Railings removed

I've passed a fair few barriers that have sections completely missing which I always thought indicated that the car had gone straight through.

Also sadly (for fuel economy, state of the roads etc) 1,500 kg is no longer the province of a large car, it's becoming the average with increasing equipment levels, general bloat etc.

The original Mk1 Golf GTI had a 1.6 litre four pot motor and weighed approx 800 kgs, the latest iteration had a 3.2 litre six pot motor and weighs 1,600 kg+, and that's a hatchback.

That's insane, I'm from the past, when a Saab was really heavy at a tonne, what are they thinking?

The original Mk1 Golf GTI had a 1.6 litre four pot motor and weighed approx 800 kgs, the latest iteration had a 3.2 litre six pot motor and weighs 1,600 kg+, and that's a hatchback.

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).

That's insane, I'm from the past, when a Saab was really heavy at a tonne, what are they thinking?

It's the trickle down effect (electric windows, electric sunroof, air-con, blah blah) as equipment from the old top of the range motors appears in your everyday hatchback, plus increasing safety gear- side impact beams etc.

Ed is half right when he says that you are much more likely to be killed in an older car/when hit by one.

You are much safer now if you are in the car, not so much if it hits you- if you get hit by something twice the weight (of the old one) you are going to know about it rather more.

The original Mk1 Golf GTI had a 1.6 litre four pot motor and weighed approx 800 kgs, the latest iteration had a 3.2 litre six pot motor and weighs 1,600 kg+, and that's a hatchback.

The best car I ever had.

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...

It's the trickle down effect (electric windows, electric sunroof, air-con, blah blah) as equipment from the old top of the range motors appears in your everyday hatchback, plus increasing safety gear- side impact beams etc.

Ed is half right when he says that you are much more likely to be killed in an older car/when hit by one.

You are much safer now if you are in the car, not so much if it hits you- if you get hit by something twice the weight (of the old one) you are going to know about it rather more.

Not really true, the relative difference in weight between a person and any kind of car is so great that variations in the mass of the car don't really matter. A 800kg car travelling at 30mph will do just as much damage to a 80kg person as a 1600kg car, its not like the 800kg car will loose any significant proportion of its momentum when it hits you. To be honest I'd much rather be hit by a modern car as at least some though is put into designs to minimise pedestrian injury, plus they are not so pointy and hard.

I suppose so, I just equated heavier=worse for the hittee.

Certainly newer cars have a minimum height between engine and bonnet to save peds from striking a big solid lump when hit etc.

Also things like the Jaguar leaping Cat is now illegal as it tends to cut through people as they roll over the bonnet.

But if there's a curb you're still going to fall off and be flattened.

Only in more exception circumstances. If you've driven into a curb, particularly a high one at anything less than 45 degrees you'll probably have noticed some reluctance on behalf of the car to mount the curb and continue onto the pavement. (yes, I know I'm a shit driver)

Now as someone who has been nudged by into railings by an inattentive driver and also been full on side-swiped by a minibus, taken out by a curb and ended up wrapped around a bin, I know which I prefer.

The latter resulted in some minor damage to the bike and a few scrapes and bruises. The formed caused me to hit the railings with my shoulder, jam my front wheel against the curb, bounce back out into the road and across the back end of the car that had just hit me and roll along the road where the following care nearly didn't stop before running me over. I may have walked away from both but the railings left me unable to ride or walk very well for a couple of days.

An FOIA request for the various minutes and deliberations should answer that question.

When I say think I probably mean that discussions with TFL staff have revealed that this is in fact the case....

railings being removed.

great news.

lets hope it happens in tower hamlets as well.

loads of them have gone up in the last five years. bloody death trap they are.

You can hit a curb and fall on the pavement, not possible with a railing present.
No reason to think you will still get crushed if there is a curb.

From the article:

Now these railings had been installed not six years ago for Health & Safety reasons following a number of appalling accidents where vehicles had mounted the pavement.

There's very clear evidence based reasons to believe that vehicles will indeed mount the pavement.

If vehicles mount the pavement when railings aren't there, then we should be thinking... what's the escape route for a cyclist? My point about the curb is the turning left will just lay you down on the pavement, in the way of the vehicle (as it mounts the curb).

In my (recent-ish) experience of being on the left of a Police armoured vehicle which decided it was going left when the lights changed I'd like to point out that it mounted the curb during the turn but did not clip the railings.

If I'd not performed a high speed scurry/hop/jump I'd have been in the way as there was no escape route due to the railings (if you see what I mean).

From the article:

There's very clear evidence based reasons to believe that vehicles will indeed mount the pavement.

If vehicles mount the pavement when railings aren't there, then we should be thinking... what's the escape route for a cyclist? My point about the curb is the turning left will just lay you down on the pavement, in the way of the vehicle (as it mounts the curb).

Rubbish...

No Railings = escape route onto the curb, and onto the footpath if necessary, most likely escaping injury, or suffering far less severe injuries.
You can't seriously tell me that any half decent cyclist wouldn't have the presence of mind in this situation to at least pull the front wheel up and mount the curb as opposed to letting themselves get "laid down on the pavement".....seriously.

Railings = crushed squashed/injured to fuck etc etc no matter what.

by taking a strong line on the road as per the cycle training i had recently you should not be in the position to be crushed

this was one of the most important lessons i was given when doing the cycle training, your position at a left turn should beat least 1/2 a cars width from the kerb, this will make it nearly impossible for a car to try to overtake you on the corner, so they are very unlikely to crush you against the railings

since doing the cycle training i am a lot more reluctant to filter if I cannot see that it will lead me to a safe, assertive position on the road.

so yes the railings can make accidents worse, but we need to be safety conscious about where we are putting ourselves on the road

From the article:

There's very clear evidence based reasons to believe that vehicles will indeed mount the pavement.

If vehicles mount the pavement when railings aren't there, then we should be thinking... what's the escape route for a cyclist? My point about the curb is the turning left will just lay you down on the pavement, in the way of the vehicle (as it mounts the curb).

Big fnckoff bollard on the corner?

Big fnckoff bollard on the corner?

I saw a HGV drive right over one of them last week.They should put a f*cking lampost there!

they are removing all the railings in london - melting them down and creating an army of cyborgs to fight in the war against climate change, me thinks. ..bojoborgs maybe

I saw a HGV drive right over one of them last week.They should put a f*cking lampost there!

Well, that would do.... the counter arguement to removing the railings appears to be that vehicles could mount the curb endangering pedestrians. A lamp post or something big and sturdy on the corner would impede this whilst still leaving an escape route for bikes (who shouldn't be there anyway).

When I said big, I meant maybe as big as a Dalek or a water buffalo.

From the article:

There's very clear evidence based reasons to believe that vehicles will indeed mount the pavement.

If vehicles mount the pavement when railings aren't there, then we should be thinking... what's the escape route for a cyclist? My point about the curb is the turning left will just lay you down on the pavement, in the way of the vehicle (as it mounts the curb).

If a car strikes you and mounts the pavement you will still have a better chance of survival if there are no railings present rather than being the shredded meat in a steel sandwich.

If a car strikes you and mounts the pavement you will still have a better chance of survival if there are no railings present rather than being the shredded meat in a steel sandwich.

Agreed, I know I can fit under most cars but I'm too much of a fat bastard to squeeze between most railings.

by taking a strong line on the road as per the cycle training i had recently you should not be in the position to be crushed

bingo, there's a lots of situation that can be avoided perfectly, even if the motorised vehicles is in the wrong.

You can't seriously tell me that any half decent cyclist wouldn't have the presence of mind in this situation to at least pull the front wheel up and mount the curb as opposed to letting themselves get "laid down on the pavement".....seriously.

"Any half decent cyclist"? I'm not sure that survival should have a pre-requisite skill level above what can be expected from the vast majority of cyclists.

If a car strikes you and mounts the pavement you will still have a better chance of survival if there are no railings present rather than being the shredded meat in a steel sandwich.

Very true, I don't disagree... but that is a very different response to your earlier assertion that no vehicle mounts the pavement (implied in your statement).

My point is simply that whilst removing the railings is a good move, it looks more like a reaction than part of a well thought-out policy that attempts to approach street design with safety being a prime consideration, they're only doing just enough to take the edge of the issue and get it off the front of the freesheets... not enough to actually take substantive steps towards making the streets safe for cyclists and to encourage and support cycling.

Paging Mr Schick....Paging Mr Schick, redesign of the crossings or just railing removal?

Sorry, didn't see this one. There are a variety of initiatives to reduce street clutter--it's in every streetscape guidance document, for instance, and in Hackney we have an evidence-based policy to remove them (they have not been shown to improve safety).

Don't be too quick to link this sort of effort with the late Hans Monderman's work--there are quite a few differences. Clutter removal is a very piecemeal approach and at best a very preliminary stage to more civilised street environments, but every little helps.

The drawback is that cycle parking is disappearing in a lot of cases, and that will of course have to be replaced. Cycle parking stands are a much more preferable form of street clutter than railings, though. They allow people to pass between them and have a positive primary function as opposed to a negative one. Where there are narrow footways, though, they can't be positioned in the same place as railings, as they have to be placed further from the kerb than railings to lock bikes to both sides.

Yes, in the City of Westminster or LB Tower Hamlets, you'll probably wait for a while to see these initiatives take hold, as transport policy in these local authorities has some catching up to do (to put it mildly).

My point is simply that whilst removing the railings is a good move, it looks more like a reaction than part of a well thought-out policy that attempts to approach street design with safety being a prime consideration, they're only doing just enough to take the edge of the issue and get it off the front of the freesheets... not enough to actually take substantive steps towards making the streets safe for cyclists and to encourage and support cycling.

That would be true if it was the only initiative in progress, but there's a lot happening. However, in London, progress on this sort of issue, even with multiple initiatives, is generally slow--it's like a supertanker trying to turn around. There is a great fear about changing the status quo. It's difficult to know what is actually happening if you don't follow it closely all the time.

I spent 5mins walking around trying to find somewhere to lock my bike the other night because all the railings hand been removed.