Child hit by car (she's fine), Lordship lane with upland

[DJKillaQueen]

Of course a difference of opinion is allowed LD but if you are going to make broad statements like those above then you should to expect to be challenged, because you are insulting practically anyone that sits behind a wheel by them, and adding nothing rational to the discussion in doing so. You are way smarter than that...which is why I'm suprised.

Thank you V511 for a more sober version of events.

[Willard]

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

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

> For someone who likes to voice her opinions at

> almost every single thing (DJKQ)

>

I never knew he was a she...live and learn.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

V511 Wrote:

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

> I saw the accident and it was just that - an

> accident. Luckily, the driver was not going

> particularly fast and managed to scrub off some

> speed by braking.

At last, a voice of reason on this thread.

[UncleBen]

Parents should teach their kids road safety.

[the-e-dealer]

tHIS IS WEIRD another post I predicted from riceyboy in a brown envelope. Next will be .. We should respect the sanctity of Marriage or all drinkers are responsible,

[the-e-dealer]

Oh yeah and "Its A Christian Country we should be Christian" or go home

[henryb]

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

> At last, a voice of reason on this thread.

Why is it reasonable? Because it doesn't blame the driver? Were you there? Another witness on this thread has said they thought the driver was going too fast. Presumably you think their view was unreasonable because it was "anti-car"?

If you are driving a ton of metal through a populated area then the onus is on you to do it in a way that means you don't hit anyone. If you knock down a child crossing the road then you are going too fast. Blaming it on the pedestrian is unacceptable. It is like throwing a brick into crowded room then blaming the person it hits for not ducking.

30 mph limit is too fast for residential areas and it needs to be reduced.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

henryb Wrote:

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

> ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

>

> > At last, a voice of reason on this thread.

>

> Why is it reasonable? Because it doesn't blame the

> driver? Were you there? Another witness on this

> thread has said they thought the driver was going

> too fast. Presumably you think their view was

> unreasonable because it was "anti-car"?

>

> If you are driving a ton of metal through a

> populated area then the onus is on you to do it in

> a way that means you don't hit anyone. If you

> knock down a child crossing the road then you are

> going too fast. Blaming it on the pedestrian is

> unacceptable. It is like throwing a brick into

> crowded room then blaming the person it hits for

> not ducking.

>

> 30 mph limit is too fast for residential areas and

> it needs to be reduced.

Utter cobblers. Firstly, the other witness comes across as having an agenda, whereas the rest of us haven't. The only people on here giving it the pro-car/anti-human beings spiel are the anti-car mob. DB&B has a meltdown at the thought of crossing a road so hardly comes over as being rational, yet alone a credible witness.

I have been in the gut wrenchingly unenviable position of having been in an accident involving a child running out into the street and me hitting them. Was speed a factor? No. Was there ANYTHING I could have done to avoid the accident? No - the opinion of the witnesses and the Police who attended. Was the child 100% to blame for running out from behind a bus stop while larking with his mates? Yes. Did I hold that against him? No. I was in far worse shock than he was despite knowing that (1) I wasn't speeding (2) I took my foot off the accelerator and covered the brake as I approached the bus stop as there was a crowd of children (3) there was not a thing the I could have done to avoid what happened. Your analogy about slinging a brick into a crowded room is not only moronic but deeply insulting to someone who has been in this situation.

30 mph is not too fast if you teach children to cross the road safely. DB&B et al are the problem as they abdicate all responsibility and make everyone else the bad guy.

If we did make the speed limit 20 mph, then we'd have threads complaining about the increase in pollution.

What we need to do is realise that ALL of us need to take an equal share of responsibility. And that, sadly, accidents do sometimes happen in life.

[LadyDeliah]

There is a balance to be struck between taking care of your own safety and taking care of others' safety. My comments were not being made in relation to the driver in this particular incident as I have no knowledge of the facts.

My comments and opinions are based on the posts of car drivers here on the EDF and during my cycle commutes over the past 20 years.

Telling pedestrians that they should just add '2 minutes' to their journey rather than cars be expected to slow down at an island crossing, fuel my perception of car drivers being selfish, arrogant and lacking in an ability to see the direct and indirect harm their attitude causes to others.

The many threads bemoaning speeding/parking etc tickets and congestion chaos caused by them, adds to my negative perception of car drivers.

It is my opinion that their hitherto privillaged position in relation to use of our public spaces should be challenged and reversed somewhat.

That's my opinion, based on my observations and experience. If you don't agree, fair do's, but don't act like a twat and say my arguments are inane, unreasonable or illogical.

[Dopamine1979]

Nothing beats a good EDF debate.

http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif

[the-e-dealer]

The thing about a 20mph limit is it makes serious injury far less likely.

I was driving in the E-DealerMobile Down Crystal Palace Road at 18 mph and an 11 year old boy playing chicken with his mates jumped out from between the cars. He Bounced off the Bonnet got up and walked away. The Mobile was very busted - New Bonnet New Windscreen. The Boy went to Hospital and was treated for minor bruising. The Hospital said he was fine and there were no real injuries. They said they could tell the car was going slowly. As a car User I am very very much in favour of the 20MPH Limit.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

>

> Telling pedestrians that they should just add '2

> minutes' to their journey rather than cars be

> expected to slow down at an island crossing, fuel

> my perception of car drivers being selfish,

> arrogant and lacking in an ability to see the

> direct and indirect harm their attitude causes to

> others.

>

Wilfully misquoting does little to help your argument. I never said that anyone should add 2 minutes to their journey so drivers don't have to slow down. I said they COULD, if they so chose, add 2 minutes to make their journey safer. Common sense is, sadly, no longer that common.

As a car driver, cyclist, commuter, motorcyclist & pedestrian, I find it quite disingenuous that you call car drivers arrogant yet somehow you think cyclists are somehow beyond reproach. When crossing the road this weekend on a crossing with a red light with my 6 year old holding my hand, a cyclist whipped through the red light and nearly clocked us both. Thankfully, I yanked him back out of the way. Unfortunately, this meant that I missed the opportunity to take a swing at the cyclist. Do I therefore think all cyclists are scummers like this one? No. Do I tar you with the same brush. No. So do the majority of car drivers the courtesy of doing the same please.

[tomskip]

The problem is that the crossing (which isn't really a crossing) is just beyond a bend in the road and so if cars are coming along at 30 or faster then there is very little time to cross safely. I ask my 12 year old daughter to walk down to the library to cross the road and have shown her how to cross Friern Road further down, not on the corner, because of the visibility problems. This adds more than 5 minutes to her journey, but it feels safer. As I understand it the child didn't jump out from behind a bus, she was holding her parent's hand. It would be great if that warning sign could be reinstated there.

[henryb]

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

> Was speed a factor? No.

How fast were you going? If you were driving at over 20mph in an area were children were playing about by a bus stop and then in my view you were going too fast. This is fairly common view these days and why 20mph zones are being introduced here and in other countries. Streets in town/cities are primarily places where people live, not for cars to speed on. The rights of residents to live in safety must take precedence over the right of private car owners to drive a bit faster.

> 30 mph is not too fast if you teach children to

> cross the road safely.

The thousands of people killed and seriously injured every year by cars would suggest it isn?t.

> If we did make the speed limit 20 mph, then we'd

> have threads complaining about the increase in

> pollution.

20mph areas have lower pollution because there is less acceleration/deceleration.

> What we need to do is realise that ALL of us need

> to take an equal share of responsibility. And

> that, sadly, accidents do sometimes happen in

> life.

No, the onus of safety and presumed liability should be on the party engaged in the intrinsically dangerous activity. In this case that is the car driver.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

The other witness didn't say the car was going SLOW , they said not particularly fast , and I said they went fast enough to knock the girl over at a designated crossing island .

I have never changed any part of what was witnessed either . I stated the girl was holding her mum hand behind her as the crossing isn't wide enough for walking side by side with too many people .

Stop nit picking .

All car drivers in my family , lots of mileage as well as we travel a lot but guess what , we slow right down in built up areas and we stop and let people cross , because we are nice like that you see and we recognise the potential danger of children and animals darting out in residential areas .

[DJKillaQueen]

It's not nit-picking DB...it's an attempt to see the facts. It's not an island designed for any number of people to safely use. Why did the mother put the child behind her, instead of in front?. The other witness has said the driver did react to the child still being in the road by using her brakes, and said the driver wasn't going fast, meaning she had already slowed down on seeing pedestrians. It paints a very different picture to the one you initially painted.

I'm with ED-NA.

I awould argue that someone that only cycles, or only drives, or is only a pedestrian is more likely to have a biased view. That's what makes these kinds of discussions so polarising. Too many people hold views based out of self interest.

I know of a serveral people whom have had pedestrians run out in front of them (it's happened to me on a bicycle even) and better road awareness for all roads users that show poor judgement, has to be part of the answer. We have to take responsibility for our own mistakes.

In 25 years of urban cycling, driving and motorcycling, I can honestly say that I've had few accidents and equally spread across all three modes. So my view is that we can do a lot to make travelling safe for ourselves. As a cyclist I can usually tell when a driver hasn't seen me, and I make the necessary adjustment. I do the same as a driver. What I don't do is scream and shout that all drivers are killers because they sometimes makes mistakes, any more than I demonise all cyclists because a few don't think red lights etc apply to them, or demonise pedestrains because some of them don't realise that vehicles need time to slow down or stop if they run out.

[henryb]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

>

> I awould argue that someone that only cycles, or

> only drives, or is only a pedestrian is more

> likely to have a biased view. That's what makes

> these kinds of discussions so polarising. Too many

> people hold views based out of self interest.

I drive, cycle and walk. I am more than happy to drive at 20 in areas where children are likely to be around. I think other peoples safety is more important than a marginal difference to my journey time.

> What I don't do is scream and shout that

> all drivers are killers because they sometimes

> makes mistakes, any more than I demonise all

> cyclists because a few don't think red lights etc

> apply to them, or demonise pedestrains because

> some of them don't realise that vehicles need time

> to slow down or stop if they run out.

The difference is when car drivers make a mistake it is other people end up seriously hurt or worse. That why the limit needs to be reduced so those mistakes don't end up being fatal.

[DJKillaQueen]

But the limits are already reduced on most residential roads. Main roads have any number of designated crossings.

When looking at data, speed is only considered a factor in less than a quarter of all accidents and fatalities. Alcohol, dangerous driving, inexperience and not wearing a seatbelt (that alone results in some 300 deaths a year) are the cause of the overwhleming majority of accidents and deaths. No amount of tampering with speed limits is going to improve the behaviour or driving skills of those drivers.

Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain, 2011

Killed 1,901

Seriously Injured 23,122

Slightly Injured 178,927

All 203,950

Most road users and pedestrians never have an accident. We have one of the best safety records in Europe.

I think more should instead be done to improve the attitude and driving standards of those road users who basically are a danger. It's not the car that's dangerous afterall. And just on pedestrians. When I was at school we had campaigns like the Tufty Club and the Green Cross Man heavily drumming the importance of raod safety awareness into children. Similarly my parents would never have risked crossing at anywhere but a designated safe crossing point. There were also far more lollipop men and women.

If we need more zebra crossings and pelican crossings then let's build them. I just don't buy the idea that our main roads should be reduced to a snails pace so that pedestrians can freely run back and forth accross them wherever they see fit. It's a compromise, and has to be so.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

henryb Wrote:

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

>

> The difference is when car drivers make a mistake

> it is other people end up seriously hurt or worse.

> That why the limit needs to be reduced so those

> mistakes don't end up being fatal.

So if a pedestrian runs out in front of a car, it is always the drivers mistake? Regardless of speed? Utter tosh. Let's just go back to having someone walking in front of our cars with a red flag then. I really despair. If main roads have a 20mph limit, then in 5 years time we'll have you back on here bemoaning that and saying it should be 10mph. Then what? Back to horse drawn carts?

We've clearly peaked as a species and you represent the slippery slope we're now on.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think people are also forgetting that most business, and that includes everything delivered to our shops, and all our services, emergency services etc, need free flowing transport routes. And the knock on effect of slowing everything down will have a cost to it. We already do have measures in place designed to reduce traffic speed where there are shops and congregations of people in mumbers.

[henryb]

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

> So if a pedestrian runs out in front of a car, it

> is always the drivers mistake? Regardless of

> speed?

I think that if that happens the car should be travelling at a speed so is more likely to be able to react in time and if there is a collision there is a significantly reduced chance of serious injury or death than there is currently with a 30 limit.

I also think we should introduce presumed liability (not culpability) for accidents between motor vehicles and more vulnerable road users as there is in most of Europe.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

> If we need more zebra crossings and pelican

> crossings then let's build them.

Yep. A better one is needed here clearly.

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

So when someone gets hit by a car (regardless of fault) going 20mph, then what?

And as I said before, this isn't a good place for a crossing. There are two within spitting distance already.

[the-e-dealer]

At 20 MPH Very unlikely to be killed. So much better outcome. But ofcourse if you are doing 20mph you have more stopping distance too so a double benefit.

[henryb]

ED - NAGAIUTB Wrote:

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

> So when someone gets hit by a car (regardless of

> fault) going 20mph, then what?

In most cases the pedestrian goes home with a few bruises.

[Jeremy]

henryb - of course drivers need to make sure they can stop should the unexpected happen, but your black and white view which seems to amount to "the motorist is always to blame" seems pretty bizarre even by EDF standards.

I can agree with you on the crossing though, especially having walked that way myself over the weekend. Surely a zebra crossing can't cost any more to build than an island, so what's the justification for having an island instead of a more formal crossing?