dcbwhaley wrote:
Firstly, Mole, thank you for taking the trouble to gave a considered and reasonable rebuttal of my argument without questioning my sanity or otherwise abusing me
Awwwww, I'm touched! - you've got to admit, DCB-baiting is a National sport on here though!
Mole wrote:
is this not just about simple practicalities of every day life in the 21st century? Would such a system not simply result in total gridlock in a big city where there are lots of pedestrians and motorists trying to share the same small space?
dcbwhaley wrote:
I am not sure that it would. I have been in parts of Canada where a system of pedestrian/cyclist priority applies and where there is a presumption of guilt on the motorists part if an accident does occur. It neither brought gridlock to the town nor were there a large number of motorists complaining about the injustice of the system. The traffic flowed smoothly at the 20mph limit as most pedestrians choose to cross the road in gaps between the traffic rather than forcing cars to stop.
I am aware that one cannot blindly copy a system that works in provincial British Columbian town to a large English city and I have never suggested that I support the idea of absolute priority for pedestrians which you describe. I am only asking that all traffic has equal priority. Some have argued that this is already the case and it might be so legally. But, because might so quickly becomes right, it is not so in practice. I am as guilty as the next driver of assuming that when I drive away from a red light the road ahead is mine and that the only reason I should stop is to avoid an accident or to obey a traffic signal.
OK, well, I have to admit that I hav only my "asumption" that total gridlock would ensue! That said, the very fact that you say pedestrians crossed "in the gaps" makes me dubious that it represented traffic densities anything like as bad as a big UK city. (Many of which, it has to be remembered, have entire sections closed-off to cars)!
dcbwhaley wrote:
And this is reinforced by the real subservience of many pedestrians. It is not unusual when stopping to allow a pedestrian, especially an elderly one, to cross the road for them to refuse to take the opportunity. Years of teaching by the road safety lobby have persuade them that they must not cross in front of a car.
I'm not sure that's a valid conclusion. I could be that the doddering old bat didn't want to cross the road anyway or hadn't noticed that you'd stopped!
My experience is, if anything, the opposite - they amble out into the road in front of you with gay abandon and completely (apparently) oblivious, their plastc rain scarves pulled down tight and their tartan shopping trolleys trailing in their wake! (Moi! Ageist? - nah!)
Incidentally,
dcbwhaley wrote:
...equal priority....
...Can such a thing, even as a concept, ever really exist?
dcbwhaley wrote:
I don't think my utopia could ever be achieved within the present road structure and that the future must lie with the shared road space schemes which are being tried, with some success, in several countries
Hmmmm. Still dubious, to be honest! But, if it's all about equality, then I'd be interested in a trial. Maybe we could open up a pedestrianised area of a town to all traffic on the understanding that pedestriants always had priority in it, just to see what happens?
Mole wrote:
In fact, perhaps we should take this theme further and close airport runways to traffic if someone on a hang-glider (surely the airbone equivalent to a pedestrian?!) wished to use the surounding airspace? We could also prevent the movement of big ships in and out of harbours if someone wished to use a rowing or sailing boat in the approaches!
dcbwhaley wrote:
That is disengenous. Those examples are more akin to pedestrians on major trunk routes, where I have never argued that there should not be segregation between pedestrians and vehicles.
OK, it's a fair cop! Just seeing how far I could push it!