What a street in a Quieter Neighbourhood might look like

Interesting. Is that Karl's idea? Funnily enough, when the whole mini- Holland malarkey was in its infancy, I had a similar idea for Palmers Green Town Centre, except with cars parking perpendicular to the traffic flow.

But, I ask:
1. Will there be a clear space next to allow people needing assistance, or who can manage themselves but have mobility issues, to get in and out of their cars safely?
2. Encourages children to run into the road, when they are being loaded unloaded into/from cars
3. What happens if you want to drive out the other way. You'll end up having a longer journey and will increase traffic on other nearby roads?
4. How do you prevent the micro-parks being used late at night by alcoholics and drug users? They will be too small for active children's play during the say.

Who wants to sit on a bench in the middle of the road....???

Also, unless I'm missing something, surely this will cause congestion issues elsewhere (particularly ends of the road) as drivers won't be able to turn across the road to access their drives i.e. a two way road has been effectively replaced by two one-way roads.

Not Karl as floated for some reason, why should it be?
But more generally, and looking at early reaction, is what is oh so common in this locality, ie NO, followed by problem 1, problem 2, ..problem N. That's easy as I've said in respect of several other initiatives, projects and whatever. The difficult is being creative and progressive and building on ideas to make a positive difference. NO gets tedious and really does stop people bothering - think of Proms, Scream 2016, potentially Festival and what could have been Starfish as good for the area examples. Perhaps others could try and develop ideas for their own streets or the wider area rather than simply knocking-copy. That's all too easy. Personally, I'm well bored with it.

An good start for division however I have a further point.
If the recreational / tree zones were staggered on either side of the road say 75 metres apart, the carriage way would then meander from side to side around them. It is this sideways movement that reduces a cars speed ( I had the pleasure of a presentation by anti terrorist bods on this subject)
This as well as slowing traffic reduces everyone having to cross the road to access a play zone etc.
The splitting of the road as shown above also creates a multitude of blind spots to prevent drivers seeing kids stepping out and with only one carriage way there is no where for the driver to turn to avoid a collision

Peter's suggestion is much more sensible. But, there is still the problem of dealing with crossovers. There are a lot on Old Park Road. And introducing these play aras will worsen an already stressed parking situation. For goodness say the park is only a few minutes away.

I don't have anything to say about the the designs offered on this thread, but in the light of the getting the kids into the car example I feel it is important to stress that purely residential streets are for ......residents. The needs of vehicles will/should be taking second place to pedestrians/kids for designed convenience, and in the easiest streets to modify nobody will be at risk from fast-moving cars - in many cases 10kph would be an appropriate speed limit. If Mum or Dad is getting the kids into their car, moving cars will take second place (subject to the normal courtesies).

Somebody's bound to scream that this is not The Netherlands, and no one will go that far, but that's not the point. The point is to look at proposed plans from the point of view of pedestrian and kids, not primarily for cars, which I'm afraid is usually the case now . And I haven't forgotten the needs of emergency vehicles: arrangements can be made for them.

This has always been a question of quality of life and the freedoms of children, but now we are faced with health problem of an under-exercised society. Governments will be getting behind these sort of moves; even today ours was pointing out that it is spending millions on cycling. Not least the 100 million it spent to fund Mini-Holland.

In future space, as in Mini-Holland, will taken from cars and given to pedestrians and cyclists because, you've guessed it, pedestrians and cyclists take so much space less space than cars, and London is short of space and has a growing population. The pressure for Quieter Streets is growing by the day.

Where is the shortage of space for pedestrians on the streets of Palmers Green? We are blessed with wide pavements and lots of green space. The only problem is that many of the pavements on residential are in a decrepit condition. That is the real issue. We are not far off the day when most of the cars on the road will be zero emission and will be driverless and equipped with all sorts of tools to make them virtually collision proof. I would also suggest that car ownership is not a function of obesity and you will probably find that there is in fact an inverse relationship between car ownership and poverty. Mainly because obesity is closely correlated with poverty and car ownership is closely correlated with prosperity. In developed countries you may even find that populations who drive more, also exercise far including walking and cycling . Population that are more more prosperous. You will also find that poverty is associated with poor diet, leading to obesity. Not because of the affordability of wholesome nutritious food, but because of a lack of knowledge and motivation to do something good with it. Basically, we have the good old Liberal Elite campaigning for changes to benefit them, not the population as a whole

I’m told the design started from the common sense start point of where the Council left the workshops, ie with the street seeing either Modal Filtered or Point No Entry traffic. As the debate between street residents has homed in on this aspect it has been seen as practicable, on that point at least. The discussion of Quieter Neighbourhood / calmer and safer street life intra the street, its key purpose, continues.
The author is a Master of The British Association of Landscape Industries, indeed their 2016 UK prize winner. However both parties could doubtless learn from the rapid fire common sense approach to issues shining out from the Lakes Estate - again.
Attached is a good example of residents looking to work together on this very subject. Pro-active, collaborative, helpful, open. I’m sure there’s a lot to learn and benefit from.

The part of Walthamstow Karl highlights is nothing like the Estate or any other substantial part of Palmers Green. It was originally developed in Victorian times, built to house what in that era would have been called the skilled working class, artisans and the like. The streets are significantly narrower and the housing denser.

Typical of the era, there are small squares, corner shops and other small retail clusters. Gardens were just small yards for utilitarian activities such as doing the washing, maintaining tools and accessing the toilet. Privacy wasn’t considered that important and much life took place on the streets. And pretty rough it was too.
I can see why some might want to reinvent this, but rather more refined and for the modern relevant world.

Despite all this 6,000 people signed a petition calling for the closed off roads to be reopened, which for one London Borough, perhaps with respondents concentrated in the most affected part is quite astonishing and perhaps shows a council bulldozing through a policy, popular with an elite few.

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/15091979.6_000_people_call_on_Sadiq_Khan_to_reopen_roads_closed_by_Mini_Holland/?ref=mr&lp=13

Back to the Edwardian Lakes Estate, build for an aspirational lower middle class. Of course, it is unlikely the designers imagined or planned that one day there would be a car parked in front of every house. That came in the interwar period. But, the streets are certainly laid out to facilitate passing traffic and delivery vehicles and there is ample room for private cars, even if that was not the intention.

Generously proportioned houses and large gardens meant people could live comfortably in privacy. You chose who you would socialise with and would make sure all the family was smartly dressed in public. Since then, personal privacy has become an even more highly valued asset.

With wide pavements walking is easy and safe. I cannot help feeling that a small number of people are imagining a non-existent problem. Even though there is some nuisance issue with the speed of traffic much of it could be generated by locals

As far as “Quieter Neighbourhoods” goes, the official term “residential cells is more apposite.

Karl refers to the design workshops and the two options presented at the second one, supposedly based on what residents asked for at the first, road closures or width restrictions.

This is most definitely not what most residents were calling for. At the first workshop very few supported this idea. Road closures seems to be an agenda promoted by council officers supported by a few activists
I for one like the idea of making the roads bendy to slow traffic, but, there does not appear to be a practical way to make this happen without a significant loss of parking. All the personal injury RTAs in recent years have been at junctions, so to make the roads safer, junction treatments are all that are necessary.

The problem we have on our residential streets is not 'non-existent'. There is a very real sense that even on streets that are purely residential, drivers have priority. Our road in Palmers Green is used a cut-through by people doing short local journeys in their cars who often exceed the speed limit in their haste to cut out the lights. It is not therefore possible for elderly people to cross the road, for children to play on their own street, or for anyone but the most assertive to feel safe on a bicycle. I'm sorry, but that is wrong. That is a real problem.

The Dutch addressed this by creating 'Woonerfs' or living streets where the design clearly signalled to drivers that people on foot, on bikes or at play took precedence. It is now a Dutch principle that roads have to be classed as one of three types, 'access' being the usual type for a residential road, and on these roads clear priority is given to people over traffic. Cars are 'guests', not rulers, as we see on our streets. The same thing has been acheived in Walthamstow by the use of modal filters, preventing any through traffic in a given residential area, and this has only resulted in a mild increase in traffic on main roads, as much of it has 'evaporated' rather than being displaced. No surprise there - on streets without through traffic but just residents leaving/entering, it is blissfully easy to walk, cycle and play. Children do now spontaneously play outdoors now on those streets.

Conclusion: we need the quieter neighbourhoods, we need them to be radical, we need them to priorities people, especially the most vulnerable, over motorised traffic.

It seems the original approach for Quieter Neighbourhoods, one very clearly communicated at every public meeting, that the council would be “hands off” but instead have ideas come forward from local residents via workshops and other channels based on street-specific challenges may no longer be the final way forward. But that said, the second workshop had started to generate a wider pan-area understanding of mutual issues and their reverberations across almost all street representatives, and the Council did go away with requests for pilots to stop all rat-running on a number of our streets, including but I can’t say limited to: Devonshire, Old Park, Amberley, St Georges, Burford and I believe Grovelands. Meadway were also very much in that frame as a Southgate 5-ways bypass, while Selbourne sought a mid-point closure. There was a small minority alternate view, as is the case on most local matters.

I attended both of the workshops, and have a slightly different view of the issues on traffic control. Although, quite understandably, those suffering from current rat running pressed for road closures, the view from the council officers and those in other roads was that no solution for those roads which merely displaced traffic to adjoining roads would be acceptable. This might mean that the request for road closures would not be so easily granted.

Another difference might be about how to deal with locally generated traffic as opposed to through traffic. A full residents' survey might throw up a different view to that evidenced by a self-selecting group such as attend workshops (which includes me). I can imagine that those at the meeting and those living on current rat runs would be more willing to accept constraints on use of their cars than those not at the workshops or living in roads relatively unaffected by rat running, who would be content with relatively less intrusive calming measures. I can see that there might be some "evaporation" of local traffic, but it won't go away completely.

I also wonder what the emergency services views are of a much wider constraint on their speed of response and ease of access than the A105 scheme might involve.

What is required is a much more nuanced approach using a combination of physical barriers and visual cues to divert and slow down traffic. Key to this in the Fox Lane cell was to interrupt traffic running along Fox Lane, for example by changing priorities at cross-over junctions or raised tables, and to slow down traffic between Bourne Hill and Aldermans Hill by a range of physical and visual/psychological barriers, but not permanent closures, which would export the problem. Combined with the ability to create periodic play streets this should have a significant effect across the whole area.

What I'm not clear about is whether the Council is committed to the line taken at the workshops that changes would be trialled, by for example, temporary portable barriers, signs, obstacles, and the results monitored for overall effect before they were instituted.

Totally agree with Colin.

BTW. Have just spent 5 minutes standing at the entrance of Devonshire Road. In that time five vehicles entered. One per minute. None of them going too fast, not even the BMW. And none was a bicycle.

One of these five was a shopper who parked in the bay outside the security equipment shop. Some of the other drivers may well have been residents in the street. What reasonable person could resent them?

To me, that not does not seem to be a lot, right next to town centre shops and taking the location into account the problem appears to be exaggerated out of all proportion, though I expect it will become real when the cycle lanes works starts in that part of PG.

Drivers don’t have priority on the street, only on the carriageway, along with cyclists. Pedestrians have a wide pavement, albeit in dire need of renovation to use.
What you should all be asking is why there is so much new housing development beside the A406, where there really is an awful lot of traffic? That area needs greening, not concreting.

By all means have a raised entrance to strengthen the priority pedestrians already have there. But, leave the rest alone. History has shown that radical solutions to non-existent or vastly exaggerated problems make matters worse, not better.

How did you select the particular five minutes in order to ensure that it was typical of all periods of five minutes during say a typical day/week/month? Do you not think that a slightly longer test (say between 7am and 11pm every day for a week) might have produced more accurate results?

And do you think that your methodology is as accurate as that employed by the Council, ie to put a sensor strip in the road (there is one in Devonshire Road at the moment)? If so, they could save a lot of money.

Basil, I know as well as you, it wasn't scientific, but a simple illustration. But, as a local, I would bet my bottom dollar it is not untypical. If there is a traffic sensor in Devonshire Road, I will put an FOI request for the data to be released as soon as possible, once the survey has been completed.

I appreciate you looking at Devonshire for 5 minutes, but it's not really akin to living in the street. The problem of rat-running in the street is real. We get many cars dropping people for the station at the end of the street in the morning and driving down it or reversing out. We have people parking in the street at all times in the week week to use Morrisons and the fast food places in the Triangle (often chucking their rubbish onto the street when they leave). The juice bar attracts a certain clientele of young men in fast cars, many of whom have ignored parking restrictions at that end of the street (raised with the juice bar, Council and the police). The bin lorries know this road as a short cut. At night, the speed of traffic becomes a problem and the number of cars parking in the road to use restaurants, pubs and clubs in the high street increases phenomenally, such that residents who work shifts, lates or nights often have to park several streets away. Unlike other parallel streets, the road is one way (so no need to worry about stopping for traffic coming in the other direction), dead straight and without barriers or cameras. We regularly see speeding traffic, particularly after midnight in the early hours and, with the high number of families on the street, many parents are concerned about accidents (not in the early hours so much, obviously). Also, with our regular street play events (which I know you don't like) we're well aware that many non-residents still think they have a right to use the street, despite there being THREE 'road closed' signs in the street entrance (they don't - we have a legal order, but we tend to be leniency much to our detriment). We've had to call the police twice to these events to deal with drivers who have ignored our stewards and put the lives of children at risk. I'm not against cars on roads and I believe there's a right to drive. But rights bring responsibilities, and I'm all for the removal or curtailment of rights where drivers cannot be responsible themselves. I also think cycle lanes will be fabulous (having spent much time studying North Holland) and welcome the disruption it takes to bring them in.

Paul Mandel - also not scientific but yesterday I sat with my wife for about 45 minutes having a coffee in the cafe next to the exit of Devonshire. Car after car came out of the exit. Almost exclusively they shot out of the exit if they could or braking hard if they couldn't - typical ran running behaviour as you must surely understand as a keen driver. Why do people have to prove their rat run is saving time by driving fast? Also last time I visited that road I witnessed a hot hatch going over 40 - I can give you the date time for your 0928 on 11th Feb for your FOI It must be a horrible road to live on and needs to be filtered to stop the rat running.

Although I raised possible problems resulting from road closures in my earlier posting, I think that Devonshire road probably is a unique case where closure might be carried out without a detrimental effect on nearby residential roads.

In essence isn't Devonshire used as a slip road around the traffic lights at the Triangle junction for traffic intending to go north bound on Green Lanes? Closing it won't obviously push traffic on to the nearest alternative, Old Park Road, the more so as in future there will also be traffic lights at the Fox junction to slow things down. I should have thought that traffic monitoring during a temporary trial closing of Devonshire would soon provide the data (that's assuming that the information isn't already available to add hard acts to this debate).

I wonder what the effect might be on Devonshire when the Triangle and the roads around it are realigned? Might the traffic on Aldermans Hill wanting to turn left to go north on Green lanes queue less given that southbound traffic will be be funnelled along the south side of the Triangle? If so it might conceivably reduce the temptation for traffic to use Devonshire as a slip road. I guess it will be influenced by the timing of the various traffic lights.

I can't speak for the residents of other roads but Devonshire Road acts as short cut which allows cars otherwise travelling down Aldermans Hill and then North along Green Lanes to avoid the lights at the triangle and two pedestrian crossings. There is no oncoming traffic, no speed bumps and quite often you even get let out straight away because northbound traffic on Green Lanes is held for you by the crossing.

That is an enormous incentive to use Devonshire Road and it's no surprise that so many people do it, especially during rush hour. While most people drive sensibly a significant minority drive much too fast for safety, because they can.

Closing Devonshire Road would have the effect of pushing more traffic into Green Lanes, which frankly is where that traffic should be. Whether it would push traffic into Old Park Road is open to question. It would be very easy to try it and see.

There's already a significant amount of rat-running along Old Park Rd, and I think a bit on Grovelands too.

Got to wait four weeks for the FOI, I’ve asked for practically every street in the entire Fox Lane QN area In the meantime, taking some of the points and criticisms on board, I went back today at 5:45 p.m . (rush hour) and did another 5 minutes observation, opposite the nail bar. This time, six vehicles in the five minutes. A train obviously arrived halfway through that period- and yes – as I walked up Devonshire Road afterwards, there was more traffic. But, this is for only a couple of hours each working day.

I agree that closing off Devonshire Road will not have the same knock on effect as closing of Old Park Road for example.

The changes to the Alderman’s Hill A105 junction, arising from mini-Holland, will probably increase traffic on Devonshire Road . Noting that some avid supporters of the segregated cycle lanes are also calling for the closing of Devonshire Road and others, I do wonder if this is a case of people wanting to enjoy what benefits, but causing the social and environmental costs to others – not intentionally of course.
You must remember that many people live on main roads too.

The reason why I believe mini-Holland will Increase traffic on Devonshire Road are.

1. There will be reduced capacity at the main road junction, leading to more queuing Alderman’s Hill eastbound, so more drivers cutting through
2. Drivers have been able to turn around at the Triangle and go back up Aldermans Hill. They won’t be able to do that with the soon to be constructed, new layout, so will be included to drive up Devonshire Road to Turn around or get home another way e.g. Fox Lane.

As for blocking off Devonshire Road at one end, and for the purposes of this comment I will assume it to be at the southern end; a number of problems arise:

1. What do you do about the pay and display parking spaces and ....
2. Access to the yards behind the shops. Can the road be blocked further town without adverse impact on residents there?
3. Residents will have to turn their cars round. Often there will not be space and this means long and hazardous reversing manoeuvres.
4. Difficulties for dustcarts and other commercial vehicles which will have to reverse the whole distance up the road. You wouldn’t want your children playing out then, either. Although I appreciate this won’t be a constant problem, it will be a regular one.

So, these may not be a big enough issue for some, but other residents may take a different view.

I really do empathise with Richard and Hall about the antisocial behaviour including speeding and no doubt other bad driving. It exists in all the roads around us. You should join me and PCSOs on the next community Road Watch in Palmers Green. By the way – Hal, I was misquoted in the Enfield Advertiser- I do not think it is a waste of time- quite the opposite.

Furthermore, I do not like one way residential roads either and agree that they encourage speeding. It bewilders me why the Council should have introduced a one way system for the Wolves Lane QN.

A couple of things though, if you live in or on the edge of the town centre where considerable numbers of young adults gather on Friday and Saturday nights – you will surely expect a degree of annoyance and trouble. Could I dare suggest that those problems start to trouble people much more once they start a family.

With regard to shoppers using Devonshire Road at all times, surely the CPZ Monday – Saturday 8am - 6:30pm deters them. After 6:30 I can appreciate it being annoying if you can’t park near your house and really really rage inducing when they sit in their own cars eating their peri-peri or KFC before chucking their packaging into the street.. All this will be worsened in the borough generally with mini-Holland, with a loss of parking elsewhere.

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this conversation, but has everybody looked in detail at Waltham Forest's 'villagisation' or low-traffic neighbourhood scheme? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mini-holland-scheme-in-walthamstow-hailed-as-major-success-as-traffic-falls-by-half-a3389936.html

The point is that they did not 'filter' (prevent through motor traffic on) just one or two rat-runs, which would have simply worsened the problem on neighbouring streets. They took a whole cell of residential streets and by using filters strategically they made it impossible for motor traffic to drive through the cell as a whole, deflecting through traffic back onto main roads. Everyone resident can still access their own street by car, some have minutes added to their journey. The result was not the displacement of all the traffic onto main roads, but only some - the main roads can handle it, and a huge number of car journeys in the area (taking the main roads into account as well) simply evaporated. 10,000 fewer per day, if you believe the article, based on WF council data. And no collisions in a year.

The effect on those residential streets has been amazing, and a whole safe network for walking, cycling and playing has opened up (objectors talk about 'closed' roads, but the opposite is true, unless you insist on driving everywhere). Do we not think that the inconvenience of having a few minutes more driving time to reach our streets is worth it for giving those streets back to people and reclaiming it from thoughtless through traffic? The emergency services have raised no objections, and given the health benefits of more walking and cycling and fewer collisions, it's really not surprising.

Closure at Alderman's Hill end is not best option imo. This allows free access to all the shoppers and delivery vans via Green Lanes, as witnessed during the closure for Thames Water. The CPZ does not deter - much idling occurs in resident bays with drivers ready to go if a traffic warden appears and many just take the risk if they're only going to be 5 mins.
A serious consequence of the previous mid-point closure which gave access via Green Lanes was the huge number of vans hurtling down to the Close (where road turns at right angle) and doing speedy 3-point turns at exactly the point where most pedestrians cross, before accelerating back to Green Lanes.
Preferred option is closure after the Mews at Green Lanes end. No disruption or incovenience to businesses, parking bays (at corner A. Hill) or use of Mews at either end. Wide turning point for residents and access vehicles at the Close, designated turning spaces as provided during TW works, 'keep clear' box at A. Hill entry/exit point.
Added effect of the businesses seeming more part of the (Green Lanes) High Street, separate to the residential area.
Would love to hear feedback from people on this option.

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.

This discussion is becoming a tad esoteric.

All I know is that my once quiet residential street, Lakeside Road, is now a rat run and the situation is getting worse. I agree with Clare. Whatever the argument about accident statistics, Walthamstow is now a pleasenter place to live for many of its inhabitants, thanks to the traffic management schemes. (I grew up there too.)

I doubt that Enfield would have the guts to do something as radical for Palmers Green. I also get the impression that the Council gives priority to traffic passing through the borough rather than to its own residents.

Enfield Council has efficiently responded to my FOI request on traffic counts and I attach the data.

The results of my mini surveys of Devonshire Road (showing ave. 1 vehicle per minute) so disparagingly commented on by Basil Clarke, was identical to the Council’s more extensive survey.

So, I do hope Basil will show some contrition, or else eat his hat in private.

If you compare the Devonshire Road surveys traffic volumes seem to drop the further up the one way street you go.

Any one got any theories on this? Many people than visibly noticeable turning round part way up an driving back down the wrong way? A black hole? Or something more prosaic like an inaccurate Council survey.