Safe Speed Forums

Only a short time ago, the problem of children returning home from school in the afternoon and crossing the busy A4 at Carlisle’s Corner in Twyford, Berks. was recognised as something which needed to be addressed. There is of course a perfectly good footbridge which crosses the A4 on the western side of the roundabout. The school children seem to prefer to cross Wargrave Road soon after exiting the grounds of the school, and then to cross the A4 on the eastern side of the roundabout.

The bridge has been improved, to make it more attractive to would be users. I have crossed this bridge myself since the work was carried out and can confirm that the footway is made of a non slip surface making it safe to use even in wet conditions. But still the children seem to prefer to cross to the eastern side of the roundabout, dodging moving cars as they do so.

As a motorist, I am irked by the fact that all the warnings and safety notices in the vicinity of Carlisle’s Corner are aimed at motorists, but none at pedestrians. There are yellow Route Alert signs at the approaches to the Carlisle’s Corner roundabout, counselling drivers to use caution, as there were “14 casualties at this roundabout in the past three years”. However, there are NO such signs warning the pedestrians of the dangers of crossing the A4, and NO signs urging them to use the footbridge.

There has been talk of introducing various new safety measures at Carlisle’s Corner, including another pedestrian crossing, perhaps a speed camera and even a reduced speed limit. But would these measures solve anything? Would they target the right road users? Has improvement of the bridge been successful in persuading more people to use it?

I decided to visit this roundabout with my camera to find out what goes on at the end of the school day when the children are on their way home. I shot five films in .AVI format, and these are my findings. Look at these films, and then look at my photograph of the footbridge taken on the same day at the same time, and judge for yourself whether the improvements to the bridge have persuaded more people to use it. (The files can be saved to your hard drive, and then viewed using Windows Media Player, or other general purpose player such as Winamp)

Film Links

1. http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/a4twyf01.avi
2. http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/a4twyf02.avi
3. http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/a4twyf03.avi
4. http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/a4twyf04.avi
5. http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/a4twyf05.avi

Film Synopsis

1. The scene is set by the first two boys crossing the road. One seems to have a somewhat cavalier attitude to road safety, as he swings his bag over his head. Turning to face his friend when he is half way across, he finishes crossing this part of the road still swinging his bag over his head and walking backwards. Shortly after that, a boy rides his bike across the road rather than dismount.
2. A group of children walk out into the road without looking, and into the path of an approaching car, which is forced to come to a complete halt to allow them to cross.
3. A further six children run into the road and into the path of an approaching TLS truck. These six are part of a larger group, and the TLS driver cannot be sure that the remainder of the group won’t chase after the first six as they reach the kerbside. Very wisely, the TLS driver halts his vehicle to allow them to cross, but this means that his vehicle is stopped for about 15 seconds, during which all visible traffic at the roundabout comes to a halt. One of the “pedestrians” is a cyclist, who fails to dismount as he crosses in front of the TLS truck. During this film, you can hear me calling out to someone, saying that he’s too low to be in my picture. That was in response to a young school pupil who gave me the middle finger salute when he saw me filming as he walked beneath my vantage point on the bridge.
4. Again the traffic is slowed down by large numbers of pedestrians crossing the road instead of using the footbridge.
5. Three more children run across the road in cavalier fashion, causing approaching traffic to slow down.

What I notice about the road traffic is that all vehicles in all films give the impression of being driven responsibly. Signals are given, and speeds are safe. In the roundabout, I doubt that any of the vehicles exceeds 30mph or even 25mph.

And yet it’s the motorists who are being targeted with the road safety message, by signs which read “Kill Your Speed”, and macabre warnings about the numbers of casualties at this roundabout.

And the pedestrians? They receive no warnings of any kind and are allowed to do whatever they like!

And the footbridge, which was made “more attractive” at council taxpayers’ expense so that more people would use it? I took a picture of it before leaving the scene. It looked like this:





Notes for Wokingham Council

• We do not need a further speed restriction – as you can see from my films, drivers are not using excessive speed and do not need to slow down any further.
• We do not need a speed camera! Speed is not an issue here.
• We do not need another crossing – we already have a perfectly good bridge, which pedestrians can use without causing traffic delays. A further crossing at surface would only cause additional and unnecessary delays.

This is evidential proof that there is one law for motorists and NO laws for pedestrians and cyclists AT ALL.
Read the Highway code, the most anti motorist publication EVER.
Virtually everything in the HC referring to a motorist is LAW, virtually nothing refering to pedestrians and cyclists is law, just ADVICE.
Pedestrians and cyclists seem to think they are bulletproof, and this is to be strenthened even further by the law forcing motorists to take responsibility for every pedestrian accident.
So, if a pedestrian is a bit short of money, all they need do is dive onto a car bonnet, and hey presto, loads of compo.
It will soon be safer for motorists to drive on the pavement, as all the pedestrians will be on the road trying to get some compo.
This is complete lunacy.
A pedestrian will always lose an argument with a motor vehicle, but do they care, NO, what they want is compo, the more the better.

This is a prime example of the IGNORANCE of pedestrians, it also shows the sheer laziness as well.

No one, except a motorist has responsibility anymore.




By Rachel Sharp


A WOMAN died after she was in collision with a lorry in a busy high street.

Jean Hughes, 61, of Lansdowne Road, Hillingdon, died after the accident in High Street, Yiewsley, at about 1.50pm on Wednesday, November 17.

A police spokesman said: "We were called at 13.50 to an accident in High Street, Yiewsley, at the junction of Fairfield Road.

"A Scania goods vehicle was stationary in very slow moving traffic. As the traffic started to move off the lorry edged forward and was in collision with a middle aged woman who was crossing in front of the lorry's cab.

"The lorry stopped at the scene of the accident and the woman was pronounced dead at the scene."

Police condoned off Yiewsley High Street while they carried out their investigation.

Police are appealing for witnesses to the accident. If anyone has any information they are asked to contact the collision investigation unit at Alperton on 020 8246 9820

Borehamwood & Elstree Times.



How many times have you watched a pedestrian cross the road at the site of a zebra crossing, but walk across in the zig-zags, instead of walking the extra 3ft and crossing on the crossing instead.

Yet I WILL attack the ignorant motorist as well, in my area, we have had a lollipoplady knocked over and killed by a car driver overtaking stationary traffic in a 30mph area and hitting the lollipop lady, because the low sun was blinding him, sorry, but if he couldn't see properly, shouldn't he have slowed down?

We have had another lollipop lady resign from her post, because she was scared for her life, because of cretinous drivers ignoring her, too busy phoning, eating their breakfast, drinking their tea/coffee, shaving or applying their make-up, and even giving her foul mouthed abuse, yet how many of these "drivers" are parents themselves.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Unsavoury sorts are also using the 'blame the motorist' culture to hi-jack and rob drivers. Not so long ago in my area a few 'youths' walked in front of a car with 2 women in it, the women stopped and the youths robbed and assualted them. What I want to know is why did the driver sit there and let them get on with it, why didn't she drive away? If anyone tried this stunt on me I wouldn't stop.

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

A problem with pedestrian bridges is that, in practice, pedestrians are very reluctant to use them, and will tend to take their chances with the traffic instead.

Underpasses have the same disadvantage and can also attract unsavoury characters, particularly at night.

Therefore the recent trend to replace bridges and underpasses with at-grade signalised crossings can be regarded as a recognition of reality and human nature rather than a wave of political correctness.

In the 1970s I recall a campaign to get a bridge to cross the A56 outside my school, but I suspect it was never used except when the teachers were watching. There's an impressive bridge over the A34 Kingsway at Parrswood in South Manchester, but again the junction has now been given pedestrian phases and the bridge is a white elephant.

If any road users are to be expected to use bridges or underpasses it should be motor vehicles - however that can be an expensive solution.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I agree with this, and everything else that you said. My issue is not with the schoolchildren, but the council/government attitude that it's always the motorists' fault when a mishap occurs. I don't know if you viewed my films, but in 3 mins 12 secs of film footage, I didn't see one vehicle that was speeding or otherwise being driven irresponsibly. And yet all the warning signs - "Kill Your Speed" etc. are directed at the motorists, and none at the pedestrians.

My point is that it was fallacious of the council to expect the children to use the bridge, just because it had a new coat of paint. If nothing is to be done about the children's habit of crossing the road instead of using the footbridge, then it is they who should be made aware of the hazards. The signs warning of the number of casualties at this roundabout need to be directed at the pedestrians, and not at the motorists - along with signs urging them to use the footbridge. The situation at present is nothing more than an exercise in political correctness.

It is for this reason that, while there was a perfectly good segregation crossing in Chelmsford (in fact a subway, but the principle is near identical to a footbridge), that a Pelican crossing was introduced. This has exacerbated congestion during rush hour no end.

Like PeterE the kids at the junior school I was at in the late 70s had a busy road to cross, and a footbridge was soon demanded (school had only recently been built) and before long we had one. Failing to use it would probably have resulted in being lightly clipped round the ear from either a parent or a teacher, or possibly both. Which never actually happened since we all used the bridge. At my next school there was a pelican crossing on the main road between the two school buildings. Failing to use it properly, even if it was only not crossing between the studs, almost guaranteed detention since the headmaster's study overlooked it. I've been back there since as well, and interestingly the kids still use the crossing correctly.

I still pass the junior school from time to time over twenty years after I left and I see now that many kids don't bother using the bridge now. In spite of the evidence I really can't believe that the kids are significantly more stupid than 25 years ago, so I assume the school can't/won't enforce it. I'd guess it's the same thing at the school DieselMoment was talking about. Perhaps a letter to the headmaster or governers might help? Dear Sir, pupils behaving dangerously, don't use bridge, don't seem to have heard of Green Cross Code, seem to have desire to become streaky red veneer on tarmac, may cause accident, may become long streaky veneer on tarmac, makes the school look bad, wouldn't want my kids to go there if school incapable of dealing with issue, yours, Outraged of Winnersh?

How well the school might actually be able to deal with the issue is anyone's guess. We're all so clued up on our rights at an early age now, whereas [sounds like his dad mode] when I was at school we only had the right to duck when the teacher threw the board rubber at us [/sounds like his dad mode]. Seems to be getting harder and harder to tell them what to do, even when it's to try to stop them doing something that's self evidently dangerous. Aiming the signs at the pedestrians would perhaps be a start, but they're not expected to look at them to the same extent drivers are. I think what we really need is a jaywalking offence. At the moment the motorist is almost presumed to be a fault in a car-pedestrian accident. On pavements, car parks and crossings (assuming the pedestrian wasn't crossing against the lights) that might be fair enough. But pedestrians hit in the road should generally be presumed to be at least as likely to be at fault as the driver unless there is some evidence of the driver doing something wrong (being chased by plod, stinking of booze, strong whiff of wacky baccy in the car, defective vehicle, tyre marks showing loss of control or excessive speed etc.). Alternatively, bring back bull bars and fit them to every vehicle - nearly everyone seems to think they're so dangerous maybe they'd be more cautious and cross the road properly.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I've no simpathy for pedestrians that get run over through there own stupidity and if they damage my car because of it their family WILL pay for the damage. If you want compensation if I do something wrong ect...

On the A127 into sunny Southend, well nearer Basildon, there are signs in the central reservation that Say FATAL ACCIDENT SITE. What, it's not a good idea to cross a NSL dual carrage way? You don't say. I have seen a mother trying to cross with her son said road, not 100 meters from the foot bridge, that they were both too fat to walk to.

I suspect that there is a key difference between twenty-five years ago and today that may put a stop on any school attempting to deal with a safety issue outside its boundaries. That difference is the compensation culture.

It works like this: If you have no legal obligation to do something and you do nothing, you are not at risk of being on the wrong end of a compensation claim. If you do something even though you have no legal obligation to do it, you are at risk. If, directly or indirectly, your actions result in harm to one individual, you may be liable. It doesn't matter how many accidents your actions have prevented, or that the overall safety of the group you're trying to protect has increased many-fold. So, say that the school police its pupils to ensure that all cross via the bridge. One day a child slips and breaks an arm...

_________________
Will

It's hardly ever the motorists fault, even when it is! For example, the speeders of Northumberland have listed these excuses for speeding!

Very severe diarrhoea forced dash to lavatory (my favorite - 'driving under the
influence of vindaloo'). Fainting after seeing UFO, and only being brought out
of trance by speed camera flash. An aircraft heaided for Newcastle Airport triggered the camera. Strong following wind pushed car over limit. Friend had just chopped fingers off and I was taking him and them to hospital. Wind vibration from a surfboard triggered the camera. A mercy dash for a dying hamster. Violent sneeze triggered involuntary stamp on the accelerator. Suspected foot and mouth outbreak forced dash to inspect suffering cow. Rapid acceleration was the only way to demonstrate faulty clutch to mechanic.

It's no joke - these are real pleas for mitigation.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I accept the "if not obliged ... do nothing" bit. However, I believe that the school has a duty of care here - which does give them some degree of obligation to assess the risks - and then to proclaim what is best - which *may* (ok, probably is) be that children shall use the bridge unless there are other circumstances in play (gritters on strike and frost, eg).

IANAL, but here goes anyway:

If it can be shown that the school's duty of care extends to travel to and from school, the law should protect the school's policing of those journeys from the compensation culture. The school would presumably make informed judgement on the basis of formal or informal risk assessment, the documentation of which should be enough to show that the school had exercised due diligence.

However, I strongly suspect that such a duty of care cannot be shown. I suspect this because of bullying that occurred outside my local school before and after the start of the school day. The school claimed it had no jurisdiction outside the school premises, and sent a letter to parents of the victims advising them to escort their children to and from the school gates. Of course, the school also informed the police of the issue and worked with them, but the prime responsibility rested with the parents.

So, even if the school knows about the issue, I suspect that the most it could do would be to warn parents and raise the issue to the PTA to try and get the parents themselves to take appropriate measures.

_________________
Will

IANAL either - but In Loco Parentis definitely springs to mind - and I am confident that, in this instance, the duty of care does not stop at the school gate - particularly if the foot bridge is in eyeshot of the school and a reasonable percentage of schoolchildren go that way.

A quick Google for 'outside school "in loco parentis"' gives this snippet from Manchester Youth Art,
While other references similarly showed that schools act with parental responsibility during school hours, I could find nothing to suggest that responsibility continued after school was over; with one exception: organised trips (to which, presumably, the parent had formally consented and so explicitly confered parental status to the school) where schools and other organisations have responsibilities under later legislation arising from events like the Lyme Bay Tragedy.

_________________
Will

Just had a look at the DFT web site to see if they have any recommendations....

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 76-02.hcsp
seems to foot the bill.

Which fits with my earlier comment:
AFAICT, the school has no legal obligation and may leave itself open to the compensation culture (as I suggested earlier) if it takes unilateral measures. Your reference states:
Reading the remainder of that reference suggests that the school acts only as a focal point around which the interested parties can gel. The onus appears to remain with the parents and it is they who request, petition, etc. to get things done.

If the parents formally request the school to ensure their children cross via the bridge, then the school is not (AFAICT) taking unilateral action that may leave them exposed to compensation claims. Rather, they are acting with at the request, and with the considered permission, of the parents. If they also provide an opt-out for the scheme, I can't see how a school could be liable.

I'm not arguing against policing the children to improve road safety in the vicinity of the school -- I'm very much in favour. However, because of the culture in which we now reside, the impetus has to come from the parents. That said, a few complaints to the school about their pupils' behaviour and a suggestion or two that they implement the DfT recommendations would probably not go amiss.

_________________
Will

which is exactly why I posted the link I really can't tell where the primary responsibility lies these days. You may be right - but certainly in the sixties it was the other way around - until the children were out of sight of the school at least.

About the compo culture point that willcove brought up. Wonder how long it will be before the compo lawyers persuade some accident victim's family to sue a school for failing to make their kid use the bridge or the crossing if it turns out they can't go for the driver?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Now that's the thing with the compo culture. If you have no obligation to do something and you don't do that something, you are not exposed to claims. However, if you have no obligation to do something and you do that something, your actions have contributed to risk that something represents and you are exposed to claims.

_________________
Will

You really sure it's that simple mate? Looks to me a lot like these things only change when something is tested in court. I didn't think McDonalds had an obligation to print "Warning - contents hot" on their coffee cups until someone spilt it down themselves and sued Maccas for failing to state the ****ing obvious. So, going back to the schools bit, what if someone decides to test the boundaries of in loco parentis to see if it can be applied to the point the children leave the care of a parent? I have no idea if there'd be a hope of winning, but I'm cynical enough about the compo culture to believe that someone will try it eventually.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein