Child hit by car (she's fine), Lordship lane with upland

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Loz, go and tell the girl and her mother and all the witnesses that .

There are dropped kerbs .

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[steveo]

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Miscia, it's the little island at the top of

> Upland part of Lordship Lane.

> It hasn't stopped speeding nor do drivers stop so

> that people can cross , a few do but most don't .

That island has made things worse. It encourages people to try and cross at a place they wouldn't normally attempt it. Then they get stranded in the middle of the road. For kids in buggies it's lethal

[GinaG3]

Very glad to hear the girl is okay!

I was concerned the other day to see school children sitting along the pavement between Friern Road and Upland Road doing what I assumed was a traffic count with a teacher or 2. There has been a fair few accidents at this junction over the last few years and to see school children (year 5 or 6?) sitting along the pavement in what I'd deem as a accident hotspot seemed irresponsible to me. There is a few things I hate about the stretch of road along there including the fact that buses are allowed to wait on Lordship Lane before moving into Friern Road, this obscures your view when trying to cross that section up to Upland Road. Then at Upland Road you have cars parked either side of the road down Upland obscuring your view up the road whilst trying to look back and up onto Lordship Lane. At the island I've had buses signal and allow me cross with my child only for cars to fly straight past (as it is on the bus lane), I signal the bus drivers back that I will wait. Its very awkward sometimes. If you cross further up at the green man crossing at Underhill you have to cross that road, which cars fly up regularly with only a quick glimpse, I've been halfway across the road and cars have turned in. Presumably because its a one way, they assume its clear. If I'm coming up from Plough I prefer to cross directly at Plough cross roads and walk along the Dulwich Library side of the road to avoid all these awful junctions, then you only have to conquer Court Lane. Much safer in my book.

[LadyDeliah]

These posts demonstrate the issue of who our public spaces should be given priority. For the past 50 years, cars have been given more and more priority over pretty much all other users. This has resulted in communities being criss crossed by dangerous, expanding roads making normal daily activities far more difficult for everyone.

In my opinion the dominance of the car should be challenged and reversed so tha other users of public spaces can go about their lives without having to worry about being killed by dangerous and inconsiderate drivers.

Some architects and town planners are starting to look at reducing the dominance of the car, but their efforts don't appear to have made much of a dent in the 'I deserve to do as I like' car driver or the authorities who continue to pander to them.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

It's pathetic defending cars, drivers are in charge of a deadly machine .

Defending cars over lives is bizarre .

She was crossing at an ISLAND with others .

The driver has eyes too , she is responsible too and people should be KIND enough to let people at an ISLAND cross the road .

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Well said LadyD, glad the majority have common sense .

[DJKillaQueen]

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.

[Charles Notice]

Moving vehicles of all types The road

Pedestrians The pavement

Crossing the road. Eyes left and right and common sense from all. Pedestrians and vehicle owners

Not difficult to understand

[Loz]

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's pathetic defending cars

Well it's fairly clear a reasoned debate isn't really going to happen here, is it?

[uncleglen]

Why do some people drive like idiots? Is it because they cannot assert themselves in other areas of their lives? Or is it because they do not realise what damage 1 tonne of metal travelling at speed can do because they are ignorant of basic physics? The fact that young men drivers have had their insurance costs put on a par with young women is insanity and makes a mockery of actuarial science.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Either way human with car , human without a car , which is more dangerous ?

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Make the island into a zebra or pelican crossing .

> Simples .

On the exit of a blind bend? Genius.

[silverfox]

What a load of crap.

Roads are for cars (and dodgy cyclists unfortunately). Pavements are for people.

If you cross the road use the Green Cross code (and beware of cyclists) and don't cross unless it's safe to do so. Lady Deliah's public spaces nonsense post is cloud cuckooland.

The proliferation of Zebra crossings on Lordship Lane has not only slowed a major London Artery but endangered people's lives.

[Gimme]

mynamehere Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If an incident had happened with a bicyclist this

> thread would be multiple pages long

Yeah, cos cyclists are such drama queens... When they get hit by cars they make such unnecessary fuss...

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

This.

Charles Notice Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Moving vehicles of all types The road

>

> Pedestrians The pavement

>

> Crossing the road. Eyes left and right and common sense from all. Pedestrians and vehicle owners.

>

> Not difficult to understand

And this.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why do some people drive like idiots? Is it

> because they cannot assert themselves in other

> areas of their lives?

But definitely not this.

[Loz]

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Either way human with car , human without a car , which is more dangerous ?

If the one without the car is drunk and armed and the one with the car is parked. Which is more dangerous?

[the-e-dealer]

The Two Minutes thing also apples to drivers how about driving at 20 and addind 2 minutes to your journey and making everyone safer? Cars should not have the priority on Roads in populated areas.

[KidKruger]

"Cars should not have the priority on Roads in populated areas" ??

So it should be like some kind of shopping precinct, where pedestrians control the roads ?

So where do the buses go and how does London work in those circumstances ?!

[the-e-dealer]

By giving Priority to Pedestrians. simple. And ofcourse in the odd area where it is as busy a shopping precinct With loads of pedestrians then ofcourse the cars should slow to a walking pace. What would you do at a road with hundreds of people crossing ? Speed up?

Reminds me of the bloke who called a phone in and said childen shouldn't be allowed to do random things like go in the road without looking. Plonker!

[KidKruger]

So what do we use the pavements for in that (bizarre) example ?!

Community vegetable plots ?

They're call 'roads' because they're transportation routes, it's a well-established thing - you know, Romans and stuff.

[the-e-dealer]

Bizarree Example? Outside most football matches. Near Some Stations at 5.30. After Fireoworks at Burgess Park, I can think of more but cant be bothered! The Scheme is already in Place in Chelsea.

[KidKruger]

OK - so the original bizarre point "Cars should not have the priority on Roads in populated areas" is now being diluted to footbal matches and firework displays. ie. busy events.

That's reasonable enough. But to suggest all populated areas is plain silly and naive, without an alternative for the transportation routes that will be compromised.

[davidh]

many of the regulars on here have automatically stated as fact that the female driver was driving too fast, or dangerously, or whatever. presumably they were not all there to witness this "outrage". is there, in fact, any evidence that the poor woman was to blame? silly suggestion on here, I know, but can we not stop knees from jerking just for once?

[Jeremy]

It really depends what we mean by giving pedestrians "priority". If we mean that people should be able to step out into the road at any point and expect cars to patiently wait for them, then that's obviously not going to happen.

But if we mean that drivers should drive carefully in built-up areas, and always be ready to stop in case a pedestrian does unexpectedly step out into the road... surely that's something all drivers should be able to agree on?