"Car crashes through window of Middlesbrough house"

On May 31, 10:53*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 31/05/2011 14:44, Simon Mason wrote:
...

"Mr Bury (defending) added: "Whilst the defendant was exceeding the
speed limit for a long period of time it is simply him driving fast.
This was a bad day for him."

Classic wriggle.

It does sound as though, after 22 offences, his defence is running out
of excuses.

Colin Bignell

Well, he was a saint compared to this driver who had 60!

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...l/article.html

--
Simon Mason

On Jun 1, 9:17*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 01/06/2011 06:51, Doug wrote:



On May 31, 10:02 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 31/05/2011 05:27, Doug wrote:

On May 30, 11:34 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 30/05/2011 07:08, Doug wrote:

On May 28, 3:57 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere * * *wrote:
On 28/05/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

...Though what they
could do in this case eludes me as even a helmet doesn't offer much
protection against a crashing car which is capable of smashing a wall....

Where, in the link you posted, does it mention smashing a wall? It only
says the car crashed into the window. As this is a straight road with
bay windows sticking out of the house front, over the pavement, it would
quite possible to hit the window without even touching the wall.

Which, it appears is exactly what happened - see link below.

The sum total of damage appearing to be the outer skin of the wall below
the window being knocked down and a radiator being dislodged inside.

In similar cases, where a car is allowed by the driver to leave the
road at speed,

Nothing in any report about this happening 'at speed'.

cross a pavement and front garden

No front garden here.

and crash into the
wall of a house,

The car didn't even touch the front wall of the house.

considerable damage may be caused to that wall

Very rarely if it is a car. More often if it is a lorry or bus.

and at
the same time endangering those inside the house or in the front
garden or on the pavement.

No garden, as I said, and Google Streeview shows the street as virtually
deserted.

This just happened to be a more minor example.

In fact, nothing like the picture you are trying to paint.

However, you do seem to have a soulmate in the reporter for this link:

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/te.../26/tot-s-esca....

who manages to get 'Tot's escape as car hits Middlesbrough home' out
of the fact that there was a child playing in a part of the house that
was not involved in or even threatened by the accident.

Are you seriously trying to deny that cars sometimes crash through
walls and endanger the lives of those inside?

No. I am saying this incident came nowhere near doing that and that the
reporter had to stretch the truth to breaking point to make a story.

The incident was yet another example which clearly shows the danger
posed from out-of-control cars crashing on pavements and hitting
houses.

Except that nobody outside the cars was actually in any danger.

Danger is quantitative.

So you claim that as long as you are not actually in the way of a
crashing car you are not in any danger at all on a pavement? How far
away do you have to be to qualify and what about flying debris etc? I
seem to remember posting an example where a pedestrian was actually
crushed against a wall by a crashing car.

The reality is that ALL pedestrians on pavements are in danger to some
extent.


"Two children suffered minor injuries when a car ploughed into their
home in Caversham.

The crash happened at 12.43pm on Saturday when the black Peugeot 206,
travelling along Briants Avenue, careered into the house which was in
South View Avenue..."

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...into_house_in_....

Interesting photo too showing extent of damage a car can cause.

BTW, how do we know the kids were not cyclists?

The BBC report tells us it was one child, who was inside the house, so
probably was not cycling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-12590938

It is also reported in local forums that the driver may be charged with
attempted murder for deliberately driving his car into the house of a
girlfriend who had dumped him. So, not an accident and nothing like the
one we started with.

So what?

This was a deliberate attempt to drive the car into the house. Despite
that, the car got no further than the front wall and the people inside
only sustained minor injuries.

Oh that's OK then. Obviously these crashes should not to be taken
seriously as long as they don't kill someone inside the house. I am
surprised that someone like you is trying to condone these crashes.

Obviously this frequent and worrying type of event will vary
in damage and danger caused.

The only reason they make the newspapers is that they are not frequent.

How does the frequency affect the seriousness of such a crash? It is
frequent enough for me to report such crashes surprisingly often on
these lists.

In this case, the car was deliberately driven into the wall.
Nevertheless, the only structural damage I can see is that it has
demolished a brick pier between the door and window that supports the
lintle for both. Knocking the door and window out of their frames may
look spectacular, but it does not affect the integrity of the house.
There is a few days' work for a builder is all.

But in other cases almost the entire front wall of a house is
demolished. Why are you trying to ignore other examples of this type
of unfortunate event?

Clearly cars should not be allowed on
pavements at all, period. They are far too dangerous.

They are not allowed on pavements, except where there is a marked
pavement parking bay and, possibly, to cross into or out of a driveway.

And that is where they ARE allowed on pavements and they shouldn't be.
It makes a joke of road safety.

Unfortunately, mass car use has evolved slowly over time and thus
became almost imperceptibly incorporated into our infrastructure while
giving rise to dropped kerbs outside houses. A more sensible approach
would have been to have separate car parks, as now happens with new
estates or flats. This would also avoid free 24/7 street garaging,
which is a constant source of danger and obstruction.

It is easy to see why mass car use has been allowed to dominate the
infrastructure at the expense of pedestrians, some of whom are
disabled or with prams, and of course cyclists.

-- .
Car Free Cities.
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

On Jun 1, 3:33*pm, Simon Mason wrote:
On May 31, 10:53*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:

On 31/05/2011 14:44, Simon Mason wrote:
...

"Mr Bury (defending) added: "Whilst the defendant was exceeding the
speed limit for a long period of time it is simply him driving fast.
This was a bad day for him."

Classic wriggle.

It does sound as though, after 22 offences, his defence is running out
of excuses.

Colin Bignell

Well, he was a saint compared to this driver who had 60!

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...iver-mowed-tri...

As a frequent attender to Critical Mass I often see examples of a
tendency to use a car as a weapon, when a driver becomes frustrated or
irritated. It is all too easy for them to just put their foot down
when confronted by an obstruction. Its a bit like carrying a gun which
is cocked and ready to use. Obviously some kind of forward pointing
radar, which applies brakes automatically in response to any
obstruction, should be obligatory on all cars, to increase road safety
and prevent deliberate ramming.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Jun 2, 6:09*am, Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:33*pm, Simon Mason wrote:







On May 31, 10:53*pm, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere
wrote:

On 31/05/2011 14:44, Simon Mason wrote:
...

"Mr Bury (defending) added: "Whilst the defendant was exceeding the
speed limit for a long period of time it is simply him driving fast..
This was a bad day for him."

Classic wriggle.

It does sound as though, after 22 offences, his defence is running out
of excuses.

Colin Bignell

Well, he was a saint compared to this driver who had 60!

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...iver-mowed-tri...

As a frequent attender to Critical Mass I often see examples of a
tendency to use a car as a weapon, when a driver becomes frustrated or
irritated. It is all too easy for them to just put their foot down
when confronted by an obstruction. Its a bit like carrying a gun which
is cocked and ready to use. Obviously some kind of forward pointing
radar, which applies brakes automatically in response to any
obstruction, should be obligatory on all cars, to increase road safety
and prevent deliberate ramming.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
*http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

But CM's intention is to irritate, as proved by the video you posted.

On 02/06/2011 06:09, Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:33 pm, Simon wrote:
On May 31, 10:53 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:

On 31/05/2011 14:44, Simon Mason wrote:
...

"Mr Bury (defending) added: "Whilst the defendant was exceeding the
speed limit for a long period of time it is simply him driving fast.
This was a bad day for him."

Classic wriggle.

It does sound as though, after 22 offences, his defence is running out
of excuses.

Colin Bignell

Well, he was a saint compared to this driver who had 60!

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.c...iver-mowed-tri...

As a frequent attender to Critical Mass I often see examples of a
tendency to use a car as a weapon,

Of course you do, do you see the 'green Cheese' man as well.

when a driver becomes frustrated or
irritated.

Well your intention is to do just that, your posts prove that.

It is all too easy for them to just put their foot down
when confronted by an obstruction.

That's right, always 'ram' an obstruction, you know it makes sense.

Its a bit like carrying a gun which
is cocked and ready to use.

Well, no it isn't.

Obviously some kind of forward pointing
radar, which applies brakes automatically in response to any
obstruction, should be obligatory on all cars, to increase road safety
and prevent deliberate ramming.

But Doug, this would require a computer, and you have told us at length
that they are dangerous, do make up your mind.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a document.


The 'R' word, you almost got through the week without using it.

On 02/06/2011 06:02, Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:17 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 01/06/2011 06:51, Doug wrote:



On May 31, 10:02 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 31/05/2011 05:27, Doug wrote:

On May 30, 11:34 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere
wrote:
On 30/05/2011 07:08, Doug wrote:

On May 28, 3:57 pm, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 28/05/2011 07:55, Doug wrote:

...Though what they
could do in this case eludes me as even a helmet doesn't offer much
protection against a crashing car which is capable of smashing a wall....

Where, in the link you posted, does it mention smashing a wall? It only
says the car crashed into the window. As this is a straight road with
bay windows sticking out of the house front, over the pavement, it would
quite possible to hit the window without even touching the wall.

Which, it appears is exactly what happened - see link below.

The sum total of damage appearing to be the outer skin of the wall below
the window being knocked down and a radiator being dislodged inside.

In similar cases, where a car is allowed by the driver to leave the
road at speed,

Nothing in any report about this happening 'at speed'.

cross a pavement and front garden

No front garden here.

and crash into the
wall of a house,

The car didn't even touch the front wall of the house.

considerable damage may be caused to that wall

Very rarely if it is a car. More often if it is a lorry or bus.

and at
the same time endangering those inside the house or in the front
garden or on the pavement.

No garden, as I said, and Google Streeview shows the street as virtually
deserted.

This just happened to be a more minor example.

In fact, nothing like the picture you are trying to paint.

However, you do seem to have a soulmate in the reporter for this link:

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/te.../26/tot-s-esca...

who manages to get 'Tot's escape as car hits Middlesbrough home' out
of the fact that there was a child playing in a part of the house that
was not involved in or even threatened by the accident.

Are you seriously trying to deny that cars sometimes crash through
walls and endanger the lives of those inside?

No. I am saying this incident came nowhere near doing that and that the
reporter had to stretch the truth to breaking point to make a story.

The incident was yet another example which clearly shows the danger
posed from out-of-control cars crashing on pavements and hitting
houses.

Except that nobody outside the cars was actually in any danger.

Danger is quantitative.

So you claim that as long as you are not actually in the way of a
crashing car you are not in any danger at all on a pavement? How far
away do you have to be to qualify and what about flying debris etc? I
seem to remember posting an example where a pedestrian was actually
crushed against a wall by a crashing car.

The reality is that ALL pedestrians on pavements are in danger to some
extent.

Indeed they are, now what vehicle do I see on pavements most?, are yes,
it's a bicycle.



"Two children suffered minor injuries when a car ploughed into their
home in Caversham.

The crash happened at 12.43pm on Saturday when the black Peugeot 206,
travelling along Briants Avenue, careered into the house which was in
South View Avenue..."

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...into_house_in_...

Interesting photo too showing extent of damage a car can cause.

BTW, how do we know the kids were not cyclists?

The BBC report tells us it was one child, who was inside the house, so
probably was not cycling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-12590938

It is also reported in local forums that the driver may be charged with
attempted murder for deliberately driving his car into the house of a
girlfriend who had dumped him. So, not an accident and nothing like the
one we started with.

So what?

This was a deliberate attempt to drive the car into the house. Despite
that, the car got no further than the front wall and the people inside
only sustained minor injuries.

Oh that's OK then. Obviously these crashes should not to be taken
seriously as long as they don't kill someone inside the house. I am
surprised that someone like you is trying to condone these crashes.

Hint, he isn't.


Obviously this frequent and worrying type of event will vary
in damage and danger caused.

The only reason they make the newspapers is that they are not frequent.

How does the frequency affect the seriousness of such a crash? It is
frequent enough for me to report such crashes surprisingly often on
these lists.

Must remember that comment, when you post the opposite.


In this case, the car was deliberately driven into the wall.
Nevertheless, the only structural damage I can see is that it has
demolished a brick pier between the door and window that supports the
lintle for both. Knocking the door and window out of their frames may
look spectacular, but it does not affect the integrity of the house.
There is a few days' work for a builder is all.

But in other cases almost the entire front wall of a house is
demolished. Why are you trying to ignore other examples of this type
of unfortunate event?

Clearly cars should not be allowed on
pavements at all, period. They are far too dangerous.

They are not allowed on pavements, except where there is a marked
pavement parking bay and, possibly, to cross into or out of a driveway.

And that is where they ARE allowed on pavements and they shouldn't be.
It makes a joke of road safety.

But you tell us that all cars should be parked off road, tell us how do
you get your e-bike on to your property?


Unfortunately, mass car use has evolved slowly over time and thus
became almost imperceptibly incorporated into our infrastructure while
giving rise to dropped kerbs outside houses. A more sensible approach
would have been to have separate car parks,

But you have in the past complained of 'large areas given over to car
parking', have you changed your mind?

as now happens with new
estates or flats. This would also avoid free 24/7 street garaging,
which is a constant source of danger and obstruction.

It is easy to see why mass car use has been allowed to dominate the
infrastructure at the expense of pedestrians, some of whom are
disabled or with prams, and of course cyclists.

-- .
Car Free Cities.
http://www.carfree.com/
Carefree Cities proposes a lighterful solution
to the vaxing problem of urbane automobiles.

On 02/06/2011 06:09, Doug wrote:

[ ... ]

As a frequent attender to Critical Mass I often see examples of a
tendency to use a car as a weapon, when a driver becomes frustrated or
irritated. It is all too easy for them to just put their foot down
when confronted by an obstruction.

Got any videos?

On 02/06/2011 06:09, Doug wrote:
....
As a frequent attender to Critical Mass I often see examples of a
tendency to use a car as a weapon, when a driver becomes frustrated or
irritated. It is all too easy for them to just put their foot down
when confronted by an obstruction.

That would tend to be a self-limiting activity, as the car would not
survive long. Many obstructions you meet when driving are remarkably solid.

Its a bit like carrying a gun which
is cocked and ready to use.

I've done that and I can assure you it is nothing like driving a car.

Obviously some kind of forward pointing
radar, which applies brakes automatically in response to any
obstruction, should be obligatory on all cars, to increase road safety

When I pointed out that is exactly what my car has, you argued that it
made the car more dangerous, as I would necessarily rely upon it and be
at a loss when, according to you, it inevitably failed.

and prevent deliberate ramming.

I'm not sure that a bicycle produces enough of a radar echo for that.

Colin Bignell

On 02/06/2011 06:02, Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:17 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
....
trimmed to help Doug's newsreader
....
Are you seriously trying to deny that cars sometimes crash through
walls and endanger the lives of those inside?

No. I am saying this incident came nowhere near doing that and that the
reporter had to stretch the truth to breaking point to make a story.

The incident was yet another example which clearly shows the danger
posed from out-of-control cars crashing on pavements and hitting
houses.

Except that nobody outside the cars was actually in any danger.

Danger is quantitative.

Given your apparent inability to understand risk assessment, I am rather
surprised you recognise that danger can be quantified.

So you claim that as long as you are not actually in the way of a
crashing car you are not in any danger at all on a pavement?

What I said was that, in this accident, nobody outside the cars was in
any danger, which is not the same thing as presenting a general case for
all accidents.

How far
away do you have to be to qualify and what about flying debris etc? I
seem to remember posting an example where a pedestrian was actually
crushed against a wall by a crashing car.

That does rather suggest that the pedestrian actually was in the path of
the car at the time.

The reality is that ALL pedestrians on pavements are in danger to some
extent.

Indeed. They can be mugged, have chimneys fall onto them, be struck by
lightning or be killed by a vehicle on a pavement, to mention but a few
of the hazards. The first is most likely - around 375,000 per annum in
the UK. The second is the least likely - two people were killed that way
in the 1580 earthquake. The last two, well they are about equally likely
- up to around 60 people every year.

"Two children suffered minor injuries when a car ploughed into their
home in Caversham.

The crash happened at 12.43pm on Saturday when the black Peugeot 206,
travelling along Briants Avenue, careered into the house which was in
South View Avenue..."

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2...into_house_in_...

Interesting photo too showing extent of damage a car can cause.

BTW, how do we know the kids were not cyclists?

The BBC report tells us it was one child, who was inside the house, so
probably was not cycling.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-12590938

It is also reported in local forums that the driver may be charged with
attempted murder for deliberately driving his car into the house of a
girlfriend who had dumped him. So, not an accident and nothing like the
one we started with.

So what?

This was a deliberate attempt to drive the car into the house. Despite
that, the car got no further than the front wall and the people inside
only sustained minor injuries.

Oh that's OK then. Obviously these crashes should not to be taken
seriously as long as they don't kill someone inside the house.

The point you are trying to avoid recognising is that, despite the fact
that this appears to have been a deliberate attempt to kill the
occupants, despite the car being intentionally driven at the house,
which implies no attempt to slow or reduce the impact, the occupants
received only minor injuries and the house survived remarkably well.

I am
surprised that someone like you is trying to condone these crashes.

I am not. I am simply pointing out what you have overlooked.


Obviously this frequent and worrying type of event will vary
in damage and danger caused.

The only reason they make the newspapers is that they are not frequent.

How does the frequency affect the seriousness of such a crash?

To understand that, you do need to understand something about risk
assessment and relative levels of risk. That requires an understanding
of probability and your track record on anything that involves maths is
not that good.

However, take, as an example, the earth being hit by a giant meteorite.
The effect of that would be devastating to all life on earth.
Nevertheless, the frequency with which it happens means that it is not
something that it is worth being concerned about. Frequency of an event
is central to deciding how much of risk it involves, no matter how
serious the possible consequences.

It is
frequent enough for me to report such crashes surprisingly often on
these lists.

As you would say, that is anectdotal. Could you quantify the frequency
with which you report such cases or, better still, the frequency with
which they happen?


In this case, the car was deliberately driven into the wall.
Nevertheless, the only structural damage I can see is that it has
demolished a brick pier between the door and window that supports the
lintle for both. Knocking the door and window out of their frames may
look spectacular, but it does not affect the integrity of the house.
There is a few days' work for a builder is all.

But in other cases almost the entire front wall of a house is
demolished. Why are you trying to ignore other examples of this type
of unfortunate event?

The entire front wall of this house was demolished but, as I said, very
little of that involved structural damage - i.e damage that would make
the building unsafe - and that would be fairly easily corrected. The
same is true of most other pictures I have seen of cars that have
impacted houses, however spectacular they might look. Significant
structural damage is more likely when a lorry or bus is involved.

Clearly cars should not be allowed on
pavements at all, period. They are far too dangerous.

They are not allowed on pavements, except where there is a marked
pavement parking bay and, possibly, to cross into or out of a driveway.

And that is where they ARE allowed on pavements and they shouldn't be.
It makes a joke of road safety.

Are you suggesting that pedestrians are so unaware of their surroundings
that they fail to see when they are crossing a driveway entrance?

Unfortunately, mass car use has evolved slowly over time and thus
became almost imperceptibly incorporated into our infrastructure while
giving rise to dropped kerbs outside houses. A more sensible approach
would have been to have separate car parks, as now happens with new
estates or flats.

They still need an access route and one that would involve a much more
frequent interface between pedestrians and vehicles.

This would also avoid free 24/7 street garaging,
which is a constant source of danger and obstruction.

Cars parked on the street or crossing pavements; You can't avoid both.

It is easy to see why mass car use has been allowed to dominate the
infrastructure at the expense of pedestrians, some of whom are
disabled or with prams, and of course cyclists.

The roads would be a lot more crowded if we still used horse and cart
and history suggests that the accident rate would probably be a lot higher.

Colin Bignell

On 26/05/2011 07:59, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 26/05/2011 05:30, Doug wrote:
Yes, yet another one. Nowhere is safe! It was lucky no cyclists were
in the way.

You are not worried about pedestrians then Doug?

Not much info as yet.

"A car has crashed into the front window of a house in Middlesbrough.

The incident, on Union Street, was the result of a collision between a
Hyundai and a second vehicle, which then went into the bay window.

Note *into* the bay window, not *through* it as you claim in the subject
line. Looking on Google Earth, this is a road where the houses face
straight onto the pavement, with no front garden. A car mounting the
pavement as a result of an accident is quite likely to hit a glancing
blow to one of the bay windows that stick out of the front walls. A car
hitting the window at an angle that would take it through into the room
behind is relatively unlikely.

As the section closest to the houses is resident's parking, a likely
scenario, given that it happened after most people would have gone to
work leaving much of the parking empty, is someone driving into the back
of a parked car and shunting it onto the pavement.

Colin Bignell

Few people in that street would have gone to work that day.