basingwerk wrote:
Yes, that?s how it played out though history. I?m high up on a heavy cart with yaks, so get out of the way or be crushed! Only now, it?s playing out as ?I?m walking and I can?t wait for all those cars to get out of my way, so I?ll vote to get rid of all that by putting in charges, lights, crossings, barriers, bus lanes, humps, cameras, and whatnot, and the car drivers can walk or get the bus too, which is good for them if it increases the total bandwidth and safety of the system, and cuts down smoke and noise?.
I still think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. I've been talking about self preservation actions/attitudes on the part of the pedestrian. Here, you are talking about selfish actions/attitudes on the part of the yak carter. Or more recently the motorist. Now I think about it the two are actually co-operating attitudes, not competing ones. Although you make the yak carter sound a bit of a bastard with "get out of the way or be crushed" it's in his interest not to run over a peasant. Delays, aggro, risk of irate fellow peasants turning up with scythes and so on. Equally it's in the interest of the peasant not to be run over, for reasons I think we don't have to go into.
basingwerk wrote:
Gatsobait wrote:
Sorry, i digress. Point is roads do not chop through pavements, any more than they chop through other roads at junctions.
Gatsobait wrote:
there are facilities for them to make their way over or under the road so avoiding any conflict with traffic
The pavements stop at the corners - the road is the constant, crossing facilities are the exception.
I think the kerbs really prevent it being the other way round given the shape of the wheel.
Sure, kerbs wouldn't be a problem if we ditched wheeled transport in favour of hovercraft, but given how hovercraft corner...
- no thanks.
Even ignoring that for the moment, from a practical point of view it has to be the way it is. Consider a T junction - as things are there the road layout forms three virtual barriers to foot traffic, a maximum of one of which is going to be faced by any single pedestrian when passing through the junction. In fact half the time there will be no barrier at all (turning left from the left hand side pavement, ditto r/h side, and walking along the section of pavement that isn't interrupted by the joining road). Do it the other way round and there would still be three virtual barriers, but this time they would be faced by vehicles. What's different is that the vehicles will all face TWO of the three barriers, and this will happen to each and every vehicle passing through the junction - no exceptions. This is unavoidable because in the space between buildings vehicles go down the middle and pedestrians go down the edge. That's problem no. 1. Now bearing in mind that vehicles are larger than pedestrians, making them give way to one pedestrian could cause them to block another, especially a particularly large vehicle like a bus or lorry. That's problem no. 2. The only solution to these problems that I can think of is to rip up all adjoining roads and pavements, and relay the whole shooting match with the road surface up against shop doorways and a single double widthe pavement running down the middle. Er, hang on... that leaves me in the middle of the road when I want to look in the shop window, and poor granny is housebound now the edge of the carriageway is up against her garden gate.
On the plus side you'd need never again worry about bad overtaking manoeuvres.
basingwerk wrote:
Why don?t the lights change the instant I press the button?
And I was just talking about instant gratification in my last post.
Actually the crossing between the new and old buildings of my school used to change really quick, possibly because the installers knew it would be used by a bunch of kids every 40 minutes as well as anyone else who happened to show up. But normally they don't change the instant you press the button for the same reason they don't go red again as soon as a car comes. In both cases that particular bit of road is regarded as being in use by someone, so it would be inappropriate to change the lights until they've finished with it. I do agree with you that lights that fail to change right away when there's no car for half a mile are annoying, but to be honest life's too short to be lsoing sleep over it.
basingwerk wrote:
Pedestrian lights are green for cars more than they are green for pedestrians. In fact, unless a pedestrian presses the button, strangely they are permanently green for cars. They could be reversed, so that they are always green for pedestrians. Then, when a car comes along, the car waits for three minutes, then they go green for the car for 5 seconds, then back to red for the car in case some more pedestrians come!
They could do, but it would be a bit on the mad side. Do you really want cars sat at idle using up fuel for no reason? Actually, while I think it's a bit mad it does sound suspiciously close to the reality of Oxford Street and High Holborn shortly before the kengestion charge came along. Not that I'm a conspiracy theorist or anything.
basingwerk wrote:
Gatsobait wrote:
What authority? Modern roads are designed for cars, not for pedestrians. The idea that pedestrians have given up rights or authority over modern roads is laughable - they never had it in the first place.
The problem is that modern roads are designed for cars, for pedestrians.
:?: I'm assuming that should finish "not for pedestrians" or I can't make sense of it.
How is that a problem? That's like saying the problem with trespassing on the railways is that railways were designed for trains not for pedestrians. Or complaining that you can't tighten screws with a hammer.
basingwerk wrote:
Gatsobait wrote:
Lost their rights to walk? Again, this speaks of some divine right that never existed. Let's get this straight. Feet have indeed been around longer than wheels, and on those first paths made by feet for feet (or at least their descendants) we can rightly say that wheels don't have a place. Maybe that's why cycling on the pavement is a no-no.
But then came the wheel, and roads came along shortly after to make life easier for the wheel users. And a good solution it was too. Much better for medieval peasants to know that carts stick to certain routes instead of wandering all over the place. Not that different from today really.
On what ground - might is right? No way!
Again, you're looking at it from the cart driver/motorist perspective. A truly selfish ****hole may feel that way (and with any luck they'll get what's coming to them
), but that won't hurt me one bit if I am taking responsibility for my safety. As I said before, as a pedestrian I am really not too interested in an individual driver's attitude or thoughts. I treat them as part of the road, which in turn I treat as a natural hazard.
basingwerk wrote:
Gatsobait wrote:
I reiterate. Roads are for vehicles. Pavements are for walkers. The latter can use the roads too, but must do so carefully and responsibly.
The roads should stop to allow the pavements to cross.
See above. There are practical reasons why this isn't a good idea.
basingwerk wrote:
Gatsobait wrote:
As for pedestriansing town centres, frankly I don't see what that's got to do with this at all.
The natural mode of transport tight communities is foot. Cars are dangerous intrusions, so limits are applied to them to make them safer.
You weren't talking about limits, you were talking about exclusion. Pedestrianising a town centre is, by definition, excluding cars. I stand by what I said.