Speeding and general dangerous driving in and around Brixton

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by teuchter, Aug 30, 2017.

  1. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    This is not true.

    Trains can't stop in time. This is why railways are completely separated from the pedestrian realm.

    But the comparison isn't even worth engaging with. Ignore the troll.
     
  2. mojo pixy

    mojo pixy unquantifiable hazards

    They can, it just takes longer for them to come to a halt :thumbs:

    You may be mistaking my facetiousness for earnestness. That's OK, I don't do written sarcasm well :)
     
  3. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Actually something like this has been done in Bloomsbury. But in favour of pedestrians/ cyclists.

    The whole stretch of road running across Bloomsbury from West end to Clerkenwell has been narrowed to one way street ( West to East) for cars. With segregated cycle lanes on both side of street. One going west one east.

    This is now permanent. Its reduced car traffic through Bloomsbury. Its encouraged more cycling. Its also improved environment for pedestrians.

    I use it and it works.

    Its segregation of road space that puts pedestrians and cyclists first. Cars last.

    As you think segregation of road users is good idea would you support this?
     
  4. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    Oh. ok. :thumbs:
     
  5. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    Anyone who doesn't agree with your Daily-Mail-esque hand-wringing hatred of everything is a troll.
    I bet you're a proper curtain-twitcher, aren't you :D
     
  6. mojo pixy

    mojo pixy unquantifiable hazards

    Why do this? What's the point?
     
    SpookyFrank and Wilf like this.
  7. sleaterkinney

    sleaterkinney Well-Known Member

    Team Top Gear out to defend the poor motorists.
     
    Wilf, maomao, Mr Retro and 1 other person like this.
  8. alex_

    alex_ Well-Known Member

    I guess you don’t live anywhere near a railway which has a mixed fast/slow service - fast trains do not slow down through none stopping stations.

    Alex
     
  9. mojo pixy

    mojo pixy unquantifiable hazards

    You're right, I've never seen a train go slowly through a station. Never ever seen that. Never seen a car, never seen a pedestrian, in fact I don't even
     
  10. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    Because when some Daily-Mail-reading hand-wringing hater of everything curtain-twitcher calls me a troll for disagreeing with him, he can fuck the fuck off :thumbs:
     
  11. alcopop

    alcopop Well-Known Member

    Three people killed by a train at Loughborough station!
     
  12. mauvais

    mauvais change has become unavoidable

    Loughborough Junction, not Loughborough.
     
  13. Saul Goodman

    Saul Goodman It's all good, man

    Why don't you just run into them?
    As a cyclist, I'm sure you must have a camera strapped to your head. Just run into them, dive on the floor like a well trained footballer, reel around for a while and sue them.
    And you're on a push bike. It's not like you're going to do any damage to them :D
     
  14. snowy_again

    snowy_again Slush

    Do fuck off.
     
    a_chap, Gramsci, maomao and 3 others like this.
  15. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    You're banned from this thread.
     
    SpookyFrank, a_chap, Gramsci and 6 others like this.
  16. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    This seems promising in principle, although they are changes which will take a while and be met with some resistance I expect.

    TfL is planning to cut road speeds as part of “ambitious” strategy to boost cycle safety

     
    Gramsci and Winot like this.
  17. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Enforcement, enforcement, enforcement
     
    grosun, organicpanda and Winot like this.
  18. T & P

    T & P |-o-| (-o-) |-o-|

    Now that the bunfight posts have ceased I will dare to raise an issue that might not be agreeable to most remaining contributions ITT, but one that I can at least hope we can discuss without undue accusations of petrolheadness or trolling.

    Whereas an absolute zero casualty rate is not achievable in the foreseeable imo, any effort to bring the figures down is of course worth considering. But if the authorities are to seriously attempt such a target the will also need to address pedestrian road behaviour and awareness- something that in this country is pretty much non existent.

    Gramsci was telling in the previous page about encountering pedestrians whilst on his bicycle stepping on the road in front of him without even the most cursory check for incoming traffic. It is certainly his duty to be alert for such hazards, but he sounded to me (correct me if I'm wrong Gramsci ) as saying it is not an issue and something he and other road users just accept without question. The thing is, he shouldn't. Be prepared for it, yes of course. Dismiss as acceptable behaviour from pedestrians, no ,not at all.

    The official policy (or rather, lack thereof ) regarding peds in this country seems to be that they are absolved of any wrongdoing and are neither required nor even advised to take the most basic of precautions when crossing or stepping onto the road. Regardless of what the law might say about liability, it seems extraordinary to me that there are virtually zero government campaigns asking pedestrians to exercise due care. Zero casualties will remain a distant dream until the end of time for as long as peds are not required to do something as basic as look before stepping onto the road.

    And if anyone believes the current legislation is appropriate and it is impossible for a pedestrian to be at fault in a collision with a bike/ motor vehicle, I can assure you that there are plenty of scenarios where a road user can be travelling with the most diligence and attention and still hit a pedestrian without being their fault. If traffic laws in this country suggest that is not possible, then traffic laws in this country are a gigantic ass.

    More importantly, it is not about who is right in the eyes of the law but how to minimise the chances of an accident. Every road user is taught to travel defensively and assume the worst regardless of whether they have priority. It seems insane to me that peds are exempt from even the most basic cautionary advice.
     
  19. organicpanda

    organicpanda cat herder extraodinaire

    at the risk of sounding like my parents, part of the problem is people walking heads down texting or whatever, combined with headphones people are in a world of their own with no idea of anything outside their screen. Quite how you deal with this (personally I walk into them if I'm feeling arsey and they're not too big) without draconian laws I don't know, maybe there should be an app or make it the responsibility of the phone manufacturers.
     
    CH1 likes this.
  20. BigTom

    BigTom Well-Known Member

    Every child at school (should) get pedestrian training in infant and primary school - I think there are modules in the current framework (which is called "togo and nogo" and whose central lesson is "stop, look, listen and think") up to year 6, last year of primary school, aged 9/10 (or is it 10/11?).
    Back in my day we just were to to "stop, look and listen". No thinking involved or needed!

    Pedestrians are also usually included in the winter "be bright, be safe, be seen" type campaigns but there's nothing on the Think! website aimed at pedestrians (which does all the UK govt official road safety campaigns afaik).

    I'm not sure it's true to say that peds are exempt from the most basic cautionary advice but it's aimed at children, and traffic laws do not suggest it's not possible for a pedestrian to be at fault - we don't have any jaywalking laws but the traffic laws in this country do not in any way assume liability against the driver, only when a pedestrian is crossing a side road or pedestrian crossing do they have priority (e2a: and where there aren't pavements). Anywhere else they don't, and if a pedestrian steps out in front of you, it's about whether it was reasonable to stop. If you can show you were driving in a proper fashion and could not avoid the collision you won't be found at fault in the UK.

    There are some countries that have presumed liability laws so you have to prove your innocence rather than the prosecution proving your guilt but those aren't automatic liability either.

    No jaywalking laws just means that pedestrians are allowed to cross wherever and whenever they want, and not be restricted to formal crossings. They don't mean someone can just step out in front of traffic and it's the drivers fault if they get hit.

    But yes, there are pedestrians who need to behave better. I wouldn't introduce jaywalking laws personally.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
    maomao, Gramsci, T & P and 2 others like this.
  21. SpamMisery

    SpamMisery I bet you think this tagline's about you?

    Tbf it's also partly human nature. I've had people, who I swear were looking right at me, step out in front of me when cycling, then look utterly surprised afterwards and very apologetic. People work on autopilot mostly so their brain is looking out for the car/bus/lorry and their associated sounds. Sometimes they genuinely don't see cyclists.
     
    a_chap likes this.
  22. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    Sorry SpamMisery no you have to change your profile pic back again to the morning suit toff. You have a rep to live up to here. Also no cycling .
     
  23. Winot

    Winot I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint

    Neither of my kids (10 and 13; inner London comps) have had any pedestrian training.
     
    bimble likes this.
  24. SpamMisery

    SpamMisery I bet you think this tagline's about you?

    But it's a penny farthing. Surely that's acceptable?

    [​IMG]
     
    a_chap and bimble like this.
  25. SpamMisery

    SpamMisery I bet you think this tagline's about you?

    Also fixed the profile pic. Don't know what I was thinking.
     
    bimble likes this.
  26. bimble

    bimble noisy but small

    jolly good.
     
  27. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    How is it on thread about speeding and dangerous driving get posts about pedestrians?

    Not the first time here.

    To make it clear I as long time cyclist accept that pedestrians have precedence on roads. I'm not complaining about it.

    As for the "bunfight". Now you are starting it again. Trying to sound all reasonable.
     
  28. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Why are you encouraging Spam?
     
  29. Gramsci

    Gramsci Well-Known Member

    Read this. All sounds good. But what Im not optimistic about is the "groundswell" of public support that Mayor wants to make this happen. And article isn't only about cyclists. Its about non car owning pedestrians using public transport as well.

    Given posting here I not optimistic. Which isn't that out of line with what I hear offline.

    Take this:

    What would get more support in present climate is blaming pedestrians and cyclists for accidents.
     
  30. T & P

    T & P |-o-| (-o-) |-o-|

    I certainly wasn't the one who made the first post in this thread about pedestrians, so I'm perhaps not the best person to answer your question.

    And I don't know what makes you think my making that post is starting a bunfight. Other posters seem have been able to reply to it and make counterpoints and everything has remained perfectly civil and pretty far from any kind of bunfight. But perhaps next time instead of "trying to sound all reasonable" I should just dish out some cheap meaningless banter.
     
    SpamMisery likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice