Comments for Equality Streets

Comment on 20mph again by Martin Cassini

Martin Cassini — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:25:10 +0000

I can see your point, Richard, and also oppose the dictatorial attempt to make us all drive by numbers. We should of course drive, and be taught to drive, according to context – social context. You seem to me to be thinking inside the box marked “priority”. You complain that side road drivers pull out dangerously. The point of Equality Streets is to deliver us from danger by scrapping the intrinsically dangerous rule of priority. Then all road-users would be able to act sociably: approach considerately and take it more or less in turns, as we do in all other walks of life. If the side road driver was there first, s/he should go first. You can slow down and absorb side road traffic. It won’t be any skin off your nose. But to put the side road driver at a lethal disadvantage by forcing him to run the gauntlet of priority traffic from left and right – that’s a recipe for disaster, which is what our priority-based traffic control system is – an unmitigated disaster! What do the “experts” in control do to mitigate the danger? They put up traffic lights to break the priority streams of traffic! A classic exercise in self-defeat, which you and I pay for through our taxes. Does it help? Do traffic lights guarantee safety? No they do not! The solution? Replace priority with equality. Then we’ll rediscover our humanity and life on the road will become a pleasure instead of a misery.

Comment on Worst peacetime disaster by francisgoode

francisgoode — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:08:32 +0000

Congratulations for the video – it’s truly impressive and I hope it will be widely watched. I share your view that over-engineering traffic management is another symptom of the urge to control our lives that seems to afflict most of our elected representatives as soon as they take office. There are certainly alternatives. Many cities in “less developed” countries seem to get on fine without it, as I noticed when living in Cairo. There the spaces are always filled with all manner of vehicles, people and assorted animals with minimal segregation or control. Thinking about the situation and comparing it with the West, I concluded that this was probably the most efficient, or possibly only, way to handle the volume. Traffic signals would require more space, and would cause queues to back up and lead to complete gridlock. Nosing forward at walking pace at least provided some sort of solution. As an engineer, the analogy I’d use is between laminar and turbulent flows in liquids. Laminar flows are slower, but steady flows that optimise throughput. Turbulent flows are like vehicles accelerating to move as fast as possible in between stopping for lights – causing incredible energy inefficiency, as well as the noise, pollution and safety impacts that your film highlights so well. Interestingly, even multi-lane highways in Cairo use the same principle, only using speed humps to force vehicles to slow down enough to allow people to weave through (although it can be a bit nerve-wracking for the uninitiated!)

Comment on Deference be damned by francisgoode

francisgoode — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:56:19 +0000

I have to say, Britain seems very bad at this compared with many other countries. Nearly everywhere else, vehicles give way to pedestrians when turning as a matter of course, just like they’re supposed to (but never do) in the UK. And even in Paris I find cars tend to stop for pedestrians – often even when they’re not on a crossing! I wonder what the social theorists might make of this deference thing – something to do with class, perhaps?

Comment on 20mph again by RichardX

RichardX — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:43:06 +0000

I have lived in the same residential area of Middlesbrough for many years. Last year 20mph limits were imposed on many roads including a section of main road into town which is also a bus route. The only accidents I can recall on this road which I travel down four times a day have been those caused by vehicles carelessly joining from side roads and not because of speed. Those who advocate these unwarranted speed limits often support their views by claiming that since their implementation, vehicle speeds have fallen. My reaction is ‘so what’? Just because drivers may be going slower does not, per se, mean those roads are any safer. I wish these advocates of lower vehicle speeds would focus on drivers who drive without consideration for other road users. Instead of imposing arbritary speed limits, they should concentrate their resources on educating drivers to drive according to prevailing conditions, whether it be the weather, the road surface or simply traffic volume. The greater the speed, the greater the impact and damage or injury, they argue. Of course no-one can dispute this, but taken to its logical conclusion, the argument would require all vehicles to travel at walking pace!
Richard Chapman

Comment on Speed by Martin Cassini

Martin Cassini — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:47:01 +0000

As far as I can see, there is no flaw in my reasoning. “Pedestrians always around”, you say? Even in Oxford St there are few peds in the small hours. Do you actually prefer the current system of 24-hour traffic signal and speed limit operation and enforcement? Of course peds have responsibilities too, and shouldn’t dart into the road without looking. But bring on the day when High Streets are shared equally and all road-users take it more or less in turns! Not sure where you get the idea that allowing motor and foot traffic to mingle and disperse freely will cause gridlock. I think you’ll find the opposite is true. The evidence will come from pioneering places such as Poynton which are putting these ideas into practice.

“Peds appearing in small regulated groups?” Again, I can’t imagine how you infer I would think that from anything I’ve written! Pedestrians and drivers are people and life is deliciously haphazard. To paraphrase Roger Waters, “We’re true lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year” … totally capable of sharing the same fish bowl on equal terms. In my book, there is nothing wrong with texting while walking, as long as you’re semi-aware of your surroundings. There are no traffic lights on Equality Streets, so drivers aren’t racing to beat them! Instead, they are watching the road, interacting sociably, anticipating and tolerating the texting teen (or indeed, the texting pensioner). It will be a seamless meshing of human movement. Yes, of course motorists will share the road space and peds won’t share the pavement. Peds need to cross roads, drivers don’t. When a driver sees a ped wanting to cross, if the ped was there first, the driver will give way, just as the ped will give way if the driver was there first. Simples. And funs. And efficients. You’ll see.

Your Llanelli scenarios sound a bit extreme, but I have a sneaking admiration for your playgroup leader. Sure, in most cases, the default location for peds will be the pavement, and the only location for drivers will be the carriageway. To a degree it’s location-specific. It would be pretty silly for a playgroup to pitch camp on a busy High Street. But in a residential rat-run, as a form of natural traffic calming, all power to them, as long as they are visible from a reasonable distance, and don’t block traffic from getting past. But the traffic should respect their right to some of the public space, and it should pass by at gentle, respectful speeds. Rather than remonstrating, you should think about rejoicing with them in their venerable quest to reclaim some public space from the technocrats who so rudely hijaccked it and made roads dangerous no-go areas in the first place.

The history of priority-based traffic management is a dark period in human civilisation. Traffic managers who straitjacket drivers as if they are lunatics, and corral pedestrians as if they are sheep, are the villains of the piece. The history of shared space or Equality Streets is much younger. The movement towards equality on the roads is still unjustly resisted by most traffic managers, who are jealous of their vast budgets and their power over us.

Clearly rail needs segregating from road because of wildly different acceleration and stopping times. No such segregation is required on urban, village or residential streets and roads.

Comment on Speed by Bob Hinton

Bob Hinton — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:23:17 +0000

Again let me answer your points.
I said we should proceed at walking pace when pedestrians, especially children are around, obviously using our commonsense about it. By the same token, we should be free to choose our own speed when no-one is around or when the road is clear.
But herein lies the flaw. In a town pedestrians are always around meaning that on the majority of roads you will permanently be proceeding at walking pace and this will cause permanent gridlock. You seem to be under the impression that pedestrians appear only in small regulated groups at certain areas – they don’t. They are all over the place, they run into the road, wander into traffic texting away, they ignore red lights, they will use the road as an extension of the pavement – which they do now even when they are not supposed to.
On a regular basis I see the following in Llanelli. Groups of people stopping to chat in the middle of the road – and I mean the middle not just off the pavement. Mothers and fathers pushing prams and buggies along the white line in the middle of the road, and don’t you get a waving of fists and a torrent of foul-mouthed abuse if you dare to sound your horn to warn them. I have actually gone round a corner in a road to find an entire playgroup sitting on blankets in the centre of the road playing with dolls and toys. When I remonstrated with the woman supposedly in charge I was told it was all right as she was there!
And these are the people you want to let wander around however they want, set up a stall and start trading and quite frankly force vehicles to wait for them to finish fooling about, or turn round and go home. It simply won’t work.
What I don’t understand is why you have such an objection to simply asking all road users behave properly. i.e. pedestrians to recognise that roads are for vehicles and drivers to recognise that pavements are for pedestrians. History shows us that trying to mingle the two just doesn’t work!
Are you in favour for instance of pedestrians being allowed to wander up and down railway tracks as they wish, expecting trains to slow to walking pace every time a person decides to take a stroll?

Comment on Speed by Martin Cassini

Martin Cassini — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 11:16:40 +0000

(Violence) Just as it’s violent conflict that makes history, so it’s bad news that gets reported. For every incident of road rage (most likely sparked by stress from vexatious regulation, or conflict arising from regulation v choice), there must be a million incidences of unreported courtesy.
(1 or 2mph) No. I said we should proceed at walking pace when pedestrians, especially children are around, obviously using our commonsense about it. By the same token, we should be free to choose our own speed when no-one is around or when the road is clear. If you can see anything wrong with that equitable trade-off, I can’t.
(Enemies) The only enemies on the road are the regulators who make us compete for gaps and green time, and straitjacket and prevent us from acting like social beings.
(Purpose) In what sense is sitting in a queue at traffic lights moving faster than walking? In my deregulated, equality-based road-view, we take the rough with the smooth. We don’t mind queueing when it’s due to volume of traffic, i.e. when there is a good reason for it. What is unacceptable is the artificial queueing caused by over-regulation.
(Gridlock) No – busy pedestrian activity takes place in limited, concentrated patches. You’ll soon be able to pick up speed. Meanwhile, interacting with other road-users on an equal footing will put a smile on your face.
(Standstill) In the light of the above, this doesn’t require a response, does it?

Comment on Speed by Bob Hinton

Bob Hinton — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:19:43 +0000

It’s all very well to talk about man’s innate ability to resolve conflict but as history has taught us, that is usually done by resorting to violence.
You say there is no need to calculate a safe speed and yet you have calculated that 1 or 2mph is just that speed.
The problem with your theory is that like the best laid plans of battle it does not survive first contact with the enemy.
The purpose of motorised wheeled transport is to move things at a faster rate than simply walking. If you are going to restrict vehicles from moving faster than walking pace then there is no point in having motorised vehicles.
Gridlock is the term used to describe traffic that is not moving, if you have to move at 1 or 2 mph constantly (there will always be pedestrians around) then you will have manufactured gridlock and that can paralyse a town or city in a very short space of time. I recall two incidents.
About thirty years ago I was driving through Lincoln when I was caught in a traffic jam. There was no movement at all for about 20 minutes and then we gradually edged forward. After about half a mile I came upon the cause of the stoppage – a woman had failed to manoeuvre correctly leaving a car park and had somehow wedged herself across a narrow street. This one car had brought the entire city to a standstill. On the news that evening it was reported that the approach roads to the city had been blocked up to two miles outside the city.
About eight years ago there was a musical festival in Llanelli. The police, foolishly, allowed only one way in and one way out. Driving into town I was caught in a stationary queue of traffic. We didn’t move for 30 minutes. Later I found that traffic had been backed up on the Swansea road for five miles! The cause? Someone had run into the back of a Ford Fiesta and it blocked the road.
So if you are going to force traffic to an absolute standstill whenever there are people about then they might as well lock up their cars and walk.

Comment on Speed by Martin Cassini

Martin Cassini — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:23:37 +0000

You say it's impossible to calculate a safe speed because there are too many variables. Who needs to calculate a safe speed when the ability to resolve conflict is in the very fabric of our being? Who needs expensive technology to prescribe behaviour that comes to us naturally and instantaneously?

Comment on Speed by Bob Hinton

Bob Hinton — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:01:50 +0000

Let me answer the points you have raised:
There is no danger in people on foot and people on wheels sharing the space equally, mingling and shuffling through.Well let us have a look at the veracity or otherwise of that statement. We don’t have to rely on hypothesis we can actually go back to when people on foot and people on wheels did exactly that Victorian England. Unfortunately the facts paint an entirely different picture. In a report on traffic in London alone in 1899 the following casualty figures are: Killed 1460 and seriously injured 9,000 and that is just one year in one city!
The fact is that foot and wheeled traffic cannot mingle safely because they are entirely different beasts. A car occupies a certain space but its route and speed can be fairly accurately calculated, it is either going forward or back it is going x mph. Therefore a car can be seen and avoided if necessary. However you can fit about 15 people in the space occupied by one car and each person can move in different directions and at varying speeds, it is therefore impossible to calculate a safe speed or route for a car which can deal with so many variables.
scenario than cars driving through at speeds that could kill, creating a river of death, with people on foot going in fear of their lives, parents scolding toddlers for stepping on to the wrong grey surfaceAny speed can kill; the only way to avoid this is to have the vehicles stationary. Pedestrians do not go in fear of their lives provided they stick to their appointed routes which are the pavements. If they wish to cross a road then they have the ability, through pedestrian controlled crossings, to turn a section of road into a pavement on which they have the right of way and cars may not encroach.
Toddlers are not scolded for stepping on to the wrong coloured surface; they are scolded for needlessly putting their lives at risk, in exactly the same way you would prevent your child from wandering onto the railway lines, walking into a minefield, approaching the edge of a cliff or the banks of a raging river. The fact is there are certain places that are more dangerous than others and no matter how we might wish danger has been eliminated it will always be there.
The problem we have today is since we have stopped teaching this lesson children have become used to treating the road as an extension of the pavement with the consequent mayhem.
Pedestrian casualty figures for Britain are on a par with the rest of Europe. However when you look closely at these figures we find that casualty figures for children under the age of 15 are 17% higher – why? Perhaps it’s because in the rest of Europe if you simply wander into the road you are penalised in Britain they don’t seem to care.
that allow common law principles of equal rights and responsibilities to flourish.But that is exactly what I want. All road users to use the road responsibly, unfortunately this is not happening. Pedestrians and cyclists get away with committing offences that drivers are prosecuted for. The highway is broadly speaking divided into two parts, one for wheeled traffic and the other for foot traffic. If you remove these divisions then you are saying that drivers can drive anywhere and pedestrians can wander anywhere – history tells us what happens in that case!