***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 20 *****
More pedal power chat.
PLEASE NOTE:-
To try and maintain some kind of logical order of discussion, if you start a new subject then reply to this post and remember to change the default subject header.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 21 Feb 15 at 17:19
|
Sixty or so Edinburgh cyclists have started legal action against Edinburgh Council because they have fallen off their bikes crossing tram tracks. I am sure the lawyers are rubbing their hands but what does the panel think ? I think they should take responsibility for their own safety, tram tracks don't move and they know where they are.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30951833
|
As you cannot possibly ride for any meaningful distance without having to cross them I think they have a good case.
For the life of me I just cannot see the point of trams.
|
>> As you cannot possibly ride for any meaningful distance without .........
There is only one tram route, it is easily avoided.
|
I think they have a case, because of the way the tracks/cycle path interface has been designed.
Using the cycle path as designed you have to approach and cross the tracks at a diagonal giving you a more than evens chance of getting a wheel diverted in the gap or slipping on a wet rail.
Its a fairly obvious hazard that even the most stupid council planner could have foreseen, and easily solved by making the cycle path cross the track at 90 degrees.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 23 Jan 15 at 17:53
|
>> they should take responsibility for their own safety, tram tracks don't move and they know where they are.
Agreed ON... but there might be extra difficulty at complex track intersections where the tracks and points go in all directions. The rails are very slippery when wet and the slot can catch a bike wheel. All made worse if the roadway is cobbled as well, or surfaced with those lethal woodblocks used in the twenties, thirties and forties. There may be places where it's prudent to dismount and push.
EDIT: I'm thinking of places with a lot of old tramlines, not some backwoodsy joint where there's only one!
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 23 Jan 15 at 17:48
|
>> Sixty or so Edinburgh cyclists have started legal action against Edinburgh Council because they have
>> fallen off their bikes crossing tram tracks. I am sure the lawyers are rubbing their
>> hands but what does the panel think ? I think they should take responsibility for
>> their own safety, tram tracks don't move and they know where they are.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30951833
Why I am utterly unsurprised that ON immediately jumps into the It's the Cyclist's Fault camp?
Yes of course they should take responsibility for their own safety but that's not the end of the story. The operator of the trams also has an obligation to ensure the tracks are safe. Where the tracks intersect with designated cycling routes then the crossings should be safe too. The example pictured first in the BBC article patently is not, it leads people straight into the danger zone where they can get a wheel lodged in the track. The tracks may not move as such but their position relative to kerb/carriageway centre does and one can't see where they are if they're under a vehicle in front of you.
If the lawyer's got a 'group action' with 60 potential claimants then imho it's not a minor issue
You are probably old enough to have been riding bikes when trams were commonplace in many towns. I remember my Dad, on a trip to Blackpool, mentioning that they were a hazard in his inter war youth. They were disappearing even then.
It's not new territory either. At least four other UK cities re-introduced trams before Edinburgh so there was plenty of experience to draw on. The first reported accident in Edinburgh was in 2009 - almost as soon as tracks began to be laid.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 23 Jan 15 at 17:51
|
Maybe the council should remove cycle tracks from tram routes?
EDIT:-
No chance, the council is absolutely anti car.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 23 Jan 15 at 17:59
|
Looking at that picture, it isn't just that cyclists using the designated cycle way have to cross the track at an oblique angle, the track is actually IN the cycle way going by the white line that appears to delineate it.
ON, you really have let your disposition towards cyclists (or possibly injury claimants?) cloud your judgement here.
I don't understand the fashion for trams - if the idea is to have electric PCVs then why not a bus? I remember the trolley buses running in Huddersfield and Bradford. They could probably be made longer for higher capacity.
The tram project in Edinburgh has of course been most efficiently planned and managed. I expect the cyclists are also to blame for the £300 million, cost overrun, 5 year late opening, and the abandonment of the Leith and Granton routes.
|
>>
>>ON, you really have let your disposition towards cyclists (or possibly injury claimants?) cloud your judgement here.
I ride a bike occaisionally, not in Edinburgh, I even have the sense to go round any potholes that might knock me off, even in cycle tracks.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 23 Jan 15 at 18:31
|
>> I ride a bike occaisionally, not in Edinburgh, I even have the sense to go
>> round any potholes that might knock me off, even in cycle tracks.
>>
That makes you sound like one of those annoying cyclists who wanders all over the road. Surely not! :-)
|
When trams were sensible things, and didn't cost the earth, it's a good bet the planners often rode bicycles and could not even afford cars. The problem these days is even the folk who 'plan' cycleways, probably use cars and don't much ride bikes. So you get daft things being done and no alarm bells being rung. Round my way, no tracks but a lot of the 'cycleways' are not usable by tricycle riders, both because they are narrow, and because they go up and down slopes obliquely.
Anyone who has ridden through Trafford Park in Manchester will know about railway lines and roads, I didn't have any problems as a student, you just make sure that if you cross a rail track in a road, you do so ideally at an angle of 90 degrees. But the muppets who think you can put tracks in a lane - and say it's also a cycle lane should be forced to ride through it on a daily basis. Something would be done PDQ I think.
|
Piccadilly, Manchester must have one of, if not the most complex city tram junctions in the country...
tinyurl.com/nr4fce7
A twin track triangle and a double track leading South to North with an avoiding line running North to East. Lots of points.
I read the local paper every evening and I can't say I've ever read about a cyclist having an accident due to the trams or the track. In fact, cyclists ride between the platforms at St Peter's Square, even if there's a tram in.
Tram accidents here usually involve cars and trucks or pedestrians. Perhaps our cyclists are more careful !
|
|
I've used the tram system in manchester, I thought it would be pretty impressive from all the PR about it, maybe I had unrealistic expectations about it but it seemed pretty slow getting anywhere, it seemed to stop about every 30 secs to pick and drop people off, seemed marginal whether it was quicker walking in the town centre, outside I think it was quicker. But I would think twice about using it again.
|
You may well be right about being quicker to walk in the centre although there are many who can't walk quickly or have kids or luggage.
The main purpose of the trams is to link the two main heavy rail stations and to connect with the suburbs and the airport.to keep traffic levels down.
There are now some 63 miles with plans just released for trams to Stockport, Cheadle and Gatley.
Have a trip on the Altrincham line and sample a Bombardier Flexity at 50mph on the straight line across Stretford Ees......it'll shimmy your teeth out ! Obviously they can't go at any speed in the City centre where they are switched for on street running. They do trot on over the Castlefield viaducts between Cornbrook and GMex though.
|
Exactly, I use the tram a lot but in the city centre the quickest way for me to get around is to walk. Even in Central London if the journey is less than 1.5 miles I find it quicker to walk than to get a tube or a bus.
In most European cities I prefer to walk than get public transport for short distances. The Metrolink is fantastic though for getting people from the suburbs into the city centre. I think the latest statistics were on course for nearly 40million passangers per year estimated by the end of 2015.
With a city with a Metropolitan population of 2.8 million that is a huge amount, especially considering the system probably only covers 20% of that population. As Ted says cyclists are a never a problem on our tram system, but for some reason car drivers seem to think they can drive on heavy rail tracks!
The metrolink is now the biggest light railway system in the UK by quite some margin with 92 stations (soon to be a lot more when the Trafford centre line and second city line opens) and 120 identical trams.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Sat 24 Jan 15 at 04:14
|
It's not 40 million passengers though, is it. Unless two thirds of the population of England plans on going to Manchester which is, you have to admit, unlikely!!
What they're forecasting is 40 million passenger journeys in 2015. If most of them are commuters, working 200 days a year and taking 2 journeys a day - one to work and one back again, then we're actually just talking about 400 journeys a year by 100,000 people.
