| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
An exhibition of stupidity
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. |
An exhibition of stupidity
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? -- Robin PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com |
An exhibition of stupidity
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. |
An exhibition of stupidity
|
An exhibition of stupidity
Paul Corfield wrote on 26 September 2011 17:34:46 ...
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. Is that because you can't tell (or don't care) where the carriageway starts or because drivers can't tell (or don't care) where it ends? I haven't noticed problems in KHS, but I'm not there that often. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
An exhibition of stupidity
Basil Jet wrote on 26 September 2011
16:13:43 ... 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. You seem to think that the tactile ridged paving was an afterthought following 'complaints'. I thought it was always part of the design. They were carrying out tests of the ridged paving already installed on the road as long ago as December 2010. I'll just be glad when the bloody thing's finished, having just experienced the works for the third Prom season. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
An exhibition of stupidity
I
haven't noticed problems in KHS, but I'm not there that often. Ditto. I also quite like what they have done at Seven Dials although that too I visit only rarely these days. -- Robin PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com |
An exhibition of stupidity
"Robin" wrote in :
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? I would hope not. We are talking about the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea - not the East End. The tactile difference should at least be fur - even if the budget can't stretch to mink. :-) |
An exhibition of stupidity
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. -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david It wouldn't hurt to think like a serial killer every so often. Purely for purposes of prevention, of course. |
An exhibition of stupidity
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 09:38:47PM +0100, Richard J. wrote:
I'll just be glad when the bloody thing's finished, having just experienced the works for the third Prom season. How on earth can it take *two years* to remove the pavements!?!!? -- David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing Planckton: n, the smallest possible living thing |
An exhibition of stupidity
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. |
An exhibition of stupidity
|
An exhibition of stupidity
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 |
An exhibition of stupidity
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 |
An exhibition of stupidity
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 |
An exhibition of stupidity
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. |
An exhibition of stupidity
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 |
An exhibition of stupidity
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 |
An exhibition of stupidity
|
An exhibition of stupidity
On 2011\09\27 22:31, wrote:
In , (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. Maybe they just can't read English. I can read a fair amount of French, German, Dutch and Swedish, but I wouldn't necessarily understand a sign that said "rising bollard" in any of them, and I wouldn't even understand "buses only" in Finnish or Albanian. |
An exhibition of stupidity
In article ,
(Basil Jet) wrote: On 2011\09\27 22:31, wrote: In , (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. Maybe they just can't read English. I can read a fair amount of French, German, Dutch and Swedish, but I wouldn't necessarily understand a sign that said "rising bollard" in any of them, and I wouldn't even understand "buses only" in Finnish or Albanian. It's the "No Entry" or "No motor Vehicles" international signs they can't read. I've seen the signs they ignore to hit the bollards in Cambridge. They are unbelievably stupid. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
An exhibition of stupidity
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. We have some of those in Aylesbury. An installation in Manchester is the subject of several YouTube videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyihogeiyH0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpkGvr2q3xw&NR=1 |
An exhibition of stupidity
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:41:10PM +0100, Bruce wrote:
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. And that's the problem with taking "solutions" that are "proven to work" in little mainland European towns and trying to apply them to London. There's nothing wrong with doing over Exhibition Road as an experiment, to see if it works on wider streets with a different mix of traffic, but it must be *as an experiment*, with measurable goals defined in advance. -- David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat Deck of Cards: $1.29. "101 Solitaire Variations" book: $6.59. Cheap replacement for the one thing Windows is good at: priceless -- Shane Lazarus |
An exhibition of stupidity
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:18:03PM +0000, d wrote:
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? Quite. There's plenty of other street furniture - bus stops, signs, lamp posts, pavement cafes, most of which seem to be in shades of grey and brown designed specifically to be invisible during both daylight and under artificial light - not to mention all those pesky pedestrians moving around and tourists stopping abruptly for no good reason. Bollards can be painted in bright red and white stripes to make them more visible if necessary. Argh! I agreed with Boltar! -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence Compromise: n: lowering my standards so you can meet them |
An exhibition of stupidity
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:03:54 +0100
David Cantrell wrote: Argh! I agreed with Boltar! My masterplan continues apace... [strokes white cat] B2003 |
An exhibition of stupidity
|
An exhibition of stupidity
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:56:11AM -0500, wrote:
In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: Bollards can be painted in bright red and white stripes to make them more visible if necessary. Unfortunately that's not always an acceptable option in historic cities. Why on earth not? -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence What profiteth a man, if he win a flame war, yet lose his cool? |
An exhibition of stupidity
In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:56:11AM -0500, wrote: In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: Bollards can be painted in bright red and white stripes to make them more visible if necessary. Unfortunately that's not always an acceptable option in historic cities. Why on earth not? Bollards painted in bright red and white stripes hardly enhance the local environment. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
An exhibition of stupidity
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:04:38 -0500
wrote: In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:56:11AM -0500, wrote: In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: Bollards can be painted in bright red and white stripes to make them more visible if necessary. Unfortunately that's not always an acceptable option in historic cities. Why on earth not? Bollards painted in bright red and white stripes hardly enhance the local environment. Unless they're outside a barbers shop. B2003 |
An exhibition of stupidity
In article , d ()
wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:04:38 -0500 wrote: In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:56:11AM -0500, wrote: In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: Bollards can be painted in bright red and white stripes to make them more visible if necessary. Unfortunately that's not always an acceptable option in historic cities. Why on earth not? Bollards painted in bright red and white stripes hardly enhance the local environment. Unless they're outside a barbers shop. Good grief! When did you last see one of them? I've not seen one for years. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
An exhibition of stupidity
In message , at 09:08:49
on Fri, 30 Sep 2011, remarked: Bollards painted in bright red and white stripes hardly enhance the local environment. Unless they're outside a barbers shop. Good grief! When did you last see one of them? I've not seen one for years. I'm not sure I've ever seen a red and white striped bollard outside a barbers shop. -- Roland Perry |
An exhibition of stupidity
|
An exhibition of stupidity
On 2011\09\30 15:38, d wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:08:49 -0500 wrote: Bollards painted in bright red and white stripes hardly enhance the local environment. Unless they're outside a barbers shop. Good grief! When did you last see one of them? I've not seen one for years. Never - was a joke. Did they really exist? I think theres still a mounted red and white rotating sign on a barbers shop near me but I'm not 100% sure, will have to check. http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.5730...7. 95,,2,2.19 |
An exhibition of stupidity
|
An exhibition of stupidity
On 2011\09\30 16:01, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\09\30 15:38, d wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:08:49 -0500 wrote: Bollards painted in bright red and white stripes hardly enhance the local environment. Unless they're outside a barbers shop. Good grief! When did you last see one of them? I've not seen one for years. Never - was a joke. Did they really exist? I think theres still a mounted red and white rotating sign on a barbers shop near me but I'm not 100% sure, will have to check. http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.5730...7. 95,,2,2.19 I've just seen 2 in a 15 minute drive and I wasn't even looking for them, so they're probably everywhere. |
An exhibition of stupidity
On 2011\10\03 06:58, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\09\30 16:01, Basil Jet wrote: On 2011\09\30 15:38, d wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:08:49 -0500 wrote: Bollards painted in bright red and white stripes hardly enhance the local environment. Unless they're outside a barbers shop. Good grief! When did you last see one of them? I've not seen one for years. Never - was a joke. Did they really exist? I think theres still a mounted red and white rotating sign on a barbers shop near me but I'm not 100% sure, will have to check. http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.5730...7. 95,,2,2.19 I've just seen 2 in a 15 minute drive and I wasn't even looking for them, so they're probably everywhere. Incidentally one of them is new because Google Streetview shows no barbers and no pole. |
An exhibition of stupidity
In message , at 07:38:07 on
Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Basil Jet remarked: Incidentally one of them is new because Google Streetview shows no barbers and no pole. And no bollard? -- Roland Perry |
An exhibition of stupidity
wrote in message ... In article , d () wrote: On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 07:04:38 -0500 wrote: In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 07:56:11AM -0500, wrote: In article , (David Cantrell) wrote: Bollards can be painted in bright red and white stripes to make them more visible if necessary. Unfortunately that's not always an acceptable option in historic cities. Why on earth not? Bollards painted in bright red and white stripes hardly enhance the local environment. Unless they're outside a barbers shop. Good grief! When did you last see one of them? I've not seen one for years. Sadly had to be taken inside and placed in the window to prevent the local scrotes nicking it, but here you go... http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl -- Cheers, Steve. |
An exhibition of stupidity
Unless they're outside a barbers shop. Good grief! When did you last see one of them? I've not seen one for years. Sadly had to be taken inside and placed in the window to prevent the local scrotes nicking it, but here you go... http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&tab=wl Now that's what I call an exhibition of stupidity! ;-) You have to use the link icon in the top right corner. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:15 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk