Bus lane blues

[Simon Mason]

A controversial new bus lane has prompted a commute challenge from the
same area of West Hull to the HQ workplace of the Hull Daily Mail by
journos using three different forms of transport. A private motor car,
bus and bicycle.

See who was the quickest here:

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/buslanes.jpg

--
Simon Mason

[Part Timer]

Doesn't surprise me. Got to love the BT advert in 01482 land!

[Simon Mason]

The Hull and EAST RIDING Mail does get sold outside of the white
(strictly cream) coloured fern box area of Kingston Communications.
We often buy one in Bridlington or Driffield.

--
Simon Mason

[Toom Tabard]

Even allowing for the fact that it's about a bus lane and we don't have the
story about the controversy, it would be interesting to know the distance -
can't be too long given the bike and bus time - and why they didn't include
somebody walking from A to B regardless of the road and bus lane.

In town, I normally just walk. No need to dig out and then chain-up bikes, no
timing things for the bus or taking pot-luck on when, and whether, it turns up,
and no sitting in frustrating queues in car. I always reckon on commutes, the
only purpose of a car is to give you somewhere dry and warm to sit at traffic
lights and queues.

Walking will probably take a bit longer, but you have free choice of the
quickest route, no hassle, and the relaxed feeling you are getting there. And
you largely avoid all the risks and aggro of other road users. Also,
gives time to relax and think, especially on the way home where it
metaphorically, as well as physically, allows you to put some space between you
and the stress of work.

For decades, I walked to and from work in the city, even, for several years, to one place where it took me over hour each way.

Toom

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <f10a5b2c-3914-447c...@googlegroups.com>

Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:38:43 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> > A controversial new bus lane has prompted a commute challenge from the
> > same area of West Hull to the HQ workplace of the Hull Daily Mail by
> > journos using three different forms of transport. A private motor car,
> > bus and bicycle.
> >
> > See who was the quickest here:
> >
> > http://www.swldxer.co.uk/buslanes.jpg
> >
> Even allowing for the fact that it's about a bus lane and we don't
> have the story about the controversy, it would be interesting to know
> the distance - can't be too long given the bike and bus time - and why
> they didn't include somebody walking from A to B regardless of the
> road and bus lane.
>
> In town, I normally just walk. No need to dig out and then chain-up
> bikes, no timing things for the bus or taking pot-luck on when, and
> whether, it turns up, and no sitting in frustrating queues in car. I
> always reckon on commutes, the only purpose of a car is to give you
> somewhere dry and warm to sit at traffic lights and queues.

I agree walking is a good way to get around most towns and cities and
is often a viable alternative to using a bicycle or car for short
journeys.

>
> Walking will probably take a bit longer, but you have free choice of
> the quickest route, no hassle, and the relaxed feeling you are getting
> there. And you largely avoid all the risks and aggro of other road
> users. Also, gives time to relax and think, especially on the way home
> where it metaphorically, as well as physically, allows you to put some
> space between you and the stress of work.
>
> For decades, I walked to and from work in the city, even, for several
> years, to one place where it took me over hour each way.
>
> Toom

I disagree with you about avoiding "all the risks" associated with other
road users.

For example from

Pedestrian casualties in reported road accidents:

2008 Road Accident Statistics Factsheet No. 3 � January 2010

In Great Britain there were a total of 170,591 reported personal injury
road accidents. 28,482 of these � around 1 in every 6 � involved a
pedestrian, and in total: 572 pedestrians were killed (23 per cent of
the total road accident fatalities) 6,070 were seriously injured (23
per cent of all seriously injured casualties) 21,840 were slightly
injured (11 per cent of all slightly injured casualties)

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/

[Clive George]

On 20/05/2013 11:45, Toom Tabard wrote:

> In town, I normally just walk. No need to dig out and then chain-up bikes, no
> timing things for the bus or taking pot-luck on when, and whether, it turns up,
> and no sitting in frustrating queues in car. I always reckon on commutes, the
> only purpose of a car is to give you somewhere dry and warm to sit at traffic
> lights and queues.

Ditto, only my bikes don't need digging out and chaining them up is
trivially quick if you keep the lock with them.

> Walking will probably take a bit longer, but you have free choice of the
> quickest route, no hassle, and the relaxed feeling you are getting there. And
> you largely avoid all the risks and aggro of other road users. Also,
> gives time to relax and think, especially on the way home where it
> metaphorically, as well as physically, allows you to put some space between you
> and the stress of work.

Cycling gives me pretty much all of that. There can be spots of stress
in urban areas, but I've never found a problem with finding time to
relax and think. Cycling also gives you the option of giving you
somewhere to put spare energy and frustration - the equivalent for
walking is running, and you can't switch in the same way.

> For decades, I walked to and from work in the city, even, for several years, to one place where it took me over hour each way.

My plan used to be > 5 miles, < 10 miles from work. Enough to get a
decent ride. Current house was 10.75 miles, but it worked :-)

[Toom Tabard]

On Monday, 20 May 2013 12:40:26 UTC+1, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>
>
> I disagree with you about avoiding "all the risks" associated with other
> road users.
>

Yes, that was too casual a choice of phrasing. What I mean is you are not
mixing directly with the road traffic, but choosing where, when and how you
interact with it. Even so, I have as a pedestrian almost been mown down by
out-of-control white van man running off the road at speed onto the pavement.
Luckily I was facing him and saw him coming.

Toom

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <961e1596-3211-42b9...@googlegroups.com>

Yes there is a subjective sense of security that many pedestrians have
in thinking that they are immune to the dangers of motorvehicles because
they are on a separate pedestrian part of the roadway. However the
evidence shows that a not insignificant number of accidents involve out
of control motor vehicles leaving their section of the roadway and
encroaching onto the pedestrian areas. Another common location for
pedestrian injuries is at designated pedestrian crossing places.

[Simon Mason]

On May 20, 11:45�am, Toom Tabard <toomtabard1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 11:38:43 AM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> > A controversial new bus lane has prompted a commute challenge from the
> > same area of West Hull to the HQ workplace of the Hull Daily Mail �by
> > journos using three different forms of transport. A private motor car,
> > bus and bicycle.
>
> > See who was the quickest here:
>
> >http://www.swldxer.co.uk/buslanes.jpg
>
> Even allowing for the fact that it's about a bus lane and we don't have the
> story about the controversy, it would be interesting to know the distance -
> can't be too long given the bike and bus time - and why they didn't include
> somebody walking from A to B regardless of the road and bus lane.

The commuting distance is around 3.5 miles so it would be around an
hour for a pedestrian since the route is pan flat.

> In town, I normally just walk. No need to dig out and then chain-up bikes, no
> timing things for the bus or taking pot-luck on when, and whether, it turns up,
> and no sitting in frustrating queues in car. I always reckon on commutes, the
> only purpose of a car is to give you somewhere dry and warm to sit at traffic
> lights and queues.
>
> Walking will probably take a bit longer, but you have free choice of the
> quickest route, no hassle, and the relaxed feeling you are getting there.

Agreed - my barber is four miles from my house and I used to cycle
there but now I will walk instead as there is faffage involved with
locks and I don't like leaving my bike out of sight, even for a few
minutes. On the very few occasions we have to go into Hull city centre
we walk there along the Humber estuary bankside and get a train or bus
back.

Commuting by walking is out of the question for me as it is 12 miles
each way which would mean six hours of walking at top speed everyday.

If I leave at 2230 today and was in my car I would get home at around
2253, but as I am on my bike today I expect to get home at 2310 - the
car is quicker for me as the roads are more or less empty at that
time.

--
Simon Mason

[Toom Tabard]

On Monday, 20 May 2013 14:05:07 UTC+1, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> In message <961e1596-3211-42b9...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Toom Tabard <toomtab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 May 2013 12:40:26 UTC+1, mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > > I disagree with you about avoiding "all the risks" associated with
> > > other road users.
> > >
> > Yes, that was too casual a choice of phrasing. What I mean is you are
> > not mixing directly with the road traffic, but choosing where, whe

> > and how you interact with it. Even so, I have as a pedestrian almost
> > been mown down by out-of-control white van man running off the road at
> > speed onto the pavement. Luckily I was facing him and saw him coming.
> >
>

> Yes there is a subjective sense of security that many pedestrians have
> in thinking that they are immune to the dangers of motorvehicles because
> they are on a separate pedestrian part of the roadway. However the
> evidence shows that a not insignificant number of accidents involve out
> of control motor vehicles leaving their section of the roadway and
> encroaching onto the pedestrian areas. Another common location for
> pedestrian injuries is at designated pedestrian crossing places.
>

Being safe as a pedestrian involves experience and road sense skills,
particularly in towns, to the same level as drivers and cyclists.
You don't need a licence and there aren't courses (unless they still have the
primary school ones??). And that means never assuming that a green man at a
crossing means just step out, but checking that approaching vehicles have seen
the red light and are stopping. Same at junctions, whether or not there are
lights, in knowing what direction things will be coming from or turning.

As a driver, I sometimes experience kids walking back from school who have the
same road-crossing skills as the local cats - a quick, startled, panicked look
around and a sudden dash if there's a bit of space. Same even with skills on the
pavement, particularly the young, and usually female, who are reading smartphone
screens. From both a road safety and pedestrian pavement perspective the new
Google specs are going to be a nightmare.

Toom

[mrc7-...@cam.ac.uk]

In message <49b0d57d-ee48-43e9...@googlegroups.com>

I agree that even as a pedestrian there is a need to be aware of traffic
and what it might do. However it's difficult to see how one can be
prepared to deal with cirumstances such as a vehicle mounting the
pavement or a car at the last minute failing to stop at a pedestrian
crossing once you are already committed to going across. There was a
prominent example of this in the newspapers recently where a girl was
struck by a hit and run driver who decided to overtake a line of
stationary vehicles at a pedestrian crossing. Ultimately the real danger
comes from the moving vehicle and it is the responsibility of those in
control of the vehicle to minimise the danger they create.

[kimble]

On 20/05/13 11:45, Toom Tabard wrote:
> I always reckon on commutes, the
> only purpose of a car is to give you somewhere dry and warm to sit at traffic
> lights and queues.

Incidentally, a pay-as-you-go car hire scheme has recently started up in
Birmingham. Some of the posters are advertising it as "an umbrella on
wheels".

Given that they've chosen to use Smart Fourtwos rather than something
useful that could reasonably be used to carry a decent load, I'm
inclined to agree.


Kim.
--

[Scion]

mrc7--urcm put finger to keyboard:

<snip>

> I agree that even as a pedestrian there is a need to be aware of traffic
> and what it might do. However it's difficult to see how one can be
> prepared to deal with cirumstances such as a vehicle mounting the
> pavement or a car at the last minute failing to stop at a pedestrian
> crossing once you are already committed to going across. There was a
> prominent example of this in the newspapers recently where a girl was
> struck by a hit and run driver who decided to overtake a line of
> stationary vehicles at a pedestrian crossing. Ultimately the real danger
> comes from the moving vehicle and it is the responsibility of those in
> control of the vehicle to minimise the danger they create.

Of course, but if you take it as read that a proportion of drivers won't -
or are unable to - take that responsibility then pedestrians owe it to
themselves to take care.