Naked road scheme in London

Colin Blackburn said:

From:

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

<snip>

If the exponential increase in [censored] driving upon crossing the M25 threshold
is anything to go buy, I expect many collisions 🙁

Colin Blackburn said:

A west London road may be stripped of its kerb, traffic lights and signs
in an attempt to encourage pedestrians and cars to mingle.

Exhibition Road in Kensington has been chosen for the "naked road"
experiment - a scheme pioneered in Holland.

If Kensington council wants to spend money on roads it could start
by fixing the drains in the High Street.
It was like a river last time I was there.

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

--
Eiron.

Colin Blackburn said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

<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.

Nathaniel David Porter said:

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.

There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

Quoted message said:

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.

Cyclists should not require any special consideration or provision in
this kind of scheme.

--
Dave...

Eiron said:

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

I believe that has not generally been the case where similar schemes
have been tried elsewhere.

--
Dave...

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel David Porter said:

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.

There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

How precisely does that work?

I find that the mentality some road users have that they and/or their
(current) road user group is somehow superior or righteous than some or all
of the rest tends to lead to reckless behaviour on their part - we've all
seen the idiot who while driving whinging about pedestrians bumbling into
the road only to get out of his car and bumble into the road, effing and
blinding about the car who has had to stop for him. I would suggest that
this mentality is one of the biggest obstacles to improved road safety in
this country today.

Essentially the Clarkson-esque "get off my road" mentality that some
motorists have is the same as the "holier than thou" (a la Doug) attitude
some cyclists have, and similar mentailities than some other road users
have - it's little more than "me first".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Cyclists should not require any special consideration or provision in
this kind of scheme.

The needs of cyclists have to be considered when designing any scheme on a
road which cyclists are permitted to use. It may well be these needs do not
require any special provision, or any alteration to the scheme, however the
consideration still needs to be there - and if this scheme follows form then
cyclists needs will not have been considered enough (if at all).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

Quoted message said:

How precisely does that work?

Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?

Eiron said:

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.

Tony

Nathaniel Porter said:

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

How precisely does that work?

Because driving isnt a right?

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

Quoted message said:

How precisely does that work?

Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?

The first and third are merely means of ensuring compliance with regard to
competancy and roadworthiness of vehicle - both of which are also expected
of cyclists. It is essentially a difference in enforcement - I don't see how
this makes a difference.

As for road tax/VED, I don't see how that reduces the right of a motorist to
use the roads. All rights come with responsibilities - it just so happens
that one of those responsibilities for motorists is to put a bit extra back
in return for use of the roads to pay for the wear, tear and other damage
done by this use. Insurance is similar - it's just a responsibility that
comes with the right.

If responsibilities somehow annul rights, then I'm pretty sure we don't have
any rights at all. :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

Last night I watched a cyclist going through multiple red lights, the
one at the end of uni rd she crossed the advanced stop box and actul
stopped in the middle of the junction, so delaying the change of the
lights (missed the induction loops under the box), every set of lights
down Burgess Rd she went through on red, the motorists stopping at reds
set for average bus progression.... So whats the advantage for cyclists,
without the other traffic forced to a standstill how can they make
better progress????

Nathaniel Porter said:

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?

The first and third are merely means of ensuring compliance with
regard to competancy and roadworthiness of vehicle - both of which
are also expected of cyclists. It is essentially a difference in
enforcement - I don't see how this makes a difference.

Motorists use the roads by licence, not by right. A licence can be
taken away.

--
Dave...

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

"Mark Thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?

The first and third are merely means of ensuring compliance with
regard to competancy and roadworthiness of vehicle - both of which
are also expected of cyclists. It is essentially a difference in
enforcement - I don't see how this makes a difference.

Motorists use the roads by licence, not by right. A licence can be
taken away.

I believe it is possible to remove the right for a cyclist to use the road -
just by different means. I am sure I have read of ASBOs being used in this
manner

The only real difference is that drivers are expected to prove they are
competant first. The only reason that cyclists are not required to do the
same is that the cost of such a system would far outweigh the benefits. But
it is just as easy to rescind someones right to use the road on a bicycle.

None of this really has much relevence to the scheme mentioned in the OP
mind.

Nathaniel Porter said:

The needs of cyclists have to be considered when designing any
scheme on a road which cyclists are permitted to use. It may well
be these needs do not require any special provision, or any
alteration to the scheme, however the consideration still needs to
be there - and if this scheme follows form then cyclists needs will
not have been considered enough (if at all).

Unfortunately we are all too familiar with the results of the
consideration cyclists are given in road design. Almost all of the
special provision we get makes cycling more difficult. The whole point
of this kind of scheme is that there is no special provision for any
class of road user. Suits me fine.

--
Dave...

"dkahn400" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

The needs of cyclists have to be considered when designing any
scheme on a road which cyclists are permitted to use. It may well
be these needs do not require any special provision, or any
alteration to the scheme, however the consideration still needs to
be there - and if this scheme follows form then cyclists needs will
not have been considered enough (if at all).

Unfortunately we are all too familiar with the results of the
consideration cyclists are given in road design. Almost all of the
special provision we get makes cycling more difficult.

I think the problem is that cyclists needs aren't given consideration per
se - instead a token measure is simply lifted out of a handbook written by
some clueless beaurocrat and plonked on the road without consideration. If
cyclists needs were given proper consideration, farcilities would not be
implemented.

Quoted message said:

The whole point
of this kind of scheme is that there is no special provision for any
class of road user. Suits me fine.

I certainly agree that, provision of footpaths aside, generally there should
not be any special provision for any particular class of road user on all
purpose roads.

Nathaniel Porter said:

The only real difference is that drivers are expected to prove they
are competant first. The only reason that cyclists are not required
to do the same is that the cost of such a system would far outweigh
the benefits.

No, cyclists have never been licensed simply becuase it has never
become necessary.

Quoted message said:

But it is just as easy to rescind someones right to use the road on
a bicycle.

It is extremely rare for an order to be issued restricting someone from
cycling. It is not rare for drivers to be disqualified. It's rather
glib to assert that an order restricting someone's normal rights is
similar to removing a licence.

Quoted message said:

None of this really has much relevence to the scheme mentioned in
the OP mind.

Then you shouldn't have brought it up, should you?

--
Dave...

Colin Blackburn said:

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.

Pedestrians will just continue to walk straight out in front of cyclists
whether they are "allowed" to or not, but it will just mean that the poor
cyclist on the receiving end of some dumb ped will now have little comeback.

Adrian Boliston said:

Pedestrians will just continue to walk straight out in front of cyclists
whether they are "allowed" to or not, but it will just mean that the poor
cyclist on the receiving end of some dumb ped will now have little comeback.

Or cyclists will just have to go a bit more slowly and take a bit more
care - unless you think you should be able to take over the expectation
from motorists of having the rest of the world get out of your important way

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Adrian Boliston said:

Pedestrians will just continue to walk straight out in front of
cyclists whether they are "allowed" to or not, but it will just mean
that the poor cyclist on the receiving end of some dumb ped will now
have little comeback.

Or cyclists will just have to go a bit more slowly and take a bit more
care - unless you think you should be able to take over the
expectation from motorists of having the rest of the world get out of
your important way

The trouble is that schemes like this disadvantage cyclists more than they
disadvantage motorists, as only a ped with a death wish would actually
choose to "put the scheme to test" by stepping straight in front of a
motorist, wheras they may consider a cyclist "fair game" as there is much
less risk to themselves.