The BBC's term for this idea is a "naked road". Apparently RB Kensington
& Chelsea are considering removing the kerb, traffic lights and signs on
Exhibition Road to trial the Dutch scheme where removal of all barriers
and signs is meant to encourage drivers to be more aware of pedestrians.
This is part of a redevelopment plan for Exhibition Road.

It's an interesting idea; Exhibition Road is an interesting road to
choose too. It has a high volume of pedestrian traffic; however, it also
has a large number of street parking spaces at the southern end. I
wonder if these would be removed under this proposal?

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:
The BBC's term for this idea is a "naked road". Apparently RB
Kensington & Chelsea are considering removing the kerb, traffic
lights and signs on Exhibition Road to trial the Dutch scheme where
removal of all barriers and signs is meant to encourage drivers to
be more aware of pedestrians. This is part of a redevelopment plan
for Exhibition Road.

It's an interesting idea; Exhibition Road is an interesting road to
choose too. It has a high volume of pedestrian traffic; however, it
also has a large number of street parking spaces at the southern
end. I wonder if these would be removed under this proposal?

This was one of my main concerns when I read about the plan in The Times
last week. (They also used the term "naked road".) They implied that
there would be no kerbs, so I don't quite see how parking would work.
There is a considerable amount of both residents' and metered parking on
this road, including IIRC some bays in the centre of the road. If they
abolish all those, it will be highly inconvenient for both local
residents and visitors to the museums and the Royal Albert Hall.

It's also a major route between the Paddington/Edgware Road area and
Kensington/Chelsea. While I quite like the idea of the "naked road", I
can't help feeling that this wide, straight through-route is not really
suitable to try out the concept in London.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
The BBC's term for this idea is a "naked road". Apparently RB Kensington &
Chelsea are considering removing the kerb, traffic lights and signs on
Exhibition Road to trial the Dutch scheme where removal of all barriers
and signs is meant to encourage drivers to be more aware of pedestrians.
This is part of a redevelopment plan for Exhibition Road.

It's an interesting idea; Exhibition Road is an interesting road to choose
too. It has a high volume of pedestrian traffic; however, it also has a
large number of street parking spaces at the southern end. I wonder if
these would be removed under this proposal?

I drive down a road with no kerb on my way to work everyday.
It still has the parking spaces as before

tim

Richard J. wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

The BBC's term for this idea is a "naked road". Apparently RB
Kensington & Chelsea are considering removing the kerb, traffic
lights and signs on Exhibition Road to trial the Dutch scheme where
removal of all barriers and signs is meant to encourage drivers to
be more aware of pedestrians. This is part of a redevelopment plan
for Exhibition Road.

It's an interesting idea; Exhibition Road is an interesting road to
choose too. It has a high volume of pedestrian traffic; however, it
also has a large number of street parking spaces at the southern
end. I wonder if these would be removed under this proposal?

This was one of my main concerns when I read about the plan in The Times
last week. (They also used the term "naked road".) They implied that
there would be no kerbs, so I don't quite see how parking would work.
There is a considerable amount of both residents' and metered parking on
this road, including IIRC some bays in the centre of the road. If they
abolish all those, it will be highly inconvenient for both local
residents and visitors to the museums and the Royal Albert Hall.

Yes, there are bays in the centre of the road from Cromwell Road up to a
bit before Imperial College Road.

It's also a major route between the Paddington/Edgware Road area and
Kensington/Chelsea. While I quite like the idea of the "naked road", I
can't help feeling that this wide, straight through-route is not really
suitable to try out the concept in London.

Any improvement to the pedestrian environment would be welcome, as even
though the pavements are quite wide, they can be quite congested when
there are lots of visitors to the museums (and when the subway suffers
one of its frequent floodings). Making it a free-for-all might make life
extremely difficult for cars along the northbound side, as pedestrians
will spill out into the rest of the road unless parked vehicles exist as
a natural barrier. But if that barrier exists, then the whole point of
removing the kerb becomes meaningless.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

Any improvement to the pedestrian environment would be welcome, as even
though the pavements are quite wide, they can be quite congested when
there are lots of visitors to the museums (and when the subway suffers
one of its frequent floodings). Making it a free-for-all might make life
extremely difficult for cars along the northbound side

Wasn't there a plan to make it one-way? (North-to-south, IIRC)?

Have they abandoned this idea or did I imagine it?

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Any improvement to the pedestrian environment would be welcome, as even
though the pavements are quite wide, they can be quite congested when
there are lots of visitors to the museums (and when the subway suffers one
of its frequent floodings). Making it a free-for-all might make life
extremely difficult for cars along the northbound side, as pedestrians
will spill out into the rest of the road unless parked vehicles exist as a
natural barrier. But if that barrier exists, then the whole point of
removing the kerb becomes meaningless.

The thought of pedestrians "spilling out onto the road" into the path of
moving cars scares the **** out of me: pedestrians on a city street
generally walk without due regard to other pedestrians, never mind vehicle
drivers. As both a driver and a pedestrian I've been brought up to regard
the pavement as the exclusive domain of the pedestrian and the road (between
one kerb and the other) as being mainly the domain of wheeled vehicles
(cars, lorries, bikes) except at designated zebra/pelican crossings where
pedestrians have priority over vehicles.

With no kerb (I presume this means that the pavement and road are on the
same level) how do drivers judge where to position themselves on the road?

Removing the concept of who has priority over whom and allowing a
free-for-all sounds ludicrous, and a recipe for either more
vehicle-pedestrian collisions or else excessively slow vehicle speeds to
allow for pedestrians who are walking with their brains switched off ;-)

Martin Underwood wrote:

Removing the concept of who has priority over whom and allowing a
free-for-all sounds ludicrous, and a recipe for either more
vehicle-pedestrian collisions or else excessively slow vehicle speeds
to allow for pedestrians who are walking with their brains switched
off ;-)

AIUI the whole point is to force both pedestrians and drivers to switch
their brains on. That can only be good can't it?

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

AIUI the whole point is to force both
pedestrians and drivers to switch their
brains on. That can only be good can't it?

No. When I'm a pedestrian, I want to look at the buildings and trees and
sky, not continuously worry about being mown down.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

AIUI the whole point is to force both pedestrians and drivers to switch
their brains on. That can only be good can't it?



Sadly, increasing numbers of both appear to have no brains to switch on, and
the 2 forms of traffic (foot and wheeled) need to be kept apart by as sensible
means as possible. This has been, for about a Century (or longer in some
places) by means of kerb and bollards. Why reinvent the wheel now?

Pedestrians and drivers need to know their demarcation: pedestrians on the
pavement, vehicles on the road. Simple. Straightforward. Each knows where he
can and can't (or shouldn't) go. Why make life impossibly difficult for all
those that are too stupid to make these decisions for themselves?

In an age of dumbing-down, this invention of "choice" seems a retrograde step,
and will inevitably lead to those incapable of making the right choice to make
the wrong one.

Marc.

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

AIUI the whole point is to force both
pedestrians and drivers to switch their
brains on. That can only be good can't it?

No. When I'm a pedestrian, I want to look at the buildings and trees and
sky, not continuously worry about being mown down.


Do people in the Dutch town where this has been implemented get mown down?
AIUI, they don't.