As for the idea that favouring cars over pedestrians would make walking more pleasant, that’s laughable. If the changes proposed did actually lead to the freer movement of traffic you suggest, so that the current traffic had cleared by 6.30, do you not think word might get around to people who’ve participated in the shift away from cars, and that they might not just shift back to take advantage of the clearer roads, ensuring they were still snarled up, but with even more pollution and ‘stinking’ from the larger number of vehicles?

You could equally argue that allowing traffic to move more freely might generate more pedestrians because it will clear quicker. Just imagine that; snarl-ups dispersed by 6.30pm instead of 7pm. An extra half hour for walking without having to dodge stinking traffic jams.

And regardless of what that article may or may not go into detail about, I’ve heard elsewhere (no, I don’t recall where, so ignore this hearsay if you want - everything I said above stands) that the thrust of this idea is that in general there is a set time period which the green man is on display for at nearly all crossings in Britain, but there have for some time been hundreds (thousands?) in London with a shorter time period. Over the past few years a substantial proportion of these these have been brought up to the standards seen elsewhere in Britain, and there are plans to continue this work by bringing all the others into line too. Boris wants to stop that work, and undo the work done elsewhere, so he does want to reduce the time pedestrians have to cross the road.

It strikes me that the only woolly thinking around here is being done by someone who thinks it’s a good idea to encourage more car use in London and discourage walking. Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article3478456.ece