Duke of Westminster

House of Lords

Westminster

London

England



Westminster,

Pavement Rage

I have just learned of your bizarre plan (Pedestrians: Get in lane) to establish a lane system on the pedestrian highways of Oxford Street. Whilst I cannot claim to possess any expertise on the peculiarities of urban perambulation, I am sufficiently streetwise to realise that any such plan is doomed to flounder like a flatfish, indeed, as I have been moved to put mouse to mat to point out.

The fast lane will behave as an obstacle to ordinary-grade 'shopper' pedestrian traffic which may become marooned either roadside or shopside for fear of both injury and prosecution.

At what point would lingering in the fast lane become an offence? Further to the above, an ordinary 'shopper' pedestrian may be caught making the transition from roadside to shopside during a lull in high-speed commuter traffic. Would this constitute an offence. Perhaps consider the implications of accusations of discrimination and ageism when imposing penalties on transgressors who are too old and doddery to dart across between bowler-hats. Can Westminster afford to be branded elitist by a bag-lady?

Moreover, consider the white-collar commuter wishing to turn right into, say, Carnaby Street, but who may be delayed by either a congregation of shoppers or by oncoming eastbound commution. He/She would be required either to step aside into the shop/road-zone, or to stand his/her ground awaiting a gap. If he/she stands his/her ground then he/she is automatically prima facie guilty of an offence.

The proposed speed-limit of 3mph is both arbitrary and discriminatory. I prefer something a little brisker when on my way home, but, no doubt, would happily commute at a snail's pace when coalface-bound. Others may have different patterns which will vary dependent upon constitution and predilection. Thus some sort of overtaking protocol would need to be prescribed.

Then, perhaps an untied shoelace might constitute a breakdown, akin perhaps to a flat-tyre. Will you have a hard shoulder to allow for such contingencies or will such a broken-down commuter be required to remove himself to the adjacent shopper-zone?

Thus, perhaps you might consider the motorway analogy in which unwanted perpendicularly motivated traffic is restricted to crossing only at specific carefully-sited and strategically-planned grade-separated points of transverse transposure. Except at purpose-built interface zones, non-motorway traffic is precluded from interfering with motorway-traffic and vice versa.

Alternatively, I suggest that you accept that, as The Pedestrian Association's Ben Plowden has pointed out, that "pedestrians are too anarchic to be channelised in this manner", and that you ought to route your own efforts and funds into matters less farcical and more constructive in order to achieve your goals, e.g., ban vehicular traffic from the commercial parts of Westminster and vitalise an inner-city Mall-mentality for retailers and residents alike.

Sincerely,

Trout