Naked road scheme in London

Colin Blackburn

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 and drivers
will not automatically have right of way over pedestrians who will be
able to cross anywhere on the road."

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.



Full story below:

"""
Road users mingle in naked scheme

A west London road may be stripped of its kerb, traffic lights and signs
in an attempt to encourage pedestrians and cars to mingle.

Exhibition Road in Kensington has been chosen for the "naked road"
experiment - a scheme pioneered in Holland.

Organisers say the idea works as a form of psychological traffic calming
which encourages drivers to be more considerate to pedestrians.

But an RAC spokesman said it may encourage drivers to be more reckless.

RAC Foundation executive director Edmund King said: "This is a form of
psychological traffic calming which encourages drivers to slow down and
think a lot more about pedestrians and other road users.

"We shall be following this trial very closely.

"In Holland, there have been places where a number of roads meet and no
one has the automatic right of way. Although this might make drivers
more careful, it could also encourage the aggressive motorist to behave
more recklessly.

"We would certainly question whether this type of experiment should be
implemented on a wider scale."

Exhibition Road, home of the Science, Natural History and Victoria and
Albert museum, could have a maximum speed limit of 20mph and drivers
will not automatically have right of way over pedestrians who will be
able to cross anywhere on the road.

Kensington and Chelsea Council, the lead authority on the project, plan
to introduce similar principles to Sloane Square by removing the
roundabout and creating two large pedestrian areas.

A similar naked road scheme is already in place in Wiltshire.
"""

Colin

cupra

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> From:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4151047.stm
>
<snip>

If the exponential increase in crap driving upon crossing the M25 threshold
is anything to go buy, I expect many collisions

Eiron

Colin Blackburn wrote:

> A west London road may be stripped of its kerb, traffic lights and signs
> in an attempt to encourage pedestrians and cars to mingle.
>
> Exhibition Road in Kensington has been chosen for the "naked road"
> experiment - a scheme pioneered in Holland.

If Kensington council wants to spend money on roads it could start
by fixing the drains in the High Street.
It was like a river last time I was there.

As a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist and driver, I am quite
confident that such a scheme will do nobody any good and will
cause accidents.

--
Eiron.

Nathaniel David Porter

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?

> 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.

>
>
> 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.

<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.

dkahn400

Nathaniel David Porter wrote:

> 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.

There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

> 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.

Cyclists should not require any special consideration or provision in
this kind of scheme.

--
Dave...

dkahn400

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.

I believe that has not generally been the case where similar schemes
have been tried elsewhere.

--
Dave...

Nathaniel Porter

"dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1105014802.393020.205720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Nathaniel David Porter wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
> right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.
>

How precisely does that work?

I find that the mentality some road users have that they and/or their
(current) road user group is somehow superior or righteous than some or all
of the rest tends to lead to reckless behaviour on their part - we've all
seen the idiot who while driving whinging about pedestrians bumbling into
the road only to get out of his car and bumble into the road, effing and
blinding about the car who has had to stop for him. I would suggest that
this mentality is one of the biggest obstacles to improved road safety in
this country today.

Essentially the Clarkson-esque "get off my road" mentality that some
motorists have is the same as the "holier than thou" (a la Doug) attitude
some cyclists have, and similar mentailities than some other road users
have - it's little more than "me first".

> > 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.
>
> Cyclists should not require any special consideration or provision in
> this kind of scheme.
>

The needs of cyclists have to be considered when designing any scheme on a
road which cyclists are permitted to use. It may well be these needs do not
require any special provision, or any alteration to the scheme, however the
consideration still needs to be there - and if this scheme follows form then
cyclists needs will not have been considered enough (if at all).

Mark Thompson

>> There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
>> right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

> How precisely does that work?

Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?

Tony Raven

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.

Tony

Vincent Wilcox

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> "dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>>There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
>>right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.
>>
>
>
> How precisely does that work?
>

Because driving isnt a right?

Nathaniel Porter

"Mark Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D685F75922Dpleasegivegenerously@130.133.1.4...
> >> There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
> >> right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.
>
> > How precisely does that work?
>
> Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?

The first and third are merely means of ensuring compliance with regard to
competancy and roadworthiness of vehicle - both of which are also expected
of cyclists. It is essentially a difference in enforcement - I don't see how
this makes a difference.

As for road tax/VED, I don't see how that reduces the right of a motorist to
use the roads. All rights come with responsibilities - it just so happens
that one of those responsibilities for motorists is to put a bit extra back
in return for use of the roads to pay for the wear, tear and other damage
done by this use. Insurance is similar - it's just a responsibility that
comes with the right.

If responsibilities somehow annul rights, then I'm pretty sure we don't have
any rights at all. :-)

njf>badger

>>>There are too few of these schemes. Motorists do not have an equal
>>>right to cyclists and pedestrians to use roads.

Last night I watched a cyclist going through multiple red lights, the
one at the end of uni rd she crossed the advanced stop box and actul
stopped in the middle of the junction, so delaying the change of the
lights (missed the induction loops under the box), every set of lights
down Burgess Rd she went through on red, the motorists stopping at reds
set for average bus progression.... So whats the advantage for cyclists,
without the other traffic forced to a standstill how can they make
better progress????

dkahn400

Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> "Mark Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com> wrote:

> > Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?
>
> The first and third are merely means of ensuring compliance with
> regard to competancy and roadworthiness of vehicle - both of which
> are also expected of cyclists. It is essentially a difference in
> enforcement - I don't see how this makes a difference.

Motorists use the roads by licence, not by right. A licence can be
taken away.

--
Dave...

Nathaniel Porter

"dkahn400" <dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1105019003.579337.153990@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> > "Mark Thompson" <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Driving licences, "road tax", MOT, insurance?
> >
> > The first and third are merely means of ensuring compliance with
> > regard to competancy and roadworthiness of vehicle - both of which
> > are also expected of cyclists. It is essentially a difference in
> > enforcement - I don't see how this makes a difference.
>
> Motorists use the roads by licence, not by right. A licence can be
> taken away.
>

I believe it is possible to remove the right for a cyclist to use the road -
just by different means. I am sure I have read of ASBOs being used in this
manner

The only real difference is that drivers are expected to prove they are
competant first. The only reason that cyclists are not required to do the
same is that the cost of such a system would far outweigh the benefits. But
it is just as easy to rescind someones right to use the road on a bicycle.

None of this really has much relevence to the scheme mentioned in the OP
mind.