Another idea instead of 30 limits

[Peter Ward]

Driving through Birmingham yesterday while thinking about discussions on various recent threads, I got to wondering...

Ultimately, safety in towns is about attitude rather than speed. Therefore, instead of having 30 limits, why not have zones where pedestrians have right of way over vehicles?

That way, drivers will have to drive more slowly and carefully when there are people about, but when/where urban roads are free of people then speeds can be higher.

It occurred to me that the French may have had it right all those years ago. "Priorite a droit" (sp?) meant that people turning onto a main road had right of way. Therefore you had to drive carefully and be observant.

OK, fire away.

[catso]

So how about keeping pedestrians off the road?

[hugoagogo]

a bit like the thing they do in some places in Holland. no road signs or markings, cobbled roads with less borders between pedestrians cyclists and cars. makes everyone go slow apparently. i can only imagine it would end in tears in britain

[fidgits]

actually, the holland thing might work...

considering the 2 types of driver that drive like loonies in 30 zones are either the max muppets, or taxi drivers w*nkers...

For the muppets, cobbled streets would break their back in the corsa with no suspension or ground clearance..

and the taxi driver, well, perhaps if they have passengers, they might take it a little easier..

[lord summerisle]

they've done something like the holland thing in Bury, on one of the large council estates - only they havent mentioned the fact as to what your supposed to do...

Basically at several intersections the road level has been raised, the whole lot from garden wall to garden wall is one large expanse of red tarmac, in the centre of the cross road is a circle pattern, and in the middle of each road is bollards which no indication of which way your supposed to go.

the local kids now think they have total right of way and group in any old place and make sure they are always in the way of cars. ended up going round the wrong way (i think) on my way out of the estate since they where all stood blocking one side of the road, so went round the other side of the bollard only to end up driving along the pavement.

ho humm...

all to save the children i supposed...

[smeggy]

Something like this was discussed on PH some time ago.

It works in other countries as these zones are usually very quiet anyway. However, Ken with his infinite logic, thinks this must also work on one of the busiest streets in London.

BBC online said:

Reports that the technique could be applied to Exhibition Road in west London, the home of the Science, Natural History and Victoria and Albert museums, have been played down by local authority chiefs. But the idea seems to be gathering steam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4213221.stm


EDITED TO ADD:

I just found the relevent PH thread:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&h=&t=152797



I like Ted's new search facility: "use google!"



>> Edited by smeggy on Monday 15th August 13:46

[james_j]

catso said:

So how about keeping pedestrians off the road?

This sounds best, as many accidents seem to occur when pedestrians wander into the road.

(A similar outcome if a car were to wander onto the pavement, but less likely to happen.)

I would suggest building more pedestrians bridges and tunnels, a thought which seemed to occur to road designers decades ago but which seems to have been forgotten in the quest to frustrate car drivers as much as possible.

[Big Fat F'er]

Peter Ward said:

Ultimately, safety in towns is about attitude rather than speed.

Absolutely. Trouble is, those with attitude but no respect won't take notice of any calming measures.

By the way, I once heard it suggested that to get everyone to drive carefully, you should remove every safety device PLUS add a sharpended spike to the central column. Now what do you think about THAT!

[D Fender]

Peter Ward said:

instead of having 30 limits, why not have zones where pedestrians have right of way over vehicles?

Hasn't something like this been done before?













Can't remember which country it was.













But I think they called these special pedestrian zones:













Pavements!

[V8 Archie]

Big Fat F'er said:

...to get everyone to drive carefully, you should remove every safety device PLUS add a sharpended spike to the central column. Now what do you think about THAT!

I think that sounds rather like a thought experiment put forward a few years ago to suggest that "safety" features such a ABS, traction control, stability control etc. may make people become less safe drivers.

Of course, to understand it requires thought, which is a skill our law-makers and a depressingly large number of current road users seem to be unable to put into practice.

I think that many people's attidue to road use is mirrored by what they do on foot. i.e. no observation, stop in the middle of a thoughfare, crawl along at 0.1mph in a group six people wide across the pavement and get annoyed when someone feels that they'd like to move faster in case they lose "their" spot.

[deeps]

Big Fat F'er said:

By the way, I once heard it suggested that to get everyone to drive carefully, you should remove every safety device PLUS add a sharpended spike to the central column. Now what do you think about THAT!

Absolutely!
I've heard that idea before and have no doubt at all that it would reduce accidents! How could you possibly tailgate with that spike grinning at you :-)

[Jasandjules]

It would never work in this country though.. Some people are just too stupid/rude...

I mean, I have been sat at a pedestrian crossing before now, waiting for the person to cross, when some t*&^ actually overtakes me !! It has happened a couple of times, at the same crossing, which is in a 30mph limit, but a two lane road.. Quite what the other cars think I am doing when sat stationary in front of flashing pelican lights is beyond me...

[philthy]

Jasandjules said:

It would never work in this country though.. Some people are just too stupid/rude... I mean, I have been sat at a pedestrian crossing before now, waiting for the person to cross, when some t*&^ actually overtakes me !! It has happened a couple of times, at the same crossing, which is in a 30mph limit, but a two lane road.. Quite what the other cars think I am doing when sat stationary in front of flashing pelican lights is beyond me...

When the amber lights are flashing, and it's clear, it means you can go.

172: Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red 'Stop' light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution.
Laws ZPPPCRGD regs 23 & 26 & RTRA sect 25(5)

Phil

[hugoagogo]

philthy said:

Jasandjules said: It would never work in this country though.. Some people are just too stupid/rude... I mean, I have been sat at a pedestrian crossing before now, waiting for the person to cross, When the amber lights are flashing, and it's clear, it means you can go.

this is why too many signs etc are a bad thing
people see a sign or a light and say "see, i can go, therefore i MUST go"
never mind if there are any pedestrians there or any other obvious danger "i have right of way!"

[volvos70t5]

First, let's have a jaywalking offence.
Second, let's throw the book at pedestrians who cause collisions on the road and drivers who cause collisions on the pavement.

[philthy]

Jasandjules said:

It would never work in this country though.. Some people are just too stupid/rude... I mean, I have been sat at a pedestrian crossing before now, waiting for the person to cross, when some t*&^ actually overtakes me !! It has happened a couple of times, at the same crossing, which is in a 30mph limit, but a two lane road.. Quite what the other cars think I am doing when sat stationary in front of flashing pelican lights is beyond me...

May I draw your attention to the word flashing? In these circumstances the flashing lights mean "you may proceed with caution, if safe to do so", not "floor it, I've got right of way"
Cuts both ways, a flashing green man doesn't mean "run in front of this car, he's supposed to give way".
Either way, there are a lot of numpties out there.

stay safe

Phil

>> Edited by philthy on Tuesday 16th August 11:05

[Jasandjules]

Ah yes, I should have been more clear..

I, when I see someone looking to cross a road at such a crossing, actually stop and let them go.. Of course once their feet are in the road they have right of way, but I notice that most people (especially the elderly and those with young kiddies) stand by the road and wait for a car to stop..

At the times I was overtaken, the pedestrian was about 3 ft into the road, well in front of my car, and the second time, the pedestrian was just abouts to clear my car and would have (if it had been a second later) been right in the path of the p**%k who raced past.

[Big Fat F'er]

The debate is not about whether there is "crossing while flashing" the debate is about the absolute numpty wartheads that overtake a car that's sat in front of a crossing.

If you start to quote the law, it almost suggests that the original driver was wrong, instead of the brain dead P*****K that overtook.

I was going to say take his car off him, but Im' not going down that road again...........!!!!!!!

[james_j]

volvos70t5 said:

First, let's have a jaywalking offence. Second, let's throw the book at pedestrians who cause collisions on the road and drivers who cause collisions on the pavement.

That's the way. Keep the two apart, I'll have none of the socialist utopia, cheesy, twee stupid "mixing cars and pedestrians".