Forum Topic

Indeed Tom. It takes nether much research nor much objectivity and sense to discover that drivers are the biggest danger of a violent death or serious injury for pedestrians on pavements and off the road:https://www.roadpeace.org/2020/02/17/pedestrian-pavement-deaths/548 pedestrians were killed by drivers in the supposed safe haven of pavements or verges in the last 13 years, with the oldest and youngest in society disproportionately at risk, a new analysis of collision data can reveal.Between 2005 and 2018, 8.6% of the 5,835 pedestrian deaths in England, Scotland and Wales occurred on pavements, the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy, a new academic think tank, has found. The majority (542) involved motor vehicles, with six pedestrian-cycle footway collisions.The research uncovered examples of some of the most dangerous driving on Britain’s roads over the past 15 years, as well as momentary lapses by drivers, both with tragic consequences.Analysis of historic STATS19 data, a road traffic collision form used by police to log crashes, found most fatal collisions on pavements took place in fine weather, on well-lit streets, with no hazards on the road. Most were clustered in built-up areas on urban roads, some on rural roads, with people walking on verges.In 2017 Richard Frost embarked on an 18-hour drug-taking binge before a prolonged bout of dangerous driving in Cambridgeshire, travelling at up to 117mph, using laybys and hard shoulders to undertake, as well as overtaking into oncoming traffic. Mr Frost hit 19-year-old Thomas Fletcher and Thomas Northam, 22, from behind on a verge on the opposite side of the road, killing them both. Mr Frost drove another 50m along the verge, before abandoning the car in a field and fleeing with £72,000 of stolen money in a briefcase. Police found him that night asleep at his mother’s home. Although police described it as the worst driving they have seen, or will probably ever see, Mr Frost will likely drive again, receiving a ban of just 11 years and 7 months, as well as a prison sentence of 12 years and one month1.In Birmingham a nurse, Gaynor Thomas, fell asleep at the wheel for a moment, ploughing into father of eight, Dahir Yasin Mohammed, at 38mph, crushing him between his parked car and a tree outside the family home, killing him instantly. His wife and some of his children found him, and tried to resuscitate him. Childhood sweethearts, he and his wife had moved from Somalia to the UK in the hope of a better life. Thomas was banned from driving for three years2.The oldest and youngest in society are disproportionately affected by drivers on pavements, with 28.1% of pedestrian deaths of under-fives occurring on pavements. Five-year-old Lennon Tolland was killed in 2016 by a van driver who mounted the pavement near his school in Glasgow to access an ‘unofficial’ entrance to a makeshift car park. The boy, who had run ahead of his father, died at the scene. The family say they lost all faith in the criminal justice system after the Crown Counsel in Scotland concluded, two years later, there should be no criminal proceedings3.A van driver ushered four-year-old Esme Weir and her pregnant mum across the road in Liverpool in 2016, before mounting the pavement to park, killing Esme. The driver said he didn’t see Esme, and was cleared of any wrongdoing4.The highest number of pedestrian fatalities, 104, was among those over age 75. Young people were next highest, with 77 16-25 year-olds killed on pavements. The age groups 46-55 and 56-65 saw 150 pavement fatalities.Donald Sharpe was 89 when 24-year-old Sian Phelps reversed her Land Rover Discovery Sport out of her drive across the pavement, hitting and then reversing over him, only stopping when she drove forward 10 metres and saw other motorists gesticulating at her and sounding a horn. She had checked her mirrors and looked both ways but didn’t see Sharpe, she says. Mr Sharpe, a well-loved man known for helping others, died six days later in hospital. Sian Phelps was cleared by a jury of causing death by dangerous driving5.Young drivers aged under 35 were overrepresented in collisions. Males are far more likely to be killed as pedestrians on our roads than females – in 15 years 3,902 male pedestrians were killed, compared with 1,943 females – however pavement fatalities were split evenly between genders, with 273 males and 275 females killed in 15 years.The research found road and weather conditions were unlikely to be a factor in most collisions. Almost three quarters (395) of fatal crashes where drivers hit pedestrians on pavements occurred in daylight, a further 128 in darkness but on lit streets. Most were on dry roads (391), and on fine days with no winds (479). Three quarters were in 30mph zones.71% (391) of collisions involved just one vehicle but 97 involved two vehicles, some of them parked cars. 283 collisions resulted in one pedestrian death, but a quarter of collisions killed two people.One crash caused 21 pedestrian casualties, including the death of one 16-year-old girl, when a young man, Ben Gemmell, was driving at 47mph in a 30mph zone in Southend on Sea, and swerved at a group of 30 school children he recognised, to frighten them. He lost control of the vehicle and ploughed into the group. One boy was in a coma for five months and had to learn to walk again6.  Friends of 16-year-old Lisa Jermy, who died that day, produced a video trying to encourage safer driving7. Gemmell was jailed for six years for causing death by dangerous driving, and banned from driving for ten years.None of the examples examined so far has resulted in a lifetime driving ban, and the research arguably raises questions around driving bans. In a report released last year RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash victims, found driving bans have dropped by 54% since 2008, with 70% of bans for drink or drug driving. Just five lifetime driving bans were given in 2018.Victoria Lebrec, Campaign Coordinator for RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash victims, said: “It’s hard to comprehend how a driver who kills someone who is walking on the pavement does not receive a lifetime ban. However the reality is that if a driver is convicted of death by dangerous driving, this rarely happens.“In fact the mandatory driving ban for dangerous driving is only two years. RoadPeace believes that driving bans are a punishment that truly fit the crime. Families who are bereaved cannot understand how the person who killed their loved one is allowed back on the road in such a short time.”Dr. Rachel Aldred, Director of the Active Travel Academy, said: “We want more people to walk: walking is healthy, it gives life to our towns and cities, and helps keep other people safe. Project Pedestrian highlights the need to do more to protect people on foot. Pavements are meant to be safe space for walking, yet one person is killed by a driver on average every week while on a footway or verge.”Tanya Braun, Head of Policy and Communications, Living Streets said: “The number of pedestrians who lose their lives on our roads each year is too often over-looked even though we all use our streets; we are all pedestrians at some point.“We need to see many more measures which protect pedestrians, particularly the most vulnerable groups, like children and older adults, where we have seen increases in pedestrian fatalities in recent years. Lower speed limits in urban areas, more time to cross at light-controlled crossings, better street maintenance and constraints on pavement parking will keep people walking safe. Last year we won a revision of the Highway Code to make our roads safer for people walking and cycling. These changes can’t come soon enough.“However, that isn’t the whole story. The current justice system is simply not an effective deterrent to dangerous behaviour. We need an urgent review of how the justice system deals with mistakes, carelessness, reck-lessness and deliberately dangerous behaviour by all road users.” The research was carried out as part of Project Pedestrian, a year-long collaboration started in January 2020, between the Active Travel Academy and journalist Laura Laker, investigating pedestrian safety on the roads. Throughout the year research and analysis will reveal where and why pedestrians are at risk, and what some of the solutions are. The aim of the project is not to scare people off walking but to raise awareness and seek a way to safer roads.

Paul Campbell ● 1818d

They are not my stories Michael. Click on the link in the post. They are from RoadPeace. I do find it interesting how you fixate on one of their stories as the one you consider to be most outlandish and ignore and try to airbrush out of your argument the commonplace stories about inattentive drivers killing small children and pensioners and the statistics which are that 50 pedestrians are killed every year off roads by drivers.What you miss with your spurious argument about perception is that legislators, decision-makers, traffic engineers and law enforcers don't care about your misplaced and irrational fears or your mistaken belief that they are universal and you are some sort of Everyman. They care about the facts and the reality which is that cars are many orders of magnitude more dangerous to people off roads than bikes. Most of these people are also not sociopaths so they are interested in the stories highlighted by RoadPeace, do not consider them to be "little" and agree with the safety campaigners that more needs to be done to prevent four year olds being killed when they are on the pavement with their Mum. And that is why they keep doing and will continue to keep doing lots of things that enable more cycling and limit the ability of drivers to maim and kill.There is no credible lobby group effectively campaigning for society to prioritise bikes as the primary danger on and off Britain's roads. For good reason. Nobody would listen.Wilful ignorance of reality results in continual frustration, hostility to schemes that deal with the danger of cars and their supporters and a general sense of bewilderment that the world just isn't listening to the common sense views of Everyman. there is a self-help group for these people called OneChiswick.

Paul Campbell ● 1817d

Paul Campbell suggested" What you miss with your spurious argument about perception"" They (legislators) care about the facts and the reality which is that cars are many orders of magnitude more dangerous to people off roads than bikes "So it's your perception, is it Paul that people are far more likely to encounter cars being driven off road in Chiswick than they are bikes ?A straight yes or no answer will do.Peoples' perceptions Paul, are governed by their immediateexperience, not by stories someone happens to find on some website. Very few people if anyone will have memoriesof cars mounting the pavement and mowing down people in Chiswick. Whereas bicycles being ridden along the pavement in a highly aggressive manner, is a commonplace experience for many people.  You see Paul what yourself and your friends fail to grasp is that people simply aren't interested in the kinetic energy generated by cars as against bicyclesand how much extra damage cars can inflict in an accident. Basically such arguments seem to boil dowm to the following  If you're going to get knocked over in an accident its far better to be knocked over by a bicycle than a car as your injuries will not be so serious.When if you thought about it for even ten seconds,you'd realise that most people aren't planning to have any accidents at all, thank you very much All people actually care about is the likelihoodof their themselves being a victim. And most peoples perception, living in Chiswick at least is that the likelihood of their being knocked over and injured by a bicycle far exceeds the infinitessimal possibility of their being killed by a car mounting the pavement.  It really is as simple as that I'm afraid.michael adams   

Michael Adams ● 1817d

Tom Pike explained" The facts, however, haven't changed: on average one pedestrian a week is killed by a car leaving the road "Quite possibly. But not in Chiswick." While for bikes it's one every two years."But nobody is suggesting pedestrians are being killed in similar numbers by bicycles. They're being forced to jump out of the way. That's the whole point !If pedestrians were foolish enough to try and stand their ground in these confrontations you can rest assured that statistics would be rather different That in fact *is" the point. The deafening silence from the cycling lobby when the sad fact is pointed out to them, that directly as a result of *their* making cycling respectable, the bicycle is now the transport of choice for drug dealers, yobs of all ages in fact every anti- social element who takes pleasure in riding on pavementsmaking people's lives a misery. And the response ?Oh no sorry ! We can't talk about them !We only want to talk about cars and these statistics of ours." Underplaying the threat from the former"i.e something which it appears has never occured in Chiswick since the invention of the motor car. Although as always I stand to be corrected on thispoint should a link to verifiable source indicating the contrary be posted.  " while promoting the fear of the latter"A straw man." is not going to make anyone any safer!And neither does hiding behind irrelevant (for Chiswick) statistics in order to deflect attention from the fact that cyclists on pavements pose a constant source of risk and annoyance for pedestrians in Chiswick; at least for the lucky ones who are nimble enough to jump out of the way in timemichael adams

Michael Adams ● 1816d

Tom Pike claimed:" By saying such incidents "are rarely reported, if at all", you were conflating the probability of an event happening with the probability it is reported when it does."I wasn't conflating anything. Whereas whether you may have a problem with your basic English comprehensions skills is something which I'm happy to let others decide for themselves.Thus..." Incidents of cannibalism are rarely reported in the British Press "Are you seriously suggesting that *anyone*, apartfrom yourself apparently, could possibly interprets that as meaning that incidents of cannibalism arein fact commonplace, but are being suppressed by the Press for some reason ?He then went on..." But it is still clear that cars pose a very significantly greater threat to pedestrians on the pavements than bikes, However, the much greater threat to our health and lives is not from collisions with motor vehicles, on or off the road, but from the pollution they produce."Still concentrating on the cars I see. And still no attempt to acknlowledge yet alone address the problem of the antisocial yobbo element which cycling now attracts.I can only repeat the point I made earlier. Years ago all cyclists were treated with respect. This is simplybecause no self-respecting yobboe would be seen deadnear a bicycle; which were seen as being solely thepreserve or poor peopel and eccentrics. Its peoplelike you who with your proslytising who I personally hold resposnsible for opening the floodgates such thatnowadays in some quarters at least people on bicycles are rightly seen as self-righteous pariahs.  As to pollution. Chiswick isn't the Cotswolds. Althoughpeople would like to pretend that it is. Its a surburbon a major transit artery in and out of one of thelargest conurbations in the World. (Well Turnham Green was and is, anyway).michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1815d

Tom Pike explained" No I haven’t, because they very clearly are not!  The probability of a pedestrian being killed by a car on the pavement is low, though still 100 times more than by a bike. The probability of such a death being reported when it does occur is very high,"Except that isn't the question I asked you, is it ?I asked you how often cars mounted pavements and killed pedestrians without that being reported.And you admitted never. "Of course not!"So that the probability of a car mounting a pavementand killing pedestrians is in this instance identical to the probability of that fact being reported in the newspaper.You now admit that... T.P. " The probability of a pedestrian being killed by a car on the pavement is low,"Which is exactly what I said in the post youobjected to M.A." Instances of cars mounting pavements and killing or injuring pedestrians, or driving through suburbanparks are so rare... "And you also now admit that"T.P. The probability of such a death being reported when it does occur is very high "Although it seems you still can't being yourself to admit that the reason why the probability of its being reported is so very high, is exactlyas I explained in my original post. Its rarity Which again you now seem to be agreeing withM.A, " are so rare as to be instantly newsworthy."So that previously, I was contradicting myself to such an extent that you felt impelled to intervene to point out my error. Now you happily admit, that as I said, the probability of a pedestrian being killed by a car on the pavement is low while the probability of such a death being reported is indeed very high,Your qualification "when it does occur", being of course totally superfluous. As nobody has ever suggested, anywhere that there could ever be any credible reason why bogus instances of cars mounting pavements should have been reported in newspapers. So that in your own terms at least, you now seem to have contradicted yourself as well.*All I was actually doing was pointing out the unsuitabilty of Southfield Park for bicycles -as it happens owing to the narrowness of the some of the paths which can't even accommodate social distancing. It was your ideological soul mate Campbell who chose to widen the debatewith images of cars driven by drug crazed teenagers mounting pavements and mowing down pedestrians.While everyone is of course free to post anything they wish, might I humbly suggest that it might be a wise move for people who are seemingly incapable of ever admitting they are in the wrong, toset aside some time for quiet contemplation before deciding to stick their oar in, as it were ?michael adams... 

Michael Adams ● 1811d

Ed Saper" Michael, I was quoting an example of your prejudice against cyclists:"Ye gods. I was simply stating one side of an argument.The fact that people on one side of an argument feel that they're justified in believing what they do, based on evidence which they feel is importantto them, based on their own direct experience.(I.e not on other peoples statistics erc)Thus, they "rightly" feel that... *because" its quite easy to produce evidence suggesting that cyclists are self righteous pariahs - whether such evidence is truly representative *is entirelyanother matter*.Unfortunately Ed, unlike you I don't claim God like powers and so a) I would never claim to have access to all the available evidence on any topic at all. (Much of which often turns out to be contradictory in any case) And so am often loath to state any opinion at all except in the cases of obvious moral outrages.I.e there's usually two sides to any argument. A classic fence sitter/moral coward IOW.b) Thus I don't criticise people on account of any opinions they hold - if people want to argue thatallowing grown adults to ride bicycles in parks is a good idea then fine - but I do feel obligedto point out the disadvantages to other park users c) Similarly if people truly believe that persuadingpeople to ride bicycles in Chiswick is the first step in solving the worlds problems, overpopulation, watershortages, overconsumption, climate change - then fair enough. Just so long as they don't attempt to use this as a justification for inconveniencing other people in the process or as a badge of moral superiority.And before you jump in bicycles aren't any answer to pollution. Simply because *sufficient* numbers of people simply won't be persuaded, at any cost to ride bicycles in the rain after dark. The only answer is efficient public transport probably powered by nuclear generated electricity fundedby increased taxation. Or people simply not moving around so much.So its you first, with that one.michael adams 

Michael Adams ● 1808d

Michael, I am delighted if you wish to clarify that this obnoxious and intolerant comment: "people on bicycles are rightly seen as self-righteous pariahs", was merely stating what some other people think, but not you.On your point (a), yes, there are often at least two points of view in an argument.  However, it doesn't necessarily follow that both points of view are equally valid, particularly if one party has reached a view based on peer reviewed evidence and "facts" while the other has not.These days it seems almost shocking to say that one side can be right and another wrong when everyone is entitled to their own "truth" and that to dismiss a fervently and passionately held view merely because there isn't the evidence (or the evidence points to it being wrong) is intolerant.Indeed, it can be said that someone who holds a view based on evidence that upsets a party without evidence and a contrary view is akin to acting like god - or claiming "God like powers" as you suggested I do.I agree with your assessment as that is how some people feel. Thus, what I perceive to be merely acting rationally, is sometimes interpreted in this blasphemous manner.When it comes to people's actual religious beliefs, I tend not to proffer a rational opinion because I don't wish to offend.  When it comes to bicycles and transport matters, I feel it is more important to advance the progressive interests of society than to respect someone's wish not to be offended.  I believe the above covers the point you made in (b) - I will offer a contrary opinion on transport matters and be critical of other people's opinions if they appear irrational. On the flipside, I am willing to reconsider opinions when evidence is presented.  I don't believe "purity of opinion" is important - even though some on here would immediately criticise inconsistency or such a change as hypocrisy.  I believe that's the strength of opinions derived via rational thought, it provides a framework to relatively easily change your mind.  Regrettably, those who hold irrationally derived opinions find it much harder to accept when they are wrong.  On (c), yes, driving a bit less and walking or cycling more is a "first step" in solving the world's problems.  I do realise you are arguing the opposite and that we need e.g. nuclear powered tubes before anything should be done to encourage more cycling that might disadvantage drivers, and I would say quite simply that you are most likely wrong because the evidence suggests otherwise.I say that quite plainly because (a) I've seen plenty of evidence, (b) I would change my mind if you provided compelling evidence to the contrary, but that (c) you aren't going to present any evidence, you will, if you reply, reiterate your strongly held opinions and likely either (d) try and change the subject and/or bring in irrelevant points or (e) throw in a misaimed insult or two to my intelligence or character, but most likely (f) do both based on your interactions thus far with myself and Professor Pike.

Ed Saper ● 1808d

Still refusing to answer a simple question I see Tom.Anyway, having avoided that question Tom then had another try (but will he be any more successfulthis time ?)  quote:" These are your exact words you posted on 09/11/21 11:23:00."Now you happily admit, that as I said, the probability of a pedestrian being killed by a car on the pavement is low while the probability of such a death being reported is indeed very high"unquoteAnd ? So which or those statements are you claiming is incorrect ?That the probability of a pedestrian being killed by a car on the pavement is low ?Or that the probability of such a death being reported is indeed very high"So which of those statements do you object to as being incorrect ?Yet another question you're going to avoid answering, no doubt.He then went on " It is indeed time to move on as you are now denying having written them."Except I never denied having written them at all, as there's clearly nothing wrong with them.Unfortunately Tom you repeatedly infer from the fact that I don't respond immediately to your spuriousclaims - as I didn't respond immediately to yourludicrous suggestion that I'd somehow contradicted myself, if you remember, that I'm somehow running away. When in fact the opposite is the truth. I first makemy own points confident in the knowledge that you'llcome back with your ridiculous accusations, in a "lap of honour" as it were, and allow me to deal with them in my own time.As with this latest passage which I would never deny posting, given its logical coherence, and assuming that I actually did post it.So that's your entire justification for wanting to "move on" reduced to incoherence. What your *real reason* for wanting to "move on" might be, apart from this seeming inability of yours to answer simple questions*  which may or not be linked to a pathological inability to ever admit that you're in the wrong ( a decided disadvantagein many situations, if you don't mind me saying so) is not for me to judge.  I dropped the hint about people (but not you) becoming "bored" Tom specifically so as to give any of these invisible friends of yours the opportunity to extricate you from the tangle you find yourself in. But no takers by the looks of things. It seems that in this instance, you're about the only person who wants to "move on". So much for all these invisible friends eh ?    * In case you've forgotten what that last question was, here it is again,."You quoted me correctly, as sayingquote:"the probability of a car mounting a pavement and killing pedestrians is in this instance identical to the probability of that fact being reported in the newspaper, which is exactly what I said in the post"and then stated" and is incorrect "unquote:So I can only ask you again Tom *why* is it incorrect ?  And to repeat the questions at the top of this postI postedQUOTE:"Now you happily admit, that as I said, the probability of a pedestrian being killed by a car on the pavement is low while the probability of such a death being reported is indeed very high"UNQUOTE:And ? So which or those statements are you claiming is incorrectThat the probability of a pedestrian being killed by a car on the pavement is low ?Or that the probability of such a death being reported is indeed very high"So which of those statements do you object to as being incorrect ?michael adamsposted at an ungodly hour following an online booster booking ...

Michael Adams ● 1807d

Ed Saperresponded to my question "Please point to any post I've ever made on thisforum *on any topic whatsoever* where I've evermentioned "drivers" or "cars".With ...You mention "cars" in your response to Tom Pike on this thread at 4.02amNo I didn't. Read it again. I was referring to the*probability" of a "car", not "cars" mounting thepavement.I was discussing *probabilities* not cars.Which in that case would have been an *empirical probability* based on actual recoded incidents. Rather than a *conditional probability" - whether or not, *if* having occurred, it would then be reported in a newspaper. Which along with "combined probability", some unfortunate people, apparently not even having had the benefit of "A Level" maths can be inclined to confuse.If you're genuinely interested in why, even people of well above average intelligencecan also become confused, check out the following  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biasesEach of which has separate entry of its own, Thiswhole field was initiated by Daniel Kanehannthe "Thinking Fast Thinking Slow" author. (Alongwith Tversky) As a young psychologist he worked for the Israeli Air Force devising tests for pilots. And discovered that many of them though highly intelligent were making systematic errors in their reasoning. Which he then analysedand realised this wasn't restricted to pilots.Not that knowing about them actually does a person much good as they apparently have survival value and so get over-ridden.       michael adams... 

Michael Adams ● 1806d