Naked road scheme in London

On 6/1/05 5:09 pm, in article ,
"Nathaniel Porter" wrote:


But it essentially does the same thing - just in different ways

So does shooting someone, or allowing them to die a natural death of old
age. You end up with the same net result.

One could argue that the means are as important as the ends.

...d

Nathaniel Porter wrote:

I have noted the fact that you have failed to acknowledge (snipping aside)
my point that those who are so arrogant as to think their particular road
user group as more entitled than any of the others are a danger to others. I
suggest that if you have difficulty sharing the road on an equal basis with
others you should take the bus.

I thought the point was not really relevant to the thread. I also didn't
think it was worth commenting on particularly. I have no problems
sharing the road with anyone who uses it properly and I find your
comment grossly offensive.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

Nathaniel David Porter wrote:
Colin Blackburn wrote:

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4151047.stm

"Exhibition Road, home of the Science, Natural History and Victoria

and Albert museum, could have a maximum speed limit of 20mph

I don't know the road, so I'll trust a 20mph limit is fine and
appropriate for the road - but I thought the whole point of the naked

roads business was that drivers had to work everything out for
themselves, and thus drive more carefully? (as opposed to being
nannied
with excessie warning and restrictions to an extent that they don't
think and thus miss the hazards they weren't warned of). Surely
(stricter) traffic regulations go against this, in so much as there
is
still an element of nannying?

if you consider a twenty mph limit as more strict than 30mph. A limit
is still a limit. I would imagibe that there would bve signage at the
entrance to the 20mph zone but no repeaters (as is normal) so we are
(presumably) not talking about any proliferation of street furniture
and markings.


and drivers will not automatically have right of way over
pedestrians
who will be able to cross anywhere on the road."

*Sigh*

This is already the case -

Also I hope that there is still an expectation that pedestrians
should
look before crossing instead of just bumbling into the road (and of
course that there remains one that drivers et al be prepared for the
possibility that pedestrians may cross without looking just in case).

There are too many of these schemes which perpetrate the myth that
there
is or should be a heirarchy of road users, where as IMV more should
be
done to promote the reality that everyone has equal right to use the
road and that people should be considerate of that.

hmmn, since car drivers always check whether any pedestrian is waiting
to cross the road or not before proceeding along any other road this
seems fair enough. After all if pedestrians were to abuse exhibition
road then drivers might be tempted to abuse other road users' right on
the rest of the network.

I agree that everyone has an equal right to use this space just not if
they bring a car with them. Of course one could argue (as you
essentially are)n that car drivers have a de facto right or something
that is hard to distinguish from one) to use many roads (with some
qualification). If I were attempting to walk briskly in this area I
would epect to come into conflict with bimbling pedestrians but I would
not expect to resolve this by requiring them to keep a look out and to
step aside, rather i would walk around them, pause or say "excuse me"
or even accept that I must simply walk more slowly for a while. This
seems to be what the scheme is expecting drivers to do (and cyclists
although by their nature and size they are probably better able to
thread than car drivers). This sounds like the kind of sharing I think
you are talking about rather than special interest pleading although
given the sate of sharing on te rest of the road network I don't think
a bit of "me first" from pedestrians on one road is particularly
unjustified




It is interesting that drivers on Exhibition Road do currently have

automatic right of way of pedestrians. No mention in the article of

the potential effects for cyclists.

I would assume they would be the same as for other vehicles, but it
wouldn't surprise me if this possibility of a cyclist using the road
simply hadn't been considered.

I assume it would the same as the effect on car drivers, that they
would not be able to make progress along the road at the same rate.
Given the nature of the area and the high level of tourists on foot
this seems reasonable enough to me.


article snip

I do support anything that encourages road users to think more when
using the road - but this sounds a bit like a LA trying to be trendy
and
wasting vast sums of money in doing so.

I disagree. Assuming the effect is positive (and the continental
experience suggests that this is quite possible) then a high profile
example such as this could encourage the spread of this practice. I
think that the value of this scheme (assuming it is successful) as
anti-motor supremacy propaganda will be enormous

best wishes
james

In message , Trevor Barton
writes

That ain't going to happen so
long as motorists continue to drive the way they do

Killing about 3,000 plus people in the UK annually.

, and neither is
it going to happen when so many cyclists behave the way they do.
Speeding, red light jumping, dangerous overtaking, pavement cycling
and driving, tailgating, the list is a long and sorry one.

Anyone got the relevant KSI stats for this particularly reprehensible
behaviour?

No group
can claim anything like the moral high ground

It's cyclists' by right. See above.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

wrote in message
ups.com...

Nathaniel David Porter wrote:
Colin Blackburn wrote:

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4151047.stm

"Exhibition Road, home of the Science, Natural History and Victoria

and Albert museum, could have a maximum speed limit of 20mph

I don't know the road, so I'll trust a 20mph limit is fine and
appropriate for the road - but I thought the whole point of the naked

roads business was that drivers had to work everything out for
themselves, and thus drive more carefully? (as opposed to being
nannied
with excessie warning and restrictions to an extent that they don't
think and thus miss the hazards they weren't warned of). Surely
(stricter) traffic regulations go against this, in so much as there
is
still an element of nannying?

if you consider a twenty mph limit as more strict than 30mph. A limit
is still a limit.

Its stricter in the sense the limit is lower.

I would imagibe that there would bve signage at the
entrance to the 20mph zone but no repeaters (as is normal) so we are
(presumably) not talking about any proliferation of street furniture
and markings.



To have a 20mph zone with no repeaters requires traffic calming measures to
be installed on the road. You can have a 20 limit with no claming measures -
but then you need the repeaters.

and drivers will not automatically have right of way over
pedestrians
who will be able to cross anywhere on the road."

*Sigh*

This is already the case -

Also I hope that there is still an expectation that pedestrians
should
look before crossing instead of just bumbling into the road (and of
course that there remains one that drivers et al be prepared for the
possibility that pedestrians may cross without looking just in case).

There are too many of these schemes which perpetrate the myth that
there
is or should be a heirarchy of road users, where as IMV more should
be
done to promote the reality that everyone has equal right to use the
road and that people should be considerate of that.

hmmn, since car drivers always check whether any pedestrian is waiting
to cross the road or not before proceeding along any other road this
seems fair enough.

Equal doesn't mean car drivers (or any other group for that matter) are
should always give way - rather that they should all give way in the same
circumstances. All traffic wishing to cross a "priority" road (be it
pedestrians in the sense you refer to, or vehicles leaving a junction) yield
way in this country - hence turning traffic is expected to give way to
pedestrians and pedestrians are generally expected to give way when crossing
the priority route. I think is the best system, or at least it would be if
vehicle operators understood and obeyed the give way to pedestrians (and
anything else) when turning.

Of course, pedestrans are pedestrians, and as such we shouldn't get too
bothered if people do just bumble around into the road anyway occasionally,
and vehicle operators should be prepared for this possibility.

I expect expecting vehicles to stop for pedestrians wishing to cross the
road generally would do nothing than cause confusion - motorists and
cyclists wouldn't necessarily be able to tell who was wishing to cross,
pedestrians wouldn't necessarily be able to tell if a vehicle is cedeing
way - and they certainly wouldn't be able to trust traffic coming from the
other direction to do the same.

Of course, a sensible compromise could be reached whereby pedestrians would
be expected to wait for a space as now, but vehicle operators would be
expected to help create that space (which can often be done just by slowing
down a bit), instead of ignoring them. I think this is the actual idea
behind the scheme - as opposed to giving pedestrians outright priority, they
simply intend to encourage people to share the road better.

After all if pedestrians were to abuse exhibition
road then drivers might be tempted to abuse other road users' right on
the rest of the network.


Those drivers would have another (invalid, of course) excuse won't they? And
so the vicious circle would continue.

I agree that everyone has an equal right to use this space just not if
they bring a car with them.

Why should the car make a difference?

What about buses and lorries?

(Or even what about a pedestrian pushing a car? :-p )

Of course one could argue (as you
essentially are)n that car drivers have a de facto right or something
that is hard to distinguish from one) to use many roads (with some
qualification). If I were attempting to walk briskly in this area I
would epect to come into conflict with bimbling pedestrians but I would
not expect to resolve this by requiring them to keep a look out and to
step aside, rather i would walk around them, pause or say "excuse me"
or even accept that I must simply walk more slowly for a while.

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I refered to pedestrians
bumbling into the road.

I didn't mean what I imagine from your description i.e. people crossing the
road slowly and a vehicle coming accross them as they are doing so. In these
circumstances I agree, the pedestrians should have right of way (as they do
now in such circumstances), and shouldn't be be expected to step aside or
hurry up or whatever. But as I say - that is the rule of the road now

What I meant by pedestrians bumbling into the road is essentially starting
to cross the road without consideration for other users. To take your
analogy this would be like you walking along at a sensible pace, only for
someone to dart out in front of you. It would be unworkable if that became
standard - of course, vehicle operators have to be prepared in case it
happens - but there is only so much you can do.

This
seems to be what the scheme is expecting drivers to do (and cyclists
although by their nature and size they are probably better able to
thread than car drivers).

But vehicle operators are already expected to cede way to pedestrians in the
process of crossing the road everywhere - I think this scheme risks eroding
this further on all of the unaffected roads, even if it does improve it in
this isolated stretch.

This sounds like the kind of sharing I think
you are talking about rather than special interest pleading although
given the sate of sharing on te rest of the road network I don't think
a bit of "me first" from pedestrians on one road is particularly
unjustified


I wouldn't say it was not unjustified - that would be a bit close to "Tu
Quoque" - but it would be understandable. But two wrongs don't make a
right - using the road shouldn't be a bizarre game of oneupmanship between
different road user groups.




It is interesting that drivers on Exhibition Road do currently have

automatic right of way of pedestrians. No mention in the article of

the potential effects for cyclists.

I would assume they would be the same as for other vehicles, but it
wouldn't surprise me if this possibility of a cyclist using the road
simply hadn't been considered.

I assume it would the same as the effect on car drivers, that they
would not be able to make progress along the road at the same rate.
Given the nature of the area and the high level of tourists on foot
this seems reasonable enough to me.


Given the nature of the area and the fact that the road (to which I have
been pointed to on a map since my earlier posts) is essentially a minor one
from nowhere to not much, one has to wonder why they can't simply
pedestrianise the road :-S


article snip

I do support anything that encourages road users to think more when
using the road - but this sounds a bit like a LA trying to be trendy
and
wasting vast sums of money in doing so.

I disagree. Assuming the effect is positive (and the continental
experience suggests that this is quite possible) then a high profile
example such as this could encourage the spread of this practice.

Which is missing the point - everyone is expected to share the road all the
time, regardless of such schemes. I think such local schemes risk sending
out the message that its OK for motorists to dominate the road unfairly
where such schemes don't exist - indeed, this was what the BBCs reporter
seemed to think.

I
think that the value of this scheme (assuming it is successful) as
anti-motor supremacy propaganda will be enormous


We don't need propoganda, we need people to start being sensible and
reasonable.

"congokid" wrote in message
...
In message , Trevor Barton
writes

That ain't going to happen so
long as motorists continue to drive the way they do

Killing about 3,000 plus people in the UK annually.

, and neither is
it going to happen when so many cyclists behave the way they do.
Speeding, red light jumping, dangerous overtaking, pavement cycling
and driving, tailgating, the list is a long and sorry one.

Anyone got the relevant KSI stats for this particularly reprehensible
behaviour?

No group
can claim anything like the moral high ground

It's cyclists' by right. See above.


That attitude is why many motorists show contempt for other road users
(cyclists in particular), this contempt results in a significant proportion
of the ~3,000 people killed each year on the roads, which leads to you
moralising on Usenet, irritating some motorists further and....

It's a vicious circle, and it won't get better unless we work to improve
things, instead of bitching and satisfying superiority complexes, which only
serves to make things worse.

It's not motorists who kill ~3000 people a year - it's dangerous road users.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:26:43 +0000, congokid wrote:
In message , Trevor Barton
writes

That ain't going to happen so
long as motorists continue to drive the way they do

Killing about 3,000 plus people in the UK annually.

, and neither is
it going to happen when so many cyclists behave the way they do.
Speeding, red light jumping, dangerous overtaking, pavement cycling
and driving, tailgating, the list is a long and sorry one.

Anyone got the relevant KSI stats for this particularly reprehensible
behaviour?

No group
can claim anything like the moral high ground

It's cyclists' by right. See above.

Rubbish. No more than it's licensed motorist's by right. You only
have the rights you do because society says you do - they can be
taken away if the public wills it anytime the public wants. If
the government had a referendum asking how many votors thought that
cyclist's should have (a) a right to use the road, (b) *no* right to
use the road and (c) couldn't give a toss, how many do you think
would answer b or c? I think you'd find it a surprising number, and
perhaps even a majority.

You also seem to imagine that your etherial right to use the road,
combined with the fact that cyclists are far less likely to KSI
anyone, somehow gives you the additional right to behave as you like
on the road. At least, that's what your comments imply to me. So
be it. If sufficient people think as you do, and act in the manner you
imply you might act, you will soon discover that your imagined rights
to do so will be removed.

--
Trevor Barton

Trevor Barton wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:26:43 +0000, congokid wrote:

It's cyclists' by right. See above.

Rubbish. No more than it's licensed motorist's by right. You only
have the rights you do because society says you do - they can be
taken away if the public wills it anytime the public wants.

Another one who cannot see a difference between revoking a licence and
removing a right. Many contributors to this group are fully aware that
rights can be attacked and need to be fought for. That's why, to give
three examples, there was temporary jubilation over the departure of
Blunkett, why David Hansen uses the signature he does, and why the
helmet debate won't go away.

--
Dave...

On 7 Jan 2005 01:30:44 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
Trevor Barton wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:26:43 +0000, congokid wrote:

It's cyclists' by right. See above.

Rubbish. No more than it's licensed motorist's by right. You only
have the rights you do because society says you do - they can be
taken away if the public wills it anytime the public wants.

Another one who cannot see a difference between revoking a licence and
removing a right.

Oh FFS. Can you truly not see that there is no difference between
a *licensed motorist's* rights to use the road and a cyclist? It has
nothing to do with how easy it is to revoke a license. That does
not remove your right to drive on the road if you have a licence,
it just removes your license so you are not legally allowed to
drive on the road. If you comply with the law of the land, you
have an equal right to use the road as a driver or a cyclist. The
law of the land says that to do so you must somply with certain
rules: One is that to drive on it you need a license, another is
that to cycle on it you must not "cycle furiously", or whatever.
In both cases your rights are restricted by what's lawful, and, in
principle at least, society decides those limits.

Many contributors to this group are fully aware that
rights can be attacked and need to be fought for. That's why, to give
three examples, there was temporary jubilation over the departure of
Blunkett, why David Hansen uses the signature he does, and why the
helmet debate won't go away.

Well, that's true. However, rights aren't absolute things, and in
many cases one person's right is another person's restriction, and
that's where society comes in. In the US, you have a right to own
a gun, and as a consequence 30-odd thousand of them are killed each
year by guns - that's a price they seem willing to pay for the right
to bear arms. It's also a right a lot of them feel they need to
fight to keep. That's something that we here in the UK have decided
should not be a right - which view is correct?

Rights are something granted to you by the society you live in, and
that's all. Even stuff like "fundamental human rights" is only an
expression of the opinion of the majority of people as a species.
You have no fundamental right to use the road as a cyclist, only
that which we all grant to you. That does not place you in any
different place to a motorist, no matter how much you insist it does.

--
Trevor Barton

Tony Raven wrote:
Eiron wrote:

As a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist and driver, I am quite
confident that such a scheme will do nobody any good and will
cause accidents.


That's not the experience of places where they have been introduced -
quite the opposite in fact which is why this is such an interesting
trial.


seems to be a very strange (extreemly busy and used prdominantly by visitors
not locals/regulars) for such a trial.

pk