Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Newmarket Rd - bus lane and cameras
1,111 views
Skip to first unread message
fred
May 1, 2015, 10:20:15 AM5/1/15
to
I was driving down Nkt Rd this morning towards the Beehive Centre and
noticed new signs and cameras - "Bus lane patrolled by cameras".
I think this is a terrible own goal. Now I would never condone people
using the left lane to bypass the queue. I think that is actually
quite rare, and shame on any that do. But cameras cannot exercise
judgement and discretion.
So the issue comes when you want to turn left, eg into Honda, B&Q,
Homebase, etc. If it is only 50 yards away (not the 10 yards before
any light), and your path and exit are clear, then it benefits all to
go ahead.
People will avoid a ticket [certainty of punishment is a much bigger
deterent than severity of punishment]. The result is a much longer
line and tailback along Nkt Rd, when a bit of discretion hurts nobody
and helps many.
noticed new signs and cameras - "Bus lane patrolled by cameras".
I think this is a terrible own goal. Now I would never condone people
using the left lane to bypass the queue. I think that is actually
quite rare, and shame on any that do. But cameras cannot exercise
judgement and discretion.
So the issue comes when you want to turn left, eg into Honda, B&Q,
Homebase, etc. If it is only 50 yards away (not the 10 yards before
any light), and your path and exit are clear, then it benefits all to
go ahead.
People will avoid a ticket [certainty of punishment is a much bigger
deterent than severity of punishment]. The result is a much longer
line and tailback along Nkt Rd, when a bit of discretion hurts nobody
and helps many.
Roland Perry
May 1, 2015, 10:57:36 AM5/1/15
to
In message <5m17ka94e0d394a64...@4ax.com>, at 15:20:09 on
Fri, 1 May 2015, fred <fr...@fred.com> remarked:
Everything you mention has been there for many years.
The biggest risk to other traffic is the frequent people overtaking on
the left in the bus lane making it difficult for law-abiding drivers
heading for the sheds to turn left when finally allowed to.
The biggest shame is all that road space reserved for a handful of
buses.
--
Roland Perry
Fri, 1 May 2015, fred <fr...@fred.com> remarked:
The biggest risk to other traffic is the frequent people overtaking on
the left in the bus lane making it difficult for law-abiding drivers
heading for the sheds to turn left when finally allowed to.
The biggest shame is all that road space reserved for a handful of
buses.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm
May 1, 2015, 11:14:44 AM5/1/15
to
1) that even apparently educated people don't realise that a handful of
full buses (5) can carry as many people as a 4km queue of private cars
with just the driver...
2) That drivers of motor vehicles are quick enough to complain if the
law inhibits their progress without apparently affecting others, and
even quicker to complain if those riding cycles break the law in a
similar way!
Jim
Roland Perry
May 1, 2015, 12:04:41 PM5/1/15
to
In message <mi0575$n3o$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:14:43 on Fri, 1 May 2015,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
near one that had in excess of one per minute using the lane), the
Newmarket Road bus lane is conspicuous by the absence of buses.
As far as I can see it's just the Citi 3 and the P&R, each once every 10
minutes.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
>> The biggest shame is all that road space reserved for a handful of buses.
>
>An even bigger shame is:
>1) that even apparently educated people don't realise that a handful
>of full buses (5) can carry as many people as a 4km queue of private
>cars with just the driver...
While I'm all in favour of bus lanes for lots of buses (I used to live
>
>An even bigger shame is:
>1) that even apparently educated people don't realise that a handful
>of full buses (5) can carry as many people as a 4km queue of private
>cars with just the driver...
near one that had in excess of one per minute using the lane), the
Newmarket Road bus lane is conspicuous by the absence of buses.
As far as I can see it's just the Citi 3 and the P&R, each once every 10
minutes.
--
Roland Perry
Richard Smith
May 1, 2015, 12:30:52 PM5/1/15
to
On 01/05/15 17:03, Roland Perry wrote:
> As far as I can see it's just the Citi 3 and the P&R, each once every 10
> minutes.
Also routes 10, 11 and 12, each hourly.
> As far as I can see it's just the Citi 3 and the P&R, each once every 10
> minutes.
Richard
fred
May 1, 2015, 1:00:02 PM5/1/15
to
>
>Everything you mention has been there for many years.
signs re bus lane enforcement are new to me.
Dan Sheppard
May 1, 2015, 1:08:39 PM5/1/15
to
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> wrote:
>2) That drivers of motor vehicles are quick enough to complain if the
>law inhibits their progress without apparently affecting others, and
>even quicker to complain if those riding cycles break the law in a
>similar way!
Hey, hang on a minute! I'm a driver of a motor-vehicle who is regularly
>2) That drivers of motor vehicles are quick enough to complain if the
>law inhibits their progress without apparently affecting others, and
>even quicker to complain if those riding cycles break the law in a
>similar way!
in that situation, and I queue with everyone else until the bus lane
actually ends before I turn, in order that the buses can get through,
and find that a perfectly reasonable state of affairs.
Dan.
Alan
May 1, 2015, 2:00:15 PM5/1/15
to
ago in Perry World.
--
Alan
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Alan
May 1, 2015, 2:04:15 PM5/1/15
to
On Fri, 01 May 2015 15:20:09 +0100, fred <fr...@fred.com> wrote:
> I was driving down Nkt Rd this morning towards the Beehive Centre and
> noticed new signs and cameras - "Bus lane patrolled by cameras".
>
> I think this is a terrible own goal. Now I would never condone people
> using the left lane to bypass the queue. I think that is actually
> quite rare, and shame on any that do. But cameras cannot exercise
> judgement and discretion.
>
I won't get in to the argument as to the pros and cons of bus lanes, but
> I was driving down Nkt Rd this morning towards the Beehive Centre and
> noticed new signs and cameras - "Bus lane patrolled by cameras".
>
> I think this is a terrible own goal. Now I would never condone people
> using the left lane to bypass the queue. I think that is actually
> quite rare, and shame on any that do. But cameras cannot exercise
> judgement and discretion.
>
it was incredibly common for cars to just undertake and push in at the
next set of lights. I've seen many even carry on through the red lights
at the end of the bus lanes.
sens...@gmail.com
May 1, 2015, 4:04:24 PM5/1/15
to
Thank you for this warning, much appreciated. I occasionally pop into the Honda Garage, so will be be very careful re the bus lane with cameras.
Lyn
https://twitter.com/lyndsaygirton
Roland Perry
May 1, 2015, 4:14:29 PM5/1/15
to
In message <op.xxyxmnl672n0pf@alan>, at 19:00:13 on Fri, 1 May 2015,
Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
Which is when several signs with words like "New Bus Lane ahead" were
erected, and being a law-abiding driver became dangerous.
If someone has introduced enforcement cameras very recently then I
apologise for not having seen their absence last year.
--
Roland Perry
Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Everything you mention has been there for many years.
>>
>> I don't think so, and I notice this kind of thing. The cameras and
>> signs re bus lane enforcement are new to me.
>
>The cameras came in late 2014 (November?), which is probably many years
>ago in Perry World.
Many years ago would be the late 90's.
>>
>> I don't think so, and I notice this kind of thing. The cameras and
>> signs re bus lane enforcement are new to me.
>
>The cameras came in late 2014 (November?), which is probably many years
>ago in Perry World.
Which is when several signs with words like "New Bus Lane ahead" were
erected, and being a law-abiding driver became dangerous.
If someone has introduced enforcement cameras very recently then I
apologise for not having seen their absence last year.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 1, 2015, 4:14:29 PM5/1/15
to
In message <cqho1p...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:30:46 on Fri, 1 May
2015, Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
2015, Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com> remarked:
>> As far as I can see it's just the Citi 3 and the P&R, each once every 10
>> minutes.
>
>Also routes 10, 11 and 12, each hourly.
Which still adds up to "not very many".
>> minutes.
>
>Also routes 10, 11 and 12, each hourly.
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
May 1, 2015, 4:26:06 PM5/1/15
to
Tim Ward
May 1, 2015, 4:27:37 PM5/1/15
to
On 01/05/2015 15:20, fred wrote:
>
> Now I would never condone people using the left lane to bypass the
> queue. I think that is actually quite rare
It is now, but it was dead common before the cameras.
>
> Now I would never condone people using the left lane to bypass the
> queue. I think that is actually quite rare
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 1, 2015, 7:54:46 PM5/1/15
to
In article <TGvbb7UP...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
In Perry World.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
May 2, 2015, 3:40:59 AM5/2/15
to
In message <XoadncPic6zcj9nI...@giganews.com>, at 18:54:41
on Fri, 1 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
account of the sheds there being my likely destination) and it's rare
for me to see a bus in those lanes. So yes, in my world that's "not very
on Fri, 1 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >> As far as I can see it's just the Citi 3 and the P&R, each once every
>> >> 10 minutes.
>> >
>> >Also routes 10, 11 and 12, each hourly.
>>
>> Which still adds up to "not very many".
>
>In Perry World.
I drive up and down Newmarket Rd most times I visit Cambridge by car (on
>> >> 10 minutes.
>> >
>> >Also routes 10, 11 and 12, each hourly.
>>
>> Which still adds up to "not very many".
>
>In Perry World.
account of the sheds there being my likely destination) and it's rare
for me to see a bus in those lanes. So yes, in my world that's "not very
The Natural Philosopher
May 2, 2015, 6:28:14 AM5/2/15
to
On 01/05/15 16:14, Jim Chisholm wrote:
> An even bigger shame is:
> 1) that even apparently educated people don't realise that a handful of
> full buses (5) can carry as many people as a 4km queue of private cars
> with just the driver...
The same way a windmill can power up to 1000 homes but never actually
> An even bigger shame is:
> 1) that even apparently educated people don't realise that a handful of
> full buses (5) can carry as many people as a 4km queue of private cars
> with just the driver...
does, you mean? Or the same way that global warming could be happening,
but isn't? Or that solar panels could halve your heating costs, but
never do?
> 2) That drivers of motor vehicles are quick enough to complain if the
> law inhibits their progress without apparently affecting others, and
> even quicker to complain if those riding cycles break the law in a
> similar way!
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
tony sayer
May 2, 2015, 8:25:32 AM5/2/15
to
In article <mi28rt$jr1$1...@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
thousand homes, what bullshit it all is. Yes of course they might when
the winds right or the suns full power but its very rarely the right
sort of wind and even as I write not that sunny outside..
>> 2) That drivers of motor vehicles are quick enough to complain if the
>> law inhibits their progress without apparently affecting others, and
>> even quicker to complain if those riding cycles break the law in a
>> similar way!
>
>No.
