Boy hurt in crash near Larkmead School

A boy suffered a suspected broken leg after a collision with a car near Larkmead School in Abingdon this afternoon.

The boy, who police said was believed to be a pupil at the Faringdon Road school, was injured just before 3.20pm.

The driver of a Mercedes car was being interviewed by police, a spokesman said.

He added the boy suffered a serious injury, believed to be a broken leg.

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:04pm Wed 25 Apr 12

L0RD PETER MCVEY 0X2 6EG says...

We either need to ban the killer car near our schools, or put in a 5 mph limit enforced by a man with a red flag, before all our kids are killed or maimed. But then again my kids were taught The Green Cross Code, and never had a problem crossing the road. But also if the Merc was driving on the path, the book should be thrown at him.
We either need to ban the killer car near our schools, or put in a 5 mph limit enforced by a man with a red flag, before all our kids are killed or maimed. But then again my kids were taught The Green Cross Code, and never had a problem crossing the road. But also if the Merc was driving on the path, the book should be thrown at him. L0RD PETER MCVEY 0X2 6EG

7:23pm Wed 25 Apr 12

Feelingsmatter says...

It surprises me that collisions keep happening at this location when Wootton Road and Northcourt Road are both far busier and more narrow. Maybe speed bumps need to be added o the road layout as they have been in the other two places?
It surprises me that collisions keep happening at this location when Wootton Road and Northcourt Road are both far busier and more narrow. Maybe speed bumps need to be added o the road layout as they have been in the other two places? Feelingsmatter

8:16pm Wed 25 Apr 12

Dilligaf2010 says...

L0RD PETER MCVEY 0X2 6EG wrote:
We either need to ban the killer car near our schools, or put in a 5 mph limit enforced by a man with a red flag, before all our kids are killed or maimed. But then again my kids were taught The Green Cross Code, and never had a problem crossing the road. But also if the Merc was driving on the path, the book should be thrown at him.
I think the Green Cross Code and the Tufty Club should be reintroduced, as should Lollipop Ladies, I'm sure some of the £4 million paid to the Top Council executives could be used to pay for them.
[quote][p][bold]L0RD PETER MCVEY 0X2 6EG[/bold] wrote: We either need to ban the killer car near our schools, or put in a 5 mph limit enforced by a man with a red flag, before all our kids are killed or maimed. But then again my kids were taught The Green Cross Code, and never had a problem crossing the road. But also if the Merc was driving on the path, the book should be thrown at him.[/p][/quote]I think the Green Cross Code and the Tufty Club should be reintroduced, as should Lollipop Ladies, I'm sure some of the £4 million paid to the Top Council executives could be used to pay for them. Dilligaf2010

9:25pm Wed 25 Apr 12

Ceasar says...

Not quite sure how he was in a 'collision' with a car. Was he running fast in the opposite direction and crashed? Running fast behind the car and failed to stop ?

Or, was he RUN OVER ?

Thank god he only has a broken leg, as if that is'nt bad enough, Speedy recovery young man.
Not quite sure how he was in a 'collision' with a car. Was he running fast in the opposite direction and crashed? Running fast behind the car and failed to stop ? Or, was he RUN OVER ? Thank god he only has a broken leg, as if that is'nt bad enough, Speedy recovery young man. Ceasar

7:38am Thu 26 Apr 12

davyboy says...

this could involve a few factors. did he run out into the road? was the car speeding? too many children don't know how to cross the road, and assume that traffic will stop if they step out. either that, or they are on the phone, and don't even look!!!!
this could involve a few factors. did he run out into the road? was the car speeding? too many children don't know how to cross the road, and assume that traffic will stop if they step out. either that, or they are on the phone, and don't even look!!!! davyboy

9:13am Thu 26 Apr 12

Abberdon says...

The space around schools, shopping centres, hospitals, anywhere that has large numbers walking in the vicinty, or cycling, needs to be zones as a 30 kph speed limit, or 20 mph.

The road speed there is faster than that. There is no excuse not to lower road speeds, right now, so vehicles and 'people' can better co-exist.
The space around schools, shopping centres, hospitals, anywhere that has large numbers walking in the vicinty, or cycling, needs to be zones as a 30 kph speed limit, or 20 mph. The road speed there is faster than that. There is no excuse not to lower road speeds, right now, so vehicles and 'people' can better co-exist. Abberdon

9:14am Thu 26 Apr 12

Gunslinger says...

Ceasar wrote:
Not quite sure how he was in a 'collision' with a car. Was he running fast in the opposite direction and crashed? Running fast behind the car and failed to stop ?

Or, was he RUN OVER ?

Thank god he only has a broken leg, as if that is'nt bad enough, Speedy recovery young man.
Because this is a neutral way of describing the accident without prejudging fault on either side.

Of course there are always those who automatically assume that the car driver must be at fault, and then go on to propose reducing speed limits to 10 mph everywhere...
[quote][p][bold]Ceasar[/bold] wrote: Not quite sure how he was in a 'collision' with a car. Was he running fast in the opposite direction and crashed? Running fast behind the car and failed to stop ? Or, was he RUN OVER ? Thank god he only has a broken leg, as if that is'nt bad enough, Speedy recovery young man.[/p][/quote]Because this is a neutral way of describing the accident without prejudging fault on either side. Of course there are always those who automatically assume that the car driver must be at fault, and then go on to propose reducing speed limits to 10 mph everywhere... Gunslinger

11:48am Thu 26 Apr 12

Feelingsmatter says...

Gunslinger said; "Of course there are always those who automatically assume that the car driver must be at fault, and then go on to propose reducing speed limits to 10 mph everywhere..." It's nothing to do with assumptions and everything to do with facts. The slower the car the less serious the injury. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, the important thing is reducing the possibility of injury.
Gunslinger said; "Of course there are always those who automatically assume that the car driver must be at fault, and then go on to propose reducing speed limits to 10 mph everywhere..." It's nothing to do with assumptions and everything to do with facts. The slower the car the less serious the injury. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, the important thing is reducing the possibility of injury. Feelingsmatter

7:08pm Thu 26 Apr 12

Gunslinger says...

Feelingsmatter wrote:
Gunslinger said; "Of course there are always those who automatically assume that the car driver must be at fault, and then go on to propose reducing speed limits to 10 mph everywhere..." It's nothing to do with assumptions and everything to do with facts. The slower the car the less serious the injury. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, the important thing is reducing the possibility of injury.
The logic of this approach is that everybody everywhere needs to travel at 10-20 mph just in case there is an accident - why not bring back red flags?

I'm sorry, but there needs to be some balance between the needs of people to get about and do business conveniently, and safety.

We do not know all the facts of this case, but part of that also involves the more vulnerable road users - pedestrians, cyclists etc - taking care and responsibility for their own safety, as well as just demanding more restrictions on others.
[quote][p][bold]Feelingsmatter[/bold] wrote: Gunslinger said; "Of course there are always those who automatically assume that the car driver must be at fault, and then go on to propose reducing speed limits to 10 mph everywhere..." It's nothing to do with assumptions and everything to do with facts. The slower the car the less serious the injury. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, the important thing is reducing the possibility of injury.[/p][/quote]The logic of this approach is that everybody everywhere needs to travel at 10-20 mph just in case there is an accident - why not bring back red flags? I'm sorry, but there needs to be some balance between the needs of people to get about and do business conveniently, and safety. We do not know all the facts of this case, but part of that also involves the more vulnerable road users - pedestrians, cyclists etc - taking care and responsibility for their own safety, as well as just demanding more restrictions on others. Gunslinger

11:17pm Thu 26 Apr 12

Abberdon says...

Gunslinger, vehicles crash all the time, every day, going too fast, not paying attention, killing and maiming people and barely a word said against the drivers, drunk or sober.

At 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrains and cyclists will die when hit by a car. At 20 mph that reduces to 1 out of 10.

It's about managing risk old chap, and when drivers are unable to manage their vehicles, they represent a massive risk.

