Naked road scheme in London

David Martin

On 6/1/05 5:09 pm, in article crjrc7$6hs$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk,
"Nathaniel Porter" <csucbj@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> But it essentially does the same thing - just in different ways

So does shooting someone, or allowing them to die a natural death of old
age. You end up with the same net result.

One could argue that the means are as important as the ends.

...d

Dave Kahn

Nathaniel Porter wrote:

> I have noted the fact that you have failed to acknowledge (snipping aside)
> my point that those who are so arrogant as to think their particular road
> user group as more entitled than any of the others are a danger to others. I
> suggest that if you have difficulty sharing the road on an equal basis with
> others you should take the bus.

I thought the point was not really relevant to the thread. I also didn't
think it was worth commenting on particularly. I have no problems
sharing the road with anyone who uses it properly and I find your
comment grossly offensive.

--
Dave...

Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells

mt99999@hotmail.com

Nathaniel David Porter wrote:
> Colin Blackburn wrote:
>
> > 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?

if you consider a twenty mph limit as more strict than 30mph. A limit
is still a limit. I would imagibe that there would bve signage at the
entrance to the 20mph zone but no repeaters (as is normal) so we are
(presumably) not talking about any proliferation of street furniture
and markings.


> > 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.

hmmn, since car drivers always check whether any pedestrian is waiting
to cross the road or not before proceeding along any other road this
seems fair enough. After all if pedestrians were to abuse exhibition
road then drivers might be tempted to abuse other road users' right on
the rest of the network.

I agree that everyone has an equal right to use this space just not if
they bring a car with them. Of course one could argue (as you
essentially are)n that car drivers have a de facto right or something
that is hard to distinguish from one) to use many roads (with some
qualification). If I were attempting to walk briskly in this area I
would epect to come into conflict with bimbling pedestrians but I would
not expect to resolve this by requiring them to keep a look out and to
step aside, rather i would walk around them, pause or say "excuse me"
or even accept that I must simply walk more slowly for a while. This
seems to be what the scheme is expecting drivers to do (and cyclists
although by their nature and size they are probably better able to
thread than car drivers). This sounds like the kind of sharing I think
you are talking about rather than special interest pleading although
given the sate of sharing on te rest of the road network I don't think
a bit of "me first" from pedestrians on one road is particularly
unjustified


> >
> >
> > 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.

I assume it would the same as the effect on car drivers, that they
would not be able to make progress along the road at the same rate.
Given the nature of the area and the high level of tourists on foot
this seems reasonable enough to me.

>
> <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.

I disagree. Assuming the effect is positive (and the continental
experience suggests that this is quite possible) then a high profile
example such as this could encourage the spread of this practice. I
think that the value of this scheme (assuming it is successful) as
anti-motor supremacy propaganda will be enormous

best wishes
james

congokid

In message <slrnctqqrs.8fv.tmb@sheep.isotek.co.uk>, Trevor Barton
<tmb@Xisotek.co.uk> writes

> That ain't going to happen so
>long as motorists continue to drive the way they do

Killing about 3,000 plus people in the UK annually.

>, and neither is
>it going to happen when so many cyclists behave the way they do.
>Speeding, red light jumping, dangerous overtaking, pavement cycling
>and driving, tailgating, the list is a long and sorry one.

Anyone got the relevant KSI stats for this particularly reprehensible
behaviour?

> No group
>can claim anything like the moral high ground

It's cyclists' by right. See above.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

Nathaniel Porter

"congokid" <newsabuse001@congokid.com> wrote in message
news:gJkHfELzkc3BFwDu@congokid.demon.co.uk...
> In message <slrnctqqrs.8fv.tmb@sheep.isotek.co.uk>, Trevor Barton
> <tmb@Xisotek.co.uk> writes
>
> > That ain't going to happen so
> >long as motorists continue to drive the way they do
>
> Killing about 3,000 plus people in the UK annually.
>
> >, and neither is
> >it going to happen when so many cyclists behave the way they do.
> >Speeding, red light jumping, dangerous overtaking, pavement cycling
> >and driving, tailgating, the list is a long and sorry one.
>
> Anyone got the relevant KSI stats for this particularly reprehensible
> behaviour?
>
> > No group
> >can claim anything like the moral high ground
>
> It's cyclists' by right. See above.
>

That attitude is why many motorists show contempt for other road users
(cyclists in particular), this contempt results in a significant proportion
of the ~3,000 people killed each year on the roads, which leads to you
moralising on Usenet, irritating some motorists further and....

It's a vicious circle, and it won't get better unless we work to improve
things, instead of bitching and satisfying superiority complexes, which only
serves to make things worse.

It's not motorists who kill ~3000 people a year - it's dangerous road users.

Trevor Barton

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:26:43 +0000, congokid wrote:
> In message <slrnctqqrs.8fv.tmb@sheep.isotek.co.uk>, Trevor Barton
><tmb@Xisotek.co.uk> writes
>
>> That ain't going to happen so
>>long as motorists continue to drive the way they do
>
> Killing about 3,000 plus people in the UK annually.
>
>>, and neither is
>>it going to happen when so many cyclists behave the way they do.
>>Speeding, red light jumping, dangerous overtaking, pavement cycling
>>and driving, tailgating, the list is a long and sorry one.
>
> Anyone got the relevant KSI stats for this particularly reprehensible
> behaviour?
>
>> No group
>>can claim anything like the moral high ground
>
> It's cyclists' by right. See above.

Rubbish. No more than it's licensed motorist's by right. You only
have the rights you do because society says you do - they can be
taken away if the public wills it anytime the public wants. If
the government had a referendum asking how many votors thought that
cyclist's should have (a) a right to use the road, (b) *no* right to
use the road and (c) couldn't give a toss, how many do you think
would answer b or c? I think you'd find it a surprising number, and
perhaps even a majority.

You also seem to imagine that your etherial right to use the road,
combined with the fact that cyclists are far less likely to KSI
anyone, somehow gives you the additional right to behave as you like
on the road. At least, that's what your comments imply to me. So
be it. If sufficient people think as you do, and act in the manner you
imply you might act, you will soon discover that your imagined rights
to do so will be removed.

--
Trevor Barton

Trevor Barton

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:11:58 -0000, Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> Whilst I see your point, what I meant is that many all purpose roads are
> designed in such a manner that they are innappropriate for cyclists - for
> example the A14. Now IMHO if there is need for a road to be designed with
> the motorist having much more consideration than cyclists et al, then it
> should be designed as a motorway with proper alternative facilities (i.e.
> the old road) provided for local traffic and non motorised users- and if
> there isn't justification for a motorway then the alterations aren't
> justified. Another example would be cycle farcilities which further the myth
> that cyclists should be shunted onto the pavement.
>
> I agree the big problem is getting all the road user groups to see
> themselves as equals - but it would help if the authorities led from the
> front with this, and designed all purpose roads for all purposes and called
> motorways motorways.

Yes, I see your point too :-)

However I guess it's a matter of balance, particularly of cost. How much
extra would it cost to provide "better" or "adequate" cycling provision
on a given road compared with the cost of not doing so. I don't have
any idea of the costs of any of these things, but if only 30 cyclists
use a road compared with 30,000 vehicle occumants, how much additional
expense is justified making a road cyclist-friendly? On the face of it,
only 0.1% extra, although I guess you'd have to factor in savings to
the public purse of the proportion of those cyclists who whould have
to resort to using a car for the journey with the consequent extra
costs in road expenditure, health care, etc ...

In a society where public money is in short supply (and I'm not aware
of a country in which it isn't) all that needs to be taken into
consideration. Now, I'm not saying it is taken into consideration,
either, and I'd probably believe that inadequate cyclist-aware
road planning takes place by neglect rather than by design. However,
at the end of the day the public purse is limited, and it may be that
any extra money required to upgrade innapropriate roads might be
better spent on, for example, health care or education.

--
Trevor Barton

dkahn400

Trevor Barton wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:26:43 +0000, congokid wrote:

> > It's cyclists' by right. See above.
>
> Rubbish. No more than it's licensed motorist's by right. You only
> have the rights you do because society says you do - they can be
> taken away if the public wills it anytime the public wants.

Another one who cannot see a difference between revoking a licence and
removing a right. Many contributors to this group are fully aware that
rights can be attacked and need to be fought for. That's why, to give
three examples, there was temporary jubilation over the departure of
Blunkett, why David Hansen uses the signature he does, and why the
helmet debate won't go away.

--
Dave...

Trevor Barton

On 7 Jan 2005 01:30:44 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:26:43 +0000, congokid wrote:
>
>> > It's cyclists' by right. See above.
>>
>> Rubbish. No more than it's licensed motorist's by right. You only
>> have the rights you do because society says you do - they can be
>> taken away if the public wills it anytime the public wants.
>
> Another one who cannot see a difference between revoking a licence and
> removing a right.

Oh FFS. Can you truly not see that there is no difference between
a *licensed motorist's* rights to use the road and a cyclist? It has
nothing to do with how easy it is to revoke a license. That does
not remove your right to drive on the road if you have a licence,
it just removes your license so you are not legally allowed to
drive on the road. If you comply with the law of the land, you
have an equal right to use the road as a driver or a cyclist. The
law of the land says that to do so you must somply with certain
rules: One is that to drive on it you need a license, another is
that to cycle on it you must not "cycle furiously", or whatever.
In both cases your rights are restricted by what's lawful, and, in
principle at least, society decides those limits.

> Many contributors to this group are fully aware that
> rights can be attacked and need to be fought for. That's why, to give
> three examples, there was temporary jubilation over the departure of
> Blunkett, why David Hansen uses the signature he does, and why the
> helmet debate won't go away.

Well, that's true. However, rights aren't absolute things, and in
many cases one person's right is another person's restriction, and
that's where society comes in. In the US, you have a right to own
a gun, and as a consequence 30-odd thousand of them are killed each
year by guns - that's a price they seem willing to pay for the right
to bear arms. It's also a right a lot of them feel they need to
fight to keep. That's something that we here in the UK have decided
should not be a right - which view is correct?

Rights are something granted to you by the society you live in, and
that's all. Even stuff like "fundamental human rights" is only an
expression of the opinion of the majority of people as a species.
You have no fundamental right to use the road as a cyclist, only
that which we all grant to you. That does not place you in any
different place to a motorist, no matter how much you insist it does.

--
Trevor Barton

pk

Tony Raven wrote:
> Eiron wrote:
>>
>> 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.


seems to be a very strange (extreemly busy and used prdominantly by visitors
not locals/regulars) for such a trial.

pk

dkahn400

Trevor Barton wrote:

> Oh FFS. Can you truly not see that there is no difference between
> a *licensed motorist's* rights to use the road and a cyclist?
No. The difference is immense.

--
Dave...

Trevor Barton

On 7 Jan 2005 06:14:38 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>
>> Oh FFS. Can you truly not see that there is no difference between
>> a *licensed motorist's* rights to use the road and a cyclist?
> No. The difference is immense.

How then?

On second thought, you're not interested in discussing it, obviously,
because you're just snipping anything you don't understand and
sticking one-liner replies, and I can't be bothered with that, so don't
bother with an answer.

--
Trevor Barton

dkahn400

Trevor Barton wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2005 06:14:38 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:

> > No. The difference is immense.
>
> How then?

Because one is a fundamental right while the other is granted under
licence with conditions attached.

> On second thought, you're not interested in discussing it,
> obviously, because you're just snipping anything you don't
> understand and sticking one-liner replies, and I can't be
> bothered with that, so don't bother with an answer.

There was only one point in your verbose reply that I wanted to comment
on. So that was what I quoted. Your arrogance and impertinence are
beyond belief.

--
Dave...

Trevor Barton

dkahn400 wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>
>>On 7 Jan 2005 06:14:38 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
>
>
>>>No. The difference is immense.
>>
>>How then?
>
>
> Because one is a fundamental right while the other is granted under
> licence with conditions attached.

Oh FFS again. Riding a bike on the road is also granted under license
with conditions attached too. You are granted a license to ride a
bike on the road at birth but there are conditions attached just the
same as there are conditions attached to driving a car, predominately in
relation to obeying the law of the road as it applies to bikes. The
only difference is that there is no bit of paper on which that license
is printed, and there is not test to pass to get that license, and it is
more difficult to revoke that license.

As for it being a "fundamental" right, that's just ridiculous. You
could class many "human rights" as fundamental rights, but the ability
to ride a bike on a road is hardly in the same class as the right to
live without being subject to torture. How gravely do you feel your
fundamental rights are being denied by not being allowed to ride on a
motorway, for example? Or not ride the wrong way down a one-way street?
Or not ride not in accordance with the laws of the road? Do you often
ride up the wrong side of the road just to assert you supposedly
fundamental right to use the road as you please? Or is riding on the
correct side of the road something you do but somehow not a condition
attached to riding on the road there in cloud cookoo land.

>>On second thought, you're not interested in discussing it,
>>obviously, because you're just snipping anything you don't
>>understand and sticking one-liner replies, and I can't be
>>bothered with that, so don't bother with an answer.
>
>
> There was only one point in your verbose reply that I wanted to comment
> on. So that was what I quoted. Your arrogance and impertinence are
> beyond belief.

Arrogance? Do you mean having a point of view and being willing to try
to explain and discuss it rather than dropping one-liners with a
conclusion but no explanation? Impertinance? Is that what disagreeing
with you is, then? Clearly you're stupid as well as just plain, umm, thick.

--
Trevor Barton