Newmarket Road speed camera
Michael Kilpatrick
>I noticed this in action when walking along Newmarket Road on Saturday
>evening (it's just opposite the Wrestlers), how long has this been there and
>why are there no warning signs? Also if anyone has been unfortunate to get
>snapped by this beastie how long did the penalty notice take to show up?
There is a warning. It's called "the speed limit", the default value of
which can be found in "The Highway Code" if it is not indicated by a
a black-on-white number with a circular read border.
Why on Earth should there be any form of warning for the camera?
Michael
Michael Williams
Ed Oskiewicz <eosk...@jungle.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>I noticed this in action when walking along Newmarket Road on Saturday
>evening (it's just opposite the Wrestlers), how long has this been there and
>why are there no warning signs? Also if anyone has been unfortunate to get
>snapped by this beastie how long did the penalty notice take to show up?
It is indeed working, as it snapped some idiot who undertook us doing
about 50 on Friday evening.
I believe Cambridge's policy is to not put up warning signs. There are
also cameras, I believe, on one of the southern roads coming into
Cambridge (from the A11 direction), and I think by the level-crossing
in Waterbeach. Neither have signs.
Mystic Meg says "This thread is now destined for an argument".
Mike.
_____________________________________________________________________
\ x / Michael Williams Advanced RISC Machines Limited
|\/|\/\ michael....@armltd.co.uk Fulbourn Road, Cambridge, CB1 4JN, UK
| |.__)"I might well think that Matti, ARM Ltd. couldn't possibly comment."
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Michael Kilpatrick <mkil...@armltd.co.uk> wrote:
>Why on Earth should there be any form of warning for the camera?
If for no other reason, then because there are warning signs for speed
cameras in most other places.
The police has justified speed cameras by saying that they're a
deterrent rather than a trap. Not telling people that they are there
negates this argument. (I suppose they'll say that the presence of
unmarked speed cameras will cause people to drive slowly everywhere,
but I doubt this would work in practice, especially as they seem to be
configured 15mph above the speed limit anyway.)
Curiously, on the A505 from the M11 towards Cambridge, there *are*
speed camera warning signs. I've not seen an actual camera, though.
--Clive.
(Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
Andy Loan
> It is indeed working, as it snapped some idiot who undertook us doing
> about 50 on Friday evening.
I noticed it on Monday (27th) morning as I went to get my car mirror
fixed. How long has it been there?
IME, Newmarket Rd needs calming and slowing down. And I see no
reason to warn people that they might be caught breaking the law.
--
+-----Andy Loan (al...@ast.cam.ac.uk)---tel: +44 1223 337502-------+
+ Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK |
+------<a href="http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~aloan/">me</a>-----------+
A. Grant
>In article <ag129.244...@ucs.cam.ac.uk>,
>A. Grant <ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <49flh8$8...@doc.armltd.co.uk> Clive...@armltd.co.uk writes:
>>>deterrent rather than a trap. Not telling people that they are there
>>>negates this argument.
>>No it doesn't. The deterrent argument goes as follows: "don't exceed
>>the speed limit, because you never know, there might be a speed camera".
>I suggest you read the rest of Clive's post _before_ following-up: it
>does help. He addressed this point.
And I chose to reply to the bit which was clearly wrong rather than
the rest of the self-contradictory waffle.
Tim Gladding
al...@ast.cam.ac.uk (Andy Loan) wrote:
> Michael Williams wrote:
>
> > It is indeed working, as it snapped some idiot who undertook us doing
> > about 50 on Friday evening.
>
> I noticed it on Monday (27th) morning as I went to get my car mirror
> fixed. How long has it been there?
The camera has been there for some time now (at least 6 weeks). I
was waiting to hear from the first person to be caught out by it :-)
> IME, Newmarket Rd needs calming and slowing down. And I see no
> reason to warn people that they might be caught breaking the law.
If you're not breaking the law, and driving within the speed limit,
you need no warning. Break the law and you deserve to be caught on
film.
My $0.02 worth.
--
Tim - Cambridge, England... ...standard disclaimers apply.
Curriculum Support Technician for IT, Parkside Community College, Cambridge.
Life is a test. It is only a test. If this had been your
actual life, you would have been given better instructions.
!David / Kirsty Damerell
A. Grant <ag...@ucs.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <49flh8$8...@doc.armltd.co.uk> Clive...@armltd.co.uk writes:
>>negates this argument.
>No it doesn't. The deterrent argument goes as follows: "don't exceed
>the speed limit, because you never know, there might be a speed camera".
>breaking the speed limit anywhere.
I suggest you read the rest of Clive's post _before_ following-up: it
does help. He addressed this point.
Disclaimer: Thankfully, not only am I not responsible for the Computing
Service here, I'm not responsible for the people in it...
--
David 'Gotterdammerung' Damerell, GCV Sauricon. djs...@hermes.cam.ac.uk.
Trinity College, Cambridge University. CUWoCS President. All Hail Discordia!
|___| IV - A Discordian shall Partake of No Hot Dog Buns, for Such was the
| | | Solace of Our Goddess when She was Confronted with The Original Snub.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Jim Noble <Jim....@armltd.co.uk> wrote:
>No, not really. I imagine the idea is that if someone is caught by an
>unannounced speed camera, they will be more inclined to observe the
>speed limit everywhere, just in case. The Trap is the Deterrent :-)
But that won't work. What proportion of speeders will speed traps
catch? The vast majority of drivers exceed the speed limit on a
regular basis, if they can. (Statistics are normally skewed by things
such as people driving at an average of 29.5 mph below the speed limit
in the London rush hour. (-8 )
Then again, are people deterred by being caught by a speed camera
anyway? I assume the police only issues 3-point 40-pound fixed
penalties, and insurers don't care about speeding offences. Unless
someone is getting caught on average more than once every nine months,
they can just pay the fine and continue regardless.
Jeremy Johnson
legal requirement to erect warning signs if speed-trap cameras are in use
in your county. I understand, though, that there are no restrictions on
the proximity of such signs - they may be _anywhere_ in Cambridgeshire and
you will have been deemed to have been adequately warned.
Personally I would support the installation of a pair of prat-seeking
sidewinder missiles in parallel with the camera, to be triggered if the
normal camera limit was exeeded by a factor of 2. It's The Only Way To Be
Sure...
--
Jeremy
Jim Noble
>The police has justified speed cameras by saying that they're a
>deterrent rather than a trap. Not telling people that they are there
>negates this argument.
No, not really. I imagine the idea is that if someone is caught by an
unannounced speed camera, they will be more inclined to observe the
speed limit everywhere, just in case. The Trap is the Deterrent :-)
This also has the benefit of providing a source of income in the form
of speeding fines, which they wouldn't have if everybody slowed down
whenever they saw a warning sign.
>(I suppose they'll say that the presence of
>unmarked speed cameras will cause people to drive slowly everywhere,
>but I doubt this would work in practice, especially as they seem to be
>configured 15mph above the speed limit anyway.)
Apparently they're currently set 20mph above the speed limit, and they are
planning to lower it to 10mph. IIRC they started off at 10mph above the
limit, but found the cameras ran out of film almost immediately!
Jim
--
Add one pinch of salt and bake in a moderate oven until light and crispy
Advanced RISC Machines Ltd. Email:Jim....@armltd.co.uk
Fulbourn Rd., Cherry Hinton Phone:+44 1223 400508
Cambridge, CB1 4JN, England Fax:+44 1223 400410
Ashley Stevens
> How expensive are the cameras. Someone said they were 25,000 pounds
I think that is the right sort of ball-park.
I heard on the Anglia news that Cambridgeshire Police had recently
bought 3 cameras, one static, one mobile (it can be set up on bridges
temporarily) and one hand-held.
They seemed to describe is as some sort of major investment. (I vaguely
recall the figure of 100K for all 3 being mentioned but I could be wrong
on that).
Ashley
Colin Rosenstiel
> fixed. How long has it been there?
>
> reason to warn people that they might be caught breaking the law.
It's been there for some time. FWIW, I'm sure there are signs somewhere
near, too.
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Ashley Stevens <Ashley....@armltd.co.uk> wrote:
>I drove past it one night, carefully keeping to the (rather low) 30mph
>speed limit, and someone shot past me at about 60mph.
>
>It didn't even flash!
Odds are it ran out of film. If you really want to know about the
camera, the fish and chip shop by the Wrestlers has been watching it
carefully. (-8
> (The cameras are expensive,
>the boxes are relatively cheap).
How expensive are the cameras. Someone said they were 25,000 pounds
each, which I find hard to believe! If they *are* that expensive, then
I'm not sure they're a very effective use of public funds, compared to
paying a human being with a modicum of discretion to sit there with a
hairdryer. I wonder what the expected life of a Gatso is, given the
rising rate of vandalism?
Jim Noble
>In article <49hj6s$r...@doc.armltd.co.uk>,
>Jim Noble <Jim....@armltd.co.uk> wrote:
>>unannounced speed camera, they will be more inclined to observe the
>>speed limit everywhere, just in case. The Trap is the Deterrent :-)
>
>catch? The vast majority of drivers exceed the speed limit on a
>regular basis, if they can. (Statistics are normally skewed by things
>such as people driving at an average of 29.5 mph below the speed limit
>in the London rush hour. (-8 )
For starters the effect of someone being caught by a speed camera is
wide-spread. When someone is snapped speeding, it affects everybody
who witnesses it, and anybody the speeding driver mentions it to.
If the speed traps were sign-posted, those people would just slow
down when they saw the sign. If they are unannounced, you either have
to watch your speed everywhere, or risk getting snapped at any time.
There doesn't even have to be film/a camera in the box, just setting
the flash off is enough to make most people slow down.
They've also been working on making the system more automated. A couple
of years ago, when they were widening part of the M20, they had a
regestration-mark-reading speed camera (*) that displayed the speeding
car's registration mark and speed on a sign a couple of hundred yards
up the road (speeders also got a fine and points).
(*) Actually, it was a camera connected to a bunch of PC's in a metal
crate on the side of the road.
I wouldn't be suprised if the police were aiming towards being able to
prosecute/fine anybody caught speeding.
>Then again, are people deterred by being caught by a speed camera
>anyway? I assume the police only issues 3-point 40-pound fixed
>penalties, and insurers don't care about speeding offences. Unless
>someone is getting caught on average more than once every nine months,
>they can just pay the fine and continue regardless.
Depends on how fast you were going of course! Insurers *do* care about
speeding offenses. That's why you are *required* to tell them. Whether
they take any speeding endorsements into account is entirely at their
discretion though.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
>I hope the 'speeder' wasn't sent a fine in this case!
I believe the mechanism for fining someone was that a police car would
nip up and down the roadworks, and be fed the registration marks of
speeding cars. They'd then catch the culprits and fine them on the
spot. This prevents someone getting fined if their number plate was
one character away from the culprit (unless they both happened to be
on the same stretch of motorway at the same time, of course...).
Jim Noble
>
>> They've also been working on making the system more automated. A couple
>> of years ago, when they were widening part of the M20, they had a
>> regestration-mark-reading speed camera (*) that displayed the speeding
>> car's registration mark and speed on a sign a couple of hundred yards
>I was in a car that set this off once. (Not driving I hasten to
>emphasize :) It's was a pity it got the registration number one
>character wrong.
>I hope the 'speeder' wasn't sent a fine in this case!
Oops! I presume they keep a copy of the image, so that if you contest it,
they can 'prove' it in court...
Still, I wonder how many people with guilty conciences would just assume
it was them and pay up? :-)
Kevin Rolph
> They've also been working on making the system more automated. A couple
> of years ago, when they were widening part of the M20, they had a
> regestration-mark-reading speed camera (*) that displayed the speeding
> car's registration mark and speed on a sign a couple of hundred yards
I was in a car that set this off once. (Not driving I hasten to
emphasize :) It's was a pity it got the registration number one
character wrong.
I hope the 'speeder' wasn't sent a fine in this case!
--
Kevin Rolph Cambridge, UK
==========================================================================
Engineer, Manager, Dad, Decorator, Woodworker, Gamer, Quaker, Folk Dancer,
Advanced Driver, Bodhran player, Gardener. Specialisation is for insects.
Robert Macmillan
>
> They've also been working on making the system more automated. A
> couple of years ago, when they were widening part of the M20, they had
> a regestration-mark-reading speed camera (*) that displayed the
> speeding car's registration mark and speed on a sign a couple of
>
> (*) Actually, it was a camera connected to a bunch of PC's in a metal
> crate on the side of the road.
Good idea, but not a very nice job for a police constable, stuck inside a
metal crate. I guess the OCR wasn't up to it then.
Robert
Robert Macmillan
>
> > IME, Newmarket Rd needs calming and slowing down. And I see no
> > reason to warn people that they might be caught breaking the law.
>
> you need no warning. Break the law and you deserve to be caught on
> film.
The problem is that on Newmarket Road, driving at the speed limit is more
likely to get you shunted. And the other problem is that most drivers
simply do not realise that the speed limit down there is 30 mph (unless
some more signs have gone up recently). It's bad enough heading out of
town. But heading into town, the indication of dual carriageway at the
railway bridge encourages people to think the speed limit is rather
higher than 30mph.
Of course, the other place to pointlessly nick motorists is Barnwell
Road. The 30mph limit is even sillier there. And then there's Elizabeth
Way bridge...
> My $0.02 worth.
I guess mine's 5p.
Robert
Jim Noble
>In article <49kqov$9...@doc.armltd.co.uk>,
>Jim Noble <Jim....@armltd.co.uk> wrote:
>>So, should we have "30mph limit zones" and "30mph limit - and we really
>>mean it - zones"?
>Putting on my cynical hat, I'd say the latter are called "20mph limit
>zones". (-8
No, they're "We don't want you even doing 30mph zones"... :-)
>It has just occurred to me that an inevitable side effect of forcing
>people to stay below 30mph *all* the time in built-up areas is that
>people who are in a hurry will go at 30mph all the time, even when a
>much lower speed would be appropriate. Is that not an even more
>dangerous scenario than people breaking the speed limit?
If they are in a hurry, they are not likely to do less than 30mph at all,
no matter how rigidly the speed limit is enforced. In fact, I would go
as far to say that they would probably do >30mph all the time.
>It seems that the police are trying to instill a culture of rigid
>adherence to road law rather than the application of common sense. I'd
>prefer to see an emphasis on prosecutions for dangerous driving, and
>pedestrian crossing offences, etc. How come there are speed cameras
>but not traffic light cameras in Cambridgeshire, for example?
Agreed. But lack of common sense is difficult to prove in the Courts, o
and even more difficult to correct.
Alex Burr
>Jim Noble (jno...@armltd.co.uk) wrote:
>
>> of years ago, when they were widening part of the M20, they had a
>> regestration-mark-reading speed camera (*) that displayed the speeding
>> car's registration mark and speed on a sign a couple of hundred yards
I heard a tale that in France, they had a system like this, only it
didn't read the licences, just flashed up a sign. However, what they did
have was _another_ radar trap with police cars 500m down the road :-)
Alex Burr
Robert Macmillan
>
> >Of course, the other place to pointlessly nick motorists is Barnwell
> >Road. The 30mph limit is even sillier there. And then there's
> >Elizabeth Way bridge...
>
> 30mph down, is a 40mph zone already.
Shows how long it's been since I lived down that way :-)
Anyway, I don't think I've ever been up there at less than fifty. Other
than in the rush hour, of course.
Robert
Steve McIntyre
Michael Kilpatrick <mkil...@armltd.co.uk> wrote:
>Clive...@armltd.co.uk writes:
>>In article <19951201....@gladding.demon.co.uk>,
>>Tim Gladding <t...@gladding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Have you had your speedo checked of late? :-)
>
>>Yes - within the last year, one assumes. (It's checked in an MOT,
>>isn't it?)
>
>I believe so - and a having a rev counter from which one can calculate
>your speed isn't good enough, so I was told when the speedo transducer
>gave up on my previous car.
Yes, but short of using a calibrated rolling road setup there is no
practical way the MOT test centre can actually check the accuracy of the
speedo. In most cases it's just a case of "does it respond at all when we
move it onto the ramp?" In your case, the speedo was probably required as
it also increments the odometer; this AFAIK is what matters most.
--
Steve McIntyre, CURS Secretary "Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,"
sam...@cam.ac.uk "Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I..."
Churchill College <a href=http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~93sam/>my home page</a>
Cambridge, UK <a href=http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~93sam/comp/>My PC page</a>
Peter Benie
Nick Cole <ne...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Apparently, speedos are only calibrated to be within +-10 Percent at
>30MPH as this is the legal requirement.
Almost right. At 30mph, the speedo shows between 30mph and 36mph.
If you are travelling at a speed v mph, they may display any speed
between v and 1.1v+3. Since the displayed speed is >=v mph, you can't
accidently go over the speed limit.
Peter Benie
Michael Kilpatrick
>In article <19951201....@gladding.demon.co.uk>,
>Tim Gladding <t...@gladding.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Have you had your speedo checked of late? :-)
>Yes - within the last year, one assumes. (It's checked in an MOT,
>isn't it?)
I believe so - and a having a rev counter from which one can calculate
your speed isn't good enough, so I was told when the speedo transducer
gave up on my previous car.
Michael
Anthony Frost
>
> Yes - within the last year, one assumes. (It's checked in an MOT,
> isn't it?)
Nope! I'm not sure if it even has to be there for an MOT although the odometer
must be present and not showing the same number as last year!
Interestingly, as long as you can prove you know the equivalents to the usual
speed limits and that it has the necessary degree of accuracy, the units don't
have to be the normal mph or km/h. The brother of a friend is an RAF pilot, he
got his ground crew to do a few car repairs. They decided to recalibrate the
speedo in mach numbers for him... :-)
Anthony
--
| If everyone who smoked was laid end to end around the world |
| approximately 67% of them would drown |
| If they were anyone elses opinions, I'd be surprised. |
Nick Cole
30MPH as this is the legal requirement.
Nick Cole,
NE...@CAM.AC.UK University of Cambridge Computing Service
Steve Hunt
: >Have you had your speedo checked of late? :-)
: Yes - within the last year, one assumes. (It's checked in an MOT,
: isn't it?)
I don't think so.
--
Steve Hunt - Online Media - Cambridge, UK
st...@omi.co.uk +44 1223 518563 IRC: Daff
Paul Treadaway
says...
>In article <4a19k6$g...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Peter Debenham <debe...@mrao.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Its not worth suing the sods
>
>Personally, I'd lean on them fairly heavily, then lean on them again
>via recorded delivery, then try to get fifty quid or so off them via
>the small claims court.
>
>I'd say that negligently giving false information to the police in the
>course of an investigation is pretty good grounds for compensation!
But as we all know, your knowledge of legal matters is not very
reliable. In this particular case, I don't think there's a single
court that would look favourably on a legal claim concerning extra
letters you had to write. The police probably have more grounds for
taking action against them, since they can at least assess the cost
of the wasted time, whereas you probably can't in a way that would
satisfy a court.
Dave Holland
The post did mention the small claims court, which is perfectly amenable
to claims for compensation for wasted time. Well, this is what the
"Which?" magazine legal eagles say, anyway...
Dave
--
Dave Holland 93d...@eng.cam.ac.uk http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~93djh2/
"Now I've swung back down again it's worse than it was before
If I hadn't seen such riches I could live with being poor" -- James
Paul Treadaway
>In article <1995120517...@sun1.cup.cam.ac.uk>,
>Paul Treadaway <pt...@cup.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4a1d4i$i...@doc.armltd.co.uk>, Clive...@armltd.co.uk
>>says...
>>>In article <4a19k6$g...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>>>Peter Debenham <debe...@mrao.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>Its not worth suing the sods
>>>
>>>Personally, I'd lean on them fairly heavily, then lean on them again
>>>via recorded delivery, then try to get fifty quid or so off them via
>>>the small claims court.
>>>
>>>I'd say that negligently giving false information to the police in the
>>>course of an investigation is pretty good grounds for compensation!
>>
>>But as we all know, your knowledge of legal matters is not very
>>reliable. In this particular case, I don't think there's a single
>>court that would look favourably on a legal claim concerning extra
>>letters you had to write. The police probably have more grounds for
>>taking action against them, since they can at least assess the cost
>>of the wasted time, whereas you probably can't in a way that would
>>satisfy a court.
>
>The post did mention the small claims court, which is perfectly amenable
>to claims for compensation for wasted time. Well, this is what the
>"Which?" magazine legal eagles say, anyway...
If it had taken several letters for them to acknowledge their mistake
perhaps, or if it was something directly connected with their business
(as with banks etc. messing up). But the small claims court is no more
amenable than any other to people trying it on.
Roderick Parks
Clive...@armltd.co.uk wrote:
>It seems that the police are trying to instill a culture of rigid
>adherence to road law rather than the application of common sense. I'd
>prefer to see an emphasis on prosecutions for dangerous driving, and
>pedestrian crossing offences, etc. How come there are speed cameras
>but not traffic light cameras in Cambridgeshire, for example?
Absolutely! The Newmarket Road camera is on a straight piece of road
with good visibility. The major hazzard is cars parked at the curb.
Maybe it was the residents of the adjoining houses who were worried
about their precious tin being hit who lobbied the authorities to
provide a camera. I think it would have been rather more appropriate
to paint double yellow lines (like on most of the rest of the stretch)
and force these people to park somewhere else.
However, the major point is that a lot of money has been spent in
Cambridge on providing the (expensive) anti-skid road surfaces,
principally on the approaches to pedestrian crossings. In my view
this is where cameras should go and they should of course be traffic
light cameras. The pedestrians are worth rather more than the tin
parked on Newmarket Road.
Roderick.
>--Clive.
> (Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
Roderick Parks rode...@couscous.demon.co.uk __
Life is full of little surprises... and I am one of them! ||
Malcolm Gray
>In article <4ajuee$o...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>James Matheson <jm...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <8187122...@couscous.demon.co.uk>, rode...@couscous.demon.co.uk (Roderick Parks) writes:
>>> Absolutely! The Newmarket Road camera is on a straight piece of road
>>> with good visibility. The major hazzard is cars parked at the curb.
>
>a good idea to replace the left-hand lane by a cycle lane and parking
>spaces.
As a regular cycalist on that stretch I am not convinced that being
forced to cycle 18 inches from the drivers door of parked cars would
actually improve things.
[snip]
Malcolm
----------------------------------------------
Malcolm Gray mailto:mal...@jobstream.co.uk
----------------------------------------------
Gareth Rees
> As a regular cycalist on that stretch I am not convinced that being
> forced to cycle 18 inches from the drivers door of parked cars would
> actually improve things.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk wrote:
> You're forced to do that already.
Rubbish! Heading east on Newmarket Road, I wouldn't dream of cycling
anywhere but the middle of the appropriate lane.
--
Gareth Rees
David Jordan
>In article <8187122...@couscous.demon.co.uk>, rode...@couscous.demon.co.uk (Roderick Parks) writes:
>>
>> with good visibility. The major hazzard is cars parked at the curb.
>
>40 MPH (though I doubt whether it's long enough), the view that speed
>limits should be merely advisory seems to me to be unsupportable. Trying
>to rely on prosecutions for dangerous driving isn't going to work as they
>can't in general be automatically detected, most will only become apparent
>as a result of someone being killed or seriously injured. I'm prepared to
>cope with a few seconds longer journey time in exchange for an increased
>life expectancy!
>
>
>--
>James Matheson
Just because a stretch of road is dual carriageway does not mean it
should be allowed to have a speed limit greater than 30mph. There are
other road users such as cyclists to consider. It would be better if
the whole of town was limited to 30mph (as most of it is) apart from 20mph
residential areas because then motorists would have no doubt what the speed
limit was (if you are in town the speed limit must be 30mph). Short stretches
of 40mph make very little difference to journey time and represent a big increase
in injury in an accident.
It is questionable whether this should be dual carriageway as the rest of
Newmarket road further along is not. Some of the road space could be
relocated to create a cycle lane, which at the moment is not possible due
to the parked cars. This is on the going-out-of-town side.
Dave Jordan
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
James Matheson
> (repost as it seems to have gone missing)
>
>
> >It seems that the police are trying to instill a culture of rigid
> >adherence to road law rather than the application of common sense. I'd
> >prefer to see an emphasis on prosecutions for dangerous driving, and
> >pedestrian crossing offences, etc. How come there are speed cameras
> >but not traffic light cameras in Cambridgeshire, for example?
>
> with good visibility. The major hazzard is cars parked at the curb.
There may be a case for the speed limit on this section being raised to
40 MPH (though I doubt whether it's long enough), the view that speed
limits should be merely advisory seems to me to be unsupportable. Trying
to rely on prosecutions for dangerous driving isn't going to work as they
can't in general be automatically detected, most will only become apparent
as a result of someone being killed or seriously injured. I'm prepared to
cope with a few seconds longer journey time in exchange for an increased
life expectancy!
> However, the major point is that a lot of money has been spent in
> Cambridge on providing the (expensive) anti-skid road surfaces,
> principally on the approaches to pedestrian crossings. In my view
> this is where cameras should go and they should of course be traffic
> light cameras. The pedestrians are worth rather more than the tin
> parked on Newmarket Road.
I do however agree with this :-) I suspect that priorities are being
dictated by economics at least as much as the perceived seriousness of
the offence. Given that those who drive through red lights are probably
also habitual speeders (though not vice versa), at least those who ought
to be being fined are being.
--
James Matheson
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
David Jordan <d...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Short stretches
>of 40mph make very little difference to journey time and represent a big increase
>in injury in an accident.
Depending on your definition of big, this might be true. On the other
hand, it's not especially helpful. The same argument could easily have
all cars going everywhere at 5mph all the time. The question is where
society wants to place the trade-off between safety and speed of
transport. If there are parts of a town where travelling at a higher
speed is safe, then raise the speed limit there. Ultimately, setting
an unreasonably low speed limit in some areas diminishes peoples'
respect for the speed limit in the places where it *does* matter.
>It is questionable whether this should be dual carriageway as the rest of
>Newmarket road further along is not.
Clearly, a dual carriageway is safer than a single carriageway, all
other things being equal.
Interestingly, while I was learning to drive, I accidentally exceeded
the speed limit in two places within Cambridge - the first was
Barnwell Road, and the second was Newmarket Road. Barnwell road has
since had its speed limit raised to 40mph. (-8
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
>In article <GDR11.95D...@stint.cl.cam.ac.uk>,
>Gareth Rees <gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Rubbish! Heading east on Newmarket Road, I wouldn't dream of cycling
>>anywhere but the middle of the appropriate lane.
>
>is room to cycle past parked cars in the left-hand lane is probably a
>contravention of the Highway Code, and verges on the unreasonable,
>IMHO.
Bollocks! Firstly, Gareth said nothing about cycling in any lane other than
the appropriate one. Secondly, the Highway Code says that drivers should leave
as 'much room as for a small car' when overtaking cyclists. It also says that
cyclists should leave enough room for the door to be opened when passing parked
cars. This means that cyclists are required to cycle in, or very close to,
the right-hand lane if there are parked cars and other cars shouldn't overtake.
Which all goes to show that Clive has about as much knowledge and commonsense
as a brown paper bag.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rupert Moss-Eccardt, Network Co-Ordinator, Administrative Computing Unit |
| The Old Schools, University of Cambridge, Trinity Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1TS |
| Tel +44 1223 332997 Fax +44 1223 339003 Email: moss...@admin.cam.ac.uk |
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
>In article <4amj3q$2...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Rupert Moss-Eccardt <rw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
....
>
>> This means that cyclists are required to cycle in, or very close to,
>>the right-hand lane if there are parked cars and other cars shouldn't overtake.
>
>unnavigable by bike, since there are lots of parking spaces between
>the cycle lane and the kerb, and you claim cyclists are obliged to
>leave the cycle lane when passing each of them.
>
This wouldn't mean it's unnavigable. Cycles are perfectly entitled
to leave cycle lanes. If they weren't they would never be able to
turn right into a sideroad or driveway.
>If this alleged rule applies to motor vehicles as well, no traffic
>wider than about three foot would be allowed anywhere in Romsey, once
>parked cars on both sides of the road were taken into account. (-8
>
>--Clive.
> (Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I beginning not to :-)
Dave Jordan
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Gareth Rees <gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Rubbish! Heading east on Newmarket Road, I wouldn't dream of cycling
>anywhere but the middle of the appropriate lane.
Hmm. Cycling in the right-hand lane of a dual carriageway when there
is room to cycle past parked cars in the left-hand lane is probably a
contravention of the Highway Code, and verges on the unreasonable,
IMHO.
Cyclists almost always forget that they shouldn't cause other traffic
to have to slow down or change direction when they perform a lane
change, anyway (normally when leaving the cycle lane to get around a
parked car). This probably places them in far more danger than cycling
past a car door.
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
>David Jordan wrote:
>
>> It is questionable whether this should be dual carriageway as the rest of
>> relocated to create a cycle lane, which at the moment is not possible due
>> to the parked cars. This is on the going-out-of-town side.
>
>perfectly possible for a dual carriageway to have one lane either way,
>or for a single carriageway road to have two lanes both ways. The
>difference is whether or not you can have a 120mph head-on collision.
>
>--
>+-----Andy Loan (al...@ast.cam.ac.uk)---tel: +44 1223 337502-------+
>+ Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK |
>+------<a href="http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~aloan/">me</a>-----------+
Strictly speaking this is true. But I think you will find most people
use dual carriageway to mean two lanes in each direction separated
by somesort of barrier. Whenever I have seen the sign "Dual carriageway
ahead" it has been this type of road. It's a question of common usage
rather than strict definitions.
Dave Jordan
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
>Clive...@armltd.co.uk wrote:
>>In article <4ajuee$o...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>>James Matheson <jm...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> Absolutely! The Newmarket Road camera is on a straight piece of road
>>>> with good visibility. The major hazzard is cars parked at the curb.
>>
>>a good idea to replace the left-hand lane by a cycle lane and parking
>>spaces.
>
>forced to cycle 18 inches from the drivers door of parked cars would
>actually improve things.
>
>
>Malcolm
>
Isn't this what you are effectively forced to do at the moment? It would
be possible to design it in such way that this doesn't occur.
Dave Jordan
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
>In article <GDR11.95D...@stint.cl.cam.ac.uk>,
>Gareth Rees <gd...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Rubbish! Heading east on Newmarket Road, I wouldn't dream of cycling
>>anywhere but the middle of the appropriate lane.
>
>Hmm. Cycling in the right-hand lane of a dual carriageway when there
>is room to cycle past parked cars in the left-hand lane is probably a
>contravention of the Highway Code, and verges on the unreasonable,
>IMHO.
>
to leave enough room to avoid someone opening a door in your face
when you are cycling along at 20mph. This means cycling at least 3 feet
away from the cars. If this means you are in the right hand lane then
that's fair enough.
>Cyclists almost always forget that they shouldn't cause other traffic
>to have to slow down or change direction when they perform a lane
>change, anyway (normally when leaving the cycle lane to get around a
>parked car).
There should not be a parked car in a cycle lane. Yes, I know it's allowed
in a dashed cycle lane, but these are useless and a waste of good paint.
Motorists often forget that cyclist have to go round parked cars not
through them and don't leave enough room or overtake at an inappropriate
time. The only way as a cyclist to avoid being put in this situation
is to move out to overtake the parked car in plenty of time and leave
a good gap between yourself and the car.
>This probably places them in far more danger than cycling
>past a car door.
>
>--Clive.
> (Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
Dave Jordan
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
Andy Loan
[snip]
> Answers:
> Accidents Fatal accidents
>
> Urban streets 66% 46%
> Rural A and B roads 30% 50%
> Dual carriageways and motorways 4% 4%
> === ===
> 100% 100%
>
> Simply put, Andy is absolutely right. Keep the lanes of traffic apart
> and the accident and death rates come right down.
[actually, Clive said this first, but I agree anyway! Stands to reason]
I don't believe it! There I was pootling at 30mph along Grange Road at 8am this
morning and some idiot in a red Cavalier storm up an overtakes me just before the
Madingley Road junction. Something like K915 JAL I think...
This is the *third* time this has happened to me (admittedly once was past 1am, but
even so speed limits are speed limits). Grr.
Peter Benie
>In article <QSE*rL...@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>,
>Peter Benie <pjb...@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Somebody told me that if you cycle twice as far out from the kerb as
>>you normally would, the traffic will give you twice as much room when
>>overtaking. I've tried this and it seems to be true.
>If you normally cycle very near the kerb, that's probably true. -
>it's annoying how many cyclists expect other road users to give them
>a larger safety margin than they give themselves.
You've made the assumption that the motorists give me as much room as
I give the kerb. My post did not contain that information.
To clarify: if cycle twice as far out as I normally would, motorists
give me twice as much clearance as they normally would. Happy now?
Personally, I'd rather be closer to the kerb than to the traffic, but
I'm not given that choice. :-(
Peter
Malcolm Gray
>Roderick Parks <rode...@couscous.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Accidents Fatal accidents
>> Urban streets 66% 46%
>> Rural A and B roads 30% 50%
>> Dual carriageways and motorways 4% 4%
>> === ===
>> 100% 100%
>>
>> Simply put, Andy is absolutely right. Keep the lanes of traffic apart
>> and the accident and death rates come right down.
>
>other important contributory factors, such as the presence of
>pedestrians, cyclists, parked cars on single carriageways, a different
>population of drivers, greater distances travelled, etc.
>
>--
>Gareth Rees
Never mind contributory factors these statustics are about number not
rate, without information on, either miles of road in each type, or miles
traveled on each type nothing can be concluded about the relative safety.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
>the appropriate one.
I didn't say that he did - I just disagreed over which lane was the
appropriate one.
> Secondly, the Highway Code says that drivers should leave
>as 'much room as for a small car' when overtaking cyclists.
Er... it says you should give a cycle as much clearance as you would
give a car. If you think your purported quote is accurate, can you
cite the rule number?
> It also says that
>cyclists should leave enough room for the door to be opened when passing parked
>cars.
I've never noticed such a rule, whereas I am fairly sure I've seen a
rule stating that car drivers should watch for cyclists before opening
doors.
> This means that cyclists are required to cycle in, or very close to,
>the right-hand lane if there are parked cars and other cars shouldn't overtake.
If it's true, it also renders Cherry Hinton high street effectively
unnavigable by bike, since there are lots of parking spaces between
the cycle lane and the kerb, and you claim cyclists are obliged to
leave the cycle lane when passing each of them.
If this alleged rule applies to motor vehicles as well, no traffic
wider than about three foot would be allowed anywhere in Romsey, once
parked cars on both sides of the road were taken into account. (-8
--Clive.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
>other important contributory factors, such as the presence of
>pedestrians, cyclists, parked cars on single carriageways, a different
>population of drivers, greater distances travelled, etc.
Statistics for accidents and fatal accidents per traveller-mile would
probably be more useful. The data's completely meaningless unless you
separate urban dual carriageways from the motorway statistics anyway.
Interestingly, the statistics seem to indicate that rural/motorway
accidents are more likely to be fatal than urban ones. This leads me
to wonder what the definition of an accident is, and how the data was
gathered (just accidents reported to the police?). Instinctively, I'd
have expected the presence of pedestrians and cyclists to outweigh the
higher speeds on rural roads, and mean that fatalities were more
likely in urban accidents.
The figure that only 1% of drivers have any form of training after
obtaining their license also looks bogus to me - lots of people at
least take a motorway driving lesson!
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Paul Treadaway <pt...@cup.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> lots of people at
>>least take a motorway driving lesson!
>
I took one - I'd recommend them quite highly. Then again, I do over
1000 miles a month on motorways and dual-carriageway trunk routes.
Paul Treadaway
>In article <4amj3q$2...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>If it's true, it also renders Cherry Hinton high street effectively
>unnavigable by bike, since there are lots of parking spaces between
>the cycle lane and the kerb, and you claim cyclists are obliged to
>leave the cycle lane when passing each of them.
Cherry Hinton High Street _is_ effectively unnavigable by bicycle,
thanks to the County Council's ludicrous schemes. The cycle lane
is certainly unusable.
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
>In article <4ak0m3$q...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>David Jordan <d...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Short stretches
>>of 40mph make very little difference to journey time and represent a big increase
>>in injury in an accident.
>
>Depending on your definition of big, this might be true. On the other
>hand, it's not especially helpful. The same argument could easily have
>all cars going everywhere at 5mph all the time.
This was not what I was suggesting. Taking an argument to it's
extreme case is not a valid reason to dismiss it. Bring back
the men with red flags! (:-) only joking)
>The question is where
>society wants to place the trade-off between safety and speed of
>transport. If there are parts of a town where travelling at a higher
>speed is safe, then raise the speed limit there.
This is O.K. provided all the effects on all road users and on the
surrounding neighboorhood and residents are taken into account.
>Ultimately, setting
>an unreasonably low speed limit in some areas diminishes peoples'
>respect for the speed limit in the places where it *does* matter.
>
This is not a valid reason for them to ignore the speed limits.
>>It is questionable whether this should be dual carriageway as the rest of
>>Newmarket road further along is not.
>
>Clearly, a dual carriageway is safer than a single carriageway, all
>other things being equal.
Only for certain modes of transport i.e. cars. They are not safer for
bikes. For example, would you want to cycle along the A14?
>
>Interestingly, while I was learning to drive, I accidentally exceeded
>the speed limit in two places within Cambridge - the first was
>Barnwell Road, and the second was Newmarket Road. Barnwell road has
>since had its speed limit raised to 40mph. (-8
>
>--Clive.
> (Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
Dave Jordan
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
David Jordan
>In article <4amvoo$8...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, <d...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4amqrs$k...@doc.armltd.co.uk> Clive...@armltd.co.uk writes:
>>>Er... on the A14 all other things are *not* equal. The speed limit is
>>>an obvious thing that's not equal. (-8
>>
>>Can you expand on this last point? I don't see the point you are trying to make.
>
>Er... it ought to be obvious.
>
>The extra danger to cyclists on the A14 is primarily because things
>are doing 70mph there, not because it's a dual carriageway.
>
>--Clive.
> (Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
Which highlights my point that increasing speed limits is dangerous
for cyclists and should be taken into consideration when limits
are set.
Dave Jordan
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
Gareth Rees
> In a nice town perhaps. Around here if you do that cars tend to halve
> the distance they leave you when they over take and 1/2 a centimetre
> is just a little tight :-)
Bash 'em on the window. It's the only language they understand.
--
Gareth Rees
Alan Collier
Andy Loan <al...@ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Gareth Webber wrote:
>
>> But surely if, for instance you are going over the railway bridge on
>> the way to homerton, and there are two lanes, one for traffic turning
>> left and one for traffic heading straight on, then the bike has every
>> right to travel down the right hand lane.
>
>Except that at the Cherry Hinton Road junction there is a cycle lane on
>the left which allows you to turn left or go ahead as appropriate, with
>it's own special cylce lights.
But here we come to a different problem. Does the existence of a cycle lane
mean that I am no longer allowed to cycle on the main carriageway? I think
not. I have traversed this junction only a couple of times since the lights
were installed, but still prefer to use the RH lane if I'm going straight
on. Coming down the hill, I get a good speed up so don't cause too much
trouble for the motorists. Using the cycle lane, you have to wiggle about
to get back across the (empty at this time) left hand lane.
>[I've never actually cycled through here, so I have no idea how
>practical it is. Probably safer then trying to mix it up with the
>traffic. This is one place where most people do not want to obey the
>30mph limit. Another is Brooklands.]
--
The Luggage (Alan Collier)
Department of Chemical Engineering, U Cambridge, England
"I think the luggage is rather sweet, really."
"Easy to feed","Hard to lose","Loyal","Roomy","But I wouldn't say sweet."
Andy Loan
>
> Paul Treadaway <pt...@cup.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Cherry Hinton High Street _is_ effectively unnavigable by
> >bicycle, thanks to the County Council's ludicrous schemes. The
> >cycle lane is certainly unusable.
>
> motorists I feel sorry for.
Isn't this where the carriageway-proper narrows to about 4 feet at
the mini-roundabouts, with islands to the right of you, cycle lanes
to the left of you, mini-roundabouts ahead of you [rode the 600]?
A. Grant
>I was most surprised recently to join a short stretch of Motorway near
>Manchester ... a 4 digit name something like A6177(M) ... and
>discovered that it was a single carriageway road, one lane each way
>and a hard shoulder on each side. It was wierd!
The problem with single-lane dual carriageways would be that it
would be impossible to pass slow vehicles or broken-down vehicles.
If you have a hard shoulder and motorway restrictions e.g. no
tractors etc. this is less likely to happen. It would be pretty
odd to have one in the middle of a town though.
Isn't the whole point of dual carriageways to make it safe to
overtake? I.e. if you are in thick fog or going round bends you
can be sure there isn't anything coming in the opposite direction.
Having only a single lane would seem be entirely pointless.
Paul Treadaway
>In article <1995121317...@sun1.cup.cam.ac.uk>,
>Paul Treadaway <pt...@cup.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Cherry Hinton High Street _is_ effectively unnavigable by bicycle,
>>thanks to the County Council's ludicrous schemes. The cycle lane
>>is certainly unusable.
>
>I disagree. I find the cycle lane quite easy to use.
The cycle lane is impossible to use at anything above a crawl. It goes
up and down kerbs, twists sharply around bollards, and most of the
surfaces of the lane are of terrible quality.
> It's the
>motorists I feel sorry for.
Well the point of the traffic calming is to dissuade motorists from
using the street, after all.
Peter Benie
Gareth Evans <gev...@cpd.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Andy" == Andy Loan <al...@ast.cam.ac.uk> writes:
>Andy> It is quite amusing to see people treating an undivided
>Andy> single carriageway road with 2 lanes both ways like a dual carriageway.
>Andy> Closing speeds in excess of 140mph and a yard or two between vehicles.
>Andy> It's their funerals.
>I'm sorry, but since the speed limit on a b road is 50 (55mph?) I don't
>really think there's any difference in the result of a head on at 100mph or a
>head on at 140mph....
Ahem. Not quite true - single carriageways have a speed limit of
60mph; dual carriageways have a limit of 70mph. There is also a big
difference between 100mph and 140mph. In general, drivers to not drive
cars while asleep and if they can see that they are going to have an
accident then they will slam on the brakes. You decrease the space
in which you have to slow down to a survivable speed by a factor of
roughly 2 by increasing the speed to 140mph.
Peter
Colin Rosenstiel
>In article <4amt3e$7...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, <d...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>This wouldn't mean it's unnavigable. Cycles are perfectly entitled
>>to leave cycle lanes. If they weren't they would never be able to
>>turn right into a sideroad or driveway.
>But cyclists leaving a cycle lane should give way to the traffic on
>the main carriageway. If cyclists must leave a door length of
>clearance between them and parked cars, this means they'd have to give
>way to traffic on the main carriageway at every parked car. In theory.
This is nonsenseC...@armltd.co.uk wrote:
>In article <4amt3e$7...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, <d...@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>This wouldn't mean it's unnavigable. Cycles are perfectly entitled
>>to leave cycle lanes. If they weren't they would never be able to
>>turn right into a sideroad or driveway.
>
>But cyclists leaving a cycle lane should give way to the traffic on
>the main carriageway. If cyclists must leave a door length of
>clearance between them and parked cars, this means they'd have to give
>way to traffic on the main carriageway at every parked car. In theory.
This is nonsense I'm afraid. Cyclists have just as much right to use the
carriageway as cars. A car should not over take another vehicle unless it
is safe to do so. That includes a bicycle or a farm tractor. If it's
going slower than the car, then tough!
>--Clive.
> (Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
Too right! :-)
Colin Rosenstiel
Alan Collier
Unfortunately, some of them then stop and try to bash you one the nose. Not
very pleasant. I suspect that the nutters who can't overtake properly are
also more likely to be the ones who threaten or even carry out physical
attacks on other road users. This is all going only from personal experience,
of course. I've never actually been attacked, but I've been threatened on
several occasions. often for doing really nasty things like sitting in the
middle of the lane at a set of traffic lights.
</rant>
Paul Treadaway
>Paul Treadaway <pt...@cup.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4amb89$f...@doc.armltd.co.uk>, Clive...@armltd.co.uk
>>says...
>>>Interestingly, the statistics seem to indicate that rural/motorway
>>>accidents are more likely to be fatal than urban ones.
>
>areas is less than the proportion of accidents, which does not apply
>elsewhere.
>The discussion about the validity of the statistics is interesting.
>There is of course much less motorway than other types of road and I
>would not be surprised if unclassified urban roads make up the
>majority of road miles in the UK. The statistics were used in the
>course to alert drivers to the fact that it is accidents with people
>in the city and head-on/side-on accidents in the rural areas which are
>most likely to be fatal. The training focused on recognising signs of
>trouble ahead. The point is that on motorways/dual carriageways the
>major clue is brake lights ahead, which is easy to spot and program
>yourself to react to. On other roads, it's completely different. You
>may be faced with something you have never seen before.
One thing worth mentioning is that a major factor which affects whether
an accident is fatal or not is how far away the nearest hospital with
an A&E unit is. Specifically, the survival rates for accident victims
seen within an hour by a senior consultant and those not are so
disparate that this may have a significant effect on the stats (you'll
recall that the partitioning changes rural up, urban down, motorway
the same in the quoted stats). (Presumably the definition of fatal
accident is the DoT/police one, incidentally?)
Chris Brown
Andy Loan <al...@ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>[I've never actually cycled through here, so I have no idea how
>practical it is. Probably safer then trying to mix it up with the
>traffic. This is one place where most people do not want to obey the
>30mph limit. Another is Brooklands.]
It works quite well. The cyclist can turn left as though it's a give
way junction, and go straight on without any danger from
traffic. Turning right is probably another matter!
--
/* _ */main(int k,char**n){char*i=k&1?"+L*;99,RU[,RUo+BeKAA+BECACJ+CAACA"
/* / ` */"CD+LBCACJ*":1[n],j,l=!k,m;do for(m=*i-48,j=l?m/k:m%k;m>>7?k=1<<m+
/* | */8,!l&&puts(&l)**&l:j--;printf(" \0_/"+l));while((l^=3)||l[++i]);}
/* \_,hris Brown -- All opinions expressed are probably wrong. */
Roderick Parks
>In article <4amb89$f...@doc.armltd.co.uk>, Clive...@armltd.co.uk
>says...
>>Interestingly, the statistics seem to indicate that rural/motorway
>>accidents are more likely to be fatal than urban ones.
Yes, due to the fact that the proportion of fatal accidents in urban
areas is less than the proportion of accidents, which does not apply
elsewhere.
>>This leads me
>>to wonder what the definition of an accident is, and how the data was
>>gathered (just accidents reported to the police?).
The definition of an accident in this context is when two separate
objects, each in their own space, come to occupy the same space.
>> Instinctively, I'd
>>have expected the presence of pedestrians and cyclists to outweigh the
>>higher speeds on rural roads, and mean that fatalities were more
>>likely in urban accidents.
>The data is collected by road safety departments in local authorities,
>from the local emergency services. I believe the police have the most
>complete records. They record the accident severity, location etc.
>This information is forwarded to the DoT who produce annual summaries
>etc. Accidents not reported to the police will not be covered (this
>includes minor bumps which no-one records, and insurance claims,
>which presumably insurance companies keep, which they publish only
>in the form of actuarial tables or something).
As far as I'm aware these statistics came from Insurance Companies who
generally have a more complete picture of accidents than the police.
(viz the "car park" bumps which account for so many accidents yet are
scarcely reported to the police. Of course, the way to avoid car park
collisions is to reverse park, so you can see where you are going when
you emerge from the parking bay. Impractical at supermarkets perhaps,
however safer!)
>>The figure that only 1% of drivers have any form of training after
>>obtaining their license also looks bogus to me - lots of people at
>>least take a motorway driving lesson!
>Lots? I don't know anyone who has.
Nor do I! :-)
The discussion about the validity of the statistics is interesting.
There is of course much less motorway than other types of road and I
would not be surprised if unclassified urban roads make up the
majority of road miles in the UK. The statistics were used in the
course to alert drivers to the fact that it is accidents with people
in the city and head-on/side-on accidents in the rural areas which are
most likely to be fatal. The training focused on recognising signs of
trouble ahead. The point is that on motorways/dual carriageways the
major clue is brake lights ahead, which is easy to spot and program
yourself to react to. On other roads, it's completely different. You
may be faced with something you have never seen before.
One accident I had was something I'd never envisaged. I was trying to
pass a parked lorry in a narrow side-street and had stopped with my
nose poking out from behind the lorry, waiting for a car to come from
the other direction where there were also vehicles parked on the other
side of the road. I was just sitting there waiting patiently when the
truck driver raised the tail-lift of the truck from the ground by
about a foot. It was then perfectly positioned to scratch my bodywork
as soon as I moved, yet I could not even see what had happened from my
driving seat. OOPS!
Roderick.
Roderick Parks rode...@couscous.demon.co.uk __
Life is full of little surprises... and I am one of them! ||
Gareth Evans
Andy> I have seen (and driven on) several roads of both sorts (2 lanes, single
Andy> and 1 lane, dual). It is quite amusing to see people treating an undivided
Andy> single carriageway road with 2 lanes both ways like a dual carriageway.
Andy> Closing speeds in excess of 140mph and a yard or two between vehicles.
Andy> It's their funerals.
I'm sorry, but since the speed limit on a b road is 50 (55mph?) I don't
really think there's any difference in the result of a head on at 100mph or a
head on at 140mph....
It's just degrees of mangle...
G
The Six Bells
say simple things? CRUDite, inter alia, per se, vis a vis, shit.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Chris Brown <cbr...@armltd.co.uk> wrote:
>It works quite well. The cyclist can turn left as though it's a give
>way junction, and go straight on without any danger from
>traffic. Turning right is probably another matter!
You think you've got problems! Try *leaving* that small sideroad, by
car or bike. You seem to be invisible to all the traffic turning right
out of Cherry Hinton Road, over which you theoretically have right of
way if you're turning left or going straight on - they even hoot you
when you assert your right of way!
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Alan Collier <ap...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>But here we come to a different problem. Does the existence of a cycle lane
>mean that I am no longer allowed to cycle on the main carriageway? I think
>not.
I think not, too, provided you're a fast cyclist who can keep up with
motor vehicles when setting off from the lights. Otherwise, I suppose
the only thing you could be done for would be obstruction - I think
they used that one in taking away the driving license of some 80-year
old who insisted on driving everywhere at 10mph for no good reason.
Chris Fletcher
> would be impossible to pass slow vehicles or broken-down vehicles.
> If you have a hard shoulder and motorway restrictions e.g. no
> tractors etc. this is less likely to happen. It would be pretty
> odd to have one in the middle of a town though.
>
> Isn't the whole point of dual carriageways to make it safe to
> overtake? I.e. if you are in thick fog or going round bends you
> can be sure there isn't anything coming in the opposite direction.
> Having only a single lane would seem be entirely pointless.
I can't cite a specific example but I'm sure I've come across a single
lane dual carriageway. The reason was the road ran horizontally across
a very steep slope, rather than excavate a large section out of the
slope, two smaller ones were cut, one for each lane.
Chris.
Francis Davey
The Six Bells <sixb...@sixbells.co.uk> wrote:
>Why do people in Cambridge have to use words like `pragmatic' when
>talking about the most basic things? Are you trying to prove something?
>Do you have a mobile phone and a small salary?
>
What's wrong with you? Why do you have to put other people down for using what
to you might seem unusual words? Can't you let other people express themselves
in a way that is natural to them?
Clearly not.
Are you suggesting that we should all aim at some kind of minimal common
vocabulary? Such an idea is worthy of the most ardent French revolutionary
isn't it? Surely we should bring down everyone to the lowest common
denominator, after all if *I* don't understand a word then whoever is using it
must be showing off; trying to impress me with the size of their penis or
whatever.
There are a lot of things I don't know, instead of mouthing off at people who
do know I try to learn from them or at least from the experience. If I see a
word I don't understand (happens quite a lot) I go and look it up.
Actually "pragmatic" seems like quite a workaday sort of word. Its no-where
near is bad as "epistemic" or "hypothecated".
Michael Kilpatrick
Err, there's no such thing as a speed limit for a B road. It could be
30, 40, 50, 60 or even 70 if it's upgraded to dual carriage way.
>It's just degrees of mangle...
Indeed!
Michael
John Sloan
>>> In a nice town perhaps. Around here if you do that cars tend to halve
>>> the distance they leave you when they over take and 1/2 a centimetre
>>> is just a little tight :-)
True, but the further from the curb you start, the more space you have to pull
in away from the car without hitting the curb and ending up in a heap.
If you're far enough away from the curb, it dissuades people from passing you
when there isn't enough room since they cannot pass you without either clipping
the cars coming the other way, or hitting you.
John
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Andy Loan <al...@ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Isn't this where the carriageway-proper narrows to about 4 feet at
>the mini-roundabouts, with islands to the right of you, cycle lanes
>to the left of you, mini-roundabouts ahead of you [rode the 600]?
Yes, but at least the line delimiting the cycle lane becomes dotted. (-8
All it means is that cyclists have right of way when the cycle lane
merges with the main carriageway for the roundabout, which is
sensible. Too bad lots of motorists don't realise this.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Nick Goldman <N.Go...@gen.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>But then it's often harder to load your shopping up.
Shopping bags rattle around less in a rear passenger footwell than in
the boot, anyway. (-8
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Peter Benie <pjb...@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>You've made the assumption that the motorists give me as much room as
>I give the kerb. My post did not contain that information.
If a motorist gives a cyclist less clearance than the cyclist has got
from the kerb, when overtaking, then I'd have thought they were the
sort of certifiable imbecile who wouldn't give you more clearance if
you cycled further from the kerb!
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>Clive...@armltd.co.uk wrote:
>>But cyclists leaving a cycle lane should give way to the traffic on
>>the main carriageway.
>
>carriageway as cars.
The latter is true, but doesn't justify the former. If *any* traffic
is *ever* performing a lane change, it must *always* give way to
traffic already in the lane it wants to enter, regardless of whether
it's two lanes on a motorway or a cycle lane and the main carriageway.
In this particular case, the presence of a cycle lane is restricting
the rights of the cyclist, not reinforcing them. If the cyclist wasn't
in a cycle lane, then a car *would* have to give way to a cyclist that
was pulling across to pass a parked car.
Kevin Rolph
> I'm sorry, but since the speed limit on a b road is 50 (55mph?)
Yeek! How many others reading this are blissfully unaware of the
major speed limits in this country !?
--
Kevin Rolph Cambridge, UK
==========================================================================
Engineer, Manager, Dad, Decorator, Woodworker, Gamer, Quaker, Folk Dancer,
Advanced Driver, Bodhran player, Gardener. Specialisation is for insects.
Nick Goldman
> Shopping bags rattle around less in a rear passenger footwell than in
> the boot, anyway.
Right, I'll explain that to my children.
Maybe I'll put their legs in the boot.
Nick Goldman
Colin Rosenstiel
Clive obviously doesn't do much shopping! I need the boot for a month's
load.
Colin Rosenstiel
Nick Goldman
> Anyway - couldn't Nick Goldman put his kids on the roof rack? (-8
I think you just invented the double decker bus.
Nick Goldman
Mark Irving
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <rw...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Secondly, the Highway Code says that drivers should leave
> >as 'much room as for a small car' when overtaking cyclists.
> Er... it says you should give a cycle as much clearance as you would
> give a car. If you think your purported quote is accurate, can you
> cite the rule number?
The exact words (from rule 101) are "at least as much room as you would
give a car" and are clarified with a picture showing about a 6-foot
gap. I'm told the courts have occasionally ruled that if the gap's
under five feet, any accident is largely the overtaking motorist's
fault.
> > It also says that
> >cyclists should leave enough room for the door to be opened when passing parked
> >cars.
> I've never noticed such a rule...
No. 194, perhaps? "Leave plenty of room when passing parked cars
and watch out for doors being opened into your path."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Irving <m...@uk.gdscorp.com>
Cambridge, England Don't force it! Use a bigger hammer.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>Clive obviously doesn't do much shopping! I need the boot for a month's
>load.
Sainsburys is on my way home from work (near enough), so I go there
for perishables, and so visit more than once a month. Secondly, I
always buy petrol from supermarkets, so there's little point in
shopping less often than you fill up the car, anyway.
Anyway - couldn't Nick Goldman put his kids on the roof rack? (-8
--Clive.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
>Yeek! How many others reading this are blissfully unaware of the
>major speed limits in this country !?
It could be worse - at least he thought it was lower than it really
was.
Next thing you know he'll be wearing a cloth cap and driving a Montego
Clubman down Airport Way at 40mph. (-8
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
>In article <4b4bs8$q...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>,
>Mark Irving <m...@uk.gdscorp.com> wrote:
>>Clive...@armltd.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>The exact words (from rule 101) are "at least as much room as you would
>>give a car" and are clarified with a picture showing about a 6-foot
>>gap.
>
>should give a car three feet of clearance, it implies what Rupert
>said. If they think you should give a car six feet of clearance, it
>implies what I said.
>
>IMHO, three foot is a minimum clearance when overtaking another car,
>and six is preferable in a 30mph area, but the gap should be wider at
>higher speeds. Did the picture indicate or hint at how fast the car
>was going? (-8
This rule is very badly wordly, in my opinion. It open to two interpretations:-
1) The first is leave the same amount of space between yourself and the kerb
=========
as would when overtaking a car. This is the interpretation suggested by the
accompanying picture. This is the interpretation cyclist would like drivers
to apply i.e. leave a lot of room between yourself and the cyclist.
2) The second is to leave the same gap between yourself and the cyclist
===========
as you would between yourself and another car when overtaking. This is
the interpretation that most motorists would apply. This in practice
means just enough room to avoid clipping wing mirrors or a few inches
if passing a bike, especially if it means you can squeeze past without
crossing into the other lane.
>
>>> > It also says that
>>> >cyclists should leave enough room for the door to be opened when passing parked
>>> >cars.
>>> I've never noticed such a rule...
>>
>>No. 194, perhaps? "Leave plenty of room when passing parked cars
>>and watch out for doors being opened into your path."
>
>That implies the exact opposite. It says you should watch out for
>doors being opened into your path, even when leaving "plenty of room",
>and therefore that you should not necessarily leave enough space for a
>door to be opened.
>
I think that's a pretty poor and twisted interpretation of the rule.
It means leave plenty of room when passing parked cars, full stop.
>It certainly does nothing to diminish the responsibility of people in
>parked cars to make sure they're not opening their door into a passing
>vehicle!
>
>--Clive.
> (Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
The problem is you can't rely on this. People are apt to forget about
it.
Dave Jordan
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
Paul Treadaway
>In article <4b4bs8$q...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>,
>Mark Irving <m...@uk.gdscorp.com> wrote:
>>Clive...@armltd.co.uk wrote:
>>> > Secondly, the Highway Code says that drivers should leave
>>> >as 'much room as for a small car' when overtaking cyclists.
>>> Er... it says you should give a cycle as much clearance as you would
>>> give a car. If you think your purported quote is accurate, can you
>>> cite the rule number?
>>give a car" and are clarified with a picture showing about a 6-foot
>>gap.
>That wording is amenable to either interpretation. If they think you
>should give a car three feet of clearance, it implies what Rupert
>said. If they think you should give a car six feet of clearance, it
>implies what I said.
Rather disingenuous. You were quibbling with the exact wording, which
it turns out is almost word for word as Rupert stated, and no sign of
the word 'clearance' at all. If you meant 'I interpret it differently',
perhaps you should have said that in the first place.
Alastair France
<mailto:rode...@couscous.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
[Horrendous story about atrocious driving by lorry driver snipped]
>
> This was clearly a driver with no respect for any other road users.
> The last place he should have been was in the driving seat of a petrol
> tanker.
>
> Roderick.
> Roderick Parks rode...@couscous.demon.co.uk __
> Life is full of little surprises... and I am one of them! ||
>
If it makes you feel better, remember the registration, and the telephone
number of the oil / petrol company. Then phone them up and complain about
the driver to the transport department of the company concerned. Most
companies do care about their reputation being tarnished by bad drivers, and
the chances are that they will do more than the police would if you told
them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
a personal comment from Alastair France
Roderick Parks
>The fact that supermarkets have persuaded people that shopping is an
>experience for the whole family to take part in is the one thing that
>utterly convinces me of the inevitability of the self-destruction of
>civilisation within my lifetime.
Taking my children to the Supermarket doubles the time I need to spend
there and trebles the stress. They get bored as hell and end up
fighting. Of course, getting a bit more back to topic, you can never
find one of those "parents with young kids" parking bays when you need
one.....
I agree, there's nothing civilised about going to the supermarket!
Roderick Parks
>In article <DJour...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
>Colin Rosenstiel <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>Clive obviously doesn't do much shopping! I need the boot for a month's
>>load.
Wow! Where do you find fruit which doesn't go off in that time? ;-)
>Sainsburys is on my way home from work (near enough), so I go there
>for perishables, and so visit more than once a month. Secondly, I
>always buy petrol from supermarkets, so there's little point in
>shopping less often than you fill up the car, anyway.
During the petrol voucher scheme, of course you needed to go and spend
a tenner to get the voucher before going to fill up anyway.
Roderick...just about eating his way through the last frozen pizzas
now ;-)
>Anyway - couldn't Nick Goldman put his kids on the roof rack? (-8
>--Clive.
> (Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
Roderick Parks rode...@couscous.demon.co.uk __
Roderick Parks
>In article <4b3hpt$4...@doc.armltd.co.uk>, Clive...@armltd.co.uk wrote:
>> Anyway - couldn't Nick Goldman put his kids on the roof rack? (-8
>I think you just invented the double decker bus.
>Nick Goldman
WOW! Just how many children do you have? Maybe I misread and you
said that you fill the boot with a morning's load?
Roderick.
Roderick Parks
>I have to admit that Newmarket road is one of the few places where I am
>truly scared to cycle. On occasion, when trying to get to (say ) River
>Lane from the Wrestlers, I have been known to walk or cycle down the
>pavement on that side of the road rather than risk getting totalled by a
>lorry in a double crossing of the dual carriageway plus negiatiating that
>nightmare of a junction where the Coldhams lane miniroundabout used to
>be. All of the really serious cycle accidents* I have witnessed in
>cambridge have been here or at the Elizabeth Way roundabout.
I can well believe it! I hate the double set of lights at Wests'
garage (Coldhams Lane & River Lane junctions with Newmarket Road.)
The lights appear to be completely unsynchronised and you often see
people go through one or other set on red because they are so close
together that they appear like one set of lights. Either that, or the
junction is blocked for the duration of the green part of the
cycle....
>Unfortunately, I can't think of a practical solution, which is a shame,
>since bicycling to the airport to fly to the USA has a certain charm about
>it..
Especially if you fly by airship? ;-)
Roderick
>* = involving the deposit of significant quantities of blood on the tarmac.
>--
>Jeremy
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
>
....
>Note also that the rule says "at least as much" room. I do give
>cyclists extra room to account for wobble, as well as the clearance
>I'd give a car. In practice, it's rare to find a road wide enough to
>overtake cyclists without straying into the other lane. Once you're
>having to use both lanes to overtake, you might as well give the
>cyclist loads of room.
It's amazing but some motorists just don't realise this last point.
Some will still leave little space on a straight road with no
traffic coming for miles in the opposite direction! It's as if they
are scared to cross that white line too far. :-)
If there isn't enough room to leave plenty of space, you shouldn't
overtake.
>
>>>>No. 194, perhaps? "Leave plenty of room when passing parked cars
>>>>and watch out for doors being opened into your path."
>>>
>>>That implies the exact opposite. It says you should watch out for
>>>doors being opened into your path, even when leaving "plenty of room",
>>>and therefore that you should not necessarily leave enough space for a
>>>door to be opened.
>>
>>I think that's a pretty poor and twisted interpretation of the rule.
>>It means leave plenty of room when passing parked cars, full stop.
>
>It wasn't an interpretation - it was a statement about the
>implications of the rule. How much room is "plenty"?
>
I disagree. Just because it says watch out for doors, it is not
saying that you MUST ride less than a doors width away from parked cars!
This is the problem with the rules, there just too open to
interpretation. Though, however the rules are reworded someone's
going to interpret them differently. Or if they are tightly
defined in terms of distances, there may situations that make
them unworkable. Really it should be a matter of common sense.
The problem is that if someone doesn't regularly ride a bike,
they may not realise the problems that cyclists face. Hopefully
this is the case and it's just not a case of not caring.
>>>It certainly does nothing to diminish the responsibility of people in
>>>parked cars to make sure they're not opening their door into a passing
>>>vehicle!
>>
>>The problem is you can't rely on this. People are apt to forget about
>>it.
>
>Indeed. That's why you should be on the watch for someone about to
>open a car door at a stupid moment. I always rely on the common sense
>of other road users as little as possible.
>
Agreed. Which means that you have to cycle a least a doors width away
from a parked car. If you are not and a door is opened in front of you
and there is a car overtaking you on the other side there is no where to go.
It's a choice of riding into the door or swerving in front of the overtaking
car. If you are further way from the parked car you avoid this problem.
>On the other hand, on Cherry Hinton Road, for example, where there's
>only barely room for traffic to flow in both directions past parked
>cars, it would be stupid to drive a door's width away from the parked
>cars, given how much closer that would put you to cars coming the
>other way.
>
It's a risk thing isn't it? It depends which you think is more
risky someone opening a door in front of you or a car coming
in the opposite direction swerving into your lane and which has
the worst result. All I'm arguing is that a cyclist shouldn't
be expected to ride too close to parked cars and that they shouldn't
be harassed by motorists (which includes overtaking closely) for
leaving plenty of room.
>Then again, it would be even more stupid for cyclists to pull out of a
>side road right in front of you when space is that tight - this
>doesn't seem to stop them!
>
Agreed. But please remember it's only some cyclists, not all, just as
its only some motorists that break laws not all.
>--Clive.
> (Disclaimer: I wouldn't believe a word of this if I were you...)
Dave Jordan
d...@eng.cam.ac.uk
Roderick Parks
>Gareth Evans (gev...@cpd.ntc.nokia.com) wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but since the speed limit on a b road is 50 (55mph?)
>Yeek! How many others reading this are blissfully unaware of the
>major speed limits in this country !?
I think the Sunday Driver phenonenom suggests that a significant
proportion of occasional drivers are unaware that the temporary
restrictions imposed in the 70's during the oil crises have been
removed :-)
Roderick
>--
>Kevin Rolph Cambridge, UK
>==========================================================================
>Engineer, Manager, Dad, Decorator, Woodworker, Gamer, Quaker, Folk Dancer,
>Advanced Driver, Bodhran player, Gardener. Specialisation is for insects.
Roderick Parks rode...@couscous.demon.co.uk __
Saul Dobney
>In article <4b4bs8$q...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>,
>Mark Irving <m...@uk.gdscorp.com> wrote:
>>No. 194, perhaps? "Leave plenty of room when passing parked cars
>>and watch out for doors being opened into your path."
>
>That implies the exact opposite. It says you should watch out for
>doors being opened into your path, even when leaving "plenty of room",
>and therefore that you should not necessarily leave enough space for a
>door to be opened.
>
>It certainly does nothing to diminish the responsibility of people in
>parked cars to make sure they're not opening their door into a passing
>vehicle!
Oh great! The cyclist should place themselves in a dangerous position
because the person behind the car door should take care! Personally, I
prefer to take more care of my own safety and not rely on the unpredictable
(and sometimes mortally dangerous) actions of car users.
The safe distance to cycle past parked cars is the width of the car door
plus a foot - the foot being the passengers foot as they throw open the door
and jump out of the car without looking. Any closer is potentially
extremely dangerous at ANY speed. And you don't just have to worry about
running into a door, a door can be opened as you go past to knock you off.
If you are in a flow of traffic it becomes essential to leave this much
space as the danger of injury is increased - any accident or avoiding action
will push you (probably out of control) into the traffic flow.
Do not give into pressure from the drivers to take less space. If they get
too close or behave oddly take more space on the road, so if the ignoramus
behind you attempts anything stupid you have space to take avoiding action.
It is vital on a bike that you know what is behind you at all points and
where the danger is (look). Plan overtaking early looking for a space in
the traffic to move out early - and take your passing line well before you
reach the parked cars. If you have planned and made a safe manoeuvre yet
you are slowing traffic down behind you - don't worry.
Drivers sit in the comfort of a car with heater, radio, windscreen, roof etc
moving little more than the achilles tendon to change speed. In such
luxury, its about time they relaxed and mellowed out to help other road
users - it costs them nothing more than a few seconds and will greatly ease
their consciences (be like cub scouts - do at least one good deed every
day).
If a driver overtaking a bike does not leave the lane they are in they have,
in all probability, passed too close to the cyclist.
Saul
Franck Arnaud
> The safe distance to cycle past parked cars is the width of the car door
> plus a foot
interesting. in tiny victorian cambridge streets where there are tin boxes
parked on both sides, the part of the road where you can then drive safely is
likely to be of a slightly negative width.
--
don't drink and drive, smoke aspirin and fly.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Paul Treadaway <pt...@cup.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Rather disingenuous. You were quibbling with the exact wording, which
>it turns out is almost word for word as Rupert stated, and no sign of
>the word 'clearance' at all.
Thanks Paul. Merry Christmas.
I knew damn well that the word "small" didn't appear anywhere in the
Highway Code's wording, but Rupert had put his wording in quotes,
implying that he thought it was verbatim. This naturally made me doubt
its accuracy.
Paul Treadaway
>
>In article <1995122012...@sun1.cup.cam.ac.uk>,
>Paul Treadaway <pt...@cup.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> What, the fact that it was in quotes made you doubt its accuracy?
>> In any case, 'at least as much room as for a car' and 'as much
>> room as for a small car' are clearly synonymous in specifying a
>> minimum distance.
>
>TMBSNMOTW"clearly"OWIWNPA. Could you perhaps explain why it's clearly
>synonymous to that rather than to "as much room as for an average car"
>or to "as much room as for a large car"?
The relevant word is 'minimum', which is what both phrases refer to.
Clive...@armltd.co.uk
Alastair France <afr...@stet-os.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Most
>companies do care about their reputation being tarnished by bad drivers, and
>the chances are that they will do more than the police would if you told
>them.
I called the police the other day, when the driver of a lorry making
deliveries to the Texaco at the bottom of Histon Road was in a temper
(presumably because he'd been driving through the fog) and threatened
to run my car over with his van, as well as threatening me with
physical violence - just because my car was parked where he wanted to
stop. I was pleasantly surprised by how helpful they were. I only
wanted the guy given a formal caution, but they seemed ready to
prosecute if I had been willing.
Gareth McCaughan
> What, the fact that it was in quotes made you doubt its accuracy?
> In any case, 'at least as much room as for a car' and 'as much
> room as for a small car' are clearly synonymous in specifying a
> minimum distance.
TMBSNMOTW"clearly"OWIWNPA. Could you perhaps explain why it's clearly
synonymous to that rather than to "as much room as for an average car"
or to "as much room as for a large car"?
--
Gareth McCaughan Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gj...@pmms.cam.ac.uk Cambridge University, England. [Research student]
Franck Arnaud
> Er, surely most of the narrow roads are pre-Victorian.
no, most of the streets I'm thinking about were countryside before
the victorians. indeed, most of cambridge was countryside then
as it really started growing only after 1835 -- there were only
9000 inhabitants at the beginning of the 19th century.
by the way, these streets would be perfect without the parked cars,
which were neither there nor planned at the time.
Paul Treadaway
>interesting. in tiny victorian cambridge streets where there are tin boxes
>parked on both sides, the part of the road where you can then drive safely is
>likely to be of a slightly negative width.
Er, surely most of the narrow roads are pre-Victorian.
Ian Jackson
>I called the police the other day, when the driver of a lorry making
>deliveries to the Texaco at the bottom of Histon Road was in a temper
>(presumably because he'd been driving through the fog) and threatened
>to run my car over with his van, as well as threatening me with
>physical violence - just because my car was parked where he wanted to
>stop. I was pleasantly surprised by how helpful they were. I only
>wanted the guy given a formal caution, but they seemed ready to
>prosecute if I had been willing.
That's very interesting.
The last time I was threatened by a driver - even to the point of his
passenger throwing a rag at me out of the window as they drove past -
I didn't bother going to the police because they din't in general seem
interested in anything I report to them.
I wonder if your experience was different because it wasn't perceived
as just a traffic offence you were complaining about, or because
you're a motorist rather than a cyclist ?
--
Ian Jackson, at home. i...@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk + 44 1223 3 31579
General: ijac...@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk Permanent: ijac...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Churchill College, Cambridge, CB3 0DS. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/iwj10/