offered the course. They had just gone over without realising it doing say 46mph on a 40mph road because they were reading the road ahead rather than watching their speedometer and following the speed of the other traffic.

It's great that they benefited from it but surely the driver deliberately doing 65mph on a 40mph road is in more need of further road safety education. They may not listen, I grant you but why not keep the threshold but offer it to all and anyone over that threshold understands that if they are caught speeding again above that threshold at any time, they will get the points and fine for both offences and at least a year ban?

That way they have the increased knowledge and a strong incentive not to be so reckless again. The laws and punishments are just too soft which is why I find it very difficult to believe that road safety is the reason behind any of this.

The driver doing 40mph on Barry Road would not qualify for the option to take the course in order to avoid the points on the licence. At the moment the courses can cost more than the fine but are worth it to avoid the points. Increase the fines so that the course is an even more attractive offer and increase the points too. 4-10 points for speeding rather than 3-6 and with the threat of double the points and a year ban rather than 7 to 56 days, if the offence is repeated, not just for the next 3 years but for life.

But I am dreaming here.

We are far too soft with our punishments and sadly always will be, putting other law abiding motorists at a far greater continual risk.

The safety of the law abiding driver is not considered to be at all important.

[nxjen]

"But I don't understand why you would think the incident would have nothing to do with that speed limit. Are you suggesting that if the limit was still 30mph this offender would have performed the same manoeuvre only at 50mph in order to get past them all?"

As I understand it, the two buses were only just pulling out when the speeding car overtook and nowhere near any speed limit regardless of whether it was 20 or 30mph.

[rendelharris]

In the first two years of the Portsmouth 20 MPH scheme, average KSIs rose from 18.4 to 19.7 per year. As the DfT report on the scheme notes: "these results were not statistically significant when compared against national

trends." In the same period accidents fell by 15%.

Rather than bandy "this is what I feel and assume" arguments about, I can only repeat the facts from the TfL report I quoted above:

A national study of two hundred 20 mph zones in Great Britain was carried out by TRL in 1996 for

the DfT, which showed that 20 mph zones were beneficial in reducing speeds and accidents. Speeds

within the zones were reduced by 9 mph, traffic flows were reduced by 27%, injury accidents (all

categories combined) were reduced by 61% and fatal and serious accidents (KSI accidents) were

reduced by 70%.

I did ask if you could provide evidence of a 20 MPH scheme which has, as you dramatically put it, caused more deaths - as you've quoted Portsmouth, let me reframe the question in the light of what I've quoted above: can you give me an example of a 20 MPH scheme where the amount of KSIs has risen above what might be expected from standard statistical fluctuations? I certainly can't find one.

[edhistory]

"these results were not statistically significant when compared against national trends." = Inconvenient?

Have car gear boxes changed since 1996?

[rendelharris]

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "these results were not statistically significant

> when compared against national trends." =

> Inconvenient?

Not really, no, particularly when set against a 15% overall decrease in accidents. Firstly, it would only take one serious accident to skew figures for a year (Portsmouth was averaging 18-19 KSIs per year, so one serious crash with five people in the car could change those figures up or down by 25% at a stroke), and secondly there's no indication as to how many of the KSIs were in any way attributable to 20 MPH zones, how many were drunk drivers etc. And as quoted above a 70% decrease in KSIs nationally is fairly statistically significant. KSIs in one particular town will never be large enough to extrapolate any significant data, but national figures are.

The Portsmouth figures are oft-quoted by opponents of 20 MPH schemes as they're the only ones which even marginally support the contention that 20 MPH schemes can increase KSIs. A report on this was much quoted some years ago, a report about which Professor Stephen Senn, an expert in statistics at the University of Glasgow, said:

"The design of the report is very bad. Various statistical terms are used incorrectly and they've probably used the wrong statistical test.

"They haven't got a control group, which is pretty basic, and without which it is pretty naive to jump to conclusions."

Don't understand the point about gearboxes, sorry, can you explain?

[Lois Pallister]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "But I don't understand why you would think the

> incident would have nothing to do with that speed

> limit. Are you suggesting that if the limit was

> still 30mph this offender would have performed the

> same manoeuvre only at 50mph in order to get past

> them all?"

>

> As I understand it, the two buses were only just

> pulling out when the speeding car overtook and

> nowhere near any speed limit regardless of whether

> it was 20 or 30mph.

Yes that is as I understood it too but then there was the oncoming car so the driver would have to be faster to get in before the oncoming car became too close, which I don't think he/she would. Partly because it would be a far higher risk manoeuvre and partly because the driver would not have lost so much of his/her sense of calm on a 30mph road.

On really narrow residential roads this behaviour is just not possible but on a road like Barry Road there simply has to be a sense that there is enforcement in operation.

Don't get me wrong I am in favour of 20mph limits on most roads but not roads such as Sydenham Hill or Westwood Hill (other than by the school).

When you are out there day by day with learner drivers at the wheel you get a keen sense of what sends these people over the edge and what I suspected would happen on Sydenham Hill is happening - every day.

[rendelharris]

So what I'm getting from your post, Lois, is that some drivers feel a sense of entitlement to drive at 30 MPH when the speed limit is 20 MPH and so get frustrated, "lose their sense of calm" and so decide it's OK to break the law? Is this really a good basis on which to base traffic safety measures - that some people break the law because they regard it as too frustrating to stick to it?

An example: as a cyclist, I never run red lights. Ever. Lots of cyclists do because they feel frustrated that the law is telling them to do one thing when they want to do another. Should the law be changed because of that? No.

ETA: Sydenham Hill is 1.3 miles long, so driving it at 20 MPH instead of 30 MPH means you'll cover the distance in 3.9 minutes instead of 2.5 minutes. As you say you're in favour of 20 MPH limits on "most" roads, are you sure you can't save that 90 seconds somewhere else in your day without getting too bored and frustrated?

[Applespider]

If someone is driven over the edge by potentially arriving a minute later (appreciate it's not you Lois), then why are we letting them take control of a one tonne plus potential killing machine? Driving is a responsibility not a right.

People in general have got used to driving much faster as cars become safer with better brakes, suspension and soundproofing. Which is great for those in cars and less good for other road users and pedestrians. Until lights etc are phased to encourage slower driving so that you don't feel like you are waiting, people will still feel frustrated. Plus if there is no incident, it feels like a victimless 'crime' and since we probably all feel like we are better than average drivers, it is easy to argue against. And I suspect there are very few drivers who could say they have never ever broken one (caught or not) so we excuse a crime of which we have all been guilty.

Back in the 70s/80s, drink driving was so common that it was the norm. It has taken decades to make it feel wrong and I suspect making speeding seem antisocial will take a similar time. Unless of course driverless cars catch on before that and make both issues irrelevant.

[rendelharris]

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If someone is driven over the edge by potentially

> arriving a minute later (appreciate it's not you

> Lois), then why are we letting them take control

> of a one tonne plus potential killing machine?

> Driving is a responsibility not a right.

>

> People in general have got used to driving much

> faster as cars become safer with better brakes,

> suspension and soundproofing. Which is great for

> those in cars and less good for other road users

> and pedestrians. Until lights etc are phased to

> encourage slower driving so that you don't feel

> like you are waiting, people will still feel

> frustrated. Plus if there is no incident, it feels

> like a victimless 'crime' and since we probably

> all feel like we are better than average drivers,

> it is easy to argue against. And I suspect there

> are very few drivers who could say they have never

> ever broken one (caught or not) so we excuse a

> crime of which we have all been guilty.

>

> Back in the 70s/80s, drink driving was so common

> that it was the norm. It has taken decades to make

> it feel wrong and I suspect making speeding seem

> antisocial will take a similar time. Unless of

> course driverless cars catch on before that and

> make both issues irrelevant.

Very well put, thanks.

[Lois Pallister]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So what I'm getting from your post, Lois, is that

> some drivers feel a sense of entitlement to drive

> at 30 MPH when the speed limit is 20 MPH and so

> get frustrated, "lose their sense of calm" and so

> decide it's OK to break the law? Is this really a

> good basis on which to base traffic safety

> measures - that some people break the law because

> they regard it as too frustrating to stick to it?

>

> An example: as a cyclist, I never run red lights.

> Ever. Lots of cyclists do because they feel

> frustrated that the law is telling them to do one

> thing when they want to do another. Should the

> law be changed because of that? No.

>

> ETA: Sydenham Hill is 1.3 miles long, so driving

> it at 20 MPH instead of 30 MPH means you'll cover

> the distance in 3.9 minutes instead of 2.5

> minutes. As you say you're in favour of 20 MPH

> limits on "most" roads, are you sure you can't

> save that 90 seconds somewhere else in your day

> without getting too bored and frustrated?

No Rendel, both you and Applespider seem to have 30mph as the goal of these nutters despite comments on this forum that they were driving faster than that.

I feel that most drivers who stuck to the 30mph limit will be happy to stick with the 20mph limit.

The drivers we are discussing here are used to driving at 45mph in a 30mph limit.

I am getting tired now of repeating myself but all I am arguing is that SOME roads should be left at 30mph WITH proper enforcement. And the fact that they are going to change Sydenham Hill back to 30mph means that the planners, whoever they are, realise that too!

I agree about it taking time for drink driving to become so anti-social but that was a danger we were all facing anyway. The increased danger of putting 20mph limits on roads that don't need them and aren't suitable for them without any enforcement is increasing the risk to other drivers and is not in the least bit sensible.

Oh and drink driving still happens way more than I think you realise.

The fact that so many less drivers are being convicted of it doesn't mean it isn't happening

Once it dropped a bit they cut back on the enforcement and now we also have drug driving as another issue.

Check out the accident statistics and you will see that drink driving is still quite prevalent.

This is all about one road at the moment, Sydenham Hill, which is going back to 30mph anyway.

But I fear that drivers will face similar problems on Westwood Hill too.

I don't know what job you do Rendel or even if you drive but for me that 90 seconds isn't just 90 seconds because when all the major roads are reduced to 20mph it adds an awful lot of time to my day travelling between pupils. As it is I'm often late because of all the roadworks in the area so now I may be forced to do something I thought I'd never do and like many other instructors only offer 2 hour lessons.

I do anything from 1 hour, 90 minutes, 2 hours and beyond to suit my pupils time schedules and what needs to be covered with them next. I am fine with the huge amount of extra time and fuel costs but at the moment I'm hating my job because the signs out there right now just don't make any sense whatsoever. I shouldn't be put into the position of having to tell my pupils to ignore a 20mph sign because it should be covered and isn't!

Consider all those in my position or worse. Delivery drivers who now cannot make so many deliveries in their day because they have to take half as long again driving between their drop off points. And I'm sure I don't need to continue. This will affect the lifestyles and earning capabilities of so many people.

And many of those people are used to getting away with driving at 40mph or faster on the 30mph roads. Now they are stuck behind law abiding drivers doing 20mph and getting angry and are likely to take far more risks.

Oh and let's please not kid ourselves that it isn't a small minority that are sticking to the new limits.

Sydenham Hill has been 20mph for over a year now and I am amazed if I have a vehicle in front of me on that road. It does happen but it is a rare occurrence. I usually have a huge long trail of cars behind me with many trying to overtake in the most dangerous circumstances and nothing in front at all!

Why are you not arguing that all the TFL roads should be 20mph too?

Why are TFL not making them all 20mph?

And lastly consider the fact that the local driving test centres are not closing.

London will still have test centres and I will have the opportunity of becoming busier if I want to as many people will want to take their test here at 20mph.

They will do that and pass their driving test having never gone over 30mph and driven the route mostly on 20mph roads because now the examiners won't have time to get them to the faster roads, and then the next day they are free to drive up the country on Motorways.

I used to battle to get my pupils onto 60 or 70mph A roads but when they weren't included on the test they didn't want to pay for that tuition. And they rarely returned for a Motorway lesson after they passed their test.

I was over the moon when faster roads were included on the test as I could train them all on faster roads but now I will not be able to because a 2 hour lesson won't give me time to get them to those roads, give them tuition on those roads and bring them back. If they don't want to pay for a 2.5 or 3 hour lesson they simply will not receive that training, because believe me it won't take them long to realise they will no longer need it on their test here in London.

I really hope I am wrong, unlike when I begged for a camera to be put on Crystal Palace Parade and when refused I said that they would wait until someone was killed by the boy racers and that is exactly what happened.

I've had enough now as this is painful with me having to go over the same points over and over.

All I am saying is that to reduce a road such as Sydenham Hill to 20mph when it is a very wide road with very few pedestrians and has had hardly any serious accidents, when there is no intention of enforcing the new limit is irresponsible and stupid.

And they realise that as they are putting it back to 30mph which I notice you keep ignoring.

I will make an FOI request to find out about the incident and hope that I will still be able to teach people safe driving for life, although at the moment that looks unlikely.

[first mate]

Lois,

I think you make some good points.

I would be interested to know what reason has been given for putting Sydenham Hill back to 30 mph, if true? I would support it though.

Like you I am all for the bulk of roads being 20mph but main routes better at 30mph. I have never seen such aggressive driving behaviour on a regular basis since 20 mph was introduced.

[Applespider]

My goal is simply to have people drive at whatever the designated speed limit is - not for any particular number on any particular street. I can see the point of 20mph in some places but the lack of infrastructure and enforcement means that the nutters driving dangerously won't stop.

Excellent point on drivers potentially never having driven above 20-30mph. That surely needs to be addressed. Do you think we will ever get to a point where we end up with urban driving being one category of driving entitlement and carriageway/motorway being another? Or do you have other ideas to solve it? I just about remember the first time my instructor got me to drive along a 40mph stretch. It was scary how much faster you had to process stuff. And one of my most useful final lessons he took me out onto some single lane 60mph country roads to teach me how to judge speed into corners and then a stretch on a dual carriageway at 70.

[Cardelia]

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People in general have got used to driving much

> faster as cars become safer with better brakes,

> suspension and soundproofing. Which is great for

> those in cars and less good for other road users

> and pedestrians. Until lights etc are phased to

> encourage slower driving so that you don't feel

> like you are waiting, people will still feel

> frustrated. Plus if there is no incident, it feels

> like a victimless 'crime' and since we probably

> all feel like we are better than average drivers,

> it is easy to argue against. And I suspect there

> are very few drivers who could say they have never

> ever broken one (caught or not) so we excuse a

> crime of which we have all been guilty.

Perhaps on main and rural roads the average speeds may have increased, but the average urban speed has actually dropped over the past 20 years or so. This is primarily due to increasing numbers of vehicles trying to fit into an ever-decreasing road capacity. I completely disagree that lights should be phased to encourage slower speeds, instead they should be phased to encourage the optimum traffic flow for a given road system. If that results in slower speeds then so be it, but traffic lights should not be used merely to slow down road users.

Advances in car design and technology have not just benefited occupants of the car. The NCAP ratings specifically look at how a vehicle will impact on a pedestrian (both adults and children) in an accident and this is factored into the overall safety rating for a vehicle. Crumple zones, energy-absorbing zones, height of grilles, shape and rake angle of bonnets etc. are all important things to consider and changing these can all improve the chances of pedestrians surviving an impact.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Advances in car design and technology have not

> just benefited occupants of the car. The NCAP

> ratings specifically look at how a vehicle will

> impact on a pedestrian (both adults and children)

> in an accident and this is factored into the

> overall safety rating for a vehicle. Crumple

> zones, energy-absorbing zones, height of grilles,

> shape and rake angle of bonnets etc. are all

> important things to consider and changing these

> can all improve the chances of pedestrians

> surviving an impact.

You'll forgive me if I say I think we should be more concerned about cars not hitting pedestrians, rather than how safe they'll be when it happens. I'd be prepared to bet it's a lot safer to be hit by a 1970s car at 20 MPH than a brand new one at 30 MPH.

Yes traffic lights should be phased for the optimum traffic flow - the optimum traffic flow for the speed limit, not just as fast as is humanly possible.

[Lois Pallister]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lois,

>

> I think you make some good points.

>

> I would be interested to know what reason has been

> given for putting Sydenham Hill back to 30 mph, if

> true? I would support it though.

>

> Like you I am all for the bulk of roads being

> 20mph but main routes better at 30mph. I have

> never seen such aggressive driving behaviour on a

> regular basis since 20 mph was introduced.

I do not yet know if it is true. I have taken photos of the very misleading and dangerous signs and emailed them to one of my councillors and asked if Sydenham Hill will be going back to 30mph but have had no reply, even though she asked me to email the details to her.

It also seems that the Lewisham 'Highways' department consists of one woman who is on holiday until 13th September!

This is a quote from the latest Sydenham Society newsletter though and they don't usually get stuff wrong:

"From 5 September Lewisham is planning to follow other London boroughs and introduce a 20mph limit borough wide. (There are exceptions and, it would appear, locally Sydenham Hill will revert to 30mph along its entire length.)"

And yes aggressive driving behaviour has gone through the roof since they made such roads 20mph and now although it looks as though Lewisham will be changing Sydenham Hill back to 30 they will be making Westwood Hill and other main roads 20 so it is sadly set to continue.

This is an interesting blog post:

http://michaelsnasdell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/how-to-slow-residential-traffic.html

[rendelharris]

Sorry to be the old stuck record here, but I really fail to see why the fact that some people won't respect the law is a reason for changing the law. I agree that aggressive driving and breaking the set speed limit has increased since the 20 MPH limits were introduced, that is an argument for more stringent policing and heavier penalties for such behaviour, not for changing the law.

Take a different example: when the smoking ban came in, if a sub-section of smokers had decided they just weren't having it and had continued lighting up in pubs, on trains etc, would everyone had said oh well, if they're not going to obey the law there's no point in having it, we'd better change it?

As I said a while ago, if a child is hit by a car at 20 MPH "only" roughly 2.5% will die. At 30 MPH, 20% will die (and there's a corresponding rise in the severity of injuries for survivors). That's enough to me to say that 20 MPH is a perfectly sensible limit for urban roads (excluding certain ones which are totally segregated from pavements and pedestrians, e.g certain sections of the A3).

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You'll forgive me if I say I think we should be

> more concerned about cars not hitting pedestrians,

> rather than how safe they'll be when it happens.

> I'd be prepared to bet it's a lot safer to be hit

> by a 1970s car at 20 MPH than a brand new one at

> 30 MPH.

I agree that reducing the chances of cars hitting pedestrians is the priority. But from a purely safety point of view, the best way to achieve that is to remove the cars. And that's not going to happen.

As to your wager, I think you'd be surprised. Car design back in the 60s and 70s still followed the school of thought that making the car as strong and rigid as possible would be the safest path. No crumple zones, no thought to dissipating the kinetic energy of impact, no thought on points of impact. Modern cars have to consider all those things. For example, the major cause of pedestrian death is not the initial impact which is typically where the bumper hits the legs of the pedestrian. The secondary impact, where a pedestrian's head hits the bonnet or windscreen, is usually what causes death. So modern cars have a crumple zone built into the bonnet to absorb some of the energy where the pedestrian's head hits the bonnet. They also have much more pedestrian-friendly bumpers which help to absorb some of the initial energy of impact. Some even have pedestrian airbags (Volvo V40 for instance) which cover the bonnet and windscreen in case of a collision.

I doubt the data exist to prove the argument one way or the other. But if I'm given a choice, I'll take the modern car at 30 mph please. Especially if it's one with a collision-avoidance system built in :)

[Lois Pallister]

Applespider Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My goal is simply to have people drive at whatever

> the designated speed limit is - not for any

> particular number on any particular street. I can

> see the point of 20mph in some places but the lack

> of infrastructure and enforcement means that the

> nutters driving dangerously won't stop.

>

> Excellent point on drivers potentially never

> having driven above 20-30mph. That surely needs to

> be addressed. Do you think we will ever get to a

> point where we end up with urban driving being one

> category of driving entitlement and

> carriageway/motorway being another? Or do you have

> other ideas to solve it? I just about remember the

> first time my instructor got me to drive along a

> 40mph stretch. It was scary how much faster you

> had to process stuff. And one of my most useful

> final lessons he took me out onto some single lane

> 60mph country roads to teach me how to judge speed

> into corners and then a stretch on a dual

> carriageway at 70.

I agree totally that enforcement is the key and the councils should not be throwing up signs and leaving it to the police to enforce the new limits at all. And Lewisham are even telling drivers they don't need to adhere to the signs!

Read the article by Michael Snasdell that I linked to in my last post.

Sounds as though you had an excellent driving instructor.

Unfortunately today the majority of instructors just train their pupils on the test routes so that they know what to do to get through the test but it's another matter when they set of on their own on unfamiliar roads :-(

I have many pupils with full licences that haven't driven for years, some who only drove once after passing their test and I had one who had done an intensive course who couldn't even guess which pedal was for what and ended up taking as many lessons as my total beginners before she felt safe enough to venture out on the roads alone! And that is why I struggled on my Standards Check Test recently, as it was conducted at the test centre I take my pupils to and I don't have any knowledge of the area at all as I think it important that they pass their test on roads they are not familiar with. My memory for routes isn't the best but I gladly got through it with the top grade. Two of the four points I lost were because I didn't know the area that well but I'd actually predicted all of those and thought I'd lose a couple more on certain points due to not knowing the roads so I was very happy with the result but out to get full marks next time so will be taking out the time to get used to the area myself.

I wanted to get to know the area around West Wickham Test Centre instead, as I could do that during my working day with my pupils if they are taking their tests at Mitcham. But sadly, although West Wickham is one of the few local test centres left where there will still be access to faster roads it will be closed within the next year.

There have been attempts to have a two tier licencing system for years now and as the DVSA are currently struggling to implement the next round of changes where the test will include pulling over to the wrong side of the road, reversing and moving off again and driving forwards into a bay and then reversing out as well as having the candidate drive for half of the 40 minute test following a sat nav, I feel that it will be years before anything as sensible as that is brought in if ever.

So the DVSA are bringing in manoeuvres which, although I realise are sometimes unavoidable, I don't consider the safest of options and drivers will feel they are a good idea as they were taught them and had to do one of them on their driving test. And the instructors are already asking which make and model of sat nav the DVSA will be using and how they can program it with the test routes!

I took part in the consultation and made my concerns known to the DVSA but as usual, I am sure they will just go ahead with implementing the changes anyway. If they really want to make the roads safer they should ban instructors from training on the test routes. They do ask us not to do this but as the vast majority of instructors ignore that plea they now wear high vis jackets so that if they come to a point where they want the candidate to carry out a manoeuvre, the instructor blocking the way with their pupil practicing there knows they are an examiner and can get out of the way.

And the other thing they could do is insist on drivers looking where they are going! Hardly any instructors teach this but I insist upon it and without that being second nature I won't let mine take their test in my vehicle. It is entirely natural for us to look in the direction of where we perceive the most danger to come from, rather than to look where we are going and I often see candidates emerging left onto a 40mph road from the test centre whilst looking to the right and when they all come back I often notice that they passed their test.

Years ago a pupil of mine stopped at the give way at the top of Crystal Palace Park Road, where it joins Westwood Hill (there are lights there now). After noticing in my rear view mirror that the driver behind me had also stopped and the one behind her I almost placed my head on my knees due to the angle of the roads to check whether my pupil had needed to stop. She hadn't needed to stop. There was a vehicle coming up Westwood Hill but it was a long way down the hill and not breaking the speed limit. I said 'Lyn' and before I could say 'why do you not think that a large enough gap for us to continue?' BANG! The woman behind rammed her vehicle into the back of mine. She saw a gap but didn't think to check whether the car in front of her had moved away. I ended up with a whiplash injury that lasted almost a year.

That is by far the greatest cause of collisions but it simply isn't insisted upon that new drivers look where they are going before they move the vehicle. A candidate who does not check his/her offside blind spot the moment he/she starts to steer to cause the front of the vehicle to swing out when reverse parking or reversing into a road on the left will fail the test. This is fair enough but it has always baffled me that when they are moving at 2mph they fail for lack of observations but when they are pulling off with the intention of getting the vehicle to 30mph or faster, as soon as possible they don't fail for lack of proper observation.

Apologies for ranting on but all this makes my job far more difficult than it needs to be. I am a responsible driving instructor currently doing a BTEC 4 course in coaching skills and client centered learning which has cost me over ?1300 and causes me to lose out on work, which is probably why most of my peers think I am mad and simply don't believe in further training after qualifying as an ADI. I am doing my bit but the DVSA and local councils make my life more difficult on a daily basis.

In answer to your question, no, I don't have any other ideas in order to solve the problem. All I can do is attempt to put across how vital it is for the pupils own safety and the safety of other road users that they take the extra hours to allow me to train them adequately and then do my best to encourage them to return for post test training on the Motorway. And I'm hoping that an increase in my coaching skills will help me to do this.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You'll forgive me if I say I think we should be

> > more concerned about cars not hitting

> pedestrians,

> > rather than how safe they'll be when it happens.

>

> > I'd be prepared to bet it's a lot safer to be

> hit

> > by a 1970s car at 20 MPH than a brand new one

> at

> > 30 MPH.

>

> I agree that reducing the chances of cars hitting

> pedestrians is the priority. But from a purely

> safety point of view, the best way to achieve that

> is to remove the cars. And that's not going to

> happen.

>

> As to your wager, I think you'd be surprised. Car

> design back in the 60s and 70s still followed the

> school of thought that making the car as strong

> and rigid as possible would be the safest path. No

> crumple zones, no thought to dissipating the

> kinetic energy of impact, no thought on points of

> impact. Modern cars have to consider all those

> things. For example, the major cause of pedestrian

> death is not the initial impact which is typically

> where the bumper hits the legs of the pedestrian.

> The secondary impact, where a pedestrian's head

> hits the bonnet or windscreen, is usually what

> causes death. So modern cars have a crumple zone

> built into the bonnet to absorb some of the energy

> where the pedestrian's head hits the bonnet. They

> also have much more pedestrian-friendly bumpers

> which help to absorb some of the initial energy of

> impact. Some even have pedestrian airbags (Volvo

> V40 for instance) which cover the bonnet and

> windscreen in case of a collision.

>

> I doubt the data exist to prove the argument one

> way or the other. But if I'm given a choice, I'll

> take the modern car at 30 mph please. Especially

> if it's one with a collision-avoidance system

> built in :)

Yes, collision avoidance is certainly to be commended. But for all the crumple zones etc, which are to be applauded, I wouldn't agree that the pedestrian is safer overall, due to the increased size of vehicles and particularly the proliferation of 4x4s, which are 25% more likely to be involved in an accident than a saloon car (Churchill insurance) and twice as likely to kill any pedestrian they hit (New Scientist).

[Lois Pallister]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You'll forgive me if I say I think we should be

> > more concerned about cars not hitting

> pedestrians,

> > rather than how safe they'll be when it happens.

>

> > I'd be prepared to bet it's a lot safer to be

> hit

> > by a 1970s car at 20 MPH than a brand new one

> at

> > 30 MPH.

>

> I agree that reducing the chances of cars hitting

> pedestrians is the priority. But from a purely

> safety point of view, the best way to achieve that

> is to remove the cars. And that's not going to

> happen.

>

> As to your wager, I think you'd be surprised. Car

> design back in the 60s and 70s still followed the

> school of thought that making the car as strong

> and rigid as possible would be the safest path. No

> crumple zones, no thought to dissipating the

> kinetic energy of impact, no thought on points of

> impact. Modern cars have to consider all those

> things. For example, the major cause of pedestrian

> death is not the initial impact which is typically

> where the bumper hits the legs of the pedestrian.

> The secondary impact, where a pedestrian's head

> hits the bonnet or windscreen, is usually what

> causes death. So modern cars have a crumple zone

> built into the bonnet to absorb some of the energy

> where the pedestrian's head hits the bonnet. They

> also have much more pedestrian-friendly bumpers

> which help to absorb some of the initial energy of

> impact. Some even have pedestrian airbags (Volvo

> V40 for instance) which cover the bonnet and

> windscreen in case of a collision.

>

> I doubt the data exist to prove the argument one

> way or the other. But if I'm given a choice, I'll

> take the modern car at 30 mph please. Especially

> if it's one with a collision-avoidance system

> built in :)

Couldn't agree more Cardelia, I'd take the modern car at 30mph too. My car has a collision-avoidence system and a huge range of other safety features including alerting me when those idiots are overtaking me when I'm doing the speed limit. I don't need that but glad that it's there for less observant drivers.

