3 ms·

Mildly chaotic behaviour is a perfectly normal thing for a densley populated urban area. And that chaotic behaviour is true of absolutely everyone. Drunk pede

by 7952 8y ago

Mildly chaotic behaviour is a perfectly normal thing for a densley populated urban area. And that chaotic behaviour is true of absolutely everyone. Drunk pedestrians walking into the road. Kids wobbling on their bikes or walking out into the street without looking. Getting cut up at roundabouts when someone is in a hurry. All these things are perfectly normal and suprisingly safe, except when you add cars the the mix. Then suddenly you need hundreds of rules to do the most basic things. And Oxford is a perfect example of a city centre that is completely inappropriate for cars. The roads are simply not designed for it, and there are thousands of chaotic normal people in close proximity. That is what causes the conflict and frustration.

foldr 8y ago
>That is what causes the conflict and frustration. So if a cyclist runs a red light and nearly knocks me over, it's not the cyclist causing that, even if they could easily have just stopped at the light?
- lmm 8y ago
  > So if a cyclist runs a red light and nearly knocks me over, it's not the cyclist causing that, even if they could easily have just stopped at the light? Sounds like it's the light that's causing it, given how much you're focusing on the light in your comments. Take the light out of the picture (which probably requires taking cars off of that road) and what would happen?
  - foldr 8y ago
    That would make it worse, since the issue is that you often can't see the bike coming. (Bikes are quiet and quite difficult to detect in peripheral vision.) When there's a convention that everyone stops at certain times to let pedestrians cross the road, you don't have to worry too much about that -- if people actually follow the rules.
    - lmm 8y ago
      I've never seen a no-motor-traffic intersection that used or needed lights. Somehow cyclists and pedestrians manage to negotiate priority at junctions on paths, cycleways, and in pedestrianized town centers just fine, human-to-human, even blind corners.
      - foldr 8y ago
        Who said anything about no-motor-traffic intersections? I'm talking about cyclists in London. Regardless, it's pretty eccentric to suggest that traffic lights are responsible for collisions caused by people who ignore them. However safe a particular intersection currently is, removing traffic lights from it will make it less safe than that. That might be tolerable in a scenario where there's no motor traffic. But there is, obviously, motor traffic in London.
        lmm 8y ago
        > Who said anything about no-motor-traffic intersections? I'm talking about cyclists in London. You seemed to imply that safety at intersections between cyclists and pedestrians needed or was helped by traffic lights. I don't think that's true. > Regardless, it's pretty eccentric to suggest that traffic lights are responsible for collisions caused by people who ignore them. However safe a particular intersection currently is, removing traffic lights from it will make it less safe than that. There's an increasingly mainstream view that just the opposite is true, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/removal-road-markings-safer-fewer-accidents-drivers https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...
        foldr 8y ago
        >You seemed to imply that safety at intersections between cyclists and pedestrians needed or was helped by traffic lights. I don't think that's true. Safety is helped in London, in the real world, when people don't run red lights. You seemed to be saying that this wouldn't be the case if there were no cars, which is totally irrelevant. >There's an increasingly mainstream view that just the opposite is true Try crossing a busy road which doesn't have any lights. I have one of those on my walk back from work, and it's by far the most dangerous crossing.
- 7952 8y ago
  I am talking about what causes the conflict and frustration. That is based on perception and emotion. It has nothing to do with assigning blame or responsbilitiy in a collision.
gargravarr 8y ago
There's 'chaotic' and 'absolutely suicidal' when steaming down St. Aldates towards Folley Island, where there's a T-junction with traffic lights, and a number of regular buses.

by 7952 8y ago

foldr 8y ago

>That is what causes the conflict and frustration. So if a cyclist runs a red light and nearly knocks me over, it's not the cyclist causing that, even if they could easily have just stopped at the light?

lmm 8y ago
> So if a cyclist runs a red light and nearly knocks me over, it's not the cyclist causing that, even if they could easily have just stopped at the light? Sounds like it's the light that's causing it, given how much you're focusing on the light in your comments. Take the light out of the picture (which probably requires taking cars off of that road) and what would happen?
- foldr 8y ago
  That would make it worse, since the issue is that you often can't see the bike coming. (Bikes are quiet and quite difficult to detect in peripheral vision.) When there's a convention that everyone stops at certain times to let pedestrians cross the road, you don't have to worry too much about that -- if people actually follow the rules.
  - lmm 8y ago
    I've never seen a no-motor-traffic intersection that used or needed lights. Somehow cyclists and pedestrians manage to negotiate priority at junctions on paths, cycleways, and in pedestrianized town centers just fine, human-to-human, even blind corners.
    - foldr 8y ago
      Who said anything about no-motor-traffic intersections? I'm talking about cyclists in London. Regardless, it's pretty eccentric to suggest that traffic lights are responsible for collisions caused by people who ignore them. However safe a particular intersection currently is, removing traffic lights from it will make it less safe than that. That might be tolerable in a scenario where there's no motor traffic. But there is, obviously, motor traffic in London.
      - lmm 8y ago
        > Who said anything about no-motor-traffic intersections? I'm talking about cyclists in London. You seemed to imply that safety at intersections between cyclists and pedestrians needed or was helped by traffic lights. I don't think that's true. > Regardless, it's pretty eccentric to suggest that traffic lights are responsible for collisions caused by people who ignore them. However safe a particular intersection currently is, removing traffic lights from it will make it less safe than that. There's an increasingly mainstream view that just the opposite is true, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/removal-road-markings-safer-fewer-accidents-drivers https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/04/remova...
        foldr 8y ago
        >You seemed to imply that safety at intersections between cyclists and pedestrians needed or was helped by traffic lights. I don't think that's true. Safety is helped in London, in the real world, when people don't run red lights. You seemed to be saying that this wouldn't be the case if there were no cars, which is totally irrelevant. >There's an increasingly mainstream view that just the opposite is true Try crossing a busy road which doesn't have any lights. I have one of those on my walk back from work, and it's by far the most dangerous crossing.
7952 8y ago
I am talking about what causes the conflict and frustration. That is based on perception and emotion. It has nothing to do with assigning blame or responsbilitiy in a collision.

gargravarr 8y ago

There's 'chaotic' and 'absolutely suicidal' when steaming down St. Aldates towards Folley Island, where there's a T-junction with traffic lights, and a number of regular buses.