Tributes have been pouring in for a 20-year-old woman who died after being struck by a car in Swanley.
Pedestrian Victoria Woodbridge was hit by a brown Volkswagen Touran in London Road on Wednesday evening. The car was travelling in the direction of Sidcup and the collision happened at around 6pm on the junction with Brook Road.A sad and sadly familiar story.
And in the comments, the usual cries for 'Something to be done!!' despite the fact that accident investigators are still investigating:
Victoria is my niece and if the Kent County Council had reduced the speed limit along London Road Swanley, As requested over a number of years then perhap's Vicky may have survived this accident as persons hit by a car doing 30 are more likely to survive than being hit by a car doing 40, so come on Newsshopper help campaign for a reduction in the speed limit so no else has to die, my thoughts are with the family at this time and I wish them all the best,Hmmm.
I totally agree, the speed limit for that stretch of road should be reduced, I use that road a lot and never do more than 35mph along there and have been over taken for not going faster!!! The council need to take action to stop more serious and fatal accidents like this. My thoughts go out to all that knew Victoria xGosh, it seems like they needn't investigate, eh? This lot already know what caused the accident!
Sad news- please campaign for a speed limit and we will support. Thoughts to all Victorias family and friendsWell, here's a shot of London Road at the junction with Brook Road:
And here's the other angle:
Notice what's missing? Yup, that's right. There's no pedestrian access across the road. No zebra crossing, no pelican, nothing. Wouldn't it make more sense to campaign for that instead?
Now, it might be that since Google crawled the area one has been put in & the driver failed to stop at it. It might be that the car mounted the pavement and she wasn't even crossing the road. I don't know, and crucially, nor does anyone commenting at this point.
But they are convinced that they know just what will do the trick. And that's making everyone drive at what they consider to be a 'safe' speed.
There seems to be a developing gestalt that pedestrians are never even partially at fault for an accident; just look at the outrage engendered by the move by insurance giant Churchill to reduce the payout to a girl left brain damaged when she was hit by a car as she walked - in dark clothing - down an unlit country road with headphones in! Speed is again a factor, according to our diamond-sharp legal minds:
Mr Moore was found to be driving at about 50mph – which the judge considered to be too fast for such a road in darkness.
But the Court of Appeal has allowed the insurers to appeal against the original ruling. The test case will decide to what extent children can be held responsible for their injuries in road accidents.Here's hoping sanity prevails. But I think it probably won't...
Kids need to learn that if they get hit by something that's big and hard that's it's likely to hurt or kill them.
There's no need for pelican or puffin or any other p crossing. There's a traffic island in the road to allow people to cross half the road at at time. That is more than adequate for the vast majority of people. Especially when you take into account the straightness of the road which means that even the slowest old age pensioner should be able to find a long enough gap in the traffic to cross.
As for the Churchill case - thanks for mentioning that she was walking in dark clothing with headphones on. No matter what speed the driver was going at, someone walking in the middle of the road in dark clothing is going to get hit.
What is strange is that a pedestrian "collides" with a car. I have seen this word used when buses and trucks are involved. I have yet to come across a case where the pedestrian has been running at speed and the died because they ran into a stationary or moving vehicle.
If a car runs over your head at 30mph then you're definitely going to die.
How the hell can anyone be expected NOT to fall head-first into the path of a moving car ?
WE MUST BAN PEOPLE... NOW !
on Scottish Government !!!
Not many deed !!!
And story in DM now. Surprisingly the pictures don't show the straightness of the road.
If the car had been doing 60mph, it would have passed by before the woman had started to cross...
Well - having nearly mashed a BMX ninja (black bike, black trackies, black hoody and no lights) on a country road at 10pm - there but etc... My girlfiend killed an old lady who simply walked straight out of a garden gate across the pavement and into the traffic...
IIRC TRRL numbers for "conflicts" between pedestrians and motor vehicles have been attributed at ~85% to the pedestrians for some years.
"Kids need to learn that if they get hit by something that's big and hard that's it's likely to hurt or kill them."
I strongly suspect that the good old Green Cross Code was phased out to usher in out modern age of 'it's everyone else's' fault!'...
"There's a traffic island in the road to allow people to cross half the road at at time. That is more than adequate for the vast majority of people. "
It's significant, I think, that the police have made no arrests...
"What is strange is that a pedestrian "collides" with a car."
Yup, it's a phase commonly used these days. It seems odd to my ears too.
"WE MUST BAN PEOPLE... NOW !"
If it saves one life... ;)
"If the car had been doing 60mph, it would have passed by before the woman had started to cross..."
"...(black bike, black trackies, black hoody and no lights..."
/facepalm Darwin Award Contenders!
We should ban young women from crossing the street if unaccompanied by brother or a male cousin.
Post a Comment