Found this article on the This Is Gloucestershire website!!

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Urgent-action-needed-Kimbrose-Triangle/story-13009953-detail/story.html

Interesting sign linked to the comments section, there...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/quisnovus/ ... hotostream

I note the comments about 'loss of business'.

If that's the same loss as every pedestrianisation scheme has resulted in it'll be an increase in business then?

I am also beginning to think we need to tighten up the driving test and make it a five-yearly requirement to take one, if drivers are unable to cope with driving in first or second around a couple of hundred metres of carriageway while looking out for peds. It seems the same poor excuse as 'having to stare at the speedo' when cameras are about. If someone has such poor vehicle control they can't simultaneously be aware of their environmnet then I want some answers from the examiner who let them pass.

By the by. If establishing eye contact between peds and drivers is so difficult, how do zebra crossings function in Gloucestershire?

Blackpools promenade got the same treatment and the same criticisms. So far there has been one injury collision between an elderly gent and a taxi.

Perhaps this sign might be more appropriate...

Reminds me of the recently renovated Southend Seafront, which with a continuous flow of traffic trundling along at 20mph is near impossible to cross.

No. No. No.

The driving test is hard enough as it is without being having to be redone every 5 years. Why should the majority of us suffer the embarassment of having to go through this every half-decade, not to mention the extra costs and capacity issues involved.

Punish those who do wrong, not those of us who are innocent.

Australia style...

It's OK, I was being flippant.

It's just that the way some people described their driving experience puts me in mind of some bizarre racing or even shoot 'em up game, with people and vehicles assailing them from left and right, front and back, above and even below.

One of the reasons I am an advocate of on vehicle data recorders is that it can record samples of driving, at random, for retest purposes. Driving a vehicle is just as dangerous as driving a train or flying an aircraft, if not more so in some respects - yet everyone can do it, do it badly, and get away with it constantly.

There should also be a scoring arrangement. There are good drivers, exceptional drivers, poor drivers and people who should be allowed to even look after the keys of a vehicle.

If everyone knew that their driving could be subject to random sampling from the data logger then I would *hope* that people would be more sensible than they are currently. In any other field, if 3000-odd people were being killed each year there would be outcry. But any attempt to tighten up on driving standards by using technology is deemed as big brother and an invasion of privacy.

What ratio of car journies end in disaster? I suspect around one in a million.

A damn sight more than end in disaster on the railways and in the sky.

99% of accidents can be attributed to driver error of some sort. Even a tyre blowing out can be handled without an accident unless you panic and do something silly.

Driving is ultimately a privilege, not a right.

I like the concept of shared space - in town centres where through traffic really has no place then it not only declutters the street but also allows more walking.

Boing - where've you got that design planned for then...?

What is worth mentioning is that according to the Manual for Streets, pedestrians are only willing to share space with motor vehicles where traffic flows are less than 100 vehicles per hour, which already happens in many side streets anyway. With traffic flows above that, pedestrians will look for gaps in the traffic like they would on normal roads, regardless of how much you spend on block paving. So I think having lots of "home zones" on minor residential roads along shared space principles would work better as far as "sharing" goes.

Ive not. It was in response to a post on another forum about a certain promenade and the lack of signing etc. Plus the fact that the signing currently in place doesnt comply properly. Its a 20 limit/zone - the signing is quite poor.

The last rail passenger death was in 2007, yet OTMR equipment is downloaded regularly and train drivers live almost in fear of doing something slightly wrong, because they could be taken off driving for good. If that threat loomed over road drivers it might change some decision processes.

And of course, the better driver you become, the cheaper your insurance could be compared to those "bad" drivers. The current no claims system is a very blunt object. Drivers who do not have claimable accidents are not, contrary to that definition, necessarily good drivers; they've probably just been lucky.

Given that the majority of pedestrian KSI's are the peds' own fault, shouldn't pedestrians be required to have the data loggers too? And cyclists too, of course. In fact, wouldn't life be so much better if we all had a chip in our skull connected directly to a government computer?


And the fact that the road being complained about is the A4301 suggests that traffic volumes are considerably higher than that, which is why the scheme is causing problems. Any road with through traffic isn't appropriate for shared space - it shouldn't be used as a traffic calming/deterrence measure. Likewise Home Zones.

Of course Peter, what a wonderful idea.

I know you have a tendancy to come out with reactionary, ill thought out statements, but come on!

Have you considered that a data logger could exonerate a motorist in the event of a pedestrian/vehicle collision? As well as, of course, being able to determine if it was just selfish driving at fault.

If I have used my right to obtain a driving licence then I have a right to drive.

So it's reactionary to be opposed to a totalitarian surveillance state?

Someone should pass that to Nottingham City Council - in the Hockley area they have changed the road layout such that the bit that looks like road isn't allowed to be driven down (unless you are a bus driving down the contraflow cycle lane), where as the pedestrianised area is allowed to be driven down, except the bits of it which aren't, and this easily has more than 100 VPH - a good four or five plus every minute during the day. They have just changed the oneway on Old Lenton Street presumably to remove all the blue badge holders from going down it though http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.95 ... 8&layers=M - all it means now is that I have two right turns across Parliament street when cycling home (or just walk down the pavement and join in the contraflow cycle lane).

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Carlton ... 7,,0,10.11 (placed where you are NOT allowed to drive, ahead is the bit you can drive on)

Going back OT - shared space on an A-Road - seriously? If it warrants shared space surely it warrants being downgraded? In this case it looks like it's the middle leg of three possible routes to take so should become unclassified. If A-Roads are being messed around like this is it a surprise that people "rat run"?

Shared Space works in New Road, Brighton (sorry, I don't know how to post the link to GSV) because of the road layout in the local area. People only drive down there to drop someone off at the Theatre Royal or Pavilion Theatre (or park if they have a Disabled badge), as you can only drive west from the Old Steine along Church Street to enter New Road, and when you leave you can only go east along North Street and back to the Old Steine again (Church Street is one-way and North Street is buses and taxis only going east), and it is therefore no use for through access. I think if there is through access it will work far less well. For example, I can't see Shared Space working in my local town, East Grinstead, which has the additional restriction of being a linear town, thus the town centre roads are used to access one end of the town from the other.