Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
All this talk of Traffic.....what is Haringey's casualty rate improvement record? NOT GOOD
See the table below from TfL. It showa that in the last year for which there are complete records Haringey is only one of four outer London Boroughs where road casulaties increased over the previous year - or put another way it's record on casualty imrpovement is in the bottom 20%.
It comes 12th out of 20 on terms of the number of accidents.
It comes 12th out of 20 on terms of the number of accidents.
Tags for Forum Posts: Wightman Road, accidents, casualties, road safety, tfl, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Alison P on
-
The cycling figures are particularly interesting - a 24% increase in accidents involving cyclists. I'm sure this is almost entirely due to an increase in cyclists, but it does show that cycling provision in Haringey isn't exactly fantastic. Compare Haringey with Hackney for eg - no massive rise there. Or Islington ...
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
> .... cycling provision in Haringey isn't exactly fantastic.
That's being kind. It's laughable. Appalling even.
-
Permalink Reply by alistairj on
-
The percentage change for Islington cycling casualties (-0.1%) looks good, but I find it surprising that the number of Islington casualties was more than twice that of Haringey for the year. Are there that many more 'miles cycled' in Islington than Haringey or, perish the thought, might be relatively safer to cycle in Haringey than Islington?
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
No idea, but there certainly looks to be a difference between the inner and outer London boroughs in terms of absolute numbers.
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on
-
Can I just throw in a probably very unpopular comment here, and say that some of it might actually be down to some cyclists' downright moronic actions in traffic? I drive to work ever day (yeah, yeah, I know, but work is in the a** end of nowhere), and the amount of absolutely retarded cycling I see every day is terrifying. Down Green Lanes on one wheel, cycling whilst on mobile, cutting cars up without even looking, trying to pass a turning car on the inside, the list is endless...
And Alison, I know you're one of the safe ones. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Eddie Finnegan on
-
Anette, "absolutely retarded cycling" is devoutly to be wished for. We've been trying to retard Wightman Road 4-wheeled vehicles (even small neat green ones) and pavement bicyclists and unicyclists for years with no result. Absolutely!
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
My life is in danger every time I get on my bike. You might get a dent or a scratch if something goes wrong but I am pumped up to the nines looking out for the next deadly manouvre to be pulled by a car. The number of "SMDSYs" that happen to me are an indicator that one day I WILL be knocked off my bike and I will have potentially very serious injuries. Just think how you'll feel if you DO hit me and I was; talking on my cellphone, listening to my iPod, cutting you up, passing you on the inside or just plain not looking out for you. I don't care what kind of ratbag you might think I am, you will feel crappy. I don't want you to feel crappy Anette.
Recent history has given cars priority on the road, there was no vote, no referendum, nothing. The tax drivers pay is for big motorways, streets in London are maintained by our council tax. I have as much, if not more right to my bit of the road than any driver does because I do not pollute.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
I see both sides here.
On the one hand, I get sick to death of crossing a road with two little kids only to have some goon on a mountain bike looming up having totally ignored the lights and carrying on regardless. A grown man on a bike is going to do a lot of damage to a little girl, the degree hardly matters. I have always thought that cyclists and pedestrians were on the same side against the 'evil motor car', but to be honest I just seem like an easy target and all I usually get for heart failure is a snarl, an apologetic smile if I'm lucky.
On the other hand, my husband is a cyclist who has been knocked off his bike twice by idiot motorists and their car doors or inability to spot a cyclist as they turn and once he was punched off his bike by a moron (yes in a hood) who broke his nose and then came back for more. Had not loads of people stopped to help god only knows what the psycopath would have done. Everytime he is late home I am on edge, so I completely understand why cyclists should feel vulnerable because they are.
It is, of course, time for the government to put their money where their mouth is and design roads like those in Holland and Germany where cycle lanes are the norm, everyone uses them safely away from motorists and pedestrians like Eddie and I are not competing for space.
-
-
Going through red lights is wrong. I don't do it.
Pedestrians on Green Lanes in the evening can be a hazard, they step off not realising that you are coming.
-
-
John, I hear you, and I understand. There are many, many idiot drivers out there, who seem to want to deliberately hit cyclists. I feel it in my little car too, they're gunning for me, as I am small, weird, green, and female. That said, I think it's about time someone campaigned for sensible cycling too. Like I said, I see the most horrendous examples every day. Shooting red lights is one, trying to injure pedestrians is another. And then there's a million other little things. Two people next to each other, chatting, holding everyone else up and causing danger? Yep, seen it. Cycling with no hands? Seen it? Shootiong red lights with no hands? Check. Bombing up behind me in the middle of a turn, trying to undertake me? Yep, common. And really, really stupid and dangerous.
It seems to me that a lot of cyclists lack a fundamental understanding and ability to read traffic, and they're the dangerous ones.
I would suggest a basic course to be allowed to cycle in traffic, and also that cyclists has to wear a vest with their individual license number. That should stop the red light offenders. Cyclists can get away with murder, as there's no way they can be identified. Nor are they insured. So if some moron damages my car, who's paying? Not him, I'm guessing.
That said, I fully support sensible cyclists, and completely see the need for decent cycle lanes, preferably ones a tad wider than the length of my arm..
Oh, and where there are good cycle lanes, guess what?? Half the time cyclists DON'T USE THEM!
I have a feeling I have veered slightly off topic here...
-
-
You are NOT going to push me off the road and into one of those sh1tty cycle lanes. I'm one of the people that don't use them, especially if I see a car parked in them up ahead. They go nowhere. How would you feel if you HAD to use a road that could just end at some point?
If your car gets damaged by a cyclist, chances are the cyclist is pretty damaged too. I do not use my body to damage your car.
I've ripped this off of the CTC website. I suggest they (Adam!) not publish stuff in word documents!
CTC – the UK’s national cyclists’ organisation
5th September 2006
Livingstone’s ‘Share the Road’ campaign is based on myths not facts, says CTC
Transport for London’s (TfL) month-long “Share the Road” campaign, launched yesterday to encourage road users to show mutual respect, is based on myths rather than facts about the risks about the dangers posed by errant drivers and cyclists respectively, according to CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation.
Figures released by Transport for London yesterday, covering the years 2001-05, show that a pedestrian in London is over 100 times more likely to be injured in collision with a motor vehicle than a cycle. During that period there has been no upward trend in the number of London pedestrians being injured in collision with cycles, despite a 72% increase in cycle use on London’s main roads.
The figures show that, in London during the period 2001-05:
There were 101 times as many reported pedestrian injuries due to collisions with motor vehicles than with pedal cycles (there were 34,791 pedestrian injuries involving motor vehicles, compared with 331 involving cycles).
Motor vehicles were involved in 126 times as many fatal and serious pedestrian injuries as cycles (there were 7,447 fatal and serious injuries involving motor vehicles compared with 59 involving cycles).
534 pedestrians were killed in collisions with motor vehicles, compared with just one killed in collision with a cycle. That one fatal collision with a cycle occurred neither on a pavement nor a pedestrian crossing point.
Even on the pavement, there were 2,197 reported pedestrian injuries arising from collisions with motor vehicles, including 17 fatalities. These injuries outnumbered those involving cycles by a factor of 42 to 1.
The total number of reported pedestrian injuries in London due to collisions with cyclists on pavements was just 65 in the year 2001, and 69 in 2005. In the meantime, the figure went down, up and back down again, showing no clear overall trend. This was despite a 72% increase in cycle use over the period.
On average just under 18% of cyclists ran red lights, whereas over a third of motorists encroached into cyclists’ “Advance Stop Lines” (cycle boxes at traffic lights).
CTC supports the principle of sharing the road and agree that all road users, drivers and cyclists alike, have a duty to show respect for the rules of the road and one another’s safety. CTC also wholeheartedly welcomes any sustained effort devoted to greater traffic policing – cyclists, like pedestrians, are far more likely to be the victims rather than perpetrators of dangerous behaviour on the roads.
However, CTC is concerned that TfL’s media campaign has focused on red light jumping and drivers’ violation of advance stop lines (ASL’s). Whilst agreeing that these issues cause irritation and need to be addressed, CTC feels that the attention given to them serves only to distract from the much greater dangers caused by drivers who speed, use mobile phones or who drive while drunk or under the influence of drugs. The failure to do so is likely to be counter-productive for several reasons. Firstly, the anti-cyclist headlines arising from the campaign are likely to reinforce the attitudes of the minority of drivers who think that any cyclist, law-abiding or otherwise, is fair game for a bit of aggression. This in turn is likely to put people off cycling, thereby undermining the Mayor’s objectives to maximise the health, environmental and other benefits of cycling. Finally, the “stop at red” message is unlikely to wash with the minority of errant cyclists who do jump red lights. They are unlikely to listen to lectures about bad cycling behaviour which fail to address the far greater dangers which cyclists themselves face from the minority of really dangerous and aggressive drivers on our roads.
CTC Campaigns and Policy Manager Roger Geffen said:
“We are happy to support the principles of all road users and showing respect for one another and obeying the law. However, Transport for London’s campaign is simply a headline-grabbing initiative – it is not a serious attempt to tackle the road safety issues which most need addressing, such as speeding, driving under the influence, and the equally serious offence of using a mobile phone while driving. Tackling these issues will require not just a PR campaign, but some real effort at traffic law enforcement, targeted primarily at those activities which most endanger life and limb. TfL’s campaign also needs to incorporate the provision of quality cycle training for people of all ages, to encourage them to cycle and to give them the confidence and skills to use the roads safely and responsibly.”
For more information contact CTC Campaigns and Policy Manager, Roger Geffen on 07775 595 998
Pedestrians injured in London, in collision with cycles and pedestrians: 2001-05
Fatal Serious Slight Total …in collision with a cycle: on foopath/verge 0 12 40 52 …in collision with a cycle: all locations 1 58 272 331 …in collision with a motor vehicle: on footpath/verge 17 387 1793 2197 …in collision with a motor vehicle: all locations 534 6913 27344 34791
Research carried out for Transport for London by independent consultants TRL, found that, on average, just under 18% of cyclists ran red lights, whereas over a third of motorists encroached into cyclists’ “Advance Stop Lines” (i.e. cycle boxes at traffic lights). For more information see: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downloads/pdf/behavour-at-advanced-st....
-
Permalink Reply by DavidJ on
-
I drive, cycle and walk and so I think have a reasonably objective view. To my observations the poor cycling to be observed is far far outwieghed by the careless and dangerous driving of cars, vans and lorries. Driving too fast, not looking, turning without signalling etc etc are all extremely common - behaviour which leads to the injury and fatality figures as above. Cyclists are just as vulnerable as pedestrians - and it is motor vehicles that are the real danger. When a cyclist killed a pedestrian a few months ago, it made the national news. It is that rare. Meanwhile 600-700 pedestrians are killed by drivers every year.
As John has suggested drivers have got to get it in their head that they do not have a 'god given' right to drive as fast as they like, when they like and to turn when they like.
As a cyclist I am ambivalent about 'rule breaking'. Clearly there are some 'nutters' who cross red lights without looking without respect seemingly for their own safety or pedestrians. Most of the red light crossing I see does not create a problem for anyone - the cyclist crosses when they can see the road is clear (rather like a pedestrian crossing when the 'red man' is showing, but the road is clear) - I think that does provoke huge amounts of envy amongst car drivers however. Some red light crossing or other rule breaking is actually safer for everyone. For example, I was cycling to St Pancras and this morning that involves a right turn at a very busy junction - I could see if I went though legitimately I would be stuck in the middle with drivers (including a lorry) trying to make various maneouvers. I avoided this by nipping othe pavement for a few metres and back on the road. Had there been pedestrains on the bit of pavement I would have slowed/stopped/ got off depending on the situation. I think this is common sense.
There are some stats that suggest I am correct. Male cyclists are more likely to break the rules, but is women who are more likely to be killed on bikes - particularly at junctions:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1695668.ece
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
