please empty your brain below
|
|
The Barnabas Road filter has actually terminated the busy Homerton High Street-Berger Road-Oriel Road-Kenworthy Road-Eastway rat-run, which saw road-rage incidents near Homerton Station most mornings as nutters tried to get both ways along a road suited for one. There is finally a camera up, so maybe the hold-outs will be getting letters soon.
organ-grinder | Homepage | 03.07.20 - 7:13 a.m. | #
|
Lots of weaving round the bollards at a similar road closure in Blackheath.
Regards
zin92 | 03.07.20 - 7:52 a.m. | #
|
|
I always think those roadsigns with a motorbike leapfrogging a car should have a diagonal line across them to make it instantly recocnisable as no entry for those vehicles.
mikeH | 03.07.20 - 8:34 a.m. | #
|
'thing in red circle' on a road sign means that thing is prohibited - it's pretty early on in the bit about signs in the Highway Code, so drivers really shouldn't have an excuse for not knowing what it means!
I wouldn't say that one cyclist in five minutes makes the filter outside the station a failure - the purpose of it may be to make the street more pleasant for pedestrians on their way to the Overground. And once navigation services get updated and drivers learn about it, it'll be a much quieter street.
martin | 03.07.20 - 8:40 a.m. | #
|
|
Is there a rationale for changing (safe) mini roundabouts into (unsafe) T junctions?
Kirk | 03.07.20 - 8:43 a.m. | #
|
|
More of this sort of thing please. I live on a notorious rat run, every attempt to block it off has been scuppered by organised lobbying by local cab companies. Residential streets are for the people that live on them.
E | 03.07.20 - 9:18 a.m. | #
|
The number of bikes passing through a modal filter isn't particularly relevant. It may be that the filter is cutting off a rat run reducing traffic on some other street, or the whole neighbourhood.
Also these schemes take months or years to change habits. I'm not really convinced they're good as short term Covid mitigation, but if that's the excuse that lets them be put in so be it.
Kirk: Mini-roundabouts are about maximising traffic flow. If you've eliminated the flow you don't need them. They're confusing for pedestrians and motorists are usually crap at giving way to cyclists on them.
Graham | 03.07.20 - 9:23 a.m. | #
|
|
Your description of the van driver is gender shaming language.
Surbitonian | 03.07.20 - 9:43 a.m. | #
|
|
As someone who lives on a one-way street, I can supply anecdotal evidence that the lockdown has caused an upswing in people burning their way along roads they shouldn't be using. Apparently if you go the wrong way up a one way street or if you put your foot down through a pedestrian area it doesn't count.
Scott | Homepage | 03.07.20 - 9:45 a.m. | #
|
|
The signs with red borders annoy me because they have contradictory meanings. When they display speed, height and weight information, they indicate that anything up to and including the number on the sign is permissible. The signs shown the pictures here display what is not permissible. Any confusion is eradicated if there is a red line through the latter type.
RogerP | 03.07.20 - 9:54 a.m. | #
|
They're doing the same in my borough, but not, as far as I can see, anything that will affect my road.
Which is a shame as it's a narrow minor A-road serving 2 schools but with 2 buses and umpteen lorries thundering down it at all times to supply a nearby retail park.
So far all that the previous measures have achieved is widening the road in certain parts, so it now resembles a slalom, with the loss of over 30 mature trees!
Cornish Cockney | 03.07.20 - 9:55 a.m. | #
|
Great news! So many people use this area as a cut through to the A12, speeding cars down Roman Road etc.
Hopefully these changes can bring some of the lockdown levels of traffic back - it was lovely!
James Scantlebury | 03.07.20 - 10:10 a.m. | #
|
|
Graham: they are also safer because everyone has to slow down on approach to them, whereas at a T junction one traffic flow can just keep their foot down. It might make the side road entrance safer, but it will make movements out of that side road much more risky and open cyclists up to being hit from the side at higher speed.
Kirk | 03.07.20 - 10:25 a.m. | #
|
I live near a roundabout - not a mini one but a little bit bigger. Over the last year there have been multiple roadworks where temporary traffic lights have been installed.
When it's in roundabout mode, drivers will regularly give way to pedestrians so they can cross. When in traffic light mode, absolutely no chance. Never happens. And of course there is absolutely no provision for pedestrians when the temporary lights are there, and a big backlog of traffic caused by the lights.
Which means crossing the roundabout by foot that is quick and safe, ends up taking forever and definitely not being by foot.
I drive a car. I also ride a bike and I walk. And I'm utterly convinced we have given far too much emphasis on cars and far too little on everything else.
I hope schemes like this do well, and they last.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 03.07.20 - 10:38 a.m. | #
|
Any driver who finds the "no motor vehicles" sign confusing - or indeed the signs for no faster, wider, taller than a specified amount (or the rare blue ones for no slower than) - should not be driving a potentially deadly lump of metal on the public roads.
Circles for nO ; triangles for wArning. Simples.
Andrew | 03.07.20 - 11:41 a.m. | #
|
My Liveable Streets consultation pack has arrived, including a full colour A4 12-page information booklet, an 8-page questionnaire and a reply-paid envelope.
They're taking things a lot more seriously this time.
diamond geezer | Homepage | 03.07.20 - 12:29 p.m. | #
|
I'm assuming there are no physical barriers blocking the road (e.g. in that top example) so that emergency vehicles can get through.
Not condoning the van drivers going through the barriers, but worth noting that many of them may have been delivering to residents in the areas concerned. I imagine these new road closure schemes would be very confusing to drivers trying to get between jobs, especially if their sat navs haven't have been updated.
And the glut of manic van drivers on the road is partially a byproduct of internet shopping, which significantly increased during the virus, probably permanently.
Mikey C | 03.07.20 - 12:47 p.m. | #
|
|
I suspect the 'camera' may be a part time one hidden in a parked car. My Borough has these parked about once a week at nearby banned turns and they make a fortune (over £1m in annual fines per junction - and we're talking minor residential roads), seemingly mainly from minicab drivers. Which is fine by me - the streets are generally quieter, and those who think the rules don't apply to them end up helping to fund our council services.
David | 03.07.20 - 12:55 p.m. | #
|
|
I agree with RogerP about the road traffic sign. A sign should never be confusing, and although the majority of motorists and bikers will understand what it means, why take the risk that some may not. But that's a discussion for elsewhere.
Lindsay | 03.07.20 - 2:05 p.m. | #
|
Time to be absolutely blunt on road signs. There is nothing to debate.
Anyone who has passed their test and doesn't know what a common, standard sign like "No motor vehicles" looks like and what it means, is not safe to be in control of a car. I don't care if people think if the sign is non-obvious. Maybe it is. But you have to learn this stuff to pass your driving test.
Yes. Absolutely EVERYONE with a full driving licence NEEDS to know this stuff.
Not the majority. EVERYONE. This is about road safety and if anyone with a UK licence that doesn't know what that sign means, frankly shouldn't have a UK driving licence.
No ifs. No buts. No debate on understandability and legibility. There are no excuses at all.
Andrew Bowden | Homepage | 03.07.20 - 2:46 p.m. | #
|
|
Residential roads are for everyone
Darren | 03.07.20 - 3:08 p.m. | #
|
|
I wonder how many road users could describe the signs meaning "No vehicles except bicycles being pushed" or "No motor vehicles except motorcycles without sidecars".
Tim W | 03.07.20 - 5:04 p.m. | #
|
I feel sorry for people from abroad who have to navigate streets with signs like those in the first two photos. I agree that they are potentially confusing, and that a red line through them would make them much more clearly understood. Especially given the contradiction that RogerP points out - as happens to be shown in the last photo. I note that there is a blue circle with a red line though it in that photo too (to show a restricted zone), just to keep things interesting.
All in all though, I think this post is a fascinating insight into how councils and other authorities enact a desired change, and how the public responds to that desired change. With loads of compromise in between, as you say DG.
Sam | 03.07.20 - 6:09 p.m. | #
|
|
<snip>
scrumpy | 03.07.20 - 6:41 p.m. | #
|
I agree that drivers have a responsibility to learn what the different road signs mean. However road signs should still be made as easy as possible to understand and learn. For example, in my view, this means that diagonal lines should be used for anything that's prohibited. Hence I respectfully disagree that there should be "No debate on understandability and legibility".
Regards
zin92 | 03.07.20 - 7:12 p.m. | #
|
It's not just people who drive motor vehicles ( and have to pass a test) who need to understand the signs. I was berated by a pedestrian yesterday for (legally) cycling past a "flying motorbike" sign.
And how mant people understandthe "empty circle " sign? (which definitely doesn't mean nothing is prohibited)
The situation is further confused by organisations such as the Royal Parks and some motorway service stations using different signs (one of which appears to say that the M4 is prohibited)
Timbo | 03.07.20 - 7:41 p.m. | #
|
Out here in west London they're trying out some short notice Experimental Traffic Orders by focussing on local shopping streets with narrow pavements. They're making the roads 'Access only' and coning off the parking bays so pedestrians can spread into the road space to maintain safe distancing and avoid the little queues we now get outside each shop.
The Hackney examples seem like existing traffic management point closures that have been dusted down and done with temporary planters to get the funding under the Experimental scheme, and don't seem to offer any obvious benefit to pedestrians, particularly if traffic can so easily nip through them. At least if there are unwelcome repercussions from these 'experimental' projects they can be easily be taken away, rather than having years of hypothetical 'consultation' after which nobody wants to change anything.
Meanwhile Tower Hamlets seem to be soldiering on with some traditional wide ranging proposals, complete with glossy brochures, rather than just dumping down a few planters here and there to see what happens. According to our west London model, they should just 'close' the whole of Roman Road and make more room for pedestrians to shop safely.
It occurs to me that another way of reducing traffic using so-called 'rat runs' would be for local authorities to register a series of 'closures' with the various SatNav companies so they're no longer offered as viable routes, but not actually close the road so local people can still get through.
ActonMan | 03.07.20 - 7:46 p.m. | #
|
|
Worth pointing out that the Tower Hamlets brochure isn't glossy, and they did just 'dump down a few planters' on Old Ford Road in May.
diamond geezer | Homepage | 03.07.20 - 8:02 p.m. | #
|
Croydon Council placed a number of planters in the roads near where I live in Norwood (and on the pavement to stop cars weaving around the blockage) in April. They have been very effective and made the roads quieter and cleaner.
This evening they are being removed and the cars are already using the wrong side of the road to get past even before they have finished working.
Alan S | 03.07.20 - 8:36 p.m. | #
|
Enfield are also going big on this.
cycleenfield.co.uk/quieter-neighbourhoods
Barnabus Rd could be chalked down as a success if it means the vast majority of traffic previously on this road has moved onto strategic roads. There'll always be a level of non-compliance if you leave a gap in the filter for emergency vehicles.
SJM | 03.07.20 - 11:33 p.m. | #
|
|
If/when this is implemented I hope the planners take into account that there are morons out there.
Frank F | 04.07.20 - 7:32 a.m. | #
|
|
The glossiness or otherwise of the brochure is probably more about appeasing the environmental lobby regarding easy recycling of the paper.
Kirk | 04.07.20 - 7:46 a.m. | #
|
|
what's with the use of red font all of a sudden? it seems unnecessarily loud and is not as clear to read against a grey background as the usual black as well as having no function like blue lettering.
the other eric | 04.07.20 - 10:07 a.m. | #
|
Like DG, I’m a non-driver, so in principle should welcome restrictions such as these. But experience in my area suggests that this kind of road closure drastically affects adjacent roads as traffic finds the closest alternatives. The resulting gridlock not only slows cars, it also seriously delays buses, undermining one of the supposed benefits by making public transport harder to use, not easier. So campaigners here who previously urged the permanent closure of a temporarily-shut road, without caring about the effect on surrounding streets, have belatedly realised that a similar proposal now from a neighbouring area would subject them to exactly the congestion in their own roads that they previously wanted to inflict on everyone else.
And anyone taking a bus from Leicester Square up Tottenham Court Road since it gained a contra-flow lane and blocked side streets will know the journey now takes twice as long as before, thanks to traffic being squeezed into far less space. Rather than prioritising public transport, the scheme has instead clogged the road up, to nobody’s benefit.
Local road closures may make life better in the immediate vicinity, but London’s traffic problems have to be tackled on a cross-capital basis. 2019’s savage cuts in bus routes, despite Crossrail’s failure to open, and TfL’s aim to drive minicabs out of business by removing congestion charge exemption (instead of rescinding Uber’s licence) will encourage more cars onto roads; real progress can only come from hugely improved public transport — such as reintroduction of trams — and looking at the whole picture, from north to south circulars, as one integrated entity, not a patchwork of local parishes.
Purview | 04.07.20 - 8:00 p.m. | #
|
|
This 'liveable streets' scheme will be murder the "temporary social distancing" closure on Old Ford Road is already creating anarchy , All these closures will do is put more traffic and more pollution on an already crowded Mile End Road , and create absolute chaos if anything goes wrong for example like last Friday when there was an accident at Mile End with the virtually the whole borough blocked up or if anything happens in Blackwall Tunnel , I understand we need to close of some roads and stop the Rat Running i.e residential roads and roads with schools on etc but councils shouldn't be blocking major arteries into London like the Roman Road and even non major arteries like Old Ford Road bad idea in my opinion .
Joefrombow | Homepage | 07.07.20 - 2:27 a.m. | #
|
|
The above two commenters might like to look up traffic evaporation - the principle that cutting road capacity also cuts the number of journeys driven. It's not instant, as people take time to adjust - but for a recent local example, look at the Walthamstow Village scheme. That cut off rat-runs, and traffic counts showed only a small increase on arterial routes.
martin | 07.07.20 - 7:40 a.m. | #
|
a) The Bow Liveable Streets page now includes a "traffic overview map" (8MB), which helps to summarise what's being blocked off where.
b) A group of local residents have created letbowbreathe.org.uk, a website supporting the changes (but it's pretty empty so far).
diamond geezer | Homepage | 07.07.20 - 7:46 a.m. | #
|
“Traffic evaporation” is always cited by those supporting significant road closures. But where is it supposed to go when the alternatives are non-existent?
My N London borough closed one of two main parallel roads for 5 months (for repairs) and made life a total misery for anyone nearby, as all the frustrated traffic tried to get down the remaining road. Buses were overcrowded and slowed to a crawl, some routes had to be curtailed and noise and pollution increased. Those living on the streets connecting the two roads were understandably delighted at the lack of traffic, but anyone on “the wrong side of the tracks” deeply frustrated. These roads are, unfortunately, major routes for commuters into central London, but just closing them doesn’t solve the fundamental problems: if people can only afford to live in outer suburbs or adjacent counties but work in central London, they’ll only abandon their cars if there are enough trains, buses or trams to carry them, instead of the appallingly expensive, massively-overcrowded commuter services that exist at the moment. They can’t afford to reduce their car journeys unless there are viable alternatives. That’s why I argue that there needs to be an overall review of transport in the whole metropolitan area instead of piecemeal closures that just turn one borough’s problem into another’s by shunting the traffic sideways.
Purview | 07.07.20 - 10:49 a.m. | #
|
|
|
TridentScan v2.10.0 | Privacy Policy
|
