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

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> 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.

I'll see if I can find figures if I have time but from the article I linked to above, DoT figures:

"The steepest decline has been in walking, with Britons taking a third fewer journeys by foot than they did 18 years ago, falling from 292 trips in 1995 to 203 last year."

ETA re children walking to school: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/only-25-per-cent-of-children-walk-to-school-alone-compared-to-86-per-cent-in-1971-what-went-wrong-8452266.html 25% of children walking to school alone compared to 86% in 1971

[Penguin68]

Ah, journeys - but if you walked to a bus stop, would you class this in a survey as a bus journey or a walk? If you go jogging, is this a journey. This is the whole problem with survey based information, you only get answers to the specific questions you ask. This doesn't tell me about pedestrian miles walked for any reason. It just tells me about primary intentional movement from a to b.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Ah, journeys - but if you walked to a bus stop,

> would you class this in a survey as a bus journey

> or a walk? If you go jogging, is this a journey.

> This is the whole problem with survey based

> information, you only get answers to the specific

> questions you ask. This doesn't tell me about

> pedestrian miles walked for any reason. It just

> tells me about primary intentional movement from a

> to b.

Average person now walks 181 miles per year, compared to 244 in 1986. No data I can find on walking in the 1960s/70s but given the rise in private car ownership, the changes in shopping habits (driving to supermarkets rather than walking to local shops etc) it's not exactly a stretch to assume that walking in those decades was far higher: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/28/britain-grinds-to-a-halt-with-average-person-walking-half-a-mile/

[wulfhound]

Average person now walks 181 miles per year, compared to 244 in 1986.

Half a mile a day. That's pretty ruddy poor, for the average adult. My two year old does more than that. Lazy so-and-so's.

[rendelharris]

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > Average person now walks 181 miles per year,

> compared to 244 in 1986.

>

>

> Half a mile a day. That's pretty ruddy poor, for

> the average adult. My two year old does more than

> that. Lazy so-and-so's.

Seems incredible, doesn't it? Then you look at the obesity stats and think, well...

[Lois Pallister]

Yes it is very worrying that people are walking less but the increase in London's population of over 2 million between 1986 and today means that the miles walked are the same if not slightly more today.

Okay I was being a tad facetious about the Lewisham web site, which I know you already realised, but in all seriousness I find that a shocking statement to put out there, even with "we realise that" replacing "we don't expect".

It only serves to prove that they have no intention of enforcing it.

Which to those drivers who just don't care will be taken as "Oh that's okay then, I don't need to worry about it".

If as Cardelia says 1008 pedestrians were killed back in 1998 and 446 in 2014 then there will have been many factors but less pedestrians on the streets is not one of them.

We all know how many are killed at 20mph compared to 30mph, and if we didn't anyone on this thread certainly does now after your repeating it so many times but with the smoking ban there was very heavy enforcement and with reducing the speeds on roads there isn't any more than there was before the speed reduction when the 30mph speeds were already being ignored due to the enforcement being almost zero.

So just because there are drivers who ignore speed limits which should be enforced but are not, pedestrians who do not take due care and attention and people who opt to commit suicide by running in front of a vehicle, we must all drive at 20mph on major roads, increasing the danger rather than decreasing it because of no enforcement, causing more pollution, at least half as much time again on most journeys (causing distress and detrimental effects on peoples lifestyles), on roads where there have never been such incidents in the first place as well as on those where there have, which as I've said over and over again I am in favour of!

The most dangerous roads where such collisions do occur will remain at 30mph (but still without any enforcement!) such as the South Circular.

And South Croxted Road, which should have been 20mph decades ago wasn't because there wasn't a bee in the councils bonnet about a blanket road speed reduction. They put in a camera after one fatality, a zebra crossing after another, but at no point did it occur to them to reduce the speed limit! It's unbelievable!

Hey don't stop at just road speeds! Why not campaign to close most places that open to the public where there is the slightest danger too. I think you'd have a heart attack if you came on one of my tours of Shirley Windmill! Oh and any sports where there is a risk to the participants and spectators. This list could go on forever so I'll stop there.

Do you have a driving licence Rendel?

I am daring to assume that you don't because your comments do not hint at any kind of experience as a driver.

I wrote this reply only because you asked me a direct question and I don't like to appear to be rude but please don't ask me any more. Just put your opinion forward and answer the questions yourself, which you have proven yourself more than capable of.

Over and out.

[rendelharris]

Lois Pallister Wrote:

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

> I wrote this reply only because you asked me a

> direct question and I don't like to appear to be

> rude but please don't ask me any more. Just put

> your opinion forward and answer the questions

> yourself, which you have proven yourself more than

> capable of.

>

> Over and out.

Shame you couldn't come up with any actual factual evidence that 20MPH zones increase danger, despite saying melodramatically "they will be made 20mph for years possibly causing more deaths" - and despite the fact that the accident with which you started this thread, implying that it was somehow being covered up to conceal the deficiencies of the 20 MPH system - "This left me wondering if there is a ban on reporting serious accidents that occur on the roads that have been changed to a 20mph speed limit" - wasn't even in the 20 MPH zone. I've offered you a plethora of statistics proving that 20 MPH zones do work - 70% reduction in KSIs, for example - which you've been unable to rebut with figures of your own, relying solely on anecdotal evidence. Oh well, cheerio, drive safe.