Vehicles on railway lines
Tony Lewis
instances of vehicles ending up careering onto railway lines?
It certainly doesn't seem to be that rare. Fortunately trains to not
appear to have been involved.
Good heavens! There was even a helicopter trapped.
Anyhow, whatever is happening about the Selby incident?
---------
TonyL
A.Boodoo
> Since the Selby incident doesn't there seem to have been quite a few
> instances of vehicles ending up careering onto railway lines?
Nothing especially new or uncommon. Even TGV trains are known to have
come a cropper when faced with a vehicle across the line...
> It certainly doesn't seem to be that rare. Fortunately trains to not
> appear to have been involved.
The recent incident in Lancashire involved a nice, shiny new Coradia DMU.
> Anyhow, whatever is happening about the Selby incident?
What do you mean by that? The line and motorway are now back to normal,
and the main lasting consequence (aside, obviously, from the fatalities)
is that both Freightliner and the gner are one train down each (though a
replacement 66 for Freightliner has been ordered).
A.Boodoo
Matt
starts in October or November but don't quote me on that,
As far as I am concerned he should get life, to make an example to all the
other car (and some lorry ) driving amateurs that getting into, and driving
a vehicle is not a god given right but a privilege and should be treated as
such
The quality of driving and condition of vehicles in this country is abysmal.
Matt
"A.Boodoo" <A.H.B...@lboro.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3B8655F0...@lboro.ac.uk...
Ledswinger
news:3B8655F0...@lboro.ac.uk...
> Tony Lewis wrote:
>
>
>
ISTR that the Highways Agency were reviewing the standards for barriers
close to embankments/bridges
> What do you mean by that? The line and motorway are now back to normal,
> and the main lasting consequence (aside, obviously, from the fatalities)
> is that both Freightliner and the gner are one train down each (though a
> replacement 66 for Freightliner has been ordered).
>
And aren't some of the regional Eurostar sets on hire to GNER because they
didn't have enough trains even before Selby? Sadly that means it even less
likely that regional Eurostar services will ever happen, and the provincials
will be condemned to manky cross London transfers the rest of eternity.
Led
John Youles
<ma...@calibra65.freeserve.co.uk> tapped out on the keyboard:
In my view the highway authority should be prosecuted for manslaughter too.
They have been grossly negligent in not fencing roads adequately.
--
John Youles
Reply address is j dot youles at ntlworld dot com
Nightjar
"John Youles" <j.youles@localhost> wrote in message
news:7drcotkf6o8ektb7t...@4ax.com...
>
> In my view the highway authority should be prosecuted for manslaughter
too.
> They have been grossly negligent in not fencing roads adequately.
The Land Rover had to drive quite a long way, parallel to the road, on the
wrong side of the barrier to get onto the line. IMO the road barrier there
would stand up the test of 'did it appear to be a reasonable precaution
prior to the accident?'
Colin Bignell
Paul
Nightjar wrote in message ...
Except for the very obvious fact that it did not actually fence the railway
line off from the motorway!
P
John Youles
<nigh...@insertmysurname.uk.com> tapped out on the keyboard:
How far is "quite a long way" ? 100 yards ? Half a mile ? Obviously the
fencing was inadequate as it didn't stop the vehicle getting onto the line.
Today a van crashed onto the WCML, luckily a train stopped in time. Again it
looks as if the road was unfenced.
Matt
Bletchley) is it really so difficult to understand this point???
At no time were the barriers inadequate, if a driver (Bletchley) puts a
foxes life in higher regard to his own then he faces the consequences, if a
driver (Great Heck) drives when tired then he also will face the
consequences
Driving is the same as alcohol, if you abuse it you will die but alas with a
vehicle you are just as likely to kill others
don't blame the railways or barriers it is the drivers fault!!!!
maybe we should place barriers between the pavements and roads in case we
just decide to catch 40 winks on the way to work
"John Youles" <j.youles@localhost> wrote in message
news:375dotceknohdvvea...@4ax.com...
Oliver Keating
>
> > Since the Selby incident doesn't there seem to have been quite a few
> > instances of vehicles ending up careering onto railway lines?
>
> Nothing especially new or uncommon. Even TGV trains are known to have
> come a cropper when faced with a vehicle across the line...
This is true. While the high speed lines are free of level crossings
(notoriously dangerous), the TGV will travel on ordinary track for much of
is travelling, and at level crossings it is limited to 130kph (81mph).
I don't know if there is a limit of this kind here, but I am fairly certain
on the ECML they had to remove some crossings to allow 125mph running.
> > It certainly doesn't seem to be that rare. Fortunately trains to not
> > appear to have been involved.
>
> The recent incident in Lancashire involved a nice, shiny new Coradia DMU.
>
> > Anyhow, whatever is happening about the Selby incident?
>
> What do you mean by that? The line and motorway are now back to normal,
> and the main lasting consequence (aside, obviously, from the fatalities)
> is that both Freightliner and the gner are one train down each (though a
> replacement 66 for Freightliner has been ordered).
In the usual public opinion way, he probably means "what is going to be done
to prevent this happening again".
Answer: Nothing. It isn't worth it.
I don't disagree that nothing should be done, I am just the only preson
bold/brave enough to say it.
> A.Boodoo
>
John Youles
<ma...@calibra65.freeserve.co.uk> tapped out on the keyboard:
> Both incidents in questions were caused by driver error (Great Heck and
> Bletchley) is it really so difficult to understand this point???
Indeed, but the road system should prevent road vehicles careering off the
highway and causing mayhem elsewhere.
> At no time were the barriers inadequate,
of course they were inadequate, they didn't stop the vehicle coming off the
road!
> if a driver (Bletchley) puts a
> foxes life in higher regard to his own then he faces the consequences, if a
> driver (Great Heck) drives when tired then he also will face the
> consequences
and so do all the users of the railway when these idiots can't control their
vehicles
> Driving is the same as alcohol, if you abuse it you will die but alas with a
> vehicle you are just as likely to kill others
>
> don't blame the railways or barriers it is the drivers fault!!!!
>
> maybe we should place barriers between the pavements and roads in case we
> just decide to catch 40 winks on the way to work
I quite agree. Also road vehicles should be fitted with devices to make them
stop if the driver falls asleep (like the dead man's handle used for donkey's
years on trains).
Matt Cherry
news:9m666l$jpn$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Both incidents in questions were caused by driver error (Great Heck and
> Bletchley) is it really so difficult to understand this point???
>
> At no time were the barriers inadequate, if a driver (Bletchley) puts a
> foxes life in higher regard to his own then he faces the consequences, if
a
> driver (Great Heck) drives when tired then he also will face the
> consequences
> Driving is the same as alcohol, if you abuse it you will die but alas with
a
> vehicle you are just as likely to kill others
>
> don't blame the railways or barriers it is the drivers fault!!!!
>
> maybe we should place barriers between the pavements and roads in case we
> just decide to catch 40 winks on the way to work
Ladbrook Grove was caused by a train passing a red signal. This could be
considered to simply be the drivers fault. However there are wider issue's
such as signal sighting and the lack of systems to prevent trains passing
red signals which have all been very closely examined since and
recommendations made as to how a similar event may be avoided.
Great Heck was also initially caused by driver error. Again there are wider
issues about why he lost control and how he managed to end up on the
railway. What are the barriers there for if not to prevent out of control
vehicles leaving the road? The vehicle did leave the road and the barriers
were obviously therefore inadequate.
Drivers of road vehicles and trains make mistakes like anybody else. Why
should there be less to protect other people from road drivers mistakes than
there is to protect other people from the mistakes of (far more skilled and
highly trained) train drivers?
--
Matt
Change replace_this to theseed to reply
David Hansen
<webm...@o-keating.com> wrote this:-
>I don't know if there is a limit of this kind here,
There are and were several. For remotely monitored level crossings the
limit was, the last time I heard, 100mph for a half barrier crossing.
There might be a new limit of 125mph for a full barrier crossing,
given that they are being removed in places on the WCML.
>but I am fairly certain
>on the ECML they had to remove some crossings to allow 125mph running.
Some half barrier crossings would have to be removed, or replaced by
full barrier crossings, at the time.
Matt
errant vehicles from causing incidents, if you cannot see anything but a six
foot high steel fence then you are forced to look ahead and pay attention
As for ladbrook grove that was caused by driver error through lack of
experience so maybe all drivers of all vehicles should be retested every
year.
the words Mistake or Accident have no relation to this type of incident
it is far more serious than to call it a mistake, the drivers are clearly
negligent
Matt
"Matt Cherry" <Matthew.Cherry@replace_this.net> wrote in message
news:3b86daa5$0$8514$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
John Gough
<Matthew.Cherry@replace_this.net> wrote:
>Drivers of road vehicles and trains make mistakes like anybody else. Why
>should there be less to protect other people from road drivers mistakes than
>there is to protect other people from the mistakes of (far more skilled and
>highly trained) train drivers?
That is surely the central question, to which no-one will give us an
answer. There is a sub-text, shewn by the level of tolerance of
dangerous and careless driving from the media, the police, and the
courts: society is happy to accept the risk of death and injury on the
roads, including to third parties, in exchange for the freedom to
drive motor vehicles when and how people wish. As for pedestrians,
there are many circumstances in which they are expected to share the
actual carriageway of roads with drivers who may be acting in the most
undisciplined fashion imaginable. Yet we insist that people on foot
should not be allowed anywhere near a moving train except in strictly
controlled circumstances. It really is all rather odd.
--
John Gough
This e-mail address is rarely read
John Youles
tapped out on the keyboard:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:47:12 +0100, "Matt Cherry"
Hear hear. At one time I worked at an office on a busy main road, parallel to a
railway. To get from the station meant taking your life in your hands dodging
speeding cars and juggernauts, no pelican crossing or anything for pedestrians.
Yet where the railway, which only has 2 tph each way, crossed a lane leading
into the main road a full set of gates was provided!
Mudge
But the "anti-car lobby" oppose measures that increase the segregation of
motor vehicles and pedestrians as condemning pedestrians to a form of
apartheid. Indeed many pedestrian subways and footbridges have been removed
and replaced by "level crossings" in the form of Pelicans and Puffins.
--
Peter
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet. Smile at us,
pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget." (...G. K. Chesterton)
John Youles
<mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> tapped out on the keyboard:
>
> But the "anti-car lobby" oppose measures that increase the segregation of
> motor vehicles and pedestrians as condemning pedestrians to a form of
> apartheid. Indeed many pedestrian subways and footbridges have been removed
> and replaced by "level crossings" in the form of Pelicans and Puffins.
Subways and bridges are either impassable to people in wheelchairs or involve
lengthy detours. Even level crossings often require several separate sets of
lights to be negotiated so it can take 10 minutes to go 10 yards. The answer is
to have more puffin and pelican crossings with cameras to catch those who ignore
lights (usually cyclists).
Nightjar
"John Youles" <j.youles@localhost> wrote in message
>
> How far is "quite a long way" ? 100 yards ? Half a mile ? Obviously the
> fencing was inadequate as it didn't stop the vehicle getting onto the
line.
IIRC, the Land Rover left the road about 800 yards away from the railway,
shortly before the barrier began, then ran along the embankment on the wrong
side of the crash barrier until it ended up on the railway. I recall working
out at the time that an alert driver would have had more than enough time to
stop before the railway, even if the Land Rover had been going flat out and
allowing for the poor braking surface.
With 20/20 hindsight, it is possible to say that a different arrangement of
fencing could have prevented this accident. For example, vehicle-proof
boundary fencing alongside the railway for a few hundred yards either side
of the bridge would have stopped the Land Rover. However, the fact that a
vehicle managed to get around the barriers, does not mean that the Highway
Authority had not taken adequate precautions against any reasonably
foreseeable accident.
Colin Bignell
John Gough
wrote:
And subways are not safe (or rather, do not feel safe) at many times
of the day and night -- and so often stink of urine as well. And
bridges can be terribly exposed to the elements. I can see why traffic
planning keeps the vehicles on the level and makes the pedestrians go
up and down (and wait in the middle of roads) -- it's cheaper. But it
is very consumer unfriendly -- it is far easier and less
time-consuming for the vehicles to make the detours and go up and down
than the pedestrians.
I wish more traffic planners would take account of the
10-minutes-to-go 10-yards arrangements! There are so many of them, and
they're such a pain, and the encourage pedestrians to ignore the
lights.
Cyclists don't just ignore crossing-lights -- they ignore all laws
quite freely. And the scum police do nothing, even when the offence is
being committed right in front of their eyes.
ME
On 25-Aug-2001, John Youles <j.youles@localhost> wrote:
> Subways and bridges are either impassable to people in wheelchairs or
> involve
> lengthy detours. Even level crossings often require several separate
> sets of
> lights to be negotiated so it can take 10 minutes to go 10 yards. The
> answer is
> to have more puffin and pelican crossings with cameras to catch those
> who ignore
> lights (usually cyclists).
There should be a serious campaign nationwide against cyclists who
ignore traffic signals, pedestrian crossings, and ride (except where
authorised) on footways. Only the other week I saw a lady knocked down
at a pedestrian crossing when the lights were in her favour.
Fortunately she was only slightly shaken and not hurt. The cyclist, who
fell of his bike, swore at her telling her to look where she was going.
He rode off when another gentleman threatened to call the police.
Malcolm
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> motor vehicles and pedestrians as condemning pedestrians to a form of
>> apartheid. Indeed many pedestrian subways and footbridges have been removed
>> and replaced by "level crossings" in the form of Pelicans and Puffins.
>Subways and bridges are either impassable to people in wheelchairs or involve
>lengthy detours. Even level crossings often require several separate sets of
>lights to be negotiated so it can take 10 minutes to go 10 yards. The answer is
>to have more puffin and pelican crossings with cameras to catch those who ignore
>lights (usually cyclists).
And how is a camera supposed to catch a cyclist?
--
Paul Smith
Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
please remove "XYZ" to reply by email
George
>From: Paul Smith psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk
>Date: 25/08/01 13:20 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7r5fotgq0ogard3t4...@4ax.com>
<SNIP>
>>Subways and bridges are either impassable to people in wheelchairs or
>involve
>>lengthy detours. Even level crossings often require several separate sets
>of
>>lights to be negotiated so it can take 10 minutes to go 10 yards. The
>answer is
>>to have more puffin and pelican crossings with cameras to catch those who
>ignore
>>lights (usually cyclists).
>
>And how is a camera supposed to catch a cyclist?
>--
>Paul Smith
>Scotland, UK
Especially when it has been "necklaced":-)
George
Andrew Norman
wrote:
>>Subways and bridges are either impassable to people in wheelchairs or involve
>>lengthy detours. Even level crossings often require several separate sets of
>>lights to be negotiated so it can take 10 minutes to go 10 yards. The answer is
>>to have more puffin and pelican crossings with cameras to catch those who ignore
>>lights (usually cyclists).
>
>And how is a camera supposed to catch a cyclist?
Thanks to the new plan to have cyclists tatoo a number plate (with the
correct size and spacing) on their foreheads.
--
Andy Norman an...@norman.cx
John Youles
<psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> tapped out on the keyboard:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:12:22 +0100, John Youles <j.youles@localhost>
> wrote:
>
> >> But the "anti-car lobby" oppose measures that increase the segregation of
> >> motor vehicles and pedestrians as condemning pedestrians to a form of
> >> apartheid. Indeed many pedestrian subways and footbridges have been removed
> >> and replaced by "level crossings" in the form of Pelicans and Puffins.
>
> >Subways and bridges are either impassable to people in wheelchairs or involve
> >lengthy detours. Even level crossings often require several separate sets of
> >lights to be negotiated so it can take 10 minutes to go 10 yards. The answer is
> >to have more puffin and pelican crossings with cameras to catch those who ignore
> >lights (usually cyclists).
>
> And how is a camera supposed to catch a cyclist?
Cycles should have numberplates just like other vehicles.
John Youles
<nigh...@insertmysurname.uk.com> tapped out on the keyboard:
>
Then it's about time the law was changed so that all roads should be fenced to
prevent vehicles damaging neighbouring properties and transport corridors. When
motorways were introduced there were no barriers along the central reservation,
after some spectacular head-on smashes the whole network was fitted. There's no
reason why the sides cannot be fenced as well.
These sort of accidents have been occurring for years so to say they are not
foreseeable is IMHO not true.
John Buckley
>
> Cycles should have numberplates just like other vehicles.
And pedestrians.
John Buckley
John Buckley
> Thanks to the new plan to have cyclists tatoo a number plate (with the
> correct size and spacing) on their foreheads.
How about them for everyone.
I can think of a good personalised one for you ;-)
John Buckley
Mudge
>John Youles wrote:
>
>> Cycles should have numberplates just like other vehicles.
>
>And pedestrians.
I wonder how long it will be before Blair, Blunkett and friends hit upon the
idea of tattooing everyone's NI number on their forehead. Or implanting a
computer chip in them somewhere just like dogs and cats that their owners
wish to take abroad.
John Gough
wrote:
>> And how is a camera supposed to catch a cyclist?
>
>Cycles should have numberplates just like other vehicles.
Absolutely -- they are in charge of a dangerous machine, after all.
John Gough
>There should be a serious campaign nationwide against cyclists who
>ignore traffic signals, pedestrian crossings, and ride (except where
>authorised) on footways. Only the other week I saw a lady knocked down
>at a pedestrian crossing when the lights were in her favour.
>Fortunately she was only slightly shaken and not hurt. The cyclist, who
>fell of his bike, swore at her telling her to look where she was going.
>He rode off when another gentleman threatened to call the police.
Now there's the typical cyclist behaviour we all know and love ....
I notice you say "he". It's astonishing what a very high proportion of
the lout cyclists are male and in the sort of late-teens to thirties
age range -- i.e. not indisciplined children, but adults who should be
expected to know better and should be made to observe the laws.
Relatively few women lout cyclists to be seen, at least not here in
Leicester at any rate.
Mudge
>On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:10:04 GMT, "ME" <itso...@ematic.com> wrote:
>
>>There should be a serious campaign nationwide against cyclists who
>>ignore traffic signals, pedestrian crossings, and ride (except where
>>authorised) on footways. Only the other week I saw a lady knocked down
>>at a pedestrian crossing when the lights were in her favour.
>>Fortunately she was only slightly shaken and not hurt. The cyclist, who
>>fell of his bike, swore at her telling her to look where she was going.
>>He rode off when another gentleman threatened to call the police.
>
>Now there's the typical cyclist behaviour we all know and love ....
>
>I notice you say "he". It's astonishing what a very high proportion of
>the lout cyclists are male and in the sort of late-teens to thirties
>age range -- i.e. not indisciplined children, but adults who should be
>expected to know better and should be made to observe the laws.
Perhaps it's better that they're riding bikes than driving heavily-modded
Nova GTEs.
John Buckley
>
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 13:56:52 +0100, John Youles <j.youles@localhost>
> wrote:
>
> >> And how is a camera supposed to catch a cyclist?
> >
> >Cycles should have numberplates just like other vehicles.
>
> Absolutely -- they are in charge of a dangerous machine, after all.
And while you are at it how about bread knives, hammers, lawn mowers,
power tools, axes .....
You work for Blair and I claim my £5.
John Buckley
John Buckley
>
> John Buckley wrote in message <3B87A3...@virgin.net>...
> >John Youles wrote:
> >
> >> Cycles should have numberplates just like other vehicles.
> >
> >And pedestrians.
>
> I wonder how long it will be before Blair, Blunkett and friends hit upon the
> computer chip in them somewhere.
So that's what causes those buzzing noises in my head on the way back
from the pub.
John Buckley
Nightjar
"Paul" <pa...@wmcs.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b86...@news-uk.onetel.net.uk...
>
> Nightjar wrote in message ...
> >
> >"John Youles" <j.youles@localhost> wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >> In my view the highway authority should be prosecuted for manslaughter
> >too.
> >> They have been grossly negligent in not fencing roads adequately.
> >
> >The Land Rover had to drive quite a long way, parallel to the road, on
the
> >wrong side of the barrier to get onto the line. IMO the road barrier
there
> >would stand up the test of 'did it appear to be a reasonable precaution
> >prior to the accident?'
>
> Except for the very obvious fact that it did not actually fence the
railway
> line off from the motorway!
The fact that a safety precaution fails to stop an accident is not, by
itself, evidence that the precaution was inadequate. No safety precaution is
completely proof against failure, either through the ingenuity of man or the
perversity of fate. All that can be achieved is a reasonable level of
safety. Protecting against two simultaneous failures is normally taken as a
standard to be achieved. In this case, there were four significant factors:
1) the vehicle left the road before the start of the extensive barriers
provided.
2) the vehicle did not veer down the bank, as most do in such circumstances,
but continued to travel parallel to the road.
3) the driver did not stop the vehicle, despite there appearing to be
adequate distance to do so
4) the train was too close for there to be time to stop it, despite the
alarm being raised almost immediately.
Colin Bignell
Mudge
>Mudge wrote:
>>
>> I wonder how long it will be before Blair, Blunkett and friends hit upon
the
>> idea of ...... implanting a
>> computer chip in them somewhere.
>
>So that's what causes those buzzing noises in my head on the way back
>from the pub.
Can't say I've experienced them. But the hammering in the head the following
morning....yes, I can well believe it.
Mudge
>
>itself, evidence that the precaution was inadequate. No safety precaution
is
>completely proof against failure, either through the ingenuity of man or
the
>perversity of fate. All that can be achieved is a reasonable level of
>safety. Protecting against two simultaneous failures is normally taken as a
>standard to be achieved. In this case, there were four significant factors:
>
>1) the vehicle left the road before the start of the extensive barriers
>provided.
>2) the vehicle did not veer down the bank, as most do in such
circumstances,
>but continued to travel parallel to the road.
>3) the driver did not stop the vehicle, despite there appearing to be
>adequate distance to do so
>4) the train was too close for there to be time to stop it, despite the
>alarm being raised almost immediately.
Which is a very good argument against this undeniably freak accident being
used to set general principles - apart, perhaps, from doing something (not
sure what) to deter people from driving when tired.
Nightjar
"John Youles" <j.youles@localhost> wrote in message
>
> Then it's about time the law was changed so that all roads should be
fenced to
> prevent vehicles damaging neighbouring properties and transport corridors.
When
> motorways were introduced there were no barriers along the central
reservation,
> after some spectacular head-on smashes the whole network was fitted.
There's no
> reason why the sides cannot be fenced as well.
The sides of roads usually are provided with barriers where there is an
identifiable danger. Elsewhere, the cost is simply not justified. 100%
safety is not an achievable aim.
> These sort of accidents have been occurring for years so to say they are
not
> foreseeable is IMHO not true.
So, how many times have vehicles driven down the back of several hundred
yards of crash barrier, without veering down the embankment and without
stopping in, say, the past 10 years?
Colin Bignell
John Youles
<nigh...@insertmysurname.uk.com> tapped out on the keyboard:
>
> The fact that a safety precaution fails to stop an accident is not, by
> itself, evidence that the precaution was inadequate. No safety precaution is
> completely proof against failure, either through the ingenuity of man or the
> perversity of fate. All that can be achieved is a reasonable level of
> safety. Protecting against two simultaneous failures is normally taken as a
> standard to be achieved. In this case, there were four significant factors:
>
> 1) the vehicle left the road before the start of the extensive barriers
> provided.
> 2) the vehicle did not veer down the bank, as most do in such circumstances,
> but continued to travel parallel to the road.
> 3) the driver did not stop the vehicle, despite there appearing to be
> adequate distance to do so
> 4) the train was too close for there to be time to stop it, despite the
> alarm being raised almost immediately.
>
If central crash barriers can be provided to prevent head-on collisions, then
they should also be provided to prevent damage to third parties, especially
railway lines. I hope the highway authorities who do not authorise thse
measures are prosecuted for accessories to manslaughter.
John Youles
<nigh...@insertmysurname.uk.com> tapped out on the keyboard:
>
I don't know how many, but there was Great Heck which killed several people, the
bread van at Bletchley yesterday which could have been as tragic, and there was
an oil tanker which ended up on a railway in the Midlands a few years ago.
The railways are being forced to spend billions on Automatic Train Protection,
this will be useless if nothing is done to control runaway road vehicles
wrecking everything in sight when a driver nods off or swerves to avoid a fox.
ME
On 25-Aug-2001, John Gough <g...@excite.co.uk> wrote:
> >There should be a serious campaign nationwide against cyclists who
> >ignore traffic signals, pedestrian crossings, and ride (except where
> >authorised) on footways. Only the other week I saw a lady knocked
> >down
> >at a pedestrian crossing when the lights were in her favour.
> >Fortunately she was only slightly shaken and not hurt. The cyclist,
> >who
> >fell of his bike, swore at her telling her to look where she was
> >going.
> >He rode off when another gentleman threatened to call the police.
>
> Now there's the typical cyclist behaviour we all know and love ....
>
> I notice you say "he". It's astonishing what a very high proportion of
> the lout cyclists are male and in the sort of late-teens to thirties
> age range -- i.e. not indisciplined children, but adults who should be
> expected to know better and should be made to observe the laws.
> Relatively few women lout cyclists to be seen, at least not here in
> Leicester at any rate.
>
John. You are spot on with the sex and age range. Exactly the same
here in Crewe and most other places in the region where I have been
nearly mown down.
Malcolm
Jermaine Clarke
crashing on a railway tracks?
Lesser of two evils i suppose.....
JSC
"John Youles" <j.youles@localhost> wrote in message
news:utefotsuhr0jvpa0c...@4ax.com...
Helen Deborah Vecht
from hu...@nospam.huge.org.uk (Huge) contains these words:
> John Buckley wrote in message <3B87A3...@virgin.net>...
> >John Youles wrote:
> >
> >> Cycles should have numberplates just like other vehicles.
> >
> >And pedestrians.
> Pedestrians do not kill 5 people a year.
They probably do.
I'm not sure of the exact figures but three pedestrians per year causing
death of cyclists seems to ring a bell, balancing the the three
pedestrians killed by cyclists...
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
Michael Rodgers
news:9m8ll1$78a$8...@anubis.demon.co.uk...
> >> Cycles should have numberplates just like other vehicles.
> >
> >And pedestrians.
>
Has there never been a case of a car swerving to avoid a pedestrian,
resulting in a fatal accident, then?
--
Michael Rodgers, Southampton UK
http://www.network-southeast.co.uk - The NSE Page
Tony Lewis
<mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Nightjar wrote in message ...
>>
>>The fact that a safety precaution fails to stop an accident is not, by
>>itself, evidence that the precaution was inadequate. No safety precaution
>is
>>completely proof against failure, either through the ingenuity of man or
>the
>>perversity of fate. All that can be achieved is a reasonable level of
>>safety. Protecting against two simultaneous failures is normally taken as a
>>standard to be achieved. In this case, there were four significant factors:
>>
>>1) the vehicle left the road before the start of the extensive barriers
>>provided.
>>2) the vehicle did not veer down the bank, as most do in such
>circumstances,
>>but continued to travel parallel to the road.
>>3) the driver did not stop the vehicle, despite there appearing to be
>>adequate distance to do so
>>4) the train was too close for there to be time to stop it, despite the
>>alarm being raised almost immediately.
>
>Which is a very good argument against this undeniably freak accident being
>used to set general principles - apart, perhaps, from doing something (not
>sure what) to deter people from driving when tired.
>
but it seems to me that it is not that freak an accident. From the
rest of this thread vehicles regularly end up on railway lines. And
they are just lucky that Item 4) didn't occur. 1), 2) & 3) don't have
to be met in every case.
---------
TonyL
John Buckley
>
> John Buckley wrote in message <3B87A3...@virgin.net>...
> >John Youles wrote:
> >
> >> Cycles should have numberplates just like other vehicles.
> >
> >And pedestrians.
>
err...
Pedestrians have killed some cyclists.
John Buckley
David Hansen
<nigh...@insertmysurname.uk.com> wrote this:-
>1) the vehicle left the road before the start of the extensive barriers
>provided.
Although I agree with much of what you posted, the above is incorrect.
A few years before the road crash at Great Heck there was another road
crash, this one near Bristol. A bus (coach as the operators call them)
left a motorway, continued parallel to the road for some distance and
came to a halt upside down in a ditch. A large number of people on the
bus died, about a dozen from memory. The short length of the crash
barriers were a significant factor in this crash.
"Roadtrack" could have introduced strictly enforced speed limits at
under bridges, until they had completed an emergency programme of
crash barrier upgrading. As each barrier was upgraded the speed limit
could then have been removed. Instead "Roadtrack" did nothing. It is
the fact that "Roadtrack" did nothing that makes them guilty in the
Great Heck crash and why they should be on trial alongside the car
driver.
David Hansen
<ma...@calibra65.freeserve.co.uk> wrote this:-
>As for ladbrook grove that was caused by driver error through lack of
>experience so maybe all drivers of all vehicles should be retested every
>year.
Of course the driver at Ladbroke Grove had just passed the "test"
(actually a series of tests, including being observed driving trains
for a considerable time). Train drivers also know that at any time an
inspector (though they are not called that) may enter their cab and
see how they are driving. These inspectors also observe driving from
the passenger compartment of trains and download data recorders at
random to see what the driver has been doing, so unlike road vehicle
drivers the "test" is ongoing.
My view is that the driver had just entered the most dangerous stage
of any task. The stage where it is easy, before a full realisation of
all the difficulties occurs. This period can be shortened by training
and there are many things that could and should have been done in the
training of that driver, but it is unlikely that it can be eliminated.
David Hansen
(Huge) wrote this:-
>Pedestrians do not kill 5 people a year.
No, they kill rather more than 5 people a year.
David Hansen
<g...@excite.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>The cyclist, who
>>fell of his bike, swore at her telling her to look where she was going.
>>He rode off when another gentleman threatened to call the police.
>
>Now there's the typical cyclist behaviour we all know and love ....
Really?
As I wander around Edinburgh I observe the majority of cyclists
obeying the traffic lights. As I observe them coming to a stand I
sometimes mutter to myself, "another law-breaking cyclist I see."
I would group the small minority of cyclists who don't into two
categories: 1) couriers and 2) casual cyclists.
Cycle couriers are usually like other operators of vehicles where time
is of the essence. They push things as far as they think they can get
away with.
Many casual cyclists I suspect probably believe that traffic lights
only apply to motor vehicles. Their cycling in many other areas is
highly suspect, for example cycling too close to parked motor vehicles
and too close to the kerb or using the wrong lane for instance.0
David Hansen
<itso...@ematic.com> wrote this:-
>There should be a serious campaign nationwide against cyclists who
>ignore traffic signals, pedestrian crossings,
Nothing wrong with that, provided it is in proportion to the danger
they cause. There should be a far stronger campaign at the same time
against motorists who ignore traffic signals and pedestrian crossings.
> and ride (except where authorised) on footways.
That's more difficult. There has now been 50 years of anti-cyclist
road design. This cannot be undone overnight. It's understandable that
some cyclists ride on pavements in places. Many are also confused
because councils "convert" some bits of pavement into cycle
"facilities" by adding some white paint and the odd blue sign. They
see no reason for not riding on an identical pavement that has not
been "converted". If there had not been 50 years of anti-cyclist road
design then things might be different.
Personally I see no reason for cyclists not to ride on pavements, as
they do extensively in Japan, provided they do so at a sensible speed,
as they do in Japan. A sensible speed will be very slow in many
places. This viewpoint causes horror on the UK cycling newsgroups, but
I have not yet been convinced that it is wrong.
David Hansen
<g...@excite.co.uk> wrote this:-
>Yet we insist that people on foot
>should not be allowed anywhere near a moving train except in strictly
>controlled circumstances.
It does rather depend on what one means by strictly controlled
circumstances. My family largely live in the (English) Midlands now.
If one gets off the little train at Nuneaton to go shopping then, as
one walks towards the footbridge, one can be overtaken by trains
travelling at high speed through the station, including the container
trains that are more dangerous than the passenger trains. It's
perfectly possible to touch these trains as they pass, not that I
would recommend it. I haven't noticed anything strictly controlled
about this. There are some warning notices and yellow lines, but
that's about it. I gather that "safety" barriers will be installed at
Nuneaton as part of the current upgrade(s) to the line.
Railway lines are fenced, but these fences are usually deterrents
rather than anything else.
John Gough
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>0On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 14:53:24 +0100 someone who may be John Gough
><g...@excite.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>>>The cyclist, who
>>>fell of his bike, swore at her telling her to look where she was going.
>>>He rode off when another gentleman threatened to call the police.
>>
>>Now there's the typical cyclist behaviour we all know and love ....
>
>Really?
>
>As I wander around Edinburgh I observe the majority of cyclists
>obeying the traffic lights. As I observe them coming to a stand I
>sometimes mutter to myself, "another law-breaking cyclist I see."
Be thankful then that you live in Scotland where cyclists apparently
do not believe that they are above the law.
>I would group the small minority of cyclists who don't into two
>categories: 1) couriers and 2) casual cyclists.
>
>Cycle couriers are usually like other operators of vehicles where time
>is of the essence. They push things as far as they think they can get
>away with.
I've watched the behaviour of the couriers in London, but we don't
seem to have them here in Leicester, so I don't think "our" lout
cyclists belong to that category.
>Many casual cyclists I suspect probably believe that traffic lights
>only apply to motor vehicles. Their cycling in many other areas is
>highly suspect, for example cycling too close to parked motor vehicles
>and too close to the kerb or using the wrong lane for instance.0
I've certainly seen plenty of what you describe in the second
sentence. But are we really to think that casual cyclists genuinely
believe that traffic signals don't apply to them? It seems to me that
when you watch some of the manoeuvres undertaken by cyclists to evade
the lights you can only assume they are very well aware that they
ought to be stopping but have no intention of doing so. And when we
see cyclists ride straight on to a path boldly marked in large
capitals "NO CYCLING", are we to assume they can't read or are we to
assume the "mens rea" required for a deliberate breach of the law or
bye-law involved?
Nick Finnigan
news:hp2fotc7d21n7opae...@4ax.com...
>
> And subways are not safe (or rather, do not feel safe) at many times
> of the day and night -- and so often stink of urine as well. And
> bridges can be terribly exposed to the elements. I can see why traffic
> planning keeps the vehicles on the level and makes the pedestrians go
> up and down (and wait in the middle of roads) -- it's cheaper. But it
> is very consumer unfriendly -- it is far easier and less
> time-consuming for the vehicles to make the detours and go up and down
> than the pedestrians.
It is not obviously cheaper to build a pedestrian subway,
capable of supporting HGVs, than a vehicle underpass,
capable of supporting pedestrians. But pedestrian crossing
'facilities' are nearly always on bus-routes, and buses want
to stay at the same level as buildings.
Nick Finnigan
news:f58fotk3slf0q4o3o...@4ax.com...
>
> Then it's about time the law was changed so that all roads should be fenced to
> prevent vehicles damaging neighbouring properties and transport corridors.
When
> motorways were introduced there were no barriers along the central
reservation,
> after some spectacular head-on smashes the whole network was fitted. There's
no
> reason why the sides cannot be fenced as well.
But it is not a guaranteed Good Thing to do.
Bouncing a vehicle off the hard shoulder into lane 1 of the
neighbouring transport corridor can cause more damage
than letting it run out of control in the neighbouring field.
Nick Finnigan
news:200108251...@zetnet.co.uk...
In 1999 there were 5 pedestrians and 0 cyclists killed
in accidents involving pedestrians and pedal cycles.
Motorbikes are 21 and 4, cars 543 and 2
goods vehicles 114 and 0, buses 68 and 0,
other vehicles 9 and 0.
John Youles
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> tapped out on the keyboard:
Perhaps the cyclists in Edinburgh are more law-abiding than in London ! my
experience is that the majority will go through a red light on a pedestrian
crossing if there is no danger of colliding with a pedestrian. A minority will
ignore the lights anyway, and another minority are law-abiding.
John Youles
<n...@genie.co.uk> tapped out on the keyboard:
But not onto a neighbouring railway line.
JNugent
> "Nick Finnigan" <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Then it's about time the law was changed so that all roads should be
> > > fenced to prevent vehicles damaging neighbouring properties and
> > > transport corridors. When motorways were introduced there were
> > > no barriers along the central reservation, after some spectacular
head-
> > > on smashes the whole network was fitted. There's no reason why the
> > > sides cannot be fenced as well.
> > But it is not a guaranteed Good Thing to do.
> > Bouncing a vehicle off the hard shoulder into lane 1 of the
> > neighbouring transport corridor can cause more damage
> > than letting it run out of control in the neighbouring field.
> But not onto a neighbouring railway line.
That must depend on the situation. There will virtually *always* be other
vehicles on the motorway (on both carriageways), making it very important
not to bounce out-of-control vehicles back into the traffic lanes. But the
majority of railway lines do not carry continuous traffic anyway, *and*
there is the possibility of using the space *between* the road and the
railway as a "runaway vehicle trap" (eg, with a soft surface and/or an
energy-absorbing fence). Simply fencing the road in with crash barriers
would certainly cause more collisions and more deaths than the alternatives.
John Youles
<JNu...@AC30.spamFreeserve.co.uk> tapped out on the keyboard:
I suppose if the highway authorities refuse to face up to their
responsibilities, the railways will have to install concrete bollards or such to
prevent road vehicles getting onto the line. But I think it's about time that
the highway authorities stopped regarding the surrounding terrain as expendable.
Perhaps they should buy up neighbouring land as a cordon sanitaire ?
Oliver Keating
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:47:12 +0100, "Matt Cherry"
> <Matthew.Cherry@replace_this.net> wrote:
>
> >Drivers of road vehicles and trains make mistakes like anybody else. Why
> >should there be less to protect other people from road drivers mistakes
than
> >there is to protect other people from the mistakes of (far more skilled
and
> >highly trained) train drivers?
>
> That is surely the central question, to which no-one will give us an
> answer. There is a sub-text, shewn by the level of tolerance of
> dangerous and careless driving from the media, the police, and the
> courts: society is happy to accept the risk of death and injury on the
> roads, including to third parties, in exchange for the freedom to
> drive motor vehicles when and how people wish. As for pedestrians,
> there are many circumstances in which they are expected to share the
> actual carriageway of roads with drivers who may be acting in the most
> undisciplined fashion imaginable. Yet we insist that people on foot
> should not be allowed anywhere near a moving train except in strictly
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the Value per Prevented Fatality (VPF)[1]
currently stands at £1million for roads, but £2.8million for railways. John
Uff told me that this was basically a fiddle, to make a signalling system
cost-effective (after either Ladbroke or Southall) so that the public would
see something being done.
Apparently the justification for this fiddle, is something called the "fear
factor" that a rail death will be much more highly publisised and hence
worse to society. Naturally there is no evidence from this, indeed when
interviewing members of the public, it was clear that they believed a
consistant amount of money should be spend preventing fatalities, on roads,
on railways, in hospitals, on fire brigades etc.
Once again, media driven politics wins over economic common sense.
Oliver Keating
[1] VPF - in conducting a cost benefit analysis of a safety project, the
cost of the safety project is divided by the number of fatalities it can be
expected to prevent in its lifetime. If this above the VPF, then providing
there are not significant other benefits then the project will not go ahead.
Oliver Keating
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:12:22 +0100, John Youles <j.youles@localhost>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 11:52:34 +0100, in uk.railway, "Mudge"
> ><mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> tapped out on the keyboard:
>
> Cyclists don't just ignore crossing-lights -- they ignore all laws
> quite freely. And the scum police do nothing, even when the offence is
> being committed right in front of their eyes.
I did once see a cyclist being fined Ł20 be a police officer who whatched
him run a red light.
I think that many cyclists geniunely believe red lights (and speed limits)
don't apply to them.
Oliver Keating
Oliver Keating
"John Youles" <j.youles@localhost> wrote in message
ATP is a complete and utter nonsense. It will only prevent 2% of railway
fatalities. And not only that, but there are possible instances where it
could *cause* accidents.
Now, if only someone (in power) could suggest mandatory retro-fitting of all
cars with a highly complex system which completely prevents them running
past a red traffic light (no matter what speed the approach), then we might
expose some of the incredible hypocrasy that exists.
Oliver Keating
Ade Vickers
>
> I think that many cyclists geniunely believe red lights (and speed limits)
> don't apply to them.
>
All the more reason to introduce compulsory licencing, insurance, and
testing.
--
"I may have invented Ctrl-Alt-Del, but Microsoft made it popular."
- David Bradley, one of the designers of the original IBM PC
Arthur Figgis
spoke unto uk.railway:
>Cyclists don't just ignore crossing-lights -- they ignore all laws
>quite freely. And the scum police do nothing, even when the offence is
>being committed right in front of their eyes.
I think you missed the word "Some" from the start of the sentence...
That sort of behaviour is an argument against idiots, not against
cyclists, who *all* have to suffer from the "we can forget the needs
of cyclists, they ignore the law" mentality. Just think how much more
dnagerous the brain-dead cyclists would be behind the wheel of a car.
Which reminds me, I've a wheel-unbending bill to post off to Mr "Sorry
I didn't see you mate I was talking to my wife" of Sutton. I was on
the London cycle 'network' at the time, which AFAICT consists of a few
blue signs attached to lamposts, some maps in the local library, and
no actual infrastructure. Just lucky for him that I was a on push bike
really, not a juggernaut!
--
Arthur Figgis From: address is invalid
Surrey Reply: address *is* valid
UK
Arthur Figgis
spoke unto uk.railway:
>I notice you say "he". It's astonishing what a very high proportion of
>the lout cyclists are male and in the sort of late-teens to thirties
>age range -- i.e. not indisciplined children, but adults who should be
>expected to know better and should be made to observe the laws.
>Relatively few women lout cyclists to be seen, at least not here in
>Leicester at any rate.
Because many people consider it to be too dangerous for children to
cycle, and older people/those intelligent enough to get good jobs and
be able to buy a car/etc etc have given up and go by car, therefore
respectable people don't use bikes (in this country)?
I work in an office block with ~2000 people. There must be, what, 20
of us cycle to work, and it's certainly considered an odd thing to do.
But then, I suppsoe I am odd in even considering cycling as a method
of transport - probably because I lived in Kingston upon Hull and
Cambridge before London.
John Gough
Figgis) wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 12:30:26 +0100, John Gough <g...@excite.co.uk>
>spoke unto uk.railway:
>>Cyclists don't just ignore crossing-lights -- they ignore all laws
>>quite freely. And the scum police do nothing, even when the offence is
>>being committed right in front of their eyes.
>
>I think you missed the word "Some" from the start of the sentence...
I chose my words deliberately, because around here I'd say it's about
half the cyclists I see who are on the pavements, on the "No cycling"
footpaths of a public park, or on the grass of said park -- certainly
more than just "some" which could be taken to mean "a few". And it's
at all times of the day and night -- even when there's no traffic on
the roads you can see cyclists speeding along the pavements. Maybe
other parts of the country are not quite so bad.
>That sort of behaviour is an argument against idiots, not against
>cyclists, who *all* have to suffer from the "we can forget the needs
>of cyclists, they ignore the law" mentality. Just think how much more
>dnagerous the brain-dead cyclists would be behind the wheel of a car.
Yes, I'm sure all cyclists suffer from the hostility of those of us
moved to hatred by the actions of a portion of the cycling community
and the inaction of the authorities. Oh for some Zero Tolerance
policing! I wonder if those cyclists would be just as brain-dead
behind the wheel of a car -- if they're the people who drive with all
sorts of distractions and with no care for others -- or if they behave
better when they are motorists.
>Which reminds me, I've a wheel-unbending bill to post off to Mr "Sorry
>I didn't see you mate I was talking to my wife" of Sutton. I was on
>the London cycle 'network' at the time, which AFAICT consists of a few
>blue signs attached to lamposts, some maps in the local library, and
>no actual infrastructure. Just lucky for him that I was a on push bike
>really, not a juggernaut!
Sorry to hear both of your experience and of the cost involved. Cycle
routes do vary hugely in quality. Here in Leicester quite a lot of
money has been spent on providing clearly-marked special cycling
facilities. So one of the very few positive things our Old Labour
council has done is to provide a few decent special cycling
facilities. Which many of the cyclists then just ignore. Two or three
minutes away from me is a light-controlled road junction which
includes cycle-lanes and cycle-phases in the lights. You can go there
any day and watch the cyclists fail to use the facilities there for
them, weaving on to the pavements and over the pedestrian crossings
instead, and in general ignoring all the lights. It would be easily
possible to get more than £1,000 in £20 fixed-price tickets during the
morning rush-hour. (And on the other side of this crossing cyclists
moving illegally from pavement to cross-park path have churned up two
mud-paths on which there is now not a blade of the park grass left.)
If only it were reasonable to stick a walking-stick through their
spokes and watch them go flying!
John Buckley
>
> In article <b0qhot0qhmnr3pt3e...@4ax.com>, John Youles <j.youles@localhost> writes:
>
> >Perhaps the cyclists in Edinburgh are more law-abiding than in London ! my
> >experience is that the majority will go through a red light on a pedestrian
> >crossing if there is no danger of colliding with a pedestrian.
>
> pedestrians shouting "Out the fucking way", make an illegal right turn
> into a "No Entry" street and ride away on the pavement.
These are not cyclists, but downright yobs.
John Buckley
Nightjar
"John Youles" <j.youles@localhost> wrote in message
> If central crash barriers can be provided to prevent head-on collisions,
then
> they should also be provided to prevent damage to third parties,
especially
> railway lines. I hope the highway authorities who do not authorise thse
> measures are prosecuted for accessories to manslaughter.
Why the Highway Authorities and not Railtrack, who have obviously failed in
their duty to provide fencing that will keep trespassers off the track?
Colin Bignell
John Buckley
>
> Oliver Keating, of uk.transport wrote:
> >
> > I think that many cyclists geniunely believe red lights (and speed limits)
> > don't apply to them.
> >
>
> All the more reason to introduce compulsory licencing, insurance, and
> testing.
So how would each of those make any difference?
John Buckley
Nick Finnigan
>
> I suppose if the highway authorities refuse to face up to their
> responsibilities, the railways will have to install concrete bollards or such
to
If that is a good method of preventing deaths by dangerous
driving, there is no reason why the highway authorities should
not pay for the installation and maintenance of the barrier
(it is only a different pot from our taxes anyway).
> prevent road vehicles getting onto the line. But I think it's about time that
> the highway authorities stopped regarding the surrounding terrain as
expendable.
> Perhaps they should buy up neighbouring land as a cordon sanitaire ?
What difference does the ownership of the land make?
They would just rent it to the farmer anyway.
John Youles
<nigh...@insertmysurname.uk.com> tapped out on the keyboard:
>
If railway trains were to fall off embankments onto roads, houses etc. on a
daily basis, do you think people would cheerfully pay for the expense of
maintaining barriers to keep these things out of the way ? No, they would
rightly demand the railways solve the problem.
Similarly, it is up to the highway authorities and road users to make sure they
do not dump their debris outside the curtilage of the highway. Think of it as
extension of the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign.
John Youles
<n...@genie.co.uk> tapped out on the keyboard:
A farmer might well agree to rent some land on the basis that from time to time
road vehicles might crash in it. I cannot see many people agreeing to living in
a house on such conditions though, and I cannot see why railways, which were
built before the age of motor cars and juggernauts, should be put at risk
because of the irresponsible road transport industry.
David Kemper
John Buckley <jpb.d...@virgin.net> wrote in message news:3B891D...@virgin.net...
If the same downright yob drives a car is he not a motorist either? IMHO if he rides a
bicycle he *is* a cyclist. Or are you saying that only those cyclists who obey the rules
should be called cyclists?
David Kemper
David Hansen
<webm...@o-keating.com> wrote this:-
>I think that many cyclists geniunely believe red lights (and speed limits)
>don't apply to them.
Speed limits don't apply to cyclists, they only apply to operators of
motor vehicles.
This hasn't been an issue while speed limits were high, as few
cyclists can exceed 20mph by any margin (except downhill). However, it
becomes more of an issue with speed limits of 20mph or lower.
David Hansen
<g...@excite.co.uk> wrote this:-
>But are we really to think that casual cyclists genuinely
>believe that traffic signals don't apply to them?
It is a suspicion on my part. Undoubtedly they will claim this if
challenged.
>when we
>see cyclists ride straight on to a path boldly marked in large
>capitals "NO CYCLING", are we to assume they can't read or are we to
>assume the "mens rea" required for a deliberate breach of the law or
>bye-law involved?
I'm not aware that painting "NO CYCLING" on a path has any legal
significance. There is an approved sign for use where cycling is not
permitted. This is a very stupid sign because, like the majority of
road signs which mean no, it fails to have a line through the cycle.
That is the foolish state of signage though.
I can think of places in Edinburgh where a footpath has been converted
to a cycle "facility". Here the council has failed to remove the
official no cycling signs, while adding cycle route signs nearby. An
example is on the Meadows. I wonder what cyclists are meant to do when
confronted with this sort of mess.
The council in Edinburgh, for all its faults, is actually reasonably
cycle friendly and yet manages this sort of nonsense. Where a council
is not cycle friendly it is often even worse.
David Hansen
<n...@genie.co.uk> wrote this:-
> In 1999 there were 5 pedestrians and 0 cyclists killed
>in accidents involving pedestrians and pedal cycles.
I recall discussion at the time of how unusual this figure was. From
memory Helen's 3 cyclists and 3 pedestrians is the average over many
years.
David Hansen
<webm...@o-keating.com> wrote this:-
>Apparently the justification for this fiddle, is something called the "fear
>factor" that a rail death will be much more highly publisised and hence
>worse to society.
While I agree with the analysis, the fact is that party politicians
are driven by focus groups and other uninformed opinion. They are also
unable to grasp relatively complicated arguments about it being better
to spend money on the roads. These arguments are being made well by
Roadpeace.
There is an additional factor. Dealing with the roads will be
portrayed as being anti-car, dealing with the railways is portrayed as
controlling the fat-cats. It's all fluff with little substance.
The only substance is the potential for a "spectacular" train crash.
In the under-reported road crash on Friday four people were killed,
quite a high number. Without going into tabloid newspaper distortions
it is possible to contemplate a train crash in which 30-100 people are
killed.
David Hansen
<webm...@o-keating.com> wrote this:-
>ATP is a complete and utter nonsense. It will only prevent 2% of railway
>fatalities. And not only that, but there are possible instances where it
>could *cause* accidents.
I'm not convinced. An example please.
I can think of scenarios where TPWS will cause a crash, where no TPWS
would have meant that the crash did not occur. However, these rely on
extreme combinations of factors and on balance TPWS has vastly more
advantages than disadvantages.
David Hansen
<j.youles@localhost> wrote this:-
>the railways will have to install concrete bollards or such to
>prevent road vehicles getting onto the line.
I doubt it. The first time someone crashes into such an object (which
would have to be quite massive to stop the 55 tonne lorries we will
have in relatively few years) the railways will be sued for the deaths
"caused" by the concrete "bollard".
Oliver Keating
"David Hansen" <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:m07iot8imja89mqjc...@4ax.com...
I remember reading about it once. Come to think of it, it may well have been
about TPWS, I shall see if I can dig up the article.
Oliver Keating
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:10:38 +0100 someone who may be "Oliver Keating"
> <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote this:-
>
> >Apparently the justification for this fiddle, is something called the
"fear
> >factor" that a rail death will be much more highly publisised and hence
> >worse to society.
>
> While I agree with the analysis, the fact is that party politicians
> are driven by focus groups and other uninformed opinion. They are also
> unable to grasp relatively complicated arguments about it being better
> to spend money on the roads. These arguments are being made well by
> Roadpeace.
>
> There is an additional factor. Dealing with the roads will be
> portrayed as being anti-car, dealing with the railways is portrayed as
> controlling the fat-cats. It's all fluff with little substance.
I know these are the real factors, but official documents justifying these
things have to do it from a completely economic (ie non-political) point of
view. But in my opinion, talking about things about how it will upset the
general public is skating on extremely thin ice.
Arthur Figgis
spoke unto uk.railway:
<snip>
Sounds like Leicester *is* in need of a crack down, then. At least
there are some facilities, which is good. My only experience of the
city is briefly going to the pumping station and sewage museum, which
had a narrow gauge railway. Wahey, back on topic!
Mike Barnes
>I think it's about time that
>the highway authorities stopped regarding the surrounding terrain as
>expendable.
>Perhaps they should buy up neighbouring land as a cordon sanitaire ?
Right! And what's good enough for the highway authorities should be good
enough for the airlines, wouldn't you say?
--
Mike Barnes
Neil Williams
<jpb.d...@virgin.net> wrote:
>These are not cyclists, but downright yobs.
Indeed, and they give all cyclists a bad name. I don't run red
lights, nor do I ride on the pavement. Indeed, it gives my vindictive
side great pleasure when one of the type of cyclists you describe
comes up behind me at a set of traffic lights turning to red - I brake
as late as safely possible, thus frustrating their intention to run
the lights when they'd thought they'd got away with it...
Back to railways, the only time I can be found asking people to shift
out of the way (though without the swearing) is when I'm trying to get
my bike off the train, and people insist on crowding around the door.
First, they get a clear but polite "Excuse me please". When
(unfortunately it is *when* :( ) this is ignored I have to resort to
"If you don't shift I can't get off and so you can't get on" together
with me moving towards them, bike in hand, which tends to work. Some
consideration from the 'other side' would really be appreciated here.
Another cycling irritation is when pedestrians cross the road in front
of me expecting me to stop in about 2 feet braking distance, as well
as people walking on marked cycle tracks where a separate,
clearly-defined footpath is provided. Such people often give a dirty
look when I get even vaguely close to them.
As for the cycle registration number, I'd be against that as it would
no doubt be accompanied by a steep administrative charge. However,
giving the police the power to fine cyclists on the spot (if they can
be caught, I suppose) for illegal and/or dangerous manoeuvres would
certainly be welcome.
Neil
Neil Williams
>Sorry to hear both of your experience and of the cost involved. Cycle
>routes do vary hugely in quality. Here in Leicester quite a lot of
>money has been spent on providing clearly-marked special cycling
>facilities. <snip>
Unfortunately, what few providers of cycle facilities have yet done
(AFAIAA) is to bring in an adequate sweeping/cleaning regime to avoid
the cycle paths being covered in broken glass. Daily cleaning (at
least) would be required for this in many areas, perhaps using one of
those street sweeping machines. Sad, I know, but it's a fact, and
where I'll almost certainly get a puncture by using the cycle track I
feel compelled to use the road (not the pavement) instead, where cars
or street sweepers have knocked out of the way/swept away the glass.
Most cycle paths alongside major roads IMX fall foul of this as far
too many people seem to throw bottles out of the window :(
I should note that the UK is by no means the only place where this is
a problem; I found it to be just as bad, if not worse, in Germany.
Neil
Oliver Keating
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 15:13:22 +0100 someone who may be "Oliver Keating"
> <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote this:-
>
> >I think that many cyclists geniunely believe red lights (and speed
limits)
> >don't apply to them.
>
> Speed limits don't apply to cyclists, they only apply to operators of
> motor vehicles.
I disagree. Rule 103 http://www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk/roadsafety/hc/7.htm comes
under the page with the title:
"General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders
This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists and cyclists. "
The implication is that speed limits apply to cyclists.
Also, rule 50 "You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals."
http://www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk/roadsafety/hc/4.htm
Since often speed limits are designated by traffic signs one must assume
cyclists must obey them.
> This hasn't been an issue while speed limits were high, as few
> cyclists can exceed 20mph by any margin (except downhill). However, it
> becomes more of an issue with speed limits of 20mph or lower.
>
Well, a friend of mine (he is quite fit) cruises around at 28mph, and he can
manage 35mph on a level road (flat out), and if its downhill, 40 is no
problem.
On the A3 heading out of London just after the last set of traffic lights it
goes downhill quite steeply. I was once doing 40 (the limit) and I saw in my
re view mirror a cyclist gaining on me! He didn't actually overtake me
because when the road levelled out he dropped back, but I was quite
surprised.
But overall I agree, speeding cyclists are not really a problem, but it can
happen.
Oliver Keating
Mudge
>
>"David Hansen" <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message:
>>
>> "Oliver Keating" wrote this:
>>
>> >I think that many cyclists geniunely believe red lights (and speed
>limits)
>> >don't apply to them.
I don't think many *genuinely* believe that red lights don't apply to them.
>> Speed limits don't apply to cyclists, they only apply to operators of
>> motor vehicles.
>
>I disagree. Rule 103 http://www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk/roadsafety/hc/7.htm comes
>under the page with the title:
>
>"General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders
>This section should be read by all drivers, motorcyclists and cyclists. "
>
>The implication is that speed limits apply to cyclists.
>
>Also, rule 50 "You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals."
>http://www.roads.dtlr.gov.uk/roadsafety/hc/4.htm
>
>Since often speed limits are designated by traffic signs one must assume
>cyclists must obey them.
No, he's quite right, cyclists are exempt from speed limits, which apply
only to powered vehicles. This has been discussed on this group before.
How can they be required to adhere to speed limits if there is no
requirement for cycles to be fitted with speedometers?
They can, on the other hand, be charged with "cycling furiously".
>> This hasn't been an issue while speed limits were high, as few
>> cyclists can exceed 20mph by any margin (except downhill). However, it
>> becomes more of an issue with speed limits of 20mph or lower.
This will certainly become a problem if "home zones" with designated 10 mph
limits become widespread (or for that matter - perish the thought - GPS
speed limiters on cars)
--
Peter
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice." (...Barry M. Goldwater)
JNugent
[snip]
> The only substance is the potential for a "spectacular" train crash.
> In the under-reported road crash on Friday four people were killed,
> quite a high number.
Actually, three were killed(*) (murdered or victims of the driver's
manslaughter). The remaining death was effectively a suicide or
misadventure. The context was that of a criminal and accomplices fleeing
apprehension. - *not* an unadorned traffic accident. Still, why miss the
opportunity to paint it as one, eh, David?
I don't know how much reporting of it there was in Edinburgh, but from your
"description" [sic], it clearly wasn't enough.
(* using the word "killed" to indicate that they did not deliberately or
accidentally kill themselves)
JNugent
> Ade Vickers wrote:
Er, at an abolute minimum, it would disabuse them of the impression that
traffic lights don't apply to them? They would have to pass an exam which
tested them on that speciic (among others).
And it would require them to attain a reasonable standard of proficiency
*before* taking to the road, and it would provide a worthwhile set of
sanctions for riding outside the rules (ie, disqualification), and it would
provide insurance against third-party risks.
Just like it is provided for all other wheeled road-users in fact.
What's wrong with any of that? It sounds absolutely fair and reasonable,
doesn't it?
John Buckley
>
> John Buckley <jpb.d...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:3B891E...@virgin.net...
>
> > Ade Vickers wrote:
>
> > > Oliver Keating, of uk.transport wrote:
>
> > > > I think that many cyclists geniunely believe red lights (and speed
> limits)
> > > > don't apply to them.
>
> > > All the more reason to introduce compulsory licencing, insurance, and
> > > testing.
>
> > So how would each of those make any difference?
>
> Er, at an abolute minimum, it would disabuse them of the impression that
> traffic lights don't apply to them? They would have to pass an exam which
> tested them on that speciic (among others).
IMO they are a very small minority, if any. Most who ignore lights would
do so if there were training or not.
> And it would require them to attain a reasonable standard of proficiency
> *before* taking to the road, and it would provide a worthwhile set of
> sanctions for riding outside the rules (ie, disqualification), and it would
> provide insurance against third-party risks.
>
> Just like it is provided for all other wheeled road-users in fact.
Cycle safety and skills should be taught in schools. Cut backs in
funding have removed cycle-proficiency training from many schools.
however, I cannot see a compulsory test having any effect on those who
would flout the laws anyway.
I fully agree that more who contravene the laws should be prosecuted,
but cannot see how a system of disqualification would be practical.
I agree that third-party insurance should be compulsory - many cyclists
already have this cover.
> What's wrong with any of that? It sounds absolutely fair and reasonable,
> doesn't it?
There are some fair points.
John Buckley
John Buckley
>
> > So how would each of those make any difference?
>
>
> And it would require them to attain a reasonable standard of proficiency
> *before* taking to the road,
> Just like it is provided for all other wheeled road-users in fact.
Do motorists attain a reasonable standard of efficiency *before* taking
to the road?
That's a new one on me. How is this achieved?
It sounds an excellent idea.
John Buckley
John Buckley
I meant Proficiency of course.
John Buckley
Oliver Keating
"Mudge" <mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9mbfjc$bkv$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Oliver Keating wrote in message <9mbej5$97h$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> >
> >"David Hansen" <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message:
> >> This hasn't been an issue while speed limits were high, as few
> >> cyclists can exceed 20mph by any margin (except downhill). However, it
> >> becomes more of an issue with speed limits of 20mph or lower.
>
>
> This will certainly become a problem if "home zones" with designated 10
mph
> limits become widespread (or for that matter - perish the thought - GPS
> speed limiters on cars)
Whats this about 10mph limits?
??
?
Neil Williams
<webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>But overall I agree, speeding cyclists are not really a problem, but it can
>happen.
However, unless it becomes a legal requirement to fit a
properly-calibrated speedometer to all cycles, it's not IMO reasonable
to charge a cyclist for speeding as such. If the speed was
inappropriate (which doing 40mph on a pushbike probably is) a charge
for dangerous cycling (or whatever the name of the charge is) would be
more appropriate.
Neil
Steve Blighton
news:MPG.15f325459...@news.freeserve.net...
> Oliver Keating, of uk.transport wrote:
> >
> > I think that many cyclists geniunely believe red lights (and speed
limits)
> > don't apply to them.
> >
>
> All the more reason to introduce compulsory licencing, insurance, and
> testing.
We already have that for car drivers, but it doesn't stop 3500 people per
year in Britain being killed anyway - many of these fatalities occurring as
a result of excessive speed.
The level of injury likely to be caused by cyclists breaking the law is
likely to be far less than that inflicted by errant motorists - so would we
not do better getting motorists to behave themselves first? Whilst I do not
agree with it, I can understand why many cyclists take to the pavements when
so many motorists show a total disregard for anyone on the road with less
than four wheels.
Although Railtrack have not helped the image of Britain's railways, road
users could still learn a lot from the safety ethos of the railways. For
example: no train driver intentionally jumps a red light, whereas many
motorists and cyclists do. Similarly, it seems to be socially acceptable to
drive at excessive speed, despite this being (at least in part) one of the
major contributory factors in many road accidents.
During the Autumn/Winter period, there are normally several multi-car
pile-ups as a result of driving too fast in poor visibility : since nothing
has changed I am sure that this Autumn/Winter will see more of the same.
Britain's railways are expected to learn from accidents - they are having to
install increasingly more sophisticated (and expensive) technology to
prevent SPADs, speeding etc to reduce the already small number of fatalities
still further. Should we not expect the same principle to apply to roads?
I think it is quite ironic that we have witnessed high profile witchhunts
after the rail accidents at Ladbroke Grove and Southall yet there is an
active campaign against one of the tools which can be used to improve safety
on our roads : the speed camera.
Steve.
--
==================================================================
Steve Blighton steve.b...@dial.pipex.com
Chichester, West Sussex
England Telephone:+44 (0) 1243-788905
John Buckley
>
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 19:15:51 +0100, "Oliver Keating"
> <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote:
>
> >But overall I agree, speeding cyclists are not really a problem, but it can
> >happen.
>
> However, unless it becomes a legal requirement to fit a
> properly-calibrated speedometer to all cycles, it's not IMO reasonable
> to charge a cyclist for speeding as such.
Many contributors to this ng would probably disagree with you as they
believe charges should only be made if the 'speed' were inappropriate or
dangerous and that safety were compromised.
If the speed was
> inappropriate (which doing 40mph on a pushbike probably is)
Only if the skill of the rider is at question or if a danger is caused.
a charge
> for dangerous cycling (or whatever the name of the charge is) would be
> more appropriate.
Agreed
It is 'cycling furiously'.
John Buckley
David Kemper
Oliver Keating <webm...@o-keating.com> wrote in message
news:9mbjk9$koa$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Mudge" <mu...@NOSPAMringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9mbfjc$bkv$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Oliver Keating wrote in message <9mbej5$97h$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > >
> > >"David Hansen" <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message:
> <snip>
> > >> This hasn't been an issue while speed limits were high, as few
> > >> cyclists can exceed 20mph by any margin (except downhill). However, it
> > >> becomes more of an issue with speed limits of 20mph or lower.
> >
> >
> > This will certainly become a problem if "home zones" with designated 10
> mph
> > limits become widespread (or for that matter - perish the thought - GPS
> > speed limiters on cars)
>
> Whats this about 10mph limits?
Ah! Thats the new zone where cyclists can't go faster than 10 MPH. All other vehicles are
exempt.
Didn't you know about this one?
David Kemper
Nick Finnigan
news:ri6ioto3tsncnrt4c...@4ax.com...
>
> I chose my words deliberately, because around here I'd say it's about
> half the cyclists I see who are on the pavements, on the "No cycling"
> footpaths of a public park, or on the grass of said park --
What regulations apply to cycling on areas of grass?
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
[snip]
Oliver Keating had written:
> > > > > I think that many cyclists geniunely believe red lights (and
> > > > > speed limits) don't apply to them.
> > > > All the more reason to introduce compulsory licencing,
> > > > insurance, and testing.
> > > So how would each of those make any difference?
> > Er, at an abolute minimum, it would disabuse them of the impression that
> > traffic lights don't apply to them? They would have to pass an exam
which
> > tested them on that speciic (among others).
> IMO they are a very small minority, if any. Most who ignore lights would
> do so if there were training or not.
Please do not misinterpret the following as a personal attack...
Would you admit the same of motorists? That is, would you support the
abolition of the driving test on the samebasis? After all, every
ramification of that poijnt you made also applies to drivers - or even
pilots - or doctors.
> > And it would require them to attain a reasonable standard of proficiency
> > *before* taking to the road, and it would provide a worthwhile set of
> > sanctions for riding outside the rules (ie, disqualification), and it
would
> > provide insurance against third-party risks.
> > Just like it is provided for all other wheeled road-users in fact.
> Cycle safety and skills should be taught in schools
Maybe, but they aren't. And they never have been.
> Cut backs in
> funding have removed cycle-proficiency training from many schools.
Total red herring. It was never *in* any school (you may be able to quote an
odd exception, but cycling training has *not* been a part of UK education,
and "cut backs" - whatever they may be - have not caused a crisis in cycling
training).
> however, I cannot see a compulsory test having any effect on those who
> would flout the laws anyway.
Would it be the same for drivers? I mean. Do you therefore support the
abolition of the driving test?
Yes? No? If not, why not?
> I fully agree that more who contravene the laws should be prosecuted,
> but cannot see how a system of disqualification would be practical.
It certainly seems to be practical for motorists - it is part and parcel of
the licensing system. Are you saying *that* sanction should be abolished?
> I agree that third-party insurance should be compulsory - many cyclists
> already have this cover.
Good - compulsion won't affect the ones who do. But what sanction (in the
absence of a disqualification from riding - which pre-supposes a licensing
system) would you propose? More to the point, how would errant (eg,
red-light-running) cyclists be identified?
> > What's wrong with any of that? It sounds absolutely fair and reasonable,
> > doesn't it?
> There are some fair points.
Talking of fairness, whatever wouldn't "..be practical..." for cyclists
*obviously* can't be practical for drivers, so should we campaign for
abolition of driving tuition and tests, driving licenses and driving bans?
If not, what's the difference?