>
>
Go up and down Newmarket road a lot very rarely see busses occupying the
bus lanes, a lot of other traffic occupying the one available lane
'tho...
--
Tony Sayer
<t...@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 01/05/15 16:14, Jim Chisholm wrote:
>> An even bigger shame is:
>> 1) that even apparently educated people don't realise that a handful of
>> full buses (5) can carry as many people as a 4km queue of private cars
>> with just the driver...
>
>The same way a windmill can power up to 1000 homes but never actually
>does, you mean? Or the same way that global warming could be happening,
>but isn't? Or that solar panels could halve your heating costs, but
>never do?
>
Every day we see that some wind farm or solar farm can power up to "x"
>> An even bigger shame is:
>> 1) that even apparently educated people don't realise that a handful of
>> full buses (5) can carry as many people as a 4km queue of private cars
>> with just the driver...
>
>The same way a windmill can power up to 1000 homes but never actually
>does, you mean? Or the same way that global warming could be happening,
>but isn't? Or that solar panels could halve your heating costs, but
>never do?
>
thousand homes, what bullshit it all is. Yes of course they might when
the winds right or the suns full power but its very rarely the right
sort of wind and even as I write not that sunny outside..
>> 2) That drivers of motor vehicles are quick enough to complain if the
>> law inhibits their progress without apparently affecting others, and
>> even quicker to complain if those riding cycles break the law in a
>> similar way!
>
>No.
>
>
bus lanes, a lot of other traffic occupying the one available lane
'tho...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
May 2, 2015, 8:25:32 AM5/2/15
to
In article <ImfdTnVN...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
Yes they have been there a few months now and a young friend of mine
missed the sign as a large van was obscuring it but she wrote a very
nice letter and wasn't fined.
I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
--
Tony Sayer
<rol...@perry.co.uk> scribeth thus
missed the sign as a large van was obscuring it but she wrote a very
nice letter and wasn't fined.
I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
--
Tony Sayer
Tim Ward
May 2, 2015, 8:40:44 AM5/2/15
to
On 02/05/2015 13:07, tony sayer wrote:
>
> I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
> link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>
> I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
> link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about equal.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Roland Perry
May 2, 2015, 9:43:15 AM5/2/15
to
In message <cqjuub...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:40:08 on Sat, 2 May
2015, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about
>equal.
The usual difference being that the bikes ignore red lights completely
at all phases, whereas the cars are "merely" following through for a few
seconds after a light has turned red.
Completely different threat models.
--
Roland Perry
2015, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about
>equal.
at all phases, whereas the cars are "merely" following through for a few
seconds after a light has turned red.
Completely different threat models.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm
May 2, 2015, 12:02:22 PM5/2/15
to
confirms is that if a motor vehicle runs a red light and hits a cycle it
is the innocent party that gets killed, whereas it is extremely unusual
for an innocent party to be killed by the illegal behaviour of someone
riding a bike.
Jim
Theo Markettos
May 2, 2015, 5:38:55 PM5/2/15
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> I drive up and down Newmarket Rd most times I visit Cambridge by car (on
> account of the sheds there being my likely destination) and it's rare
> for me to see a bus in those lanes. So yes, in my world that's "not very
> many".
The Trumpington Road lane gets seven buses an hour - six P&R and one 26.
> I drive up and down Newmarket Rd most times I visit Cambridge by car (on
> account of the sheds there being my likely destination) and it's rare
> for me to see a bus in those lanes. So yes, in my world that's "not very
> many".
That's 'not very many' perhaps, but the point is that the road tends to jam
up. Having the bus lane allows the bus to get to the front of the queue (at
least the Trumpington Road front - it doesn't help with the High St). Which
makes the bus more reliable.
In this case the bus lane doesn't make the problem worse, because the
bottleneck is Long Road junction and lights on the High St -- making traffic
queue in two lanes not one wouldn't make it flow any quicker.
In Newmarket Road it's more complicated. With all the turns and junctions
there are, I'm not sure how much freer it would flow with the bus lane
removed. So perhaps this tradeoff is less clear cut, but it seems like an
empty bus lane is doing exactly what it's intended to -- let those 'few'
buses bypass the queues.
Theo
Dan Sheppard
May 2, 2015, 6:04:01 PM5/2/15
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>I drive up and down Newmarket Rd most times I visit Cambridge by car (on
>account of the sheds there being my likely destination) and it's rare
>for me to see a bus in those lanes. So yes, in my world that's "not very
>many".
And we sit in the Pizza Hut on Newmarket Road most times we visit Cambridge
>I drive up and down Newmarket Rd most times I visit Cambridge by car (on
>account of the sheds there being my likely destination) and it's rare
>for me to see a bus in those lanes. So yes, in my world that's "not very
>many".
and have a toddler who shouts "BUS!" at the top of his voice every time one
goes past. We are in there for less than an hour. There are more than three
or four buses an hour.
Dan.
Richard Smith
May 2, 2015, 7:17:32 PM5/2/15
to
On 02/05/15 23:03, Dan Sheppard wrote:
> And we sit in the Pizza Hut on Newmarket Road most times we visit Cambridge
> and have a toddler who shouts "BUS!" at the top of his voice every time one
> goes past. We are in there for less than an hour. There are more than three
> or four buses an hour.
Yes. Stagecoach run 15 an hour each way along Newmarket Road, or one
> And we sit in the Pizza Hut on Newmarket Road most times we visit Cambridge
> and have a toddler who shouts "BUS!" at the top of his voice every time one
> goes past. We are in there for less than an hour. There are more than three
> or four buses an hour.
every four minutes on average. That's consistent with my experience.
I suspect Roland is so busy looking for cyclists to bitch about that he
doesn't notice the buses.
Richard
ian
May 3, 2015, 4:43:32 AM5/3/15
to
"Richard Smith" <ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message
news:cql48a...@mid.individual.net...
Yes Roland seems to have a problem counting buses as this follows his 3 rail
replacement buses an hour claim last weekend. ( there were 12 plus in fact).
Ian
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
tony sayer
May 3, 2015, 8:25:57 AM5/3/15
to
In article <k-x*Zj...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, Dan Sheppard
<da...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribeth thus
When he's a bit older ask him to count the total number of wagons;)..
--
Tony Sayer
<da...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> scribeth thus
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
May 3, 2015, 8:25:57 AM5/3/15
to
In article <cqjuub...@mid.individual.net>, Tim Ward
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
You really should get out more Tim.
Want to come and have a look at what goes on around the Mill road area?.
Want to come and lay bets that there are far more bikes go thru red
lights than cars.
Better still bring a copper with you and nick a few.
Lets not start on bike lights out, or just not there anyway :-(...
--
Tony Sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
Want to come and have a look at what goes on around the Mill road area?.
Want to come and lay bets that there are far more bikes go thru red
lights than cars.
Better still bring a copper with you and nick a few.
Lets not start on bike lights out, or just not there anyway :-(...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
May 3, 2015, 8:25:57 AM5/3/15
to
In article <mi2sce$nps$1...@dont-email.me>, Jim Chisholm
<jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> scribeth thus
And if cyclists were a bit more complaint with the highway code then
perhaps that wouldn't be a problem, but poor cycling has been going on
for years...
--
Tony Sayer
<jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> scribeth thus
perhaps that wouldn't be a problem, but poor cycling has been going on
for years...
--
Tony Sayer
Tim Ward
May 3, 2015, 8:52:37 AM5/3/15
to
On 03/05/2015 13:13, tony sayer wrote:
>
> You really should get out more Tim.
>
> Want to come and have a look at what goes on around the Mill road area?.
I'm sure that there will be some places where there are more cyclists
>
> You really should get out more Tim.
>
> Want to come and have a look at what goes on around the Mill road area?.
doing it (and some places where there are more drivers). When I bother
to count it's usually on a journey across a rather wider sample of the
city, eg between home and Addenbrooke's. I'll be going to the Mill Road
area this evening, but may or may not remember to do a count.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Roland Perry
May 3, 2015, 11:48:32 AM5/3/15
to
In message <mi4n1k$8jr$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:43:31 on Sun, 3 May 2015,
ian <i.bi...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
timetable which showed just three buses per hour, mid-morning anyway?
Although to be fair there were three the other way too, but for how long
would each bus be sitting at Cambridge station?
Looking at the timetable again, after midday at Cambridge it's now two
arriving and four leaving an hour:
12:10 bus arrives from Downham Mkt 12:11 bus leaves for Downham Mkt
12:15 bus leaves for Peterbro'
12:38 bus leaves for March
12:24 bus arrives from Brandon 12:40 bus leaves for Brandon
The first bus in from Peterbro arrived at 14:40, to depart at 15:15 &
The first bus in from March arrived at 15:30, to depart at 15:38.
Perhaps they had all the XC buses lined up waiting (to serve the first
departures from 10:38 and 11:15), which would be nine; although they
didn't have to be parked actually at the station, and the nine would be
reducing by two per hour from 10:38 onwards.
And perhaps the Downham Market bus dwells for 61 minutes rather than one
minute - but that's still only one parking space required for 59 minutes
of the hour.
--
Roland Perry
ian <i.bi...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>Yes Roland seems to have a problem counting buses as this follows his 3
>rail replacement buses an hour claim last weekend. ( there were 12 plus
>in fact).
How do you justify that claim when I posted an extract from the [rail]
>rail replacement buses an hour claim last weekend. ( there were 12 plus
>in fact).
timetable which showed just three buses per hour, mid-morning anyway?
Although to be fair there were three the other way too, but for how long
would each bus be sitting at Cambridge station?
Looking at the timetable again, after midday at Cambridge it's now two
arriving and four leaving an hour:
12:10 bus arrives from Downham Mkt 12:11 bus leaves for Downham Mkt
12:15 bus leaves for Peterbro'
12:38 bus leaves for March
12:24 bus arrives from Brandon 12:40 bus leaves for Brandon
The first bus in from Peterbro arrived at 14:40, to depart at 15:15 &
The first bus in from March arrived at 15:30, to depart at 15:38.
Perhaps they had all the XC buses lined up waiting (to serve the first
departures from 10:38 and 11:15), which would be nine; although they
didn't have to be parked actually at the station, and the nine would be
reducing by two per hour from 10:38 onwards.
And perhaps the Downham Market bus dwells for 61 minutes rather than one
minute - but that's still only one parking space required for 59 minutes
of the hour.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm
May 3, 2015, 12:11:57 PM5/3/15
to
They do not just have a single bus to replace a 4 car train.
Last time I was at Audley End when there was a replacement service to
Cambridge there were buses marked DIRECT to Cambridge and buses marked
to call at all intermediate stations. Note the plural. Clearly busES
will be timed to leave shortly after a train arrives, but they don't try
and squash the contents of a 4 car train onto a single bus!
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 3, 2015, 12:32:22 PM5/3/15
to
In article <UDcQBuAG...@bancom.co.uk>, to...@bancom.co.uk (tony sayer)
wrote:
The latter is why the former is needed. 15 buses an hour in each direction
can carry a lot of people, probably more than in the cars.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
can carry a lot of people, probably more than in the cars.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 3, 2015, 12:32:24 PM5/3/15
to
In article <Ke+dNz2N...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
You haven't observed the Newmarket Road/Elizabeth Way roundabout then.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Jim Chisholm
May 3, 2015, 12:35:05 PM5/3/15
to
I assume you are a perfect driver who has never exceeded a speed limit,
never waited on a double line, never illegally entered a yellow box
junction or mandatory cycle lane?
I hope I can assume that as a reasonable person, you've never used a
mobile phone whilst driving, nor driven when drunk.
Just removing those class of 'poor drivers' would save huge numbers of
lives.
As frequent rider of a cycle in and around Cambridge I rarely see poor
cycling that endangers other than the individual, but frequently see
poor driving that endangers not just vulnerable users on foot or on
cycles but even occupants of other motor vehicles.
How many of the thousands of deaths on the road each year are the
responsibility of irresponsible riders of bicycles?
Whilst at then TRRL I was driving in excess of 20k in some years, with
part of that monitoring such things as motorway speeds and HGV behaviour
I can assure you that with better driving standards life would be less
stressful for the majority of road users.
Jim
Alan
May 3, 2015, 12:52:12 PM5/3/15
to
On Sun, 03 May 2015 16:46:28 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
I suspect the confusion is that you are trying to work it out from time
tables, others are reporting what they actually saw.
--
Alan
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
wrote:
tables, others are reporting what they actually saw.
--
Alan
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Espen Koht
May 3, 2015, 1:32:33 PM5/3/15
to
In article <mi5had$2q4$1...@dont-email.me>,
I thought it was RO-land (once it's in there you can't overwrite it!).
Roland Perry
May 3, 2015, 2:30:20 PM5/3/15
to
In message <mi5had$2q4$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:56 on Sun, 3 May 2015,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
>They do not just have a single bus to replace a 4 car train.
>Last time I was at Audley End when there was a replacement service to
>Cambridge there were buses marked DIRECT to Cambridge and buses marked
>to call at all intermediate stations. Note the plural. Clearly busES
>will be timed to leave shortly after a train arrives, but they don't
>try and squash the contents of a 4 car train onto a single bus!
Except all the replacements I saw running last Sunday were a single bus.
After all, the XC service being replaced is often only a 2-car train.
Apart from anything else, lots of punters are scared away simply because
of it being a bus. That's why taxi-dad was taking the trip to Cambridge
station in the first place!!
My wife was also travelling to London last weekend and reports that
there was just one bus per train, and on the way back on Sunday it
called at Waterbeach - no direct-to-Ely bus provided.
You may have noticed that there are buses in the schedule I gave above
to both March and Peterborough, and hence it was possible that one was
doing Ely+March and another direct to Peterborough. The only problem
with that was me seeing a bus with "Peterborough" as the destination on
the A10 near Ely, whereas a genuinely direct bus would have been on the
A14/A1.
My comments on this situation are not mere speculation - I went to
Cambridge Station on both Saturday and Sunday, and two family members
were travelling separately south and south+north through the disruption.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
>>> Yes Roland seems to have a problem counting buses as this follows his
>>> 3 rail replacement buses an hour claim last weekend. ( there were 12
>>> plus in fact).
>>
>> How do you justify that claim when I posted an extract from the [rail]
>> timetable which showed just three buses per hour, mid-morning anyway?
>>
>> Although to be fair there were three the other way too, but for how long
>> would each bus be sitting at Cambridge station?
>>
>> Looking at the timetable again, after midday at Cambridge it's now two
>> arriving and four leaving an hour:
>>
>> 12:10 bus arrives from Downham Mkt 12:11 bus leaves for Downham Mkt
>> 12:15 bus leaves for Peterbro'
>> 12:38 bus leaves for March
>> 12:24 bus arrives from Brandon 12:40 bus leaves for Brandon
>>
>> The first bus in from Peterbro arrived at 14:40, to depart at 15:15 &
>> The first bus in from March arrived at 15:30, to depart at 15:38.
>>
>> Perhaps they had all the XC buses lined up waiting (to serve the first
>> departures from 10:38 and 11:15), which would be nine; although they
>> didn't have to be parked actually at the station, and the nine would be
>> reducing by two per hour from 10:38 onwards.
>>
>> And perhaps the Downham Market bus dwells for 61 minutes rather than one
>> minute - but that's still only one parking space required for 59 minutes
>> of the hour.
>This is typical Rowland World (or is it Universe?)
Jym, get the name right.
>>> 3 rail replacement buses an hour claim last weekend. ( there were 12
>>> plus in fact).
>>
>> How do you justify that claim when I posted an extract from the [rail]
>> timetable which showed just three buses per hour, mid-morning anyway?
>>
>> Although to be fair there were three the other way too, but for how long
>> would each bus be sitting at Cambridge station?
>>
>> Looking at the timetable again, after midday at Cambridge it's now two
>> arriving and four leaving an hour:
>>
>> 12:10 bus arrives from Downham Mkt 12:11 bus leaves for Downham Mkt
>> 12:15 bus leaves for Peterbro'
>> 12:38 bus leaves for March
>> 12:24 bus arrives from Brandon 12:40 bus leaves for Brandon
>>
>> The first bus in from Peterbro arrived at 14:40, to depart at 15:15 &
>> The first bus in from March arrived at 15:30, to depart at 15:38.
>>
>> Perhaps they had all the XC buses lined up waiting (to serve the first
>> departures from 10:38 and 11:15), which would be nine; although they
>> didn't have to be parked actually at the station, and the nine would be
>> reducing by two per hour from 10:38 onwards.
>>
>> And perhaps the Downham Market bus dwells for 61 minutes rather than one
>> minute - but that's still only one parking space required for 59 minutes
>> of the hour.
>This is typical Rowland World (or is it Universe?)
>They do not just have a single bus to replace a 4 car train.
>Last time I was at Audley End when there was a replacement service to
>Cambridge there were buses marked DIRECT to Cambridge and buses marked
>to call at all intermediate stations. Note the plural. Clearly busES
>will be timed to leave shortly after a train arrives, but they don't
>try and squash the contents of a 4 car train onto a single bus!
After all, the XC service being replaced is often only a 2-car train.
Apart from anything else, lots of punters are scared away simply because
of it being a bus. That's why taxi-dad was taking the trip to Cambridge
station in the first place!!
My wife was also travelling to London last weekend and reports that
there was just one bus per train, and on the way back on Sunday it
called at Waterbeach - no direct-to-Ely bus provided.
You may have noticed that there are buses in the schedule I gave above
to both March and Peterborough, and hence it was possible that one was
doing Ely+March and another direct to Peterborough. The only problem
with that was me seeing a bus with "Peterborough" as the destination on
the A10 near Ely, whereas a genuinely direct bus would have been on the
A14/A1.
My comments on this situation are not mere speculation - I went to
Cambridge Station on both Saturday and Sunday, and two family members
were travelling separately south and south+north through the disruption.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 3, 2015, 2:50:22 PM5/3/15
to
In message <mi5ilp$928$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:35:04 on Sun, 3 May 2015,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
>As frequent rider of a cycle in and around Cambridge I rarely see poor
>cycling that endangers other than the individual
That's OK then. The NHS will patch them up at all our expense.
>cycling that endangers other than the individual
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 3, 2015, 2:50:22 PM5/3/15
to
In message <op.xx2js9i672n0pf@alan>, at 17:52:11 on Sun, 3 May 2015,
Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>I suspect the confusion is that you are trying to work it out from time
>tables, others are reporting what they actually saw.
Wrong. This started off with me reporting what I *saw* (in terms of
northbound buses) when driving from Ely Station to Cambridge Station.
And of course what's been reported to me by people taking the buses.
If people saw large numbers of buses parked at Cambridge Station, then
that's an admission that the arrangements were botched.
While it may have been convenient for the railways to store lots of
buses that weren't immediately required in the commandeered station car
park, there are plenty of less disruptive places they could have been
stored (including in the bus station alongside platform 3, which I
pictured almost empty).
--
Roland Perry
Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>I suspect the confusion is that you are trying to work it out from time
>tables, others are reporting what they actually saw.
northbound buses) when driving from Ely Station to Cambridge Station.
And of course what's been reported to me by people taking the buses.
If people saw large numbers of buses parked at Cambridge Station, then
that's an admission that the arrangements were botched.
While it may have been convenient for the railways to store lots of
buses that weren't immediately required in the commandeered station car
park, there are plenty of less disruptive places they could have been
stored (including in the bus station alongside platform 3, which I
pictured almost empty).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 3, 2015, 2:50:23 PM5/3/15
to
In message <fp6dndvGD4EM0NvI...@giganews.com>, at 11:32:17
on Sun, 3 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
"following through"??
--
Roland Perry
on Sun, 3 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>> >of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about
>> >equal.
>>
>> The usual difference being that the bikes ignore red lights
>> completely at all phases, whereas the cars are "merely" following
>> through for a few seconds after a light has turned red.
>>
>> Completely different threat models.
>
>You haven't observed the Newmarket Road/Elizabeth Way roundabout then.
That has motorists completely ignoring the lights, rather than
>> >of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about
>> >equal.
>>
>> The usual difference being that the bikes ignore red lights
>> completely at all phases, whereas the cars are "merely" following
>> through for a few seconds after a light has turned red.
>>
>> Completely different threat models.
>
>You haven't observed the Newmarket Road/Elizabeth Way roundabout then.
"following through"??
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
May 3, 2015, 4:45:28 PM5/3/15
to
cars - 0
bikes - 0
Usually I'd expect around four of each for such a journey - perhaps the
rain kept people at home.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
tony sayer
May 3, 2015, 6:06:06 PM5/3/15
to
In article <hpqdnQPJf5IM0NvI...@giganews.com>,
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk scribeth thus
In theory .. but they are rarely full laden all the time. Bit like those
windymills and solar farms that everyone thinks are providing power for
xxx thousand homes 27/7;
--
Tony Sayer
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk scribeth thus
windymills and solar farms that everyone thinks are providing power for
xxx thousand homes 27/7;
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
May 3, 2015, 6:06:06 PM5/3/15
to
In article <cqnfn5...@mid.individual.net>, Tim Ward
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
I must get one of they car cams;).
Been meaning to for quite some time, anyone any recommendations?..
nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
--
Tony Sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
Been meaning to for quite some time, anyone any recommendations?..
nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
May 3, 2015, 6:06:07 PM5/3/15
to
In article <cqmk0j...@mid.individual.net>, Tim Ward
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
Well I go there quite a lot and there're not that difficult to miss;-!..
--
Tony Sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
May 3, 2015, 6:06:05 PM5/3/15
to
In article <mi5ilp$928$1...@dont-email.me>, Jim Chisholm
>I assume you are a perfect driver who has never exceeded a speed limit,
>never waited on a double line, never illegally entered a yellow box
>junction or mandatory cycle lane?
Nope I'm human, but I do my absolute dammest not to harm threaten or
piss off any other road users..
>I hope I can assume that as a reasonable person, you've never used a
>mobile phone whilst driving, nor driven when drunk.
No DIC, but occasionally a mobile phone on hands free, but only to
answer incoming calls whilst on the move....
>Just removing those class of 'poor drivers' would save huge numbers of
>lives.
Yep..
>As frequent rider of a cycle in and around Cambridge I rarely see poor
>cycling that endangers other than the individual, but frequently see
>poor driving that endangers not just vulnerable users on foot or on
>cycles but even occupants of other motor vehicles.
I see a lot of cyclists endangering themselves through poor road usage
and not following the highway code..
>
>How many of the thousands of deaths on the road each year are the
>responsibility of irresponsible riders of bicycles?
I have seen several riders come to harm through their own misdeamour and
of course riders do get harmed by the actions of others..
>
>Whilst at then TRRL I was driving in excess of 20k in some years, with
>part of that monitoring such things as motorway speeds and HGV behaviour
>
>I can assure you that with better driving standards life would be less
>stressful for the majority of road users.
Yes I'm sure it would. Much remains to be done and one of the best
inventions in recent years has been the LED bike light. Very good they
are to and there're easily removed from the bike and taken with you and
there're very easy and cheap to buy.
However there are still a lot of cyclists that don't use them can you
explain why?.
Thanks...
Next we'll have a go at the driving test...
>
>Jim
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
<jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> scribeth thus
>On 03/05/2015 13:15, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <mi2sce$nps$1...@dont-email.me>, Jim Chisholm
>> <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> scribeth thus
>>> On 02/05/2015 13:40, Tim Ward wrote:
>>>> On 02/05/2015 13:07, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
>>>>> link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
>>>>
>>>> When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>>>> of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about equal.
>>>>
>>> The difference being, as a recent well documented case in London
>>> confirms is that if a motor vehicle runs a red light and hits a cycle it
>>> is the innocent party that gets killed, whereas it is extremely unusual
>>> for an innocent party to be killed by the illegal behaviour of someone
>>> riding a bike.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>> And if cyclists were a bit more complaint with the highway code then
>> perhaps that wouldn't be a problem, but poor cycling has been going on
>> for years...
>>
>Are you throwing the first stone?...
Yep...
>On 03/05/2015 13:15, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <mi2sce$nps$1...@dont-email.me>, Jim Chisholm
>> <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> scribeth thus
>>> On 02/05/2015 13:40, Tim Ward wrote:
>>>> On 02/05/2015 13:07, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
>>>>> link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
>>>>
>>>> When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>>>> of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about equal.
>>>>
>>> The difference being, as a recent well documented case in London
>>> confirms is that if a motor vehicle runs a red light and hits a cycle it
>>> is the innocent party that gets killed, whereas it is extremely unusual
>>> for an innocent party to be killed by the illegal behaviour of someone
>>> riding a bike.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>> And if cyclists were a bit more complaint with the highway code then
>> perhaps that wouldn't be a problem, but poor cycling has been going on
>> for years...
>>
>Are you throwing the first stone?...
>I assume you are a perfect driver who has never exceeded a speed limit,
>never waited on a double line, never illegally entered a yellow box
>junction or mandatory cycle lane?
piss off any other road users..
>I hope I can assume that as a reasonable person, you've never used a
>mobile phone whilst driving, nor driven when drunk.
answer incoming calls whilst on the move....
>Just removing those class of 'poor drivers' would save huge numbers of
>lives.
>As frequent rider of a cycle in and around Cambridge I rarely see poor
>cycling that endangers other than the individual, but frequently see
>poor driving that endangers not just vulnerable users on foot or on
>cycles but even occupants of other motor vehicles.
and not following the highway code..
>
>How many of the thousands of deaths on the road each year are the
>responsibility of irresponsible riders of bicycles?
of course riders do get harmed by the actions of others..
>
>Whilst at then TRRL I was driving in excess of 20k in some years, with
>part of that monitoring such things as motorway speeds and HGV behaviour
>
>I can assure you that with better driving standards life would be less
>stressful for the majority of road users.
inventions in recent years has been the LED bike light. Very good they
are to and there're easily removed from the bike and taken with you and
there're very easy and cheap to buy.
However there are still a lot of cyclists that don't use them can you
explain why?.
Thanks...
Next we'll have a go at the driving test...
>
>Jim
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
Tim Ward
May 3, 2015, 6:12:54 PM5/3/15
to
On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>
> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is red.
>
> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
Same as my spec for cyclists.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 3, 2015, 7:22:52 PM5/3/15
to
In article <YZVzXQDh...@bancom.co.uk>, to...@bancom.co.uk (tony sayer)
wrote:
> In article <mi2sce$nps$1...@dont-email.me>, Jim Chisholm
> <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> scribeth thus
> >On 02/05/2015 13:40, Tim Ward wrote:
> >> On 02/05/2015 13:07, tony sayer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
> >>> link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
> >>
> >> When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
> >> of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about
> >> equal.
> >>
> >The difference being, as a recent well documented case in London
> >confirms is that if a motor vehicle runs a red light and hits a cycle it
> >is the innocent party that gets killed, whereas it is extremely unusual
> >for an innocent party to be killed by the illegal behaviour of someone
> >riding a bike.
>
victims. The result of them being "a bit more complaint", as you put it,
would be far more dramatic due to the reduction in the numbers of injuries.
The numbers injured by errant cyclists is tiny by comparison because they
are not driving tonnes of steel.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> In article <mi2sce$nps$1...@dont-email.me>, Jim Chisholm
> <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> scribeth thus
> >On 02/05/2015 13:40, Tim Ward wrote:
> >> On 02/05/2015 13:07, tony sayer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
> >>> link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
> >>
> >> When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
> >> of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about
> >> equal.
> >>
> >The difference being, as a recent well documented case in London
> >confirms is that if a motor vehicle runs a red light and hits a cycle it
> >is the innocent party that gets killed, whereas it is extremely unusual
> >for an innocent party to be killed by the illegal behaviour of someone
> >riding a bike.
>
> And if cyclists were a bit more complaint with the highway code then
> perhaps that wouldn't be a problem, but poor cycling has been going on
> for years...
Same for motor vehicle drivers, sadly, with much worse outcomes for their
> perhaps that wouldn't be a problem, but poor cycling has been going on
> for years...
victims. The result of them being "a bit more complaint", as you put it,
would be far more dramatic due to the reduction in the numbers of injuries.
The numbers injured by errant cyclists is tiny by comparison because they
are not driving tonnes of steel.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 3, 2015, 8:07:03 PM5/3/15
to
In article <xxNj2vmB...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
that buses calling at Waterbeach go via Horningsea.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Perry) wrote:
> Wrong. This started off with me reporting what I *saw* (in terms of
> northbound buses) when driving from Ely Station to Cambridge Station.
> And of course what's been reported to me by people taking the buses.
You are assuming all the buses used the route you did. My recollection is
> Wrong. This started off with me reporting what I *saw* (in terms of
> northbound buses) when driving from Ely Station to Cambridge Station.
> And of course what's been reported to me by people taking the buses.
that buses calling at Waterbeach go via Horningsea.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 3, 2015, 8:07:04 PM5/3/15
to
In article <pROlOLnP...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
While they mostly jump the lights after they have changed I have seen cases
where they jumped them ages afterwards.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
where they jumped them ages afterwards.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 4:44:12 AM5/4/15
to
In message <HNSdnZMrcM-_JdvI...@giganews.com>, at 19:06:58
on Sun, 3 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
--
Roland Perry
on Sun, 3 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> Wrong. This started off with me reporting what I *saw* (in terms of
>> northbound buses) when driving from Ely Station to Cambridge Station.
>> And of course what's been reported to me by people taking the buses.
>
>You are assuming all the buses used the route you did. My recollection is
>that buses calling at Waterbeach go via Horningsea.
That's one per hour then. And it's still on the A10 for ten miles.
>> northbound buses) when driving from Ely Station to Cambridge Station.
>> And of course what's been reported to me by people taking the buses.
>
>You are assuming all the buses used the route you did. My recollection is
>that buses calling at Waterbeach go via Horningsea.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 4:44:12 AM5/4/15
to
In message <-5GdnZUD8NK_JdvI...@giganews.com>, at 19:06:58
looking at the wrong ones, or thought that having gone through one set
at green that the next set of red was for the traffic they were
conflicting with, rather than themselves. Quite a few junctions are like
that.
--
Roland Perry
on Sun, 3 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >> >When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>> >> >of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about
>> >> >equal.
>> >>
>> >> The usual difference being that the bikes ignore red lights
>> >> completely at all phases, whereas the cars are "merely" following
>> >> through for a few seconds after a light has turned red.
>> >>
>> >> Completely different threat models.
>> >
>> >You haven't observed the Newmarket Road/Elizabeth Way roundabout then.
>>
>> That has motorists completely ignoring the lights, rather than
>> "following through"??
>
>While they mostly jump the lights after they have changed I have seen cases
>where they jumped them ages afterwards.
Might that be because there several sets of lights, and they were either
>> >> >When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>> >> >of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about
>> >> >equal.
>> >>
>> >> The usual difference being that the bikes ignore red lights
>> >> completely at all phases, whereas the cars are "merely" following
>> >> through for a few seconds after a light has turned red.
>> >>
>> >> Completely different threat models.
>> >
>> >You haven't observed the Newmarket Road/Elizabeth Way roundabout then.
>>
>> That has motorists completely ignoring the lights, rather than
>> "following through"??
>
>While they mostly jump the lights after they have changed I have seen cases
>where they jumped them ages afterwards.
looking at the wrong ones, or thought that having gone through one set
at green that the next set of red was for the traffic they were
conflicting with, rather than themselves. Quite a few junctions are like
that.
--
Roland Perry
Alan
May 4, 2015, 4:47:08 AM5/4/15
to
On Sun, 03 May 2015 23:12:35 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>
> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is red.
> Same as my spec for cyclists.
>
Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
> On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>
> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is red.
> Same as my spec for cyclists.
>
inventing an advanced box?
Tim Ward
May 4, 2015, 5:24:14 AM5/4/15
to
On 04/05/2015 09:47, Alan wrote:
> On Sun, 03 May 2015 23:12:35 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>>
>> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is
>> red. Same as my spec for cyclists.
>>
>
> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
> inventing an advanced box?
Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes. They're
> On Sun, 03 May 2015 23:12:35 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>>>
>>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>>
>> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is
>> red. Same as my spec for cyclists.
>>
>
> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
> inventing an advanced box?
all passing the white line against a red signal.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Alan
May 4, 2015, 5:29:15 AM5/4/15
to
even on green, if you can't get fully across the junction (to avoid grid
lock) But I don't know whether that's a legal requirement or just good
driving practice.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 4, 2015, 5:30:42 AM5/4/15
to
In article <RiFbyZ4h$yRV...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
Motorists not seeing what is staring them in the face is a widespread
problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse than
when cyclists do the same.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse than
when cyclists do the same.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Goodge
May 4, 2015, 6:12:19 AM5/4/15
to
On Mon, 04 May 2015 10:23:26 +0100, Tim Ward put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Whereas I wouldn't count either of those. They may be discourteous, and
technically illegal in both cases, but they're not creating direct conflict
with traffic crossing the junction.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
typed:
technically illegal in both cases, but they're not creating direct conflict
with traffic crossing the junction.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
The Natural Philosopher
May 4, 2015, 6:13:01 AM5/4/15
to
right, the correct thing is to get to where you can and wait to turn.
Of course these days its all filter lights to keep congestion up and
ensure the council doesn't get sued by a numpty who cant drive for a
'dangerous junction*'.
*Think of the chilldrunn-a
--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 6:21:42 AM5/4/15
to
In message <GrydnR0MgeagodrI...@giganews.com>, at 04:30:37
on Mon, 4 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
[red lights]
>Motorists not seeing what is staring them in the face is a widespread
>problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse than
>when cyclists do the same.
The problem with the cyclists is that they see the lights and still
ignore them.
--
Roland Perry
on Mon, 4 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
[red lights]
>Motorists not seeing what is staring them in the face is a widespread
>problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse than
>when cyclists do the same.
ignore them.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 6:21:42 AM5/4/15
to
In message <cqos5s...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:23:26 on Mon, 4 May
2015, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
2015, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>>>
>>> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is
>>> red. Same as my spec for cyclists.
>>>
>>
>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>> inventing an advanced box?
>
>Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
>>>
>>> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is
>>> red. Same as my spec for cyclists.
>>>
>>
>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>> inventing an advanced box?
>
>Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 6:21:42 AM5/4/15
to
In message <op.xx3ty0ji72n0pf@alan>, at 10:29:14 on Mon, 4 May 2015,
Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
doubt some situations where you could make a case for obstruction or
careless driving.
--
Roland Perry
Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>
>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>
>And isn't there something that says you shouldn't cross the white line
>even on green, if you can't get fully across the junction (to avoid
>grid lock) But I don't know whether that's a legal requirement or
>just good driving practice.
Only if there's a yellow box painted on the road, although there are no
>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>
>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>
>And isn't there something that says you shouldn't cross the white line
>even on green, if you can't get fully across the junction (to avoid
>grid lock) But I don't know whether that's a legal requirement or
>just good driving practice.
doubt some situations where you could make a case for obstruction or
careless driving.
--
Roland Perry
tony sayer
May 4, 2015, 6:26:16 AM5/4/15
to
In article <cqnkr4...@mid.individual.net>, Tim Ward
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
that;!..
I usually see the occasional car driver go past an amber on the odd ped
crossing like say the one in Long road where the crossing was used, ped
passed and no one else around..
Sometimes the red gets clipped when going from amber to red but bikes
usually just thru a red light when the other traffic has stopped.
--
Tony Sayer
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus
>On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>
>What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is red.
>Same as my spec for cyclists.
>
As can be seen in other posts there is a bit of /interpretation/ of
>>
>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>
>What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is red.
>Same as my spec for cyclists.
>
that;!..
I usually see the occasional car driver go past an amber on the odd ped
crossing like say the one in Long road where the crossing was used, ped
passed and no one else around..
Sometimes the red gets clipped when going from amber to red but bikes
usually just thru a red light when the other traffic has stopped.
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
May 4, 2015, 6:26:16 AM5/4/15
to
In article <hvOdnRAUHI1bMNvI...@giganews.com>,
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk scribeth thus
Indeed Colin hence the need for cyclists to realise that they are the
ones likely to come of much worse and to put some frickin bike lights ON
at night, read and use the highway code and not to jump Red lights..
And use the occasional bike helmet..
Still as they think there're invincible I don't suppose much will
change;(...
--
Tony Sayer
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk scribeth thus
ones likely to come of much worse and to put some frickin bike lights ON
at night, read and use the highway code and not to jump Red lights..
And use the occasional bike helmet..
Still as they think there're invincible I don't suppose much will
change;(...
--
Tony Sayer
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
May 4, 2015, 7:05:48 AM5/4/15
to
The post started with someone complaining that cameras had gone up to
detect when motorists have illegally crossed a solid white line.
To assist with other parts of the thread. The 'stop' line at traffic
lights may be crossed when the light is green. The 'authority to move'
is at the line.
However obstructing the highway without reasonable excuse continues to
be an offence so crossing the line, even with authority, when there is
no-one to go could be an offence but that is down to 'fact and degree'.
Advanced Stop Lines for cyclists work because there is a small cycle
lane into the advanced stop box so cyclists can enter the box without
crossing the earlier stop line.
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 7:21:45 AM5/4/15
to
In message <cqp24a...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:05:47 on Mon, 4 May
2015, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <r.moss-...@computer.org> remarked:
moving forward.
The classic case is traffic emerging from your left, turning left to be
going the same way as you are, but congestion ahead. The last vehicle
through from the left will often have barely started to turn left when
the lights go red.
If you sit there waiting for the traffic ahead to clear sufficiently
that such a car has completed its turn, and also proceeded far enough
that there's room for you to tuck in behind it, beyond the lights clear
of the junction, the lights will have changed and you won't have moved
at all. Rinse and repeat, indefinitely.
--
Roland Perry
2015, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <r.moss-...@computer.org> remarked:
>To assist with other parts of the thread. The 'stop' line at traffic
>lights may be crossed when the light is green. The 'authority to move'
>is at the line.
>
>However obstructing the highway without reasonable excuse continues to
>be an offence so crossing the line, even with authority, when there is
>no-one to go could be an offence but that is down to 'fact and degree'.
You could also cause a significant obstruction (to people behind) by not
>lights may be crossed when the light is green. The 'authority to move'
>is at the line.
>
>However obstructing the highway without reasonable excuse continues to
>be an offence so crossing the line, even with authority, when there is
>no-one to go could be an offence but that is down to 'fact and degree'.
moving forward.
The classic case is traffic emerging from your left, turning left to be
going the same way as you are, but congestion ahead. The last vehicle
through from the left will often have barely started to turn left when
the lights go red.
If you sit there waiting for the traffic ahead to clear sufficiently
that such a car has completed its turn, and also proceeded far enough
that there's room for you to tuck in behind it, beyond the lights clear
of the junction, the lights will have changed and you won't have moved
at all. Rinse and repeat, indefinitely.
--
Roland Perry
ian
May 4, 2015, 8:23:18 AM5/4/15
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:N6Nc0$DAa0R...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk...
>>And isn't there something that says you shouldn't cross the white line
>>even on green, if you can't get fully across the junction (to avoid grid
>>lock) But I don't know whether that's a legal requirement or just good
>>driving practice.
>
> Only if there's a yellow box painted on the road, although there are no
> doubt some situations where you could make a case for obstruction or
> careless driving.
> --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>even on green, if you can't get fully across the junction (to avoid grid
>>lock) But I don't know whether that's a legal requirement or just good
>>driving practice.
>
> Only if there's a yellow box painted on the road, although there are no
> doubt some situations where you could make a case for obstruction or
> careless driving.
> --
You may enter the box even if there is an obstruction.
"Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see
'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is
clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right,
and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles
waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box
unless you can cross over it completely without stopping."
[Law TSRGD regs 10(1) & 29(2)]
Ian
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
ian
May 4, 2015, 8:27:44 AM5/4/15
to
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EuREaRLz...@bancom.co.uk...
>
> Indeed Colin hence the need for cyclists to realise that they are the
> ones likely to come of much worse and to put some frickin bike lights ON
> at night, read and use the highway code and not to jump Red lights..
>
> And use the occasional bike helmet..
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Indeed Colin hence the need for cyclists to realise that they are the
> ones likely to come of much worse and to put some frickin bike lights ON
> at night, read and use the highway code and not to jump Red lights..
>
> And use the occasional bike helmet..
>
What actual real use is a helmet? See learn and inwardly digest-
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
Alan
May 4, 2015, 8:35:58 AM5/4/15
to
176
You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is
showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is
room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position
to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation
as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36
Which was what I was thinking off.
Obviously I wasn't talking about junctions with yellow boxes, and did say
get fully across the junction (as opposed to turning right.) Apologies if
that wasn't clear.
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 8:58:08 AM5/4/15
to
In message <op.xx32l7lh72n0pf@alan>, at 13:35:57 on Mon, 4 May 2015,
Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>go forward when the traffic lights are green
... there appears to be an "and" missing here...
>if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are
>taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not
>working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and
>proceed with great care.
>Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36
>
>Which was what I was thinking off.
>
>Obviously I wasn't talking about junctions with yellow boxes, and did
>say get fully across the junction (as opposed to turning right.)
>Apologies if that wasn't clear.
--
Roland Perry
Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> remarked:
>On Mon, 04 May 2015 10:29:14 +0100, Alan <es....@ourmailbox.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 May 2015 10:23:26 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/05/2015 09:47, Alan wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 May 2015 23:12:35 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>>>>>
>>>>> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is
>>>>> red. Same as my spec for cyclists.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>>
>>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>>They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>>>
>>
>> And isn't there something that says you shouldn't cross the white
>>line even on green, if you can't get fully across the junction (to
>>avoid grid lock) But I don't know whether that's a legal
>>requirement or just good driving practice.
>>
>
>Following up on my own post:
>
>176
>
>You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is
>showing. Only
... which is significantly weaker drafting than "You MUST NOT"...
