I can’t see where this is going to come from even the evening standard has campaigned for safer cycling.
Speeding and general dangerous driving in and around Brixton
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
I can’t see where this is going to come from even the evening standard has campaigned for safer cycling.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
From Joe public. Its now seen as them imposing on the ordinary Joe.
Ive seen it in Loughborough junction.
Rocky Sullivan
Active Member
Walking down Milkwood Road at 8am this morning I witnessed a bronze- coloured Land Rover Evoque at 50-60mph on the right-hand side of the road. What a jerk. When the 20mph limit was introduced the Plod did put a speed trap on Milkwood at the back of Jessop School but that's long gone. What is the point of the limit if it's not enforced?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I didn't have time to respond to this at the time.
Firstly - I don't think it's true that attempts to 'address' pedestrian awareness are virtually non existent. And it's not true at all that pedestrians are absolved of responsibility regardless of circumstances. But others have already covered these points.
I am all for teaching kids (well, anyone) more road awareness as pedestrians. But, I would come at it from a slightly different angle and call it assertiveness training. To be clear, I don't want to teach kids to be reckless and put themselves in danger. But I'd like them to be aware of their rights as pedestrians. Pretty much everything in the way our roads are designed trains all road users into a frame of mind that sees streets as roadways with some accommodations made for pedestrians. That's not how it should be - they should be streets made for pedestrians with accommodations made for road vehicles where necessary.
Pedestrians should be made confident in the knowledge that the highway code doesn't give drivers priority and that there is no such thing as jaywalking in this country. This doesn't mean that a pedestrian should feel free to step into the road without looking - that would be idiotic. It doesn't even mean that they should feel free to step into the road in an assumption that drivers are respecting the terms of their driving license, and sticking to speed limits and so on, because drivers don't and therefore it would be a foolish assumption to make. But pedestrians shouldn't be cowed into thinking that drivers should never be expected to slow down or stop for them, when there is plenty of time to do so. They should know that it's perfectly within their rights to cross the road somewhere where there's not a crossing, if they judge it to be safe.
They should be taught, for example, that vehicles are not allowed to stop on pedestrian crossings blocking the way and/or view of the signals, and they should feel free to give drivers who don't respect this some dirty looks. They should know that they have the right of way when crossing a road end at a junction, which doesn't mean that they shouldn't look, or attempt to cross when a driver is going too fast to stop, but they should confidently cross in a scenario where they can see a driver in the distance indicating to turn but who has plenty of time to see them.
A lot of this is similar to what is taught to cyclists - don't put yourself in danger unnecessarily but protect your right to use the road by riding assertively and confidently. In the long run, establishing that right not only makes the individual safer but makes things safer for all cyclists. The same principles should be applied to pedestrians. The more pedestrians there are out on the streets, the better the streets are for all pedestrians. Of course, all of this should be targeted in changes to the way we design streets too. I'm pleased to see that at least in London, some of these changes are already starting to happen, if only in fits and starts.
Outside of London I think things are less encouraging. In the countryside the car is king. At the weekend I was in a village in Hampshire, picture-postcard old english village with a narrow high street. At one end this funneled into a section that had no pavements at all. A two way road, so that two cars can pass each other, which is nice for the cars, but not for the pedestrians who get to choose which of those lanes they risk their lives walking in. This section of road could be given proper pavements, and traffic lights letting vehicles through in alternation. But that would hold up traffic, of course. Back along the main part of the high street, the narrow pavement on one side was almost fully blocked by cars parked up onto it. Room to squeeze past the cars as long as you aren't in a wheelchair or trying to push a pram. Why? because the roads space is apparently more precious than the pavement space. So people park to give cars plenty of room to maintain two way traffic, and pedestrians can take the hit. Meanwhile on the other side of the street there were parking spaces. But I watched an oversized Landrover pull into one of these, and place two wheels over the kerb. This again blocked a portion of the pavement; it was adjacent to a pub sign which meant that the gap he'd left wouldn't be enough for a wheelchair. His car was wider than the parking space but his judgement was that if it was going to spill over, it should spill into pedestrian space and not into the road space. This is the kind of thinking that I'd like to see kids not trained into. I'd like people to react to this kind of stuff in the same way they do to able-bodied people parking in disabled spaces, because it's effectively the same thing. Pedestrian assertiveness would train people to know that this isn't right, and maybe even say something to the driver, which I was too chicken to do at the time of course.
Last edited:
a_chap
When the world came apart, where were you?
A simple solution this this would be to decriminalise keying cars' paintwork when they are parked on the pavement
I suggest motorists would then very quickly stop parking on pavements...
teuchter
je suis teuchter
A simple solution this this would be to decriminalise keying cars' paintwork when they are parked on the pavement
I suggest motorists would then very quickly stop parking on pavements...
Yup
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I was out in the sticks today delivering an expensive artwork. Not that far out from London. Beautiful countryside with immaculate houses set in there own grounds. The standard Land Rover Evoque sitting in the drive.
No pavements to be seen anywhere. Car is king there.
I didn't see a single pedestrian.
There is a class issue over transport. Congestion charge , ultra low emmision zone , parking charges dont effect the wealthy.
The problem with changing transport to favour pedestrians in that it needs to be done in conjunction with a radical redistribution of wealth.
Otherwise its going to be seen and is already so ( Loughborough Junction road closures) as hitting the less well off first.
No pavements to be seen anywhere. Car is king there.
I didn't see a single pedestrian.
There is a class issue over transport. Congestion charge , ultra low emmision zone , parking charges dont effect the wealthy.
The problem with changing transport to favour pedestrians in that it needs to be done in conjunction with a radical redistribution of wealth.
Otherwise its going to be seen and is already so ( Loughborough Junction road closures) as hitting the less well off first.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
The forthcoming Ultra Low Emissions Zone charge will extend to the N & S Circular boundaries from 2021. That is going to have a significant effect on car use in London. It applies 24/7 and a great many older vehicles will be liable to pay. Even some motorcycles will be affected. That will certainly will affect many lower income families who cannot afford not just upgrading their car, but having to do so to a relatively new model.
Twattor
Well-Known Member
The day after Sadiq announced this i made a point of looking at reg numbers on the way to the station. A significant proportion were over 15 years old. In the car park of the estate over the road it is about 75%. I can't see how this is anything but a regressive tax.
As an aside: what about the embodied energy in the car manufacture - masses of CO2 emissions and pollutants there - far more than produced in running an old car. But cars are produced in another part of the world so that's their problem, right?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The answer is that it's most likely best to scrap a car of that sort of age, as far as CO2 emissions are concerned.
Is it more efficient to drive your car into the ground or ditch it for a better one? | Leo Hickman
And if T & P is right and it significantly reduces car use, then the benefits will be even greater.
As far as air pollution is concerned, obviously it depends on where the factories are located, what technology they have and so on, whether more people see the negative effects of air pollution there, compared to pollutants being pumped out directly into the street in a densely populated area here. Do you have any details or are you purely speculating?
I cleaned some windows yesterday...the amount of dirt that came off - air quality in London is terrible and something needs to be done about it.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
There is an example at the end of the article you have quoted which I find nauseating as a non-driving non-car owner.
Apparently in the USA it is a reasonable decision to keep a 16 mpg "gas guzzler" rather than switch to a 32 mpg "fuel sipper". (ie Jeep vs Ford SUV) because it would take 15 years to reach break-even point.
Frankly I would have thought the current fashion for gas guzzlers for purported "safety" reasons - but actually for fashion and one upmanship is an example of market forces inconveniencing the population. It surely ranks with male trousers and jeans now almost universally constructed to slip down to expose the underwear, except that in the case of cars/SUVs we blithely accept mass poisoning of the air and consequent asthma, heart disease etc.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
You are effectively arguing that people on low income should pay less tax. I agree. Why should this 'rebate' be given only to people on low income that own cars?
cuppa tee
Well-Known Member
......this thread has lost the plot its supposed to be about dangerous driving and noone so far has addressed a few factors that could be involved.....stolen vehicles, joyriders, vehicles being driven by people who are high or pissed, people driving without licenses, people driving while nutted on prescription drugs, people operating within the pressurised environment of the gig economy, people who are selfish/arrogant/entitled, people (men) taking steroids for that ripped look, people fleeing the long arm of the law, even the law themselves...the list goes on....London is an insane aggressive monetised and narcissistic environment and some people are going to behave accordingly whether they are in a car on a bike or even a horse and cart.
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
I think an important point, which I have mentioned, that is people driving cars that go over 100mph entirely in places with <40mph speed limits. That's completely absurd.
EtA, a car ad, yesterday...
Note the lack of pedestrians or any other road users. This is what this car is meant for! or some shit. Not much of it in Brixton but that isn't going to stop people pretending.
EtA, a car ad, yesterday...
Note the lack of pedestrians or any other road users. This is what this car is meant for! or some shit. Not much of it in Brixton but that isn't going to stop people pretending.
Last edited:
cuppa tee
Well-Known Member
Weren't Kia the mob who used to bung a free bike with every car sold ?
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
No idea, but a lot of car ads are like that - driving fast on empty roads, feel in control, feel dynamic. Car = Power, or another trope is Car = Fun.
In reality in most towns and cities for most of the day it's stop-start from junction to junction with traffic merging from here and there and a hundreds of people who clearly did not leave plenty of time for their journey. No power, no fun.
So we drive like arses to make the power and fun for ourselves, that we were promised in the ad. Fuck the fact the roads are full.
In reality in most towns and cities for most of the day it's stop-start from junction to junction with traffic merging from here and there and a hundreds of people who clearly did not leave plenty of time for their journey. No power, no fun.
So we drive like arses to make the power and fun for ourselves, that we were promised in the ad. Fuck the fact the roads are full.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with Twattor a lot but you are wrong here.
Ultra low emission zone is regressive tax.
As ive pointed out for the wealthy this might be irritation but they can go out and buy new car.
Its regressive. Full stop no argument. It can be argued that the cost benefit analysis for society as a whole is better with an ultra low emission zone. But lets not try to pretend this is not regressive.
For example. I know several "white van" men who don't really know what to do about this. Back in the real world most deliveries are done by people working on "self employed status". They are expected to provide there own vehicles. They just about get by hoping there vehicles don't break down to much. Its stressful for them.
Ita all very well well for liberal middle class to go on about air quality. As cuppa tee points out a lot of people work in the "gig" economy.
They just get buy. Any further costs endanger there livelihood.
Last edited:
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Many car adverts are undoubtedly daft and stupid, but it would be wrong IMO to assume that the majority of drivers are so influenced by them they are incapable of differentiating between urban and empty countryside road conditions. Or so selfish and reckless they would be incapable to show restraint and drive sensibility in cities because their car can go so much faster on an empty road.
There are always a few twats about of course, but most of the drivers responsible for the kind of crashes we’ve seen in CHL this week have crashed because they’re reckless antisocial fuckwits, not because of any ads.
There are always a few twats about of course, but most of the drivers responsible for the kind of crashes we’ve seen in CHL this week have crashed because they’re reckless antisocial fuckwits, not because of any ads.
mojo pixy
○-<{[°_°]}>-○
Advertising creates expectations, conscious or unconscious. I believe many of us have trouble managing those expectations in the face of cold reality, and they affect a lot of our behaviours in complex ways.
Car ads present entirely unrealistic road scenarios and aim to sell product based on that. I believe they affect more of us in more ways than we like to admit, mainly due to repeated exposure to the same message(s). Of course it's difficult to quantify (and from the industry's POV extremely deniable), but my instinct is not to lay this problem 100% at the feet of individual drivers. Like most social issues we face I believe the problems on the roads are structural and systemic, not just a case of a few bad apples.
Car ads present entirely unrealistic road scenarios and aim to sell product based on that. I believe they affect more of us in more ways than we like to admit, mainly due to repeated exposure to the same message(s). Of course it's difficult to quantify (and from the industry's POV extremely deniable), but my instinct is not to lay this problem 100% at the feet of individual drivers. Like most social issues we face I believe the problems on the roads are structural and systemic, not just a case of a few bad apples.
Anyway, back to the original topic. I was driving on Denmark Hill on Saturday, HH->Camberwell direction. A man in a convertible BMW sat on my tail & honked at me for doing 20 when there are *clear* 20 marks on the road. Then near the hospital, an ambulance with lights flashing came in the opposite direction. I pulled in to the side to let it through. BMW guy saw this as an opportunity to overtake, blocking the ambulance for a few seconds. He had the cheek to give it a "thank you" wave. Unbelievable dickhead behaviour.
The 20 limit is widely ignored & those of us who do adhere to it regularly get hassle/abuse off people. I really don't understand why it's not enforced. Sure, it feels a bit boring, but you've got so much more time to react to unexpected things, and you don't actually arrive any later. My car (mostly driven in London, but occasional motorway trips) usually averages 15mph. Huge numbers of people have sped past me, only for me to catch them up at the next traffic light. You'd think sending out some people with speed guns would pay for themselves with fines, until people did start adhering, but presumably those with the power to do so are all scared of "war on motorists" headlines/tweets.
The 20 limit is widely ignored & those of us who do adhere to it regularly get hassle/abuse off people. I really don't understand why it's not enforced. Sure, it feels a bit boring, but you've got so much more time to react to unexpected things, and you don't actually arrive any later. My car (mostly driven in London, but occasional motorway trips) usually averages 15mph. Huge numbers of people have sped past me, only for me to catch them up at the next traffic light. You'd think sending out some people with speed guns would pay for themselves with fines, until people did start adhering, but presumably those with the power to do so are all scared of "war on motorists" headlines/tweets.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Yesterday about 5 pm a car (with passenger) not only jumped the lights: was not wanting to wait behind a P4 at the Gresham Road lights on red (junction with CHL as several posts above), said car overtook the bus at the red light - driving on the right hand side of Gresham Road, and dribving on the right hand side of the bollard turned right into Coldharbour Lane. Can't possibly have been able to see traffic coming in either direction on Coldharbour when they initiated this move.
Seems an even more risky manoeuvre that what led to the accident on Tuesday.
Seems an even more risky manoeuvre that what led to the accident on Tuesday.
Similar threads
