DJKillaQueen

You are such a troll, but one I find quite funny at times :)

That doesn't even dignify a response.

I can buy a kitchen knife of any size anywhere....so no...knives are not restricted at all. Vehicles are subject to rules and regulations too DERR...and the vast majority of drivers keep within them.

Ok so the police are dangerous then, ambulances too....buses....and what about airplanes? Gas can explode, electricity can start fires and household knives can be used to kill people. The point is to call any item dangerous per se is asking for trouble. And to suggest that a pedestrian taking a risk by running out in front of traffic is not responsible just leaves me speechless. Have you any idea of the shock and trauma, drivers that do find themselves in that unfortunate scenario experience? The first rule of the hoighway code is to avoid an accident if you can. I always remember that. But it applies to pedestrians too. There ARE safe crossing points and pedestrians that use then rarely have accidents with vehicles.

Music will always be subjective though. And those putting that together have given their free time and resources to do so......so I for one am just greatful that people are prepared to do that and be part of providing a great day out for so many people. There was always the bouncy castle if I didn't want to listen to folk music :)

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.

I thought it was a great little event and totally packed out, which is a sign that many felt the same. Just seeing a bouncy castle bobbing up and down put a smile on my face as I walked up East Dulwich Road - and no I didn't go on it :)

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.

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.

Resorting to sarcasm now LD? :D You have no idea what my ratio to cycling/ driving/ public transport is and there are very good reasons why people can't cycle everywhere. When I'm working I have to travel to studios well outside of West London....you don't seriously expect someone to cycle there do you? But you clearly never drive, nor have to travel any distance without good public transport links, so 'what a suprise' you are so anti driver!!! My views regarding driving haven't changed at all. I will be the first to acknowledge there are bad drivers and poorly planned road schemes. I will also be the first to support promotion of cycling and safe routes to do so. What I will not do is agree with any view that is extreme and suggests that any person sitting behind a wheel feels they have the right to endanger lives (your words). That kind of comment is just ridiuclous. If you want to ignore the need for good vehicle routes then that I'm afraid shows a deluded side to your debate. I think most people would agree that the best solutions are ones that accomodoate all needs in the best, safest ways possible, but even then, some people are capable of poor judgment and accidents. My argument is one of neither favouring vehicle, cycle nor pedestrian but one of transport systems that work for all users. And that may well mean sometimes favouring one mode over another in specific areas for very good specific reasons. Yours is one of demonising motor vehicles altogether - just not sensible, nor practical. A difference of view yes, but one that others can measure the common sense of.

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.

I think LD it doesn't help the debate to meet the inane rants of the few truly selfish drivers, with equally polarised views regarding drivers. I agree that cyclists get a lot of abuse. But I am someone who drives and cycles...and sometimes I use public transport. I have also ridden a motorbike in the past. I can't do every journey I need to make by cycle any more than I can make every journey I need to by public transport. We do have some of the safest roads in the world statistically from accident data. And no amount of legislation or planning is going to eliminate the idot driver/ cyclist/ pedestrian entirely. Instead, I just think we should be focused on addressing issues like congestion and finding ways to improve real genuine problems where they exist, rather than blanketly targetting all drivers, all cars, all roads etc.

Well I'll quote you then.... 'The drivers pay lots of extra tax so feel they are entitled to put all of our lives in danger' That's a big statement.....that anyone who drives feels they are entitled to put people in danger becasue they pay road tax.....and one you might like to retract. 'that everyone should accommodate their need to get from A to B as fast as possible with no obstruction.' Again, a reactionary assumption on your part. Where are drivers campaigning for the removal of speed limits, junctions, lights?????? The sensible debate is one that looks at addressing the needs of all, and finds a way to create a safe and workable system.....not one that demonises anyone that sits behind a wheel. People need to uses vehicles for all kinds of reasons. And the nation would grind to a halt without motorised transport delivering all our services and goods. But there are some bad drivers. Similarly pedestrians needs a working free flow of crossings to navigate certain roads. But there are again some pedestrians that no matter how many safe crossings are provided will cross at just the worst place to cross, or run out in front vehicles leaving the driver no time to brake safely.

Jeez you are on one today LD ;) Yep I have to agree...it's never been ok to park on pavement unless there are markings indicating it's ok to do so. That has always be the rule for as long as I have been driving and beyond.

DB...resorting to insult of anyone just makes YOU look idiotic I'm afraid. This is what really happened isn't it... A group of people chose to cross a road using an island that wasn't designed to accomodate them all. A mother failed to make sure her child got to the island before she did. A car slowed seeing pedestrians crossing and at the last minute the child stopped in the road instead of hopping onto the island because there was no room for her. The car's speed thankfully was slow enough to avoid a serious injury but there was no time between the child stopping and the car approaching, to stop in time. or avoid a collision. It was an accident born out of a cumulation of factors on all sides. The Police would have arrested the driver is they thought otherwise. And LD...for someone usually so reasoned in debate you completely miss the point here. No one was driving with impunity trying to get from A-B. There ARE safe crossings, designed to be so. Pedestrians who use them very rarely get injured. Similarly drivers do not set out intending to knock anyone over.

That's very sad and not that rare. 1300 people have died after failing an ATOS assessment (since its introduction). People ARE dying because of this government's reforms. If a person is living on the breadline (and benefits are just that) and on top of that are suffering from depression (a condition that the government doesn't think is a disabling illness btw) then it's not hard to see why trying to find an extra ?10 a week for rent can be the tipping point of despair. The bedroom tax is nonsense of course, designed by people who have no idea what they are doing. And if they could find a way to reduce basic rate benefit (the ?71 or so of JSA) they would. They can't do that without legal review though, which might well decide that people need MORE to live on. So instead they attack periphery benefits. With regard to councils, when they sell through right to buy...they are not getting anything near the market value of the property. The Tory government have always decided that massive discounts should be given to council tenants (Labour reduced the discount - the coalition have made if bigger than ever). WHY? It's designed to render councils incapable of replacing that stock. WHY? Because we have affluent and ignorant tories in power who think we should return to a Dickensian world of overcrowded slums for the poorest, provided by private landlords. There was no concultation regarding the bedroom tax with local authorities, to a) find out how many properties each authority held that were under occupied and b) to find out if local authorities had enough alternative smaller accomodation to rehouse people to. Incomptant for sure but also an indication of just how nasty this government is. They really do not care if the housing market can not provide suitable affordable alternatives.

So now we've moved to pedestrians crossing to an island to small to safely hold them all....see what I mean about choosing unsuitable crossing points.....and as for the child being BEHIND while crossing...... Sounds simply like a minor accident to me. Carelessness by pedestrians combined by misjudgement by a driver not going very fast anyway. It happens but to lay blame totally with the driver when that driver isn't here to give her view is just biased outrage at play.

Probably probably....you just don't know do you?

Well the girl wasn't at the safety of the island was she.....or she wouldn't have been hit. She was in the road and I believe someone posted BEHIND her mother. I can tell you that when I cross the road with a small child I use a proper crossing and make sure the child is in front or alongside of me. You just don't want to accept that pedestrians make poor choices when crossing the road. The driver isn't here to defend herself either.

How fast was he going DB? It can't have been anywhere near the limit......or there would have been serious injury.

Data shows that a high percentage of pedestrians hit by cars are intoxicated. Poor road sense is another. Only a small percentage of accidents happen at safe crossing points where pedestrians have priority. I almost hit a dog recently. It was on the opposite side of the road to it's owner. Was on no lead and just bolted out giving me the splittest of seconds to react. I missed it by a whisker. Some children do that too. My point is that to demonise drivers and pay no regard to thr risks pedestrians sometimes take is unreasonable. Had I hit that dog I would have been devastated. It works both ways. How about we talk about how we get pedestrians to use designated crossing points more, instead of demanding all traffic be moved away from residential areas.

But there ARE safe places to cross...controlled by lights often. Pedestrians though often don't want to walk the extra metres to use them. Now if this is a poorly designed half hearted crossing point then there is a valid cause to lobby for a better crossing. What I don't buy is this idea that cars have made our city no go zones for pedestrians. That's just nonsense. The real issue is that we are a city crammed full of people who all want things their way. We need roads and cars and tranport, just as we need safe places to cross (as many as are needed). Vehicle drivers need to do their bit to avoid accidents but so do pedestrians too.

Was the car speeding? Were the mother and child crossing at a safe place where they could see the road clearly? These are valid questions. The assumption is always that the driver is in the wrong. pedestrians make errors of judgement too. A car would have to be going incredibly fast to appear from nowhere and hit anyone, and that kind of speed would incur serious injury. My instinct tells me that the mother crossed without looking properly.

It's not self righteous at all. It's the difference between seeing 'need' as opposed to the self interested policy that seems to emanate from the political parties these days. My point is that the trade off is the result of selfish posturing by government, policy to pit the majority over the minority, deflecting away from the politicians who make policy and making scapegoats of the poorest and most vulnerable (and local authorities too). It is the job of government to provide for all within society - to strike a reasonable balance. If society needs more affordable housing then policy should be conductive towards that. Instead we have policy that is moving away from social housing as an option altogether, where the poorest are shoved into overcrowded living conditions, or worse still made homeless altogether. Local authorities should be standing up to government on this, not caving in and asking constituents to help them come up with the best structure within government dictate. NO PARTY WON AN OVERALL MAJORITY...yet we have a Tory party acting as though it did. Shameful..... Here's a parrallel...do we start turning children away from schools because the need for places is ignored over what we want to afford? Do we start turning people away from hospitals because their need is less important than what we want to afford? A place to live is as essential as healthcare and education.....any idea that can be dealt with by quota is as ridiculous as suggesting education and healthcare should be under the same consultation. And just to add regarding this survey (and I attended a CC meeting with a workshop around this survey)...like many surveys, the people most likely to imput into it and shape the findings are not going to be those most affected by it's conclusions. Those people really are without a voice in all aspects of consultation. We live in a culture where those who are best educated, most informed, most articulate and shout loudest, get heard. The people most affected by any decisions this consultation may take will not have had the largest input into that decision making. I could already see that impact at play at my CC meeting. No amount of consultation, changing goalposts, management etc is going to change the level of basic need for affordable housing......and to pretend otherwise is delusional.

I think the moment we apply percentages is a bad moment....because there already exists an historically established quota, based on need. Any tinkering with it, draconian or otherwise is social engineering at it's worst. The political pressure is downward...on further reducing the available social housing in the capital.....but no-one has given any decent reason why that should be. I am firmly of the view that housing policy should reflect need (as it has before).....because history has shown us the consequences of a policy not driven by need...and until the day we are all born economically equal (amongst other things) I think no pseu do intellectual or lesser intellectual economist can argue for anything based on anything other than need, if he/she wants to affect the impact of inequality at birth bears on some members of our society. I care about those who are poor and disconnected, through no fault of their own. It's what makes me selfless and civilised. It's a real shame more people don't feel the same way.