Accident in East Dulwich Road ( February 23 2012)

[NorthernPup]

Agree that another crossing not justified, but a cheap alternative might be to add a gate to the playground on the corner of ED Road/Adys Road that will exit directly by the existing crossing which may encourage people to use?

[the-e-dealer]

Cost of a Fatal Accident compared to cost of a crossing seems to show a crossing is worth it.

Cost of an accident

The values calculated in the year 2000 were as follows as an ?average per accident?:

Accident Severity

Lost Output ?

Medical &

Other Direct ?

?Human? ?

Total ?

Fatal

438,860

14,240

870,780

1,323,880

Serious

17,880

14,610

121,620

154,110

Slight

2,130

3,120

10,130

15,380

Note that a serious injury is defined in the UK by an overnight ho

[the-e-dealer]

MIstakes.

In non fatal cases if a car driver makes a mistake he or she might dent a wing or break a light array. If a pedestrian makes a mistake he breaks his or her leg and can suffer internal injuries etc. It is for this reason that there are tests , alcohol limits and rules of the road. In such busy areas like EDR the speed limit should be lower and there should be more safe crossing points.

[BrandNewGuy]

But there haven't been any fatal accidents in this area... And how many "more safe crossing points" do you want? And who's paying?

[Pugwash]

In my daily journey to work, I have to turn into Windsor Walk (Denmark Hill station) to get to my office. It is a right turn from Champion Park but I have to take it about 5 mph for the number of people who just walk out in front of the car without checking the road. They are often concentrating on their phone calls, reading the paper/book, stnding in the middle of the road talking- these include parents with prams or young children. Although there are teenagers around it is mainly those in late teens onwards who seem to not know the difference between the pavement and the road. I think it is a question of luck that nobody has been injured at this spot.

[sphillips]

Like others here too, I hope that the young man who was injured is ok. And the poor motorist involved too. I live on this particular stretch of road. I agree with James Barber. The fact remains that it is very busy and between the two traffic lights, there is nowhere safe for pedestrians to cross.

There are lots of children attending St John & St Clements school and going to the very busy playground here. Many come onto East Dulwich Road from Oakhurst Grove. It is dangerous there particularly, the exact spot, according to the OP, this accident happened.

And I am not being anti-motorist or car-user, I?m one myself, but there is speeding along this stretch of road. Standing at the Oakhurst Grove bus stop in the morning waiting for the 37 (and it can be a long wait!) is a good place to witness some motorists who really pick up speed coming up past Tesco, the Murco garage, then putting their foot down to catch the traffic lights at the Adys/Crystal Palace Road junction.

I am not saying that speeding was involved in this particular case; I don?t know the facts. But I?ve witnessed many a near miss here in the past. And, yes, I accept there are dozy pedestrians everywhere.

Where are people who come onto ED Road from Fenwick and Gowlett Roads expected to cross?

[DJKillaQueen]

You acknowledge speed had nothing to do with the accident SP but where is the evidence of accidents caused by 'speeding' motorists elsewhere? The data just doesn't support that. It is a 30mpr B road and I rarely see any car exceeding that speed along that stretch of the road because it is so busy. Picking up speed doesn't mean that a driver is exceeeding the speed limit, and if the road is clear, a motorist is perfectly entitled to drive at 30mpr if the conditions allow. I can't remember the last time I managed 30mpr in my car along that stretch...and I've driven it at all times of day (and night).

There is a perfectly safe place to cross at the lights not more than 20 metres away from the junction of Oakhurst at Crystal Palace Road.

The most dangerous place along that stretch of road according to data by far is the junction with Peckham Rye where several vehicle and pedestrian accidents have occured including one fatality. And that is why improvements to that junction are part of the current two year programme for road improvements funding from TFL.

Sense of persepective needed I think instead of knee jerk reaction.

[civilservant]

DJKQ, SP doesn't 'acknowledge that speed had nothing to do with the accident', just states that s/he does not know the facts. Most of us are in the same position - we don't know the facts - so I don't understand what you mean by 'data'.

Since all we've got is anecdote, I'll add my own to the mix.

I too have seen quite a few racers on that stretch of the road while walking my dog on Goose Green and thereabouts, and not just the ones trying to beat the traffic lights.

IMO that crossing hardly adequate for a junction that serves a school, a children's playground, a green space that's used by dog-walkers, as well as a parade of shops. If we haven't had more accidents at that spot, that's just testimony to better pedestrian road-sense than a lot of the drivers who've posted on this thread would credit.

[DJKillaQueen]

Again that's not a balanced view. Thousands of cars use that road every day and the vast majority of them are responsible drivers. A car travelling at 30 mpr would look as though it is travelling faster to many pedestrians. Even experienced drivers often can not tell from eye what speed a passing car is going at.

The crossing has pelican usage so how on earth is that not adaquate? You cross when the green man shows....how difficult is that?

Edited to add that data does not show an abundance of accidents along that stretch of road. It does however show several incidents at the junction of EDR and PeckRye.

[henryb]

Sadly these incidents are not uncommon, even when drivers are being "responsible" and staying in the 30 limit. Britain has one of the worst pedestrian fatality rates in Europe - being a pedestrian in the UK is the most dangerous way to get around - even worse than being a cyclist. No wonder parents are fearful to let their children walk to school.

It is about time there was 20 limits by default across all residential areas. It doesn't make a significant difference to car journey times but it has a huge effect on pedestrian safety especially accidents involving children.

The minor inconvenience to some car drivers is price worth paying to make urban streets places people can actually enjoy and live rather than places where children risk severe injury or even death if they make a simple mistake or misjudgement.

[DJKillaQueen]

Can you provide some evidence or a link to data that demonstrates the uk has one of the worst fatality rates within europe? I'd particularly like to see if the data shows more incidents in urban areas or rural areas.

There is no justification I think for assuming all drivers can not drive safely above 20mpr or for assuming all pedestrians are incapable of crossing roads safely if the speed limit exceeds 20mpr.

Nowhere in this debate is anyone acknowledging thst pedestrians need to take repsonsibility for their own judgement in choosing where to cross a road safely.

Edited to add that the only survey I could find that supported the claim that the uk has one of the worst fatality rates in europe is a 2008 survey where only ten countries were compared (out of how many in Europe?). Not suprisingly, countries with higher populations sit at the bottom (germany, spain, italy, uk) and with not much between them and countries with smaller pops sit at the top (belguim, denmark, sweden, norway). It's a meaningless survey for determing that imo. France isn't in there but I'd like to know how many people die on their zebra crossings where drivers don't have to give right of way for example.

The only thing of interest to me from the survey is that the other countries with large pops have far more zebra and pelican crossings than the UK and yet similar levels of fatality occur. So what does that say? It says that a certain percentage of people will exercise poor judgement no matter what is done. And given the vast majority of accidents emanate from poor judgement that is where I think efforts to improve road safety should be targetted. Some drivers need to think more about the way they drive and similarly pedestrians need to think about the way they interact with traffic. There are safe places to cross EDR. People just need to use them.

[the-e-dealer]

Its not that 20 mph makes drivers drive more safely its just that at 20mph or below it is very unlikely a moving car would kill.

[wulfhound]

Anyone would think that the speed limit is the speed you *have* to drive at. No, it's the maximum allowed speed - you should still drive slower if conditions require, and where there are parked cars and pedestrians, that suggests a lower speed to give you time to react to the unexpected.

Also worth remembering that roads are a public space that pre-date the car, and even the bicycle, by centuries. To suggest that people on foot should have to detour by a hundred meters or more for the benefit of people who very often just can't be arsed to walk or cycle is just wrongheaded.

Speeding doesn't always cause accidents, but it does make them worse (as well as making it harder to stop in time). The statistics for pedestrian casualties are drastically different at 20mph (~95% survival) vs 30 (50%). That on its own should be enough to justify blanket 20mph limits, especially when you consider the average speed for a journey across London is just 12mph.. limiting peak speed to 20 instead of 30 adds virtually nothing to journey times, and in many cases actually improves them - at lower speeds, you can drive closer to the car in front, which increases the number of cars per minute that can get thru the road. Then consider all the people who'd like to bike but currently drive (or are driven, in the case of kids) because they don't want to mix with 30mph traffic. Aside from the emergency services, there just isn't any need to drive at 30mph in London - it really doesn't get you there any quicker, and just makes life less pleasant for everyone else.

[ant2]

There is clear data to show that 20mph limits could make a big difference to outcomes in collisions between vehicles and all vulnerable road users. It would also make walking or cycling around out neighbourhood a much more pleasant experience. 20mph ought to be the default limit near any schools, parks, playgrounds and local shops. This link gives a lot of data on the subject and why the levels of kids getting to school on foot or by bicycle are much less than many other countries.

http://www.20splentyforuk.org.uk/rationale_for_20_mph.htm

[henryb]

> There is no justification I think for assuming all

> drivers can not drive safely above 20mpr or for

> assuming all pedestrians are incapable of crossing

> roads safely if the speed limit exceeds 20mpr.

I am sure some can. The problem is enough can?t so that hundreds are killed and seriously injured every year. The fact is that 20 mph limit reduces pedestrian accident rates, especially in regard to children.

> Nowhere in this debate is anyone acknowledging

> thst pedestrians need to take repsonsibility for

> their own judgement in choosing where to cross a

> road safely.

Everyone needs to take responsibility for their safety and safety of others however it is drivers who are the ones manoeuvring a large dangerous metal machine though an area where children are playing, walking to school and so. The onus must be on the driver to make sure their activity is not endangering others. Pedestrians have the right to use and cross roads as well.

[DJKillaQueen]

But there is nothing a driver can do if a pedestrian walks out in front of them at point blank range. Pedestrians have pavements. Many roads have designated places to cross. To say that pedestrians shouldn't be expected to walk a further distance to use them is ridiculous.

I do conceed the arguement that slower speeds reduce the seriousness of injury where accidents happen - there's no arguement there, but to claim that reducing road speed accross the borough to 20mpr won't impact on travel time is rubbish. The majority of B roads and above at various times of the day are empty enough to drive at 20-30 mpr. When I work out of west london I motorcycle there. Suggesting that journey should be done at a max of 20mpr is ridiculous.

The majority of drivers have never had a collision with a pedestrian and never will.

[the-e-dealer]

The lack of safe crossing points is believed to have contributed to Britain's poor showing in the pan-European study.

Telegrapgh -

Only Spain, with 15.7 pedestrians killed per million of the population, fared worse than Britain, which had 11.5 deaths in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available.

In addition, pedestrians account for more than one in five road deaths in this country, the highest proportion of all countries in the study.

"What we need in Britain is a sort of junior zebra crossing that tells pedestrians "this is safe place to cross", and tells drivers "pedestrians will cross here"," said Andrew Howard, the AA's head of road safety. "But it needn't require traffic to stop. This is needed because we have to accept that pedestrians won't walk a hundred yards to a pelican on a shopping street.

[henryb]

Wrong thread

[James Barber]

Cllr Barrie Hargrove has helpfully confirm that funding is in place ?45,000 for the next financial year 2012/13 for either a new crossing at the shopping parade or around Fenwick Road. So far more people have requested a crossing at the latter location.

Seperately the Peckham Rye crossing proposals being worked on to improve this junction. www.crashmap.co.uk shows this junction has had a lot of crashes of worst kind over the years.

[wulfhound]

DJKillaQueen - indeed there's nothing a driver can do at zero distance. Which is why the appropriate driving speed, on roads where pedestrians are expected, is one that minimizes harm if that should happen. The road is public space, and although it's hard to believe today, pedestrians have the right to cross anywhere (with the exception of urban motorways). Sure, some people are silly, but last time I checked we don't live in a Sharia state where the deserved punishment for a moment's inattention is broken bones or worse.

I cycle across London regularly, and occasionally drive. Admittedly, motorbike/scooter is probably quicker than either, but except late at night, the same journey takes less time on a bike despite a top speed around 18mph. Again, can't speak for motorbikes, but my experience in a car is that most of the time you're sprinting from one traffic queue to the next - increasing the peak speed makes very little difference to the journey time, because the average speed is so very far off the peak; just makes things more unpleasant for pedestrians & cyclists, meaning more people drive, meaning yet more congestion. Again - reducing peak speeds increases road capacity, so any time the network's speed is capacity limited (& I'm no traffic engineer, but if your average speed on a predominantly 30mph road network is 12mph, there just might be a capacity issue there) you actually speed journey times up by bringing speed limits down. Sounds paradoxical I know, but they've tried it, in the form of lower limits at busy times, on some stretches of the M25 & M1 and it appears to work.

Have to say I don't agree with the AA about junior zebras. What we need is simply more zebras, ideally with enforcement cameras as per Pelicans. Under Ken Livingstone there was a hierarchy of road users - pedestrians at the top, then cyclists, public transport users, freight & delivery vehicles, taxis, private cars. Unfortunately Boris scrapped it to woo the outer-London petrolhead vote; the result is policies that will end up costing lives e.g. "smoothing traffic flow".

[Penguin68]

I think there is a study worth doing in comparative road densities. I suspect that in many countries you either have very light density (few pedestrians/ few cars ? think of rural France, where the population areas, when you come to them, are small villages and towns with many crossings and few pedestrians) or very heavy car and pedestrian density (city centres, high pedestrian and car population but restricted roads and road speeds ? because of congestion ? and hence impacts are normally low speed).

The UK (which is anyway pretty densely populated) has a lot of suburban development ? which includes suburban streets where traffic flows (relatively) freely but which also has quite a high number of pedestrians ? so you get the ?worse possible? situation ? high levels of cars travelling quite quickly coming into contact (sic) with high levels of pedestrian traffic.

UK towns have a wide circle of development around them ? this matches a UK desire for houses rather than an apartments ? but in order to get in and out of them you need cars - which you don?t living in much smaller European cities in apartments where car ownership itself is less ?useful?.

So if UK pedestrian accidents are higher than elsewhere, and death rate higher as well, this isn?t that surprising and reflects local geo-demographic conditions rather than drivers who are ?worse/ more careless? than Europeans.

[James Barber]

The lowest collission incidence is Netherlands - similar if higher densities of people to land areas.

[Penguin68]

But, I think you'll find, a tradition of apartment living rather than extended suburbs - the point I am making is not about absolute density but about where populations and cars are to be found - the leafy suburban roads of Dulwich, for instance, offer low rise housing with lots of cars and people - but the roads are not so congested that their topology forces low speeds (as it does, for instance, in the City - during working house probably one of the most densly 'populated' parts of London).

In the Netherlands you tend to have compact, highly densely occupied towns, where people live in apartments (and don't need cars to get anywhere local) and then countryside, with relatively low population density and cars driving on natioanl roads, with fewer local roads around estates. In most Dutch (and other European towns) you can easily walk from one side to another, from countyside to countryside. I have walked across Paris, and Rome. Even quite small English towns (Oxford, York) are now quite a challenge to walk across from open fields to open fields, with lots of suburban estates full of cars and people.

[Saila]

any update on how he is?

[DJKillaQueen]

But E-dealer...that survey only looked at TEN countries in Europe...and both of the two countries fairing worse than the UK do have far more pedestrian crossing points and similar higher population counts.....so I just tend to think that higher populations naturally see more accidents whatever is done to try and prevent them. There are I think 50 countries in Europe? So to say that the UK is one of the worst 'in Europe' from a survey of just ten is not proven.

Penguin I think makes some very good points regarding the differences in how people travel in some other countries. The style of town planning and urban living plays a part. Town planning is not something the British though have ever been particularly good at and given how often Southwark repeatedly dig up and amend the same junctions and stretches of road doesn't exaclty fill me with confidence in their ability to design any kind of working road scheme.

I did though find this document online.......

Pedestrian Mortality

It may be a little out of date bute it's interesting reading and note the decline in fatalities in the decade before the report was written (and at a time of large increase in vehicle ownership). I think many things have been achieved compared to the past.

I think to be fair Wulfhound, journey time, traffic congestion etc always depends on time of day and route taken. Just because some journeys along some routes at certain times of day see average speeds below 20mpr is not a justification for a blamket reduction of urban speed limit imo. Drivers should be able to drive according to the conditions or lose their licences for not being good or attentive enough drivers (on this point I would be in favour of mandatory retesting every 15 years for example). I think the reason why average speed limits work on motorways is because all the traffic flows one way. It is an entirely different thing to try on a busy urban road with people crossing and junctions every 50 metres or so. Just won't work.

The interesting thing to me are the trials currently on various roads in London where signage and kerbs, crossings etc have been removed. All the evidence seems to be that everyone behaves far more responsibly and safely in those open shared environments....so perhaps the suggestion that it's the removal of boundaries and rules that lead to safety more than vice versa has some demonstrable truth to it?

Of course any accident is an accident too many but when I was a child I remember things like the Tufty Club and the Green Cross Man. There was constant advertising and efforts made to get the message on road safety accross to young people. Recently the government engaged on a campaign of hip adverts aimed at teenagers (the largest pedestrian group for fatalities)......but it doesn't seem anywhere as intensive as my years spend as a member of the Tufty Club or watching the green cross code man on tv. I like the idea of junior zebra crossings though and lollipop men and women are very effective ways to get children safely accross roads.

There are also more RTA's in the contryside in the UK than urban areas too.....