Forum topic: What a street in a Quieter Neighbourhood might look like

Ps, obvs talking about Devonshire Rd here!

Paul, you need to stand around two-thirds of the way up the road to get full speed impact! This is where the speed strips were placed. Then imagine yourself as a 10-year-old emerging from between the parked cars to cross over on way to school. Might get a different impression!

I should like to answer Clare.

First a confession. For a short period this evening I was almost converted to the joys mini-Holland, impressed by the claimed dramatic fall in accidents, in Walthamstow village following the road closures.

I had read the Evening Standard report previously. Though, I had taken the view that much that is written in the Evening Standard, as with many other papers , should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Going further than adding the seasoning, to accentuate the surprising wonderful taste, I decided to prepare my own dish using the same ingredients. But, I also went a stage further, baking two pies, one Walthamstow, the other Palmers Green pie. There is no salt in my recipe, just plenty of beef and herbs.

The results can be seen in the attachment.

I worked on the Walthamstow pie first, concentrating on the village and noticed the fall accidence in the village that Clare referred to. Then I looked at the busier roads at the boundary, and saw that in 2016 they too had fewer reported accidents. Then I looked at the bigger picture. All the accidents shown on my screen, including surrounding areas. And just like in the small village area, accidents had gone through the floor too. Could this be because all though other parts of Walthamstow; Whipps Cross, Church Hill, Queen Street had also been “villaged.”I knew Whipps Cross hadn’t been by the beginning of 2016.

I was feeling doubtful by this time so I looked at Fox Lane QN and a wider area around Palmers Green. The results were the same, and apparently dramatic fall hear, despite Enfield Mini-Holland still being on the drawing board.
The data used by the Evening Standard could not have been more than about 30% incomplete.

I am absolutely certain that the Evening Standard Report, or possibly a press officer in at Walthamstow Town Hall, where it had been picked up form, had simply used data online and assumed that it was complete.

I expect the scheme will lead to some reduction in accidents, but nothing as dramatic in percentage as indicated. And, statistically the numbers are very small. But far less draconian changes can do the same.

The Fox Lane QN area sees around two people with minor injuries and none seriously injured in a year. You will see from the definition below that a minor injury is just that. There are far more injury accidents on the main roads particularly at junctions. These are the locations where engineering and enforcement will produce the greatest benefits.





With regard to the fall in reported traffic volumes in Walthamstow village, I am not going to attempt disproving this. I know for example that Grove Road was a major cut through. I once lived in Walthamstow and as it happens, support the local football team! But, I am not prepared to accept the term traffic evaporation.
If Lea Bridge Road, a major route into London from the bottom of the M11 has seen an 11 % increase in traffic, that can only cause a great deal more congestion, even before the cycle lanes are brought in, they are coming after the residential cells in LBWF. Furthermore, there may be less traffic passing through fixed points, but on the main roads it will be sitting around for much longer. A bit like dirty water n a blocked sink.

So, sorry Clare, evidence and logic still points to SOGL being more right than Enfield Council and so I am not ready to defect to “Better Streets for Enfield” yet.

And Marie, I am sure there are many cars that speed up Devonshire Road. I know it is a worry and yes, it could one day result in a serious accident. . But you do not need to close it off to make it two way which could alleviate the problem a bit. You will get a few damaged wing mirrors and car doors if the Council makes that change, though. But, I don't suppose the problem of speeding is worse on Devonshire than elsewhere in the area. If you are around day times during the week, you may like to join a community road watch.

STATS 19 Definitions

Slight injury: An injury of a minor character such as a sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention. This definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment.

Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.

Paul, I am around daytime but I work from home, so not available for roadwatch. I totally agree with you that speeding is a major problem on all roads in PG (I have been overtaken twice recently on Lakes roads and had my wing mirror smashed on Fox Lane by an oncoming downhill van too impatient to wait for me to get past parked cars. Not hurt on that occasion although showered with glass as my window was open and the mirror ended up on the passenger seat). That's why I support the cell approach for residential areas and a borough wide 20-mph zone. Devonshire Rd doesn't fit into a 'cell' however which is why I believe it requires a different treatment to stop through traffic.

Thank you for the analysis Paul. When we are designing civilised roads I don’t think we should fixate too much about where collisions or accidents, as you wrongly call them, happen. They are by their very nature random acts but it is true that they are more likely to happen on main road because of the simple reason that they carry more traffic. I have seen enough cars buried in garden walls around the local area to know what could happen if a vulnerable road user was in the wrong place. Statistics are hard to understand and easy to manipulate. Look at rapid decline in the accident rate from a peak of about 7000 in I think 1967. Brilliant except we now have fewer people walking and cycling and every time we make our cars safer some drivers compensate by taking more risks. An example of how this all ends can be found in the ABD handbook and an argument I had with somebody on Twitter who was criticising the Police for catching a driver doing 106 mph on the A10. His argument was, much like yours, that there hadn’t been a fatal “accident” on the A10! So you can see why I didn’t even bother to read your definitions of injuries. The real problem is the insidious nature of people speeding and the effect it has when you see it. I am genuinely scared now my children are teenagers and gaining their independence. For example about 15 years ago I was picked up by a mini-cab driver very early in the morning. He was quite distressed as he had just passed Bounds Green Road and seen bodies (teenagers) scattered across the road post collision. Any civilised country should be working towards a vision zero approach rather than being too scared to confront car drivers. I think we will look back at this time and ask what were we thinking?

Spot on, Hal.

I'd like to reinforce this point by quoting from the writings of a traffic cop in Birmingham - someone who admits to enjoying the thrill of a high speed chase, but only too familiar with the consequences of the current widespread lax attitude towards speeding and other forms of dangerous driving. He thinks that drivers have had their chance to behave but too many have failed to do so and it's time to take action: "The long and short of it is drivers who pose the greatest threat of harm on our roads need to get their house in order, or we’ll do it for them."

His blog is at https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/driving-an-extinction-event/

Hal, sorry for using the term accident, point taken. But, the term is still used in government data and documentation and you used it yourself.

Quote:“Look at rapid decline in the accident rate from a peak of about 7000 in I think 1967. Brilliant except we now have fewer people walking and cycling and every time we make our cars safer some drivers compensate by taking more risks.“

Some clarification here. I assume the 7,000 figure if you are referring to is the number of fatalities. For the number of personal injury accidents, you can probably add 2 zeros, which basically means that everyone could expect to suffer on average one road traffic injury in a lifetime. Although, 90% of those will be minor, be treated at the roadside and not require hospital admission.

I do not completely accept that as cars become safer, people compensate by taking more risks. Having experienced in Turkey (and in other countries at a similar stage it its social development) where wearing a seatbelt is an anathema many terrifying taxi rides, even though it is a legal requirement, I can vouch for this.

What I do believe is that as we have developed the population has generally become far more risk adverse. The mostly old men in the ABD hall has been engaging with on Twitter are a curious group of people. But, good luck to them if they have embraced Twitter. I do not understand how any of my own arguments or opinions correspond with those ladies and gentlemen. Indeed, I understand that many of them oppose compulsory seatbelt wearing and crash helmets for motorcyclists using the same arguments you have advocated on “risk compensation.” By the way, at least nine fatal collisions on the A10 between the M25 and A406 in the past 18 years and numerous serious injuries – tell them that – when they attempt to justify the road racers.

For me, very happy with a default 30 mph on urban roads, 40 mph on those like the A10, - Enfield section 60/70 mph on rural roads and motorways, and for these to be rigorously enforced, especially in residential areas and anywhere that has a particularly high casualty rate. But, not adverse to more selected 20mph zones in towns and villages where appropriate.

But, as someone who these days is generally a advocate of moderation, cautious change, reasonableness and wanting to strive for a consensus, I find discomfort with Basil's view and feel it marks the opposite extreme to those in the ABD a and encapsulates an overzealous outlook. How about being more positive and acknowledge that we are on the cusp of a technological revolution in vehicle collision prevention technology. Too much zeal often discredits. Leads to reasonable people reacting the other way.......

.....just as we are witnessing in the Western political landscape the moment, particularly in the US, but in much of Europe too.

......and sorry if we have veered somewhat away from Quieter Neighbourhoods, but it is not entirely my fault.

Thanks for the clarification, yes it was about 7000 death when I was lad and many more injuries. Basil's post is interesting as it just reposting a policeman's blog - presumably you think that his view is going too far? In terms of road policing West Midlands are the best in UK. It shows what can be done and I would be really interested to see if it impacts the collision rate. If it does then other forces will have to take the same measures - there will be unbearable political pressure to do so. There is absolutely no chance of the Met doing any road policing at the moment so let's hope so. Yes all a bit off topic - both our faults I suspect.