Unbelievable destruction: West Norwood marble fountain demolished

[Spartacus]

Without details that's a case of carry  on speculating (now I see you as the Keneth Wiliiams character) 

What you've done is assumed cause without details. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

28 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Without details that's a case of carry  on speculating (now I see you as the Keneth Wiliiams character) 

What you've done is assumed cause without details. 

No I haven't. A car crash was reported to have occurred more than 5 times a week (on average) in a local area of 5km by 2km in 2022. That is not speculation, it is a fact. 

A car crash involves a car hitting something or someone. The data shows that this is a common occurrence locally. 

Edited Tuesday at 15:54 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

I just did what you did for 2022, searching for SE22 and only got 46 results (see image) - not sure how you are getting to 231 (see second image). I can only get it to 231 when I select 5 years of data. Did you make a mistake and leave multiple years checked?

Edited Tuesday at 16:25 by Rockets

[exdulwicher]

Bear in mind, while you're all discussing whether it's 60 or 200 or whatever, that CrashMap only relates to personal injury accidents on public roads that are reported to the police, and subsequently recorded, using the STATS19 accident reporting form. 

Information on damage-only accidents, with no human casualties or accidents on private roads or in car parks are not included. So the poor fountain died for nothing cos it won't be recorded on there.

Which means that the number of actual crashes will be significantly higher than shown on that map.

Edited Tuesday at 17:00 by exdulwicher

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Rockets said:

I just did what you did for 2022, searching for SE22 and only got 46 results (see image) - not sure how you are getting to 231 (see second image). I can only get it to 231 when I select 5 years of data. Did you make a mistake and leave multiple years checked?

The area you’re examining looks quite small from the screenshot. I think the area displayed may depend on the resolution / settings of your monitor. I measured the area I looked at using Google map tool. In an area 5km by 2km centred on SE22 there were 273 crashes recorded in 2022, with the caveat that (as exdulwicher notes), this is only a small number of recorded accidents. In reality there are more. 

Any way you cut it, and anyway one may try to minimise it, there are clearly regular collisions happening locally.

Edited Tuesday at 20:38 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, can you clarify were you searching using the CrashMap tool and did you enter SE22? 

And, I say again, I am not minimising it just pointing out that 46 accidents in SE22 on CrashMap in 2022 shows that these are not common occurrences given the volumes of vehicle journeys in the area, despite what you, and others, would like people to believe. 

Edited Tuesday at 22:13 by Rockets

[exdulwicher]

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

And, I say again, I am not minimising it just pointing out that 46 accidents in SE22 on CrashMap in 2022 shows that these are not common occurrences given the volumes of vehicle journeys in the area, despite what you, and others, would like people to believe. 

I reckon that if that was 46 recorded incidents of Lime bikes / Lime e-scooters hitting "things" (be that people walking or cycling, cars, solid objects) you'd be calling it a bloodbath of epic proportions and wanting them banned immediately.

[Rockets]

Ex- but I am not though am I - although you can search for cycle incidents but, and getting back to the point of this discussion, you can't tell if it was a vehicle hits cycle or cycle hit pedestrian incident?

My point is that 46 reported vehicle accidents in a year in SE22 (that resulted in a reporting of an injury - the large majority of which were, thankfully "slight") suggests that the narrative that this is a common occurrence is not at all accurate given the number of vehicular journeys done during the year - which if you look at Southwark's LTN monitoring as a guide must be in the millions every year.

And again, this is not trying to minimise the negative impact of cars on our road and the damage they do to other people and things but just a bit of a reality check for those who bang on and on about it.

P.S. you never came back to me on the transport experts view (and industry view) on whether pneumatic counters are a recommended way to count vehicles under 10km/ph on the other thread. You must of, ahem, repeatedly missed those questions on the other thread.....;-)

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

29 minutes ago, Rockets said:

My point is that 46 reported vehicle accidents in a year in SE22 ... suggests that the narrative that this is a common occurrence is not at all accurate given the number of vehicular journeys done during the year

= an acceptable pay off for having motor vehicles?

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

22 hours ago, Rockets said:

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

You're now saying 46? It's going down! Feels very much like there is some minimising going on here tbh. The screenshot above has been selected to exclude four of the main junctions (and major crash sites) locally - at the plough, goose green, lordship Lane / S Circular and Peckham Rye / E Dulwich Grove.

Obviously the number of crashes reported depends on the area you look at, which is why I've been specific about it. In an area 5km by 2km, centred on SE22 there were 273 crashes in 2022.

What is the size of the area that you have included that has 89, or 46 crashes, or whatever number it is you've tried to get as low as possible? 

[Edited to add]

I used the google maps measurement tool; The area you’ve looked at is tiny, about 2.8km wide (which includes a couple of parks) and just 1.1km long; covering a tiny stretch of Lordship Lane chosen to exclude all major junctions (where it meets E Dulwich Road at Goose Green, Barry Road at the Plough, and the South Circular). You walk that in about 10 minutes. Despite this, and despite the fact that the map already displays only a subset of all crashes, there is still almost 1 a week.

There is no possible way one could not describe that as a regular occurrence. If you had milk delivered 46 weeks of the year, you would describe it as a regular delivery.

Edited 16 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earls, I went to CrashMap (I thought that's where you were getting your numbers from), in the search bar I added SE22, Deselected all 5 years and selected 2022 and clicked Search and it comes up with 46.

What % is that of all journeys made in the area in the same timespan - a tiny, tiny percentage and anything but a regular occurrence - do you see the point? Of course, we all want the numbers down to zero and any accident or injury is one too many but by banging on and on about what a regular occurrence you are actually harming your position as it is based on narrative and not fact.

And this is why so many people have a problem with the way the active travel lobby and community behaves - because they allow their own rabid ideology cloud their judgement and what they claim - it's why I have such an issue with the hyperbole Dulwich Roads steeps to to promote their cause - more often that not it is incorrect, inaccurate and not based on facts - the very definition of a blinkered activist (one whom seems to be becoming more and more angry with each post they make!)

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Rockets

[malumbu]

Surely we all want less collisions and less people being hurt on our roads.  Road safety improvements have been down  to many reasons including reduced speed limits and better protection for car occupants.  Yet numbers have now plateaued.

Sadly slower speeds have been offset by heavier vehicles.  And as regards to private drivers there is no compulsory advanced training or refresher training.  Speed awareness courses, despite all the common view that "I don't need it as I am a good driver" do a good job of reminding the harm you can do to others when your 1.5 plus tonnes of steel hits soft tissue and bone.

I don't understand why anyone would just make disparaging comments on the road safety and sustainable transport groups.  This is not America.

Edited 10 hours ago by malumbu

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Earls, I went to CrashMap (I thought that's where you were getting your numbers from), in the search bar I added SE22, Deselected all 5 years and selected 2022 and clicked Search and it comes up with 46.

What % is that of all journeys made in the area in the same timespan - a tiny, tiny percentage and anything but a regular occurrence - do you see the point? Of course, we all want the numbers down to zero and any accident or injury is one too many but by banging on and on about what a regular occurrence you are actually harming your position as it is based on narrative and not fact.

And this is why so many people have a problem with the way the active travel lobby and community behaves - because they allow their own rabid ideology cloud their judgement and what they claim - it's why I have such an issue with the hyperbole Dulwich Roads steeps to to promote their cause - more often that not it is incorrect, inaccurate and not based on facts - the very definition of a blinkered activist (one whom seems to be becoming more and more angry with each post they make!)

 

You’ve taken a 1km stretch of Lordship Lane (walkable in 10 minutes), which excludes all major junctions, in an attempt to minimise the number of car crashes happening regularly. Still, even then there is a reportable collision almost weekly. And you’re suggesting that to consider that a problem is hyperbolic and just an example of ‘rabid ideology’?

What is ‘rabid ideology’ is an individual obsessed with the supposed ‘menace’ of push bikes and the dangers they pose, yet at the same time determined to minimise / downplay the demonstrable impact of regular car collisions.

Edited 15 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl I have "taken" anything - I put SE22 in the search box and those are the results it presented to me - so stop trying to create a narrative that I have somehow tried to manipulate the results.

 

I have now zoomed and the picture below includes a much broader area beyond SE22 and look, 299 accidents - and that includes huge swathes of Brixton and the major A-roads. Of course by doing that you actually can say nearly one a day but you further dilute your accident per journey because those A roads carry a huge volume of traffic annually. Any idea how many vehicular journeys are made in that whole area over the course of a year?

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rather than to take the bait and allow you to distract further. Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road (and the area roughly 1.5 km to either side of it). A collision almost weekly. Would you accept they are therefore a regular occurrence locally, or not? (Bare in mind this doesn't include the junctions of LL and goose green, LL and Barry road, East Dulwich Road and Barry Road, or LL and the S. Circular, and is only for those collisions recorded)

Do you think that's a problem worthy of discussion? Or that to to suggest it's a problem is 'hyperbole' and an example of 'rabid ideology'? 

You have said that you're not trying to minimise the issue of collisions. I think people can make their own judgement on that. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Ok, on CrashMap it shows 9 accidents in 2022 (and two of those happened the Dulwich Library side of Landells Road but I have included them anyway) on the stretch of Lordship Lane between the junction of East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road...are you disputing that? That's not an accident weekly is it? 

I really don't know where you're getting your numbers from but they are all wrong..... CrashMap is very clear. You seem to just throw things out there to try and create an argument....and you're either reading the map wrong or are doing it deliberately to try and distract from the fact your argument is fundamentally flawed.

Edited 13 hours ago by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

This is ridiculous. Let’s stick to your second attempt to minimise the issue of regular car crashes locally instead of constantly jumping around / kicking up dust as you always do. You provided a screen shot centred on an area covering a 1.1km stretch of lordship lane, stretching roughly from the junction of East Dulwich Grove down to the junction with Landells road (missing all the major junctions) and 2.8km across (approximately 1.5 km to either side of it. You pointed out that there were ‘only’ 46 recorded crashes over the course of the year.
 

Almost one a week, across a tiny area, that excludes the key junctions. Why don’t you explain how that is not a problem worthy of discussion? 

Edited 13 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Ah now I understand your mistake. That is not 46 accidents for that stretch of Lordship Lane - it's 46 accidents across the whole area shown in that map image - so from the farthest side away from Dulwich on Peckham Rye all the way over to half Moon Lane - which covers a large volume of traffic over the course of a year - does it not? And that remains the point I am making - you are looking at the stats in isolation but when you look at them as a % of the volume of vehicular journeys made in the area then they are not a common occurence.

But, before you go off on a "minimising it" path I am not and I want no accidents at all. But for you to say they are common is not at all accurate and just spin.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I was crystal clear that I was referring to the 2.8km by 1.1km reference area that you chose.

[note: Originally, I suggested a much more relevant reference area of 5km by 2km where there were more than 5 reported crashes a week on average in 2022), but I decided to discuss the issue on your terms, even though your reference area is tiny, and excludes the major junctions / crash sites locally, to try and escape from your tedious, often deployed tactic, to dissemble on process, rather than substance].

So again, taking the area you highlighted. Do you accept that a crash almost every week in such a tiny area is problematic?

Edited 13 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

You weren't crystal clear at all - you clearly said the 1.1km stretch of Lordship Lane from East Dulwich Grove 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road

The fact you have since gone in and edited your post (did you pick up this trick from Dulwich Roads per chance?) to then read the below very much suggests you were not being crystal clear.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Why don't we stick to your 1.1km stretch of Lordship lane between the junction with East Dulwich Grove and Landells Road (and the area roughly 1.5 km to either side of it).

Any accident is problematic but I am not arguing that, I am arguing that your suggestion that accidents are common is misleading.

From a traffic journey volume perspective that is not a tiny area so tell me how many accidents there are for every vehicular journey made and only then can we truly determine whether these accidents are common or not.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Let's not get into conspiracy nonsense. 

You chose a very small and very partial area, and I decided to discuss it on your terms. 

The reference area you chose, that excludes local hotspots / junctions, and is only 2.8km wide by 1.1 km long, sees a crash almost every week (46 incidents over the year). That is a common / regular occurrence.

I'm not playing your game of shifting the goalposts, or trying to get into debates around semantics; It's like the 'does 30,000 represent a number in the tens of thousands nonsense. 

Despite what you say it is very, very clear that you are trying to minimise what is a serious problem/. 

 

[Rockets]

But you did edit the post didn't you...and you accuse me of moving goalposts......ha ha...we see what you're doing?

When compared to the number of vehicular movements across that area to suggest it is a common/regular occurrence is a nonsense.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

What post, when? Any edits are usually due to typos (fat fingers). I’ve not been changing my posts. Is it perhaps that you’re just reading back and realising you look silly.

[DulvilleRes]

This feels like classic distraction technique by the anti LTN lobby - who still haven't answered the most basic questions asked of them by their neighbours as to who funds them, and do they represent deeper political interests that they aren't divulging.

On a number of occasions Earl has picked up on serious factual inaccuracy and misleading statements from them, and all this pedantic and inaccurate argument back feels like just a way of trying to casting doubt and throwing up dust. It is very hard to take the anti LTN lobby seriously as any kind of local commentators or representing any strand of opinion if they can't answer basic questions. I think a large number of people are sick of opaque and unaccountable groups trying to steer the agenda locally and nationally. 

[march46]

Rockets please stop referring to crashes and collisions as accidents. 
https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/roadpeace-welcomes-national-highways-decision-to-phase-out-the-term-accident/#