Head's plea for crossing (From Oxford Mail)

Larkmead has a dreadfull record as far the "journey to school" is concerened and its not enough for the head to call for measures on issues that has been effecting his students for years, get off your backside Mr Harris and do some positve stuff to protect your children, for instance if there had been a proper H&S initiative on the exits there may have been a barrier installed at the foot of the pathway to Copenhagen drive before that awful fatality!

What difference would a crossing make. The boy darted across the road without looking, he would still have done the same if a crossing had been there.

That may be the case Bart, but its all about reducing the risk, John Mason school has a Zebra crossing and humps right outside the school, Fitzharry's has humps the entire length of Northcourt Rd where as Larkmead has nothing, the very least there should be is a proper crossing along with a 20mph speed limit around school opening/closing time, that said there are two other schools situated on the same road, yet it's allways Larkmead that has the problems, why?

I cross Abingdon town every morning and afternoon and nearly every day there is a near miss between cars/bikes/pedestria
ns at some point on my journey, people, not just school pupils crossing roads without using due care and attention sometimes feet away from crossing's stopping traffic, bikes going the wrong way in one way streets, hopping on and off pavements to get round walkers but not looking for cars! Bring back the Green Cross Code Man, Dave we need you!

i would agree with the headmaster on this. also, though, better education by parents on how to cross a road. it is not the schools responsibility to ensure kids know how to cross the road, but by putting measures in place to help, they will have done what they can

Perhaps the “No to 20mph” brigade might take note of this schools' situation and be less selfish

jags1953 wrote:
Perhaps the “No to 20mph” brigade might take note of this schools' situation and be less selfish

"On Wednesday a boy ran out and was involved in an accident with a Mercedes car."

prehaps someone should teach the kids the dangers of not crossing a road properly??

EricTheRed wrote:

jags1953 wrote:
Perhaps the “No to 20mph” brigade might take note of this schools' situation and be less selfish

"On Wednesday a boy ran out and was involved in an accident with a Mercedes car."

prehaps someone should teach the kids the dangers of not crossing a road properly??

Adults also need to understand that no matter how much you teach a kid to do something that in the end they are still children.

Everyone makes mistakes, particularly children. I'm sure you could blame some young children for getting run over and killed - but surely it's better for adults to take appropriate preventive precautions?

Oh ok then, when I'm driving I will not keep my eyes on the road but to the side to see if some kid runs out in front of me without looking. It was the kids fault and no one else. You can not even blame it on speed.

Bart Simpsonxxx wrote:
Oh ok then, when I'm driving I will not keep my eyes on the road but to the side to see if some kid runs out in front of me without looking. It was the kids fault and no one else. You can not even blame it on speed.

If you cannot keep your eyes on the road, while also being aware of the wider surroundings - particularly when driving past a school - you are clearly driving too fast.

Floflo wrote:

Bart Simpsonxxx wrote:
Oh ok then, when I'm driving I will not keep my eyes on the road but to the side to see if some kid runs out in front of me without looking. It was the kids fault and no one else. You can not even blame it on speed.

If you cannot keep your eyes on the road, while also being aware of the wider surroundings - particularly when driving past a school - you are clearly driving too fast.

Please clarify that statement, and what is too fast? Obviously 5mph is too fast if some kid is going to run out in front of you, but he learnt his lesson and will wait for the green man in future, but will his mates. The Bartman is right as usual, and straight to the point. With all the past accidents I would call the head to question whether he is a fit person to be the leader of children because they obviously do not take notice of a word he says.

Dr bob, in your opinion The Bartman is right, but I don't agree with you. If you can reduce the risk, regardless of who is to blame, then only the most heartless car-driver would disagree, surely. When I drive near any school at home time I drive slowly enough to stop if someone should run out. I watch the kids and try to see if any of them are too close to the road. This morning I drove out of my house and had to stop as an elderly lady walked into the road without checking. I know elderly people live near me so I drive accordingly. The speed limit is a legal maximum, not a target! You should use your own intelligence to work out what speed you should drive according to the road conditions.

And by the way, there IS no green man, or flashing lights, at Larkmead.

Dr Bob and the Bartman seem to miss out on the fact that it is the car driver that is in charge of a potentially dangerous vehicle and they have a responsibility to others.

Yes, of course, parents and teachers have a responsibility to teach children how to behave safely near roads, but children are still children, and all adults owe them a duty of care.

Floflo is right, if Bartman can't concentrate on the road and upcoming pavements he is driving too fast and should slow down.

Speed reduction measures are a sensible approach rounds schools because slower speeds may not always prevent accidents but they have a huge impact on the amount of harm that is likely to be caused if an accident does occur.

"but children are still children"
I must be missing something here. I thought Larkmead was a Big School. A 5 year old MIGHT dart into the road, if not very bright, but a secondary school pupil?
I recall a 14 year old in Blaenau Gwent who fell down a manhole and sued the council. The gist of her complaint was she'd fallen down it the previous day and the council, to whom she'd not reported it , hadn't fixed it by the second occasion. There are some people who we must hope don't pass their genes on.

Abingdon Neil wrote:
Dr Bob and the Bartman seem to miss out on the fact that it is the car driver that is in charge of a potentially dangerous vehicle and they have a responsibility to others.

Yes, of course, parents and teachers have a responsibility to teach children how to behave safely near roads, but children are still children, and all adults owe them a duty of care.

Floflo is right, if Bartman can't concentrate on the road and upcoming pavements he is driving too fast and should slow down.

Speed reduction measures are a sensible approach rounds schools because slower speeds may not always prevent accidents but they have a huge impact on the amount of harm that is likely to be caused if an accident does occur.

ERR actually you will find that if somebody runs out into the ROAD and gets smashed that it is their fault, if I drive on the pavement and smash a pedestrian then it is my fault. The two Bs are right. Roads for cars and pavements for pedestrians and never the twain shall meet, and if they do, well you see the consequences everyday. Always follow the Green Cross Code Kiddies.

Abingdon Neil wrote:
Dr Bob and the Bartman seem to miss out on the fact that it is the car driver that is in charge of a potentially dangerous vehicle and they have a responsibility to others.

Yes, of course, parents and teachers have a responsibility to teach children how to behave safely near roads, but children are still children, and all adults owe them a duty of care.

Floflo is right, if Bartman can't concentrate on the road and upcoming pavements he is driving too fast and should slow down.

Speed reduction measures are a sensible approach rounds schools because slower speeds may not always prevent accidents but they have a huge impact on the amount of harm that is likely to be caused if an accident does occur.

OOPS I almost forgot to reply to your comment, do you think we should have a red flag man in front of cars then. Get a life mate, people have to make a living, and as thus have to get from A to B, without driving at 2mph for most of the day. Get Davey Boy to tell bosses not to punish workers for coming in late because they stop for 30 minutes on their way to work and then you might get your utopian road network that you wish for, but in the real world money talks, and nothing else matters. Just ask Dave.

Wish Dave thought my money mattered and stopped paying it out in welfare LPMV

I agree with most of what is being said here, I think however, it is important to point out that whilst all blame is being pinned on the head to deal with this, there are 3 schools on the same road. The most recent incident with the young man running into the road happened at the entrance of one of the private schools and the driver was coming out of the school car park as the boy ran in front of the car hence the fact that he was not seriously injured. This school is a 100 yards away from Larkmead entrance. At Larkmead they have teachers standing at the gates ensuring safe crossings of their own school entrance and a lollipop man to cross over the Faringdon road straight outside the gate.
I have two children in the school, both of whom I like to think behave safely but children are children and I have waited outside the school for them on a few occasions where I have seen the children coming safely out of the school but once out of sight of the teachers who stand on the gate they run into the road and play push me pull me games which is very dangerous and again they end up in the road. Short of the teachers escorting the children all the way home the only thing that can be done is the parents need to remind children of the green cross code, try to instil into them the dangers of playing games near roads (which is something I tell my own children) or collecting them themselves. The parents need to take some responsibility here.
The other incident where the young lady crashed with a bus was nowhere near the school, she was crossing the McDonalds roundabout and the bus driver did not see her, yet it is the head who is being blamed because she was wearing a Larkmead jumper. It is very easy to point blame, the simple fact is when driving near a school all care and attention must be made, I automatically slow down when I see ANYBODY near a curb because you never can tell what their intentions are.
Putting in speed humps and reducing the speed may help but it wouldn’t have made any difference to the last two incidents because neither of them were on the actual Faringdon road.

L0RD PETER MCVEY 0X2 6EG wrote:

Abingdon Neil wrote:
Dr Bob and the Bartman seem to miss out on the fact that it is the car driver that is in charge of a potentially dangerous vehicle and they have a responsibility to others.

Yes, of course, parents and teachers have a responsibility to teach children how to behave safely near roads, but children are still children, and all adults owe them a duty of care.

Floflo is right, if Bartman can't concentrate on the road and upcoming pavements he is driving too fast and should slow down.

Speed reduction measures are a sensible approach rounds schools because slower speeds may not always prevent accidents but they have a huge impact on the amount of harm that is likely to be caused if an accident does occur.

ERR actually you will find that if somebody runs out into the ROAD and gets smashed that it is their fault, if I drive on the pavement and smash a pedestrian then it is my fault. The two Bs are right. Roads for cars and pavements for pedestrians and never the twain shall meet, and if they do, well you see the consequences everyday. Always follow the Green Cross Code Kiddies.

@MCVEY

Rather than obsessing about fault - and blaming children for running under you car perhaps you should consider a defensive driving course.

The aim is anticipate rather than react to hazards. With this in mind you may well be able to avoid blaming children in the first place.

Floflo wrote:

L0RD PETER MCVEY 0X2 6EG wrote:

Abingdon Neil wrote:
Dr Bob and the Bartman seem to miss out on the fact that it is the car driver that is in charge of a potentially dangerous vehicle and they have a responsibility to others.

Yes, of course, parents and teachers have a responsibility to teach children how to behave safely near roads, but children are still children, and all adults owe them a duty of care.

Floflo is right, if Bartman can't concentrate on the road and upcoming pavements he is driving too fast and should slow down.

Speed reduction measures are a sensible approach rounds schools because slower speeds may not always prevent accidents but they have a huge impact on the amount of harm that is likely to be caused if an accident does occur.

ERR actually you will find that if somebody runs out into the ROAD and gets smashed that it is their fault, if I drive on the pavement and smash a pedestrian then it is my fault. The two Bs are right. Roads for cars and pavements for pedestrians and never the twain shall meet, and if they do, well you see the consequences everyday. Always follow the Green Cross Code Kiddies.

@MCVEY

Rather than obsessing about fault - and blaming children for running under you car perhaps you should consider a defensive driving course.

The aim is anticipate rather than react to hazards. With this in mind you may well be able to avoid blaming children in the first place.

No thanks Floey, I will carry on as normal and hope other do the same (including not thinking that the road is a playground) Floey Luv you remind me of Helen Lovejoy, who in times of trouble always comes out with the line "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN"

Who cares whose fault it is? Most schools have some kind of traffic calming measure outside because the group of road-users most likely to get knocked down are teenagers. No one's saying car-drivers should be punished and all all awful drivers, but what is wrong in taking sensible measures to avoid someone being hurt?? How would it inconvenience anyone to slow down to 20 for a short stretch of road? Have you forgotten what it's like to be young?

Crossings and speed humps cluttering up the road even when there are no kids about. Why do people persist with such brain dead ideas.
Why don't we just have system they have outside schools in the US, flashing 20mph limit signs that are on during arriving/leaving times and DRACONIAN enforcement against anyone who breaks the limit. People respect them because they know they ONLY on when they need to be and it DOES mean kids are about and they also know ignoring them will be guaranteed to get them up close and personal with a law officer who will tear them a new botty hole. Simples.

The head cannot be blamed for the actions of the student or the car driver. Large numbers of people exiting any venue are a risk and school students are more of a risk.

The council/s have made no effort to reduce speeds or provide any form of traffic claming, and that is highly irresponsible.

The road simply must be made safer to reduce the extent of any future inevitable clashes between vehicles and people.

The 'driver has a right' brigade here are shortsighted, selfish anti-community and self-important.

Driving at 20 mph along the length of that road would hardly cost any time to anyone but might considerably reduce the risk of serious harm to many.

Another road that needs a serious re-speeding down to 20 mph is Barrow Road, where drivers refuse to acknowledge the dangers of such a narrow and busy road.

There are new and very clever speed bumps being developed that only assault the senses of those drivers who go over them too fast. Hit them at the designated speed and they are practically invisible but hit them too fast and you know about it.

The days of lumps of bitumen and gravel being thrown down as a speed hump are gone, and it's high time some innovative road designer got reading the research.

The school speed zones mentioned above are also in use in Australia, at 40 kph but there are moves afoot to reduce that to 30 kph or 20 mph. They operate from 7.30 am to 9.00 am and 2.30 pm to 4.00 pm during school time, not holidays or weekends.

That is a halfway decent solution, and in the case of Larkmead should extend all along Faringdon Road from Abingdon School on the corner to past St. Helens and Larkmead, down to Barrow Road.

You can also fit speed signs that flash on when drivers exceed the designated speed, warning them and all around of their outcast status - no reason not to attach a speed camera to it and a fine to the drivers is there?

This demand from drivers to continue their reckless anti-social behaviour is quite extraordinary, particularly when coupled with the inability to take any responsibility for their driving, blaming everything on everyone else.

Time to grow up.

I have to say that as someone who actually lives on Faringdon Road and near to Larkmead, the behaviour of a MINORITY of pupils does beggar belief. Bikes sweving all over the road with no attention to the traffic and actually standing in the road at times. Traffic calming on Faringdon Road won't make a huge difference as the speed of the cars is down to a crawl for that main half hour of 8.15 to 8.45. Cars coming up Spring Road to tend to drive far too quickly though. I think the Larkmead Head needs to drum into the kids the need to be far more aware of traffic in general. Having said that, you cannot legislate for idiots.

Julian G, good pointsbut there must come a time when parents are required to be responsible for something, for once, and in this case it is the training of their own children, from prior to going to school, in how to behave beside and on a road, be that on the footpath or in a vehicle.

You describe what I too have seen, at Larkmead and at other schools too, oafish behaviour that threatens self preservation to say nothing of others.

But that is par for the course in life. Not everyone who enters a pub exits on their hands and knees having drunk too much.

Not every driver of a vehicle is a lunatic, by any stretch of the imagination, and not every student endangers themselves, at Larkmead or other schools.

Sadly though, the minority has to be catered for lest we all fall foul of their irresponsible behaviour.

The driver taking care may still end up in a collision with an oaf at such a spot, which is why reduced speeds are the correct move, to at least lessen the damage.

Some on this thread are more than happy to plough trough flesh and blame the departed for being on the road, while claiming their right to drive at the maximum speed posted.

They are as oafish as the student who deliberately puts themself in danger.

Abberdon - while I tend to agree mostly with you, my guess is that the "oafish" pupils might not take a whole lot of notice of what their parents say. And I do, on more philosophical level, have an issue with the constant catering to the irresponsible minorities at the expense of the law-abiding and responsible majority - but that is a debate for another time methinks!

My concern is that teachers and principals get blamed unfairly for student behaviours that should, frankly, have been put in place years before by parents and families.

As to pandering in this instance, it is my belief, with evidence to hand, that 30 mph is too fast for built up areas, regardless of Larkmead. The bypass, motorways, quality dual carriageways, all another matter altogether.

Let's recall what tow trucks cart away from accidents shall we?

Cars. Cars driven badly with substandard drivers at the helm more often than not, going too fast, too fast allround or too fast for the conditions.

I see France has a 10 kph lower speed than that signposted for when it's raining.

Not a bad initiative for here too.

This is hilarious, so many ignorant people posting trash.

It's comedy gold.

the most amazing thing is, if everybody obeyed the highway code this would not be an issue, but yet again a lack of enforcement with regard to all parties concerned creates this problem, plain clothes officers could gather evidence and then prosecute offenders until the rules are obeyed.

faatmaan wrote:
the most amazing thing is, if everybody obeyed the highway code this would not be an issue, but yet again a lack of enforcement with regard to all parties concerned creates this problem, plain clothes officers could gather evidence and then prosecute offenders until the rules are obeyed.

I agree totally , Paths are for pedestrians and bikes should ride on roads, that way kids will learn to respect the other road users. Anyone riding without lights should get a clip round the ear or thier bike confiscated . Bikes and thier riders should be tested and insured. The highway code should be a tested exam for children the same as maths and English .

Jimjamiejonboy wrote:

faatmaan wrote:
the most amazing thing is, if everybody obeyed the highway code this would not be an issue, but yet again a lack of enforcement with regard to all parties concerned creates this problem, plain clothes officers could gather evidence and then prosecute offenders until the rules are obeyed.

I agree totally , Paths are for pedestrians and bikes should ride on roads, that way kids will learn to respect the other road users. Anyone riding without lights should get a clip round the ear or thier bike confiscated . Bikes and thier riders should be tested and insured. The highway code should be a tested exam for children the same as maths and English .

Good idea, if their bikes were confiscated as plod do with motorists cars, then they (the cyclists) might (will) think again. But what about the peds that run into the road, we can't cut off their legs. Can we?

Clearly, pedestrians are a danger to the smooth running of roads, the central feature of civilisations and western economies, and must be registered, insured and tested for walking abilities, not once in a lifetime but annually, and have at least one leg confiscated for 'dangerous walking' should they even dream of halting the progress of a vehicle, ever.

A good idea LPMc.

Bring back the Tufty Club