Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Fatal Road Accident adjacent to St Mary's Tower, Hornsey High Street
From Metpol - "Police were called at approximately 17:10hrs on Thursday, 27 December to reports of a van in collision with a pedestrian on High Street in Hornsey.The woman, 55, was taken to an east London hospital for treatment but she died there on Saturday, 29 December. Detectives from the Roads and Transport Policing Command would like to speak with anyone who witnessed the collision or who may have dash cam footage. Anyone with information is asked to call the Serious Collision Investigation Unit at Alperton on 020 8991 9555.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
collide, collision Hmm ???
I'm always puzzled by police reports of a car/van/bus/lorry colliding or in collision with a tree, lamppost, wall - or even pedestrian, dog, cat etc. The Latin prefix com/cum/col/con suggests an equality of participation, agency, movement, force from opposite directions. My guess is that the English usage carries the same suggestion of equality of fault. I think it unlikely that a 55-year old woman pedestrian was proceeding at speed along the Hornsey High Street carriageway opposing the progress of an oncoming van. Metpol should choose its verbs and nouns more carefully, to avoid prejudging equality of fault between a middle-aged pedestrian and an old, middle-aged or new van-with-man
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I completely agree OAE.
Note also the complete omission of the driver from this report as though a van was hurtling down a road fast enough to kill someone all by itself with no one at the wheel.
This is a sad and terrible thing for the family. My heart goes out to them.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
The usual anti-driver prejudice here. We don't yet know the details of what happened. It is entirely possible for someone to be killed with no fault on either side.
It's not only the Met who need to choose their words carefully - OAE introduces the concept of fault where there may have been none: Liz assumes that the van was " hurtling ".
Let's wait until more information emerges before rushing to judgement.
-
-
Not anti-driver but anti the reporting of road deaths as though there is no one in the seat of vehicles or that there is parity between a human body and tons of metal.
A person driving a vehicle ran down a pedestrian in the street is an accurate representation of the facts that doesn’t assume fault but does make it clear that humans cause death not vehicles.
As far as I’m aware humans are more likely to survive a car hitting them if the driver is going at 20mph rather than 30mph which is why the speed limit on most Haringey roads with some exceptions is 20mph. I think you rather miss my point if you pick up on the word hurtling rather than the absent driver reporting style, but yes I will assume speed if someone is driving fast enough to cause a fatality particularly as the crash appears to have happened by a crossing if the picture is anything to go by?
-
Permalink Reply by Rebecca Thomas on
-
In fairness, the amount of pedestrians who simply walk out into the road without looking in this area is staggering. I’m not suggesting that’s what happened here in what was clearly a horrifically sad accident. But it is worth remembering that sometimes pedestrians ARE partially to blame too.
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
And so, they die. But here's the killer for you, and something that I have discovered only recently: in the United Kingdom pedestrians have the same rights to the road as motorists and cyclists. They have seven minutes to pick up their split bag of oranges that are rolling all over the road before they're causing an obstruction too so sit on your horn all your like.
I will also bet you a thousand pounds that the motorist in this case was doing more than 20mph (i.e. speeding, breaking the law, driving dangerously) and that the pedestrian committed no more error than the average motorist hitting a cyclist (sorry mate, I didn't see you).
-
-
Of course they have the same rights and I appreciate that if they’re in the road already it’s their right of way. But I do wish people would look before they just arrogantly step out and cause cars to brake. It’s like they have a death wish - they’re particularly bad on Wood Green high street at doing this - assuming often that there are zebra crossings when there aren’t.
-
-
If they have a death wish, they'll step out in front of a train, not a car.
As for "cause cars to brake", allow me to have no sympathy for the poor little motor car driver because they had to move their foot to another pedal and brake for a person in the road. Oh the horror!
-
-
Oh for Christ’s sake. You’re clearly missing the point I’m making. It is quite clear that you don’t drive yourself - and are indeed probably one of those arrogant idiots that I’m talking about. (Not suggesting this poor woman was though by any stretch)
-
-
I've been driving since I was 15 because my father was a car dealer. The point is, as motorists and pedestrians have the same rights to the road under law (including 7 minutes to get out of the way), who is responsible for halting? You say "the person with the most to lose" and so do most people, I say "hang on a minute".
-
-
Well OK, John, let's omit the "fault" word. At least we now know from MPSHaringey that the van had a driver, not just a SatNav. The fact that the Metpol unit for information is officially named "Serious Collision Inv Unit" confirms my main point which was that the Met generally are in need of serious Latin Lessons. I have already applied.
I am reminded that I adopted the 'Old-Age Emporium' moniker several years ago following some (possibly driver-led) comments here about silly old pedestrian fools crossing Green Lanes. Time to revive my original purpose. Any pedestrian over 50 deserves OAE's empathetic concern.
Thanks to EMC2 for the information about Tracey and the very laudable funding campaign.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