Now, 20 mph is not needed on motorways, but it is needed in towns and cities.

A plus in reducing road speeds is the lower damage and repair bills, lower hospital and ongoing health costs, reduced import of fuels, but the best of all is that reducing speeds on urban roads does not have much of an impact on travel times.

Why should peds and bikers be taking all the care, when drivers are expecting to blaze away like a mad dog with a six-gun?
Gunslinger, vehicles crash all the time, every day, going too fast, not paying attention, killing and maiming people and barely a word said against the drivers, drunk or sober. At 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrains and cyclists will die when hit by a car. At 20 mph that reduces to 1 out of 10. It's about managing risk old chap, and when drivers are unable to manage their vehicles, they represent a massive risk. Now, 20 mph is not needed on motorways, but it is needed in towns and cities. A plus in reducing road speeds is the lower damage and repair bills, lower hospital and ongoing health costs, reduced import of fuels, but the best of all is that reducing speeds on urban roads does not have much of an impact on travel times. Why should peds and bikers be taking all the care, when drivers are expecting to blaze away like a mad dog with a six-gun? Abberdon

12:44pm Fri 27 Apr 12

Gunslinger says...

Abberdon wrote:
Gunslinger, vehicles crash all the time, every day, going too fast, not paying attention, killing and maiming people and barely a word said against the drivers, drunk or sober.

At 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrains and cyclists will die when hit by a car. At 20 mph that reduces to 1 out of 10.

It's about managing risk old chap, and when drivers are unable to manage their vehicles, they represent a massive risk.

Now, 20 mph is not needed on motorways, but it is needed in towns and cities.

A plus in reducing road speeds is the lower damage and repair bills, lower hospital and ongoing health costs, reduced import of fuels, but the best of all is that reducing speeds on urban roads does not have much of an impact on travel times.

Why should peds and bikers be taking all the care, when drivers are expecting to blaze away like a mad dog with a six-gun?
'Why should peds and bikers be taking all the care, when drivers are expecting to blaze away like a mad dog with a six-gun?'

EVERYONE needs to be taking care - there are laws and penalties for motorists who do not, particularly if an accident is caused. These laws do not apply to the 'vulnerable' road users, better education and training is needed to remind them that their carelessness risks injury and perhaps death.

A 'risk management' approach should be just that - proportionate to the risk in particular cases. A 20mph limit is perfectly justifiable in the right cases, eg outside schools or other high risk areas, but applied on an indiscriminate blanket basis, is largely unenforceable.

One problem is that vehicles are designed to operate efficiently and comfortably at particular speeds, enforced travel at lower speeds is likely to increase rather than fuel consumption. It is not easy to maintain a steady 20 mph along a clear open road with few obvious hazards or obstructions, and it is quite clear that many drivers - including buses, council vehicles and police - do not observe blanket 20 mph limits.
[quote][p][bold]Abberdon[/bold] wrote: Gunslinger, vehicles crash all the time, every day, going too fast, not paying attention, killing and maiming people and barely a word said against the drivers, drunk or sober. At 40 mph, 9 out of 10 pedestrains and cyclists will die when hit by a car. At 20 mph that reduces to 1 out of 10. It's about managing risk old chap, and when drivers are unable to manage their vehicles, they represent a massive risk. Now, 20 mph is not needed on motorways, but it is needed in towns and cities. A plus in reducing road speeds is the lower damage and repair bills, lower hospital and ongoing health costs, reduced import of fuels, but the best of all is that reducing speeds on urban roads does not have much of an impact on travel times. Why should peds and bikers be taking all the care, when drivers are expecting to blaze away like a mad dog with a six-gun?[/p][/quote]'Why should peds and bikers be taking all the care, when drivers are expecting to blaze away like a mad dog with a six-gun?' EVERYONE needs to be taking care - there are laws and penalties for motorists who do not, particularly if an accident is caused. These laws do not apply to the 'vulnerable' road users, better education and training is needed to remind them that their carelessness risks injury and perhaps death. A 'risk management' approach should be just that - proportionate to the risk in particular cases. A 20mph limit is perfectly justifiable in the right cases, eg outside schools or other high risk areas, but applied on an indiscriminate blanket basis, is largely unenforceable. One problem is that vehicles are designed to operate efficiently and comfortably at particular speeds, enforced travel at lower speeds is likely to increase rather than fuel consumption. It is not easy to maintain a steady 20 mph along a clear open road with few obvious hazards or obstructions, and it is quite clear that many drivers - including buses, council vehicles and police - do not observe blanket 20 mph limits. Gunslinger

2:54pm Fri 27 Apr 12

Abberdon says...

Aha, truth will out, eh what?

Because buses, council vehicles and the Peelers are exempt from intelligent driving requirements, it is OK to have every motor vehicle drive 'like the wind', eh?

Not good enough. Many people still fail to 'clunk click every trip' but still we do not allow open slather with refusing to wear safety belts, do we?

MUrder is illegal yet still people insist on doing it. The Furphy of 'unenforceable' is just that, a Furphy.

What about the 'war on drugs'? How well that has gone eh, just because it is a 'law'.

Let those who speed, get done for speeding. Let speeding become an odious crime, a heinous anti-social activity punished by hefty penalties, confiscation of vehicles for periods of time, public shame, humiliation and exclusion, driving bans and time spent on a bicycle as penance and to learn how dangerous it is to have speedsters and nitwits flying past within an inch of your handlebars.

And who said lower roads speeds were to be applied 'indiscriminatorily'
?

I'd not suggest that at all and I don't think that has ever been the argument.

Take Abingdon centre. should it be 60 mph, 50 mph, 40 mph, 30mph, 20mph or lower even?

I'd suggest 20 mph is fine, and a reflection of the actual speed too.

The road to Culham past the bridge? No need for that to be 20 mph at all.

Oxford Road? Nothing wrong with 20 mph along its length, till the end of the speed limit near Lodge Hill.

Abingdon bypass? Not 20 mph at all.

Through Marcham? 20 mph is fine.

See, nothing 'indiscriminate' at all.

As for having the correct gearing, sure, not hard at all.

But then we'd also get by with cars that had no need to do 120 mph, with six gears too, wouldn't we. After all, you hit the nail on the head when you used the word 'design'. We just need to redesign cars, to be less anti-social.

Particularly when most journeys are very local, and more of those could even be done on a bike, by many people but not all, of course.

But yes, let us get better training and education too, I do think that is a sound idea.
Aha, truth will out, eh what? Because buses, council vehicles and the Peelers are exempt from intelligent driving requirements, it is OK to have every motor vehicle drive 'like the wind', eh? Not good enough. Many people still fail to 'clunk click every trip' but still we do not allow open slather with refusing to wear safety belts, do we? MUrder is illegal yet still people insist on doing it. The Furphy of 'unenforceable' is just that, a Furphy. What about the 'war on drugs'? How well that has gone eh, just because it is a 'law'. Let those who speed, get done for speeding. Let speeding become an odious crime, a heinous anti-social activity punished by hefty penalties, confiscation of vehicles for periods of time, public shame, humiliation and exclusion, driving bans and time spent on a bicycle as penance and to learn how dangerous it is to have speedsters and nitwits flying past within an inch of your handlebars. And who said lower roads speeds were to be applied 'indiscriminatorily' ? I'd not suggest that at all and I don't think that has ever been the argument. Take Abingdon centre. should it be 60 mph, 50 mph, 40 mph, 30mph, 20mph or lower even? I'd suggest 20 mph is fine, and a reflection of the actual speed too. The road to Culham past the bridge? No need for that to be 20 mph at all. Oxford Road? Nothing wrong with 20 mph along its length, till the end of the speed limit near Lodge Hill. Abingdon bypass? Not 20 mph at all. Through Marcham? 20 mph is fine. See, nothing 'indiscriminate' at all. As for having the correct gearing, sure, not hard at all. But then we'd also get by with cars that had no need to do 120 mph, with six gears too, wouldn't we. After all, you hit the nail on the head when you used the word 'design'. We just need to redesign cars, to be less anti-social. Particularly when most journeys are very local, and more of those could even be done on a bike, by many people but not all, of course. But yes, let us get better training and education too, I do think that is a sound idea. Abberdon

3:40pm Fri 27 Apr 12

Jimjamiejonboy says...

First of all my opinion has nothing to with tthe accident mentioned above and I wish the boy a speedy recovery .
All of the stupid comments above are from fully grown adults that may drive but after what they have said I should think you lot shouldnt be trusted walking anywhere let alone on a bike or car .
Not one of you has wished the boy Well, Idiots
First of all my opinion has nothing to with tthe accident mentioned above and I wish the boy a speedy recovery . All of the stupid comments above are from fully grown adults that may drive but after what they have said I should think you lot shouldnt be trusted walking anywhere let alone on a bike or car . Not one of you has wished the boy Well, Idiots Jimjamiejonboy

4:35pm Fri 27 Apr 12

Feelingsmatter says...

Jimjamiejonboy says...
3:40pm Fri 27 Apr 12

"First of all my opinion has nothing to with tthe accident mentioned above and I wish the boy a speedy recovery .
All of the stupid comments above are from fully grown adults that may drive but after what they have said I should think you lot shouldnt be trusted walking anywhere let alone on a bike or car .
Not one of you has wished the boy Well, Idiots"

Nice mature comment JimJamieJonboy. Kind of undermines your point, wouldn't you say? Plus, if you'd bothered to read the comments properly one person DID wish him well. You can't tell people what to write on a public forum.
Jimjamiejonboy says... 3:40pm Fri 27 Apr 12 "First of all my opinion has nothing to with tthe accident mentioned above and I wish the boy a speedy recovery . All of the stupid comments above are from fully grown adults that may drive but after what they have said I should think you lot shouldnt be trusted walking anywhere let alone on a bike or car . Not one of you has wished the boy Well, Idiots" Nice mature comment JimJamieJonboy. Kind of undermines your point, wouldn't you say? Plus, if you'd bothered to read the comments properly one person DID wish him well. You can't tell people what to write on a public forum. Feelingsmatter

7:13pm Fri 27 Apr 12

shipscat says...

Well said Abberdon. part of the problem is women dropping of or picking of from school they always seem to be late and in a rush try not to use my bike during the "school runs"
Well said Abberdon. part of the problem is women dropping of or picking of from school they always seem to be late and in a rush try not to use my bike during the "school runs" shipscat

7:16pm Fri 27 Apr 12

shipscat says...

Jimjamiejonboy wrote:
First of all my opinion has nothing to with tthe accident mentioned above and I wish the boy a speedy recovery . All of the stupid comments above are from fully grown adults that may drive but after what they have said I should think you lot shouldnt be trusted walking anywhere let alone on a bike or car . Not one of you has wished the boy Well, Idiots
Your post started well then deteriorated with the insults.
[quote][p][bold]Jimjamiejonboy[/bold] wrote: First of all my opinion has nothing to with tthe accident mentioned above and I wish the boy a speedy recovery . All of the stupid comments above are from fully grown adults that may drive but after what they have said I should think you lot shouldnt be trusted walking anywhere let alone on a bike or car . Not one of you has wished the boy Well, Idiots[/p][/quote]Your post started well then deteriorated with the insults. shipscat

3:19am Sun 29 Apr 12

lucifa42 says...

Abberdon, you're not a member of BRAKE are you?
Abberdon, you're not a member of BRAKE are you? lucifa42

7:22pm Wed 2 May 12

Jimjamiejonboy says...

yes I agree now looking back at my post that the insult was a bit harsh and apologise but it annoys me how many people jump to the conclusion its the cars fault. It states elsewhere on this website that a boy ran out.Something we have all done once in our lives.
yes I agree now looking back at my post that the insult was a bit harsh and apologise but it annoys me how many people jump to the conclusion its the cars fault. It states elsewhere on this website that a boy ran out.Something we have all done once in our lives. Jimjamiejonboy

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree