I awoke to hear the news on BBC London 94.9. Barnet Council was being berated for having the highest number of deaths on the roads last year. Who is the architect of this policy? None other than Brian Coleman, who announced when he took over, that his policy was "Roads,Roads,Roads". His excuse? We have more miles of roads than any other Borough? Yet another example of crass complacency. Coleman has been instrumental in removal of road humps and other traffic calming measures. Who are the main victims? The elderly & children. For fatal road accidents, speed is a major factor. It is an undisputable fact that whilst 90% of victims survive a being hit by a car travelling at 30mph, at 40mph, 90% die. Barnet has several well known blackspots (Tally Ho corner).
Coleman wants to become the leader. I personally think his crass disregard for other peoples safety should rule him out. He is crass, incompetent and uncaring. Is this the image the Tories really want to project, especially with the GLA elections next year
Coleman wants to become the leader. I personally think his crass disregard for other peoples safety should rule him out. He is crass, incompetent and uncaring. Is this the image the Tories really want to project, especially with the GLA elections next year
13 comments:
Also on BBC breakfast news
.... the other side of this problem is that Barnet also probably has more 4x4's than any other borough; i have no factual evidence to prove this, just my own eyes, sitting at Broadway's cafes and watching mostly women in dangerously high heels fall out of these vehicles. The only off the road these off the road vehicles have seen is when they are parked on the hard-standing that every house now seems to have instead of a front garden, that too I imagine is due to the ridiculously high parking charges in Barnet. Oh yes our Transport Czar has a lot to answer for.
I am not sure that Barnet has more Chelsea tractors than Camden or Chelsea.
Brian Coleman stated on BBC London radio on Friday that half the deaths were on TfL roads, but the information given to the BBC by Barnet Council was that it was a quarter.
He has also said that the statistics are down to the fact that Barnet is a big borough with lots of roads, but, Bromley is 58 sq miles as opposed to Barnet 33 sq miles and had 816 accidents and 3 fatalities. Croydon is roughly the same area with an extra 10,000 people living in it and had 1,112 accidents and 5 fatalities.
The risk of RTAs is highest in dense urban areas and areas of socioeconomic disadvantage - although there are disadvantaged areas in the west of the borough you would overall expect Barnet to do better than average.
I don't think it is likely we have more drink drivers than Camden or Croydon, or more joy-riders than Hackney or Lewisham.
Barnet also said they met their targets for reduction, but only reduced accidents by 18% since they took over in 2002. London as a whole has met the Mayor's targets of a 40% reduction since 2000, so they have not met the Mayor's targets.
Brian Coleman has personally championed his policy of removing traffic calming measures, despite pleas from local people. It is the key difference between Barnet and other boroughs
Maybe every driver should be sent on a (free) speed awareness course even if they haven't been caught speeding or made to ride a bicyle before being allowed out on the road in a vehicle.
I would also like to see more police doing random checks which will pick up various motoring and non-motoring offences ( are these your possessions in the boot sir/madam ? )
Is it not possible for people to discuss the very complex issue of how people drive and their interactions with pedestrians in a scientific and evidence based fashion?
Why is every incident and set of statistics used as a pretext to turn Barnet's roads into bumpy dirt tracks? The evidence shows humps cost more lives than they save, they damage cars, cause pollution, injure disabled people as passengers and drivers and are just medieval in the random way they hit people who are driving properly and carelessly. Yet the humps 'Taliban' pursue their fanatical extremism irrelevant of the evidence.
Let's have a serious and evidence based discussion about roads and safety. Let's cease seeing all drivers at fault and pedestrians as angels. Why have we ceased trying to educate kids to be wary and careful when crossing the roads, for example?
@JayBird - Brian Coleman listened hard to people regarding road humps. That's. Why. They. Were. Removed.
OK Dan, Barnet has the most people killed in London. What more evidence do you want? Motorists who break the speed limit are more likely to kill people than ones that don't. That is a simple fact. We are seeing the "evidence" of Colemans experiment. Man up and admit you are wrong
How many deaths have happened in roads that have medieval danger humps removed, huh?