>
>> On Mon, 04 May 2015 10:23:26 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/05/2015 09:47, Alan wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 03 May 2015 23:12:35 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>>>>>
>>>>> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is
>>>>> red. Same as my spec for cyclists.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>>
>>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>>They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>>>
>>
>> And isn't there something that says you shouldn't cross the white
>>line even on green, if you can't get fully across the junction (to
>>avoid grid lock) But I don't know whether that's a legal
>>requirement or just good driving practice.
>>
>
>Following up on my own post:
>
>176
>
>You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is
>showing. Only
>go forward when the traffic lights are green
>if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are
>taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not
>working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and
>proceed with great care.
>Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36
>
>Which was what I was thinking off.
>
>Obviously I wasn't talking about junctions with yellow boxes, and did
>say get fully across the junction (as opposed to turning right.)
>Apologies if that wasn't clear.
--
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 8:58:08 AM5/4/15
to
In message <mi7o9m$f61$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:23:17 on Mon, 4 May 2015,
ian <i.bi...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
exit road to the right. So you need to be sure that once the oncoming
traffic has abated, you can get clear of the box.
> or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts
>you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely
>without stopping."
>
>[Law TSRGD regs 10(1) & 29(2)]
Although turning right isn't so much "crossing over" the junction as
"pass through" it.
--
Roland Perry
ian <i.bi...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>>>And isn't there something that says you shouldn't cross the white
>>>line even on green, if you can't get fully across the junction (to
>>>avoid grid lock) But I don't know whether that's a legal requirement
>>>or just good driving practice.
>>
>> Only if there's a yellow box painted on the road, although there are
>>no doubt some situations where you could make a case for obstruction
>>or careless driving.
>> --
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------
>
>You may enter the box even if there is an obstruction.
>
>"Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road
>(see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road
>or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want
>to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic,
But not if stopped from doing it by a queue of traffic backed up on the
>>>line even on green, if you can't get fully across the junction (to
>>>avoid grid lock) But I don't know whether that's a legal requirement
>>>or just good driving practice.
>>
>> Only if there's a yellow box painted on the road, although there are
>>no doubt some situations where you could make a case for obstruction
>>or careless driving.
>> --
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------
>
>You may enter the box even if there is an obstruction.
>
>"Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road
>(see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road
>or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want
>to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic,
exit road to the right. So you need to be sure that once the oncoming
traffic has abated, you can get clear of the box.
> or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts
>you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely
>without stopping."
>
>[Law TSRGD regs 10(1) & 29(2)]
"pass through" it.
--
Roland Perry
Dan Sheppard
May 4, 2015, 11:27:12 AM5/4/15
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>Motorists not seeing what is staring them in the face is a widespread
>problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse than
>when cyclists do the same.
Actually, at that junction you /have to/ ignore what's staring you in the
>Motorists not seeing what is staring them in the face is a widespread
>problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse than
>when cyclists do the same.
face: when you pull round onto the roudabout you have the alarming prospect
of seeing a red light directly facing you: those pointing at traffic already
on the roundabout, which are positioned poorly and don't have shutters. While
you know that they're not the lights for you, it takes some effort as a
driver not to slam on the brakes when you suddenly see yourself about to
drive through a red light. The same is true of the little bus-priority lights
going Eastbound at the bridge near the tooball ground. For much of your
approach, and even over the solid white line, the post with the red bus light
is visibly to the right (ie your side) of the green light which you are
using, because of the angle of attack. I don't know if they were badly planned
or if someone has bashed them round or no one thought of slats, or whatever,
but it's a very odd feeling. The condition of most of the signals in Cambridge
(and most towns) is incredibly poor. I suppose money is spent on worthier
things, which is fair enough.
Dan.
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 11:40:39 AM5/4/15
to
In message <9tr*Zp...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 16:27:09 on Mon,
4 May 2015, Dan Sheppard <da...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
junctions such as that.
--
Roland Perry
4 May 2015, Dan Sheppard <da...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>Motorists not seeing what is staring them in the face is a widespread
>>problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse than
>>when cyclists do the same.
>
>Actually, at that junction you /have to/ ignore what's staring you in the
>face: when you pull round onto the roudabout you have the alarming prospect
>of seeing a red light directly facing you: those pointing at traffic already
>on the roundabout, which are positioned poorly and don't have shutters. While
>you know that they're not the lights for you, it takes some effort as a
>driver not to slam on the brakes when you suddenly see yourself about to
>drive through a red light.
That's exactly the point I made earlier. Being a specific infelicity of
>>problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse than
>>when cyclists do the same.
>
>Actually, at that junction you /have to/ ignore what's staring you in the
>face: when you pull round onto the roudabout you have the alarming prospect
>of seeing a red light directly facing you: those pointing at traffic already
>on the roundabout, which are positioned poorly and don't have shutters. While
>you know that they're not the lights for you, it takes some effort as a
>driver not to slam on the brakes when you suddenly see yourself about to
>drive through a red light.
junctions such as that.
--
Roland Perry
Dan Sheppard
May 4, 2015, 11:52:36 AM5/4/15
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>[poorly positioned traffic lights]
thread.
Dan.
>[poorly positioned traffic lights]
>That's exactly the point I made earlier. Being a specific infelicity of
>junctions such as that.
Sorry about that. I admit to having killed a few unpromising parts of this
>junctions such as that.
thread.
Dan.
Jim Chisholm
May 4, 2015, 2:38:24 PM5/4/15
to
If I cycle up a cycle lane intending to turn right at the light
controlled junction to an advance stop box and then find it occupied by
a motor vehicle, I'm not only annoyed, but also left in a vulnerable
situation. That is exactly why many confident riders take the primary
position in such situations.
It is because so little action is taken over such illegalities that it
is so common.
Similarly if a bike is stopped beyond the stop line that is just the
location a pedestrian is likely to wish to cross where there is no
controlled ped facility.
{hope no spelling mistakes!)
Jim
Tim Ward
May 4, 2015, 3:03:03 PM5/4/15
to
On 04/05/2015 11:12, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>
>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>
> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
The two I saw this evening appeared to be cause and effect - if the
>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>
>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>
> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
driver hadn't occupied the advanced box there would have been room for
the bike.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 3:32:06 PM5/4/15
to
In message <cqpu34...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:02:30 on Mon, 4 May
Not the way it's supposed to work, but neither is it inherently
dangerous.
--
Roland Perry
2015, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>>
>>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>>
>> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
>
>The two I saw this evening appeared to be cause and effect - if the
>driver hadn't occupied the advanced box there would have been room for
>the bike.
Was there no room for the bike between the car and the kerb?
>>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>>
>>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>>
>> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
>
>The two I saw this evening appeared to be cause and effect - if the
>driver hadn't occupied the advanced box there would have been room for
>the bike.
Not the way it's supposed to work, but neither is it inherently
dangerous.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 4, 2015, 3:32:07 PM5/4/15
to
In message <mi8e8v$a25$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:38:22 on Mon, 4 May 2015,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
>>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>>
>>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>>
>> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
>You are a policeman and I claim my £10 reward...
>
>If I cycle up a cycle lane intending to turn right at the light
>controlled junction to an advance stop box and then find it occupied by
>a motor vehicle, I'm not only annoyed, but also left in a vulnerable
>situation. That is exactly why many confident riders take the primary
>position in such situations.
Except that I don't think I've ever seen that threat model in practice.
And even if it happened, the cyclist could revert to a position near the
kerb, hence letting the errant motorist get away first, which is
probably the best outcome for the cyclist.
>It is because so little action is taken over such illegalities that it
>is so common.
But it rarely happens.
>Similarly if a bike is stopped beyond the stop line that is just the
>location a pedestrian is likely to wish to cross where there is no
>controlled ped facility.
Again, a rare occurrence.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
>>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>>
>>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>>
>> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
>You are a policeman and I claim my £10 reward...
>
>If I cycle up a cycle lane intending to turn right at the light
>controlled junction to an advance stop box and then find it occupied by
>a motor vehicle, I'm not only annoyed, but also left in a vulnerable
>situation. That is exactly why many confident riders take the primary
>position in such situations.
And even if it happened, the cyclist could revert to a position near the
kerb, hence letting the errant motorist get away first, which is
probably the best outcome for the cyclist.
>It is because so little action is taken over such illegalities that it
>is so common.
>Similarly if a bike is stopped beyond the stop line that is just the
>location a pedestrian is likely to wish to cross where there is no
>controlled ped facility.
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 4, 2015, 8:19:06 PM5/4/15
to
In article <BXOPPrUO...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
As Jim spelled out, it IS dangerous if the cyclist is trying to turn right.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 4, 2015, 8:19:06 PM5/4/15
to
In article <9tr*Zp...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
lights were installed, both as a car driver and as a cyclist, I just fail to
recognise your problem.
> The same is true of the little bus-priority lights going Eastbound at the
> bridge near the tooball ground. For much of your approach, and even over
> the solid white line, the post with the red bus light is visibly to the
> right (ie your side) of the green light which you are using, because of
> the angle of attack. I don't know if they were badly planned or if someone
> has bashed them round or no one thought of slats, or whatever, but it's a
> very odd feeling. The condition of most of the signals in Cambridge (and
> most towns) is incredibly poor. I suppose money is spent on worthier
> things, which is fair enough.
Fair points.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
da...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Dan Sheppard) wrote:
> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> >Motorists not seeing what is staring them in the face is a widespread
> >problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse
> >than when cyclists do the same.
>
> Actually, at that junction you /have to/ ignore what's staring you in the
> face: when you pull round onto the roudabout you have the alarming
> prospect of seeing a red light directly facing you: those pointing at
> traffic already on the roundabout, which are positioned poorly and don't
> have shutters. While you know that they're not the lights for you, it
> takes some effort as a driver not to slam on the brakes when you suddenly
> see yourself about to drive through a red light.
As someone who has used that roundabout for many years since before the
> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
> >Motorists not seeing what is staring them in the face is a widespread
> >problem indeed. The trouble is that the consequences can be far worse
> >than when cyclists do the same.
>
> Actually, at that junction you /have to/ ignore what's staring you in the
> face: when you pull round onto the roudabout you have the alarming
> prospect of seeing a red light directly facing you: those pointing at
> traffic already on the roundabout, which are positioned poorly and don't
> have shutters. While you know that they're not the lights for you, it
> takes some effort as a driver not to slam on the brakes when you suddenly
> see yourself about to drive through a red light.
lights were installed, both as a car driver and as a cyclist, I just fail to
recognise your problem.
