Putting the pedestrian in the driving seat

Over the last few years, there has been much discussion on the topic of healthier communities, mobility hubs, 15-minute communities and communities that in general foster self-sustaining ecologies. But are we observing any real change to make support these concepts?

Have you ever been walking home on a cold rainy day, waiting for a break in the traffic to cross a road and wondered why you have to wait instead of the car driver, who is snug and warm inside their climate-controlled vehicles?  

Have you wondered why we struggle to build sustainable communities that do not fully support sustainable transport options, but rather contribute to an ever-present and perhaps over reliant use of our private car network?

Have you wondered when you are out doing some well-deserved retail therapy why you have to dodge around cars, buses and goods vehicles? And, if you have, have you ever thought of what would need to change to provide a completely different mindset?  Where perhaps the person, the individual was provided the priority, given the freedom of movement?  

Now in this regard I am enthusiastic about the latest Highway Code updates which specifically address some of this, entitled “review of the highway code to improve road safety for cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders”.

In the latest review there are 3 main additional rules that have been introduced:

H1 – those in charge of vehicles that can cause the greatest harm in the event of a collision bear the greatest responsibility to take care and reduce the danger they pose to others. This principle applies most strongly to drivers of large goods and passenger vehicles, vans/minibuses, cars/taxis and motorcycles.

H2 - At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a road into which or from which you are turning.

Horse riders should also give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing, and to pedestrians and cyclists on a parallel crossing.

Cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use cycle tracks and to horse riders on bridleways.

Only pedestrians may use the pavement. Pedestrians include wheelchair and mobility scooter users.

Pedestrians may use any part of the road and use cycle tracks as well as the pavement, unless there are signs prohibiting pedestrians.

H3 - You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

But while these updates to the regulation are well received, do they go far enough, are they enforceable, will they be enforced? One only has to stand for a few minutes at a set of traffic lights and see vehicles endlessly go through amber lights without any hint of braking or slowing to know that the answer to this question is probably a resounding “no”.

So, what can be done?  There is no doubt that liveable and sustainable developments attract economic growth, there is no doubt that most larger cities and towns have already adopted traffic reduction zones and pedestrian shopping zones such as Norwich, Leeds, York, Cambridge which offer a more relaxed and engaging inner-city shopping experience. 

There is also no doubt that light rail systems as seen in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham while reasonably expensive to implement provide a valuable commuter solution, reduce congestion and provide a valuable economic boost to the area.  So, given that we know all of this why hasn’t more been done to pedestrianize, remove or at least reduce vehicles from inner city retail environments?  

It is true to say that most larger cities and towns have started their pedestrianized journeys with some more advanced than others, some of these of sufficient size have introduced light rail systems that have also coincided with the introduction of traffic reduction schemes that includes congestion charging and/or Workplace Charging.

But whilst this may work for the largest of towns and cities, there needs to be an alternative approach for smaller towns and especially for traditional market and high-street towns, many of which are suffering economically due to on-line competition and in general a more convenient or comfortable way of shopping.  

So how could we potentially reverse this trend?

While congestion charging is theoretically possible, traditional congestion charging is in many cases cost-prohibitive in terms of infrastructure.  But perhaps the biggest detractor of congestion charging is change, and the political will to deliver it.  While this is a political battleground, rather than being implemented on its economic or health related benefits, it is unlikely that the right decisions will be made by less than the bravest of politicians.  

So, if congestion charging is off-the-table, how do we make the right decisions that will improve economic growth, encourage the use of public, shared and active modes and reduce traffic in inner-city areas?  This got me thinking, and considering what had been done in Wales in terms of putting the 20mph zones in place for inner city and residential areas.

While this was met by a barrage of negativity, and indeed some of those zones have already been removed, the vast majority have remained in effect. When developing new schemes, it’s imperative that we understand that we are asking people to change, and as such until that change is bedded in its unlikely that it will be well-received at least initially.  

But what if we use what has already been undertaken in Wales, and combine it with a slightly modified and updated Highway Code, and extend Rule H2?  What if we completely change the hierarchy of vehicles within inner-city zones, where pedestrians have the priority, followed by cyclists, delivery vehicles, cars etc.  To quote the highway code, “this hierarchy places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy. It does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly”.  

This would essentially provide a similar situation as found in the United States, where if a car driver were to hit a pedestrian within an economic or retail designated area, the car driver is generally considered at fault unless it can be proven otherwise. This by nature of fault ensures that car drivers are particularly aware of their liability, and drive with sufficient caution to prevent collisions, in most cases driving at considerably less than 20mph.  

Would this work in the UK?

Well as per all change it would likely receive initial resistance, it would need some enforcement which would need to be sufficiently robust to incentivise drivers to be safe and responsible, which in turn would most probably require legislative changes to the UK endorsement approach where it would be necessary to define a higher number of points/endorsements for infractions in these zones.

However, with these things in place, I think not only that it would work, but that it could be a true catalyst for not only behavioural change and modal shift, but for renewed economic growth and prosperity in inner city areas.  

We need to reconsider the priority of pedestrians and for road use in general, particularly in residential and retail centres.

---

By Jorgen Pedersen on behalf of SYSTRA Ltd