Safe Speed Forums

This is a topic I have discussed before. By pseuodpavement I mean a pavement which is carried on over a T-junction using usually monobloc or similar. I argued that what this does is make it more likely a pedestrian will not look properly and just walk out in front of a turning car. Now in there wisdom here in the west end of Glasgow the authorities have taken the next step by putting a hump of tarmac across the crossing. This is presumably to slow the cars down while they make a turn. Remember all accidents are caused by speed in their thinking. The upshot is that if you are driving and are taking a right turn into the side road, when you see a break in the traffic and set off, you are suddenly confronted with a hefty bump and have to slow, thus leaving you open to a broadside from the oncoming cars. Well done planners!

Yep it appears (round our way especially) that one of the qualifications to being a planner is to never have driven in your life...lack of common sense comes close second!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

A further problem with these is that motorcyclists can all too easily lose their balance if they encounter a hump in the road while turning sharply.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Not good for pedal cyclists either

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I once had someone walk out in front of me on to one of these in Chiswick without even looking. Fortunately my spidey-sense had alerted me, as she was deep in conversation with a friend, and from her appearance I judged her to be a Continental European student, so maybe less versed with our road rules, so I was already covering the brake.

She was walking my way on the pavement to my left, and just turned right across the road without even a glance.



She didn't half jump when she did see me though!

I think we should take a lesson from our friends across the pond. In USA the upshot is the driver is in the wrong if he hits a pedestrian and pedestrians have the right of way.

Well at first I found this bizarre, standing by the kerb and the cars stop! Then I discovered that if you 'hover' near the kerb, the cars stop and wave you across but you just wave back to say thanks but you dont want to cross. Well that just winds up a yank like reminding him WW2 started in 1939.

While I have livened up many a dreary evening stopping American traffic unnecessarily - it certainly beats pressing the crossing button as you walk past.

Any law like, the one described, which automatically assigns culpability is flawed.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Well that is a widely held view, and of course we have strict liability laws as well, however the Human Rights aspect on this is contradictory in some peoples eyes as it allows strict liability offences to remain.

The Yanks were not too pleased about it, hence the abuse you get when you stop them "by mistake".

Perhaps Fisherman, resident Safespeed Magistrate, would like to elaborate and quote some strict liability offences as I'm sure he's precided over many where his concience says one thing but his obligation to apply the law says another. It is often strict liability offences that result in convictions with minimal or no penalty where the defendant is "otherwise innocent".

Certainly as a CDM-C I would have concern over a design such as the one the OP described as it 'fails to danger', if as in the states the status of a junction is known by all there is a degree of uinderstanding on both parties. In the UK these humps or pseudopavements have no legal status yet are seen as traffic calming by drivers and unofficial crossings by pedestrians - there is no common status, throw in the effects especially on motorcycles and push bikes it really should be a no no. But that's what you get when you have idiot councellors who know sweet fa about traffic engineering overiding qualified traffic engineers.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

Safety Engineer what do you mean by "fails to danger"?

As another even worse case of muddled thinking, there is a one way street that comes up to the main road, so as you guess, they put a large hump at that point. What is the point of that? You have to slow to check the traffic anyway . I drive it every day and believe me it takes your attention away from what matters. As you negotiate the hump and try to stop half on and half off, the pedestrians and other cars take 2nd place. I remember Basingwerk arguing with me about this topic, but even he saw the dangers.

I am not, and never have been, Safe Speeds resident magistrate. I have no connection with this forum or the people that run it, other than as somebody who posts here on topics that interest me. My avatar carries the word Magistrate, in the same way that others carry designations of the users. I am sure that, if a lawyer was to become a regular poster here, he or she would given an avatar that reflected their status.


I do deal with strict liability legislation on occasion. Drink driving is one, if over the limit and on the road you are guilty, with no need to wait until a collision occurs.
Offences under the Food and Drugs Act are dealt with in the same way. Smedleys v Breed (1974) being the case that is usually quoted. Smedleys supplied a can of peas containing a caterpillar, the House of Lords took the view that this was an offence of strict liability and that reasonable precautions to prevent such an occurrence were not enough to secure a not guilty verdict.

Not wishing to either meet a drunk driver or eat caterpillars I have no problem with the concept of strict liability in such cases.

I am sure that the driver who ran into the back of my wifes car last month was "otherwise innocent". My wife doesn't care whether he is or not, she just wants him held responsible for his driving at the relevant time and place.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

fergl if a system fails for example machinary loses power then guarding stays shut - it fails to a safe state, hence failsafe. The flip side of this is fail to danger, the OP describes a junction layout that says different things to different users - pedestrians and cars in this respect it has failed and given that pedestrians seem to be viewing this as a crossing and using it as a crossing expecting cars to be reacting to it as a crossing the state it is failing to is a state of danger - a collision between the ped and car.

Part of safety that is becoming a field in it's own right is behavioural safety - it deals with the way people behave and percieve and when used in conjunction with traditional safety techniques is a powerful tool.

In this instance, the design should have been looked at with a view as to what message it sends to road users (and I include pedestrians in this as they are crossing). For example a traffic light crossing sends the same message to both users - When one party is at red the other will be at green and they have priority - look at it from a ped view and a car view the message works both ways. There is little ambguity.

These pseudocrossings give different messages dependant on the knowledge and bias of the user:

From a car point of view they are a hump in the road albeit an inconveniant and to some vehicles a potentially hazardous one there are no road markings denoting it's legal status as crossing, therefore, it is not legally a crossing so the driver does not treat it as such.

From a pedestrian point of view it is raised to meet the curb much as many crossings do, it is in a conveniant position (for the pedestrian) to use it as a crossing, therefore, for them the absence of any road markings (assuming they have the knowledge to know about the markings) is irrelevant, to them it is a crossing.

Mixed messages leading to a dangerous state !

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

But the second point og Highway Code 170 - "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority so give way" already puts the onus on the driver to give way: - makes every side road into a de factopedestrian crossing. The presence of humps or any other road markings does not change the priority

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The trouble is that normally a "savvy" ped would cross a few yards away from the junction, I normally leave a few yards, at least a cars length but theese crossings are too close to the junctions,not giving the car driver any space to stop in and meaning that the rear of the car can still be in the main road.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

dcbwhaley fair point, but how many drivers actually have read the highway code past thier driving test? And why create something that can be a hazard? I'm trying to look at this from a point of view of how drivers actually behave rather than what the highway code says - after all if a rule is not known or adhered too it may be that aspects of that rule are in need of change, there may be a need to consider a change in how these humps are used or in enforcement.

As graball pointed out, as a car turning in from a major to minor road the back of the car can be left out in the road which has safety implications, in light of this I might suggest that 170 needs looking at and reviewing.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk

I was taught to look out for pedestrians as part of the observation whilst contemplating the turn and to stop in the road before beginning the turn.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

But it only says that drivers should give way if pedestrians are already crossing. It does not say give way if they are waiting to cross, and nor does it give pedestrians carte blanche to step out into the road and force vehicles to stop.

It has been suggested that these pseudo pavements encourage pedestrians to step out without having any regard for approaching vehicles and to treat them in a different way from a conventional side road crossing.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed