Unbelievable destruction: West Norwood marble fountain demolished

[malumbu]

Semantics, if it was reasonably avoidable then it is not an accident.  If the road user was not being reasonable then they could have avoided the collision.  Not sure why you continue to be apologists for poor driving.

If the incident occurred because a piece of space junk or a meteorite came to ground I'd agree that it was not avoidable.  Highly unlikely.

This thread had al but died, not sure why you would want to bring it back to life.

[Kathleen Olander]

What happened to the fountain, who or what did it?

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Of greatest interest is how this thread has shifted from one of outrage at an incident where it seems those most outraged were not clear how the incident occurred, to a discussion on how to correctly apply the word 'accident'. Go figure.

If only people spent as much energy on solving problems instead of fixating on the use of the word accident....very reflective of how completely bonkers the world we live in has become.

32 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Not sure why you continue to be apologists for poor driving.

Because the very point is you do not know that the accident was caused by poor driving. You're jumping to your ideologically driven hopes and conclusions. Again.

 

34 minutes ago, malumbu said:

This thread had al but died, not sure why you would want to bring it back to life.

It was dead until someone took umbrage about the use of the word accident.

And I checked the dictionary again and the word still works really well for what happened here:

accident

/ˈaksɪd(ə)nt/

noun

 

1. 1.

   an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

   "he had an accident at the factory"

[snowy]

6 hours ago, Kathleen Olander said:

What happened to the fountain, who or what did it?

According to this local community website, it was hit by a car. The driver then fled:

https://norwoodforum.org/node/3436

"There is some doubt that the costs of repair and reinstatement can be met from any motor insurance policy - the driver of the car concerned is said to have left the scene"

"We have also asked for the road safety aspects for southbound traffic from Norwood Road/Robson Road traffic lights be reconsidered. Two lanes merge into one lane here and there are longstanding problems of speeding traffic on Norwood High Street and the rest of the West Norwood gyratory"

[malumbu]

So speeding traffic is one of the problems. I've witnessed boy racers hammering it at night on the one way.  Shame some motorists cannot act more responsibly. 

[first mate]

Do we know if the driver who fled the scene was also the owner of the car or was it stolen? It is not clear either if the vehicle was insured? 

As for speeding, put certain individuals into a car, onto an e-bike or e-scooter, and you'll get speeding and reckless behaviour- like running red lights and using powered vehicles on pavements. Yes, a car can do more damage but, as we already know, even a cyclist can kill someone if cycling at speed.

 

[snowy]

A vehicle isn't insured, a driver is.

Given the driver ran away we don't know if they were insured, whether the car was theirs etc which is why that blog says that the tax payer will have to bear the costs of  the repairs to a memorial thats been there, unharmed, on a pedestrian island since the late 19th century, plus the costs of the emergency services etc

Which also answers the question from Rockets as to whether it "was dangerous or careless driving':Leaving a scene of a collision is one of the definitions of careless driving.

Regarding dangerous driving, and the report that it was a car, the first post in this thread says

"Presumably the vehicle that did this must have been travelling with some force when it mounted the kerb and sent the stone blocks flying: significant weight or speed or both. Supposedly this is a 20mph zone."

which i guess is answered too - so counting as dangerous driving.

On your second slightly bizarre 'but bikes/scooter' point, that's why a hierarchy of road users exists. I'm not quite sure an escooter would do that amount of damage to a marble statue. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

If only people spent as much energy on solving problems instead of fixating on the use of the word accident...

[Rockets]

DKHB.. I am not the one fixating on the use of the word accident! 😉

[first mate]

Snowy said: Given the driver ran away we don't know if they were insured, whether the car was theirs etc which is why that blog says that the tax payer will have to bear the costs of  the repairs to a memorial thats been there, unharmed, on a pedestrian island since the late 19th century, plus the costs of the emergency services etc
 

If driver fled the scene there may be grounds to apply to DVLA to find out who legally owns the car etc. On the other hand, if it seems likely the car is not registered or is stolen then tracing the driver will be difficult and multiple illegal activities apply. The tax payer has to bear the costs of many types of crime but appreciate your need to highlight this example.

 

 

• Member
• •  3.9k

Posted 1 hour ago

Rockets said: DKHB.. I am not the one fixating on the use of the word accident!

No that was raised again by a Pro LTN poster, so perhaps have a word with them?

[malumbu]

An interesting article, most police are now not using the term accident but that there is still a trend to depersonalise collisions by referring to the car rather than driver.  Worth a read irrespective of you position 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/11/26/most-uk-police-forces-now-use-incident-not-accident-finds-research/

[first mate]

An interesting article for another thread perhaps but this one is about a specific incident that was drawn to our attention to make a point but where there is scant detail on the specifics. If you know more about that please do say, otherwise maybe start another thread on how to use the word accident. Otherwise, it just looks like more deflection.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

21 hours ago, first mate said:

If driver fled the scene there may be grounds to apply to DVLA to find out who legally owns the car etc.

The DVLA does not keep records of ownership of vehicles.

[first mate]

26 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

The DVLA does not keep records of ownership of vehicles.

 

Request information about a vehicle or its registered keeper from DVLA 

Contents

1. Overview
2. Request information about another vehicle or its registered keeper
3. Request information about you or your vehicle

Request information about another vehicle or its registered keeper

You can ask for details of another vehicle’s registered keeper. You’ll need a ‘reasonable cause’, for example:

• finding out who was responsible for an accident
• tracing the registered keeper of an abandoned vehicle
• tracing the registered keeper of a vehicle parked on private land
• giving out parking tickets
• giving out trespass charge notices
• tracing people responsible for driving off without paying for goods and services
• tracing people suspected of insurance fraud

 

 

[malumbu]

It's registered keeper that DVLA keeps, this is not necessarily the owner

The Forbes article is relevant as a number of you keep going on, on this, and in another thread, that destruction  could have been purely just by chance, eg a driver distracted by a UFO, or meteorite, whereas I and others point out that there are few collisions where the driver is not at fault.  And the police have started to recognise this as moving away from using 'accident'.  Some even suggested that it was not a motorised four wheel vehicle that caused the destruction, considering momentum and weight a 50 kg electric bike would need to do around about 4000 miles an hour to collide with this force, and even then most of the damage would be done to the bike.

Or perhaps this

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

The DVLA doesn't record who is the owner of a vehicle. It records who is the "registered keeper".

[Rockets]

15 hours ago, malumbu said:

An interesting article, most police are now not using the term accident but that there is still a trend to depersonalise collisions by referring to the car rather than driver.  Worth a read irrespective of you position 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2024/11/26/most-uk-police-forces-now-use-incident-not-accident-finds-research/

Good grief - the Foundation for Integrated Transport put money up to fund this research....why is it when it comes to anything active travel or the anti-car lobby that people are happy to fritter money away.....the world has gone utterly mad....?

The author who received the money is a "freelance journalist, author and speaker specialising in cycling and urban transport."  Of course they are....

 

[first mate]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

• finding out who was responsible for an accident
• tracing the registered keeper of an abandoned vehicle
• tracing the registered keeper of a vehicle parked on private land
• giving out parking tickets
• giving out trespass charge notices
• tracing people responsible for driving off without paying for goods and services
• tracing people suspected of insurance fraud

 

DKHB, if there was no chance of the registered keeper being or knowing the owner do you really think a government website would be suggesting contacting DVLA to find out the above? I mean, if ownership and registered keeper were two totally unrelated categories you might have a point.  Come on.

"

Who is the legal owner of a car?

The legal owner of a car in the UK is whoever has registered the vehicle with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). This person will be responsible for keeping all documentation up to date and ensuring that any road tax due on the vehicle is paid. It’s also important to note that just because someone has bought or leased a vehicle, they are not automatically considered to be its legal owner. To be recognised as such, they must register the car in their own name with the DVLA."

Edited November 28 by first mate

[Penguin68]

Actually, I don't think registering a car with the DVLA makes you the owner, though you may well be, but what it makes you is legally responsible for the car, outwith issues of ownership. If you are the registered keeper you have legal responsibility, although if the car is stolen and reported as such you may eschew some of this. It is assumed that if not the owner you have registered it with the owner's agreement. 

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Good grief - the Foundation for Integrated Transport put money up to fund this research....why is it when it comes to anything active travel or the anti-car lobby that people are happy to fritter money away.....the world has gone utterly mad....?

The author who received the money is a "freelance journalist, author and speaker specialising in cycling and urban transport."  Of course they are....

 

Good grief, you are dismissive yet again.  Read it with an open mind.  

Separately having worked with DVLA on a project or two I can definitely tell you that the owner is not necessarily the keeper of a vehicle.  And the driver may be someone different as well 

20 years ago a car registered with Manchester United was caught speeding.  By law the keeper had to tell the police who was driving.  They wouldn't and we're prepared to pay rather than reveal the ID of the driver, possibly now a very famous brand, influencer etc

[first mate]

Didn't say they necessarily were, we have established that, but they may well be, hence the govt advisory on how to possibly identify the registered keeper/owner/person with legal responsibility for a car, in the case of an accident involving a car, where the driver has left the scene.

Or are you saying that the govt website advisory is incorrect?

And...if by your example, if the damage is paid for then that is a result, isn't it? Damage having to be paid for by the taxpayer was one of the points being made about the fountain and Cllr Leeming in another example. So if going after the registered keeper means damage is paid for one way or another then good.

I just do wonder if the fountain accident was the result of an  untaxed/uninsured/ unregistered vehicle? In which case the real issue is much more one of criminality. 

 

[snowy]

The owner of a vehicle isn't responsible for the use of the vehicle- otherwise lease hire firms would be financially viable for any costs of a collision.

the registered keeper can deny they were driving (and therefore not responsible) and cannot be compelled to say who was. Doing that can result in a £ fine and/or points for the registered keeper, but invariably at a much lower level than would be given to a named driver responsible.

its like you're just realising that license plates are for vehicles not individual drivers...

Glad on your final point, that you are now agreeing with the OP and Leeming that it was careless driving (leaving the scene of an incident) and dangerous driving (aggravated taking without consent).

Edited November 28 by snowy
Clarity

[first mate]

So you also think the govt advisory is wrong? Clearly they see a potentially useful relationship between a registered keeper and legal responsibility where a car has been involved in an accident.

In terms of the Leeming stuff, unlike you and him, a number of us have kept an open mind about what happened, because, like the fountain accident, it seems at the time of posting, at least, no-one was sure. So no, I am not agreeing. However, it is typical of you and your chums to try to pretend someone has admitted to something they have not.

So you know do you that the car was stolen?  So what are you suggesting, that all cars should be banned because one might be stolen and then driven dangerously? Seriously? Or that numerous streets be made traffic free because someone might steal a car and drive it dangerously? What is your point?
 

 

[snowy]

You are suggesting its stolen!

And besides, you can't really contradict that you agree the fountain appears to be careless driving as the driver left the scene...

[first mate]

One of the aggravated taking without consent- do you know which one applied or were you just guessing too? If you genuinely know then do spill?

11 minutes ago, snowy said:

You are suggesting its stolen!

And besides, you can't really contradict that you agree the fountain appears to be careless driving as the driver left the scene...

One of the aggravated taking without consent- do you know which one applied or were you just guessing too? If you genuinely know then do spill?

On that second point, I and others are waiting to get the facts as opposed to what "appears" to have happened.