> The same is true of the little bus-priority lights going Eastbound at the
> bridge near the tooball ground. For much of your approach, and even over
> the solid white line, the post with the red bus light is visibly to the
> right (ie your side) of the green light which you are using, because of
> the angle of attack. I don't know if they were badly planned or if someone
> has bashed them round or no one thought of slats, or whatever, but it's a
> very odd feeling. The condition of most of the signals in Cambridge (and
> most towns) is incredibly poor. I suppose money is spent on worthier
> things, which is fair enough.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 4, 2015, 8:19:07 PM5/4/15
to
In article <EuREaRLz...@bancom.co.uk>, to...@bancom.co.uk (tony sayer)
That problem is enhanced by helmet wearing, the evidence shows. Another
reason why I never use one. Do you use one as a pedestrian? The risks are
similar.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
reason why I never use one. Do you use one as a pedestrian? The risks are
similar.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Dan Sheppard
May 4, 2015, 8:28:35 PM5/4/15
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>> Actually, at that junction you /have to/ ignore what's staring you in the
>> face: when you pull round onto the roudabout you have the alarming
>> prospect of seeing a red light directly facing you: those pointing at
[...]
>> Actually, at that junction you /have to/ ignore what's staring you in the
>> face: when you pull round onto the roudabout you have the alarming
>> prospect of seeing a red light directly facing you: those pointing at
>As someone who has used that roundabout for many years since before the
>lights were installed, both as a car driver and as a cyclist, I just fail to
>recognise your problem.
Maybe it's just a personal thing. If I'm driving, looking in half a dozen
>lights were installed, both as a car driver and as a cyclist, I just fail to
>recognise your problem.
directions, and then turn to see a red lighti which I'm about to go past dead-
ahead, my instinct is to do an emergency stop. It's not just Cambridge, it's
the same in bits of Newcastle, which have the same arrangement. Though I
know where they are, my foot has already often started to move before my
conscious brain kicks in. It's like when I see a flashing blue light. There's
one in the window of a takeaway as you approach Newmarket from the west but,
though I know it's there, every day I go through the same "Blue lights! Oh,
it's okay" loop.
Dan.
Roland Perry
May 5, 2015, 3:18:55 AM5/5/15
to
In message <XZqdncZ72urpkdXI...@giganews.com>, at 19:19:00
on Mon, 4 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
narrow lane on the left past stationary traffic, and then position
yourself inside the box on the offside in order to make a right-hand
turn. As a cyclist I would have anticipated the situation as much as
possible and moved to the centre of the road (between the cars, not
overtaking them) before getting too close the to lights.
--
Roland Perry
on Mon, 4 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting?
>> >>>> ie inventing an advanced box?
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>> >>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>> >>
>> >> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
>> >
>> >The two I saw this evening appeared to be cause and effect - if the
>> >driver hadn't occupied the advanced box there would have been room for
>> >the bike.
>>
>> Was there no room for the bike between the car and the kerb?
>>
>> Not the way it's supposed to work, but neither is it inherently
>> dangerous.
>
>As Jim spelled out, it IS dangerous if the cyclist is trying to turn right.
You have to be a bit of a trick-cyclist to approach a stop-box up the
>> >>>> ie inventing an advanced box?
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>> >>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>> >>
>> >> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
>> >
>> >The two I saw this evening appeared to be cause and effect - if the
>> >driver hadn't occupied the advanced box there would have been room for
>> >the bike.
>>
>> Was there no room for the bike between the car and the kerb?
>>
>> Not the way it's supposed to work, but neither is it inherently
>> dangerous.
>
>As Jim spelled out, it IS dangerous if the cyclist is trying to turn right.
narrow lane on the left past stationary traffic, and then position
yourself inside the box on the offside in order to make a right-hand
turn. As a cyclist I would have anticipated the situation as much as
possible and moved to the centre of the road (between the cars, not
overtaking them) before getting too close the to lights.
--
Roland Perry
tony sayer
May 5, 2015, 5:26:36 AM5/5/15
to
In article <mi7oi0$g31$1...@dont-email.me>, ian <i.bi...@ntlworld.com>
scribeth thus
According to a emergency medicine consultant I know he thinks they
should be redesigned and made compulsory but I don't suppose it will
happen...
--
Tony Sayer
scribeth thus
>
>
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:EuREaRLz...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> Indeed Colin hence the need for cyclists to realise that they are the
>> ones likely to come of much worse and to put some frickin bike lights ON
>> at night, read and use the highway code and not to jump Red lights..
>>
>> And use the occasional bike helmet..
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------
>
>What actual real use is a helmet? See learn and inwardly digest-
>
>http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>
>Ian
>
Yes that old chestnut. Right in some parts and wrong in others.
>
>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:EuREaRLz...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> Indeed Colin hence the need for cyclists to realise that they are the
>> ones likely to come of much worse and to put some frickin bike lights ON
>> at night, read and use the highway code and not to jump Red lights..
>>
>> And use the occasional bike helmet..
>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------
>
>What actual real use is a helmet? See learn and inwardly digest-
>
>http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>
>Ian
>
According to a emergency medicine consultant I know he thinks they
should be redesigned and made compulsory but I don't suppose it will
happen...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
May 5, 2015, 5:26:37 AM5/5/15
to
In article <d6kfkalq6puj551n6...@4ax.com>, Phil W Lee
<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> scribeth thus
>tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> considered Mon, 4 May 2015 11:14:11
>Nice bit of victim blaming there.
Err, no. Not at all.
ALL road users whether on foot, bike car or whatever should take
responsibility for their actions and the effect they can have on others
as well as themselves.
Be that car drivers cyclists or pedestrians. All to often we see daily
transgressions which can lead to them harming themselves and others..
Simple as that no bike bashing at all thanks;!..
--
Tony Sayer
<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> scribeth thus
>tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> considered Mon, 4 May 2015 11:14:11
Err, no. Not at all.
ALL road users whether on foot, bike car or whatever should take
responsibility for their actions and the effect they can have on others
as well as themselves.
Be that car drivers cyclists or pedestrians. All to often we see daily
transgressions which can lead to them harming themselves and others..
Simple as that no bike bashing at all thanks;!..
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
May 5, 2015, 5:46:37 AM5/5/15
to
In article <XOqdna4g3bHpkdXI...@giganews.com>,
Does that apply to car divers and seat belts?. I suspect not..
Why do I see one class of bike rider kitted out with all the right
biking gear almost invariably wearing a helmet and other more casual
riders not using one?..
>Another
>reason why I never use one. Do you use one as a pedestrian? The risks are
>similar.
Or much less you don't have quite the same kinetic energy as a ped..
>
--
Tony Sayer
Why do I see one class of bike rider kitted out with all the right
biking gear almost invariably wearing a helmet and other more casual
riders not using one?..
>Another
>reason why I never use one. Do you use one as a pedestrian? The risks are
>similar.
>
--
Tony Sayer
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 5, 2015, 5:54:59 AM5/5/15
to
In article <3DtYRePO...@bancom.co.uk>, to...@bancom.co.uk (tony sayer)
wrote:
> In article <mi7oi0$g31$1...@dont-email.me>, ian <i.bi...@ntlworld.com>
> scribeth thus
> >
> >
> >"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:EuREaRLz...@bancom.co.uk...
> >>
> >> Indeed Colin hence the need for cyclists to realise that they are the
> >> ones likely to come of much worse and to put some frickin bike lights
> >> ON at night, read and use the highway code and not to jump Red lights..
> >>
> >> And use the occasional bike helmet..
> >>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
mainly about people avoiding going anywhere near him.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
> In article <mi7oi0$g31$1...@dont-email.me>, ian <i.bi...@ntlworld.com>
> scribeth thus
> >
> >
> >"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:EuREaRLz...@bancom.co.uk...
> >>
> >> Indeed Colin hence the need for cyclists to realise that they are the
> >> ones likely to come of much worse and to put some frickin bike lights
> >> ON at night, read and use the highway code and not to jump Red lights..
> >>
> >> And use the occasional bike helmet..
> >>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >What actual real use is a helmet? See learn and inwardly digest-
> >
> >http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>
> >
> >http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>
> Yes that old chestnut. Right in some parts and wrong in others.
> According to a emergency medicine consultant I know he thinks they
> should be redesigned and made compulsory but I don't suppose it will
> happen...
Your consultant acquaintance has a very narrow view on the subject. It's
> According to a emergency medicine consultant I know he thinks they
> should be redesigned and made compulsory but I don't suppose it will
> happen...
mainly about people avoiding going anywhere near him.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
May 5, 2015, 6:23:38 AM5/5/15
to
In message <gTZdV3Pf...@bancom.co.uk>, at 10:27:59 on Tue, 5 May
2015, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> remarked:
suppose it keeps the rain off too.
--
Roland Perry
2015, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> remarked:
>Why do I see one class of bike rider kitted out with all the right
>biking gear almost invariably wearing a helmet and other more casual
>riders not using one?..
It's more of a fashion statement than a useful head protector. But I
>biking gear almost invariably wearing a helmet and other more casual
>riders not using one?..
suppose it keeps the rain off too.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm
May 5, 2015, 8:05:11 AM5/5/15
to
course?
As with many things is is knowledge and anticipation that is crucial.
Most trips I make are regular. At the Catholic Church junct in Cambridge
I know the phase order. If turning right I'd either slow down or speed
up to ensure I didn't arrive at the stop line as lights turn green. I
could speed up so as to get in position before the lights change, or
slow down and filter right through the moving traffic.
It is crossing through stationary traffic that can be problematic.
Drivers tend not to see you, and you risk 'white-lining' motorbikes if
you move to far right.
Of course that junction has been improved by the addition of an Advance
Green.
Jim
Jim
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
May 5, 2015, 9:04:45 AM5/5/15
to
In article <gTZdV3Pf...@bancom.co.uk>, to...@bancom.co.uk (tony sayer)
wrote:
[cycle helmets]
> Why do I see one class of bike rider kitted out with all the right
> biking gear almost invariably wearing a helmet and other more casual
> riders not using one?..
Cambridge is the only place in the UK with cycling levels comparable with
those in most of the Netherlands. Why do almost no cyclists there wear
helmets in day-to-day cycling?
> Or much less you don't have quite the same kinetic energy as a ped..
The difference is only significant when cycle racing.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
[cycle helmets]
> Why do I see one class of bike rider kitted out with all the right
> biking gear almost invariably wearing a helmet and other more casual
> riders not using one?..
those in most of the Netherlands. Why do almost no cyclists there wear
helmets in day-to-day cycling?
> Or much less you don't have quite the same kinetic energy as a ped..
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
May 5, 2015, 9:04:57 AM5/5/15
to
In message <miabjm$e0r$1...@dont-email.me>, at 13:05:10 on Tue, 5 May 2015,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
training at Primary School. My current impression is that such schools
no longer sponsor those courses - but feel free to disagree as it's ten
years since my kids were in such that refusenik environment.
>As with many things is is knowledge and anticipation that is crucial.
Agreed.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
>On 05/05/2015 08:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <XZqdncZ72urpkdXI...@giganews.com>, at 19:19:00
>> on Mon, 4 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>>>> >>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting?
>>>> >>>> ie inventing an advanced box?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>>> >>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
>>>> >
>>>> >The two I saw this evening appeared to be cause and effect - if the
>>>> >driver hadn't occupied the advanced box there would have been room for
>>>> >the bike.
>>>>
>>>> Was there no room for the bike between the car and the kerb?
>>>>
>>>> Not the way it's supposed to work, but neither is it inherently
>>>> dangerous.
>>>
>>> As Jim spelled out, it IS dangerous if the cyclist is trying to turn
>>> right.
>>
>> You have to be a bit of a trick-cyclist to approach a stop-box up the
>> narrow lane on the left past stationary traffic, and then position
>> yourself inside the box on the offside in order to make a right-hand
>> turn. As a cyclist I would have anticipated the situation as much as
>> possible and moved to the centre of the road (between the cars, not
>> overtaking them) before getting too close the to lights.
>Perhaps Roland (checks spelling...) should go on a level 3 Bikeability
>course?
I've still got the "Cycling Proficiency" badge I was issued after some
>> In message <XZqdncZ72urpkdXI...@giganews.com>, at 19:19:00
>> on Mon, 4 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>>>> >>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting?
>>>> >>>> ie inventing an advanced box?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes.
>>>> >>> They're all passing the white line against a red signal.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'd be lenient enough not to count either of those.
>>>> >
>>>> >The two I saw this evening appeared to be cause and effect - if the
>>>> >driver hadn't occupied the advanced box there would have been room for
>>>> >the bike.
>>>>
>>>> Was there no room for the bike between the car and the kerb?
>>>>
>>>> Not the way it's supposed to work, but neither is it inherently
>>>> dangerous.
>>>
>>> As Jim spelled out, it IS dangerous if the cyclist is trying to turn
>>> right.
>>
>> You have to be a bit of a trick-cyclist to approach a stop-box up the
>> narrow lane on the left past stationary traffic, and then position
>> yourself inside the box on the offside in order to make a right-hand
>> turn. As a cyclist I would have anticipated the situation as much as
>> possible and moved to the centre of the road (between the cars, not
>> overtaking them) before getting too close the to lights.
>Perhaps Roland (checks spelling...) should go on a level 3 Bikeability
>course?
training at Primary School. My current impression is that such schools
no longer sponsor those courses - but feel free to disagree as it's ten
years since my kids were in such that refusenik environment.
>As with many things is is knowledge and anticipation that is crucial.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm
May 5, 2015, 9:16:50 AM5/5/15
to
it up...
https://bikeability.org.uk/
see:
& specifically:
http://www.outspokentraining.co.uk/outspoken-training-awarded-new-cambridgeshire-contract
I think this a available for all schools in Cambridgeshire (years 5 or 6)
It is far better than the old proficiency scheme, and includes on
(quiet) road training by professionals who teach children to make
decisions rather than follow rules.
The difficulty is getting parents to allow children to cycle.
>> As with many things is is knowledge and anticipation that is crucial.
>
> Agreed.
how do we get drivers of motor vehicles to follow those rules rather
than just quoting the highway code?
Richard Smith
May 5, 2015, 9:21:43 AM5/5/15
to
On 04/05/15 10:23, Tim Ward wrote:
> On 04/05/2015 09:47, Alan wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 May 2015 23:12:35 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>
> On 04/05/2015 09:47, Alan wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 May 2015 23:12:35 +0100, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/05/2015 23:04, tony sayer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> nb: what's your spec for the car running the red light?..
>>>
>>> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is
>>> red. Same as my spec for cyclists.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> What the law says: driving over the white line whilst the light is
>>> red. Same as my spec for cyclists.
>>>
>>
>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>> inventing an advanced box?
>
> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes. They're
> all passing the white line against a red signal.
And do you count cyclists who enter an advanced stop box other than by
>> inventing an advanced box?
>
> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes. They're
> all passing the white line against a red signal.
the cycle lane?
Richard
Roland Perry
May 5, 2015, 9:24:58 AM5/5/15
to
In message <e-qdnVqwR7B6ItXI...@giganews.com>, at 08:04:39
on Tue, 5 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>Cambridge is the only place in the UK with cycling levels comparable with
>those in most of the Netherlands. Why do almost no cyclists there wear
>helmets in day-to-day cycling?
Because (having spent several years working for a Dutch company in
Amsterdam) they don't see any significant modal difference between
travelling on foot versus bicycle.
Years ago (even before working there) I used to call this phenomenon
'Cyclopeds" - which explains numerous failures such as: cycling in
pedestrian precincts or on the pavement, the wrong way up one-way
streets, and assuming that things like traffic lights and giving way to
transverse pedestrians on zebra crossings don't apply to them.
--
Roland Perry
on Tue, 5 May 2015, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>Cambridge is the only place in the UK with cycling levels comparable with
>those in most of the Netherlands. Why do almost no cyclists there wear
>helmets in day-to-day cycling?
Amsterdam) they don't see any significant modal difference between
travelling on foot versus bicycle.
Years ago (even before working there) I used to call this phenomenon
'Cyclopeds" - which explains numerous failures such as: cycling in
pedestrian precincts or on the pavement, the wrong way up one-way
streets, and assuming that things like traffic lights and giving way to
transverse pedestrians on zebra crossings don't apply to them.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 5, 2015, 10:05:02 AM5/5/15
to
In message <miafq1$ud3$1...@dont-email.me>, at 14:16:49 on Tue, 5 May 2015,
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
>>> As with many things is is knowledge and anticipation that is crucial.
>>
>> Agreed.
>Bikeability teaches that for cycling even for primary age children, so
>how do we get drivers of motor vehicles to follow those rules rather
>than just quoting the highway code?
You'd need to get a far wider consensus that the Highway Code was a
minimum standard, and that motorists should aspire to better.
The problem is that so many cyclists don't even concede that the Highway
Code applies to them at all.
--
Roland Perry
Jim Chisholm <jim.ch...@ucs.nscam.ac.uk> remarked:
>>> As with many things is is knowledge and anticipation that is crucial.
>>
>> Agreed.
>Bikeability teaches that for cycling even for primary age children, so
>how do we get drivers of motor vehicles to follow those rules rather
>than just quoting the highway code?
minimum standard, and that motorists should aspire to better.
The problem is that so many cyclists don't even concede that the Highway
Code applies to them at all.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 5, 2015, 10:15:01 AM5/5/15
to
In message <cqruf4...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:21:40 on Tue, 5 May
2015, Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com> remarked:
the problem with traffic law that is too focussed on one-size-fits-all
(in this case all cyclist approaching traffic lights are doing it in the
gutter).
--
Roland Perry
2015, Richard Smith <ric...@ex-parrot.com> remarked:
>>> Do you include cyclists crossing the white line, but then waiting? ie
>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>
>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes. They're
>> all passing the white line against a red signal.
>
>And do you count cyclists who enter an advanced stop box other than by
>the cycle lane?
As they've pedantically crossed a white line, they are guilty. Such is
>>> inventing an advanced box?
>>
>> Yes. Just as I count motorists driving into real advanced boxes. They're
>> all passing the white line against a red signal.
>
>And do you count cyclists who enter an advanced stop box other than by
>the cycle lane?
the problem with traffic law that is too focussed on one-size-fits-all
(in this case all cyclist approaching traffic lights are doing it in the
gutter).
--
Roland Perry
Alan
May 5, 2015, 10:30:13 AM5/5/15
to
On Tue, 05 May 2015 15:05:34 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Doesn't the Advanced Stop Line only apply to motorists and motorcycles, so
pedantically they (cycles) haven't crossed anything applicable to them?
--
Alan
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
wrote:
pedantically they (cycles) haven't crossed anything applicable to them?
--
Alan
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Alan Braggins
May 5, 2015, 11:06:25 AM5/5/15
to
In article <cql48a...@mid.individual.net>, Richard Smith wrote:
>On 02/05/15 23:03, Dan Sheppard wrote:
>
>> And we sit in the Pizza Hut on Newmarket Road most times we visit Cambridge
>> and have a toddler who shouts "BUS!" at the top of his voice every time one
>> goes past. We are in there for less than an hour. There are more than three
>> or four buses an hour.
>
>Yes. Stagecoach run 15 an hour each way along Newmarket Road, or one
>every four minutes on average. That's consistent with my experience.
>
>I suspect Roland is so busy looking for cyclists to bitch about that he
>doesn't notice the buses.
Another explanation is that Roland only looks at the traffic on his own
size of the road, and either hasn't noticed that the holdups rarely result
in cars being stationary for an entire hour, or hasn't considered that
driving in the same direction as buses will result in fewer of them passing
you than are passing each point on the route.
>On 02/05/15 23:03, Dan Sheppard wrote:
>
>> And we sit in the Pizza Hut on Newmarket Road most times we visit Cambridge
>> and have a toddler who shouts "BUS!" at the top of his voice every time one
>> goes past. We are in there for less than an hour. There are more than three
>> or four buses an hour.
>
>Yes. Stagecoach run 15 an hour each way along Newmarket Road, or one
>every four minutes on average. That's consistent with my experience.
>
>I suspect Roland is so busy looking for cyclists to bitch about that he
>doesn't notice the buses.
Another explanation is that Roland only looks at the traffic on his own
size of the road, and either hasn't noticed that the holdups rarely result
in cars being stationary for an entire hour, or hasn't considered that
driving in the same direction as buses will result in fewer of them passing
you than are passing each point on the route.
Malcolm G
May 5, 2015, 11:08:03 AM5/5/15
to
drafted - I have not see any evidence that such a thing was done
(so I think the law was written as a request to all cyclists to ride in
the gutter even when turning right)
Alan Braggins
May 5, 2015, 11:10:57 AM5/5/15
to
In article <cqjuub...@mid.individual.net>, Tim Ward wrote:
>On 02/05/2015 13:07, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
>> link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
>
>When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about equal.
Whenever I've counted, the absolute number of light jumping motorists has
>On 02/05/2015 13:07, tony sayer wrote:
>>
>> I note that most traffic lights are now sprouting aerials to I suppose
>> link back more to come traffic cams back to head office?..
>
>When I bother to count, which I do on occasional journeys, the numbers
>of bikes and cars I count running red lights usually come out about equal.
been vastly higher. (As has the absolute number of motorists, of course.)
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages