Car crashed into lamp post opposite coop , I hope no one was hurt ?

[dimples]

I hope no one was hurt ? 

Edited 19 hours ago by dimples
Making it clearer

[march46]

That’s awful - I really hope no one is seriously injured.

It might be worth updating the title so it clearly reflects what happened: a driver crashed into a pedestrian. The way we describe collisions matters, because it shapes how people understand responsibility and risk. If a cyclist hit someone, it would sound odd to say “bike hit pedestrian” without mentioning the rider - yet when cars are involved, the driver often disappears from the wording.

Using accurate language isn’t about blaming anyone before the facts are known; it’s simply about recognising that vehicles don’t act on their own. Drivers have agency, and it would be helpful if the wording reflected that.

[CPR Dave]

Did anything actually crash into a pedestrian?

Hope they are ok if so.

[Sue]

I am also  quite confused about what actually happened and how it came about.

 

[Pugwash]

The police were there as I drove from Sainsburys - police car over took me at ED Station and by time I got to Co  op area they were taking notes. No ambulance seen.

[Ryelander]

Hopefully just the lamp post got the knock and is still in working order! fingers crossed.

[Sue]

I'm still completely unclear what happened, apart from that a car apparently crashed into a lamp post opposite the Co-op.

I presume the one in Lordship Lane, though the OP doesn't say.

Was it speeding? Did it swerve to avoid someone who ran into the road? Did something go wrong with its brakes or steering? Did the driver have a medical emergency or fall asleep or got  distracted by something? Was there something slippery on the road surface?

Was the driver hurt? Were any passengers hurt? Were any pedestrians or other road users hurt?

Were there any witnesses? 

[first mate]

13 hours ago, march46 said:

Using accurate language isn’t about blaming anyone before the facts are known; it’s simply about recognising that vehicles don’t act on their own. Drivers have agency, and it would be helpful if the wording reflected that.

Surely the key thing is to establish the facts, without that you are introducing assumptions as well as blame.
It seems the OP accurately posted what they saw at the time. I am not sure why you introduced the pedestrian aspect- if only as an example, then it has caused confusion as to what actually happened. 
As for the statement that a driver has agency, mostly I would agree but it is not a given. There can be a mechanical failure, a medical emergency and, finally, the driverless car is on its way.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I was driving past when the police were arriving. No sign of anyone hurt or ambulances. 
 

 

[Katherty]

We passed and saw the airbags had come out.  I hope no-one was injured.  Also only saw police,  not ambulances. 

[march46]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

I am not sure why you introduced the pedestrian aspect- if only as an example, then it has caused confusion as to what actually happened. 
 

The original title said a car had hit a pedestrian. We don’t have driverless cars yet, hopefully when we do there will be fewer collisions. 
 

[first mate]

Understood; I see the thread title has been changed a few times. Do we know if a pedestrian was definitely involved? I also hope no person was injured.

As for driverless cars, I think Waymo are due to launch in London this September. It may improve speeding and other results due to driver behaviour, not sure what impact these may have on congestion though.

[David Peckham]

1 hour ago, march46 said:

The original title said a car had hit a pedestrian. We don’t have driverless cars yet, hopefully when we do there will be fewer collisions. 
 

It didn't say that.

The original title was pretty much 'Car crashes into pedestrian crossing on Lordship Lane'.

You incorrectly inferred that a car had crashed into a pedestrian, crossing on Lordship Lane.

And then went off on one.

My thoughts, and those of my family, are with the lamppost.