Poynton regeneration scheme

Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by Steady rider »

I have doubts about the approach - basically I am looking for order, in the 1920's - 1940's etc it seemed like people mixed with traffic and the results were not that good. But it will be of interest to see how such approaches go. One or two examples prove very little but today we can video the interactions and perhaps learn a bit more.

'Car/pedestrian crash severity by collision speed' graph shows how important it is to reduce impact speed when an accident occures.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by meic »

Higher accident figures doesnt have to mean it is a failure. If the scheme has opened up the area to other users than cars, this may mean that their accident total rises due to the increase in use.
Where as it isnt a total success, it would be a partial one.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3413
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by CJ »

Having read the comments here and on U-tube, I agree that Poynton has taken a step in the right direction. Just a step though.

I think that in time, the proponents and detractors will both be proved partly right. Most drivers will continue to behave carefully there, just as most drivers DO try to stop when a pedestrian steps out in front of them on any road. The difference is that pedestrians and cyclists feel entitled to step and ride in front of cars in shared space, so they do, and traffic moves more slowly. But as drivers become more accustomed to this design they will find that bullying pedestrians out of their way still works, and the selfish ones (even the nice ones when they're in a special hurry) will use that tactic increasingly. So the space will become a bit less people-friendly - especially at night when there aren't many people about to enforce low speeds and good behaviour. So there will still be accidents (there might even be more accidents, as meic suggests, in spite of the space being safer) and it will be interesting to see how our adversarial legal system deals with the consequences.

Like many of the detractors, I don't think people-priority roadspace can work properly without the legal presumption to back up that priority, which most other countries have except UK. But schemes like this may nevertheless be better than what we have here already. Perhaps we need the engineering first, to encourage more people to walk and ride in front of cars, some of which will not stop, thus generating sufficient public indignation at the injustice of blaming people even partly for being in the way of cars in those spaces, to prompt the necessary changes to our legal system.

I think it's the same with segregated roadside cyclepaths. In UK we are starting to build a few that maintain priority over side roads, like they should, like they ALWAYS do on the continent. If you think about it, that creates lots of little bits of people-priority roadspace, which may or may not be respected by drivers. On the continent cyclepath priority is well respected, but in Britain? One rare London example of a cyclepath with priority over side roads is Royal College Street. According to this consultation document (being discussed on another thread) it isn't working out all that well. So many cars are hitting bikes that they're wanting to re-design the whole street! Lets hope the raised tables do the trick (since most of the other planned changes look just as likely to make cycling worse), but I think we'll need to legislate before it all works properly.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by [XAP]Bob »

meic wrote:Higher accident figures doesnt have to mean it is a failure. If the scheme has opened up the area to other users than cars, this may mean that their accident total rises due to the increase in use.
Where as it isnt a total success, it would be a partial one.


It might even be a total success.

The point was to enable traffic, but also to open the town to things other than closed metal boxes.

Yes there will be some accidents, but the aim is that they'll be slow enough to not cause as much damage as they might have done had people tried to cross the road before.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by Steady rider »

The London consultation, brief look and could be off the mark, looks poor, boxes with flowers ready for cyclists to hit the corners and restricting side space. Chamfered edges required on both sides of cycle lane - looks like being tight in passing, possibly better to have a flat top without flower beds, more space to cycle.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by thirdcrank »

Steady rider wrote:I have doubts about the approach - basically I am looking for order, in the 1920's - 1940's etc it seemed like people mixed with traffic and the results were not that good. But it will be of interest to see how such approaches go. One or two examples prove very little but today we can video the interactions and perhaps learn a bit more.

'Car/pedestrian crash severity by collision speed' graph shows how important it is to reduce impact speed when an accident occures.


While I agree that the point about the situation "pre Hore Belisha" is important here, I think that the conclusions drawn are quite wrong.

In response to the increasing carnage HB introduced a number of reforms eg national 30 mph limit for built-up areas and the eponymous beacons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Hor ... re-Belisha

He also introduced the Highway Code. Afaik, this was an attempt to re-educate drivers to be more careful and considerate. So HB introduced a strategy with at least two parts: changing attitudes and safety reforms including what I'll call pedestrian facilities. The forward of the HC made it clear that its advice could form the basis for prosecutions.

By coincidence, I came across an old Highway Code the other day, not from 1935 but from 1968. It's worth considering the differences. Some just show changing times: the 1968 edition includes police point duty signals (and yes, I learn't the correct way to do that at PTC in 1967 and I've stood in a box in the middle of the road doing it for real.) That earlier edition had rules without the addition of the niceties of "must" and "should." Once upon a time, we used to base prosecutions for "due care" etc on the HC. Again, been there, done it. The forward to the HC assumes that's what should happen. In an age when few pleaded NG and even fewer were represented when pleading NG, the HC was almost the bible. However, the current version of the HC makes clear which of its provisions are restatements of the law and which are advice. The result is an attitude that they can't touch you for it. We have regular discussions on here about drivers being compelled to obey the HC, but if the HC's advice to cyclists is raised, there's no shortage of posters ready to explain that it's only advice. (Let's not forget the changes to the HC over cycling farcilities. It was considered some sort of victory to have the "not compulsory" bit included.)

Unfortunately, recent developments have included practical evidence that our criminal justice system cannot cope with enforcement of road traffic offences at the conveyor-belt level and that there's even less likelihood of success if the police are told not to concentrate on it. By reducing the risk of sanctions for bad driving, all that has even further undermined attempts to improve driving standards by changing attitudes.

To put the tin hat on this, the Road Safety Act 2006 amended the RTA 1988 by the inclusion of definitions of the "bad driving" offences, based not on disregarding the HC but on little more than public opinion:

(2)A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA

Finally, it's true that the both the likelihood and severity of collisions tend to increase with speed and if it's not thought appropriate to reduce traffic speeds, then segregation is appropriate. IMO, that doesn't make a case for total segregation, which would be impractical. There are always likely to be situations where vulnerable road users meet morot traffic. IMO, The hierarchy of solutions deals with this situation, but it does need sanctions against those who persist in their selfishness.

(Edited to put the quote from the RTA in quotes.)
Last edited by thirdcrank on 26 Feb 2013, 8:59pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by Steady rider »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

We know that many improvements can be made for the UK, 50 mph general speed limit unless signed lower etc.

Page 5
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=64647

'Proposed, Cycling Promotion and Road Safety Bill'

Most countries with lower rates than the UK seem to have drivers who are more careful when in built up areas and when passing cyclists but also they seem to seperate cyclists from high speed and HGV type traffic conditions. Having a minimum passing clearance may help change drivers habits to being more careful.

I can see the Poynton scheme has some merits but making it better for shopping is a social and business decision.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7597000365

Please note the gains to be made by replacing 30 mph limits with 25 mph (50 km to 40km/hr)
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by thirdcrank »

Steady rider

I'm not saying that current speed limits should not be reduced in places where there vulnerable road users - quite to opposite.

I am saying that segregation is vital in some circumstances - motorways being a pretty obvious example of segregating motor traffic from other users for a good purpose. (And for anybody who says trains would be better, they are also largely segregated from other modes.)

I'm also suggesting that there will be plenty of circumstances where modes share routes or segregated provision intersects. Even with drive-in cinemas and drive-in everything else, most drivers become pedestrians for part of every journey.

I'll suggest that the concept of shared space - without pavements etc - is intended to get away from what I've called pedestrians being fair game when they are in the carriageway. That needs a change in attitudes. I've suggested that the HC was an attempt to change attitudes, but that there's also a need for enforcement when people continue to be selfish (I've often posted before that driving at an inappropriate speed is just another form of greed.)

The hierarchy of provision is intended deal with different circumstances while giving appropriate importance to vulnerable modes.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by Steady rider »

I more or less agree with your points.

I would probably take a different approach to 'hierarchy of provision'. No mention in 'Proposed, Cycling Promotion and Road Safety Bill'. I think people need to know what is required and impliment. In some circumstances the 'hierarchy of provision' would put pedestrians ahead on cyclists and this may not be needed. It probably just depends on circumstances.
Pete Owens
Posts: 2442
Joined: 7 Jul 2008, 12:52am

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by Pete Owens »

For a pedestrian perspective on shared space it is worth taking a look at this document from living streets:

http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/sites/d ... treets.pdf
Geriatrix
Posts: 1855
Joined: 23 Oct 2007, 1:33pm
Location: Caterham

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by Geriatrix »

Pete Owens wrote:For a pedestrian perspective on shared space it is worth taking a look at this document from living streets:

http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/sites/d ... treets.pdf

On page 10 I see a common goal with cyclists "Driver liability should be adopted in the UK".
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - Richard Feynman
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by meic »

Though from their viewpoint that would actually be driver and cyclist liability should be adopted in the UK.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by [XAP]Bob »

meic wrote:Though from their viewpoint that would actually be driver and cyclist liability should be adopted in the UK.

And I'd support that (well, a liability hierarchy at any rate)
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
John Holiday
Posts: 528
Joined: 2 Nov 2007, 2:01pm

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by John Holiday »

Surely,the whole point of this type of experiment (as in Groningen,Netherlands), is to create a little uncertainty,& thus hopefully intelligent drivers will proceed with caution,thereby making the whole experience safer for all users.
Unfortunately,many drivers think that having passed a test many years ago,that they have nothing to learn,hence sloppy habits,speeding,etc.etc.
(Perhaps 'intelligent' & 'drivers' is an oxy-moron!
A compulsory Re-Test every five years might be helpful!
Will watch the reports on this experiment with interest.
Geriatrix
Posts: 1855
Joined: 23 Oct 2007, 1:33pm
Location: Caterham

Re: Poynton regeneration scheme

Post by Geriatrix »

meic wrote:Though from their viewpoint that would actually be driver and cyclist liability should be adopted in the UK.

I'm OK with that in principle. Pedestrians should be treated with due care anyway. The debate needs to be opened with pedestrian responsibilities though because I still have close encounters with pedestrians who don't look before crossing roads.

Of course it should be said that how I feel about pedestrians is how many motorists feel about cyclist.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - Richard Feynman
Post Reply