A10 blocked
Alan
"The A10 has been closed at the Waterbeach turn at the "Slap Up" due to a
crash involving a lorry and a car. 3 people have been killed, and police
don't expect the road to open again until early evening."
Can't see anything on CEN or BBC though to confirm more.
Alan
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE!
Replace 'deadspam' with penguinclub.org.uk to reply in email.
Mike Pitt
The BBC Cambs travel web page report problems on the A10:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cambridgeshire/travel/traffic_news.shtml
Mike
j...@durge.org
: "The A10 has been closed at the Waterbeach turn at the "Slap Up" due to a
: crash involving a lorry and a car. 3 people have been killed, and police
: don't expect the road to open again until early evening."
Cambridge's worst traffic black spot claims yet more victims.
Jon
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durge: j...@durge.org http://www.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Philosopher
Alan wrote:
> Just had this sent around at work:
>
> "The A10 has been closed at the Waterbeach turn at the "Slap Up" due to a
> crash involving a lorry and a car. 3 people have been killed, and police
> don't expect the road to open again until early evening."
>
No doubt there wil be a set of energy wasting lights installed to
increase congestion in due course.
One assumes, as per norm, that neither vehicle was actually exceeding
the speed limit?
>
Stimmo
> Someone once said:
> : "The A10 has been closed at the Waterbeach turn at the "Slap Up" due to a
> : crash involving a lorry and a car. 3 people have been killed, and police
> : don't expect the road to open again until early evening."
>
> Cambridge's worst traffic black spot claims yet more victims.
>
It would appear that a German registered lorry travelling north
towards Ely crossed the carriageway and collided with a blue Ford
travelling in the opposite direction. The road is straight but narrow
at this point.
Why is it a black spot? In many years of travelling this route I can't
ever remeber an accident here before.
j...@durge.org
: Why is it a black spot? In many years of travelling this route I can't
: ever remeber an accident here before.
The junction is horrible. I know of at least one death, a cow-orker of
my mother, at that junction.
People often go too fast past it and that is really what causes
problems.
The Natural Philosopher
j...@durge.org wrote:
> Someone once said:
> : Why is it a black spot? In many years of travelling this route I can't
> : ever remeber an accident here before.
>
> The junction is horrible. I know of at least one death, a cow-orker of
> my mother, at that junction.
> People often go too fast past it and that is really what causes
> problems.
Its not the speed - its that wherever you have a potential crossroads or
staggered crossroads an a main trunk road, you have the potential for a
BIG accident.
What it needs is remoddelling, with extra lanes so that cars turning
and moving slow don't mix it with teh through traffic, and if someone
does pull out in front of a fast moving vehicle (which I bet is what
happened here, so its as valid to say the accident was caused by
someone travelling too slow, as too fast) then there is
somewhere to go other than across the middle of the road to avoid them.
Of course, waht we will get, is traffic lights that will simply cause
endless congestion, just like the ones at Quy....
>
> Jon
>
Bob
A ROAD smash claimed the lives of three people yesterday -- including
a mother and teenage son from the Ely area.
Sergeant Steve Davidson, of Cambridgeshire Police's Road Policing
Unit, said the injuries caused by the collision on the A10 at
Waterbeach were "horrific".
He said that it was one of the worst accidents he had seen in his
26-year police career.
A woman, 44, along with her 13-year-old son and a haulage driver,
believed to be from Germany, were killed in the crash which took place
at around 12.45pm.
The smash occurred when an articulated lorry was involved in a
collsision with oncoming traffic, dragging a car into a roadside
ditch.
The car, a Vauxhall Frontera, was ripped into three separate pieces
which had to be hauled out from the underside of the lorry by recovery
vehicles.
Sgt Davidson, who led the recovery, said: "The injuries I saw were
horrific, just awful. This is obviously very tragic because three
people have lost their lives.
"I've seen cars squashed and in a pretty bad way but it's unusual to
see a vehicle torn apart like this.
"The lorry was fully laden with around 10 tons of goods, so the car
took the full weight."
The family of the mother and son, who were travelling in the Vauxhall,
were last night informed of their deaths by police.
The identity of the driver, believed to be a German national, was last
night still being investigated by Cambridgeshire Police working with
Interpol.
Diversions were put in place for motorists when a section of the A10
around the Slap Up pub and restaurant was closed following the crash,
which happened near the former Enterprise Nurseries midway between
Milton and Waterbeach.
Witnesses should contact Sgt Davidson at the Road Policing Unit on
(01480) 422583.
tony sayer
No, it want's dualling as far as Ely at least...
--
Tony Sayer
Alan
"Stimmo" <richard...@atosorigin.com> wrote in message
news:d09fbb9a.02090...@posting.google.com...
> j...@durge.org wrote in message
news:<al044f$egb$1...@dolphin.grid-zero.net>...
> > Someone once said:
> > : "The A10 has been closed at the Waterbeach turn at the "Slap Up" due
to a
> > : crash involving a lorry and a car. 3 people have been killed, and
police
> > : don't expect the road to open again until early evening."
> >
> > Cambridge's worst traffic black spot claims yet more victims.
> >
>
> ever remeber an accident here before.
And is it even in Cambridge?
Paul Rudin
TNP> Its not the speed - its that wherever you have a potential
TNP> crossroads or staggered crossroads an a main trunk road, you
TNP> have the potential for a BIG accident.
...so if everone negotioted the junction at 10 mph there wouldn't be any
serious injuries or deaths.
--
I was in EXCRUCIATING PAIN until I started reading JACK AND JILL
Magazine!!
Sam Holloway
wrote:
> [the A10]
>No, it wants dualling as far as Ely at least...
At the risk of being shot by the sizeable anti-road lobby that
inhabits these parts, I couldn't agree more.
Sam
--
Sam Holloway, Cambridge
www.samholloway.co.uk
s...@samholloway.co.uk
j...@durge.org
:> Why is it a black spot? In many years of travelling this route I can't
:> ever remeber an accident here before.
: And is it even in Cambridge?
No, but "Waterbeach's worst traffic black spot" just doesn't have the
same ring to it.
peej
I think we've been here before. It's at least about kinetic energy, isn't
it?
> [...] so its as valid to say the accident was caused by
> someone travelling too slow, as too fast) [...]
LOL. I'd like to see that one argued in court. "The accident was caused by
the wall, which was travelling too slowly to allow my porsche to sensibly
overtake it".
I nearly caused an accident at 04:15 on Monday. I was driving around a
round-about with legal right of way at 30mph when I was nearly broadsided by
a racing chap in a little white hatchback, who was probably doing about
twice the speed limit [hard to tell other than by the smoke coming from his
tires]. I should have taken his number so I could apologize for getting in
his way; particularly irresponsible of me to drive at the speed limit when
my car will do about 150.
Phil
Peter Benie
>
>Of course, waht we will get, is traffic lights that will simply cause
>endless congestion, just like the ones at Quy....
With the old design of the Quy junction, I saw many near misses, and
the amount of broken glass indicates that there were many
accidents. The new design is a massive improvement. I use that
junction every day, and haven't suffered endless congestion.
Peter
The Natural Philosopher
tony sayer wrote:
>
> No, it want's dualling as far as Ely at least...
>
It always did actually, ever since I have been in these parts (1969)
But at least a few dual sections, with proper refuges and acceleration lanes for the busiest junctions, would help.
I'd probably settle for dualling up to that turn, and a roundabout.
The Natural Philosopher
Paul Rudin wrote:
>>>>>>"TNP" == The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> writes:
>>>>>>
>
>
> TNP> Its not the speed - its that wherever you have a potential
> TNP> crossroads or staggered crossroads an a main trunk road, you
> TNP> have the potential for a BIG accident.
>
> ...so if everone negotioted the junction at 10 mph there wouldn't be any
> serious injuries or deaths.
>
I suspect there would be actually. Probably due to people piling in the
back of the 20 mile queue, and also people chancing it by nipping across
the road with a 1/2 second gap.
>
Andrew Loveridge
> I nearly caused an accident at 04:15 on Monday. I was driving around a
> round-about with legal right of way at 30mph when I was nearly broadsided by
> a racing chap in a little white hatchback, who was probably doing about
> twice the speed limit [hard to tell other than by the smoke coming from his
> tires]. I should have taken his number so I could apologize for getting in
> his way; particularly irresponsible of me to drive at the speed limit when
> my car will do about 150.
I have sympathy with what you say, but the question begs to be asked: If
you are so law abiding, how do you know that your car will do 150mph?
Andrew
Patrick Gosling
Andrew Loveridge <love...@ox.compsoc.net> wrote:
>I have sympathy with what you say, but the question begs to be asked: If
>you are so law abiding, how do you know that your car will do 150mph?
He's taken it to Silverstone (or one of the several other tracks that
provide the facility)?
-patrick.
Steve Hunt
> does pull out in front of a fast moving vehicle (which I bet is what
> happened here, so its as valid to say the accident was caused by
> someone travelling too slow, as too fast)
Something which the accident stats never seem to
acknowledge. I've certainly seen some scary near misses
at the Butt La junction when someone ahead of me
in the queue to turn out gets it half right - they wait
for a gap that *would* be safe if only they would
accelerate a bit sharpish. Instead they pootle out
and toddle off oblivious to the fact that they
have just caused someone to virtually do an emergency
stop from 60mph.
-- Steve
The Natural Philosopher
peej wrote:
Well taking teh tongue out of the cheek for a moment, in that case
clearly the law is on your side. And probably ne would blame the oher guy.
However, if he is - say - doing a legal 60, and you, in a lesiurely
style, pull out in front of him, leaving him no option but to either
overtake you or go into teh back of you, and you then turn right into a
side road....yep. In that case, its YOUR bloody fault for travelling too
slowly when he isn't.
Of course the anti-road brgade will castigate the other guy for
travelling 'too fast to stop'....but I know where I lay the blame.
I have had that happen to me so many times...someone pulls out who is
going across a staggered junction, and they think that because they are
just on teh raod for an instant, they can take a chance..and you will
have to slow down...and oif course, you do..until the day its a bit
wetter or oliy or icy, and they collect someone else and instantly blame
them for 'going too fast'
I've never ghit anyone yet doing that too me, but then its such a
regular experience that one can usually see it coming.
Worst of all, is the driver who tries it on, panics, AND STOPS HALFWAY!!!
> Phil
>
>
>
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Peter Benie wrote:
I sat there for nearly a minute, with no traffic going towards
bottisham, and in fact no traffic using the junction at all.
Effctively lowering the road capacity by about 30%.
Ther classic mess up are the lights at the top of castle hill. There
were never large queues till the lights went in. Its a prime case where
a roundabout would work, and lights just end up gridlocking it, despite
the boxed junctions.
>
> Peter
>
peej
;-) RTFM... it's in the brochure so it must be true.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> [...] you, in a lesiurely style, pull out in front of him, leaving him no
option
Agreed 100%. In this case it was the racer who was trying to pull out,
either not having time or care to check if anyone else was on the road....
we both stopped as it happened, but probably his trousers suffered a bit.
I don't think these things can be categorized as "road" or "anti-road"
though. Such an approach seems to me to be similar to the catholic church's
attempts to categorize themselves as "pro-life" and everything else as anti.
Or the "countryside" lobby, which by its very name attempts to make & win an
argument. Is there a posh word for that type of polemic?
Phil
The Natural Philosopher
Steve Hunt wrote:
Yes. Apart from colliding with the scenery, car to car collsions are all
a function of too much SPEED DIFFERENTIAL. In a sense, you can lay the
blame on either driver - one for going too fast, or the other for going
too slow.
Its well known that m,otorways are safe because traffic all flows in one
direction at more or less similar speeds. And the designs optimise that,
with slip roads and acceleration lanes etc. etc.
Simply slowing all traffic down to the reaction time of the worst driver
on the road, in the worst car, on the worst possible day in the worst
possible weather...makes a mockery of using a car for transport at all.
Either we are all going to be allowed to work from home, and get
everything we need delivered, or we need to use the roads. If we need to
use them we need them to FLOW. There is a risk involved the moment a car
moves faster than a slow trot. More people were killed by horse
transport (sub 15mph) than by cars - simply because horses don't have
brakes. (and sharp pointy bits on their leg bottoms don't help)
Even if we all cycle everywehger to get ourselves abojut, materiel still needs to be hauled.
I am not sure of the economics of running a truck, but if a driver does
300 miles in a day, my guess is that costs about £60 in vehicle and
diesel costs, and about £100 in terms of the drivers wages. Slowing him
down from - say 60mph, where he can do that 300 miles - to 40mph, where
he probably only does 200 miles, adds a fair bit to the transport costs
of anything you need moved.
As well as needing 50% more trucks to move the same amount of stuff the
same distances. Hence more roads.
Its very easy to see that once congestion sets in, and average speeds
start to drop, OR in fact congestion sets in BECAUSE average speeds are
FORCED to drop, you end up in a positive feedback situation that costs
everyone in the country a LOT of money.
I don't know what happend at that junction, but almost certainly someone
turning off or on to the A10 started the problem. And trucks are limited
to 60mph, so the truck could *not* have been exceeding the limit.
> -- Steve
>
>
Paul B
news:3D74C534.4040105@b.c...
> Ther classic mess up are the lights at the top of castle hill. There
> were never large queues till the lights went in. Its a prime case where
> a roundabout would work, and lights just end up gridlocking it, despite
> the boxed junctions.
You'd have to demolish the petrol station to get a roundabout in there and
who's going to authorise that?
Paul
Stimmo
> Someone once said:
> : Why is it a black spot? In many years of travelling this route I can't
> : ever remeber an accident here before.
>
> The junction is horrible. I know of at least one death, a cow-orker of
> my mother, at that junction.
> People often go too fast past it and that is really what causes
> problems.
>
There isn't a junction near where the accident happened!
It's a straight but fairly narrow piece of road near the old garden centre.
Jonathan Amery
Actually, the (I believe council) offices opposite the Tex would be a
better idea, IMHO..
--
Jonathan Amery. He died that we might be forgiven,
##### He died to make us good;
#######__o That we might go at last to heaven,
#######'/ Saved by his precious blood. - Mrs C.F. Alexander
Mark Goodge
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> tony sayer wrote:
>
> >
> > No, it want's dualling as far as Ely at least...
> >
> It always did actually, ever since I have been in these parts (1969)
It was actually due to be dualled under the road-building programme of
the last Conservative government, but the scheme was scrapped on taking
power by Labour as part of their anti-transport policies.
Mark
Alan
You're letting facts get in the way again:-)
You've totally ruined all Hocus's waffle now....
Pandora
news:534d9.502$ta.61264@newsfep2-gui...
I'd authorise it, in fact, if I had the power I'd authorise the
demolition of every Texaco Star pertrol station in the country. Texaco Star
= Scum.
--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com
Pandora
> Someone once said:
> :> Why is it a black spot? In many years of travelling this route I can't
> :> ever remeber an accident here before.
>
> : And is it even in Cambridge?
>
> No, but "Waterbeach's worst traffic black spot" just doesn't have the
> same ring to it.
>
Is it even in Waterbeach ?
j...@durge.org
: There isn't a junction near where the accident happened!
The original post said that due to an accident the road had been closed
at the Slap Up. That is what I was replying to, and naturally assumed
the accident was.
Patrick Gosling
peej <pe...@binternet.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't think these things can be categorized as "road" or "anti-road"
>though. Such an approach seems to me to be similar to the catholic church's
>attempts to categorize themselves as "pro-life" and everything else as anti.
>Or the "countryside" lobby, which by its very name attempts to make & win an
>argument. Is there a posh word for that type of polemic?
It's pretty similar to the "excluded middle".
<http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle>
-patrick.
William Turner
>
> Someone once said:
> : Why is it a black spot? In many years of travelling this route I can't
> : ever remeber an accident here before.
>
> my mother, at that junction.
> People often go too fast past it and that is really what causes
> problems.
The accident last night wasn't at the junction. It was on the straight
stretch leading North to it, and from the looks of it on the TV, the
accident happened about half-way up it.
The only other fatac I'm aware of in that area was a while back
(last year or before), on the left-hand curve leading onto that
straight.
w
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Software Team Leader,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Pace Micro Technology PLC,
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Cambridge, England.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Email: william...@pace.co.uk
Paul
news:dzh*-p...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> Actually, the (I believe council) offices opposite the Tex would be a
> better idea, IMHO..
Yes they are council offices (Babbage House - County IT department), I've
worked there, they are ok except for not having a/c, which is a big
negative.
Back on the subject, I'm not sure a roundabout would work either because it
would get clogged, then part time lights would be installed, then they would
become full time and you'd be back to square one. Above a certain level of
traffic roundabouts fail.
Paul
peej
>
> <http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle>
thanks - useful link.
"False Dilemma" is the one I was thinking of, although "excluded middle"
sounds nice too.
The Natural Philosopher
Paul B wrote:
The council? Nah. Not as long as someone in the planning department is
getting kickbacks from traffic light salesmen...:-)
Seriously, there is room to do a small one, or even a little one way
system that starts at victoria ropd, runs dwon to shelley gardens, lo0ps
back and up the huntingdon road, and then takes the garage corner to
loop back via histon road to victoria again.
I reckon it would double the throughput.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Stimmo wrote:
I thought someone said it was where the slap up was.
It isn't by the pedestrian bridge is it?
Aquaintance of mine got a piece of brake drum through the windscreen and
woke up in hospital there once...never worked out if it was kicked up by
another vehicle or dropped from the bridge...
The Natural Philosopher
William Turner wrote:
> j...@durge.org wrote:
>
>>Someone once said:
>>: Why is it a black spot? In many years of travelling this route I can't
>>: ever remeber an accident here before.
>>
>>The junction is horrible. I know of at least one death, a cow-orker of
>>my mother, at that junction.
>>People often go too fast past it and that is really what causes
>>problems.
>>
>
> The accident last night wasn't at the junction. It was on the straight
> stretch leading North to it, and from the looks of it on the TV, the
> accident happened about half-way up it.
In that case I take it all back. Weird. Very weird. Thats not even on a
curve is it? I sawe a car roll at denny end once - lads doing 130 lost
it on the bend ... but I've never seen an acident by the old fruit store
- I asume thats where it was yes?
Unless it started at the junction - i.e. got out of shape due to
something happening there, and the final impact was - what - about
150meters later?
Which way were things travveling, and who ended up on teh wrong side of teh road?
The Natural Philosopher
Paul wrote:
Above a certain level of traffic, everything fails...BUT roundabouts
don't fail *unless* there are significant bottlenecks *beyond them*.
Otherwise traffic may queue to get on, but they don't lock up.
The lights on teh milton road one are essentially there to regulate
science park traffic. Otherwise the queue from the science park extends
back to the roundabout and beyond.
As long as the stupid pedestrian lights, teh shelley garden lights and
the histon road lights were all removed, there are no bottlenecks really
possible there.
> Paul
>
>
>
Richard Meredith
<Pine.LNX.4.10.102090...@montag451.fsnet.co.uk>,
love...@ox.compsoc.net (Andrew Loveridge) wrote:
I know my car is supposed to be able to do 137 mph, but I've never taken it
at anything like that speed. How do I know? It says so in the manual.
--
This message may contain traces of nuts. Do not refreeze once thawed.
No animals were hurt in the making of this production. Suitable for
vegetarians.
peej
>>
>> <http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle>
[probably breaks unwritten but very important cam.misc rule and responds to
own post]
Actually if these definitions were numbered it might save a lot of time &
space here. I could then just annotate any polemic I don't like with the
appropriate numbers and claim victory ;-)
Meldrew of Meldreth
<bob_b...@london.com> writes
>"The lorry was fully laden with around 10 tons of goods,
A bit light for an artic.
>so the car
>took the full weight."
Whereas an empty lorry's full weight would have been taken by something
else?
--
"It used to be that what a writer did was type a bit and the stare out of the
window a bit, type a bit, stare out of the window a bit. Networked computers
make these two activities converge, because now the thing you type on and the
window you stare out of are the same thing" - Douglas Adams 28/1/99.
Keith Orbell
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message news:3D74973D.208@b.c...
> What it needs is remoddelling, with extra lanes so that cars turning
> and moving slow don't mix it with teh through traffic, and if someone
> does pull out in front of a fast moving vehicle (which I bet is what
> happened here, so its as valid to say the accident was caused by
> someone travelling too slow, as too fast) then there is
> somewhere to go other than across the middle of the road to avoid them.
Which, of course, is exactly how the junction used to be. Two lanes in each
direction. I don't recall when exactly it changed (perhaps around 1988?).
--
Keith
Andrew Loveridge
> In article
> > On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, peej wrote:
> > > particularly irresponsible of me to drive at the speed limit
> > > when my car will do about 150.
> >
> > I have sympathy with what you say, but the question begs to be asked: If
> > you are so law abiding, how do you know that your car will do 150mph?
>
> I know my car is supposed to be able to do 137 mph, but I've never taken it
> at anything like that speed. How do I know? It says so in the manual.
peej's words implied personal experience to me (statement of fact rather
than implied ability).
The figures in the manual aren't to be trusted anyhow, as the actual
figure depends on engine & gearbox wear, tyre pressures, and the figure in
the manual depends on (to some extent) the primary group the car is being
marketed to (hot-hatches exaggerate, "family" cars underestimate).
