"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Richard J. wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:

Any improvement to the pedestrian environment would be welcome, as even
though the pavements are quite wide, they can be quite congested when
there are lots of visitors to the museums (and when the subway suffers one
of its frequent floodings). Making it a free-for-all might make life
extremely difficult for cars along the northbound side, as pedestrians
will spill out into the rest of the road unless parked vehicles exist as a
natural barrier. But if that barrier exists, then the whole point of
removing the kerb becomes meaningless.

The thought of pedestrians "spilling out onto the road" into the path of
moving cars scares the **** out of me: pedestrians on a city street
generally walk without due regard to other pedestrians, never mind vehicle
drivers. As both a driver and a pedestrian I've been brought up to regard
the pavement as the exclusive domain of the pedestrian and the road (between
one kerb and the other) as being mainly the domain of wheeled vehicles
(cars, lorries, bikes) except at designated zebra/pelican crossings where
pedestrians have priority over vehicles.

With no kerb (I presume this means that the pavement and road are on the
same level) how do drivers judge where to position themselves on the road?

Removing the concept of who has priority over whom and allowing a
free-for-all sounds ludicrous, and a recipe for either more
vehicle-pedestrian collisions or else excessively slow vehicle speeds to
allow for pedestrians who are walking with their brains switched off ;-)