Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\09\26 16:08, Robin wrote:
Exhibition Road has had the pavements and kerbs removed to turn it
into a place where pedestrians and vehicles don't quite know who is
supposed to be where. Apparently that's a good thing. Anyway, blind
groups have complained, so the former pavement area is now going to
be covered in ... wait for it... corduroy so that the blind will know
when they are on the former pavement area and when they are in the
former road area. Since the presence of the corduroy will also alert
everyone else to the location of the former pavement area, I can't
help thinking that leaving the original road, pavement and kerbs
intact would have achieved similar results with zero cost or
disruption. No wonder the country's bankrupt.

I doubt if anyone involved is as stupid as someone who thinks readers
will believe they are going to use confuse (cotton fibre) corduroy
rather than the 800mm tactile paving corduroy which is what I have read
will be used. Or did *you* think it was going to be a cotton fibre?

Yes, I did. It did seem strange. But my point still stands - they've
spent a fortune on getting rid of the distinction between road and
footway, only to reinstate it.


The real stupidity is that blind people and other pedestrians will now
be aware of where the pavement is, or was, but drivers of vehicles
will not. So the blind people will feel that they are in a place of
some safety (the pavement) whereas car and van drivers, who won't be
aware of the too-subtle distinction, will just mow them down.

Anyone who wants to see the consequences of such a "traffic
management" scheme should go to Ashford in Kent, where the former
racetrack known as the town centre ring road has been converted into
two way streets, a proportion of which have no significant visual
delineation (from the drivers' point of view) between the pavement and
the roadway. Crossing the road is made immeasurably more difficult
because pedestrians aren't sure where the pavement ends, so they have
to stand well back from the roadway.

In this part of Ashford, there are probably few or no collisions
between pedestrians and cars now. That sounds like a success, and is
probably hailed as such by the scheme's designers, but the real reason
is that pedestrians now completely avoid that area of Ashford because
of the lack of pedestrian safety.

Having driven there several times recently, I have seen car drivers
confused by the lack of kerbs, reserved pavements and signage. I saw
cars driving the wrong way down a section of dual carriageway on three
separate occasions, all for the lack of a keep left sign.

I haven't seen Exhibition Road as rebuilt but I have seen some of the
plans for it and was pessimistic as to whether it would work. Such
schemes have apparently worked in other European countries but as far
as I know, only in narrow streets.

wrote:
In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:27:54 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

Exhibition Road has had the pavements and kerbs removed to turn it
into a place where pedestrians and vehicles don't quite know who is
supposed to be where. Apparently that's a good thing. Anyway, blind
groups have complained, so the former pavement area is now going to
be covered in ... wait for it... corduroy so that the blind will
know when they are on the former pavement area and when they are in
the former road area. Since the presence of the corduroy will also
alert everyone else to the location of the former pavement area, I
can't help thinking that leaving the original road, pavement and
kerbs intact would have achieved similar results with zero cost or
disruption. No wonder the country's bankrupt.

This is just the largest and most ludicrous example of "highway
engineering fashion" that has been implemented in London. You only
have to experience the smaller scale version on High Street Kensington
and nearly be run over about 10 times in a 100 yards to know it is a
preposterous idea.

I'm also not entirely convinced with the new obsession of removing
fencing and street furniture either. In some places you do need to
some obstructions if only to protect people from their own stupidity
of stepping on the highway when vehicles are driving past. I'd love
to know how many millions of pounds have been spent on this in recent
years. It could then be compared with the millions spent under Ken to
install it all and all the extra traffic lights. Neither policy has
achieved the optimum position and I fear we will forever lurch back
and forth between two policy extremes.

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but I'm all
in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real danger to
cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them motorists drive all
over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20 years ago and ended up
with a load of bollards.


Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 12:01:02PM -0500,
wrote:

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but
I'm all in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a
real danger to cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without
them motorists drive all over the pavements. We learnt that in
Cambridge 20 years ago and ended up with a load of bollards.

Railings are a damned inconvenience to pedestrians too. Bollards are
fine.

Bollards are a major problem for people with impaired sight. The County
Council learnt a lot about disability at the time. A pity they didn't find
it out before planning the pedestrianisation.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

wrote:
In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 15:27:54 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

Exhibition Road has had the pavements and kerbs removed to turn it
into a place where pedestrians and vehicles don't quite know who is
supposed to be where. Apparently that's a good thing. Anyway, blind
groups have complained, so the former pavement area is now going to
be covered in ... wait for it... corduroy so that the blind will know
when they are on the former pavement area and when they are in the
former road area. Since the presence of the corduroy will also alert
everyone else to the location of the former pavement area, I can't
help thinking that leaving the original road, pavement and kerbs
intact would have achieved similar results with zero cost or
disruption. No wonder the country's bankrupt.

This is just the largest and most ludicrous example of "highway
engineering fashion" that has been implemented in London. You only
have to experience the smaller scale version on High Street Kensington
and nearly be run over about 10 times in a 100 yards to know it is a
preposterous idea.

I'm also not entirely convinced with the new obsession of removing
fencing and street furniture either. In some places you do need to
some obstructions if only to protect people from their own stupidity
of stepping on the highway when vehicles are driving past. I'd ove
to know how many millions of pounds have been spent on this in recent
years. It could then be compared with the millions spent under Ken to
install it all and all the extra traffic lights. Neither policy has
achieved the optimum position and I fear we will forever lurch back
and forth between two policy extremes.

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but I'm
all in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real danger
to cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them motorists
drive all over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20 years ago
and ended up with a load of bollards.

Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

As the bollards are in primarily pedestrian areas the rate of demolition
isn't too great. It's mostly delivery lorries which others can more easily
avoid.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:48:10 -0500
wrote:
Bollards are a major problem for people with impaired sight. The County

Why? Unless they left their white stick at home or have a particularly stupid
guide dog why should bollards be any more of an impediment than anything else
potentially in their way?

B2003

On 27/09/2011 13:43, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but I'm all
in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real danger to
cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them motorists drive all
over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20 years ago and ended up
with a load of bollards.


Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

In Cambridge the bollards used to sneak up (literally) on the motorists
and take them by surprise.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 2011\09\27 21:39, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 27/09/2011 13:43, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but
I'm all
in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real danger to
cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them motorists
drive all
over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20 years ago and
ended up
with a load of bollards.


Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

In Cambridge the bollards used to sneak up (literally) on the motorists
and take them by surprise.

You're talking bollards.

You're talking bollards.

Or for some drivers "up yours" - eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyihogeiyH0?

--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote:

On 2011\09\27 21:39, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 27/09/2011 13:43, Bruce wrote:
wrote:

This fashion is more Kensington and Chelsea than all of London but I'm
all in favour of getting rid of railings. They are usually a real
danger to cyclists. Kerbs are another matter though. Without them
motorists drive all over the pavements. We learnt that in Cambridge 20
years ago and ended up with a load of bollards.

Presumably the evil motorists now knock down the bollards. Are the
bollards any better for cyclists than railings?

In Cambridge the bollards used to sneak up (literally) on the motorists
and take them by surprise.

You're talking bollards.

Now there's an idea! Perhaps they would tell motorists they're about to hit
them?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Robin) wrote:

You're talking bollards.

Or for some drivers "up yours" - eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyihogeiyH0?

I find it very hard to have any sympathy for drivers who can't read.

--
Colin Rosenstiel