Promenade - Megathread

[Gladys]

10 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said:

Erm... isn't that the very definition of illegal? I stand to be corrected with an example of something that is neither legal nor illegal.

That's a good question. When something isn't specified by law, I suppose.  This is where "guidance" and "best practice" fills the void.  Usually, that comes where there is a specific law but the situations it is intended to cover are so varied that not every example is covered.  People then "push the envelope" and most people would agree whatever the offending thing is should be illegal as it results in the same outcome that the law was designed to cover, but strictly fails. 

The problem with the prom is not so much that this regulation or that is not complied with, but there has been no clarity on how these things are to be used. 

The other day I went down Broadway onto the roundel, slowing at the crossing to then have a pedestrian march out across the roundel rather than walk another 10 feet to the crossing.   It was fine as I had already slowed down for the crossing then the inevitable cautious passage across the roundel.  But really there should be big signs warning that you are entering a shared space and have no right of way.

The other problem, which will hopefully be sorted when the works are finished, is that some of the crossings lead straight from the fences which obscure people intending to cross.

[Ghost Ship]

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

Erm... isn't that the very definition of illegal? I stand to be corrected with an example of something that is neither legal nor illegal.

No.  Something that is "illegal" is usually taken to mean something that is contrary to criminal law - ie something that is a criminal offence.  I think what Happier Diner and WTF are questioning is whether the crossings are "lawful" - ie do they comply with whatever the legal definition (if any exists in Manx law) of what constitutes a "pedestrian crossing". 

[Edit: as an example of something that would be against the law but would not be illegal, you might park your car in the wrong place unlawfully, but it wouldn't necessarily be illegal - or at least it wouldn't be in the UK where most parking offences have been "decriminalised".]

 

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

...

he Zebra Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1972, and subsequent amendments
in 1990 and 1996, describe how zebra crossings must be designed and used...

 

But isn't the problem (as Happier Diner has already pointed out) that the crossings in question are NOT zebra crossings, so that any regulations applying to the layout of zebra crossings are irrelevant?

 

1 hour ago, CallMeCurious said:

There is actaully a DoI document. One which they completely ignored for the Kirk Michael blood clot crossing. They literally made up thier own rules and can't follow them. This is not rocket science.

https://www.gov.im/media/1368674/pedestrian-crossings-guidance-document.pdf

...

That seems to be a surprisingly sensible document.  Unfortunately it describes itself as "Guidance" so by definition isn't intended to be mandatory - it just describes what ought to be done, not what must be done.

It's also interesting to see that it contains a reasonably comprehensive list of formal and informal pedestrian crossings.  There's a large roundabout at the end of my road with pedestrian crossovers and pedestrian refuges that I would say are definitely within 5m of the roundabout itself.  I use those crossings every day and there are no road markings - just dropped kerbs at the pavement's edge and refuges in the middle of the carriageway. 

However, I certainly wouldn't suggest that what works perfectly OK on a properly signed and properly road-marked roundabout would work equally well on a psychedelically swirled roundel that may or may not be a roundabout, may or may not be an unmarked junction, and may or may not be a "shared space" ...

Edited September 25, 2021 by Ghost Ship
example of legal v illegal

[Non-Believer]

7 hours ago, AlanShimmin said:

It can't be streamlined or have a change of culture - that's already been tried and they always manage to swerve it... remember Gawne and Reynolds promising to save +£2m a year at the airport?

From memory, they didn't actually promise to save £2M a year; Reynolds (working under Gawne at the time) said that £2M a year "could be saved if the Airport was run commercially".

Which it obviously isn't, it's just a black hole into which money was poured at her every whim and daydream with nothing expected in return by our politicos, other than the belief that she was chasing the stated goal of 1.5m passengers a year through the gates.

Running the airport commercially would entail handing it over to a private commercial operation who would probably shut half of it given the figures currently.

[Happier diner]

6 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

No.  Something that is "illegal" is usually taken to mean something that is contrary to criminal law - ie something that is a criminal offence.  I think what Happier Diner and WTF are questioning is whether the crossings are "lawful" - ie do they comply with whatever the legal definition (if any exists in Manx law) of what constitutes a "pedestrian crossing". 

[Edit: as an example of something that would be against the law but would not be illegal, you might park your car in the wrong place unlawfully, but it wouldn't necessarily be illegal - or at least it wouldn't be in the UK where most parking offences have been "decriminalised".]

 

But isn't the problem (as Happier Diner has already pointed out) that the crossings in question are NOT zebra crossings, so that any regulations applying to the layout of zebra crossings are irrelevant?

 

That seems to be a surprisingly sensible document.  Unfortunately it describes itself as "Guidance" so by definition isn't intended to be mandatory - it just describes what ought to be done, not what must be done.

It's also interesting to see that it contains a reasonably comprehensive list of formal and informal pedestrian crossings.  There's a large roundabout at the end of my road with pedestrian crossovers and pedestrian refuges that I would say are definitely within 5m of the roundabout itself.  I use those crossings every day and there are no road markings - just dropped kerbs at the pavement's edge and refuges in the middle of the carriageway. 

However, I certainly wouldn't suggest that what works perfectly OK on a properly signed and properly road-marked roundabout would work equally well on a psychedelically swirled roundel that may or may not be a roundabout, may or may not be an unmarked junction, and may or may not be a "shared space" ...

Do you not think everyone is missing the point. The whole prom is supposed to be a shared space. If it had regulation roundabouts and crossings it would be just a road.

Not saying I agree, but can't understand all this whinging about legality and conformity when it was clearly never meant to be so 

[CallMeCurious]

6 hours ago, Ghost Ship said:

No.  Something that is "illegal" is usually taken to mean something that is contrary to criminal law - ie something that is a criminal offence.  I think what Happier Diner and WTF are questioning is whether the crossings are "lawful" - ie do they comply with whatever the legal definition (if any exists in Manx law) of what constitutes a "pedestrian crossing". 

[Edit: as an example of something that would be against the law but would not be illegal, you might park your car in the wrong place unlawfully, but it wouldn't necessarily be illegal - or at least it wouldn't be in the UK where most parking offences have been "decriminalised".]

 

But isn't the problem (as Happier Diner has already pointed out) that the crossings in question are NOT zebra crossings, so that any regulations applying to the layout of zebra crossings are irrelevant?

 

That seems to be a surprisingly sensible document.  Unfortunately it describes itself as "Guidance" so by definition isn't intended to be mandatory - it just describes what ought to be done, not what must be done.

It's also interesting to see that it contains a reasonably comprehensive list of formal and informal pedestrian crossings.  There's a large roundabout at the end of my road with pedestrian crossovers and pedestrian refuges that I would say are definitely within 5m of the roundabout itself.  I use those crossings every day and there are no road markings - just dropped kerbs at the pavement's edge and refuges in the middle of the carriageway. 

However, I certainly wouldn't suggest that what works perfectly OK on a properly signed and properly road-marked roundabout would work equally well on a psychedelically swirled roundel that may or may not be a roundabout, may or may not be an unmarked junction, and may or may not be a "shared space" ...

I accept part of driving will always be about the unusual circumstance from historic or site constraints but when you have a space that has been designed and fundamentally altered on a primary route within in the largest town, it would have been nice if our civil servants could have spent a bit of the advertising budget on a few public service announcements, demonstrating how the space is meant to work.

That way you can educate yourself, be a bit more confident and avoid unnecessary conflict and most hopefully any accidents. As for the legal part, even guidance is some sort of defence in situation where there is a case to answer. At least mitigation that you tried to do the right thing.

I'd image the worst defense is "Well I thought..."  

7 hours ago, Gladys said:

The other day I went down Broadway onto the roundel, slowing at the crossing to then have a pedestrian march out across the roundel rather than walk another 10 feet to the crossing.   It was fine as I had already slowed down for the crossing then the inevitable cautious passage across the roundel.  But really there should be big signs warning that you are entering a shared space and have no right of way.

I suspect if this continues to be an issue coming into winter months and saturday nights, we'll have to see pedestrian barriers popping up. I also hope there is CCTV in place to both give the DoI actual feedback (i.e. is it working as intended) and, god forbid in the worst case, independent evidence.

One thing I always try assume is that not every pedestrian, cyclist or mobility scooter user (or other drvers) is familair with the highway code. Or local or pyschic. It's just the little things like always indicating a lane change or turn, even if there are no other vehicles about. Because it'll be that one time when you didn't see them that it might save someones life. 

[NoTail]

17 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Do you not think everyone is missing the point. The whole prom is supposed to be a shared space. If it had regulation roundabouts and crossings it would be just a road.

Not saying I agree, but can't understand all this whinging about legality and conformity when it was clearly never meant to be so 

If you are correct and it is "supposed" to be a shared space with no rules. The there should not be pedestrian crossings etc as the public can wander aimlessly where they like with cars driving on whatever side of the road they like, giving way, or not, as they like. 

[Happier diner]

48 minutes ago, NoTail said:

If you are correct and it is "supposed" to be a shared space with no rules. The there should not be pedestrian crossings etc as the public can wander aimlessly where they like with cars driving on whatever side of the road they like, giving way, or not, as they like. 

It's a point of view. However shared spaces often have changes of surface that encourage crossing in those areas. This different to a traditional crossing and meant to stops people, as you say randomly crossing anywhere. 

The only one I am familiar with is in Bergerac where there crossing places atop raised sections. It works well as vehicles have to slow down for the bumps anyway.

 

[NoTail]

2 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

It's a point of view. However shared spaces often have changes of surface that encourage crossing in those areas. This different to a traditional crossing and meant to stops people, as you say randomly crossing anywhere. 

The only one I am familiar with is in Bergerac where there crossing places atop raised sections. It works well as vehicles have to slow down for the bumps anyway.

 

Point taken, I also know Bergerac. Douglas prom is so very different. Already we have at least 1 formal pedestrian crossing down near Jaks. That makes no sense in a shared space. More to the point the Prom is a main arterial route. Trucks, buses delivery vans using it continuously commuters every week day. Even shoppers used to use it. Now there are few shops and little parking that is less of an issue.

[ellanvannin2010]

4 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

It's a point of view. However shared spaces often have changes of surface that encourage crossing in those areas. This different to a traditional crossing and meant to stops people, as you say randomly crossing anywhere. 

The only one I am familiar with is in Bergerac where there crossing places atop raised sections. It works well as vehicles have to slow down for the bumps anyway.

 

If it is not a zebra crossing then the surface should not look anything like a zebra crossing though. That just leads to confusion and danger .

I am almost certain that belisha beacon lights are being fitted there in due course ( the holes are there in the blockwork), this will just add to the confusion if your right and they are not zebra crossings.

[Happier diner]

7 minutes ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

If it is not a zebra crossing then the surface should not look anything like a zebra crossing though. That just leads to confusion and danger .

I am almost certain that belisha beacon lights are being fitted there in due course ( the holes are there in the blockwork), this will just add to the confusion if your right and they are not zebra crossings.

Yes I agree. They should be full on zebra crossings that meet all the requirements or should be nothing like one at all.

In Poynton, they call them courtesy crossings.

[AlanShimmin]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

 

Not saying I agree, but can't understand all this whinging about legality and conformity when it was clearly never meant to be so 

Because people are being paid big money to design something that is seemingly inherently unsafe. 

Where's the official confirmation that it's shared space? 

Even the idea of shared space has been binned off in the UK for being unsafe. 

 

https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/prime-minister-urged-to-get-shared-space-gone/

 

The UK Government was recommending a moratorium on all new shared space schemes in 2017, meanwhile the crayonistas were busy ploughing on regardless! 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dptacs-position-on-shared-space/dptac-position-on-shared-space

 

First job for the next DOI Minister is to urgently review the status of the Prom and clarify what this cock up actually is.

Edited September 25, 2021 by AlanShimmin

[NoTail]

Perhaps Stu could ask in Tynwald 

Is the promenade a shared space where the highway code no longer applies and cars, pedestrians, cyclists have equal rights to behave as they feel fit? 

Or

Is the promenade a public highway where the highway code does apply?

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, ellanvannin2010 said:

If it is not a zebra crossing then the surface should not look anything like a zebra crossing though. That just leads to confusion and danger .

Hear, hear. The DOI will doubtless eventually modify them to something much clearer, like the crossing on the Curragh Rd before The Hope. That worked well too...

[The Old Git]

11 hours ago, Gladys said:

The other problem, which will hopefully be sorted when the works are finished, is that some of the crossings lead straight from the fences which obscure people intending to cross.

Some, not all, have been deliberately fenced off and hopefully marked as not in use. It took them about a week to work out that having a pedestrian crossing right by traffic lights controlling a single file stretch of road wasn't the best idea as cars on green had to stop for pedestrians. 

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, NoTail said:

Perhaps Stu could ask in Tynwald 

Is the promenade a shared space where the highway code no longer applies and cars, pedestrians, cyclists have equal rights to behave as they feel fit? 

Or

Is the promenade a public highway where the highway code does apply?

Might he be asking himself those questions as DOI Minister?