Speeding and general dangerous driving in and around Brixton

[teuchter]

The situation in Germany is that you are not allowed to cross on a red man. You are allowed to cross the road anywhere except for within 30 or 40m of a formal crossing point.

We could build light-controlled pedestrian crossings at 30m intervals throughout london. I propose the cost of this be borne by motorists, if it's what they want.

 

[teuchter]

Returning to the stuff about journey times - and the paranoia that lower speed limits will have terrible consequences in this regard. As I said before, it's congestion and traffic lights that slow you down in an urban setting. And traffic lights are an attempt to manage the problems caused by fast moving traffic. Slower traffic overall reduces the need for controlled junctions and it also reduces the need for signaled pedestrian crossings. The full extension of this is the "shared space" concept. This has been discussed on other threads. Unfortunately, it seems we're not ready for it, culturally, in this country yet.

Even if we can't make shared space work, then a general approach of slower speeds and fewer controlled junctions/crossings can have benefits for drivers *and* pedestrians. Traffic lights slow both groups of road users down. My walk into brixton is considerably slower than it would be otherwise, if there were no traffic, or traffic that was slow enough that i could cross amongst it. To get to the tube station i have to cross about 6 streams of traffic. At some of these there's traffic lights to wait for; at some there's no control but a gap in traffic to wait for. I would argue that car journeys are only marginally affected by pedestrians, because in most cases, controlled crossings are combined with junctions where there would be traffic lights anyway. It's the motor traffic that generates the problem. This is the relevance of the comment above that pedestrians "came first".

 

[Saul Goodman]

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

It was perfectly civilised until you turned up.
Wanker.

 

[Gramsci]

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.

As far as I understand if I'm cycling down the road I must do so in way that I can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road. The onus is on me to stop.

In this country "jaywalking" does not apply. I may be wrong. But that's always been my understanding.

I accept this. In all my time of cycling I've never gone into anyone. ( Though must say people on phones suddenly stepping into road is wearing).

I wouldn't want "jaywalking" to be brought into law here for pedestrians.

Imo on roads pedestrians are the most vulnerable. That public space like roads should be made more pedestrian friendly. A 20mph limit would go a long way to make this happen.

 

[Saul Goodman]

As far as I understand if I'm cycling down the road I must do so in way that I can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road. The onus is on me to stop.

In this country "jaywalking" does not apply. I may be wrong. But that's always been my understanding.

I accept this. In all my time of cycling I've never gone into anyone. ( Though must say people on phones suddenly stepping into road is wearing).

I wouldn't want "jaywalking" to be brought into law here for pedestrians.

Imo on roads pedestrians are the most vulnerable. That public space like roads should be made more pedestrian friendly. A 20mph limit would go a long way to make this happen.

In all my time driving and riding motorcycles I've never run into a pedestrian.
This is getting like America, where a bloke successfully sued the manufacturers of the camper he was driving, because when he turned on the cruise control and went into the back of the camper to make a coffee, the camper crashed into something.

Why don't people just not cross the road until it's safe to do so?

 

[Gramsci]

In all my time driving and riding motorcycles I've never run into a pedestrian.
This is getting like America, where a bloke successfully sued the manufacturers of the camper he was driving, because when he turned on the cruise control and went into the back of the camper to make a coffee, the camper crashed into something.

Why don't people just not cross the road until it's safe to do so?

Do you live in London?

 

[Saul Goodman]

Do you live in London?

I don't. Does that matter?

 

[Gramsci]

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.

Actually it is.

A 20mph limit for car drivers does not affect there freedom to access roads. It's about reducing speed.

What ur advocating is a limitation on pedestrians access to road space.

 

[Gramsci]

I don't. Does that matter?

In the context of this thread yes.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Actually it is.

A 20mph limit for car drivers does not affect there freedom to access roads. It's about reducing speed.

What ur advocating is a limitation on pedestrians access to road space.

Actually, no. Enforcing crossing at designated crossing points does not in any way affect their freedom.
Roads are for vehicles. Footpaths (it's in the name) are for pedestrians.
How is asking someone to cross the road at a designated crossing point an infringement on their human rights, any more so than limiting car drivers' speed to 20mph?

 

[teuchter]

This is a good article. The caricature character that Saul Goodman is trying to play would do well to read it.

The secret history of jaywalking: The disturbing reason it was outlawed — and why we should li...

The origin of the word is interesting, as it points out. The modern equivalent of its original intended meaning might be something like "chavwalking". It's an arrogant, snobbish, self-entitled word. And that would reflect the attitude that some motorists seem to have towards the road.

 

[Saul Goodman]

In the context of this thread yes.

How so?
I have basic survival instincts, which prevent me from walking out in front of moving vehicles.

 

[mauvais]

As far as I understand if I'm cycling down the road I must do so in way that I can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road. The onus is on me to stop.

Like all road users in the UK, you are loosely expected to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be - and reasonably expect to remain - clear. Actually your legal burden of responsibility may be some way below that standard, but let's assume it's that. If someone walks out in front of you in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't have expected, it's they who violate this notion, not you. In other words, no cyclist or motorist or indeed pedestrian is expected to conduct themselves so cautiously that they can successfully avoid all eventualities.

 

[Gramsci]

Actually, no. Enforcing crossing at designated crossing points does not in any way affect their freedom.
Roads are for vehicles. Footpaths (it's in the name) are for pedestrians.
How is asking someone to cross the road at a designated crossing point an infringement on their human rights, any more so than limiting car drivers' speed to 20mph?

Typical comment from car lobby. Ive had a bellyfull of this recently in LJ.

In London, where you don't live, there have been moved to widen pavements and decrease space for vehicles. I take it you don't have a problem with that?

 

[Saul Goodman]

Like all road users in the UK, you are loosely expected to be able to stop in the distance you can see to be - and reasonably expect to remain - clear. Actually your legal burden of responsibility may be some way below that standard, but let's assume it's that. If someone walks out in front of you in a way that a reasonable person wouldn't have expected, it's they who violate this notion, not you. In other words, no cyclist or motorist or indeed pedestrian is expected to conduct themselves so cautiously that they can successfully avoid all eventualities.

I fear such logic will be lost here.
And after that hogwash teuchter just posted, I'm out, because we're not dealing with rational people.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Typical comment from car lobby. Ive had a bellyfull of this recently in LJ.

In London, where you don't live, there have been moved to widen pavements and decrease space for vehicles. I take it you don't have a problem with that?

None whatsoever.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Does anyone here believe that at some stage people have a responsibility to not get themselves killed?

 

[Saul Goodman]

I really do fear that we're heading into Americanism. Where it's always someone elses fault.

 

[Gramsci]

How so?
I have basic survival instincts, which prevent me from walking out in front of moving vehicles.

I live in London. London has Councils responding to local people concerns by bringing in curbs on traffic. This is resented by the car lobby. This thread is an example.

The worst of it is car lobby make it out they are standing up for the rights of the individual against authoritarian collectivists. It's right wing masquerading as sticking up for freedom.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Typical comment from car lobby. Ive had a bellyfull of this recently in LJ.

I don't drive a car. I simply have a strong urge to survive.

 

[Gramsci]

I really do fear that we're heading into Americanism. Where it's always someone elses fault.

Christ sakes. I'm a long term regular on Brixton Forum. How is it that threads on car use get you Daily Mail trolls on here? Never see you here otherwise.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Christ sakes. I'm a long term regular on Brixton Forum. How is it that threads on car use get you Daily Mail trolls on here? Never see you here otherwise.

It isn't a thread on car use. It's a thread on physics and common sense, which, it appears, isn't so common.
If you walk out in front of a two ton vehicle, there's only going to be one loser, no matter what speed it's travelling at.

 

[teuchter]

Just ignore, Gramsci

They said they were "out of here" - let's see if they're true to their word as well as someone with an outstanding grasp of common sense and physics.

 

[Gramsci]

This thread shows that any reform of road use gets people very angry.

I've had a lot of it in Brixton post the LJ debacle.

At a meeting a while back. The Council officer was talking about road calming measures in Lambeth. Quite reasonable standard stuff imo. Not about road closures or banning cars.

At end one woman went off on one at the officer. Her exact words were "no one is taking my car from me." "I worked hard to buy my car".

I did point out that the officer wasn't advocating this.

She then said "how could someone of her age be expected to walk and cycle" ( use other alternative ways of getting around). Someone pointed out to her that I was actually younger than her. This enraged her even more. Then he said I looked younger than my age. ( I'm a cyclist). Really wished he hadn't.

My point is that the road use issue isn't one where there is going to be a middle ground.

 

[teuchter]

Someone should have asked her how someone older than her, prevented by their age from being able to drive, but able to walk to the shop, might feel about traffic calming measures.

 

[T & P]

As far as I understand if I'm cycling down the road I must do so in way that I can stop if a pedestrian walks into the road. The onus is on me to stop.

In this country "jaywalking" does not apply. I may be wrong. But that's always been my understanding.

I accept this. In all my time of cycling I've never gone into anyone. ( Though must say people on phones suddenly stepping into road is wearing).

I wouldn't want "jaywalking" to be brought into law here for pedestrians.

Imo on roads pedestrians are the most vulnerable. That public space like roads should be made more pedestrian friendly. A 20mph limit would go a long way to make this happen.

Yes peds are the most vulnerable road users and measures to make the road safer have merit (even if I myself might not agree with every last measure proposed). But vulnerability and overall priority in the eyes of the law should not mean pedestrians should not take precautions when crossing the road and assume priority guarantees their safety.

I've lost the number of times I've seen peds crossing a junction without even a cursory check to see if there are cars turning into it. To state the very obvious, that the law grants them right of way does not mean they're provided with an invisible shield to protect them from harm- but many act as if it might actually do.

Drivers and cyclists are instructed to always proceed with caution, and always check for hazards, even when they have right of way over all other traffic (such as green lights at a junction). Always assume the worst scenario and act defensively. But other than education for schoolchildren, I have never ever seen any initiative to improve road awareness and promote sensible behaviour. It's almost as if a campaign asking peds to check for incoming traffic would be seen as an infringement of their rights. There should be regular campaigns to remind peds to take basic precautions, to avoid stepping into the road without checking for incoming traffic, to turn their heads before crossing a junction. I'm yet to see a single one in all my time here.

 

[Gramsci]

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.

The reference to US cities reminded me of radio program on breast cancer in US I listened to a while back. The programme was looking into why more black American women died compared to white American women. In US colour and class overlap. (that is being poor and black is is how it is in many parts of US)Researchers found transport was issue. In Los Angeles there are good hospital but the poor black American women have difficulty accessing them partly due to lack of public transport. Los Angeles used to have good public transport. This went with rise of the car. Leaving the less well off stranded in there neighborhoods. If you don't have a car in Los Angeles you are stuck. Large roads effectively acts as physical obstacles to free movement in the city.

Why I think who can access roads, who has predominant use is a class issue. It's not those who want measures to shift road / transport priorities to pedestrians (non car owners ) who are authoritarian.

The opposite is the case.

 

[teuchter]

But vulnerability and overall priority in the eyes of the law should not mean pedestrians should not take precautions when crossing the road and assume priority guarantees their safety.

No-one's advocating this!

Not sure exactly when this strawman was introduced into this thread - but that's all it is.

Most people, when crossing the road, do take precautions, because they know their lives depend on it.

With regard to the thing about crossing a junction - yes it's a good idea to check, because many drivers seem unaware that pedestrians have priority in this situation. Maybe there should be regular campaigns to advise pedestrians to check, but why aren't you also asking for regular campaigns for drivers to read the highway code, and to make them aware of the law in this situation?

 

[teuchter]

Why I think who can access roads, who has predominant use is a class issue. It's not those who want measures to shift road / transport priorities to pedestrians (non car owners ) who are authoritarian.

The opposite is the case.

I think it's more about libertarianism than authoritarianism. The freedom of the individual. In my opinion the parallels with the gun debate in the US are stark. And now that terrorists have hooked onto using vehicles as weapons - even more so.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I regularly see cars doing ridiculous speeds in the roads around my house (top of Brixton/Tulse Hill). While on my bike, I have been overtaken many times on the "wrong" side of the traffic islands on Upper Tulse Hill, one time coming *this* close to being a nasty head-on collision. It is almost all young men but not exclusively that gender and age. It is the single biggest fear I have for my kids.

I cannot wait for autonomous cars to price private cars off the road. People (all people, myself included) are terrible drivers.

Upper Tulse Hill has always been fucking awful, and was even worse before the traffic islands and speed bumps, if you can imagine that.