Casualties in Greater London 2005

[PDF download]

http://tinyurl.com/ye4zte from
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downlo...2005-Final.pdf

It confirms the 0 child cyclist fatality figure I've been shouting
about for the last ten months, though adult cyclist fatalities are up
168% from 8 to 21. Indeed, the most dangerous place, so it would
seem, for children, is on the pavement, with 11 child pedestrian
fatalities, and zero child fatalities in all other classes.

Tom Crispin wrote:
[PDF download]

http://tinyurl.com/ye4zte from
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downlo...2005-Final.pdf

It confirms the 0 child cyclist fatality figure I've been shouting
about for the last ten months, though adult cyclist fatalities are up
168% from 8 to 21. Indeed, the most dangerous place, so it would
seem, for children, is on the pavement, with 11 child pedestrian
fatalities, and zero child fatalities in all other classes.

Where does it say any of them were on the pavement?

Anyway, the sad conclusion is that yet another year has gone by with no
statistically significant reduction (1%) in the number of people killed
on the streets of London.

This is despite the increase in the number of speed cameras, the
increased use of lower speed limits, the increase in 'traffic calming'
initiatives, the increased mileage of cycling 'facilities' and bus
lanes, the increased use of puffin and toucan crossings, the increase in
the congestion charge, increased parking enforcement, and so forth.

Doesn't anyone get any messages at all from this sorry state of affairs?

It is time to consider the wholesale scrapping of all these failed
initiatives and start with a clean sheet. Introduce some proven
techniques of reducing casualties, reducing congestion, and rejuvenating
our urban areas, without a camera, a traffic signal, a white line, a
speed limit sign, a speed hump, or a "C" in a circle in sight!

Ah, but how will we replace the £millions in lost motoring offence
fines, the congestion charge, and parking offence revenue? How much are
we prepared to pay to eliminate road casualties?

--
Matt B

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:48:15 +0000, Matt B
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
[PDF download]

http://tinyurl.com/ye4zte from
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downlo...2005-Final.pdf

Anyway, the sad conclusion is that yet another year has gone by with no
statistically significant reduction (1%) in the number of people killed
on the streets of London.

14% decrease in fatalities since the 1994-1998 baseline.
45% decrease in KSI since the baseline.
30% decrease in all casualties since the baseline.

Tom Crispin wrote:
Indeed, the most dangerous place, so it would
seem, for children, is on the pavement, with 11 child pedestrian
fatalities,

That is the sort of deliberate distortion that does the cycling safety lobby
no good at all: The vast majority of pedestrian accidents happen when the
pedestrian leaves the pavement and enters the road space occupied by cars,
busses, lorries and cycles - ie just the same space in which cyclist
accidents happen, as you well know.

pk

Matt B wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
[PDF download]

http://tinyurl.com/ye4zte from
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downlo...2005-Final.pdf

It confirms the 0 child cyclist fatality figure I've been shouting
about for the last ten months, though adult cyclist fatalities are up
168% from 8 to 21. Indeed, the most dangerous place, so it would
seem, for children, is on the pavement, with 11 child pedestrian
fatalities, and zero child fatalities in all other classes.

Where does it say any of them were on the pavement?

Anyway, the sad conclusion is that yet another year has gone by with no
statistically significant reduction (1%) in the number of people killed
on the streets of London.

This is despite the increase in the number of speed cameras, the
increased use of lower speed limits, the increase in 'traffic calming'
initiatives, the increased mileage of cycling 'facilities' and bus
lanes, the increased use of puffin and toucan crossings, the increase in
the congestion charge, increased parking enforcement, and so forth.

Doesn't anyone get any messages at all from this sorry state of affairs?

It is time to consider the wholesale scrapping of all these failed
initiatives and start with a clean sheet. Introduce some proven
techniques of reducing casualties, reducing congestion, and rejuvenating
our urban areas, without a camera, a traffic signal, a white line, a
speed limit sign, a speed hump, or a "C" in a circle in sight!

Ah, but how will we replace the £millions in lost motoring offence
fines, the congestion charge, and parking offence revenue? How much are
we prepared to pay to eliminate road casualties?

--
Matt B

I've often wondered if these nifty measures for making safer streets
aren't, in fact, counterproductive. Here's why.

People I know have bluntly stated that they do slow down when
approaching a camera zone. But then they promptly speed up (even
faster than before) to make up for lost time. So now they're driving
even faster than they would have had there not been a camera.

I've heard similar stories about speed humps.

All of these measures taken to increase safety result in slower travel
speeds. That has to be raising the blood pressure of the hotheads on
the road (NB: not all drivers are hothead nor are all hotheads
drivers, but the intersection of the sets is not the null set).
Increasing their blood pressure is only likely to increase the odds
that they will act irresponsibly.

Soooo...
rather than slow traffic down, why not take measures to improve traffic
flow safely? If the hotheads on the road can get from point A to point
B in an efficient, pleasant manner, the odds of them doing something
irresponsible are lower than if their trips are inefficient and
unpleasant.

For cities like my home town, that would mean, for example,
synchronizing the lights on major thoroughfares (come on, folks, this
is the 21st century). Creating or enlarging turning lanes at major
intersections can also make significant improvements. Intelligent
timing and planning of road work would help (does anyone else find that
road work is scheduled for the busiest traffic times of the day?).

Regardless of what we do, there will always be a small percentage of
intent on proving that complete morons are capable of driving. Let's
try and deal with the rest of the populace first.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:48:15 +0000, Matt B
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
[PDF download]

http://tinyurl.com/ye4zte from
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downlo...2005-Final.pdf

Anyway, the sad conclusion is that yet another year has gone by with no
statistically significant reduction (1%) in the number of people killed
on the streets of London.

14% decrease in fatalities since the 1994-1998 baseline.

That isn't very impressive is it.

45% decrease in KSI since the baseline.
30% decrease in all casualties since the baseline.

They mean nothing given the recent report in the BMJ which concluded:
"The overall fall seen in police statistics for non-fatal road traffic
injuries probably represents a fall in completeness of reporting of
these injuries"

Abandon the failed strategies and try something that is likely to work.

--
Matt B

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 00:22:09 -0000, "p.k."
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
Indeed, the most dangerous place, so it would
seem, for children, is on the pavement, with 11 child pedestrian
fatalities,

That is the sort of deliberate distortion that does the cycling safety lobby
no good at all: The vast majority of pedestrian accidents happen when the
pedestrian leaves the pavement and enters the road space occupied by cars,
busses, lorries and cycles - ie just the same space in which cyclist
accidents happen, as you well know.

Point taken. It was deliberately misleading and I should not have
worded it that way.

The point I want to make is that it is unfair that child pedestrians
suffer from the poor driving of motorists. It this sort of thing
which particularly angers me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3187188.stm

And just the other day a baby in a push chair was killed by an out of
control driver.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6071634.stm

Tom Crispin wrote on 01/11/2006 21:59 +0100:
[PDF download]

http://tinyurl.com/ye4zte from
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downlo...2005-Final.pdf


It confirms the 0 child cyclist fatality figure I've been shouting
about for the last ten months, though adult cyclist fatalities are up
168% from 8 to 21. Indeed, the most dangerous place, so it would
seem, for children, is on the pavement, with 11 child pedestrian
fatalities, and zero child fatalities in all other classes.

By the way, if uk.tosspost ever try to claim that drivers don't
deliberately drive on the pavement in future, point them to the photos
here of motorists queueing up to drive across the pavement

http://www.flickr.com/photos/camdenc...7594305826584/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/camdenc...7594305826584/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/camdenc...7594305826584/

And this is not just a quiet road on a residential estate. Its driving
onto the Strand at Aldwych in London from Covent Garden across a very
busy pavement at a very busy light controlled junction where Waterloo
Bridge, the Strand and Aldwych converge.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote on 01/11/2006 21:59 +0100:
[PDF download]

http://tinyurl.com/ye4zte from
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downlo...2005-Final.pdf


It confirms the 0 child cyclist fatality figure I've been shouting
about for the last ten months, though adult cyclist fatalities are up
168% from 8 to 21. Indeed, the most dangerous place, so it would
seem, for children, is on the pavement, with 11 child pedestrian
fatalities, and zero child fatalities in all other classes.

By the way, if uk.tosspost ever try to claim that drivers don't
deliberately drive on the pavement in future, point them to the photos
here of motorists queueing up to drive across the pavement

http://www.flickr.com/photos/camdenc...7594305826584/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/camdenc...7594305826584/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/camdenc...7594305826584/

And this is not just a quiet road on a residential estate. Its
driving onto the Strand at Aldwych in London from Covent Garden
across a very busy pavement at a very busy light controlled junction
where Waterloo Bridge, the Strand and Aldwych converge.

I don't know how people have the audacity to do something like that - I
wouldn't even entertain the thought of entertaining the thought of driving
along a cycle patch.....

Tom Crispin wrote:
The point I want to make is that it is unfair that child pedestrians
suffer from the poor driving of motorists. It this sort of thing
which particularly angers me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3187188.stm

And just the other day a baby in a push chair was killed by an out of
control driver.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6071634.stm

the first is a valid example - a driver falling below the required standard.

The second is not - " A 19-month-old boy has died after a stolen Jeep
crashed into his pushchair in south-east London.
Two 14-year-old boys were arrested after the crash in Rolls Road, Southwark,
when a stolen green Jeep Wrangler hit a tree and then the child. ....Two of
the three suspects were described as white, aged between 14 and 18, and
between 5ft 5ins to 5ft 8ins tall." that is not an event having any
relevance to normal driving behaviour or normal drivers - kids stole a car,
went joy riding and crashed.



pk