Overwhelming support for new Seven Dials junction layout

The Argus: An artist's impression of one of the new crossings An artist's impression of one of the new crossings

Plans to modify a treacherous road junction are set to be approved.

Nearly seven in ten residents who responded (67 per cent of 660) said they were happy with the proposals for the Seven Dials roundabout in Brighton, which has seen 20 accidents in the last three years.

Among 44 local businesses who responded, almost three quarters backed the idea.

The changes would see the central island enlarged, with a single lane created around it five metres wide.

This is planned to reduce vehicle speed.

Twenty three people have been injured within 25 metres of the junction over the last three years, with almost half of them cyclists.

Council officers have rejected claims that the measure would cause traffic jams or force large numbers of cars into surrounding streets.

Ian Davey, the chair of the council’s transport committee, said: “Our transport experts say these changes will make the junction safer for everyone.

“The improvements overall will make the Seven Dials a much more pleasant place to be, so we are delighted that the vast majority of residents and local traders support the proposals.”

The committee meets to consider the plans on January 15.

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:36am Tue 8 Jan 13

ruberducker says...

another nail in the coffin for the motorist.
another nail in the coffin for the motorist. ruberducker

12:01pm Tue 8 Jan 13

KJA_Cooke says...

The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s.

As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.
The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way. KJA_Cooke

12:06pm Tue 8 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

hear here
hear here StyleCop

12:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

charlie smirke says...

I wonder where they will get the money to pay for this? This Green party already want to increase our council tax, so will things like this give them another excuse for more increases? What about properly repairing all the potholes that are everywhere first? These potholes are a danger to all road users, particularly those on 2 wheels.
I wonder where they will get the money to pay for this? This Green party already want to increase our council tax, so will things like this give them another excuse for more increases? What about properly repairing all the potholes that are everywhere first? These potholes are a danger to all road users, particularly those on 2 wheels. charlie smirke

12:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

s&k says...

ruberducker wrote:
another nail in the coffin for the motorist.
Silly comment really. Road safety comes first.
[quote][p][bold]ruberducker[/bold] wrote: another nail in the coffin for the motorist.[/p][/quote]Silly comment really. Road safety comes first. s&k

12:14pm Tue 8 Jan 13

wexler53 says...

The problem is that most schemes created and carried out by the council take far longer to implement than they say, causing congestion for extended periods beyond that necessary. In addition, they are inevitably way over budget costing the taxpayer far more than they should. The outcome is questionable too, as the schemes are evolved by so called experts (who are these mystical people?) under the direction of amateurs with an axe to grind (in this case the Greens) who use dubious data sourced under questionable methods to make so called facts support their own rather narrow point of view...
How I would love to see some real independant scrutiny of council activity and financial activity....
The problem is that most schemes created and carried out by the council take far longer to implement than they say, causing congestion for extended periods beyond that necessary. In addition, they are inevitably way over budget costing the taxpayer far more than they should. The outcome is questionable too, as the schemes are evolved by so called experts (who are these mystical people?) under the direction of amateurs with an axe to grind (in this case the Greens) who use dubious data sourced under questionable methods to make so called facts support their own rather narrow point of view... How I would love to see some real independant scrutiny of council activity and financial activity.... wexler53

12:18pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Phani Tikkala says...

"Overwhelming support"? Really?

Council docs say:

440 in favour
220 against

But that doesn't count the petition of 1,385 against the proposals.

Overwhelming support indeed.... trebles all round etc.!
"Overwhelming support"? Really? Council docs say: 440 in favour 220 against But that doesn't count the petition of 1,385 against the proposals. Overwhelming support indeed.... trebles all round etc.! Phani Tikkala

12:20pm Tue 8 Jan 13

NickBtn says...

Amazing comment from KJA_Cooke: "The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way."

This isn't true. Maybe why I see so many near misses (and that there are so many accidents) as pedestrians cross as they wish in front of buses, cars etc

There are too many people who believe that they have right of way and priority. The highway code doesn't give priority to all pedestrians. It is shared depending on the situation

The safest way is to be defensive whether walking, cycling or driving.
Amazing comment from KJA_Cooke: "The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way." This isn't true. Maybe why I see so many near misses (and that there are so many accidents) as pedestrians cross as they wish in front of buses, cars etc There are too many people who believe that they have right of way and priority. The highway code doesn't give priority to all pedestrians. It is shared depending on the situation The safest way is to be defensive whether walking, cycling or driving. NickBtn

12:24pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Crystal Ball says...

KJA_Cooke wrote:
The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s.

As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.
Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not.

The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).
[quote][p][bold]KJA_Cooke[/bold] wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.[/p][/quote]Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above). Crystal Ball

12:42pm Tue 8 Jan 13

ruberducker says...

KJA_Cooke wrote:
The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s.

As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.
cars dont drive on the pavements,if you cross the road without looking you will get hurt,if i drove on the pavements im sure you would be the first to moan so why cant the car driver moan about stupid pedestrians that think they are supehuman and are invisible to being squashed--common sence really,and this will be another nail in the coffin for the disruption caused and delays that will have a knock on effect with increased traffic and polloution"very green".
[quote][p][bold]KJA_Cooke[/bold] wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.[/p][/quote]cars dont drive on the pavements,if you cross the road without looking you will get hurt,if i drove on the pavements im sure you would be the first to moan so why cant the car driver moan about stupid pedestrians that think they are supehuman and are invisible to being squashed--common sence really,and this will be another nail in the coffin for the disruption caused and delays that will have a knock on effect with increased traffic and polloution"very green". ruberducker

12:44pm Tue 8 Jan 13

RickH says...

Crystal Ball wrote:
KJA_Cooke wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.
Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).
Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road?

Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing."

Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise.

Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross.


Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light)

Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings."

Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way."

So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road.

It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way.

Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time!
[quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KJA_Cooke[/bold] wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.[/p][/quote]Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).[/p][/quote]Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road? Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise. Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross. Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light) Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings." Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way." So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road. It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way. Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time! RickH

12:47pm Tue 8 Jan 13

KJA_Cooke says...

I am fully aware of both sides of the argument as I am both a driver and pedestrian. Unfortunately, despite the valid points and opinions made by Crystal Ball and Nickbtn I have waited at crossings as drivers who have nowhere to go in a queue or at the light block the pedestrian path across the street. And, as a driver, I have had reckless individuals walk out in front of my car without seeming to give a thought, or showing any awareness, of what is happening around them. I would still contest that if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle the chances are that it will be the driver walking away from the accident and not the other way round. The safety of all users or road and pavement remains paramount.
I am fully aware of both sides of the argument as I am both a driver and pedestrian. Unfortunately, despite the valid points and opinions made by Crystal Ball and Nickbtn I have waited at crossings as drivers who have nowhere to go in a queue or at the light block the pedestrian path across the street. And, as a driver, I have had reckless individuals walk out in front of my car without seeming to give a thought, or showing any awareness, of what is happening around them. I would still contest that if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle the chances are that it will be the driver walking away from the accident and not the other way round. The safety of all users or road and pavement remains paramount. KJA_Cooke

12:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Nick Brighton says...

Crystal Ball wrote:
KJA_Cooke wrote:
The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s.

As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.
Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not.

The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).
Highway Code rule 195:
"you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing."

The word MUST there means that it is against the law not to do so.

A pedestrian has to be on the zebra crossing before cars MUST stop. Therefore pedestrians have to put a foot on the crossing, before the cars have stopped, in order to make them do so. Otherwise they could stand there all day.
[quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KJA_Cooke[/bold] wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.[/p][/quote]Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).[/p][/quote]Highway Code rule 195: "you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." The word MUST there means that it is against the law not to do so. A pedestrian has to be on the zebra crossing before cars MUST stop. Therefore pedestrians have to put a foot on the crossing, before the cars have stopped, in order to make them do so. Otherwise they could stand there all day. Nick Brighton

12:53pm Tue 8 Jan 13

KJA_Cooke says...

Thanks RickH, I thought I was correct on this having remembered being asked a question relating to this as part of my driving test.
Thanks RickH, I thought I was correct on this having remembered being asked a question relating to this as part of my driving test. KJA_Cooke

1:05pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Fercri Sakes says...

ruberducker wrote:
another nail in the coffin for the motorist.
And a smile on the face for local people.
[quote][p][bold]ruberducker[/bold] wrote: another nail in the coffin for the motorist.[/p][/quote]And a smile on the face for local people. Fercri Sakes

1:08pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Metro Reader says...

Not surprised but come one argus who much support was their and was it really overwhelming? We need facts and figures. Its 2013 and I expected more!

The junction is in need of improvement but making one major through road one way is NOT the answer.

As for the council experts, if they were that good they would not have provided 3 options.

On the point of pedestrians’ crossing the road (other than at designated crossing). A driver must give way to a pedestrian when they are already crossing the road, at the point were the vehicle is turning into that road.

It would also be beneficial to teach people the green cross code.

STOP LOOK LISTEN - applies to crossing the road and the mess the greens have gotten us in to.
Not surprised but come one argus who much support was their and was it really overwhelming? We need facts and figures. Its 2013 and I expected more! The junction is in need of improvement but making one major through road one way is NOT the answer. As for the council experts, if they were that good they would not have provided 3 options. On the point of pedestrians’ crossing the road (other than at designated crossing). A driver must give way to a pedestrian when they are already crossing the road, at the point were the vehicle is turning into that road. It would also be beneficial to teach people the green cross code. STOP LOOK LISTEN - applies to crossing the road and the mess the greens have gotten us in to. Metro Reader

1:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Bob_The_Ferret says...

Ian Davey and his so called transport experts are intent on doing their own thing here as elsewhere in the city with no regard for the views and concerns of the local residents and those affected by the proposals.

They are just plainly ignoring the concerns raised by residents at the meetings and those who have signed the petition opposing the scheme, who outnumber by far the number of respondents to the council's own consultation. I wonder how many of the consultation responses were rejected for being rather too strongly worded in their opposition to the changes?

The only thing of merit in the proposals (as revised) seems to be removing the obstructive tree in the pavement on Vernon Terrace. Everything else will have detrimental effects on traffic flow and safety. The idiots presenting the proposals even went as far as saying that the intention of removing the railings and making the island larger is to encourage people to cross directly across the middle of the junction, yet their own statistics show that this is exactly how and where most of the pedestrian casualties currently occur, with people not using the crossings, and wandering out willy, nilly.
Ian Davey and his so called transport experts are intent on doing their own thing here as elsewhere in the city with no regard for the views and concerns of the local residents and those affected by the proposals. They are just plainly ignoring the concerns raised by residents at the meetings and those who have signed the petition opposing the scheme, who outnumber by far the number of respondents to the council's own consultation. I wonder how many of the consultation responses were rejected for being rather too strongly worded in their opposition to the changes? The only thing of merit in the proposals (as revised) seems to be removing the obstructive tree in the pavement on Vernon Terrace. Everything else will have detrimental effects on traffic flow and safety. The idiots presenting the proposals even went as far as saying that the intention of removing the railings and making the island larger is to encourage people to cross directly across the middle of the junction, yet their own statistics show that this is exactly how and where most of the pedestrian casualties currently occur, with people not using the crossings, and wandering out willy, nilly. Bob_The_Ferret

1:26pm Tue 8 Jan 13

sussexram40 says...

20 accidents in 3 years it says.
Thats just over 6 accidents a year.
Would have thought you'd be hard pressed to find a roundabout where there haven't been 6 accidents a year on average.
The answer is for people to use the roads more safely and look. If you look, you don't have an accident.
have driven the Seven Dials many times - and agree it's a bit of a nasty one with some many roads converging, but have never crashed.
20 accidents in 3 years it says. Thats just over 6 accidents a year. Would have thought you'd be hard pressed to find a roundabout where there haven't been 6 accidents a year on average. The answer is for people to use the roads more safely and look. If you look, you don't have an accident. have driven the Seven Dials many times - and agree it's a bit of a nasty one with some many roads converging, but have never crashed. sussexram40

1:42pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Crystal Ball says...

RickH wrote:
Crystal Ball wrote:
KJA_Cooke wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.
Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).
Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road?

Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing."

Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise.

Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross.


Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light)

Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings."

Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way."

So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road.

It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way.

Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time!
This all seems a bit much for my old Puffing Devil. I will have to warn the man with the flag to be more alert in future.
[quote][p][bold]RickH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KJA_Cooke[/bold] wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.[/p][/quote]Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).[/p][/quote]Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road? Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise. Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross. Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light) Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings." Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way." So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road. It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way. Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time![/p][/quote]This all seems a bit much for my old Puffing Devil. I will have to warn the man with the flag to be more alert in future. Crystal Ball

1:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Kiddon72 says...

Crystal Ball wrote:
RickH wrote:
Crystal Ball wrote:
KJA_Cooke wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.
Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).
Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road? Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise. Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross. Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light) Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings." Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way." So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road. It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way. Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time!
This all seems a bit much for my old Puffing Devil. I will have to warn the man with the flag to be more alert in future.
Regardless of the wrights and wrongs that the pedants amongst us choose to argue, the fact remains:

If a pedestrian doesn't look and steps out in front of a tonne of moving metal, no matter what speed it is or isn't travelling at, the pedestrian will always come off the worst.
[quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RickH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KJA_Cooke[/bold] wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.[/p][/quote]Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).[/p][/quote]Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road? Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise. Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross. Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light) Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings." Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way." So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road. It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way. Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time![/p][/quote]This all seems a bit much for my old Puffing Devil. I will have to warn the man with the flag to be more alert in future.[/p][/quote]Regardless of the wrights and wrongs that the pedants amongst us choose to argue, the fact remains: If a pedestrian doesn't look and steps out in front of a tonne of moving metal, no matter what speed it is or isn't travelling at, the pedestrian will always come off the worst. Kiddon72

2:25pm Tue 8 Jan 13

paul76 says...

Looks like a nightmare. Currently depending on your direction of approach there are two lines of traffic onto the roundabout, meaning a quicker flow. With a reduced size no doubt it will be one lane of traffic approaching the roundabout and therefore big traffic jams in all directions.

No doubt this will lead to complaints about the volume of traffic and low and behold congestion charging. Stupid Greens.
Looks like a nightmare. Currently depending on your direction of approach there are two lines of traffic onto the roundabout, meaning a quicker flow. With a reduced size no doubt it will be one lane of traffic approaching the roundabout and therefore big traffic jams in all directions. No doubt this will lead to complaints about the volume of traffic and low and behold congestion charging. Stupid Greens. paul76

3:01pm Tue 8 Jan 13

RickH says...

Kiddon72 wrote:
Crystal Ball wrote:
RickH wrote:
Crystal Ball wrote:
KJA_Cooke wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.
Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).
Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road? Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise. Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross. Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light) Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings." Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way." So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road. It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way. Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time!
This all seems a bit much for my old Puffing Devil. I will have to warn the man with the flag to be more alert in future.
Regardless of the wrights and wrongs that the pedants amongst us choose to argue, the fact remains: If a pedestrian doesn't look and steps out in front of a tonne of moving metal, no matter what speed it is or isn't travelling at, the pedestrian will always come off the worst.
I completely agree; however, there is a world of difference between a pedestrian who doesn't take care when crossing the road and drivers who deliberately choose to ignore or flaunt the Highway Code when it comes to pedestrians.

It makes me wonder how much your point informs the way that some people drive, along with the view that some motorists appear to regard any other traffic on roads (eg predestrians and cyclists) as trespassers or interlopers to be generally ignored or disapply the Highway Code when sharing the road with them.

I've given up the number of times the driver of a car has 'beeped' me to get out the way when I've been crossing a junction they wish to turn into or those who have failed to slow down/stop as I've attempted to use a zebra crossing (especially along the Portland Road, where the wide & straight nature of the road appears to act as an invitation for certain motorists to drive with excessive speed).
[quote][p][bold]Kiddon72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RickH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KJA_Cooke[/bold] wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.[/p][/quote]Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).[/p][/quote]Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road? Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise. Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross. Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light) Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings." Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way." So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road. It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way. Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time![/p][/quote]This all seems a bit much for my old Puffing Devil. I will have to warn the man with the flag to be more alert in future.[/p][/quote]Regardless of the wrights and wrongs that the pedants amongst us choose to argue, the fact remains: If a pedestrian doesn't look and steps out in front of a tonne of moving metal, no matter what speed it is or isn't travelling at, the pedestrian will always come off the worst.[/p][/quote]I completely agree; however, there is a world of difference between a pedestrian who doesn't take care when crossing the road and drivers who deliberately choose to ignore or flaunt the Highway Code when it comes to pedestrians. It makes me wonder how much your point informs the way that some people drive, along with the view that some motorists appear to regard any other traffic on roads (eg predestrians and cyclists) as trespassers or interlopers to be generally ignored or disapply the Highway Code when sharing the road with them. I've given up the number of times the driver of a car has 'beeped' me to get out the way when I've been crossing a junction they wish to turn into or those who have failed to slow down/stop as I've attempted to use a zebra crossing (especially along the Portland Road, where the wide & straight nature of the road appears to act as an invitation for certain motorists to drive with excessive speed). RickH

3:02pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Sarah Booker Lewis says...

Metro Reader wrote:
Not surprised but come one argus who much support was their and was it really overwhelming? We need facts and figures. Its 2013 and I expected more!

The junction is in need of improvement but making one major through road one way is NOT the answer.

As for the council experts, if they were that good they would not have provided 3 options.

On the point of pedestrians’ crossing the road (other than at designated crossing). A driver must give way to a pedestrian when they are already crossing the road, at the point were the vehicle is turning into that road.

It would also be beneficial to teach people the green cross code.

STOP LOOK LISTEN - applies to crossing the road and the mess the greens have gotten us in to.
I agree the figures are important and are on the article now.

Readers should note a petition, no matter how many signatures it has, counts as one objection/letter of support.
[quote][p][bold]Metro Reader[/bold] wrote: Not surprised but come one argus who much support was their and was it really overwhelming? We need facts and figures. Its 2013 and I expected more! The junction is in need of improvement but making one major through road one way is NOT the answer. As for the council experts, if they were that good they would not have provided 3 options. On the point of pedestrians’ crossing the road (other than at designated crossing). A driver must give way to a pedestrian when they are already crossing the road, at the point were the vehicle is turning into that road. It would also be beneficial to teach people the green cross code. STOP LOOK LISTEN - applies to crossing the road and the mess the greens have gotten us in to.[/p][/quote]I agree the figures are important and are on the article now. Readers should note a petition, no matter how many signatures it has, counts as one objection/letter of support. Sarah Booker Lewis

3:18pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Mark63 says...

Ah here we go again - let's make every road just wide enough for a single pony and trap.. no passing, no going over 5 miles per hour and a green councillor walking in front of your car with a red flag... Its 1913... welcome to the dark ages! The junction just needs some lights that have a clever sequence...! Think outside the box Greens - its not all about narrow roads, wide cycle lanes and minimal speed limits... Stop punishing motorists - get the park and ride plans off the shelf and get clever... Make it an attractive proposition for people to visit by car - as that is how most will want to do it.
Ah here we go again - let's make every road just wide enough for a single pony and trap.. no passing, no going over 5 miles per hour and a green councillor walking in front of your car with a red flag... Its 1913... welcome to the dark ages! The junction just needs some lights that have a clever sequence...! Think outside the box Greens - its not all about narrow roads, wide cycle lanes and minimal speed limits... Stop punishing motorists - get the park and ride plans off the shelf and get clever... Make it an attractive proposition for people to visit by car - as that is how most will want to do it. Mark63

3:30pm Tue 8 Jan 13

aat99 says...

RickH wrote:
Kiddon72 wrote:
Crystal Ball wrote:
RickH wrote:
Crystal Ball wrote:
KJA_Cooke wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.
Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).
Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road? Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise. Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross. Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light) Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings." Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way." So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road. It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way. Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time!
This all seems a bit much for my old Puffing Devil. I will have to warn the man with the flag to be more alert in future.
Regardless of the wrights and wrongs that the pedants amongst us choose to argue, the fact remains: If a pedestrian doesn't look and steps out in front of a tonne of moving metal, no matter what speed it is or isn't travelling at, the pedestrian will always come off the worst.
I completely agree; however, there is a world of difference between a pedestrian who doesn't take care when crossing the road and drivers who deliberately choose to ignore or flaunt the Highway Code when it comes to pedestrians.

It makes me wonder how much your point informs the way that some people drive, along with the view that some motorists appear to regard any other traffic on roads (eg predestrians and cyclists) as trespassers or interlopers to be generally ignored or disapply the Highway Code when sharing the road with them.

I've given up the number of times the driver of a car has 'beeped' me to get out the way when I've been crossing a junction they wish to turn into or those who have failed to slow down/stop as I've attempted to use a zebra crossing (especially along the Portland Road, where the wide & straight nature of the road appears to act as an invitation for certain motorists to drive with excessive speed).
Motorists have special dispensation not to stop at any pedestrian crossing on Portland Road ... didn't you know. you need to wait until there are no cars before crossing ...
[quote][p][bold]RickH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kiddon72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RickH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Crystal Ball[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KJA_Cooke[/bold] wrote: The roundabout used to be wider in diameter and was reduced sometime around the 1980s. As for comments about 'another nail in the coffin for the motorist' - better that than a nail in the coffin for someones father, daughter etc. The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way.[/p][/quote]Only if they are halfway or more across the road. And drivers are "obliged" to stop at a pedestrian crossing when a person is waiting but it is not a legal, and therefore prosecutable, requirement if they do not. The door swings both ways as pedestrians using the crossings should wait until cars have stopped rather than launching themselves into the road in the hope that they will anyway (see point above).[/p][/quote]Are you sure about what you state ie pedestrians only have right of way when they are half-way or more across a road? Highway Code 195 (zebra crossing) states "...you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." Nothing there about 'half-way across' or otherwise. Rule 195 further states "..look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross." So there is a direct obligation on motorists to stop at such crossing to allow pedestrians to cross. Highway Code 196 (light-controlled crossing) states "...You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution." Nothing there about half-way across either (expect the implied position of someone crossing regarding an amber light) Highway Code 198 states "Give way to anyone still crossing after the signal for vehicles has changed to green. This advice applies to all crossings." Highway code 170 clearly states "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way." So the implication is quite clear; at zebra crossing, the moment a pedestrian sets foot on the crossing, cars must stop. And if executing a turn, any pedestrians already crossing also have right of way. Indeed, nowhere in the Highway Code is it stated or implied that pedestrians only have right of way when 'half way or more' across a road. It appears that the bottom line is that once a pedestrain has begun to cross a crossing or a crossing a junction into which you wish to turn, they have right of way. Please tell me you're not one of those drivers who think its perfectly acceptable not to stop at a crossing or accelerate in order to avoid stopping to save 30 seconds on your journey time![/p][/quote]This all seems a bit much for my old Puffing Devil. I will have to warn the man with the flag to be more alert in future.[/p][/quote]Regardless of the wrights and wrongs that the pedants amongst us choose to argue, the fact remains: If a pedestrian doesn't look and steps out in front of a tonne of moving metal, no matter what speed it is or isn't travelling at, the pedestrian will always come off the worst.[/p][/quote]I completely agree; however, there is a world of difference between a pedestrian who doesn't take care when crossing the road and drivers who deliberately choose to ignore or flaunt the Highway Code when it comes to pedestrians. It makes me wonder how much your point informs the way that some people drive, along with the view that some motorists appear to regard any other traffic on roads (eg predestrians and cyclists) as trespassers or interlopers to be generally ignored or disapply the Highway Code when sharing the road with them. I've given up the number of times the driver of a car has 'beeped' me to get out the way when I've been crossing a junction they wish to turn into or those who have failed to slow down/stop as I've attempted to use a zebra crossing (especially along the Portland Road, where the wide & straight nature of the road appears to act as an invitation for certain motorists to drive with excessive speed).[/p][/quote]Motorists have special dispensation not to stop at any pedestrian crossing on Portland Road ... didn't you know. you need to wait until there are no cars before crossing ... aat99

3:43pm Tue 8 Jan 13

anubis says...

After a sham 'consultation' and misrepresentation of local opinion on a scale never before seen in Brighton & Hove during the last half century, a tiny minority of votes cast for a Scheme and implications NOT disclosed to those asked to vote, the outcome was inevitable. Six months where three local Green councillors ignored scores of letters/emails from residents (one of the three publicly apologized for months of binning emails without opening them!) ... the inevitable tiny vote is portrayed as 'seven out of ten'. Those who REALLY want an analysis should ask horusinhove for a copy -- you'll find him at gmail.
After a sham 'consultation' and misrepresentation of local opinion on a scale never before seen in Brighton & Hove during the last half century, a tiny minority of votes cast for a Scheme and implications NOT disclosed to those asked to vote, the outcome was inevitable. Six months where three local Green councillors ignored scores of letters/emails from residents (one of the three publicly apologized for months of binning emails without opening them!) ... the inevitable tiny vote is portrayed as 'seven out of ten'. Those who REALLY want an analysis should ask horusinhove for a copy -- you'll find him at gmail. anubis

4:03pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Crystal Ball says...

Why not make the approach roads to the Seven Dials all one way with adjacent cycle lanes joining onto the Old Shoreham Road (it's not far away)? That would make things interesting.
Why not make the approach roads to the Seven Dials all one way with adjacent cycle lanes joining onto the Old Shoreham Road (it's not far away)? That would make things interesting. Crystal Ball

4:07pm Tue 8 Jan 13

GovindaTim says...

"Ian Davey, the chair of the council’s transport committee, said: “Our transport experts say these changes will make the junction safer for everyone." Are these the same Transport Experts that figured raising parking prices across the city would increase revenue?? I think we should be told.
"Ian Davey, the chair of the council’s transport committee, said: “Our transport experts say these changes will make the junction safer for everyone." Are these the same Transport Experts that figured raising parking prices across the city would increase revenue?? I think we should be told. GovindaTim

5:01pm Tue 8 Jan 13

haylz6 says...

NickBtn wrote:
Amazing comment from KJA_Cooke: "The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way."

This isn't true. Maybe why I see so many near misses (and that there are so many accidents) as pedestrians cross as they wish in front of buses, cars etc

There are too many people who believe that they have right of way and priority. The highway code doesn't give priority to all pedestrians. It is shared depending on the situation

The safest way is to be defensive whether walking, cycling or driving.
Well said!

So many times do I see pedestrians walking out to cross the road without even looking first! Equals the same number of times I see cyclists going through red lights and motorists on their phones!

The rules and laws are to protect us all!
[quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Amazing comment from KJA_Cooke: "The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way." This isn't true. Maybe why I see so many near misses (and that there are so many accidents) as pedestrians cross as they wish in front of buses, cars etc There are too many people who believe that they have right of way and priority. The highway code doesn't give priority to all pedestrians. It is shared depending on the situation The safest way is to be defensive whether walking, cycling or driving.[/p][/quote]Well said! So many times do I see pedestrians walking out to cross the road without even looking first! Equals the same number of times I see cyclists going through red lights and motorists on their phones! The rules and laws are to protect us all! haylz6

5:16pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Plantpot says...

Anyone in favour of the new 7 Dials proposals is either very dim or hasn't thought things through. Or Green.
Anyone in favour of the new 7 Dials proposals is either very dim or hasn't thought things through. Or Green. Plantpot

5:32pm Tue 8 Jan 13

wippasnapper says...

wexler53 wrote:
The problem is that most schemes created and carried out by the council take far longer to implement than they say, causing congestion for extended periods beyond that necessary. In addition, they are inevitably way over budget costing the taxpayer far more than they should. The outcome is questionable too, as the schemes are evolved by so called experts (who are these mystical people?) under the direction of amateurs with an axe to grind (in this case the Greens) who use dubious data sourced under questionable methods to make so called facts support their own rather narrow point of view...
How I would love to see some real independant scrutiny of council activity and financial activity....
The council taxpayer will not be picking up the bill as it is government grants that pay for it
[quote][p][bold]wexler53[/bold] wrote: The problem is that most schemes created and carried out by the council take far longer to implement than they say, causing congestion for extended periods beyond that necessary. In addition, they are inevitably way over budget costing the taxpayer far more than they should. The outcome is questionable too, as the schemes are evolved by so called experts (who are these mystical people?) under the direction of amateurs with an axe to grind (in this case the Greens) who use dubious data sourced under questionable methods to make so called facts support their own rather narrow point of view... How I would love to see some real independant scrutiny of council activity and financial activity....[/p][/quote]The council taxpayer will not be picking up the bill as it is government grants that pay for it wippasnapper

5:46pm Tue 8 Jan 13

wippasnapper says...

NickBtn wrote:
Amazing comment from KJA_Cooke: "The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way."

