Architects of Southend’s seafront shared space are adamantly standing by the controversial scheme, despite pressure to make changes.
The Tory leaders of Southend Council say there will be no “kneejerk” reaction to last week’s accident in Marine Parade.
In stark contrast to all the hundreds of other examples
of kneejerk reactions made by councils over one incident, or even the remote possibility of an incident
The Lib Dem opposition believe the crash is clear evidence of why the Tories should scrap the scheme.
But Tony Cox, councillor responsible for highways, said: “The accident was very unfortunate.
“Obviously, we wish the boy a speedy recovery, but we must avoid a kneejerk reaction.
“It seems very extreme to say a concept does not work simply because of an accident which, frankly, could have occurred on any street in the borough.”
Could have? Yes. But didn’t.
Spookily similar to Exeters Wonford Home Zone
which, in 2001, was imposed upon their oldest and largest council estate, Wonford. It was supposed to make the pedestrian king by 'blurring' the edges between road and pavement but instead resulted in cars parking directly against residents hedges leaving little, if any, room for hard working families with prams, or indeed the emergency services. Just to add insult to injury the associated Street Furniture made the place look like a WW1 battlefield.
As part of the 'consultatioon process' residents who wished to have their driveways tarmacced within the overall scheme had to contribute £X00's but when the project ran out of money with their drives sans tarmac they were told by the Local Council, "Sorry mate, they" (The 'Wonford Home Zone') have run out of money, nuffink to do with us", shame about yer drive though".
I haven't seen this particular scheme but they have a similar one in Blackpool...
On the whole they are a good idea BUT, it requires both the driver and the pedestrian to share their responsibility for each other's safety.
Yes someone was injured but on the old road this might easily have been a death.
One accident. ONE. How many accidents happen in normal streets. ALL the evidence, every trial has shown that shared space reduces accidents.
I am sorry. You are stupid... logically absurd by concluding the way you do.
"It was supposed to make the pedestrian king by 'blurring' the edges between road and pavement ..."
And pointless, because the pedestrian IS 'king'. That's why you aren't allowed to run jaywalkers over with impunity.
"On the whole they are a good idea BUT, it requires both the driver and the pedestrian to share their responsibility for each other's safety."
Unfortunately, we've bred a generation (maybe two!) that has learned that personal responsibility is for suckers, and it's always the other individual's fault. Or the government's.
Maybe that's why these schemes don't work so well here as they do elsewhere?
"One accident. ONE. How many accidents happen in normal streets. "
Plenty. In fact, a nine-year-old ran across a 'normal' road and was knocked down less than half a mile from this area a day or so ago.
That's not the point. While we have accidents like this one, on 'normal' roads, why on earth seek to blur the boundaries further?
And the other point was that the council has ALREADY engaged in 'knee jerk reactions. Remember this?
Incidentally, all signs and personnel were removed a fortnight ago. And there's already been one near-miss with an elderly tourist and a bus that I know of...
Post a Comment