Upturned Car on Adys Road

[Rockets]

Does anyone know what actually happened? I suspect not so all of this back and forth is nothing more than idle (maybe hopeful?) speculation. Only the person driving knows what happened - the rest is just noise.

I remember when Dulwich Roads went on one of their 20mph/how does this happen/dangerous drivers everywhere tirades around a car accident. What actually happened? The driver had a medical emergency, pulled over as they were felling unwell and then the medical emergency took hold they drove into a wall at under 20 mph. 

Dangerous - yes (thankfully no-one was injured). Dangerous driving - no.

 

[CPR Dave]

Because these bollards are placed so far into the road with the extended pavements, some (perfectly legal) vehicles can’t drive around them without driving on the wrong side of the road.

 

i guess that is also outrageously dangerous driving.

[Earl Aelfheah]

50 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I remember when Dulwich Roads went on one of their 20mph/how does this happen/dangerous drivers everywhere tirades around a car accident. What actually happened? The driver had a medical emergency, pulled over as they were felling unwell and then the medical emergency took hold they drove into a wall at under 20 mph. 

Dangerous - yes (thankfully no-one was injured). Dangerous driving - no.

 

Driving into a wall at 20 mph is an example of dangerous driving. The cause of the dangerous driving is another matter.

People expressing shock, disbelief, or concern at a car turning onto it's roof on a residential street, seems perfectly understandable to me. What is not, is rushing to minimise / or downplay it. With tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries on our roads every year, we are in danger of becoming inured to it -  a car on it's roof in a residential street is not something that should be considered unremarkable, or just 'one of those things'.

The suggestions that hitting a bollard that is on a pavement is unavoidable is concerning. It's not unavoidable. It's not even difficult to avoid. Most people don't drive into things on the pavement. 

As usual, Rockets is hugely inconsistent, repeatedly claiming to be very concerned about anecdotes of push bikes 'nearly' crashing on other threads, whilst seeking to minimise a car on it's roof in a residential street (something that has actually happened) on this one.

Edited Thursday at 12:29 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

On 01/09/2025 at 10:43, DuncanW said:

It makes you wonder though from a purely mechanical perspective, how that's even possible on a road like that. And how reckless the driving must have been and the damage that could have been done in a road with a playpark and a school on it!

Oh, and for balance I saw a Lime bike rider skip the lights the other morning. 

No @Earl Aelfheah what I have a problem with is when people try to make a vested-interest joke like the OP did at the expense of someone who could well have been harmed in an accident - it's childish, unnecessary and paints the posters in a very poor light.

Dulwich Roads did it too - it's pathetic:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Driving into a wall at 20 mph is an example of dangerous driving. The cause of the dangerous driving is another matter.

Again, you seem to be Dulwich Road'ing it by embellishing it massively - who said anything about 20mph - I said under 20mph. ALso I am not sure if anyone has ever been charged with dangerous driving when they were unconscious due to a medical emergency - the police were far more concerned with the well-being of the driver.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

As usual, Rockets is hugely inconsistent, repeatedly claiming to be very concerned about anecdotes of push bikes 'nearly' crashing on other threads, whilst seeking to minimise a car on it's roof in a residential street (something that has actually happened) on this one.

Embellishing again. How have I minimised it? These tactics are laughable.

[DuncanW]

I'll tell you what I have a problem with... 'Dulwich Roads is also on BlueSky' nicking my joke and putting up on Twitter as their own.

And Rockets, I'm pretty sure I explained to you what vested interest meant a couple of years ago... obvs not paying attention... 🤑

[David Peckham]

That's my mate Richard in the blue T-shirt.

Lucky escape there.

[Earl Aelfheah]

49 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Again, you seem to be Dulwich Road'ing it by embellishing it massively - who said anything about 20mph - I said under 20mph.

Oh you're right. driving into a wall at under 20 mph is totally different. 🙄

The references to bikes is actually a parody of people like you, who constantly raise 'serious concerns' about dangerous 'near misses' involving bicycles, but rush to minimise the significant number of serious collisions, mostly involving motor vehicles. 

[David Peckham]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

 

 

So, are Dulwich Roads saying that there is  'a bell bollard to stop drivers going on the pavement and flipping their car over'?

Because, that really hasn't worked. I'd say the design needs a little fettling.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Oh you're right. driving into a wall at under 20 mph is totally different. 🙄

They were unconscious...good grief....you're relentless.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The references to bikes is actually a parody of people like you, who constantly raise 'serious concerns' about dangerous 'near misses' involving bicycles, but rush to minimise the significant number of serious collisions, mostly involving motor vehicles. 

No it's not...it's a sick, childish attempt to make a joke about someone else's misfortune. It's beyond pathetic and it projects a very negative image but if it works for them and they think it makes a pint then great...for the more rational in the real world it may be seen differently!

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, David Peckham said:

So, are Dulwich Roads saying that there is  'a bell bollard to stop drivers going on the pavement and flipping their car over'?

Because, that really hasn't worked. I'd say the design needs a little fettling.

The design has been around for forty years, I've not found another case where a vehicle has flipped.  So something different happened here, I'm not speculating what.

[CPR Dave]

The design has been problematic for decades too:

 

 

 

 

 

[malumbu]

I've never hit one.

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

I've never hit one.

Good for you. So if you haven't then its not a danger to anyone else is what you are saying 

[march46]

Bollards are not dangerous. 
 

The design of bollards is not the problem here.

[Penguin68]

9 minutes ago, march46 said:

The design of bollards is not the problem here.

The only possible response to this is, well, bollards

[malumbu]

They protect pedestrians over motorised vehicles.  Not sure why anyone is arguing otherwise 

[jazzer]

1 hour ago, march46 said:

Bollards are not dangerous. 
 

The design of bollards is not the problem here.

They are if you drive into or trip over them.

[Sue]

6 hours ago, jazzer said:

They are if you drive into or trip over them.

So is anything if you drive into or trip over it!

You would have to have pretty poor vision to trip over a bollard, I would have thought.

[Penguin68]

9 hours ago, Sue said:

You would have to have pretty poor vision to trip over a bollard, I would have thought.

So thank god there are no blind or poorly sighted people about. 

[Sue]

On 06/09/2025 at 07:49, Penguin68 said:

So thank god there are no blind or poorly sighted people about. 

The fact that there are blind and poorly sighted people about is why there are bumps on the pavement before some road crossing places. 

I'm guessing it isn't feasible to put such bumps round every possible obstacle on a pavement, such as litter bins.

I'm also guessing that's why people with extremely poor sight have a guide dog or a long white stick - to avoid obstacles on or adjacent to the pavement or path where they are walking.

And therefore presumably people with less poor sight are able to see such obstacles, and avoid them. Including a bollard.

Edited 20 hours ago by Sue
Typo

[CPR Dave]

If they really were designed nearly half a century ago its probably worth revisiting the design. 

1960s/70s vehicles  were much much smaller and lower to the ground than today's cars. They also didn't have the enormous pillars and crumble zones that modern cars have had built in under EU law to protect cyclists and pedestrians etc in the case of an accident. 

The bollard tech seems to be  completely out of step woth modern vehicle safety standards / designs.

Edited 17 hours ago by CPR Dave

[alex_b]

I live near that corner. The current bell bollard is the only one that lasts five minutes without being taken out by a van, truck or car. It used to be less deeply set and was unearthed fairly regularly. It’s clear there are a large proportion of drivers who think driving across a pavement is acceptable as you cannot hit it unless your vehicle crosses the pavement.

Last year it was replaced by a taller upright bollard that literally would be knocked over within a day of being installed. The council must have fixed it six times in two months before reinstating and more deeply setting the current bollard. 

My son was almost hit by a van that cut the corner while he was walking on the pavement. It’s likely the bollard saved his life. If a vehicle cannot safely navigate a corner without crossing the pavement then it shouldn’t be driving on that road. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The number of posters defending driving across the pavement says a lot about our road culture.

[Penguin68]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The number of posters defending driving across the pavement says a lot about our road culture.

They are not defending driving across the pavement, they are noting that certain types of pavement obstruction are positioned to disallow any overhang across pavement areas for certain types of vehicle when their wheels are only on the road. Which is a function of narrow roads and modern vehicles. Which can be exacerbated by the imposition of build outs and central bollard islands as additions to existing narrow roads. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

It is not a function of modern vehicles to allow for them to hit something (or potentially someone) situated on the pavement with enough force that it could upend a heavy metal bollard set into the ground with concrete (or in this case, to turn the vehicle onto it's roof). 

Your vehicle is not allowed to drive on, or cross the pavement when turning, even if your wheels stay on the road.