Woman's plea after Regent Circus accident

This Is Wiltshire: Woman's plea after Regent Circus accident Woman's plea after Regent Circus accident

CHANGES need to be made to the pedestrian crossings in Regent Circus before someone is seriously injured, according to a woman who was knocked down by a car there yesterday.

Claire, 47, of Old Town, who did not wish to give her surname, was struck by a silver Ford Galaxy on the crossing outside Rudi’s shortly after 9am.

With an apparent gap in traffic, Claire attempted to cross the road, but the car ran over her foot and knocked her to the floor.

The woman driver pulled over and checked on Claire, who was tended to by ISG staff at the leisure complex building site across the road.

Claire is now calling for changes to be made so there aren’t more accidents.

“This is not a proper crossing,” she said. “There is no way of knowing who has right of way.

“There are no signs. It shouldn’t take for me to get hurt for things to change.”

South West Ambulance Service was on the scene with a rapid response vehicle and an ambulance at 9.04am, before calling Wiltshire Police at 9.10am. Claire was treated at the scene.

“The car was going slowly, but when I saw her she was way back, so I stepped out but she didn’t stop,” said Claire.

“I put my hands out to try and stop the car and it knocked me down. It ran over my foot and knocked me off my feet.”

One of the ISG workers to tend to Claire, who chose not to be named, said: “That’s a bad spot. It’s a Swindon Council scheme. We were told by one of our top boys it was taken from a Dutch scheme, where they obviously use a lot more bicycles.

“It’s terrible, it’s a grey area. When I see people crossing I tell them to tell the paper, because it’s unsuitable and it’s going to take someone to get hit to the ground before they do something.”

Eddie Agyeman, a road safety officer with ISG, also helped Claire after the accident.

He said: “We just saw somebody on the floor.

“We went straight over with some orange barriers to make her safe, but the ambulance was here within a few minutes.

“The car wasn’t moving at speed.”

A spokesman for Swindon Council said: “We have always said that the scheme will be independently checked and audited once it is finished, and if changes are recommended they will be fully considered.

“We aim to have the audit carried out in October.

“We approved the developer’s design for the scheme because similar schemes have worked well elsewhere in the UK.

“In response to the concerns that have been expressed to us, we have asked the developer to put up warning signs on the approach to the junction, which will remain in place once the scheme is finished, to make it clear to drivers that pedestrians and cyclists are in the area and they should drive with extra care.

“There are already signs advising drivers that it is a 20mph zone.”

Comments (68)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:19am Wed 20 Aug 14

umpcah says...

Alas this seems likely to be the first of many accidents in the Regent Circus danger zone.
Alas this seems likely to be the first of many accidents in the Regent Circus danger zone. umpcah
  • Score: 9

7:43am Wed 20 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it.

Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.
The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it. Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -27

7:49am Wed 20 Aug 14

Wildwestener says...

Who could have forseen this happening? ..... Oh yes, everyone it seems apart from the planners and the Council and Sandor Clegane it seems.

It needs changing before someone is killed!
Who could have forseen this happening? ..... Oh yes, everyone it seems apart from the planners and the Council and Sandor Clegane it seems. It needs changing before someone is killed! Wildwestener
  • Score: 28

8:07am Wed 20 Aug 14

Tommyvercetti says...

The result of another excellent planning decision by swindon borough clownschool and their cronies
The result of another excellent planning decision by swindon borough clownschool and their cronies Tommyvercetti
  • Score: 16

8:09am Wed 20 Aug 14

umpcah says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it.

Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.
and people have had a month or two to get used to it - and a few more people hurt ?
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it. Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.[/p][/quote]and people have had a month or two to get used to it - and a few more people hurt ? umpcah
  • Score: 4

8:11am Wed 20 Aug 14

suburbanbear says...

Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed?

Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd.

As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.
Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed? Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd. As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own. suburbanbear
  • Score: -7

8:14am Wed 20 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

"""“The car was going slowly, but when I saw her she was way back, so I stepped out but she didn’t stop,” said Claire.""

Not sure you can jump down the Council's throat so quickly. From the comments above the driver clearly saw her but decided for whatever reason not to stop. That is the fault of the driver and not the road (as are 95% of all road accidents). You can have all the traffic calming systems in the world, but if drivers ignore them, then there isn't much else you can do. We need to find out the true facts before apportioning blame!
"""“The car was going slowly, but when I saw her she was way back, so I stepped out but she didn’t stop,” said Claire."" Not sure you can jump down the Council's throat so quickly. From the comments above the driver clearly saw her but decided for whatever reason not to stop. That is the fault of the driver and not the road (as are 95% of all road accidents). You can have all the traffic calming systems in the world, but if drivers ignore them, then there isn't much else you can do. We need to find out the true facts before apportioning blame! house on the hill
  • Score: -1

8:14am Wed 20 Aug 14

Eastcott says...

Adver lazily rewriting their own stories again! Shameful.

http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
11418253.Victim_call
s_for_changes_to_Reg
ent_Circus_crossings
_after_being_knocked
_down/
Adver lazily rewriting their own stories again! Shameful. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 11418253.Victim_call s_for_changes_to_Reg ent_Circus_crossings _after_being_knocked _down/ Eastcott
  • Score: 18

8:22am Wed 20 Aug 14

suburbanbear says...

Ok, so apparently if you're not bashing the council on this comments section, then you get downvoted. Superb.

The council aren't ALWAYS at fault...let the downvotes commence!
Ok, so apparently if you're not bashing the council on this comments section, then you get downvoted. Superb. The council aren't ALWAYS at fault...let the downvotes commence! suburbanbear
  • Score: -13

8:29am Wed 20 Aug 14

umpcah says...

Some people when using any kind of pedestrian crossing act as if there is a protective wall to keep them safe ! Any driver will be able to confirm that ! However I`m convinced that the Regent Circus area has not been given the best of pedestrian crossings and many more accidents are inevitable. I HOPE NOT.
Some people when using any kind of pedestrian crossing act as if there is a protective wall to keep them safe ! Any driver will be able to confirm that ! However I`m convinced that the Regent Circus area has not been given the best of pedestrian crossings and many more accidents are inevitable. I HOPE NOT. umpcah
  • Score: 16

8:39am Wed 20 Aug 14

John~R says...

Put up some orange flashing lights and paint it with black and white strips so motorists can see that it's a pedestrian crossing where they should give way.
Put up some orange flashing lights and paint it with black and white strips so motorists can see that it's a pedestrian crossing where they should give way. John~R
  • Score: 38

8:42am Wed 20 Aug 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

If the council is planning pedestrianize from the Stations (bus+train) to flemingway, then it must restrict traffic around one the most busy and family orientated area in Swindon, it would be criminal to leave the situation as it is.
My suggestion would be to allow traffic only between Princes St and Victoria Rd, divert all traffic from commercial road onto Eastcott hill and Crombey St
There should be no traffic on Regent Circus, it is insane to even contemplate the idea of sharing Regent circus between families, young children and week end drivers, a tragedy will happen!
If the council is planning pedestrianize from the Stations (bus+train) to flemingway, then it must restrict traffic around one the most busy and family orientated area in Swindon, it would be criminal to leave the situation as it is. My suggestion would be to allow traffic only between Princes St and Victoria Rd, divert all traffic from commercial road onto Eastcott hill and Crombey St There should be no traffic on Regent Circus, it is insane to even contemplate the idea of sharing Regent circus between families, young children and week end drivers, a tragedy will happen! A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 1

8:57am Wed 20 Aug 14

Big Time says...

suburbanbear wrote:
Ok, so apparently if you're not bashing the council on this comments section, then you get downvoted. Superb.

The council aren't ALWAYS at fault...let the downvotes commence!
Your missing the point, this 'crossing' presents a higher risk then that of a standard crossing due to it's poor design, especially for the visually impaired and for children of which some won't look properly when going to the cinema. The issue is the council are taking a wait see approach which is putting people life's at risk, as was demonstrated yesterday regardless of blame.

They must act NOW
[quote][p][bold]suburbanbear[/bold] wrote: Ok, so apparently if you're not bashing the council on this comments section, then you get downvoted. Superb. The council aren't ALWAYS at fault...let the downvotes commence![/p][/quote]Your missing the point, this 'crossing' presents a higher risk then that of a standard crossing due to it's poor design, especially for the visually impaired and for children of which some won't look properly when going to the cinema. The issue is the council are taking a wait see approach which is putting people life's at risk, as was demonstrated yesterday regardless of blame. They must act NOW Big Time
  • Score: 23

9:20am Wed 20 Aug 14

LordCharles says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it.

Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.
How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it. Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.[/p][/quote]How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it. LordCharles
  • Score: 17

9:25am Wed 20 Aug 14

Agent A says...

John~R wrote:
Put up some orange flashing lights and paint it with black and white strips so motorists can see that it's a pedestrian crossing where they should give way.
This.
[quote][p][bold]John~R[/bold] wrote: Put up some orange flashing lights and paint it with black and white strips so motorists can see that it's a pedestrian crossing where they should give way.[/p][/quote]This. Agent A
  • Score: 9

9:28am Wed 20 Aug 14

LordCharles says...

I would remind all that Caitlin Hunt was killed on one of these shared areas. What must the body count be before pedestrian crossings are restored?
I would remind all that Caitlin Hunt was killed on one of these shared areas. What must the body count be before pedestrian crossings are restored? LordCharles
  • Score: 8

9:43am Wed 20 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

LordCharles wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it.

Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.
How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it.
The system operates elsewhere, safely and efficiently.

Nobody has been killed, stop being so melodramatic.

However, people ARE killed on 'normal' crossings every year - so, remind us again how they're 'better'.
[quote][p][bold]LordCharles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it. Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.[/p][/quote]How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it.[/p][/quote]The system operates elsewhere, safely and efficiently. Nobody has been killed, stop being so melodramatic. However, people ARE killed on 'normal' crossings every year - so, remind us again how they're 'better'. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -13

9:45am Wed 20 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

umpcah wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it.

Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.
and people have had a month or two to get used to it - and a few more people hurt ?
The area is still a building site. I walked across it yesterday, it's not even finished.
[quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it. Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.[/p][/quote]and people have had a month or two to get used to it - and a few more people hurt ?[/p][/quote]The area is still a building site. I walked across it yesterday, it's not even finished. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -15

9:58am Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it.

Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.
They shouldn't need to make a "dash" between cars & run the risk of "misjudging" it.
All they should need to do, and I know this is a radical and forward thinking technologically ground-breaking idea, is press a small button that activates a set of multi-coloured lights. These lights would maybe be red, amber & green, & would control the flow of traffic in a safe way that in probably 99%+ of occurrences should allow pedestrians the peace of mind to cross the road.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it. Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.[/p][/quote]They shouldn't need to make a "dash" between cars & run the risk of "misjudging" it. All they should need to do, and I know this is a radical and forward thinking technologically ground-breaking idea, is press a small button that activates a set of multi-coloured lights. These lights would maybe be red, amber & green, & would control the flow of traffic in a safe way that in probably 99%+ of occurrences should allow pedestrians the peace of mind to cross the road. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 17

10:02am Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

suburbanbear wrote:
Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed?

Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd.

As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.
And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.
[quote][p][bold]suburbanbear[/bold] wrote: Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed? Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd. As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.[/p][/quote]And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 25

10:03am Wed 20 Aug 14

Alan Bast*rd says...

Learn from this accident and be thankful it wasn't a fatal one. Any type of crossing that isn't clear and could confuse is potentially dangerous. This one is exactly that. Change it!
Learn from this accident and be thankful it wasn't a fatal one. Any type of crossing that isn't clear and could confuse is potentially dangerous. This one is exactly that. Change it! Alan Bast*rd
  • Score: 16

10:06am Wed 20 Aug 14

mug? says...

The council are just parroting out the same thing over and over again. They seem to think they are there to polish their egos and refuse to admit when they get something wrong.

SBC - you are there to serve the people. The residents of Swindon are not your enemy. You are there to serve and protect them.

I've said before 20 mph is way to fast for this 'crossing' I've had people walk out in front of my car at that location. Fortunately I was only traveling at around 5-10mph because I was confused as to what was going on. I had to stop for the pedestrians. Those pedestrians as it happens did not stop and look at the road as used to be suggested by the green cross code and as anyone would do crossing any other uncontrolled road they just walked out without altering their stride. If I was traveling at 20mph I would have hit them as I wouldn't have stopped in time.

How much is this independent audit going to cost?

Who is sitting on this panel of auditor?

Are they related in any way to any serving councilors or planners?

Use some common sense for gods sake. Listen to the electorate. People aren't saying it's dangerous just to be awkward. People are saying it because they do not want to get hurt. A proper crossing will reduce the risk, or at the very least a lower speed limit.

This will only be worse when the cinema opens and there will be a higher volumes of people crossing there. I expect it to cause traffic chaos as well, because once a stream of people come out the cinema and head towards the bus station it will hold up the traffic for quite some time as there will be nothing to stop the traffic.

I expect the only way to make the council reconsider is to turn out in large numbers, block the road for days on end until the council decide to admit their mistake.

What happens when the audit says there is nothing wrong with it?

The council wags their finger at us and says "see, we know best, the audit said so"

How about the adver ask the council some proper questions like the ones I've posed above. Ask them if they think it's safer than a controlled crossing. Ask if they would be happy for their children to cross there unsupervised ask them if traffic chaos in Swindon Town Centre will encourage visitors and customers into the town
The council are just parroting out the same thing over and over again. They seem to think they are there to polish their egos and refuse to admit when they get something wrong. SBC - you are there to serve the people. The residents of Swindon are not your enemy. You are there to serve and protect them. I've said before 20 mph is way to fast for this 'crossing' I've had people walk out in front of my car at that location. Fortunately I was only traveling at around 5-10mph because I was confused as to what was going on. I had to stop for the pedestrians. Those pedestrians as it happens did not stop and look at the road as used to be suggested by the green cross code and as anyone would do crossing any other uncontrolled road they just walked out without altering their stride. If I was traveling at 20mph I would have hit them as I wouldn't have stopped in time. How much is this independent audit going to cost? Who is sitting on this panel of auditor? Are they related in any way to any serving councilors or planners? Use some common sense for gods sake. Listen to the electorate. People aren't saying it's dangerous just to be awkward. People are saying it because they do not want to get hurt. A proper crossing will reduce the risk, or at the very least a lower speed limit. This will only be worse when the cinema opens and there will be a higher volumes of people crossing there. I expect it to cause traffic chaos as well, because once a stream of people come out the cinema and head towards the bus station it will hold up the traffic for quite some time as there will be nothing to stop the traffic. I expect the only way to make the council reconsider is to turn out in large numbers, block the road for days on end until the council decide to admit their mistake. What happens when the audit says there is nothing wrong with it? The council wags their finger at us and says "see, we know best, the audit said so" How about the adver ask the council some proper questions like the ones I've posed above. Ask them if they think it's safer than a controlled crossing. Ask if they would be happy for their children to cross there unsupervised ask them if traffic chaos in Swindon Town Centre will encourage visitors and customers into the town mug?
  • Score: 23

10:06am Wed 20 Aug 14

South Stand says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
suburbanbear wrote:
Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed?

Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd.

As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.
And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.
You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate.
Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suburbanbear[/bold] wrote: Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed? Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd. As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.[/p][/quote]And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.[/p][/quote]You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate. Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different? South Stand
  • Score: -16

10:10am Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
suburbanbear wrote:
Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed?

Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd.

As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.
And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.
A pedestrian, unlike a driver is able to stop quicker than a car and as they are moving more slowly in the first place should be much more able to avoid being knocked over. They also have only 1 thing to look at which is the on coming traffic, unlike drivers as detailed above.
I'm not saying that this pedestrian is at fault or the driver but it is always the operator of the more complex & harder to stop/manoeuvre that seems to have the assumption of guilt thrust upon them. In schemes like this that actively encourage pedestrians to amble into oncoming traffic that surely cannot be right or fair?
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suburbanbear[/bold] wrote: Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed? Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd. As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.[/p][/quote]And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.[/p][/quote]A pedestrian, unlike a driver is able to stop quicker than a car and as they are moving more slowly in the first place should be much more able to avoid being knocked over. They also have only 1 thing to look at which is the on coming traffic, unlike drivers as detailed above. I'm not saying that this pedestrian is at fault or the driver but it is always the operator of the more complex & harder to stop/manoeuvre that seems to have the assumption of guilt thrust upon them. In schemes like this that actively encourage pedestrians to amble into oncoming traffic that surely cannot be right or fair? GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 17

10:18am Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
suburbanbear wrote:
Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed?

Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd.

As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.
And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.
You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate.
Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?
Its not a matter of who is more considerate, its a matter of ensuring that EVERYONE is safe. The pedestrians from being hit by drivers because either the driver has no idea what the hell is going on or that a pedestrian has no idea what is going on and walks out in front of a car.
No driver wants to be responsible, or feel responsible for an accident involving a pedestrian at all.
If were talking about "consideration", consider this. How long does it take a pedestrian to stop walking compared to a car travelling at 20mph?
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suburbanbear[/bold] wrote: Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed? Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd. As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.[/p][/quote]And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.[/p][/quote]You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate. Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?[/p][/quote]Its not a matter of who is more considerate, its a matter of ensuring that EVERYONE is safe. The pedestrians from being hit by drivers because either the driver has no idea what the hell is going on or that a pedestrian has no idea what is going on and walks out in front of a car. No driver wants to be responsible, or feel responsible for an accident involving a pedestrian at all. If were talking about "consideration", consider this. How long does it take a pedestrian to stop walking compared to a car travelling at 20mph? GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 23

10:20am Wed 20 Aug 14

LocalBob80 says...

Just how many logins does a councillor need to steer a debate.
Failed on this one though
Just how many logins does a councillor need to steer a debate. Failed on this one though LocalBob80
  • Score: 12

10:22am Wed 20 Aug 14

Swindon_Lover says...

How many accidents do you think there are in Swindon every day / week or month? If this was anywhere else it wouldn't be in the news.

This is a great new development for Swindon and all most people on here can do is moan about it. Go to any other country in the world and they have crossing like this but for some reason people these days seem to be incapable of crossing a road. Maybe we should all have to ware hi-vis jackets when we go out or wrap ourselves in cotton wool?

Its not a case of lacking traffic lights of a zebra crossing the only problem here is a lack of COMMON SENSE from the drivers or the people crossing the road.
How many accidents do you think there are in Swindon every day / week or month? If this was anywhere else it wouldn't be in the news. This is a great new development for Swindon and all most people on here can do is moan about it. Go to any other country in the world and they have crossing like this but for some reason people these days seem to be incapable of crossing a road. Maybe we should all have to ware hi-vis jackets when we go out or wrap ourselves in cotton wool? Its not a case of lacking traffic lights of a zebra crossing the only problem here is a lack of COMMON SENSE from the drivers or the people crossing the road. Swindon_Lover
  • Score: -15

10:25am Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
suburbanbear wrote:
Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed?

Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd.

As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.
And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.
You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate.
Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?
Having tried to learn about some of the other schemes there does seem to be a bit of a trend in the successful areas. Exhibition St in London for example has been a "success" in the eyes of many people and the number of accidents has fallen. What the articles singing the praise of such schemes tend to not report is that these areas have also had the traffic flow reduced significantly by blocking off roads in to & off of that section of road.
By taking this additional volume of through traffic away the road would have been quieter anyway and probably have seen a drop in accident rate. The reports also don't give details on the numbers of cars using the area. If traffic flow drops by 40% and the accident drops by 15% how can it be classed as a success. more accidents are happening with less traffic. These numbers seem to be hidden away with only the headline accident number reported or published.
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suburbanbear[/bold] wrote: Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed? Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd. As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.[/p][/quote]And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.[/p][/quote]You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate. Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?[/p][/quote]Having tried to learn about some of the other schemes there does seem to be a bit of a trend in the successful areas. Exhibition St in London for example has been a "success" in the eyes of many people and the number of accidents has fallen. What the articles singing the praise of such schemes tend to not report is that these areas have also had the traffic flow reduced significantly by blocking off roads in to & off of that section of road. By taking this additional volume of through traffic away the road would have been quieter anyway and probably have seen a drop in accident rate. The reports also don't give details on the numbers of cars using the area. If traffic flow drops by 40% and the accident drops by 15% how can it be classed as a success. more accidents are happening with less traffic. These numbers seem to be hidden away with only the headline accident number reported or published. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 13

10:32am Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

Swindon_Lover wrote:
How many accidents do you think there are in Swindon every day / week or month? If this was anywhere else it wouldn't be in the news.

This is a great new development for Swindon and all most people on here can do is moan about it. Go to any other country in the world and they have crossing like this but for some reason people these days seem to be incapable of crossing a road. Maybe we should all have to ware hi-vis jackets when we go out or wrap ourselves in cotton wool?

Its not a case of lacking traffic lights of a zebra crossing the only problem here is a lack of COMMON SENSE from the drivers or the people crossing the road.
The development IS great, most people commenting on here agree that the development is great news for Swindon.
All people want is a sensible way to get to it that EVERYBODY understands & is comfortable using.
Yes other countries have implemented the schemes, in Holland, people looking into the success of the schemes are now determining that the reason they educe accidents is because people avoid using them & not because they are inherently safer. The areas they are used in are also far better suited to the schemes.
Main through routes that actually allow customers & staff to get to the development are not what these schemes are designed for.
The only area in Swindon that I can think of that suits this scheme would be Wood St in Old Town. It has low volume traffic, is not a primary through route but does need traffic access for the residents and shop for loading & unloading. I'm sure it would be a huge success in Wood St, just not Regent Circus.
[quote][p][bold]Swindon_Lover[/bold] wrote: How many accidents do you think there are in Swindon every day / week or month? If this was anywhere else it wouldn't be in the news. This is a great new development for Swindon and all most people on here can do is moan about it. Go to any other country in the world and they have crossing like this but for some reason people these days seem to be incapable of crossing a road. Maybe we should all have to ware hi-vis jackets when we go out or wrap ourselves in cotton wool? Its not a case of lacking traffic lights of a zebra crossing the only problem here is a lack of COMMON SENSE from the drivers or the people crossing the road.[/p][/quote]The development IS great, most people commenting on here agree that the development is great news for Swindon. All people want is a sensible way to get to it that EVERYBODY understands & is comfortable using. Yes other countries have implemented the schemes, in Holland, people looking into the success of the schemes are now determining that the reason they educe accidents is because people avoid using them & not because they are inherently safer. The areas they are used in are also far better suited to the schemes. Main through routes that actually allow customers & staff to get to the development are not what these schemes are designed for. The only area in Swindon that I can think of that suits this scheme would be Wood St in Old Town. It has low volume traffic, is not a primary through route but does need traffic access for the residents and shop for loading & unloading. I'm sure it would be a huge success in Wood St, just not Regent Circus. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 17

10:51am Wed 20 Aug 14

South Stand says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
suburbanbear wrote:
Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed?

Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd.

As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.
And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.
You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate.
Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?
Having tried to learn about some of the other schemes there does seem to be a bit of a trend in the successful areas. Exhibition St in London for example has been a "success" in the eyes of many people and the number of accidents has fallen. What the articles singing the praise of such schemes tend to not report is that these areas have also had the traffic flow reduced significantly by blocking off roads in to & off of that section of road.
By taking this additional volume of through traffic away the road would have been quieter anyway and probably have seen a drop in accident rate. The reports also don't give details on the numbers of cars using the area. If traffic flow drops by 40% and the accident drops by 15% how can it be classed as a success. more accidents are happening with less traffic. These numbers seem to be hidden away with only the headline accident number reported or published.
Poynton in Cheshire is just one example of many where up to 30,000 vehicles pass through in a day. It seems to have been a great success. Why? because vehicle drivers HAVE to consider other road users. I think it was you that said car drivers have many other things to do apart from looking for pedestrians crossing. I agree, so maybe the signage could be improved and as someone has said maybe flashing orange lights or something similar.
All I'm saying is maybe we should all be a little more considerate.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suburbanbear[/bold] wrote: Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed? Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd. As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.[/p][/quote]And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.[/p][/quote]You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate. Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?[/p][/quote]Having tried to learn about some of the other schemes there does seem to be a bit of a trend in the successful areas. Exhibition St in London for example has been a "success" in the eyes of many people and the number of accidents has fallen. What the articles singing the praise of such schemes tend to not report is that these areas have also had the traffic flow reduced significantly by blocking off roads in to & off of that section of road. By taking this additional volume of through traffic away the road would have been quieter anyway and probably have seen a drop in accident rate. The reports also don't give details on the numbers of cars using the area. If traffic flow drops by 40% and the accident drops by 15% how can it be classed as a success. more accidents are happening with less traffic. These numbers seem to be hidden away with only the headline accident number reported or published.[/p][/quote]Poynton in Cheshire is just one example of many where up to 30,000 vehicles pass through in a day. It seems to have been a great success. Why? because vehicle drivers HAVE to consider other road users. I think it was you that said car drivers have many other things to do apart from looking for pedestrians crossing. I agree, so maybe the signage could be improved and as someone has said maybe flashing orange lights or something similar. All I'm saying is maybe we should all be a little more considerate. South Stand
  • Score: -15

10:52am Wed 20 Aug 14

Old Town Comment says...

There are so many value led comments on here, I will keep my counsel, but let's consider one comparison.

Recently Tesco decided to revamp their County Ground store. They realised that it was going to be highly disruptive to customers and staff alike, hence they employed 5-10 store walkers at busy times to help. This was not a dangerous situation, but they realised for some it may be stressful.

So if SBC feel that this a great new way to run traffic junctions, let's consider the process. Could they employ 3 or 4 traffic advisors at busy times to help those who find this a challenging junction.

Those who are scared would feel reassured, drivers would notice the obligatory hi-vis vests as a learning point AND the advisors would be a great real life feedback on if it was working.

A bit of handson on care from our council at this point would go a long way.
There are so many value led comments on here, I will keep my counsel, but let's consider one comparison. Recently Tesco decided to revamp their County Ground store. They realised that it was going to be highly disruptive to customers and staff alike, hence they employed 5-10 store walkers at busy times to help. This was not a dangerous situation, but they realised for some it may be stressful. So if SBC feel that this a great new way to run traffic junctions, let's consider the process. Could they employ 3 or 4 traffic advisors at busy times to help those who find this a challenging junction. Those who are scared would feel reassured, drivers would notice the obligatory hi-vis vests as a learning point AND the advisors would be a great real life feedback on if it was working. A bit of handson on care from our council at this point would go a long way. Old Town Comment
  • Score: 8

11:06am Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
suburbanbear wrote:
Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed?

Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd.

As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.
And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.
You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate.
Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?
Having tried to learn about some of the other schemes there does seem to be a bit of a trend in the successful areas. Exhibition St in London for example has been a "success" in the eyes of many people and the number of accidents has fallen. What the articles singing the praise of such schemes tend to not report is that these areas have also had the traffic flow reduced significantly by blocking off roads in to & off of that section of road.
By taking this additional volume of through traffic away the road would have been quieter anyway and probably have seen a drop in accident rate. The reports also don't give details on the numbers of cars using the area. If traffic flow drops by 40% and the accident drops by 15% how can it be classed as a success. more accidents are happening with less traffic. These numbers seem to be hidden away with only the headline accident number reported or published.
Poynton in Cheshire is just one example of many where up to 30,000 vehicles pass through in a day. It seems to have been a great success. Why? because vehicle drivers HAVE to consider other road users. I think it was you that said car drivers have many other things to do apart from looking for pedestrians crossing. I agree, so maybe the signage could be improved and as someone has said maybe flashing orange lights or something similar.
All I'm saying is maybe we should all be a little more considerate.
"Flashing lights or something similar"
What you have just described is a Zebra crossing or a normal pedestrian crossing!
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suburbanbear[/bold] wrote: Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed? Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd. As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.[/p][/quote]And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.[/p][/quote]You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate. Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?[/p][/quote]Having tried to learn about some of the other schemes there does seem to be a bit of a trend in the successful areas. Exhibition St in London for example has been a "success" in the eyes of many people and the number of accidents has fallen. What the articles singing the praise of such schemes tend to not report is that these areas have also had the traffic flow reduced significantly by blocking off roads in to & off of that section of road. By taking this additional volume of through traffic away the road would have been quieter anyway and probably have seen a drop in accident rate. The reports also don't give details on the numbers of cars using the area. If traffic flow drops by 40% and the accident drops by 15% how can it be classed as a success. more accidents are happening with less traffic. These numbers seem to be hidden away with only the headline accident number reported or published.[/p][/quote]Poynton in Cheshire is just one example of many where up to 30,000 vehicles pass through in a day. It seems to have been a great success. Why? because vehicle drivers HAVE to consider other road users. I think it was you that said car drivers have many other things to do apart from looking for pedestrians crossing. I agree, so maybe the signage could be improved and as someone has said maybe flashing orange lights or something similar. All I'm saying is maybe we should all be a little more considerate.[/p][/quote]"Flashing lights or something similar" What you have just described is a Zebra crossing or a normal pedestrian crossing! GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 29

11:17am Wed 20 Aug 14

Itssomewheretowork says...

The Adver has carried several articles relating to the dangers with the pedestrian crossing area relating to bikes and pedestrians and each time the council will say it will be audited when it is finished. In the real world we have do undertake audits and Risk Assessment before we even start. I think anybody injured could have a successful claim against the council if they have done a risk assessment and mitigated the risk before starting.

The temporary signs say pedestrian crossing and drivers , certainly those from out of town would be expecting black and white stripes or a lights operated crossing. In addition if turning right into the area from Princes Street the view is not very good and illegally parked cars don't help.
I am sure that this will not be an isolated incident until the council does something about it. With Fleming Way being closed to none bus traffic in the future, this route will be one of two ways across the centre of town, so installing this type of system mixing pedestrians and traffic is crazy.
The Adver has carried several articles relating to the dangers with the pedestrian crossing area relating to bikes and pedestrians and each time the council will say it will be audited when it is finished. In the real world we have do undertake audits and Risk Assessment before we even start. I think anybody injured could have a successful claim against the council if they have done a risk assessment and mitigated the risk before starting. The temporary signs say pedestrian crossing and drivers , certainly those from out of town would be expecting black and white stripes or a lights operated crossing. In addition if turning right into the area from Princes Street the view is not very good and illegally parked cars don't help. I am sure that this will not be an isolated incident until the council does something about it. With Fleming Way being closed to none bus traffic in the future, this route will be one of two ways across the centre of town, so installing this type of system mixing pedestrians and traffic is crazy. Itssomewheretowork
  • Score: 14

11:32am Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

There is a great video showing the advantages of shared-space on the link below.
Interestingly one of the things that is obvious in all but name is that the traffic light controlled areas have been removed and replaced essentially with roundabouts which, not surprisingly, have seemed to improve traffic flow.
The one thing this site does fail to mention, & judging by the videos seems to be apparent is whether the total number of cars through the area has fallen or not?
Bearing in mind there was 5 months of hideous traffic jams while the scheme was introduced, there may be a lot of people that simply do not drive through the area any more as a consequence/un-expec
ted bonus.

http://www.sustrans.
org.uk/our-services/
what-we-do/route-des
ign-and-construction
/shared-space-busy-i
ntersection-poynton
There is a great video showing the advantages of shared-space on the link below. Interestingly one of the things that is obvious in all but name is that the traffic light controlled areas have been removed and replaced essentially with roundabouts which, not surprisingly, have seemed to improve traffic flow. The one thing this site does fail to mention, & judging by the videos seems to be apparent is whether the total number of cars through the area has fallen or not? Bearing in mind there was 5 months of hideous traffic jams while the scheme was introduced, there may be a lot of people that simply do not drive through the area any more as a consequence/un-expec ted bonus. http://www.sustrans. org.uk/our-services/ what-we-do/route-des ign-and-construction /shared-space-busy-i ntersection-poynton GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 8

11:33am Wed 20 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
suburbanbear wrote:
Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed?

Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd.

As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.
And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.
You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate.
Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?
Having tried to learn about some of the other schemes there does seem to be a bit of a trend in the successful areas. Exhibition St in London for example has been a "success" in the eyes of many people and the number of accidents has fallen. What the articles singing the praise of such schemes tend to not report is that these areas have also had the traffic flow reduced significantly by blocking off roads in to & off of that section of road.
By taking this additional volume of through traffic away the road would have been quieter anyway and probably have seen a drop in accident rate. The reports also don't give details on the numbers of cars using the area. If traffic flow drops by 40% and the accident drops by 15% how can it be classed as a success. more accidents are happening with less traffic. These numbers seem to be hidden away with only the headline accident number reported or published.
Poynton in Cheshire is just one example of many where up to 30,000 vehicles pass through in a day. It seems to have been a great success. Why? because vehicle drivers HAVE to consider other road users. I think it was you that said car drivers have many other things to do apart from looking for pedestrians crossing. I agree, so maybe the signage could be improved and as someone has said maybe flashing orange lights or something similar.
All I'm saying is maybe we should all be a little more considerate.
Dont forget all the other things drivers have to do like changing the music on the radio or ipod, lighting a fag, on the phone or texting, turning round to talk to someone else in the car etc! In town centre accidents it is very very rare that the driver is hurt, is it pretty much always the pedestrian, so clearly while both sides do need to be alert to what is around them, drivers need to be more so as they can and will do the most damage if their is an accident.
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]suburbanbear[/bold] wrote: Before we bash the council on this one, did anyone see that the driver didn't stop when the pedestrian put her hands up, even though they were not going at speed? Maybe the pedestrian shouldn't have crossed when they did, maybe the driver should've been paying attention, but to blame this on the fact there isn't a proper crossing (yet) is absurd. As a driver and a pedestrian you need to have your wits about you. As those of you who drive may already know, you have to be everyone else's eyes as well as your own.[/p][/quote]And as a driver in how many different directions are you supposed to look at the same time. maybe they were checking their mirrors so they could change lane, maybe they were looking at the other side of the road in case someone else walked out in front of them or maybe they were checking their speed, or looking at the the now non-delineated junction they were approaching and trying to work out what the hell the priorities are or are not.[/p][/quote]You're in a car, they are on foot. It doesn't take a genius to work out who should be more considerate. Have a look at other 'shared space schemes', throughout the country to see how well they work. Why should Swindon be any different?[/p][/quote]Having tried to learn about some of the other schemes there does seem to be a bit of a trend in the successful areas. Exhibition St in London for example has been a "success" in the eyes of many people and the number of accidents has fallen. What the articles singing the praise of such schemes tend to not report is that these areas have also had the traffic flow reduced significantly by blocking off roads in to & off of that section of road. By taking this additional volume of through traffic away the road would have been quieter anyway and probably have seen a drop in accident rate. The reports also don't give details on the numbers of cars using the area. If traffic flow drops by 40% and the accident drops by 15% how can it be classed as a success. more accidents are happening with less traffic. These numbers seem to be hidden away with only the headline accident number reported or published.[/p][/quote]Poynton in Cheshire is just one example of many where up to 30,000 vehicles pass through in a day. It seems to have been a great success. Why? because vehicle drivers HAVE to consider other road users. I think it was you that said car drivers have many other things to do apart from looking for pedestrians crossing. I agree, so maybe the signage could be improved and as someone has said maybe flashing orange lights or something similar. All I'm saying is maybe we should all be a little more considerate.[/p][/quote]Dont forget all the other things drivers have to do like changing the music on the radio or ipod, lighting a fag, on the phone or texting, turning round to talk to someone else in the car etc! In town centre accidents it is very very rare that the driver is hurt, is it pretty much always the pedestrian, so clearly while both sides do need to be alert to what is around them, drivers need to be more so as they can and will do the most damage if their is an accident. house on the hill
  • Score: -1

12:01pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Robh says...

Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is. Robh
  • Score: -17

12:12pm Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
4064913.Father_tells
_of_grief_after_son_
s_road_accident_deat
h/
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/ GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 13

12:22pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Robh says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad

vertiser.co.uk/news/

4064913.Father_tells

_of_grief_after_son_

s_road_accident_deat

h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving. Robh
  • Score: -14

12:38pm Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

Robh wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad


vertiser.co.uk/news/


4064913.Father_tells


_of_grief_after_son_


s_road_accident_deat


h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
Utter rubbish.
In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes.
Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes. Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 17

12:50pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Alan Bast*rd says...

The old traffic system there was fine, just like whalebridge was.
As area is designed to attract people, that means there will be large numbers of cars and pedestrians in the vacinity and using the shared area. Plenty of these pedestrians will be intoxicated so making the crossing as obvious and simple as possible should have been the aim from the outset.
The old traffic system there was fine, just like whalebridge was. As area is designed to attract people, that means there will be large numbers of cars and pedestrians in the vacinity and using the shared area. Plenty of these pedestrians will be intoxicated so making the crossing as obvious and simple as possible should have been the aim from the outset. Alan Bast*rd
  • Score: 18

12:57pm Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

Interesting figures from the Poynton scheme.
In 5 years (July 05-10) there were nine accidents, one involving a pedestrian.
In 2 years (March 12-14) there were six accidents, four involving a pedestrian.
Taken on a yearly basis that's 1.8 accidents per year, 0.2 involving pedestrians before the scheme & 3 accidents per year, 2 involving pedestrians after the scheme. On these crude stat's that's an increase of 66% for accidents in general and an increase of 1000% for those involving pedestrians.
Details were found here http://www.wiltshire
times.co.uk/news/112
74430.Police_boss_vo
ws_to_keep_Bradford_
on_Avon_HCZ_safe/
Interesting figures from the Poynton scheme. In 5 years (July 05-10) there were nine accidents, one involving a pedestrian. In 2 years (March 12-14) there were six accidents, four involving a pedestrian. Taken on a yearly basis that's 1.8 accidents per year, 0.2 involving pedestrians before the scheme & 3 accidents per year, 2 involving pedestrians after the scheme. On these crude stat's that's an increase of 66% for accidents in general and an increase of 1000% for those involving pedestrians. Details were found here http://www.wiltshire times.co.uk/news/112 74430.Police_boss_vo ws_to_keep_Bradford_ on_Avon_HCZ_safe/ GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 5

12:58pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Cooking_by_smoke_alarm says...

Tommyvercetti says...

The result of another excellent planning decision by swindon borough clownschool and their cronies
Score: 9

To blanket slate the council when they have done some good things....e.g the pedestrian islands on some of the major roads so folks can cross the road more easily (Farringdon Road), seems a tad harsh.

Pedestrians need to be aware and drivers who need to be extra vigilant. Clear signage of who has priority would help....let it be the pedestrian.




Tommyvercetti says... The result of another excellent planning decision by swindon borough clownschool and their cronies Score: 9 To blanket slate the council when they have done some good things....e.g the pedestrian islands on some of the major roads so folks can cross the road more easily (Farringdon Road), seems a tad harsh. Pedestrians need to be aware and drivers who need to be extra vigilant. Clear signage of who has priority would help....let it be the pedestrian.   Cooking_by_smoke_alarm
  • Score: -9

12:59pm Wed 20 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

Alan Bast*rd wrote:
The old traffic system there was fine, just like whalebridge was.
As area is designed to attract people, that means there will be large numbers of cars and pedestrians in the vacinity and using the shared area. Plenty of these pedestrians will be intoxicated so making the crossing as obvious and simple as possible should have been the aim from the outset.
Strange isn't it that it is illegal to drink and drive, but not illegal to drink and walk out in the road in front of a car which is probably more dangerous. If this area is going to be shared by cars and people as it clearly is then those "intoxicated" need to be aware of this as much as the drivers. Sadly drunken idiots probably wont even see a crossing no matter how obvious it is so sadly accidents will happen there I am sure.

But do agree that Whalebridge was fine and the changes are just stupid.
[quote][p][bold]Alan Bast*rd[/bold] wrote: The old traffic system there was fine, just like whalebridge was. As area is designed to attract people, that means there will be large numbers of cars and pedestrians in the vacinity and using the shared area. Plenty of these pedestrians will be intoxicated so making the crossing as obvious and simple as possible should have been the aim from the outset.[/p][/quote]Strange isn't it that it is illegal to drink and drive, but not illegal to drink and walk out in the road in front of a car which is probably more dangerous. If this area is going to be shared by cars and people as it clearly is then those "intoxicated" need to be aware of this as much as the drivers. Sadly drunken idiots probably wont even see a crossing no matter how obvious it is so sadly accidents will happen there I am sure. But do agree that Whalebridge was fine and the changes are just stupid. house on the hill
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Wed 20 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

Robh wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad


vertiser.co.uk/news/


4064913.Father_tells


_of_grief_after_son_


s_road_accident_deat


h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
Maybe you would like to go and say that to the family of the girl tragically run down in Moredon the other month! Not everyone looks or makes it obvious they are about to cross no matter how vigilant you are. I have had more than one cyclist happily on the cycle path on the pavement suddenly decide he is going to go on the road just in front of me without bothering to look. There is a responsibility on both sides, but sadly for too many that word is not in their vocabulary!
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]Maybe you would like to go and say that to the family of the girl tragically run down in Moredon the other month! Not everyone looks or makes it obvious they are about to cross no matter how vigilant you are. I have had more than one cyclist happily on the cycle path on the pavement suddenly decide he is going to go on the road just in front of me without bothering to look. There is a responsibility on both sides, but sadly for too many that word is not in their vocabulary! house on the hill
  • Score: 1

1:44pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Robh says...

house on the hill wrote:
Robh wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad



vertiser.co.uk/news/



4064913.Father_tells



_of_grief_after_son_



s_road_accident_deat



h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
Maybe you would like to go and say that to the family of the girl tragically run down in Moredon the other month! Not everyone looks or makes it obvious they are about to cross no matter how vigilant you are. I have had more than one cyclist happily on the cycle path on the pavement suddenly decide he is going to go on the road just in front of me without bothering to look. There is a responsibility on both sides, but sadly for too many that word is not in their vocabulary!
I do take extra care when I see kids or elderly people at he side of the road. After many years of driving you learn to expect the unexpected. I leave you to draw your conclusions on my feelings about the tragedy at Moredon.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]Maybe you would like to go and say that to the family of the girl tragically run down in Moredon the other month! Not everyone looks or makes it obvious they are about to cross no matter how vigilant you are. I have had more than one cyclist happily on the cycle path on the pavement suddenly decide he is going to go on the road just in front of me without bothering to look. There is a responsibility on both sides, but sadly for too many that word is not in their vocabulary![/p][/quote]I do take extra care when I see kids or elderly people at he side of the road. After many years of driving you learn to expect the unexpected. I leave you to draw your conclusions on my feelings about the tragedy at Moredon. Robh
  • Score: -6

2:00pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Wildwestener says...

Alan Bast*rd wrote:
The old traffic system there was fine, just like whalebridge was.
As area is designed to attract people, that means there will be large numbers of cars and pedestrians in the vacinity and using the shared area. Plenty of these pedestrians will be intoxicated so making the crossing as obvious and simple as possible should have been the aim from the outset.
Spot on Mr Bast*rd
[quote][p][bold]Alan Bast*rd[/bold] wrote: The old traffic system there was fine, just like whalebridge was. As area is designed to attract people, that means there will be large numbers of cars and pedestrians in the vacinity and using the shared area. Plenty of these pedestrians will be intoxicated so making the crossing as obvious and simple as possible should have been the aim from the outset.[/p][/quote]Spot on Mr Bast*rd Wildwestener
  • Score: 19

3:06pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Alan Bast*rd says...

Someone pro council is targetting comments here. Unfortunately for them opinion on this issue far outweighs their manipulating tactics of the down voting. Strange individual who would think it would change anything
Someone pro council is targetting comments here. Unfortunately for them opinion on this issue far outweighs their manipulating tactics of the down voting. Strange individual who would think it would change anything Alan Bast*rd
  • Score: 15

3:21pm Wed 20 Aug 14

PJC says...

LordCharles wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it.

Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.
How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it.
Having Zebra or Pelican crossings is no guarantee you won't be run over, as I nearly have been several times. The only people who don't understand shared space road surfaces are selfish and a bit dim, frankly.
[quote][p][bold]LordCharles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it. Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.[/p][/quote]How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it.[/p][/quote]Having Zebra or Pelican crossings is no guarantee you won't be run over, as I nearly have been several times. The only people who don't understand shared space road surfaces are selfish and a bit dim, frankly. PJC
  • Score: -18

3:38pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

Alan Bast*rd wrote:
Someone pro council is targetting comments here. Unfortunately for them opinion on this issue far outweighs their manipulating tactics of the down voting. Strange individual who would think it would change anything
Why get so obsessed about it then, Davey?

You always think the voting's being 'fiddled', just as your pal always thinks any people who don't automatically hate the council 'must' be one person using different logins.

Time the pair of you grew up and realised that not everyone shares your misguided views.
[quote][p][bold]Alan Bast*rd[/bold] wrote: Someone pro council is targetting comments here. Unfortunately for them opinion on this issue far outweighs their manipulating tactics of the down voting. Strange individual who would think it would change anything[/p][/quote]Why get so obsessed about it then, Davey? You always think the voting's being 'fiddled', just as your pal always thinks any people who don't automatically hate the council 'must' be one person using different logins. Time the pair of you grew up and realised that not everyone shares your misguided views. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: -17

3:40pm Wed 20 Aug 14

reader5 says...

I knew this would happen one day, unfortunately to this poor lady, the council do not know what they are doing, a few people i know have phoned the council and all they said to them is, you should only cross the road when you know it is safe, well that is what pedestrians are doing, its just that a lot of car users, are being blatantly ignorant to pedestrians and not giving way, there are some that do give way, like myself and other people i know but a lot do just ignore you and look ahead driving instead of waiting for the people to cross the road, do these people not understand they have to stop to give way!!!
I knew this would happen one day, unfortunately to this poor lady, the council do not know what they are doing, a few people i know have phoned the council and all they said to them is, you should only cross the road when you know it is safe, well that is what pedestrians are doing, its just that a lot of car users, are being blatantly ignorant to pedestrians and not giving way, there are some that do give way, like myself and other people i know but a lot do just ignore you and look ahead driving instead of waiting for the people to cross the road, do these people not understand they have to stop to give way!!! reader5
  • Score: -3

3:42pm Wed 20 Aug 14

reader5 says...

John~R wrote:
Put up some orange flashing lights and paint it with black and white strips so motorists can see that it's a pedestrian crossing where they should give way.
some people have contacted the council about this and all they say is they cannot do anything, as that is the way it has been designed, and they are trying to blame the contractors
[quote][p][bold]John~R[/bold] wrote: Put up some orange flashing lights and paint it with black and white strips so motorists can see that it's a pedestrian crossing where they should give way.[/p][/quote]some people have contacted the council about this and all they say is they cannot do anything, as that is the way it has been designed, and they are trying to blame the contractors reader5
  • Score: -2

3:43pm Wed 20 Aug 14

reader5 says...

both roads the one crossing up to the library and the one at rudies need to have pedestrian lights or something
both roads the one crossing up to the library and the one at rudies need to have pedestrian lights or something reader5
  • Score: 17

4:22pm Wed 20 Aug 14

umpcah says...

reader5 wrote:
John~R wrote:
Put up some orange flashing lights and paint it with black and white strips so motorists can see that it's a pedestrian crossing where they should give way.
some people have contacted the council about this and all they say is they cannot do anything, as that is the way it has been designed, and they are trying to blame the contractors
INCREDIBLE and is proof what overpaid tossers they are.
[quote][p][bold]reader5[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John~R[/bold] wrote: Put up some orange flashing lights and paint it with black and white strips so motorists can see that it's a pedestrian crossing where they should give way.[/p][/quote]some people have contacted the council about this and all they say is they cannot do anything, as that is the way it has been designed, and they are trying to blame the contractors[/p][/quote]INCREDIBLE and is proof what overpaid tossers they are. umpcah
  • Score: 16

4:44pm Wed 20 Aug 14

South Stand says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad



vertiser.co.uk/news/



4064913.Father_tells



_of_grief_after_son_



s_road_accident_deat



h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
Utter rubbish.
In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes.
Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.
In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes. Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.[/p][/quote]In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel. South Stand
  • Score: -13

5:07pm Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad




vertiser.co.uk/news/




4064913.Father_tells




_of_grief_after_son_




s_road_accident_deat




h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
Utter rubbish.
In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes.
Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.
In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Twaddle.
If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance.
Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way.

I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else.
The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time.
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes. Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.[/p][/quote]In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.[/p][/quote]Twaddle. If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance. Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way. I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else. The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 17

5:37pm Wed 20 Aug 14

beach1e says...

sounds like two people made an error of judgement..as for putting your hand out to stop a car? really? Superman?
sounds like two people made an error of judgement..as for putting your hand out to stop a car? really? Superman? beach1e
  • Score: 3

5:38pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Alan Bast*rd says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
Alan Bast*rd wrote:
Someone pro council is targetting comments here. Unfortunately for them opinion on this issue far outweighs their manipulating tactics of the down voting. Strange individual who would think it would change anything
Why get so obsessed about it then, Davey?

You always think the voting's being 'fiddled', just as your pal always thinks any people who don't automatically hate the council 'must' be one person using different logins.

Time the pair of you grew up and realised that not everyone shares your misguided views.
My name is Alan B*stard. You are clearly the one playing up so behave yourself. Naughty boy.
Obscure comments getting many votes when others are ignored. Yeah,ok then.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan Bast*rd[/bold] wrote: Someone pro council is targetting comments here. Unfortunately for them opinion on this issue far outweighs their manipulating tactics of the down voting. Strange individual who would think it would change anything[/p][/quote]Why get so obsessed about it then, Davey? You always think the voting's being 'fiddled', just as your pal always thinks any people who don't automatically hate the council 'must' be one person using different logins. Time the pair of you grew up and realised that not everyone shares your misguided views.[/p][/quote]My name is Alan B*stard. You are clearly the one playing up so behave yourself. Naughty boy. Obscure comments getting many votes when others are ignored. Yeah,ok then. Alan Bast*rd
  • Score: 19

6:03pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Localboy86 says...

It's so obvious who is manipulating the thumbs, when you look at threads like the one about swindon's roundabouts below, where this certain individual hasn't commented, then compare it to this thread, it's clear as day what is happening. You also notice the threads he doesn't comment on are much nicer. The sooner the adver ban him or name and shame him the better
It's so obvious who is manipulating the thumbs, when you look at threads like the one about swindon's roundabouts below, where this certain individual hasn't commented, then compare it to this thread, it's clear as day what is happening. You also notice the threads he doesn't comment on are much nicer. The sooner the adver ban him or name and shame him the better Localboy86
  • Score: 19

6:44pm Wed 20 Aug 14

LordCharles says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
LordCharles wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it.

Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.
How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it.
The system operates elsewhere, safely and efficiently.

Nobody has been killed, stop being so melodramatic.

However, people ARE killed on 'normal' crossings every year - so, remind us again how they're 'better'.
The "system" did note work for Caitlan Hunt in Rodbourne. She's dead. Grimsby and Gloucester are scrapping their shared space schemes. What works in other countries may depend on their road layout. The layout of Regent's Circus means that cars coming from the Groundwell Road area are blind until they have to turn right at Rudis. They cannot see the crossing until quite late. I Googled shared car/pedestrian spaces and 106 people have been killed around Europe since 2001 so your statement "Nobody has been killed" is incorrect. Google it.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordCharles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it. Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.[/p][/quote]How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it.[/p][/quote]The system operates elsewhere, safely and efficiently. Nobody has been killed, stop being so melodramatic. However, people ARE killed on 'normal' crossings every year - so, remind us again how they're 'better'.[/p][/quote]The "system" did note work for Caitlan Hunt in Rodbourne. She's dead. Grimsby and Gloucester are scrapping their shared space schemes. What works in other countries may depend on their road layout. The layout of Regent's Circus means that cars coming from the Groundwell Road area are blind until they have to turn right at Rudis. They cannot see the crossing until quite late. I Googled shared car/pedestrian spaces and 106 people have been killed around Europe since 2001 so your statement "Nobody has been killed" is incorrect. Google it. LordCharles
  • Score: 3

6:48pm Wed 20 Aug 14

South Stand says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad





vertiser.co.uk/news/





4064913.Father_tells





_of_grief_after_son_





s_road_accident_deat





h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
Utter rubbish.
In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes.
Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.
In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Twaddle.
If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance.
Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way.

I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else.
The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time.
Just to remind you of what your second sentence was, you said..........'Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement............
........'.
I said YES, if not you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
You said this was twaddle.
My answer is still YES and may I suggest a trip to the opticians for yourself. If you can't see every pedestrian in your driving line of sight you have a serious deficiency and you should not be driving.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes. Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.[/p][/quote]In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.[/p][/quote]Twaddle. If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance. Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way. I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else. The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time.[/p][/quote]Just to remind you of what your second sentence was, you said..........'Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement............ ........'. I said YES, if not you shouldn't be behind the wheel. You said this was twaddle. My answer is still YES and may I suggest a trip to the opticians for yourself. If you can't see every pedestrian in your driving line of sight you have a serious deficiency and you should not be driving. South Stand
  • Score: -18

7:33pm Wed 20 Aug 14

GrumpyLocal says...

South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad






vertiser.co.uk/news/






4064913.Father_tells






_of_grief_after_son_






s_road_accident_deat






h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
Utter rubbish.
In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes.
Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.
In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Twaddle.
If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance.
Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way.

I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else.
The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time.
Just to remind you of what your second sentence was, you said..........'Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement............

........'.
I said YES, if not you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
You said this was twaddle.
My answer is still YES and may I suggest a trip to the opticians for yourself. If you can't see every pedestrian in your driving line of sight you have a serious deficiency and you should not be driving.
I can SEE everyone on the pavement. There is no chance of observing all of them, at the same time, on both sides of the road and make judgement calls that tells me which direction every single one them is suddenly going to take. A pedestrian can change direction in the time it takes you to look in the mirror. You are delusional to think you are able to monitor all of there activities on top of other road users.
What you can do react to someone stepping out into the road, but weather that gives you enough time to stop is another question entirely.
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes. Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.[/p][/quote]In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.[/p][/quote]Twaddle. If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance. Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way. I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else. The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time.[/p][/quote]Just to remind you of what your second sentence was, you said..........'Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement............ ........'. I said YES, if not you shouldn't be behind the wheel. You said this was twaddle. My answer is still YES and may I suggest a trip to the opticians for yourself. If you can't see every pedestrian in your driving line of sight you have a serious deficiency and you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]I can SEE everyone on the pavement. There is no chance of observing all of them, at the same time, on both sides of the road and make judgement calls that tells me which direction every single one them is suddenly going to take. A pedestrian can change direction in the time it takes you to look in the mirror. You are delusional to think you are able to monitor all of there activities on top of other road users. What you can do react to someone stepping out into the road, but weather that gives you enough time to stop is another question entirely. GrumpyLocal
  • Score: 19

7:51pm Wed 20 Aug 14

South Stand says...

GrumpyLocal wrote:
South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad







vertiser.co.uk/news/







4064913.Father_tells







_of_grief_after_son_







s_road_accident_deat







h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
Utter rubbish.
In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes.
Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.
In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Twaddle.
If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance.
Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way.

I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else.
The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time.
Just to remind you of what your second sentence was, you said..........'Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement............


........'.
I said YES, if not you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
You said this was twaddle.
My answer is still YES and may I suggest a trip to the opticians for yourself. If you can't see every pedestrian in your driving line of sight you have a serious deficiency and you should not be driving.
I can SEE everyone on the pavement. There is no chance of observing all of them, at the same time, on both sides of the road and make judgement calls that tells me which direction every single one them is suddenly going to take. A pedestrian can change direction in the time it takes you to look in the mirror. You are delusional to think you are able to monitor all of there activities on top of other road users.
What you can do react to someone stepping out into the road, but weather that gives you enough time to stop is another question entirely.
We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I see all potential hazards in my line of sight and I believe anyone driving on the road should also be able to.
[quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes. Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.[/p][/quote]In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.[/p][/quote]Twaddle. If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance. Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way. I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else. The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time.[/p][/quote]Just to remind you of what your second sentence was, you said..........'Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement............ ........'. I said YES, if not you shouldn't be behind the wheel. You said this was twaddle. My answer is still YES and may I suggest a trip to the opticians for yourself. If you can't see every pedestrian in your driving line of sight you have a serious deficiency and you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]I can SEE everyone on the pavement. There is no chance of observing all of them, at the same time, on both sides of the road and make judgement calls that tells me which direction every single one them is suddenly going to take. A pedestrian can change direction in the time it takes you to look in the mirror. You are delusional to think you are able to monitor all of there activities on top of other road users. What you can do react to someone stepping out into the road, but weather that gives you enough time to stop is another question entirely.[/p][/quote]We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I see all potential hazards in my line of sight and I believe anyone driving on the road should also be able to. South Stand
  • Score: -14

9:02pm Wed 20 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

No one will ever get it right 100% of the time either driver or pedestrian it's just human nature so sadly accident will still occur! all we can do is try and put in place better crossings in sensible places and try and limit the number the best we can. No one concentrates every second they are driving or walking.
No one will ever get it right 100% of the time either driver or pedestrian it's just human nature so sadly accident will still occur! all we can do is try and put in place better crossings in sensible places and try and limit the number the best we can. No one concentrates every second they are driving or walking. house on the hill
  • Score: 9

10:57pm Wed 20 Aug 14

Phantom Poster says...

South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
South Stand wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
GrumpyLocal wrote:
Robh wrote:
Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.
What?
Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder.
Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver.
http://www.swindonad








vertiser.co.uk/news/








4064913.Father_tells








_of_grief_after_son_








s_road_accident_deat








h/
Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.
Utter rubbish.
In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes.
Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.
In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Twaddle.
If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance.
Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way.

I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else.
The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time.
Just to remind you of what your second sentence was, you said..........'Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement............



........'.
I said YES, if not you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
You said this was twaddle.
My answer is still YES and may I suggest a trip to the opticians for yourself. If you can't see every pedestrian in your driving line of sight you have a serious deficiency and you should not be driving.
I can SEE everyone on the pavement. There is no chance of observing all of them, at the same time, on both sides of the road and make judgement calls that tells me which direction every single one them is suddenly going to take. A pedestrian can change direction in the time it takes you to look in the mirror. You are delusional to think you are able to monitor all of there activities on top of other road users.
What you can do react to someone stepping out into the road, but weather that gives you enough time to stop is another question entirely.
We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I see all potential hazards in my line of sight and I believe anyone driving on the road should also be able to.
You remind me of survey which was done in 1981 asking people to compare their driving safety and skill to others. Amazingly 93% of the sample put themselves in the top 50%. It's a cognitive bias known as illusory superiority.
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GrumpyLocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: Regardless of the many comments on here the driver is at fault. As far as I know it is still illegal to run some one down regardless of who's right of way it is.[/p][/quote]What? Yes I'm sure it's illegal to get in a car, find a target and deliberately run them over. It's called pre-meditated murder. Having someone step out in front of a car that has no chance of stopping is something very different. As detailed on the link below this sort of incident is likely to be called "misadventure" by the pedestrian, removing all blame from the driver. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ 4064913.Father_tells _of_grief_after_son_ s_road_accident_deat h/[/p][/quote]Yes we know it is stupid to run out in front of a fast moving vehicle but I cannot see the excuse to drive into someone at 20 mph. You must have seen them about to cross if not you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]Utter rubbish. In an urban area there are pavements at the side of almost every road with people walking along them. Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement just in case they step out, when there are dozens around, whilst they also look out for other road users such as buses, cyclists & delivery vehicles you must have 3 heads and 6 eyes. Even if they are stood still at the side of the road looking left & right & you as a driver have spotted them, you will still run into them if they step out when you are only a few ft away.[/p][/quote]In answer to your second sentence.....YES. If not, you shouldn't be behind the wheel.[/p][/quote]Twaddle. If you are doing 20mph as you are legally allowed to do in this area and someone steps out giving you only a few ft to stop you will hit them & yes that is even when you are fully aware that they are there waiting to cross. No driver anywhere is prepared for some to walk out into the road with only a few ft stopping distance. Almost every driver however is aware that red on a set of traffic lights means stop, and a zebra crossing gives pedestrians the right of way. I sorry to say but sound like the worst type of driver. If you think you are able to do all of this you are probably more of a hazard on the road than anyone else. The stopping distance with good brakes, tyres & road surface is, according to the highway code 40ft. If some steps out in front of my car when I'm 30ft away & I have nowhere to turn to avoid them I simply am NOT going to stop in time.[/p][/quote]Just to remind you of what your second sentence was, you said..........'Are you suggesting that drivers should be able to observe every person on the pavement............ ........'. I said YES, if not you shouldn't be behind the wheel. You said this was twaddle. My answer is still YES and may I suggest a trip to the opticians for yourself. If you can't see every pedestrian in your driving line of sight you have a serious deficiency and you should not be driving.[/p][/quote]I can SEE everyone on the pavement. There is no chance of observing all of them, at the same time, on both sides of the road and make judgement calls that tells me which direction every single one them is suddenly going to take. A pedestrian can change direction in the time it takes you to look in the mirror. You are delusional to think you are able to monitor all of there activities on top of other road users. What you can do react to someone stepping out into the road, but weather that gives you enough time to stop is another question entirely.[/p][/quote]We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid. I see all potential hazards in my line of sight and I believe anyone driving on the road should also be able to.[/p][/quote]You remind me of survey which was done in 1981 asking people to compare their driving safety and skill to others. Amazingly 93% of the sample put themselves in the top 50%. It's a cognitive bias known as illusory superiority. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 13

7:53am Thu 21 Aug 14

Robh says...

beach1e wrote:
sounds like two people made an error of judgement..as for putting your hand out to stop a car? really? Superman?
No just a polite request for consideration.
[quote][p][bold]beach1e[/bold] wrote: sounds like two people made an error of judgement..as for putting your hand out to stop a car? really? Superman?[/p][/quote]No just a polite request for consideration. Robh
  • Score: -2

8:13am Thu 21 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

LordCharles wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
LordCharles wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it.

Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.
How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it.
The system operates elsewhere, safely and efficiently.

Nobody has been killed, stop being so melodramatic.

However, people ARE killed on 'normal' crossings every year - so, remind us again how they're 'better'.
The "system" did note work for Caitlan Hunt in Rodbourne. She's dead. Grimsby and Gloucester are scrapping their shared space schemes. What works in other countries may depend on their road layout. The layout of Regent's Circus means that cars coming from the Groundwell Road area are blind until they have to turn right at Rudis. They cannot see the crossing until quite late. I Googled shared car/pedestrian spaces and 106 people have been killed around Europe since 2001 so your statement "Nobody has been killed" is incorrect. Google it.
I meant that nobody has been killed on the new system in Swindon, fairly oviously - I'd have thought.

A woman tried dashing across between cars and misjudged it. For all we really know she may have just stepped out in front of the car in the thought that it'd have to stop, as she's hardly going to admit it.
[quote][p][bold]LordCharles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordCharles[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: The area is still like a building site at the moment. Let's see how the scheme works after it's actually complete and people have had a month or two to get used to it. Scrapping this progressive and forward thinking solution just because one person tried to dash across between cars and misjudged their run isn't a smart move.[/p][/quote]How can first time visitors to Swindon "Get used to it"? There will be a serious accident sooner or later and then perhaps this "progressive and forward thinking solution" will be scrapped and proper pedestrian crossings put back as they were. There were no serious injuries when it was a controlled crossing. Everyone knew what they had to do. If a car kills a person on that strange area what is the legal situation. "Oh. The old lady just ran into the road! It's not a proper crossing", could be a good excuse for killing someone there. Why should people have to dash between cars? In my experience cars don't stop for pedestrians waiting to cross in Regent's Circus. Perhaps you should go there and experience the indecision of drivers and pedestrians. It will get worse when the project is finished and more people use the centre. It will not help the success of the new centre if people have to risk injury to get across to it.[/p][/quote]The system operates elsewhere, safely and efficiently. Nobody has been killed, stop being so melodramatic. However, people ARE killed on 'normal' crossings every year - so, remind us again how they're 'better'.[/p][/quote]The "system" did note work for Caitlan Hunt in Rodbourne. She's dead. Grimsby and Gloucester are scrapping their shared space schemes. What works in other countries may depend on their road layout. The layout of Regent's Circus means that cars coming from the Groundwell Road area are blind until they have to turn right at Rudis. They cannot see the crossing until quite late. I Googled shared car/pedestrian spaces and 106 people have been killed around Europe since 2001 so your statement "Nobody has been killed" is incorrect. Google it.[/p][/quote]I meant that nobody has been killed on the new system in Swindon, fairly oviously - I'd have thought. A woman tried dashing across between cars and misjudged it. For all we really know she may have just stepped out in front of the car in the thought that it'd have to stop, as she's hardly going to admit it. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 3

12:51pm Sat 23 Aug 14

reader5 says...

i cross this road everyday and even yesterday i was waiting to cross with other people and the drivers (I've noticed mostly women) never stop to give way, its quite funny because they know you need to cross the road and they just keep their eyes looking forward as they have no regard for pedestrians, whoever these women are can you at least have some manners to let pedestrians cross, the elderly lady who was next to me, actually pointed her finger at the driver to let her notice to give way, and she just ignored her and just drove on, this is total ignorance, and very bad manners!
i cross this road everyday and even yesterday i was waiting to cross with other people and the drivers (I've noticed mostly women) never stop to give way, its quite funny because they know you need to cross the road and they just keep their eyes looking forward as they have no regard for pedestrians, whoever these women are can you at least have some manners to let pedestrians cross, the elderly lady who was next to me, actually pointed her finger at the driver to let her notice to give way, and she just ignored her and just drove on, this is total ignorance, and very bad manners! reader5
  • Score: 1

7:43pm Sun 24 Aug 14

Hammer5 says...

Where there is a road and a crossing people will at some stage get knocked down its not that hard to work out!
If someone is hit at a crossing it proves the council were right to raise the risk and in law that's job done!!!!
Where there is a road and a crossing people will at some stage get knocked down its not that hard to work out! If someone is hit at a crossing it proves the council were right to raise the risk and in law that's job done!!!! Hammer5
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree