"Yes, but your right to live intrudes on my right to drive like a twat!"
It's subtler than that. It's motornormativity - culturally driving is the normal default way to get around. Anything that impinges on that must be wrong. People who use another mode of transport when the norm would be to drive are suspect. Hence actually enforcing the law is portrayed as a "war on the motorist".
They don't make a particularly sympathetic figure but do feel there are multiple factors involved, particularly with the retreat of public provision a lot of people have come to define 'freedom' purely in terms of mobility (it's instructive that some of the biggest protests against things like ULEZ came from people on the very outskirts of London).
"Yes, but your right to live intrudes on my right to drive like a twat!"
There are very few ways of driving at 30 mph in an urban area with a 30 mph limit that could be fairly described as "like a twat".
It's certainly fair to point out that a 30 mph car hitting a pedestrian or cyclist does a lot more damage than a 20 mph car, and that slower-moving cars sharing space with pedestrians and cyclists are safer than faster-moving cars sharing space with pedestrians and cyclists.
It is reasonable to have a conversation about to what extent "make cars travel slower" is a good solution, and to what extent "make cars travel in different places from people who don't have a massive metal safety cage around them" is a good solution.
Mobility is certainly a part of freedom, and you absolutely shouldn't constrain my freedom to move without good reason. In this case, there is a good reason, which is the competing freedom of the people who want to walk and cycle in the same area, and they have less freedom if the motor traffic is moving faster. So it's an optimization problem.
One of the many reasons I don't support the current coalition government in Aotearoa/NZ is that their policy is to return current 30kph roads through shopping areas to 50kph. It will make shopping in the local village area more hazardous. Of of the Government ministers even touted a change that would save seconds off travel on a particular route. There is also discussion about whether the speed around Primary Schools should increase.
I really don't understand this kind of thinking. One of the jobs I had before I retired involved working with accident victims. I still remember the anguish of a family whose lives were changed forever by their child being hit by a car outside his school.
"Yes, but your right to live intrudes on my right to drive like a twat!"
There are very few ways of driving at 30 mph in an urban area with a 30 mph limit that could be fairly described as "like a twat".
It's certainly fair to point out that a 30 mph car hitting a pedestrian or cyclist does a lot more damage than a 20 mph car, and that slower-moving cars sharing space with pedestrians and cyclists are safer than faster-moving cars sharing space with pedestrians and cyclists.
It is reasonable to have a conversation about to what extent "make cars travel slower" is a good solution, and to what extent "make cars travel in different places from people who don't have a massive metal safety cage around them" is a good solution.
Mobility is certainly a part of freedom, and you absolutely shouldn't constrain my freedom to move without good reason. In this case, there is a good reason, which is the competing freedom of the people who want to walk and cycle in the same area, and they have less freedom if the motor traffic is moving faster. So it's an optimization problem.
You obviously aren't on your local Nextdoor. The level of awareness of the vulnerability other road users in any discussion on what goes on on the roads is absolutely gobsmackingly low.
Or, just read the comments in local papers (or, their FB feed) when the local council announces plans to build a new cycle route (especially one that follows existing roads, with a proper barrier, not paint, to separate cyclists and drivers).
One of the many reasons I don't support the current coalition government in Aotearoa/NZ is that their policy is to return current 30kph roads through shopping areas to 50kph. It will make shopping in the local village area more hazardous.
I'm afraid I don't understand this. Assuming there are proper crossing places, where cars are obliged to stop to allow pedestrians to cross the road (usually by traffic lights, but other forms of legally-enforced crossing exist - here, anyway) then the only thing that will become more hazardous is attempting to cross the road without using them properly. Which, ultimately, leads me to wonder exactly whose fault that hazard actually is.
Slower car speeds allows town planners to narrow the road space, this allows them to create wider pedestrian areas which in turn improves access to shops (and, also things like seating areas outside cafe's and bars). Pedestrian priority areas also means shoppers who want to move between shops on different sides of the road can do so more easily, without needing to walk longer distances to crossing places and then waiting for cars to stop (which has particular benefits to those with reduced mobility). Shopping areas are also frequented by young children and adults with loads of shopping may not be able to keep them at hand. Ideally, there should be no cars passing through shopping areas, and for these to be entirely pedestrianised, though that may not always be possible. Pedestrianised shopping areas have been shown to increase footfall in shops, and be more pleasant environments for people to shop (and, happy shoppers usually spend more) - good for shoppers, good for shopkeepers, good for others using the are (eg: coffee shops, bars). Keeping traffic speeds lower, having multiple crossing places with pedestrian priority (ie: don't wait several minutes after pressing a button before stopping cars) etc is a compromise between the ideal (no cars) and the practical (there's no other road to get from one side of a shopping are to the other). With potential children present, treat roads along shopping areas as you would roads beside unfenced play areas or outside schools.
One of the many reasons I don't support the current coalition government in Aotearoa/NZ is that their policy is to return current 30kph roads through shopping areas to 50kph. It will make shopping in the local village area more hazardous.
I'm afraid I don't understand this. Assuming there are proper crossing places, where cars are obliged to stop to allow pedestrians to cross the road (usually by traffic lights, but other forms of legally-enforced crossing exist - here, anyway) then the only thing that will become more hazardous is attempting to cross the road without using them properly. Which, ultimately, leads me to wonder exactly whose fault that hazard actually is.
Does it matter whose fault it is if it avoids people being killed and injured?
Also, even in the setting where you have crossings it's a requirement for drivers to reduce their speed so that they can safely stop when required - when they see a pedestrian at a zebra crossing or when a light changes to red. Add in the requirement to be able to stop if they see a pedestrian on the road even when they shouldn't be there, and this calls for a reduced speed limit.
The big question is, who are streets for? Are they there for local residents and visitors wanting to use shops or access their homes, schools and businesses? Or, are they there to allow people in cars to pass through an area in the minimum possible time? I would definitely argue that local streets are for local people, local streets shouldn't be pressed into roads for cars to speed through.
The big question is, who are streets for? Are they there for local residents and visitors wanting to use shops or access their homes, schools and businesses? Or, are they there to allow people in cars to pass through an area in the minimum possible time? I would definitely argue that local streets are for local people, local streets shouldn't be pressed into roads for cars to speed through.
The current answer appears to be "yes" to all of these questions. Streets are for all of those things - mostly because streets inherit from road plans that served previous generations / centuries. It would be nice if the places where local people shopped were not on the main road through the town, so that the places where people reasonably wanted to "pass through in the minimum possible time" and the places where people wanted to casually mosey about were different places. Bypasses help with that, of course, but it's pretty common that the main route out of town for all the people that live there also takes you through the main shopping streets.
One of the many reasons I don't support the current coalition government in Aotearoa/NZ is that their policy is to return current 30kph roads through shopping areas to 50kph. It will make shopping in the local village area more hazardous.
I'm afraid I don't understand this. Assuming there are proper crossing places, where cars are obliged to stop to allow pedestrians to cross the road (usually by traffic lights, but other forms of legally-enforced crossing exist - here, anyway) then the only thing that will become more hazardous is attempting to cross the road without using them properly. Which, ultimately, leads me to wonder exactly whose fault that hazard actually is.
Does it matter whose fault it is if it avoids people being killed and injured?
When it comes to deciding how best to try to prevent those deaths and injuries, yes it does. Otherwise you end up with a situation where those who aren’t at fault are punished because people with largely unrelated political goals (see Alan’s posts above) weaponised the risk of death and injuries to force through their anti-car agenda.
It’s like saying all toasters should be restricted to a ridiculously low voltage because some idiots manage to electrocute themselves by shoving metal forks into them to get their toast out. I mean, ok they won’t actually toast bread very well any more, but at least Lives Will Be Saved.
I prefer how this was handled in the 80s. Bring back the Green Cross Code and put the onus back onto pedestrians not to randomly step out into the fucking road.
I prefer how this was handled in the 80s. Bring back the Green Cross Code and put the onus back onto pedestrians not to randomly step out into the fucking road.
This demonstrates beautifully the assumption that motor transport is normal and everything else must comply with whatever is best for cars.
The road does not belong to the car. With the exception of motorways, several others have a right to use the road. Horses, cyclists, pedestrians, scooters...
The comparison of going a bit slower (20mph rather than 30mph where there are lots of vulnerable road users) with rendering toasters inoperable, and seeing going a little slower as a "punishment" is so ridiculous I see no point in continuing. @alienfromzog has identified the problem perfectly.
How many people die each year from sticking forks in toasters? And how many are killed by motor vehicles?
I prefer how this was handled in the 80s. Bring back the Green Cross Code and put the onus back onto pedestrians not to randomly step out into the fucking road.
This demonstrates beautifully the assumption that motor transport is normal and everything else must comply with whatever is best for cars.
The road does not belong to the car. With the exception of motorways, several others have a right to use the road. Horses, cyclists, pedestrians, scooters...
Drivers should watch the road. When I used to cycle to work I would use a cycle crossing. One time a car came rushing up and was at the crossing before I knew what was happening. He came to within an inch of hitting me. He was on his bloody phone. Have lost count of how many times drivers passed me at 40 MPH and nearly knocked me off my bike.
The onus for road safety should be on all road users including pedestrians. Cyclists should not go through red light. Drivers should drive carefully. Pedestrians should take care when crossing.
Several towns have introduced shared areas for pedestrians and cars. This doesn’t work anywhere I have seen it. Drivers treat it like a normal road. The amount of nest misses I have seen is unbelievable.
I prefer how this was handled in the 80s. Bring back the Green Cross Code and put the onus back onto pedestrians not to randomly step out into the fucking road.
This demonstrates beautifully the assumption that motor transport is normal and everything else must comply with whatever is best for cars.
The road does not belong to the car. With the exception of motorways, several others have a right to use the road. Horses, cyclists, pedestrians, scooters...
Drivers should watch the road. When I used to cycle to work I would use a cycle crossing. One time a car came rushing up and was at the crossing before I knew what was happening. He came to within an inch of hitting me. He was on his bloody phone. Have lost count of how many times drivers passed me at 40 MPH and nearly knocked me off my bike.
The onus for road safety should be on all road users including pedestrians. Cyclists should not go through red light. Drivers should drive carefully. Pedestrians should take care when crossing.
Several towns have introduced shared areas for pedestrians and cars. This doesn’t work anywhere I have seen it. Drivers treat it like a normal road. The amount of nest misses I have seen is unbelievable.
Enforcement. A few points and bans for careless driving and they'll either get the message or lose their driving privilege.
Enforcement costs money (and, a lot more than is recovered in fines), especially if it's more than just a speed camera (which drivers quickly know where they are and slam on their brakes as they approach to avoid getting caught and then speed away once they're past -which is dangerous in it's own right). The best enforcement is usually engineered - put in speed bumps, narrow the road (or, even just put street furniture, bollard, plants right next to the kerb which makes the street look narrower than it is), a few chicanes, lots more pedestrian crossings with lights that go red very quickly. Which also costs money. And, is all categorised as "war on motorists" (though, the opposite of making roads wider and faster is never called a "war on residents" or a "war on kids being able to walk outside their front door safely")
There's a street in the council ward where we tend to concentrate our campaigning that is a nightmare for the people who live there, the phrase "someone will get killed one day" is oft repeated on the doorstep. The main road goes past a shopping area where there are traffic lights and a right turn. The residential street runs along the hypotenuse, thus it's slightly shorter distance and avoids the potential need to wait at lights. There's a 20mph limit but every time I've been there people have driven significantly faster than that down what's effectively a single track road with the cars parked along the side. Residents report occasions when an ambulance has got stuck with a car coming the other way needing to back up, and the bin collection days are gridlock. Even now we've got a councillor in that ward, and she's been out with residents dragging council officials around to see the problem (and, they all acknowledge it is a problem) the response is still "we don't have the money" - despite money being spent on other main roads to increase traffic flows on them. Although what the solution would be is difficult to work out - chicanes would take out parking from a road with too little parking already, blocking the centre of the road so it's no longer a through route would significantly inconvenience residents, the parked cars already make the road narrower than ideal (any narrower and the bin trucks won't get down) and don't slow or reduce traffic.
There's a street in the council ward where we tend to concentrate our campaigning that is a nightmare for the people who live there, the phrase "someone will get killed one day" is oft repeated on the doorstep. The main road goes past a shopping area where there are traffic lights and a right turn. The residential street runs along the hypotenuse, thus it's slightly shorter distance and avoids the potential need to wait at lights. There's a 20mph limit but every time I've been there people have driven significantly faster than that down what's effectively a single track road with the cars parked along the side.
As you point out, good design is a good solution. What you currently have is a built-in shortcut, so perhaps it's not surprising that people take it.
You want a solution - add traffic lights to each end to control entry to and exit from your residential side street. If you have to wait for two traffic light changes to take the short cut down the side street, it won't be faster than staying on the main road. But that's expensive, of course, and requires the construction of extra filter lanes on the main road, for which there might not be space.
You could block one end of the street with a barrier that only opens when it recognizes a resident's number plate, but those kinds of solutions tend to be unpopular because they're not as reliable as one would like.
blocking the centre of the road so it's no longer a through route would significantly inconvenience residents,
OK, I don't think I quite understand your position here. You're in favour of slowing cars to 20mph in residential areas, which mildly inconveniences resident drivers, but you're not willing to block vehicle passage in the middle of this road somewhere, which would also mildly inconvenience resident drivers, by making them drive the long way round the triangle sometimes.
This seems like a direct choice for the people living on that street - do they want a safer street without selfish drivers using their street as a high-speed shortcut, or do they want the convenience of being able to get in their car and drive away from their home in either direction?
Comments
They don't make a particularly sympathetic figure but do feel there are multiple factors involved, particularly with the retreat of public provision a lot of people have come to define 'freedom' purely in terms of mobility (it's instructive that some of the biggest protests against things like ULEZ came from people on the very outskirts of London).
There are very few ways of driving at 30 mph in an urban area with a 30 mph limit that could be fairly described as "like a twat".
It's certainly fair to point out that a 30 mph car hitting a pedestrian or cyclist does a lot more damage than a 20 mph car, and that slower-moving cars sharing space with pedestrians and cyclists are safer than faster-moving cars sharing space with pedestrians and cyclists.
It is reasonable to have a conversation about to what extent "make cars travel slower" is a good solution, and to what extent "make cars travel in different places from people who don't have a massive metal safety cage around them" is a good solution.
Mobility is certainly a part of freedom, and you absolutely shouldn't constrain my freedom to move without good reason. In this case, there is a good reason, which is the competing freedom of the people who want to walk and cycle in the same area, and they have less freedom if the motor traffic is moving faster. So it's an optimization problem.
I really don't understand this kind of thinking. One of the jobs I had before I retired involved working with accident victims. I still remember the anguish of a family whose lives were changed forever by their child being hit by a car outside his school.
You obviously aren't on your local Nextdoor. The level of awareness of the vulnerability other road users in any discussion on what goes on on the roads is absolutely gobsmackingly low.
He is a bumbling twat who thinks that acting up his bumbling twatness is a positive.
For some people, it seems they agree. As long as they are not negatively impacted by anything he does.
I'm afraid I don't understand this. Assuming there are proper crossing places, where cars are obliged to stop to allow pedestrians to cross the road (usually by traffic lights, but other forms of legally-enforced crossing exist - here, anyway) then the only thing that will become more hazardous is attempting to cross the road without using them properly. Which, ultimately, leads me to wonder exactly whose fault that hazard actually is.
Does it matter whose fault it is if it avoids people being killed and injured?
The big question is, who are streets for? Are they there for local residents and visitors wanting to use shops or access their homes, schools and businesses? Or, are they there to allow people in cars to pass through an area in the minimum possible time? I would definitely argue that local streets are for local people, local streets shouldn't be pressed into roads for cars to speed through.
The current answer appears to be "yes" to all of these questions. Streets are for all of those things - mostly because streets inherit from road plans that served previous generations / centuries. It would be nice if the places where local people shopped were not on the main road through the town, so that the places where people reasonably wanted to "pass through in the minimum possible time" and the places where people wanted to casually mosey about were different places. Bypasses help with that, of course, but it's pretty common that the main route out of town for all the people that live there also takes you through the main shopping streets.
When it comes to deciding how best to try to prevent those deaths and injuries, yes it does. Otherwise you end up with a situation where those who aren’t at fault are punished because people with largely unrelated political goals (see Alan’s posts above) weaponised the risk of death and injuries to force through their anti-car agenda.
It’s like saying all toasters should be restricted to a ridiculously low voltage because some idiots manage to electrocute themselves by shoving metal forks into them to get their toast out. I mean, ok they won’t actually toast bread very well any more, but at least Lives Will Be Saved.
I prefer how this was handled in the 80s. Bring back the Green Cross Code and put the onus back onto pedestrians not to randomly step out into the fucking road.
This demonstrates beautifully the assumption that motor transport is normal and everything else must comply with whatever is best for cars.
The road does not belong to the car. With the exception of motorways, several others have a right to use the road. Horses, cyclists, pedestrians, scooters...
How many people die each year from sticking forks in toasters? And how many are killed by motor vehicles?
Ridiculous.
Drivers should watch the road. When I used to cycle to work I would use a cycle crossing. One time a car came rushing up and was at the crossing before I knew what was happening. He came to within an inch of hitting me. He was on his bloody phone. Have lost count of how many times drivers passed me at 40 MPH and nearly knocked me off my bike.
The onus for road safety should be on all road users including pedestrians. Cyclists should not go through red light. Drivers should drive carefully. Pedestrians should take care when crossing.
Several towns have introduced shared areas for pedestrians and cars. This doesn’t work anywhere I have seen it. Drivers treat it like a normal road. The amount of nest misses I have seen is unbelievable.
Enforcement. A few points and bans for careless driving and they'll either get the message or lose their driving privilege.
There's a street in the council ward where we tend to concentrate our campaigning that is a nightmare for the people who live there, the phrase "someone will get killed one day" is oft repeated on the doorstep. The main road goes past a shopping area where there are traffic lights and a right turn. The residential street runs along the hypotenuse, thus it's slightly shorter distance and avoids the potential need to wait at lights. There's a 20mph limit but every time I've been there people have driven significantly faster than that down what's effectively a single track road with the cars parked along the side. Residents report occasions when an ambulance has got stuck with a car coming the other way needing to back up, and the bin collection days are gridlock. Even now we've got a councillor in that ward, and she's been out with residents dragging council officials around to see the problem (and, they all acknowledge it is a problem) the response is still "we don't have the money" - despite money being spent on other main roads to increase traffic flows on them. Although what the solution would be is difficult to work out - chicanes would take out parking from a road with too little parking already, blocking the centre of the road so it's no longer a through route would significantly inconvenience residents, the parked cars already make the road narrower than ideal (any narrower and the bin trucks won't get down) and don't slow or reduce traffic.
As you point out, good design is a good solution. What you currently have is a built-in shortcut, so perhaps it's not surprising that people take it.
You want a solution - add traffic lights to each end to control entry to and exit from your residential side street. If you have to wait for two traffic light changes to take the short cut down the side street, it won't be faster than staying on the main road. But that's expensive, of course, and requires the construction of extra filter lanes on the main road, for which there might not be space.
You could block one end of the street with a barrier that only opens when it recognizes a resident's number plate, but those kinds of solutions tend to be unpopular because they're not as reliable as one would like.
OK, I don't think I quite understand your position here. You're in favour of slowing cars to 20mph in residential areas, which mildly inconveniences resident drivers, but you're not willing to block vehicle passage in the middle of this road somewhere, which would also mildly inconvenience resident drivers, by making them drive the long way round the triangle sometimes.
This seems like a direct choice for the people living on that street - do they want a safer street without selfish drivers using their street as a high-speed shortcut, or do they want the convenience of being able to get in their car and drive away from their home in either direction?