Also, 150mph is awful high for most cars on the road today --- my first
thought was "Is that the highest number on [his/her] speedo?" Mine stops
there, though I'm willing to postulate that you'd have a job actually
getting it above 110mph (based on the number of revs it pulls at 90).
Andrew
The Natural Philosopher
Andrew Loveridge wrote:
Mine is limited at 155mph allegedly. I personally have never driven a
car at more than 135mph, and the fastest I have been driven (in 1973 as
it happens) was 145mph from Birmingham to London down the M1 at 3 a.m..
Hitch-hiking is - interesting...
I can asssure you that it is awfully high, and only achievable if the
road and the conditions are right. In Germany, you get the situation
where someomne may pull out to overtake at 70, and get someone up their
backsides doing 140...thats 70mph differential speed. Carnage.
Realistically you can, in traffic on an autobahn, only do 20-30 mph more
than the bulk of the traffic.
Its the same here, apart from being illegal, that very few drivers no
matter what sort of hurry they are in exceed 100mph by very much, when
there is traffic doing 70mph scatreed around.
One thing that large excesses of power do give you, is massive
acceleration. There is one place where a very small road joins a dual
carriageway, and there is no acceleration lane as such. Usually one
waits for a big gap in the traffic, or until someone spots you waiting
and opens up the slow lane. In the 'fast car' its fun to wait for that,
and then be up to 70mph long before they arrive at the junction :=-)
Speed per se isn't the issue. Cars that are designed for 150mph -
massive tyres, brakes and engines, can just DO it. Its the speed in the
context of the other road users and abusers.
But it is nice sometines to drive from one end of Germany to the other
averaging over 100mph, legally :-)
Or it used to be. Last I heard is was just another traffic jam all the way...
>
> Andrew
>
>
Paul Rudin
>> It's pretty similar to the "excluded middle".
>>
>> <http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle>
peej> thanks - useful link.
peej> "False Dilemma" is the one I was thinking of, although
peej> "excluded middle" sounds nice too.
Persaonlly I don't think it's helpful to use "excluded middle" here,
because it's more normally used to refer to the fact that in
traditional classical logic one of a proposition and its compliment
are true. The kind of rhetoric referred attempts to present something
as an instance of this rule where it obviously isn't...
--
I'll take ROAST BEEF if you're out of LAMB!!
tony sayer
.uk>, Andrew Loveridge <love...@ox.compsoc.net> writes
Yep these sort of speeds are totally daft on anything like normal roads.
Some years ago I had the chance to really put a Lotus through its paces
at 150 plus for somewhile and whilst the car was fine for that, the
surroundings were not, well other cars that is. Certainly wouldn't like
to try anything like that in yer jumped up family saloon...
And no, it wasn't in the UK....
--
Tony Sayer
chris...@arm.nospam.com
> acceleration. There is one place where a very small road joins a dual
> carriageway, and there is no acceleration lane as such. Usually one
> waits for a big gap in the traffic, or until someone spots you waiting
> and opens up the slow lane. In the 'fast car' its fun to wait for that,
> and then be up to 70mph long before they arrive at the junction :=-)
And kindly tell me the how the guy coming down the road is supposed
to tell the difference between you coming out with your massive
acceleration and someone failing to see him and coming out by mistake.
The most likely result is that the guy coming along the road will slam
on his brakes as he has no way of knowing that you can get out of the
way
in time. Result - any traffic behind him goes straight into the back
of him.
Massive acceleration is only useful if you can use it in a situation
where
other road users do not have to be psychically able to determine that
you
have it and can get out of their way.
The situation you describe may be fun (and perfectly safe) for you
but it's neither safe nor fun for people around you.
Chris
Richard Meredith
wrote:
Actually I'm with the Philosopher on this one to some extent. It's a matter
of good driving: if you've got a car with good acceleration, you still need
to be careful not to scare the wits out of other drivers by pulling out in
no space just because you can.
Good acceleration does make it easier to emerge safely into a line of
traffic with few gaps safely, but putting another driver into a position
where he considers it necessary to take evasive action is plain bad driving.
Steve Hunt
> traffic with few gaps safely, but putting another driver into a position
> where he considers it necessary to take evasive action is plain bad
> driving.
Quite so. But the real bad driving is done by the
procession of drivers who nose to tail it up
the inside lane uncaring or unobserving of the
people trying to merge. It's a shame that
so few people will pull out to allow you to
merge safely - especially when the outer lane is
empty. Sometimes resorting to brute force
acceleration is the safest option (for slowing
down or even stopping at the end of the slip
road would be highly dangerous).
-- Steve
Al Grant
> Above a certain level of traffic, everything fails...BUT roundabouts
> don't fail *unless* there are significant bottlenecks *beyond them*.
> Otherwise traffic may queue to get on, but they don't lock up.
They suffer from a blocking effect when traffic flow is asymmetric.
Even with three exits numbered clockwise 1, 2, 3, if there is a
steady flow of traffic from 1 to 3, and no traffic entering at 3,
then traffic at 2 may queue indefinitely. This can be so even with
no other bottlenecks. It becomes effectively a T-junction.
With more exits you may even get Ethernet-style capture effects
with multiple stable states.
> As long as the stupid pedestrian lights, teh shelley garden lights and
> the histon road lights were all removed, there are no bottlenecks really
> possible there.
All it takes to produce a bottleneck is a continuous flow in some
direction which has the right of way. With no lights, the waiting
traffic never gets priority.
Richard Meredith
(Steve Hunt) wrote:
Agreed, to a point but acceleration in that case shouldn't be necessary or
helpful: you should be using the slip road to match the speed of the
traffic, so you can move into a space in the traffic with negligible
acceleration. If there is no space, then accelerating won't make one.
The only case it can help is if a jerk driver closes up into the space you
were planning to merge into - in which case, you may need to accelerate into
the space ahead, but any way its a far from optimal solution and which is
least dangerous is dependant on circumstances in a way that's unlikely to be
possible to generalise about.
The Natural Philosopher
chris...@arm.nospam.com wrote:
>>One thing that large excesses of power do give you, is massive
>>acceleration. There is one place where a very small road joins a dual
>>carriageway, and there is no acceleration lane as such. Usually one
>>waits for a big gap in the traffic, or until someone spots you waiting
>>and opens up the slow lane. In the 'fast car' its fun to wait for that,
>>and then be up to 70mph long before they arrive at the junction :=-)
>>
>
> And kindly tell me the how the guy coming down the road is supposed
> to tell the difference between you coming out with your massive
> acceleration and someone failing to see him and coming out by mistake.
> The most likely result is that the guy coming along the road will slam
> on his brakes as he has no way of knowing that you can get out of the
> way
> in time. Result - any traffic behind him goes straight into the back
> of him.
Excuse me?
*Read what I said*. He can't. the fun bit is when he realises that he
didn't need to move at all. You get quite a few grins in the rear view :-)
What I SAID was...."Usually one waits for a big gap in the traffic"
which is the normal safe thing...and " or until someone spots you
waiting and opens up the slow lane." In thi scase the considerate driver
has left yopu the room he knows ytou need to get out on to the roadf in
a 20 ton artic...and then I said " In the 'fast car' its fun to wait for
that," . i.e. the gap or the cleared lane..." and then be up to 70mph
long before they arrive at the junction :=-)" so they realise they
didn't have to move over after all.
We are talking harmless fun here. Not exceeding any limits, not
endangering any drivers, merely using a bit less road than the other
motorists have kindly granted us.
...and demonstrating once again, the fact that one only needs mention
Speed, and some nameless twat doesn't even take the trouble to read the
post, but launches into a tirade...a crusade against Boy Racers, The
Scum Of The Earth Who Torture Old Ladies and Rubber.
Sheesh.
>
> Massive acceleration is only useful if you can use it in a situation
> where
> other road users do not have to be psychically able to determine that
> you
> have it and can get out of their way.
>
Which is *exactly* what I said. BUT the red haze was down, and you got
had. Youyr prejudices displayed for all to read.
Take the beam out of thine own eye.
The Natural Philosopher
Richard Meredith wrote:
It looks like you didn't read the post either. I particularly stated
that I didn't use that power to take adavantage of smaller than normal
gaps. In that context I used it to take surprisingly less advantage of
normal large gaps.
I am fully aware of the fact that the average motorists can neither
conceive of a motorist, or a vehicle, that performs in any way better,
or worse than the one he or she is sitting in.
And the best thing is not to startle them with the savage truth that
cars and people cover a wide range of performances. Lets face it, 99% of
them don't even know their own , or their cars limits, let alone anyone
elses.
The Natural Philosopher
Steve Hunt wrote:
You just have to wait - obviouly - for the experienced driver who
indicates, and moves *half* way over blovking two lanes for you, and
gives you the headlights :-) 10:1 its a German driver driving a 10 ton
truck :-(
Maybe thats what he was doing, at that.
> -- Steve
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Al Grant wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote in message news:<3D74F19E.4030102@b.c>...
>
>>Above a certain level of traffic, everything fails...BUT roundabouts
>>don't fail *unless* there are significant bottlenecks *beyond them*.
>>Otherwise traffic may queue to get on, but they don't lock up.
>>
>
> They suffer from a blocking effect when traffic flow is asymmetric.
> Even with three exits numbered clockwise 1, 2, 3, if there is a
> steady flow of traffic from 1 to 3, and no traffic entering at 3,
> then traffic at 2 may queue indefinitely. This can be so even with
> no other bottlenecks. It becomes effectively a T-junction.
>
That is only true insofar as it blocks access to the roundabouit. It
doesn't stop *all* flow like a set of badly designed boxed lights do.
And then if you gate and hump the rat run around em, you get utter chaos.
> With more exits you may even get Ethernet-style capture effects
> with multiple stable states.
>
Hmm.
>
>>As long as the stupid pedestrian lights, teh shelley garden lights and
>>the histon road lights were all removed, there are no bottlenecks really
>>possible there.
>>
>
> All it takes to produce a bottleneck is a continuous flow in some
> direction which has the right of way. With no lights, the waiting
> traffic never gets priority.
>
Then all you do, is join that flow earlier on...all it takes anyway is
to relocate a pedestrian crossing upstream of the flow to intriduce some
gaps anyway.
Thats why rat runs and one way systems and roundabouts all work so well,
when unhgindered by calming and lights - people naturally work out what
is the best way to get through the mess, and self-optimise the system.
However these days, the idead is ti get them all into one main flow, and
then blovck it. You then (according to watchdog last night) sell the
clamping rights to a company that creates even more chaos by towing
everyone away...
Al Capone has got nothing on modern government and local government
practice really.
At least in places like serbia, they used to be honest about it. The
lads would step into teh road with guns, and demand their road tolls
direct without any intervening bureacracy...
Its a bit like that in Mexico and Africa as well.
The Natural Philosopher
Richard Meredith wrote:
> In article <103113915...@iris.uk.clara.net>, st...@pSoPgAgMle.org
> (Steve Hunt) wrote:
>
>
>>>Good acceleration does make it easier to emerge safely into a line of
>>>traffic with few gaps safely, but putting another driver into a position
>>>where he considers it necessary to take evasive action is plain bad
>>>driving.
>>>
>>Quite so. But the real bad driving is done by the
>>procession of drivers who nose to tail it up
>>the inside lane uncaring or unobserving of the
>>people trying to merge. It's a shame that
>>so few people will pull out to allow you to
>>merge safely - especially when the outer lane is
>>empty. Sometimes resorting to brute force
>>acceleration is the safest option (for slowing
>>down or even stopping at the end of the slip
>>road would be highly dangerous).
>>
>
> Agreed, to a point but acceleration in that case shouldn't be necessary or
> helpful: you should be using the slip road to match the speed of the
> traffic, so you can move into a space in the traffic with negligible
> acceleration. If there is no space, then accelerating won't make one.
I suggets you go to the road in point - it runs up from Moulton to the
A11 - and see exactly what sort of slip road you get. Exactly enough
space to park a single car. If you want to see for yourself, take the
Bury road out of newmarket, and turn left at the gypsy grave where
flowers are always out, and then proceed until you *have* to turn left
on the A11.
If you can find a safaer way than using full acceleration, or waiting a
fairly long time until a very large space appears, or is made for you by
a considerate fellow road user, then let me know.
>
> The only case it can help is if a jerk driver closes up into the space you
> were planning to merge into - in which case, you may need to accelerate into
> the space ahead, but any way its a far from optimal solution and which is
> least dangerous is dependant on circumstances in a way that's unlikely to be
> possible to generalise about.
Thats the other case. Its far less dangerous to get up to speed quickly
on a slip road, and then merge at the traffic speed. Another case where
slow drivers cause accidents.
Steve Hunt
> Agreed, to a point but acceleration in that case shouldn't be necessary or
> helpful: you should be using the slip road to match the speed of the
> traffic, so you can move into a space in the traffic with negligible
> acceleration. If there is no space, then accelerating won't make one.
I was specifically referring to the unduly short slip roads
that were mentioned earlier in the thread. Such as the one
when you join the A14 southbound from the Hemingfords (its it?
round there anyway) and many older service station slip roads on
the motorways. The point being unless you have an above
average amount of acceleration available to you, you *cannot*
match speeds with the traffic in the space available.
-- Steve
Steve Hunt
> I was specifically referring to the unduly short slip roads
> that were mentioned earlier in the thread.
Namely this:
> > acceleration. There is one place where a very small road joins a dual
> > carriageway, and there is no acceleration lane as such. Usually one
> > waits for a big gap in the traffic, or until someone spots you waiting
-- Steve
Keir Finlow-Bates
"Al Grant" <alg...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:5765b025.02090...@posting.google.com...
> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:<3D74F19E.4030102@b.c>...
>
> > the histon road lights were all removed, there are no bottlenecks really
> > possible there.
>
> All it takes to produce a bottleneck is a continuous flow in some
> direction which has the right of way. With no lights, the waiting
> traffic never gets priority.
At least they're not as bad as roundabouts used to be in Holland in the 80s.
There (and then) you had to give way if you were on the roundabout. As a
result they used to get clogged up (NPI) as soon as more than five cars
turned up at the same time. This ridiculous state of affairs lasted all the
way through to the mid-nineties.
Keir
--
http://www.ongar.org - never grow up.
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 7/1/02
Tony Finch
>
>At least they're not as bad as roundabouts used to be in Holland in the 80s.
>There (and then) you had to give way if you were on the roundabout. As a
>result they used to get clogged up (NPI) as soon as more than five cars
>turned up at the same time. This ridiculous state of affairs lasted all the
>way through to the mid-nineties.
France had the same rules.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <d...@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
FISHER GERMAN BIGHT: CYCLONIC BECOMING WEST OR SOUTHWEST 4 OR 5, OCCASIONALLY
6. THUNDERY SHOWERS. MAINLY MODERATE.
Richard Meredith
(Steve Hunt) wrote:
>
> I was specifically referring to the unduly short slip roads
> that were mentioned earlier in the thread. Such as the one
> when you join the A14 southbound from the Hemingfords (its it?
> round there anyway) and many older service station slip roads on
> the motorways. The point being unless you have an above
> average amount of acceleration available to you, you *cannot*
> match speeds with the traffic in the space available.
Consider the point taken.
Peter Laborne
> I was specifically referring to the unduly short slip roads
> that were mentioned earlier in the thread. Such as the one
> when you join the A14 southbound from the Hemingfords (its it?
> round there anyway) and many older service station slip roads on
> the motorways. The point being unless you have an above
> average amount of acceleration available to you, you *cannot*
> match speeds with the traffic in the space available.
I know what you mean. I often need to use the one at Hemmingford (opposite
the golf course). The worst is the one at the southern end of Fen Drayton,
this is basically a T-junction with the A14 (there literally is no slip
road).
Normally I am not too fussed as I have a car with 150+bhp, so finding a gap
and accelerating to a safe 60 or 70mph is quite easy and I can do this in a
short distance. However at the moment my car is in for repairs and I am now
driving a tank with around 65bhp. Finding gaps is now a lot harder and I now
have to look for a space about four times larger in order to be 100% safe.
Occasionally I have been let out by other cars and lorries only to have them
flying past when I am still accelerating up to the 50mph mark. Quite
nerve-racking at times.
Peter
William Turner
> Massive acceleration is only useful if you can use it in a situation
> where
> other road users do not have to be psychically able to determine that
> you
> have it and can get out of their way.
Agreed 100%, and the converse also holds true too. Tarting up
20cc Novas etc to look like they might have a reasonable amount of power
is just asking for trouble if the other party assumes (which, granted they
shouldn't) that the car doing the manoevure looks like it should
be able to complete it.
w
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Software Team Leader,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Pace Micro Technology PLC,
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Cambridge, England.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Email: william...@pace.co.uk
Clive D. W. Feather
writes
>Ther classic mess up are the lights at the top of castle hill. There
>were never large queues till the lights went in.
Rubbish: in the late afternoon it was a real disaster trying to get out
of Victoria Road on to Huntingdon Road.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 (NOTE CHANGE) | Work: <cl...@demon.net>
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address
Keith Orbell
<chris...@arm.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3D75E2A4...@arm.nospam.com...
> > waits for a big gap in the traffic, or until someone spots you waiting
> > and opens up the slow lane. In the 'fast car' its fun to wait for that,
> > and then be up to 70mph long before they arrive at the junction :=-)
>
> And kindly tell me the how the guy coming down the road is supposed
> to tell the difference between you coming out with your massive
> acceleration and someone failing to see him and coming out by mistake.
He already stated that "someone" had spotted him waiting and opened up the
lane.
--
Keith
chris...@arm.nospam.com
> He already stated that "someone" had spotted him waiting and opened up the
> lane.
Point taken. I apologise for implying gross stupidity! Nevertheless, I
stand
by my point that mucking about on roads with the reactions of other
road users is dangerous and silly.
Chris
The Natural Philosopher
chris...@arm.nospam.com wrote:
Mostly I agree. Occasionally, if done in complete safety, its
educational. I tend to think that one slightly elevated pulse rate from
a young driver up my exhaast pipe, who then backs off, is worth the
carnage that would ensue, if it ever happened for real, and the guy in
front wasn't modulating the brake pedal to ensure that a lesson, and not
a disaster, resulted.
Personally I happen to think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
after the event traffic calming. Old drivers you simply tread warily
around. Its to late. Young drivers - well one hopes its merely
inexperience, not terminal stupidity. And inexperience may be remedied.
And you cannot in any event avoid 'mucking around' with other drivers
reactions. You drive on the assumption that other drivers are aware of,
and adjust their actions, to you, and vice versa. Maybe the Test
teaches you the One Right Way to do everything - I don't know. Its a
long time since I passed mine...but the game in those days was to be as
obvious as possible in what you are doing, and as flexible as possible
in your interpretation of what others are doing. Being obvious is
definitely 'mucking around with other peoples reactions'. You don't for
example expect that if you indicate to move into a different lane, and
start the manouver, that the car behind will suddenly accelerate level
with you, wave two fingers at you, and roar off. Unless you drive a
porsche of course :-)
I don't see any harm either, when yoiu have waited 3 minutes for that
battered old fiesta to overtake a truck at 65, to use a fair bit of
power to get past him to show that *if* he had moved over, you would
have been past long before he arrived at the said truck...
Drivers do educate each other to some sort of 'consensus' behaviour. I
think that is an unavoidable, and positive thing. I don't think one
should refrain from taking part in teh process either - who hasn't
tooted at someone to indicate an opinion of their driving, or stopped
and let that rather nervous looking driver with the 20 mile tailback out
of a side road...we do it all the time. We interact, we try and show
each other what we are up to, so we can all get home safely. Showing
someone else what 370bhp, rather than 37bhp, can do is just another part
of that.
>
> Chris
>
peej
> another part of that.
I kind of know what you mean on some of that stuff, but...
<rant style="present company: excluded">
I'm personally on the receiving end of a lot of people revving & speeding
who are presumably trying to "educate me".
It might be a bit arrogant of these people to think that they are able or
qualified to provide the rest of us with any education. It's unclear why
such education is generally given in what appears to be an agressive manner.
If I didn't know better, I'd be tempted to think that they are sad people
trying to prove that their willies are bigger than mine and that overtaking
"sports" cars is probably the only thing which gives them a hard on.
I wonder if these guys brag down the pub about how many drivers of [insert
name of car here] they "taught a lesson to" today, and what sort of lesson
that really is.
</rant>
Alan
"Steve Hunt" <st...@pSoPgAgMle.org> wrote in message
news:103122454...@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
>
> It strikes me that adding long-phase traffic
> lights to the roundabout (as at East Rd) is not a
> good solution. What they should do is have a traffic
> light on the predominant route, where it enters
> the roundabout, and use it to delay every N alternate
> vehicles for a couple of seconds *only*, just to
> ensure that there is a decent supply of gaps
> "travelling" round the roundabout for people on
> the lesser routes to merge into.
>
You're assuming that the Council wants the traffic to flow. I think you'll
find that they prefer you to dislike sitting in jams and move to P&R or go
elsewhere.
Alan
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE!
Replace 'deadspam' with penguinclub.org.uk to reply in email.
Steve Hunt
> They suffer from a blocking effect when traffic flow is asymmetric.
> Even with three exits numbered clockwise 1, 2, 3, if there is a
> steady flow of traffic from 1 to 3, and no traffic entering at 3,
> then traffic at 2 may queue indefinitely. This can be so even with
> no other bottlenecks. It becomes effectively a T-junction.
You get this problem when approaching Liz Way from
Chesterton High Street. At busy times, there is
such a steady and gapless flow of traffic coming
from the Milton Rd direction and heading over Liz
Way Bridge that if you are waiting to exit
Chesterton High Street there is little chance.
Gallingly, even if your choice of lane shows
that you are going straight across the roundabout,
most people will not leave a gap when the traffic
stops.
It strikes me that adding long-phase traffic
lights to the roundabout (as at East Rd) is not a
good solution. What they should do is have a traffic
light on the predominant route, where it enters
the roundabout, and use it to delay every N alternate
vehicles for a couple of seconds *only*, just to
ensure that there is a decent supply of gaps
"travelling" round the roundabout for people on
the lesser routes to merge into.
-- Steve
Bob
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/news.asp?sec=1&id=196414
THE three victims of a "horror" crash on the A10 at Waterbeach have
been named by police.
Valerie Andrews and her 13-year-old son Jason were travelling in a
Vauxhall Frontera when they were involved in a collision with an
articulated lorry.
The 44-year-old and her son are from Main Street in Little Thetford,
near Ely.
Norbert Kolke, the 51-year-old lorry driver from Vallendar in Germany,
was also killed in the crash, which w as described by one police
officer as the worst he had ever seen.
The accident happened at around 12.40pm on Monday, near the former
Enterprise Nurseries midway between Milton and Waterbeach.
* Witnesses should contact Sgt Steve Davidson on (01480) 422583.
John Sullivan
>Rubbish: in the late afternoon it was a real disaster trying to get out
>of Victoria Road on to Huntingdon Road.
Still can be. The fact that adjacent sets of lights don't appear to
have any firm synchronisation combined with the box junctions, can
make it actually impossible (or at least illegal) to pull out of
Victoria Road or Mount Pleasant, for many cycles of the lights at a
time.
Situation: head of queue, lights on red. Traffic files at a reasonably
slow rate from Histon Road (or Castle Street) to the lights on red at
Huntingdon Road. Your lights go green but by that time the traffic in
front is backup up to the box, or more likely queueing in it
illegally. Your lights go red, *then* Huntingdon Road goes
green. Repeat until you get lucky or the lights drift out of phase.
Most people just ignore the boxes in this situation.
John
--
Dead stars still burn
The Natural Philosopher
peej wrote:
>>Showing someone else what 370bhp, rather than 37bhp, can do is just
>>another part of that.
>>
>
> I kind of know what you mean on some of that stuff, but...
>
> <rant style="present company: excluded">
> I'm personally on the receiving end of a lot of people revving & speeding
> who are presumably trying to "educate me".
>
I doubt it. There is a distinction between those who see themselves as a
race apart, and those who somehow find themselves sharing the planet
with a lot of other people who are sometimes more, sometimes less
knowledgeable than themselves....
> It might be a bit arrogant of these people to think that they are able or
> qualified to provide the rest of us with any education. It's unclear why
> such education is generally given in what appears to be an agressive manner.
> If I didn't know better, I'd be tempted to think that they are sad people
> trying to prove that their willies are bigger than mine and that overtaking
> "sports" cars is probably the only thing which gives them a hard on.
In fact, you have clearly identified the difference between education
and gratuitous sadism. In the one case the leswson stops before harm is
done, and any violence is there for shock value. In the latter case, the
lessons stops only when the mouse, so to speak, stops squeaking.
Cats an young humans both show the latter characteristics, Whether its
anything to do with willy sizes, I don't know, For sure cats have a wee
problem in that area....:-)
>
> I wonder if these guys brag down the pub about how many drivers of [insert
> name of car here] they "taught a lesson to" today, and what sort of lesson
> that really is.
No, they don't. That is not teh sort of activity in question anyway. I
suppose all I was really saying is that in perfectly normal driving,
education goes on all the time. People express themselves by courtesy,
or arrogance. They help, or hinder each other. To lok on it all as a
real time lessson, and one which you can contribute to, is a gopod thing
- rather than getting upset. I remember being chased by someone who
fancied a race. I let him past and then stuck like glue about 3 car
lengths back. Until the hairpin...which I slowed down for, and then
cruised past the front of his car where it stretched out into the road -
the rest was in a field - laughing my head off. No damage, no harm done,
except to his pride :-)
> </rant>
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Steve Hunt wrote:
Now lets hope the traffic bastards^H^H^H^H^H planners are listening.
That sounds like THE most effective way of modulating the flow, without
blocking it completely.
> -- Steve
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Alan wrote:
> "Steve Hunt" <st...@pSoPgAgMle.org> wrote in message
> news:103122454...@iapetus.uk.clara.net...
>
>>It strikes me that adding long-phase traffic
>>lights to the roundabout (as at East Rd) is not a
>>good solution. What they should do is have a traffic
>>light on the predominant route, where it enters
>>the roundabout, and use it to delay every N alternate
>>vehicles for a couple of seconds *only*, just to
>>ensure that there is a decent supply of gaps
>>"travelling" round the roundabout for people on
>>the lesser routes to merge into.
>>
>>
>
> You're assuming that the Council wants the traffic to flow. I think you'll
> find that they prefer you to dislike sitting in jams and move to P&R or go
> elsewhere.
>
Sadly, it does seem that way.
I could not believe what they have done to the old rat run from the
milton road to lizzy way via chesterton. Haven't uised it in years.
Seems to me all it will do is increase jams on teh milton road, and the
cars that do use it will double the pollution level as they slow up and
speed up.
Madness.
Francis Turton
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>
> I sat there for nearly a minute, with no traffic going towards
> bottisham, and in fact no traffic using the junction at all.
>
> Effctively lowering the road capacity by about 30%.
>
If no traffic was using the junction, then road capacity could have been
reduced by *100%*, without disrupting traffic flow.
---------------------------------------------
http://www.dogsticks.org/
Francis Turton
> Personally I happen to think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
> after the event traffic calming.
>
I'm surprised Railtrack didn't use this line of argument. You know:
"Improving the tracks now isn't going to bring back the Potters Bar victims,
so why bother?"
---------------------------------------------
http://www.dogsticks.org/
Martin Evans
Drivers do educate each other to some sort of 'consensus' behaviour....Showing
someone else what 370bhp, rather than 37bhp, can do is just another part of
that.
It is of course conceivable that the driver being "educated" already knows what
you can do in a car with 370bhp, but also knows that kind of driving is
inappropriate on a public highway.
bw
"David Braben" <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FRNT13...@frontier.co.uk...
> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > Peter Benie wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3D74973D.208@b.c>, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Of course, waht we will get, is traffic lights that will simply cause
> > >>endless congestion, just like the ones at Quy....
> > >>
> > >
> > > With the old design of the Quy junction, I saw many near misses, and
> > > the amount of broken glass indicates that there were many
> > > accidents. The new design is a massive improvement. I use that
> > > junction every day, and haven't suffered endless congestion.
>
> I have used that junction twice a day for many years, and have not seen
any
> near misses or accidents, though I have seen the occasional bit of broken
> light clusters by the roadside. Should we draw any conclusion from the
fact
> you have seen 'many' near misses? ;-)
>
> The new design may reduce accidents simply by bunging the junction up, but
> this is a missed opportunity. A change in road layout (perhaps more
> expensive) would have been a far better solution.
>
> > I sat there for nearly a minute, with no traffic going towards
> > bottisham, and in fact no traffic using the junction at all.
>
> sensors on them.
Lights here are the only sensible solution as there are a lot of car
movements for drivers to keep track of, the steady stream of accidents has
disappeared and I have not experienced any problems leaving Cambridge which
I thought would happen. I use it every day and certainly not sat at red
lights for no reason.
David Braben
news:3D74C534.4040105@b.c...
>
>
> Peter Benie wrote:
>
> > In article <3D74973D.208@b.c>, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
> >
> >>Of course, waht we will get, is traffic lights that will simply cause
> >>endless congestion, just like the ones at Quy....
> >>
> >
> > With the old design of the Quy junction, I saw many near misses, and
> > the amount of broken glass indicates that there were many
> > accidents. The new design is a massive improvement. I use that
> > junction every day, and haven't suffered endless congestion.
I have used that junction twice a day for many years, and have not seen any
near misses or accidents, though I have seen the occasional bit of broken
light clusters by the roadside. Should we draw any conclusion from the fact
you have seen 'many' near misses? ;-)
The new design may reduce accidents simply by bunging the junction up, but
this is a missed opportunity. A change in road layout (perhaps more
expensive) would have been a far better solution.
> I sat there for nearly a minute, with no traffic going towards
> bottisham, and in fact no traffic using the junction at all.
Indeed. Also my experience. I thought lights were supposed to have car
sensors on them.
David
Peter Benie
David Braben <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
>"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>news:3D74C534.4040105@b.c...
>> Peter Benie wrote:
>> > With the old design of the Quy junction, I saw many near misses, and
>> > the amount of broken glass indicates that there were many
>> > accidents. The new design is a massive improvement. I use that
>> > junction every day, and haven't suffered endless congestion.
>
>I have used that junction twice a day for many years, and have not seen any
>near misses or accidents, though I have seen the occasional bit of broken
>light clusters by the roadside. Should we draw any conclusion from the fact
>you have seen 'many' near misses? ;-)
How about that I am driving with my eyes open?
Anyway, I spoke too soon - the police were out this morning because of
another accident at the junction.
>The new design may reduce accidents simply by bunging the junction up, but
>this is a missed opportunity. A change in road layout (perhaps more
>expensive) would have been a far better solution.
The layout did change - the two lanes coming from the roundabout were
moved apart to encourage people not to switch lanes at the last
moment. They also changed the exit from the roundabout to make it
easier to get from the right hand lane of the roundabout to the
Newmarket road.
Given how long that took, I'm not sure I want any more dramatic changes!
>> I sat there for nearly a minute, with no traffic going towards
>> bottisham, and in fact no traffic using the junction at all.
>
>Indeed. Also my experience. I thought lights were supposed to have car
>sensors on them.
They do have sensors, but they won't change immediately if they have
only just changed anyway. Is a minute a long time?
Peter
Robert Macmillan
"Peter Benie" <pet...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:-Xi*VN...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> ... Is a minute a long time?
I think if anyone was hurrying down a pavement and someone stopped them
and held them up for a minute for no purpose, they would be extremely
annoyed.
Robert
Colin Rosenstiel
Not the Council but concerned local residents and cyclists whose safety
was being increasingly threatened by rising tides of rat-running traffic.
They brought pressure to bear on their elected representatives.
It's called democracy. If anyone can come up with a better system, please
join the queue.
Colin Rosenstiel
Colin Rosenstiel
> The council? Nah. Not as long as someone in the planning department is
> getting kickbacks from traffic light salesmen...:-)
A typically misinformed comment from this author, wrong is almost every
respect, if I may say so.
Colin Rosenstiel
Pandora
news:memo.2002090...@colin.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> It's called democracy. If anyone can come up with a better system, please
> join the queue.
Here's one - elect me ruler of the world - I'll solve all the problems -
and if you don't like my solutions, we have a moon....
--
Pandora/Scott Hill/[::O:M:C::]Scorpion
Software Engineer.
http://www.pandora-software.com
Colin Rosenstiel
pan...@pandora-software.com (Pandora) wrote:
> "Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:memo.2002090...@colin.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
> > It's called democracy. If anyone can come up with a better system,
> > please join the queue.
>
> Here's one - elect me ruler of the world - I'll solve all the
> problems - and if you don't like my solutions, we have a moon....
And who gets to run the City Council and the County Council then?
Colin Rosenstiel
Al Grant
> Not the Council but concerned local residents and cyclists whose safety
> was being increasingly threatened by rising tides of rat-running traffic.
> They brought pressure to bear on their elected representatives.
>
> It's called democracy. If anyone can come up with a better system, please
> join the queue.
Er no. Democracy is where people exercise their _power_. Not just
"bring pressure to bear". There are neighbourhoods all over Cambridge
bringing pressure to bear for traffic calming. If it was down to
local democracy, many more such campaigns would be successful.
But it's not, as you well know. If the authorities want traffic
calming they can point to local campaigns as a justification for
interfering with the public highway. If the authorities don't want
traffic calming they can tell the local campaign they are a bunch of
NIMBYs and that planning issues are taken at a city-wide or county-wide
level where the wishes of more people are taken into account.
In this case, we have no way of knowing that the traffic calming isn't
a result of some deal stitched up with housing developers, do we?
Robert Macmillan
"Colin Rosenstiel" <rosen...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2002090...@colin.rosenstiel.cix.co.uk...
wrote:
>
> was being increasingly threatened by rising tides of rat-running
traffic.
> They brought pressure to bear on their elected representatives.
>
> It's called democracy. If anyone can come up with a better system,
please
> join the queue.
I think your sarcasm is misplaced. I find one of the worst aspects of
democracy that a few vocal local voters can bring sufficient pressure to
bear on local councillors that policies are made which are not in the
general interest.
Robert
David Braben
news:-Xi*VN...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> David Braben <dbrabe...@frontier.co.uk> wrote:
> >"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> >news:3D74C534.4040105@b.c...
> >> Peter Benie wrote:
> >> > With the old design of the Quy junction, I saw many near misses, and
> >> > the amount of broken glass indicates that there were many
> >> > accidents. The new design is a massive improvement. I use that
> >> > junction every day, and haven't suffered endless congestion.
> >
> >I have used that junction twice a day for many years, and have not seen
any
> >near misses or accidents, though I have seen the occasional bit of broken
> >light clusters by the roadside. Should we draw any conclusion from the
fact
> >you have seen 'many' near misses? ;-)
>
> How about that I am driving with my eyes open?
>
> Anyway, I spoke too soon - the police were out this morning because of
> another accident at the junction.
It's not you they're swerving to avoid, is it? ;-)
>[...]
> They do have sensors, but they won't change immediately if they have
> only just changed anyway. Is a minute a long time?
Yes.
Since the number of lights on (what was) a fifteen minute journey to work
has slowly increased from two to around twenty, yes it is significant, and
very annoying as I see no benefit to it to anyone.
David