Unbelievable destruction: West Norwood marble fountain demolished

[Rockets]

DKHB - accident also means a non-deliberate act - no-one goes out to deliberately crash a car - well the majority don't anyway. 

The fact you say: "too many still do not hold drivers accountable for their actions" also leans in to the suggestion that all accidents are the fault of drivers - again a presumption that really suggests blinkeredness. Yes, there are accidents caused by careless driving but there are also accidents that are, well, just accidents. Not every accident is the result of careless driving - despite how many would like them to be.

[snowy]

So one the one hand we have the following organisations who no longer use the word accident as

"Describing every crash as an ‘accident’ in effect makes excuses for serious incidents. Most crashes are not ‘accidents’ but are avoidable, normally by drivers and other road users paying more attention.” Edmund King (the AA)

The Department for Transport

The National Highways Agency

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety 

The National Police Chiefs’ Council

The AA

and then on the other hand we have some lone, out of touch poster called Rockets. 

 

 

[Rockets]

Ha ha....

So, should we no longer say I cut myself by accident....it was, after all, avoidable if one was paying more attention...

Or...I accidentally dropped the mug on the floor...again avoidable if one was paying more attention

Perhaps A&E also needs to be renamed to Avoidable Incidents and Emergency..... 

BTW is the "police accident" sign still used and in the Highway Code...perhaps you can lobby them to change that too...what do you suggest they use "police crash" - no as that suggests the police have crashed...maybe "Police incident invariably caused by a careless or speeding driver"...nah too large for a single sign.....

Meanwhile, still no-one actually knows what caused the accident we are talking about do they..........?

It's all gone so Dulwich Roads....

Good grief......

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Imagine actually trying to minimise 30,000 deaths and serious injuries. And then suggesting that the ‘real’ problem is people on push bikes. What is wrong with you? The degree of tribalism that makes this possible is almost pathological.

Edited Monday at 19:14 by Earl Aelfheah

[malumbu]

3 hours ago, snowy said:

So one the one hand we have the following organisations who no longer use the word accident as

"Describing every crash as an ‘accident’ in effect makes excuses for serious incidents. Most crashes are not ‘accidents’ but are avoidable, normally by drivers and other road users paying more attention.” Edmund King (the AA)

The Department for Transport

The National Highways Agency

The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety 

The National Police Chiefs’ Council

The AA

and then on the other hand we have some lone, out of touch poster called Rockets. 

 

 

 

Good bloke Edmund, had professional dealings with him both when at the RAC foundation and the AA.  Whilst representing drivers he also cycles.  I could do further name dropping but that would be showing off 😁

Edited Monday at 21:23 by malumbu

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 03/11/2024 at 19:01, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

In 2021, the last period for which data is available, someone in Southwark was injured in a hit and run crash almost every day (351 per annum).

The number of people injured in hit and run crashes in London doubled between 2011 and 2021. Every day, 2 of those injuries are fatal or serious.

But maybe none of these hit and run drivers were careless or dangerous drivers either. Maybe they were all taking evasive action to avoid a pedestrian walking into the road whilst staring at their phone - you just don't know. 

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/Hit and run the escalating crisis on London roads - January 2024 Caroline Russell Report.pdf

These statistics are truly shocking and should immediately give people drawing false equivalence with the ‘menace’ of push bikes pause for thought. It won’t of course.

[Rockets]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Imagine actually trying to minimise 30,000 deaths and serious injuries.

How you get to this conclusion is beyond belief....but oh so typical...

[exdulwicher]

42 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Meanwhile, still no-one actually knows what caused the accident we are talking about do they..........?

It's clearly the fault of the fountain cos it's not wearing a helmet or hi-vis and doesn't pay any road tax. Really, it got what it deserved.

Equally likely of course is that a poor innocent driver was proceeding entirely legally when suddenly a swarm (herd? flock?) of e-scooterists, Lime bikers and e-cargo bikes hurtled out of nowhere forcing the poor fountain into taking evasive action and it leapt into the path of the car. Could happen to any driver.

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Imagine actually trying to minimise 30,000 deaths and serious injuries. And then suggesting that the ‘real’ problem is people on push bikes. What is wrong with you? The degree of tribalism that makes this possible is almost pathological.

9 minutes ago, Rockets said:

How you get to this conclusion is beyond belief....but oh so typical...

On 01/11/2024 at 13:42, Penguin68 said:

I suppose I could say that 'tens of thousands' implies more tens than 'fewer than 3 tens' - I suppose I could add that the trend is in fact downwards - at a time, post Covid, when road usage increased. But I'm not sure I will bother - oh, I just have.

On 01/11/2024 at 14:44, first mate said:

Except this is really a forum for local ED issues. I suspect most forum members are responsible drivers and adhere to legal speed limits etc.. I very much doubt anyone on this thread supports dangerous or illegal driving, which seems to be your implication?

On the other hand, there do seem to be growing local issues with careless cycling. I have witnessed this two nights running around Dulwich Square, where cyclists are running red lights at speed, and more. I get the impression certain posters on this forum do not see this as an issue at all. I also think there is an accident waiting to happen at that junction, because some cyclists are not cycling responsibly.

🤔 How would one come to the conclusion that people are trying to minimise 30,000 ksi's and then suggesting the real problem is push bikes. How would one do that? 

🤨

 

Edited Monday at 19:34 by Earl Aelfheah

[Kathleen Olander]

I heard it was demolished by the council to create an LTN similar to that on Dulwich Village!

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

BTW is the "police accident" sign still used and in the Highway Code...perhaps you can lobby them to change that too...what do you suggest they use "police crash" - no as that suggests the police have crashed...maybe "Police incident invariably caused by a careless or speeding driver"...nah too large for a single 

 

Classic Alan Partridge!

[first mate]

Does anyone know what actually happened?

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, snowy said:

Classic Alan Partridge!

Ha ha....coming from the very person who suggested accident was not the right word to use....#where'sthefacepalmemoji!

Aha!

 

3 minutes ago, first mate said:

Does anyone know what actually happened?

Clearly not...but they're all having a good guess on what they would love it to be - aka doing a Dulwich Roads!

They live in a world where the driver is always, always, always the guilty party!

[malumbu]

Highly likely that a motorised vehicle crashed into the fountain, I haven't gone back to my applied mathematics (mechanics/equation of motion) as part of my A Level but it would have been quite a force.

[Rockets]

Yes it is highly likely it was caused by a road vehicle you but the presumption that it was careless or dangerous driving is exactly that - and a presumption lots of people seem happy to apply to any accident without ever bothering to check what actually happened.

I remember when Dulwich Roads posted about an accident and suggested speeding/careless driving was the likely cause when it absolutely was not.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story and all that!

 

[Penguin68]

Quite significant damage can be caused by heavy vehicles at low speeds, I recall seeing an artic demolish a parked car when the driver got a turning circle wrong. Clearly driver error but not a function of reckless speed. Until (and if) we know the actual cause of the damage in this thread who and how much to blame remains moot. 

[Moovart]

There's only one way to sort out this circular argument!  All ages included. 😕 

[malumbu]

Are you selling tickets? 😁

[Spartacus]

Are you playing "two tribes" during the contest. https://youtu.be/pO1HC8pHZw0?si=kAzvfGn3LMv0KPSq

[Earl Aelfheah]

For anyone who doubts that people driving cars into things and people is not an issue locally (as has been implied on this thread already), you can search the crash map here and see just how common it is: https://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search 

Edited Tuesday at 12:41 by Earl Aelfheah

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

If I'm using the settings correctly, the crash map from the last 5 years at the West Norwood location in question is pretty striking. So many crash icons it almost obscures the junction...

 

[Rockets]

Before I start this message let me be very clear (before the usual suspects suggest I am trying to minimise the negative impact of vehicles on our roads) that we need to do everything to reduce accidents on our roads (and thankfully the trend has been downwards in recent years) but I thought that map was interesting.

 

I took a snapshot of a wide area across Dulwich (pic attached) and it shows that in 2022 (the last year they did reporting) there were 89 accidents across that area 73 of which were slight and 16 of which were serious. These figures were down from 2021 and 2020 and, in fact, the lowest since 2015 - by some margin.

 

Given the huge number of vehicular movements across the area in a year is it true to say it is common - 0.2 accidents a day doesn't seem so - yet the narrative people on here and the likes of Dulwich Roads try to impress on people is that accidents are incredibly common? I have felt for a long time that Dulwich Roads is trying to scare people.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Well that's one or two every week. I would say that if people are driving a car into someone or something every week in the immediate area, that's a pretty common occurrence, yes. And those serious accidents often end in deaths or serious injuries, which have a catastrophic impact. Even one is too many.

[edited to add] I just checked this. I don't know where you got a figure of 89 from. If you do a search for 'SE22' and filter for '2022', there are 273 crashes. That's only those that are reported of course and is still more than 5 a week

That covers an area approximately 5km x 2km. If you think that 5 people driving a car into something or someone every week is not enough to say that it's a common occurrence, I think you are wrong and that yes, you are minimising it.

Edited Tuesday at 14:34 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

Justvloolung at a marker on a map doesn't give you context. 

Force candle, a number of incidents around a junction should lead to questions concerning the junctions design, sight lines and other factors before jumping to conclusions on cause. 

Each incident needs to be reviewed to understand causation and impact to understand more about results. 

It's easy to draw conclusions either way but they are simply speculation without understanding detail 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Well yes, that's correct. But if you are addressing a question of how common car crashes are locally (in response to a suggestion that it's not really a problem), then it's instructive to look at the number of reported crashes. Also, I didn't just look at a marker on a map, I used the google measurement tool. The fact is that in an area of just 5km by 2km there were more than 5 reported crashes a week on average in 2022.

I think that shows that driving a car into something or someone is a common (weekly... almost daily) occurrence locally.

Edited Tuesday at 15:06 by Earl Aelfheah