You are right that reducing the chances of cars hitting pedestrians should be the priority but I'd also suggest that making the cars safer could be an equal priority. Certainly, if there was as much drive for enforcement of speed limits on our roads as there is in the car industry to make cars safer then many lives would have been saved.

But sadly that won't happen. And Lewisham are telling the public they will get away with ignoring the new limits on their web site!

[rendelharris]

Lois Pallister Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

And Lewisham are

> telling the public they will get away with

> ignoring the new limits on their web site!

Any chance of a link to that please? I can find only this:

"We do not expect everyone to drive within the 20mph limit from the outset, but over time, we expect compliance to increase."

which isn't exactly saying they will get away with it, it's just saying they acknowledge that not everyone will start obeying the new regulations immediately, though it could have been better phrased: "We realise that not everyone will immediately comply..." rather than "We do not expect..." But if there's something else I've missed I'd be interested to see it.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

>

> Yes, collision avoidance is certainly to be

> commended. But for all the crumple zones etc,

> which are to be applauded, I wouldn't agree that

> the pedestrian is safer overall, due to the

> increased size of vehicles and particularly the

> proliferation of 4x4s, which are 25% more likely

> to be involved in an accident than a saloon car

> (Churchill insurance) and twice as likely to kill

> any pedestrian they hit (New Scientist).

It's difficult to find data from the 60s and 70s about the numbers of pedestrians killed on the roads, presumably because the specific data were just bundled in with all other road deaths. The earliest reliable figures I can find start in 1994-98 where, on average, 1008 pedestrians per year were killed. In 2014 this was down to 446. Given the overall trend of road deaths decreasing since the mid-60s, despite the massive increase in the number of vehicles on the roads, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that pedestrians are safer nowadays.

Sources: House of Commons Library SN/SG/2198 and DfT statistical release 25/06/2015

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's difficult to find data from the 60s and 70s

> about the numbers of pedestrians killed on the

> roads, presumably because the specific data were

> just bundled in with all other road deaths. The

> earliest reliable figures I can find start in

> 1994-98 where, on average, 1008 pedestrians per

> year were killed. In 2014 this was down to 446.

> Given the overall trend of road deaths decreasing

> since the mid-60s, despite the massive increase in

> the number of vehicles on the roads, it's not too

> much of a stretch to suggest that pedestrians are

> safer nowadays.

There are a lot of other factors to be taken into account beyond vehicle improvements - for example the huge decrease in drink driving. Most importantly, the number of pedestrian miles walked has decreased enormously over the decades - far fewer children walk to school, far fewer people walk to the shops etc - so in simple terms fewer pedestrians are being killed as there are fewer out there to kill. And of course, as stated previously, in the 200 20MPH zones in the UK KSIs have been reduced by 70%!

ETA: Interesting data on this here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10998536/Britain-becomes-sedentary-nation-as-people-give-up-walking.html and that's just compared to 1995, one imagines a comparison to 1965 would be shocking!

[Penguin68]

Most importantly, the number of pedestrian miles walked has decreased enormously over the decades - far fewer children walk to school, far fewer people walk to the shops etc - so in simple terms fewer pedestrians are being killed as there are fewer out there to kill.

Unless you have figures for this, I am not sure you are right - (1) the population itself has risen (2) many more journeys are now made on public transport - and thus many more people have to walk to/ from bus stops or train stations (outwith those driving to a station and parking) - (3) leisure walking (and particularly jogging) is on the increase. Although you are clearly right about school journeys, I suspect that the loss of these is outweighed by these other factors - indeed I see little evidence that people do not walk whilst shopping - other than those driving to DKH etc, locally. And even those may well walk to some shops. The 'close shaves' I have seen recently have been those in LL jaywalking across the roads without looking for oncoming traffic - however slowly it now proceeds.

So I think that the fall in pedestrian fatalities is a function of life being safer, not of fewer opportunities for disaster.

[Toosmart1973]

I've been hit by both a car from the 70's(1984) and a modern car(2013)....and trust me, they both bloody hurt!