Railings removed

the original is more likely to kill you than the new one thought, as well as being more likely to kill peds than the newer predecessor (with the introduction of the crash test for peds).

So you don't need crash barriers because 1, drivers will be courteous and considerate, 2, they would drive straight through the barriers anyway, 3, pedestrians won't step off the kerb without looking and 4, modern cars, although heavy are soft and fluffy.
I wish I could say I've been reassured by the reasoning of others, but that is not in fact the case, I still think it is a decision driven by fear of legal consequences rather than a thoughtful weighing up of all the risks involved, some barriers, yes of course, obviously it's about time, but all of them?
This assumption that angry London drivers will be suddenly civilised by the removal of barriers is flawed, if only it were that simple...