Why to Humps Taliban in Barnet use every article, statistic and incident to bang on and on about this one proven killer solution?
It's boring, unscientific and wrong.
Why don't the Humps Taliban engage in serious, evidence based debate? The fact remains that for the massive interaction of pedestrians and cars the number of people harmed is remarkably low.
And Roger you are just bang off wrong in your obsession with the 'speed limit'. Why do you have any faith in arbitrary numbers on signs decided by bureaucrats in the 1950s when cars, braking and safety were unrecognisable.
What sense is there for three lane urban motorway in North London to have a 'speed limit' of 40mph but a narrow single country lane to have one of 60mph?
'Speed limits' are largely nonsense. I bet you do more than 70mph on the motorway.
People should be educated, trained and dealt with for not using proper judgement in all the circumstances. The Humps Taliban dumbing down of drivers makes roads more dangerous.
So ranting about 'people breaking speed limits' causing deaths is nonsense. People driving inappropriately causes those. As I have asked before, as people flagrantly breach the speed limits how comes there aren't 1000s dead? If there are not you argument is baloney...
Dan,
Thanks for the reminder that Coleman is not the only Tory who is complacent & misguided.
I was run over in 1988 in Burnt Oak by a speeding car doing 40mph. The doctor who treated me told me he'd never seen anyone survive such an impact before. Having first hand experience of the effects - stress fractures to spine, leg etc, constant pain ever since, I think I'm rather better qualified to talk about the physical and psychological effects than your good self, who has simply studied the subject at the feet of Brian Coleman.
I have discussed the matter with many doctors, including my brother in law who is a yank and who was responsible for the emergency healthcare provision for the US congress at one stage. They all say the same thing.
You should put away the fresh air studies written by right wing think tanks and speak to the people who actually have to deal with the aftermath. Had I not been extremely lucky, I'd have become a quadraplegic aged 25 and would have cost the state approx £8 million in care fees. Or I could have died.
But then again, you don't care do you, because getting from Burnt Oak to Barnet 40 seconds quicker is far more important, isn't it?
If this is the way you are going to debate there is no point. I'm sorry you were injured in this way but what happened to you is not a recipe for a policy for everyone else. I can't help but feel that people wheeling out such personal incidents is designed to shut down debate and embarrass me from replying.
As you are using your personal circumstance to political ends, what's the evidence that you wouldn't have been hit had been doing 33mph? Do you have the report of accident? Are you claiming the guy was paying full attention? Wasn't tired, distracted, drunk, on the phone, fiddling with stereo? How comes he didn't see you? How comes you didn't see him? Was the design of the road at fault? Was he panic braking to avoid a speed camera or other distraction.
What are the full facts if you are going argue this line?
Nope, don't have the report, just the pictures and the scars. The facts? The bloke jumped a red light at the top of the Watling because he was in a hurry. I didn't see him because he was doing 40mph in the outside lane and there was a bus in the middle lane obscuring our mutual view of each other. I know he was doing 40mph because that is what he told the Police and I see no reason to doubt his word. It was 7.30AM on a Saturday morning and he didn't think anyone would be around.
And no I didn't sue him because I despise the ambulance chasing lawyer culture. FYI - most people didn't.
And as for "this being the way I debate", you called me "the Taliban" so you really have no right to criticise anyone, unless you think that is a compliment. I think it's pretty damn insulting, but I expect it so I don't really give a shit. P.S You'll like my next blog
Would someone like to provide the details of all the fatalities so we can see what the reason for each one was. One person dying because of a speeding motorist is one too many.
does it occur to anyone that Barnet has an extraordinary high number of eastern eropeans driving around without ins and licences . i was nearly killed by one the other night whilst driving on A1000 as he did a u turn straight into me ! i chased him all way through barnet high st as he had happily driven on wrong side of the road up to dury rd. caught by police i got to take over at barnet police station , no humps no speeding just a near killer. anoth
barnet has a high rate of european drivers carreering around ! without licences and insurance nothing to do with humps etc., standard of driving is key and lack of arrogance which barnet's rich have neither!
Post a Comment