Speeding and general dangerous driving in and around Brixton

[Saul Goodman]

Just in case anyone hasn't seen them

 

[teuchter]

I mentioned other things in the description too, and in my last post I clarified that. You've ignored them. You're being a dick as you have form for. *shrug* you'll have to play with yourself. Not enough hours in my life to get dragged into one of your masterbatory discursive wormholes.

If you're going to launch completely unprovoked into a load of unnecessary personal abuse then please do go away.

 

[mauvais]

Some thoughtful points, thanks.

You are right that it is a trade-off. However the graph of speed against likelihood of injury/death goes up more sharply from 20 -> 30 than from 10 -> 20. The best guess seems to be a fatality risk of 1.5% at 20 mph versus 8% at 30 mph (source - ROSPA pdf).

Also there seem to be stats to show that the average speed of traffic on the London roads is between 10-20mph (depending on time of day/region) so that is a good reason for choosing 20mph as a limit not 10mph.

The pollution argument is a good one, although if that was pushed to it's limit we would increase speed limits to 56mph everywhere (or whatever the figure is). It does seem to be a bit more complex than "30 less pollutuing than 20" though (detail in Guardian here).

What's average speed? Is it conditional on being freely moving traffic and not lowered by queues? If it falls into the 10mph range then we're surely not talking about environments where speed choices come into it, and thus not a helpful metric.

On your first point, the chance of fatality risk for a pedestrian being hit by a car at 70mph (or an HGV at 56mph) must be approaching 100%. However we accept this in the context of motorways and rural dual carriageways because the chance of this type of collision is very small.

Speed limits are never set by the mere risk of death in a collision, despite those adverts about chance of survival. They're meant to be set, amongst other less significant things, by the risk of a collision and resultant KSI event.

In cramped urban residential streets with narrow pavements, parked cars and poor visibility, that risk goes up dramatically, which is where 20mph zones are both legitimate and valuable - places like Portsmouth if you've ever had the misfortune to have been there. But this isn't universally the case.

 

[Gramsci]

It is because on many if not most main roads a 20mph speed limit is excessively low, and by a significant degree. It is a complete overkill, and as such it all but guarantees most drivers are likely to disregard it altogether.

One unsettling fact about the issue of road safety is that anyone who is not campaigning for a full ban on motor vehicles in urban areas is by default accepting a compromise between safety and practicality, and one that will cost lives. Lives which would have been saved by a complete ban on motor vehicles.

The argument that reducing speed limits on all roads to 20 mph invariably makes them safer and therefore is the only logical option is not actually as straightforward as it might seem. Reducing speeds to 10 mph would make the streets far safer still and would probably cut off road accident deaths by more than 90%. Yet I suspect most people would be against imposing a 10 mph limit, because they recognise a compromise must exist between safety and practicality, even if it tragically costs more lives.

So the argument should perhaps be 'which speed limit is the best compromise between safety and practicality', since many of us are likely to agree that there will have to be a compromise somewhere. How do we go about finding that out though? Hell, I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does, or if the perfect speed limit can be proven. That is where discussion about the merits of relative speeds come in.

It is my opinion that on main roads 20 mph is absurdly slow and completely unfit for purpose. And yet I, and indeed a majority of other drivers IME, will voluntarily travel at speeds of 20 mph or even less on smaller residential roads, even when the limit actually allows for 30 mph. Most drivers are actually capable of driving at sensible speeds according to road conditions, though there are always a few dickheads about of course.

It should also be considered that car engine set-ups are not exactly optimised for 20 mph. They are far more efficient and less polluting on 4th gear at 30 mph. Pollution is also a significant factor in premature deaths, and any increase on those might well cancel out the lives saved by blanket 20 mph limits.

Regarding the 'amount-of-seconds-saved' argument mentioned several times upthread, it is far more complex than quoting a paltry 20-second saving for a small stretch of a particular street. Most vehicle journeys will involve several miles, not a few hundred yards. And as most routes in London involve travelling on main roads for much of the journey, those few seconds over a particular stretch of a particular road become many minutes over the entire journey if the main roads are all slapped a 20 mph limit. This will very likely translate as a significant % increase in total journey times across London once every road is 20 mph, which at this rate they will be before long, save a few TFL controlled ones.

I am sure there are very good arguments to be made for 20 mph limits as well. But all I'm saying is that "safer must always been the best overall solution" is not necessarily true in every scenario.

To summarise in answer to my question your view is that 20mph limit is "overkill" and won't be observed by most otherwise law abiding citizens.

Your other argument is increase in journey times for the motorist. I'm not clear. Are you saying this is a bad thing? A reason not to have 20mph limit?

snowy_again has answered why 20mph limit saves lives.

 

[mauvais]

I disagree with your assessment. There are two junctions, and there is a relatively sharp curve. And a bus stop, and people often cross roads near bus stops.

But what would be the benefit of changing just this short stretch of road to a 30 or 40 limit, when the road each side of it has a 20 limit?

I think your position is that there shouldn't be a blanket 20 limit at all - in which case questions about this particular location are academic.

If that's a relatively sharp curve then you either shouldn't be driving at all or you're going much too fast.

My position is both that blanket limits are counterproductive and that the road you highlight is a good example of exactly that.

 

[Gramsci]

Well, you're extremely unlikely to get any enforcement until the entire thing is completely disrupted - i.e. the world of purely autonomous vehicles. So until then, if you want to see behavioural changes amongst road users, you probably would be better off pursuing a more cooperative and contextual approach.

My experience in Loughborough Junction is that the car lobby want nothing that might impede the right of the motorist to use the roads.

teuchter asked you what you mean by "trust relationship" between the "reasonable" person and authority.

There is a whole load of baggage behind what the "reasonable" person is and the "trust relationship"

It's insidiously right wing. It's the why are they having a go at me. Ive worked hard and bought my own car. The police should be out there catching the real criminals. It smacks of Daily Mail.

A 20mph speed limit in London is not a big deal. It's not an monetary extra charge on people, it's not taking away there cars, it's not an infringement on one's personal liberty.

 

[mauvais]

My experience in Loughborough Junction is that the car lobby want nothing that might impede the right of the motorist to use the roads.

teuchter asked you what you mean by "trust relationship" between the "reasonable" person and authority.

There is a whole load of baggage behind what the "reasonable" person is and the "trust relationship"

It's insidiously right wing. It's the why are they having a go at me. Ive worked hard and bought my own car. The police should be out there catching the real criminals. It smacks of Daily Mail.

A 20mph speed limit in London is not a big deal. It's not an monetary extra charge on people, it's not taking away there cars, it's not an infringement on one's personal liberty.

There is no meaningful car lobby outside of niche groups totally unrelated to the average driver. Nor is car ownership somehow meaningfully right-wing. And the standard of a reasonable person (cf 'man on the Clapham omnibus') is an integral part of English law.

If you insist on bringing politics into it, a set of unnecessarily restrictive legislation for no demonstrable benefit is authoritarianism. Not having the faith in people to behave appropriately given the freedom to do so is a right wing hallmark. You'll presumably accept it because you don't like the subject of the action but I bet you wouldn't do so elsewhere.

On a practical level, as mentioned before, there is no hope of meaningful enforcement of anything in the short to medium term so you had better hope to leverage the self-control and positive qualities of ordinary drivers rather than trying to unilaterally apply control on your say so.

Personally I think the typical standard of driving in the UK is generally well intentioned and actually more competent than some might think, but overall insufficient and very much worthy of initiatives to improve it. I think that with a few exceptions like environmental engineering, the only answer is behavioural change through driver education and engagement, and you don't achieve that unilaterally through blunt force - quite the opposite.

 

[Gramsci]

There is no meaningful car lobby outside of niche groups totally unrelated to the average driver. Nor is car ownership somehow meaningfully right-wing. And the standard of a reasonable person (cf 'man on the Clapham omnibus') is an integral part of English law.

If you insist on bringing politics into it, a set of unnecessarily restrictive legislation for no demonstrable benefit is authoritarianism. Not having the faith in people to behave appropriately given the freedom to do so is a right wing hallmark. You'll presumably accept it because you don't like the subject of the action but I bet you wouldn't do so elsewhere.

On a practical level, as mentioned before, there is no hope of meaningful enforcement of anything in the short to medium term so you had better hope to leverage the self-control and positive qualities of ordinary drivers rather than trying to unilaterally apply control on your say so.

Personally I think the typical standard of driving in the UK is generally well intentioned and actually more competent than some might think, but overall insufficient and very much worthy of initiatives to improve it. I think that with a few exceptions like environmental engineering, the only answer is behavioural change through driver education and engagement, and you don't achieve that unilaterally through blunt force - quite the opposite.

Not on my say so. 20mph limit was Lambeth Labour party commitment. They were democratically elected.

Yes there is a car lobby. I've seen it in LJ.

On authoritarianism. I was specific in saying this was not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to own a car. For example if someone wants to smoke dope it's an individual choice that doesn't effects others. So imo it should be legalized Nor am I advocating banning car ownership. No your post confirms my view you sound like Daily Mail.

A 20mph speed limit won't stop you driving in London. I fail to see how this is an infringement on your right to own and drive a car. If I was advocating banning car ownership there might be an argument that this would be authoritarian. I'm not.

 

[Gramsci]

There is no meaningful car lobby outside of niche groups totally unrelated to the average driver. Nor is car ownership somehow meaningfully right-wing. And the standard of a reasonable person (cf 'man on the Clapham omnibus') is an integral part of English law.

If you insist on bringing politics into it, a set of unnecessarily restrictive legislation for no demonstrable benefit is authoritarianism. Not having the faith in people to behave appropriately given the freedom to do so is a right wing hallmark. You'll presumably accept it because you don't like the subject of the action but I bet you wouldn't do so elsewhere.

On a practical level, as mentioned before, there is no hope of meaningful enforcement of anything in the short to medium term so you had better hope to leverage the self-control and positive qualities of ordinary drivers rather than trying to unilaterally apply control on your say so.

Personally I think the typical standard of driving in the UK is generally well intentioned and actually more competent than some might think, but overall insufficient and very much worthy of initiatives to improve it. I think that with a few exceptions like environmental engineering, the only answer is behavioural change through driver education and engagement, and you don't achieve that unilaterally through blunt force - quite the opposite.

I insist on "bringing politics into it". Another insidious right wing view. There are people like you who are reasonable non political types and then there are ideological people out of touch with the ordinary man in the street. It's bollox.

 

[teuchter]

If that's a relatively sharp curve then you either shouldn't be driving at all or you're going much too fast.

I am not a highway designer. But in my estimation, based on google streetview/overhead view, if someone were about to cross the road opposite the bus stop, then for a driver approaching from the west, they might come into view about 60m away, on account of the curve. Here are the desired/minimum visibility distances for pedestrian crossings:


You can see that a distance of 60m is ok for 25mph traffic, questionable for 30mph traffic, and not acceptable for 35mph traffic.

I know that this table is intended for use with formal pedestrian crossings. However, part of the idea behind the 20mph initiative is to make Lambeth's streets more amenable to and safer for pedestrians. In my opinion, which you may not agree with, there should be a principle that within reason pedestrians can cross the street safely and not just at formal crossings. Taking this location as an example, if I wanted to cross the street to get to the bus stop, then with traffic going at 30 or 40mph, its questionable whether I can do it safely at that point on the road, even if I look properly before I step out. With traffic going at 20mph, it seems that it should be pretty safe, because if the road is clear for 60m, then should a car appear just after I step out it will have plenty of distance to slow down or stop. This is before we consider the scenario where a kid runs out without looking, and is hit by a vehicle, and the likely consequences at each speed.

You may say this example is contrived, and it is, partly. But I make it to illustrate the point that 20mph vs 30mph traffic does make a difference, even on a road like this. It makes a difference to the safety with which someone can cross the road at a semi-arbitary location. In my opinion that's an important difference. A 20mph limit on this stretch of road makes things better for pedestrians. Of course the counter argument is that it's disproportionate to the disbenefit to car drivers. There are mutterings about increased journey times, but no-one seems able to provide any evidence that this is really a significant problem.

 

[teuchter]

There is no meaningful car lobby outside of niche groups totally unrelated to the average driver.

As Gramsci says, it was very visible and very real here recently.

Nor is car ownership somehow meaningfully right-wing.

This thread is about London. In London there is no need for a car. There is excellent public transport. Public transport is inherently socialist - it is available to and shared by everyone. Using a private car is all about prioritising your own convenience, at the expense of others. It's also something that is only available to those who can afford it.

Not having the faith in people to behave appropriately given the freedom to do so is a right wing hallmark.

Faith doesn't come into it - my observation of what people actually do in the area where I live, where they are given the freedom to drive around seemingly without any enforcement of speed limits is that they drive dangerously. And I don't mean that in the sort of way where I am ticking them off on technical points, I mean in the way that I genuinely fear that I will witness someone getting seriously hurt or worse within view of my front door. It's not people going at 35 in a 30 zone or even 35 in a 20 zone; it's people going 40 and 50 and I suspect in some cases above that. When you can regularly hear tyres screeching as cars turn into a junction on a residential street I think you can conclude that drivers are not behaving "appropriately".

 

[T & P]

To summarise in answer to my question your view is that 20mph limit is "overkill" and won't be observed by most otherwise law abiding citizens.

Your other argument is increase in journey times for the motorist. I'm not clear. Are you saying this is a bad thing? A reason not to have 20mph limit?

snowy_again has answered why 20mph limit saves lives.

I'm not sure what else I can add. If we're still talking about my initial use of the word daft, I'm happy to consider the possibility that it was the wrong term. But elsewhere in the post I've explained my reasons for believing a 20 mph limit on main roads is too low as clearly as I'm likely to outline them.

 

[teuchter]

It should also be considered that car engine set-ups are not exactly optimised for 20 mph. They are far more efficient and less polluting on 4th gear at 30 mph. Pollution is also a significant factor in premature deaths, and any increase on those might well cancel out the lives saved by blanket 20 mph limits.

Regarding the 'amount-of-seconds-saved' argument mentioned several times upthread, it is far more complex than quoting a paltry 20-second saving for a small stretch of a particular street. Most vehicle journeys will involve several miles, not a few hundred yards. And as most routes in London involve travelling on main roads for much of the journey, those few seconds over a particular stretch of a particular road become many minutes over the entire journey if the main roads are all slapped a 20 mph limit. This will very likely translate as a significant % increase in total journey times across London once every road is 20 mph, which at this rate they will be before long, save a few TFL controlled ones.

Are you able to offer any evidence for the bits I've highlighted in bold above? Or are they just speculation presented as facts?

Here is what the Rospa report has to say about pollution:

As well as road safety benefits, it is important to highlight the contribution that 20mph zones can have in
improving air quality, reducing noise pollution and encouraging more physical activity, such as walking and
cycling, by contributing towards a safer environment. The money spent on the schemes can also greatly
improve the residential area.
A recent study 28 calculated casualty rates and the effects of vehicles on air pollution in 30mph zones in Wales.
The researchers then estimated the casualty rate and the impacts of vehicles on air pollution in 20mph speed
limit areas.
Evidence from the study suggested that a default speed limit of 20mph would substantially reduce road traffic
casualties, and at worst would not lead to a direct change in air pollution. However, indirectly, if reduced
traffic speeds encourage people to switch to active modes of travel, such as cycling and walking, there are
likely to be greater reductions in air pollution. The study concluded that health and costs savings are likely to
be substantial, and the costs of implementing 20mph limits are likely to be far lower than the benefits reduced
speeds bring.

 

[teuchter]

...and the results of a 2013 City of London study were:

It is concluded that it would be incorrect to assume a 20mph speed restriction would be
detrimental to ambient local air quality, as the effects on vehicle emissions are mixed

And a study from the 1990s

Although the EPA MOBILE model would indicate that slowing down traffic typically increases emissions, empirical research indicates the opposite in many cases. Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15 percent, gear changing by 12 percent, brake use by 14 percent, and gasoline use by 12 percent (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany. Table E-1 shows the relative change in emissions and fuel use when the speed limit is cut from 50 kph (31 mph) to 30 kph (19 mph) for two different driving styles. Even aggressive driving under the slower speed limit produces lower emissions (but higher fuel use) than under the higher speed limit, although calm driving produces greater reductions for most emissions and net fuel savings (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39 –40).

 

[T & P]

Because we luckily don't have jaywalking laws in England, and people came before cars?

Have you read the highway code?

I'm not so sure looking at it from the angle of who should come first is the most logical approach. That pedestrians are much more vulnerable than people in motor vehicles or on bikes/ cycles is a given. But if the emphasis is on preventing accidents in the first place, then establishing rules and who gets priority shouldn't be about which road user is more vulnerable, but on the stopping distance of the user in question.

The stopping distance of a walking pedestrian is one foot. That of a car travelling at 30 mph is 45 times greater. Do you really think it makes more sense to give right of way to the road user who can come to a full stop within a single second and a single foot over a road user who needs tens of times the distance? It shouldn't be about vulnerability, it should be about simple physics and common sense.

If someone suggested pedestrians should be given priority over trains at level crossings they'd be rightly be laughed off the park. While such analogy is of course a bit of a stretch compared with cars on city streets, the basic concept and the physics are exactly the same. You don't give priority to the road user who is more vulnerable- you give it to the one for whom braking in time to avoid a collision would be far more difficult and lengthy.

 

[teuchter]

I'm not so sure looking at it from the angle of who should come first is the most logical approach. That pedestrians are much more vulnerable than people in motor vehicles or on bikes/ cycles is a given. But if the emphasis is on preventing accidents in the first place, then establishing rules and who gets priority shouldn't be about which road user is more vulnerable, but on the stopping distance of the user in question.

The stopping distance of a walking pedestrian is one foot. That of a car travelling at 30 mph is 45 times greater. Do you really think it makes more sense to give right of way to the road user who can come to a full stop within a single second and a single foot over a road user who needs tens of times the distance? It shouldn't be about vulnerability, it should be about simple physics and common sense.

If someone suggested pedestrians should be given priority over trains at level crossings they'd be rightly be laughed off the park. While such analogy is of course a bit of a stretch compared with cars on city streets, the basic concept and the physics are exactly the same. You don't give priority to the road user who is more vulnerable- you give it to the one for whom braking in time to avoid a collision would be far more difficult and lengthy.

The train analogy is not "a bit of a stretch" - it's completely irrelevant. Railways are almost entirely segregated from people's day-to-day urban realm. It's this segregation that allows them to transport people medium-long distances at speed and in London the railways form part of the public transport system which means that anyone can get around the city pretty easily without needing private transport of their own. Level crossings are inherently dangerous and Network Rail is in the process of eliminating as many of them as possible.

Assigning priority according to stopping distance creates a situation where, if one or other party makes a mistake, someone is liable to get hurt. And it will nearly always be the pedestrian who gets hurt. The onus should be on the person creating the danger in the situation to mitigate it. The street is a pretty safe place until someone wants to decide to drive a motor vehicle onto it. The thinking you are outlining is hopelessly outdated, and it's what created the car-dominated town planning that destroyed so many of the UK's town centres, as well as much of the urban environment you see in the USA where in some places you are simply considered a nutter if you want to walk to the shop. The thinking that the 20mph limits come out of attempts to learn from those mistakes.

 

[Saul Goodman]

The train analogy is not "a bit of a stretch" - it's completely irrelevant.

Like you say, trains are public transport that everyone can use to speed around London.
So let's limit trains to 20mph, just in case one crashes and passengers are injured or killed.

 

[mauvais]

Faith doesn't come into it - my observation of what people actually do in the area where I live, where they are given the freedom to drive around seemingly without any enforcement of speed limits is that they drive dangerously. And I don't mean that in the sort of way where I am ticking them off on technical points, I mean in the way that I genuinely fear that I will witness someone getting seriously hurt or worse within view of my front door. It's not people going at 35 in a 30 zone or even 35 in a 20 zone; it's people going 40 and 50 and I suspect in some cases above that. When you can regularly hear tyres screeching as cars turn into a junction on a residential street I think you can conclude that drivers are not behaving "appropriately".

I don't doubt this, and I sympathise. However it's probably sufficiently disconnected from both the behaviour of crowds and compliance with the law that speed limits really don't make any difference. It's into the realms of ASB or non-speed traffic offences, e.g. DWDCA. So a discussion about 20 vs 30 is separate to this.

Unfortunately I don't have much in the way of suggestions for you. If you can identify a regular pattern (place and time window) then there was a time in which you could raise it and road traffic police would be interested in attending to see if they caught anyone. Whether that's still the case, especially in London, I don't know.

 

[Lizzy Mac]

Just in case anyone hasn't seen them

That (No 1) was filmed outside my school. I remember it. Ahhhh.

 

[sleaterkinney]

If drivers always drove appropriate to the conditions then we wouldn't need speed limits at all, but they don't. It's a bit like broken windows theory, the more they know the rules can be disregarded, the more they find reasons to break them...

 

[T & P]

Are you able to offer any evidence for the bits I've highlighted in bold above? Or are they just speculation presented as facts?

The first bit is certainly speculation based on a basic understanding of mechanics. Higher revs mean higher fuel comsumption. I have driven many, many different types and models of cars in my life, and without fail every single one of them needed to be medium to high RPMs in 2nd gear to do sustained travel at 20 mph, while all of them travelled comfortably in low reves at 30mph in 4th gear. It is of course possible and even likely that if 20 mph became the norm everywhere, future cars would be released with a gearbox optimised for sustained travel at 20 mph. But that is not the case now.

 

[T & P]

Assigning priority according to stopping distance creates a situation where, if one or other party makes a mistake, someone is liable to get hurt. And it will nearly always be the pedestrian who gets hurt. The onus should be on the person creating the danger in the situation to mitigate it. The street is a pretty safe place until someone wants to decide to drive a motor vehicle onto it. The thinking you are outlining is hopelessly outdated, and it's what created the car-dominated town planning that destroyed so many of the UK's town centres, as well as much of the urban environment you see in the USA where in some places you are simply considered a nutter if you want to walk to the shop. The thinking that the 20mph limits come out of attempts to learn from those mistakes.

If cars are to be tolerated in towns and cities, then you cannot magic away basic facts regarding mass weight, speed and braking distance. Either we ban motor vehicles altogether, or we allow them to be used in urban areas and try to prevent accidents by the most effective way possible. And the most effective way possible is try to avoid a collision by the most logical way, rather than trying to put all the responsibility and all the blame on one party only. Because even at 20 mph there will still be many collisions.

Do you believe it is possible for a pedestrian to be hit by a motor vehicle and be the pedestrian's fault?

 

[Winot]

The first bit is certainly speculation based on a basic understanding of mechanics. Higher revs mean higher fuel comsumption. I have driven many, many different types and models of cars in my life, and without fail every single one of them needed to be medium to high RPMs in 2nd gear to do sustained travel at 20 mph, while all of them travelled comfortably in low reves at 30mph in 4th gear. It is of course possible and even likely that if 20 mph became the norm everywhere, future cars would be released with a gearbox optimised for sustained travel at 20 mph. But that is not the case now.

There is some stuff on the AA website from 2008 which supports your position but it might be more complicated than that as noted in the Guardian link I posted upthread.

 

[teuchter]

The first bit is certainly speculation based on a basic understanding of mechanics. Higher revs mean higher fuel comsumption. I have driven many, many different types and models of cars in my life, and without fail every single one of them needed to be medium to high RPMs in 2nd gear to do sustained travel at 20 mph, while all of them travelled comfortably in low reves at 30mph in 4th gear. It is of course possible and even likely that if 20 mph became the norm everywhere, future cars would be released with a gearbox optimised for sustained travel at 20 mph. But that is not the case now.

The evidence - some of which I posted above - simply does not seem to support the idea that a drop from 30 to 20 is likely to increase pollution. It seems that a complicated mix of factors come into play which mean that it's not possible to say there would be a significant change in either direction. I don't think it's a valid reason to object to a lowering of the speed limit. It may be a valid reason to try and reduce the use of speed humps as a traffic calming device though.

Also as you rightly point out, if 20mph limits become more the norm, then car manufacturers can follow suit in the longer term.

 

[teuchter]

If cars are to be tolerated in towns and cities, then you cannot magic away basic facts regarding mass weight, speed and braking distance. Either we ban motor vehicles altogether, or we allow them to be used in urban areas and try to prevent accidents by the most effective way possible. And the most effective way possible is try to avoid a collision by the most logical way, rather than trying to put all the responsibility and all the blame on one party only. Because even at 20 mph there will still be many collisions.

Do you believe it is possible for a pedestrian to be hit by a motor vehicle and be the pedestrian's fault?

Depends exactly what you mean by "their fault". At the moment, the fact is, it is risky for me to cross the road without taking quite a lot of care. So if I step out into the road without looking, and get hit by a car doing 20 or 30 then, in the sense that I have taken an action which is obviously risky, it is "my fault".

The fact is that I'd like to go further than 20mph speed limits. I do think we should ban motor vehicles altogether in some situations, and possibly ban private cars altogether, in some situations. I'd like London's urban environment to be much, much, more optimised for pedestrians than it is at present. An environment where, at least on some streets, you simply don't have to watch out for speeding cars if you want to cross from one side to the other. In this scenario, if I were to be hit by a car, then no it would not be my fault, because we would be operating under a different regime from the one we must put up with at present. Some think this is an extreme position and yet things like this have been successfully implemented in other places.

It's not an "either or" choice, between allowing vehicles or not allowing vehicles. There's a sliding scale, one end of which represents something like the worst kind of American car city, and the other end of which represents somewhere entirely pedestrianised. I'd like London to move closer to the latter end of that scale, and I'd probably like it moved a lot further than most people would. But the attempts at reductio ad absurdium arguments, where we end up virtually banning motor vehicles altogether, don't work in my opinion, because I don't think that's an absurd position.

 

[Saul Goodman]

On authoritarianism. I was specific in saying this was not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to own a car.

How about we Install traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings at key locations, and make it illegal for anyone to cross the road at anywhere but these locations?

This is not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to walk or cross the road.

 

[Rushy]

How about we Install traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings at key locations, and make it illegal for anyone to cross the road at anywhere but these locations?

This is not an infringement of individual liberty, not an extra tax on people or taking away people's right to walk or cross the road.

Jay walking is illegal in Germany. Certainly feels like an infringement of personal liberty when told off for doing so.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Jay walking is illegal in Germany. Certainly feels like an infringement of personal liberty when told off for doing so.

It should be illegal everywhere.

 

[Rushy]

It should be illegal everywhere.

Oh.

 

[maomao]

Just ignore the troll. Perfectly civilised and interesting conversation happening here.