This isn't true. Maybe why I see so many near misses (and that there are so many accidents) as pedestrians cross as they wish in front of buses, cars etc

There are too many people who believe that they have right of way and priority. The highway code doesn't give priority to all pedestrians. It is shared depending on the situation

The safest way is to be defensive whether walking, cycling or driving.
Actually the pedestrians do have priority over motorists when it comes to crossing the road i.e. if the pedestrian is already in the road and crossing it the motorist should stop to let them continue! But as we all know most motorists are impatient and very rely slow down when approaching a junction and regardless of pedestrians crossing, if there is a pelican crossing on the other hand the pedestrians should wait until the lights say cross.
[quote][p][bold]NickBtn[/bold] wrote: Amazing comment from KJA_Cooke: "The motorist should be aware that pedestrians have priority when crossing the road and it should always be that way." This isn't true. Maybe why I see so many near misses (and that there are so many accidents) as pedestrians cross as they wish in front of buses, cars etc There are too many people who believe that they have right of way and priority. The highway code doesn't give priority to all pedestrians. It is shared depending on the situation The safest way is to be defensive whether walking, cycling or driving.[/p][/quote]Actually the pedestrians do have priority over motorists when it comes to crossing the road i.e. if the pedestrian is already in the road and crossing it the motorist should stop to let them continue! But as we all know most motorists are impatient and very rely slow down when approaching a junction and regardless of pedestrians crossing, if there is a pelican crossing on the other hand the pedestrians should wait until the lights say cross. wippasnapper

6:09pm Tue 8 Jan 13

sussexguy says...

"Twenty three people have been injured within 25 metres of the junction over the last three years, with almost half of them cyclists."

Well, surprise! Surprise! is it any wonder, when the council are encouraging more and more cyclists to use the roads, without doing anything whatsoever to discourage the appalling behaviour of some of them? Perhaps they should lay on classes to teach cyclists about the Highway Code, since so many of them are totally ignorant of it.
Today, I saw one idiot riding through the Imperial Arcade. If she did want to go through it, why on earth did she not get off and walk with the bike, instead of putting pedestrians at risk?
And where are the community police who are supposed to be putting a check on this sort of thing? Or have they given up, as it is such an uphill struggle to keep a control on them?
"Twenty three people have been injured within 25 metres of the junction over the last three years, with almost half of them cyclists." Well, surprise! Surprise! is it any wonder, when the council are encouraging more and more cyclists to use the roads, without doing anything whatsoever to discourage the appalling behaviour of some of them? Perhaps they should lay on classes to teach cyclists about the Highway Code, since so many of them are totally ignorant of it. Today, I saw one idiot riding through the Imperial Arcade. If she did want to go through it, why on earth did she not get off and walk with the bike, instead of putting pedestrians at risk? And where are the community police who are supposed to be putting a check on this sort of thing? Or have they given up, as it is such an uphill struggle to keep a control on them? sussexguy

6:15pm Tue 8 Jan 13

wippasnapper says...

Look lets be honest motorists, cyclist and pedestrians all in some way tribute towards road accidents, the council unforchantly has to fight everyone’s corner to implement the best for all but what riley gets up my goat is this constant statement from the green run council that “almost half of them cyclists” out of god knows how many other people injured in road traffic accidents but many motorists will tell you most cyclists course there own fatal accidents duo to there own stupidity and inconsideration for other road users let alone the pedestrians on the pavement so for the motorist who think they have priority think again because the green party will tell you the cyclists have priority over everyone regardless and if the green party have there way no cars et will be coming into B&H because they would like it a car free zone.

Bob The Ferret, I sympathies with you on the point
“Ian Davey and his so called transport experts are intent on doing their own thing here as elsewhere in the city with no regard for the views and concerns of the local residents and those affected by the proposals”.
As they stated the majority of residents in the Lewes Rd supported there plains to improve the Lewes Rd funny as it may seem the majority of residents I have spoken to that live along the Lewes rd stated to me they didn’t support it so yet again have the green party pushed aside other peoples concerns and made out the majority supported them – out the majority that didn’t.
Look lets be honest motorists, cyclist and pedestrians all in some way tribute towards road accidents, the council unforchantly has to fight everyone’s corner to implement the best for all but what riley gets up my goat is this constant statement from the green run council that “almost half of them cyclists” out of god knows how many other people injured in road traffic accidents but many motorists will tell you most cyclists course there own fatal accidents duo to there own stupidity and inconsideration for other road users let alone the pedestrians on the pavement so for the motorist who think they have priority think again because the green party will tell you the cyclists have priority over everyone regardless and if the green party have there way no cars et will be coming into B&H because they would like it a car free zone. Bob The Ferret, I sympathies with you on the point “Ian Davey and his so called transport experts are intent on doing their own thing here as elsewhere in the city with no regard for the views and concerns of the local residents and those affected by the proposals”. As they stated the majority of residents in the Lewes Rd supported there plains to improve the Lewes Rd funny as it may seem the majority of residents I have spoken to that live along the Lewes rd stated to me they didn’t support it so yet again have the green party pushed aside other peoples concerns and made out the majority supported them – out the majority that didn’t. wippasnapper

7:00pm Tue 8 Jan 13

anubis says...

The sham consultation's 'findings' were very different than is disclosed by Ian Davey and his cronies:

A total of 661 questionnaires were returned to the Council, 67% of them replying “Yes”. It was also reported 84% of respondents were ‘local residents’, so after several months of consultation, officially ending, 2nd November, a grand total of 370 local residents had voted ‘yes’ to the Council proposals (as they understood them to be) … and 185 had voted ‘no’ -- leading us to the important and interesting discussion related the manner in which local authorities manufacture and manipulate public opinion with fake surveys and questionnaires.

Throughout the consultation period, Council officers were specific; there was no intention to carry out a proper ‘research project’ to determine the views of everybody in the community, using a representative sample. This has almost always been the view of our local authority – indeed during research vis-à-vis ‘parking proposals’ in the year 2000, JMP circularized residents, asking for their views, while specifying the engineers were not seeking a representative sample. Proceeding in this way is perfectly legitimate; however, it is completely ‘out of order’ (arguably fraudulent) to misuse data obtained from a

Questionnaire of this kind, returned by such a tiny minority of the City population, and then present these ‘findings’ as coming from ‘a representative sample’ of residents (and users), therefore representing City community views, as a whole.

The population of Brighton & Hove is about a quarter of a million -- there are more than 14,000 registered voters in Goldsmid Ward, alone -- the 370 locals who returned the questionnaire and supported, in general, the proposals, AS THEY UNDERSTOOD THEM, is hardly ‘representative’ of any defined community.
The sham consultation's 'findings' were very different than is disclosed by Ian Davey and his cronies: A total of 661 questionnaires were returned to the Council, 67% of them replying “Yes”. It was also reported 84% of respondents were ‘local residents’, so after several months of consultation, officially ending, 2nd November, a grand total of 370 local residents had voted ‘yes’ to the Council proposals (as they understood them to be) … and 185 had voted ‘no’ -- leading us to the important and interesting discussion related the manner in which local authorities manufacture and manipulate public opinion with fake surveys and questionnaires. Throughout the consultation period, Council officers were specific; there was no intention to carry out a proper ‘research project’ to determine the views of everybody in the community, using a representative sample. This has almost always been the view of our local authority – indeed during research vis-à-vis ‘parking proposals’ in the year 2000, JMP circularized residents, asking for their views, while specifying the engineers were not seeking a representative sample. Proceeding in this way is perfectly legitimate; however, it is completely ‘out of order’ (arguably fraudulent) to misuse data obtained from a Questionnaire of this kind, returned by such a tiny minority of the City population, and then present these ‘findings’ as coming from ‘a representative sample’ of residents (and users), therefore representing City community views, as a whole. The population of Brighton & Hove is about a quarter of a million -- there are more than 14,000 registered voters in Goldsmid Ward, alone -- the 370 locals who returned the questionnaire and supported, in general, the proposals, AS THEY UNDERSTOOD THEM, is hardly ‘representative’ of any defined community. anubis

7:52pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Somethingsarejustwrong says...

More injuries on this stretch of road than can be proven caused by items manufactured in Brighton's EDO site.

Will we now see Gaz scott and the smashEDO thugs congregating in protest actions at this roundabout. Or maybe we could have the occupy Brighton protesters congregate en-mass. Plenty of room for all 3 of them (p.s. Gaz for clarity I have included you in that number).
More injuries on this stretch of road than can be proven caused by items manufactured in Brighton's EDO site. Will we now see Gaz scott and the smashEDO thugs congregating in protest actions at this roundabout. Or maybe we could have the occupy Brighton protesters congregate en-mass. Plenty of room for all 3 of them (p.s. Gaz for clarity I have included you in that number). Somethingsarejustwrong

9:15pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Here we go again a story which claims overwhelming support for a council scheme when the consultation does not show this.
The council issued a press release stating that the Lewes Road scheme had 'overwhelming public support'. I challenged this as the figures did not show this at all and the press release was untrue propoganda.
The press release was then withdrawn from the council's website after being published by The Argus without any correction being issued.
The council and Green party should apologise to the readers and the public for allowing untrue information to enter the public domain relating to this scheme and the Lewes Road scheme.
A Freedom of Information request asking for reports in the the Lewes Road scheme actually showed that the Lewes Road scheme would in fact only take less than one per cent of traffic off the road and that a large volume of traffic would be diverted onto other, residential routes.
That report would not have been placed into the public domain had members of the public had to resort to the law to get the council to release the correct information. Cllr Davey claimed in an interview recently that people only had to ask. Well the public did, it's a shame it had to use the law to get the information released.
I suggest that those opposed to the scheme at Seven Dials make an FoI request for all reports into the scheme and I suggest you also challenge the claims made in this story about the level of support.
It is wholly unacceptable for any council of any colour to lie or mislead the public.
Here we go again a story which claims overwhelming support for a council scheme when the consultation does not show this. The council issued a press release stating that the Lewes Road scheme had 'overwhelming public support'. I challenged this as the figures did not show this at all and the press release was untrue propoganda. The press release was then withdrawn from the council's website after being published by The Argus without any correction being issued. The council and Green party should apologise to the readers and the public for allowing untrue information to enter the public domain relating to this scheme and the Lewes Road scheme. A Freedom of Information request asking for reports in the the Lewes Road scheme actually showed that the Lewes Road scheme would in fact only take less than one per cent of traffic off the road and that a large volume of traffic would be diverted onto other, residential routes. That report would not have been placed into the public domain had members of the public had to resort to the law to get the council to release the correct information. Cllr Davey claimed in an interview recently that people only had to ask. Well the public did, it's a shame it had to use the law to get the information released. I suggest that those opposed to the scheme at Seven Dials make an FoI request for all reports into the scheme and I suggest you also challenge the claims made in this story about the level of support. It is wholly unacceptable for any council of any colour to lie or mislead the public. Maxwell's Ghost

10:33pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Sevensisters says...

I used to live around the seven dials many years ago and the roundabout was much bigger and I cant recall many accidents at all. As soon as they made the roundabout smaller the accidents began to happen. The bigger roundabout has my vote.
I used to live around the seven dials many years ago and the roundabout was much bigger and I cant recall many accidents at all. As soon as they made the roundabout smaller the accidents began to happen. The bigger roundabout has my vote. Sevensisters

8:36am Wed 9 Jan 13

posthuman says...

A step in the right direction...
However we're still lagging behind, when it comes to designing in a separate lane for the non-motorised!

Why Denmark, Holland, Germany, have the foresight too, and we don't; baffles me to no end.
A step in the right direction... However we're still lagging behind, when it comes to designing in a separate lane for the non-motorised! Why Denmark, Holland, Germany, have the foresight too, and we don't; baffles me to no end. posthuman

9:17am Wed 9 Jan 13

ARealBessie says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Here we go again a story which claims overwhelming support for a council scheme when the consultation does not show this.
The council issued a press release stating that the Lewes Road scheme had 'overwhelming public support'. I challenged this as the figures did not show this at all and the press release was untrue propoganda.
The press release was then withdrawn from the council's website after being published by The Argus without any correction being issued.
The council and Green party should apologise to the readers and the public for allowing untrue information to enter the public domain relating to this scheme and the Lewes Road scheme.
A Freedom of Information request asking for reports in the the Lewes Road scheme actually showed that the Lewes Road scheme would in fact only take less than one per cent of traffic off the road and that a large volume of traffic would be diverted onto other, residential routes.
That report would not have been placed into the public domain had members of the public had to resort to the law to get the council to release the correct information. Cllr Davey claimed in an interview recently that people only had to ask. Well the public did, it's a shame it had to use the law to get the information released.
I suggest that those opposed to the scheme at Seven Dials make an FoI request for all reports into the scheme and I suggest you also challenge the claims made in this story about the level of support.
It is wholly unacceptable for any council of any colour to lie or mislead the public.
Aah yes. The democratic farce that is BHCC’s ‘public consultations...

After the 3 yr NIGHTMARE of dealing with City Parks (specifically Gillian Marsden, Jan Jonkers, and Linda Anglin) and our local Green ward councillors (Bill Randall, Ian Davey, Pete West... yeah, let’s name ‘em and shame ‘em all!) whenever I now see the phrase ‘overwhelming support’, I know there’s been a BIG old fiddle somewhere.

In the case of The Level, BHCC used the ‘public CONsultation’ as if it were a referendum in order to justify sinking a 1800 sq m concrete hole onto one of the last of BHC’s open green public spaces (despite BHC having 6 other formal concrete skate park venues). Unable to gain the necessary local support for such a shameful proposal, City Parks simply consulted outside the area (as far as Portslade and Shoreham) to bump up the required figures. Box ticked.

The actual CONsultation was drawn up by BHC, carried out by BHC, and results were analysed by... BHC! No wonder it was such a pigs ear. After scrutinising the data and results and finding a large number of discrepancies there were solid grounds for a formal complaint. Who to complain to? That’s right, BHC! It appears there are no independent bodies to turn to in this city. I initially thought that would be a role for our local politicians, but with the Green’s head stuck firmly up City Park’s backside, and the opposition parties too busy playing politics and scoring cheap points, not a single politician was willing to stick their necks out. Cretins. The lot of them.

As for FOI requests... (amongst others) FOUR repeated FOI requests were made by campaigners wanting to know why the original open sunken skate bowl in the south was concreted over and replaced with wood (according to a few old timers is was b’coz it kept getting flooded!) and, why the original decision was made to move the skate park in the first place... requests were simply ignored. Once again, who to complain to? BHC! And, around the mulberry bush we go!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Here we go again a story which claims overwhelming support for a council scheme when the consultation does not show this. The council issued a press release stating that the Lewes Road scheme had 'overwhelming public support'. I challenged this as the figures did not show this at all and the press release was untrue propoganda. The press release was then withdrawn from the council's website after being published by The Argus without any correction being issued. The council and Green party should apologise to the readers and the public for allowing untrue information to enter the public domain relating to this scheme and the Lewes Road scheme. A Freedom of Information request asking for reports in the the Lewes Road scheme actually showed that the Lewes Road scheme would in fact only take less than one per cent of traffic off the road and that a large volume of traffic would be diverted onto other, residential routes. That report would not have been placed into the public domain had members of the public had to resort to the law to get the council to release the correct information. Cllr Davey claimed in an interview recently that people only had to ask. Well the public did, it's a shame it had to use the law to get the information released. I suggest that those opposed to the scheme at Seven Dials make an FoI request for all reports into the scheme and I suggest you also challenge the claims made in this story about the level of support. It is wholly unacceptable for any council of any colour to lie or mislead the public.[/p][/quote]Aah yes. The democratic farce that is BHCC’s ‘public consultations... After the 3 yr NIGHTMARE of dealing with City Parks (specifically Gillian Marsden, Jan Jonkers, and Linda Anglin) and our local Green ward councillors (Bill Randall, Ian Davey, Pete West... yeah, let’s name ‘em and shame ‘em all!) whenever I now see the phrase ‘overwhelming support’, I know there’s been a BIG old fiddle somewhere. In the case of The Level, BHCC used the ‘public CONsultation’ as if it were a referendum in order to justify sinking a 1800 sq m concrete hole onto one of the last of BHC’s open green public spaces (despite BHC having 6 other formal concrete skate park venues). Unable to gain the necessary local support for such a shameful proposal, City Parks simply consulted outside the area (as far as Portslade and Shoreham) to bump up the required figures. Box ticked. The actual CONsultation was drawn up by BHC, carried out by BHC, and results were analysed by... BHC! No wonder it was such a pigs ear. After scrutinising the data and results and finding a large number of discrepancies there were solid grounds for a formal complaint. Who to complain to? That’s right, BHC! It appears there are no independent bodies to turn to in this city. I initially thought that would be a role for our local politicians, but with the Green’s head stuck firmly up City Park’s backside, and the opposition parties too busy playing politics and scoring cheap points, not a single politician was willing to stick their necks out. Cretins. The lot of them. As for FOI requests... (amongst others) FOUR repeated FOI requests were made by campaigners wanting to know why the original open sunken skate bowl in the south was concreted over and replaced with wood (according to a few old timers is was b’coz it kept getting flooded!) and, why the original decision was made to move the skate park in the first place... requests were simply ignored. Once again, who to complain to? BHC! And, around the mulberry bush we go! ARealBessie

9:44am Wed 9 Jan 13

upsidedowntuctuc says...

Davey and his Bricycles again!
Bent consultation and traffic chaos as they take four times longer to sort this than necessary and when it is finished grid lock.
Happy residents my a..e Another nail in the City's coffin as more businesses close and less rates paid.
Davey and his Bricycles again! Bent consultation and traffic chaos as they take four times longer to sort this than necessary and when it is finished grid lock. Happy residents my a..e Another nail in the City's coffin as more businesses close and less rates paid. upsidedowntuctuc

9:48am Wed 9 Jan 13

gwc42 says...

quote:
Highway Code rule 195:
"you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing."

The word MUST there means that it is against the law not to do so.

----

No, it doesn't, I'm afraid. The Highway Code is a Code of Practice, it is not the law. You would have to quote from the Road Traffic Act.
quote: Highway Code rule 195: "you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing." The word MUST there means that it is against the law not to do so. ---- No, it doesn't, I'm afraid. The Highway Code is a Code of Practice, it is not the law. You would have to quote from the Road Traffic Act. gwc42

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