Forum Topic

Car accident A316

Car on it’s roof just outside the entrance to Chiswick House opposite St Mary’s convent. Heading towards the flyover. Avoid the area. Fire engines there. Not sure if anyone hurt.

Jean Walkin ● 1524d58 Comments

Traffic seems to be moving in both directions at the flyover but not sure if it is slow moving northbound up to St Mary's Convent.

Chris Lucy ● 1524d

Classic bit of reporting on the front page:"The vehicle was travelling along the A316 when it was flipped over"What mystery external force was exerted on the car to flip it over? Can't have been anything to do with the driver.

Paul Campbell ● 1524d

Don't really understand your point. The causes of the incident are unknown at this stage - there is a whole range of things that could have led to this happening including but not necessarily driver error.

Mark Evans ● 1524d

"Don't really understand your point." No of course you don't.

Paul Campbell ● 1524d

Paul, I don't really understand what your meaning is either. It would help if you explained.If you look closely at the second picture it appears that the railings protecting the entrance to the gardens have been damaged. The point of impact on the car appears to be on the left hand side which suggests it was northbound. It hasn't travelled very far after the collision so speed doesn't appear to have been a factor. There isn't anything unusually dangerous about that particular stretch of road so  the causes could be mechanical failure, tyre blow out or the driver having to swerve to avoid a vehicle approaching at pace in the opposition direction. Driver error is also a possibility but you shouldn't assume that as the other potential reasons could just as easily have put you in this situation. The chap has already had a bad day so no reason to make it worse for him.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1524d

Eh, the driver has been taken to hospital and for all we know he may have life changing injuries or worse.Cheap shots at the driver define the author were as most decent folk first and foremost wish him a full and speedy recovery.

Adrian Irving ● 1524d

I understand Paul's point which is that the passive voice -- 'was flipped over' -- suggests some outside force hit it, like a tornado. Surely the car 'flipped over' -- active voice -- whatever the cause.

Susan Kelly ● 1524d

Paul's point is self-explanatory - anyone driving a car is evil and deserves what they get except him as all his trips are entirely necessary including driving across Europe to go skiing.

Francis Rowe ● 1524d

Knowing Paul I don't think it was a grammatical point that he was making. I've speculated elsewhere that the car was overturned after colliding with the railings so the passive voice may be appropriate but either is arguably correct.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1524d

Precisely Susan. Nice to know there is somebody else with an ear for grammar on here. The addition of the word "was" is unnecessary even to ensure the writer does not confer blame to the driver. It gives the sentence a wrong note. I could go on to say that it betrays over-eagerness and insecurity on behalf of the author to apply belt and braces to ensure no agency could be ascribed to the driver. But not compared to the other responses to this thread it doesn't. Ha ha!

Paul Campbell ● 1524d

That's an extraordinarily convoluted set of conclusions to reach from the inclusion, or otherwise of just one small word. The explanation maybe far simpler and the author's phrasing is down to having closely looked at the photographic evidence and used words that best described likely events.Obviously no agency should be ascribed to the driver until a court confirms any culpability. Most people are going to be pleased that he doesn't appear to be too seriously injured, relieved that nobody else was hurt and will reserve judgement until those qualified to look at these matters have had time to consider the evidence.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1524d

No it is common practice for journalists to choose their words very carefully when describing RTCs to ensure they cannot be accused of ascribing agency to the driver. For obvious reasons. The sentence at question here struck me as a particularly artificial passive voice and I've not seen it phrased like that before. It is more than substituting the word "car" for "driver". It does, absurdly, invoke an external force that flipped the car. And I see no evidence of a tornado, earthquake, Godzilla, the Incredible Hulk, Eleven or a cyclist not wearing hi-viz or a helmet. It looks like somebody was trying too hard. And then some others took it even further.

Paul Campbell ● 1524d

With all due respect Paul, that is complete nonsense and a strange thing to obsess about given the circumstances. The evidence suggests the car WAS flipped over after colliding with the railings. Obviously, nobody thinks the railings did this deliberately. You seemed relentlessly determined to see something here that doesn't exist although quite what is unclear.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1524d

I'm not obsessing over it. I pointed it out as a strange phrase and you and some others are eager to make a big deal out of it for some reason. I couldn't possibly imagine why. It's hard to put my finger on what you, Mark, Adrian and Francis have in common .......On another related topic: as you are keen to continue to speculate on the events despite repeatedly stating that it would be wrong to do so until an investigation is complete, what if the car was already inverted when it struck the railings before coming to a stop on the pavement? Elaborate on that ......

Paul Campbell ● 1524d

You make a fair point in your second paragraph. I hesitated to comment on this story until I saw the update in which it was confirmed there was no fatality or serious injury. When I did respond it was only to speculate on the dynamics of the collision rather than apportioning any blame. Adrian and Mark seem to be concerned that you were over eager to blame the driver, a view with which I would concur and why I felt the need to comment. Francis was just taking the chance to have a dig at you over your ski trip. We are not in a conspiracy against you.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1524d

I think we should all be glad that the car didn’t land on a pedestrian. It does demonstrate why mandatory pedestrian safety helmets are essential, especially for the at risk over 75s.

Ed Saper ● 1524d

Strange, this is near enough the same place of the Motor cycle collision http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conaccident160.htm

Bernard Allen ● 1524d

We should be glad that the car was not flipped onto a pedestrian Ed. Because then the inquiry would have to begin into whether they were wearing hi-viz, a helmet, front and rear lights and were carrying a large bell to warn drivers of their presence.Also lucky Chiswick House doesn't open till 7am.How obscene it would have been for me or anybody else to have speculated that the driver could have driven over the 30mph limit* into the bend, lost control, over-corrected, flipped it, skidded along the road on the roof, crossed the cycle lane on the roof, crashed into the railings before mounting the pavement and coming to a stop some way along it against the wall. Lucky I didn't or imagine how many other forum Umarells I'd have triggered. Far more important that we studiously avoid confronting the possibility of that kind of danger being caused by humans on our roads, cycle lanes and pavements and instead police any language that doesn't adhere to or exceed the rules of engagement while simultaneously inverting these rules when discussing agency of other road users in road danger. *Half of drivers speed in 30mph zones on weekdays. 55% on weekend. Not as bad as the 87% who speed in 20mph zones. https://www.roadsafetyknowledgecentre.org.uk/vehicle-speed-compliance-statistics-for-great-britain-2021/

Paul Campbell ● 1524d

Don't understand Campbell either but that's par for the course.  His posts are nasty, contemptuous, arrogant and full of lies.

Claire Moran ● 1524d

Pedestrian safety helmets? Wtf? Please explain less I jump to the wrong conclusion but my mind is already boggling, unless it was a feeble attempt at humour.

Claire Moran ● 1524d

CM: "[Paul Campbell's] posts are nasty, contemptuous, arrogant and full of lies."That's a bit rich coming from someone who accused me of "hating women", merely because I happened to disagree, in entirely moderate terms, with a female poster with whom she (CM) agreed.Then showed a complete lack of integrity or good manners in repeatedly refusing either to produce some sort of evidence - impossible - or retract. (I've long since given up on an apology)"Physician heal thyself?"

Richard Cathcart ● 1524d

Au contraire Claire - pedestrians are 40% more likely to suffer a traumatic head injury than a cyclist according to a French study:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457505001363The Danish launched a campaign - "a walking helmet is a good helmet" back in 2009:http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08/walking-helmet-is-good-helmet.htmlIt is about time pedestrians took responsibility for their own safety on the pavements and not rely on everyone else looking out for them.

Ed Saper ● 1524d

I passed it at around 7am this morning and it looked like it had just happened. I couldn’t understand how the vehicle was in that position at that point of the road. Luckily both the driver and passenger were sitting looking quite shell shocked on the curve, but they didn’t have any obvious injuries (it was hard to be sure as I was driving) . A kind person had stopped was giving them water.

Nora Watkins ● 1524d

You're a lost case with your malevolent posts Cathcart.

Claire Moran ● 1524d

Err, no. We aren't going to wear helmets just to walk along a street. Maybe pedestrians should also wear armour body plating?  Just ridiculous. Those who might harm us are the ones to be constrained. How about removing the cycle lanes and putting it back to being a pavement?  The number of cars who mount a pavement and cause injury to pedestrians is tiny.

Claire Moran ● 1524d

CM: "You're a lost case with your malevolent posts Cathcart."RC: So then, first Misogynist, now Malevolent.As I said earlier, had you any integrity, or even common good manners, you would either produce some evidence, or retract.The fact that you do neither says infinitely more about you than your insults do about me.

Richard Cathcart ● 1524d

Insults from some people are badges of honour Richard. I'd advise wearing them with pride.

Paul Campbell ● 1524d

Westminister’s Active Travel Project found that between 2005 and 2018, 548 pedestrians on pavements were killed by vehicles. That is, about 40 people a year. And of that 548, just 6 were killed by cyclists.https://www.roadpeace.org/pedestrian-pavement-deaths-2/

Tom Pike ● 1524d

There's around 500 pedestrian deaths per year - as Tom points out, 40 or so on the pavement.The largest proportion of pedestrian deaths are the elderly - so is it really too much to ask them to wear a helmet or hi-vis clothing for their own safety and those of other road users?

Ed Saper ● 1524d

This thread has got progressively more insane. I made one brief comment and Paul Campbell implies I am a bit dim and then people are forced to deny I am part of a cabal. That was a poor start but now we are on helmets for pedestrians.I went past the site of the accident yesterday. There is no denying there is a problem here as this was the second incident in less than a month.Part of the issue may be due to the south bound cycle lane. It starts just at the point where this accident occurred and would tend to cause southbound traffic to move towards the centre of the road. With penalty charge enforcement of cycle lanes on TfL's red routes some drivers may be overcompensating and steering away from it.I use the northbound lane sometimes and, because it is only painted, it offers little protection other that to alert drivers and pedestrians to look out for cyclists. The southbound lane is worse than useless. The only access point from its start would be via Hogarth Roundabout and then it exposes cyclists to dooring by guiding them to ride close to parked cars. If you elect not to, you find that drivers will close pass you feeling entitled to do so because you are not in your designated lane.TfL probably installed this lane to meet a target for cycle lane mileage but it benefits nobody and may be dangerous for both cyclists and motorists and it should be taken out.

Mark Evans ● 1523d

Well Mark Evans has clearly disproved any implication that he is “a bit dim”.Determining that the car flipped over because of a painted white line on the other side of the road is a work of genius.

Michael Robinson ● 1523d

Thanks Michael, although it is a bit disconcerting to go from the suggestion that I am mentally deficient to being hailed as a genius.Actually, you give me too much credit because I never determined anything and didn't even mention the car flipping over. This is because I have no idea why this happened.The cycle lane was just a painted white line until recently but with TfL now enforcing cycle lane incursions it has become much more impactful. I'm not even sure if this section of road is a TfL red route but that doesn't matter because most drivers won't be sure either and will err on the side of caution. This may tend to make them veer towards the centre of the road while accelerating out of a bed. This is just a theory based on one observation of the way traffic behaves at this point while cycling past. It may be a simple coincidence that two accidents have occurred here shortly after the cycle lane enforcement was announced.While I am not convinced I'm right on this point I am firmly of the view that the southbound cycle lane is bad design and should go. Happy to hear any counter arguments you may have.

Mark Evans ● 1523d

"I am firmly of the view that the southbound cycle lane is bad design and should go."A narrow painted white line within the door "murder zone" which vehicles can veer into or park in are the preferred type of cycle lane provision in Chiswick.However, if this cycle lane is shown to be unsafe to car drivers, then of course it should go. 

Ed Saper ● 1523d

It is an interesting theory that driver anxiety induced by fear of being fined for doing something illegal could have been the causes of a car flipping over and a car and motorcycle colliding  so the solution is to remove a painted bike line.  Maybe its just me but I don't think this will happen.

Michael Robinson ● 1523d

Paul Campbell " Insults from some people are badges of honour Richard. I'd advise wearing them with pride. "Hence the need for the ankle length overcoat.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1523d

We don't know what happened.However, I don't know why there aren't more lower and enforced speed limits.  We had these during the fuel crisis years back.  We now have another emergency.For drivers used to nose-to-tail traffic a clear road tempts more speed.  So it seems does the race to get away from the lights and through lights.  It's interesting how there are crossing lights with countdowns for pedestrians to try to discourage them from crossing when the lights are about change.  Just as well there are some crossings where for pedestrians it is like crossing in front of the start of an F1 race.

Philippa Bond ● 1523d

Michael, you are mispresenting Mark's point somewhat. His main argument for the removal of the cycle lane is that it is a bad design and it is notable that you don't take up his invitation to defend it.I think his point about changes in driver behaviour is credible. Professional drivers, including those in the private hire vehicle will have started getting fines if the cycle lane restrictions are being enforced. There probably isn't any enforcement at this particular spot but drivers won't take chances. You should really be hailing this as good news. If the measure is encouraging drivers to steer clear of cycle lanes, it will make a difference to the safety of cyclists. That it may have other less positive impacts does make it a good idea to have a look at junctions like the one where these accidents are occurring.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1523d

I think we have definitely reached "peak chiswickw4 forum" when a car doing a somersault ending up on the pavement leads to calls for a bike lane to be removed because drivers might be nervous about being fined for doing something illegal.Just a reminder about how pointless most discussion is in this forum and I really shouldn't bother with it.

Michael Robinson ● 1523d

"I think we have definitely reached "peak chiswickw4 forum" Step forward Mr Saper,you have won the end of the year forum award for the most stupid idea ever in advance. Helmets for pedestrians? ha,you clown

Julian Pavey ● 1523d

I just think traffic could and should be slowed right down on that road. Then everybody would have more time and turning across or into or out of it could be made much easier.  Seeing lights in your favour at a distance is an encouragement to get through them and with so much self obsession not enough consideration is taken of others on the road.

Philippa Bond ● 1523d

Julian, this forum often becomes a parody unintentionally. In this case, I think the parody is intentional.

Michael Robinson ● 1523d

I agree its intentional but its so silly it deserves an award for it being silly.

Julian Pavey ● 1523d

Julian, I'd like to thank you for the silliness award for my contribution to this debate that old people should be forced to wear helmets and high viz to protect themselves from traffic.  However, I cannot accept, as while my points were stupid and silly, they are not on the same scale as "driver spooked by unexpected cycle lane somersaults car, so let's rip out cycle lane". Next time someone demands that cycle helmets should be mandatory while simultaneously calling for ripping out cycle lanes that segregate cyclists from HGVs, I shall remember your views that blaming the victims of road accidents for not having sufficient safety equipment that wouldn't have protected them anyway was award winningly silly :-)

Ed Saper ● 1523d

"driver spooked by unexpected cycle lane somersaults car" Ooh,who said that one,i cant be reading all these blooming car cycle posts. That person gets a silly award to boot

Julian Pavey ● 1523d

Not just that - but an overturned car on the pavement should be hailed as a positive development for cyclist safety because it shows drivers are serious about avoiding fines for entering them.Yep, someone said that :-)

Ed Saper ● 1523d

Michael, you are deliberately misrepresenting the points I made in an effort to avoid having to address them. Then, as so often when you are challenged and don't have a coherent response, you become childishly insulting.The southbound cycle lane on the A316 between Cavendish Road is definitely badly designed and of no assistance to cyclists, rather it increases their risk in my view. I invited you to make a case for it or at least explain why my view of it is wrong but you just appear to have become upset that I have even raised the question.It is a bad design but that was the case before these recent accidents. There isn't any need to conflate the two.I am far from sure that enforcement of cycle lane restrictions is leading to vehicles moving towards the centre of the road at this point in the A316 and therefore being a contributory factor in the recent collisions. I'm just pointing out the coincidence in timing but I know nothing of the circumstances of the accidents other than what has been reported. If you told me it was a long shot, I wouldn't argue with you but please give up with the silly misrepresentation. If it is correct then taking out the cycle lane would mitigate the problem and reduce the risk of further accidents. If it is not correct then taking out the cycle lane would be no loss to anyone.

Mark Evans ● 1523d

Mark, if you think I am in anyway obliged to answer your questions even if I know the answer then I suggest you reset your expectations.  Don't you think it is arrogant to demand that someone answers your questions? You don't need to answer that by the way.While I am not claiming to be wise, I am sure you have heard the expression about "The Greatest Fool May Ask More Than The Wisest Man Can Answer" Let's face it, you have made a fool of yourself with your ridiculous linking of a bike lane on the other side of the road with a car doing a summersault.

Michael Robinson ● 1523d

Sigh

Mark Evans ● 1523d

To be clear, everyone's got their knickers in a twist because nobody knows why what happened happened.To be clear, cycle advocates have doubled down because someone mentioned cycling infrastructure and/or a cyclist (or several) may have played a part. Seeing that they use the road, it is entirely plausible.

David Lesniak ● 1523d

Ed, I presume you are (mis)quoting me. What you have done is a very spiteful and juvenile misrepresentation of what I actually said. I've copied it below just in case any fair-minded person is in any doubt that you are being mendacious."If the measure is encouraging drivers to steer clear of cycle lanes, it will make a difference to the safety of cyclists. That it may have other less positive impacts does make it a good idea to have a look at junctions like the one where these accidents are occurring."To give context the measure I am referring to is the enforcement of infringement on cycle lanes on TfL red routes in the same way as bus lanes are protected. No person, other than someone who intends malice could claim I believe it is good news that this accident occurred. Perhaps you misread my post and didn't properly understand it, in which case an apology would be in order. Failing that, I can do little but have a low opinion of you.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1523d

Mark, it may just be occurring to you that your even handed investigation into what happened without any real information to go on, which led to you blaming the cycle lane and calling for it to be removed has not got the reception you expected.In everyone's determination to preemptively not blame the driver for rolling his car onto the pavement, the consensus is that cyclists had something to do with it.Someone posted a similar theory the other day when a car and motorcyclist clashed on CHR - blaming the cycle lane on the other side of the road as the road layout changes must have over extended their mental capacity to avoid other vehicles.  This is like a mass school shooting where the gun lobby blames too many doors.  Except, since no-one died or was seriously hurt, this one is actually funny.

Ed Saper ● 1523d

Your quote missed the good bit at the start, Jeremy - about "hailing" the somersaulted car as "good news" because it showed drivers were serious about avoiding cycle lanes!"You should really be hailing this as good news. If the measure is encouraging drivers to steer clear of cycle lanes, it will make a difference to the safety of cyclists."I see I've touched a nerve Jeremy - I'll put on my pedestrian helmet now as you'll be calling me a racist or misogynist in a sec, which of course is not juvenile, malicious or spiteful!

Ed Saper ● 1523d

"In everyone's determination to preemptively not blame the driver for rolling his car onto the pavement"Yes this is the cause of all of the absurdity of this thread. As well as the total vacuum where other people have a sense of humour. The knots they have tied themselves in. Hilarious.

Paul Campbell ● 1523d

I'm pretty sure the driver was swerving to avoid a moose.It's a fairly regular occurrence on the the 316 going past the Chiswick House gardens.

Will Watson ● 1523d

Don't be silly Will. Moose don't or won't ride bikes.

Paul Campbell ● 1523d

Only the Militant Cycling Lobby could find a car accident “Hilarious”

Russell Pearson ● 1523d

"Just a reminder about how pointless most discussion is in this forum and I really shouldn't bother with it."And this is where I respectfully disagree with Michael. There is nowhere else you can be guaranteed to trigger this level of theatrical pearl-clutching from increasingly desperate grown men.

Paul Campbell ● 1523d

My memory fails me as to exactly where I read it, but I recall reading several members of the car driving fraternity thinking the idea of someone throwing a load of tacks on the roads when they were due to be closed for a cycling event 'hilarious'.I don't think it was on this forum.

Andrew Jones ● 1523d