And it cost how much - £300 million? That's £30k each - could have bought them each a Renault Zoe and had £150 million left :)
That's a joke by the way... ;-)
|
Last couple of time I have been to central Manchester I have parked at East Didsbury and caught the tram. Free parking and, if I remember right a very reasonable fare of £4 off peak return. Great service and the availability of the tram service certainly certainly marks Manchester apart from other traffic bound cities.
|
Haven't been to Manchester for about ten years. People were quite happy to come to London for day if the employer was paying and they got a couple of hours spare to visit the shops etc.
The meeting then though was out of town, Trafford way I think. Got a tram from Piccadilly Sq which trundled through the streets to what was then the GMex centre. It then ran up a 'Bailey Bridge' like structure onto alignment of a former railway doing a creditable imitation of an EMU.
|
>> Last couple of time I have been to central Manchester I have parked at East
>> Didsbury and caught the tram.
'ere you....you must have gone past the end of our garden...why didn't you wave ?
|
>> The main purpose of the trams is to link the two main heavy rail stations
>> and to connect with the suburbs and the airport.to keep traffic levels down.
>>
Maybe I thought it a quick way across town, it was from one of the train stations to old trafford. It was a special event jobbie so maybe that was something to do with it.
|
>> Tram accidents here usually involve cars and trucks or pedestrians. Perhaps our cyclists are more
>> careful !
There are a few reports on cycling forums about accidents with the Manchester trams but nothing serious. The operator has also published a comprehensive information leaflet for cyclists including a link to Cylecraft as well as the HC.
I'm sure I've read somewhere, possibly in RAIB report, that one of the English cities with trams uses some sort of flexible plastic filler in the tracks. The stuff flexes sufficiently to allow flanges of tram wheels to do their job but is sufficient to prevent bike wheels being caught.
A bit of googling on the Edinburgh problem brings up a quote from 2009 to the effect that the tram lines were a fatality waiting to happen. The same piece accused the Council of having its head in the sand on the issue.
|
We have a very good bus system here too, possibly the biggest outside London. The main issue with the tram for me is the nearest station is nearly 10 minutes walk, and the trams are every 12 minutes (but will soon be every 6) so by the time I have got to the station if I miss a tram I am waiting 20 minutes or so before I even get on the tram. My bus stop is only 2 minutes walk away
During peak times the tram is far far quicker, but packed but at quieter times I find the bus can actually be quicker when I take into account the ten minute walk to the station.
|
This picture of Princes Street says it all really!
goo.gl/QADCEJ
|
>> A bit of googling on the Edinburgh problem brings up a quote from 2009 to
>> the effect that the tram lines were a fatality waiting to happen. The same piece
>> accused the Council of having its head in the sand on the issue.
>>
There has long been a vocal anti tram faction in Edinburgh, some of them are cyclists.
|
>> There has long been a vocal anti tram faction in Edinburgh, some of them are
>> cyclists.
That's taking conspiracy a bit far. The quote was from a solicitor albeit one who acts for cycling groups amongst others.
|
|
No one has yet come up with a good reason why trams need to exist at all.
|
|
They are the left wings alternative to car ownership and the greens method of exporting pollution to the power station. Not that cars pollute much these days, but don't tell the great unwashed.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 24 Jan 15 at 19:01
|
Quite simply they can carry a huge amount of passengers in such a small space, a double M5000 tram in Manchester can and do regularly carry over 400 people. You would need four or five buses to carry that many and god knows how many cars.
When the Metrolink closes for upgrade work, there the traffic on the roads where that service should operate is a lot worse.
There also isn't simply enough parking spaces in city centres to allow everybody to arrive by car. In terms of population I have no idea, but trams are simply a lot more efficient than lots of combustion engined vehicles so even though the polution is simply shifted outside of the city I am sure they are cleaner overall than cars.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Sat 24 Jan 15 at 19:10
|
I used to use the bus quite a bit before the tram opened at the end of the garden and they put a station in 200yds away.
The trouble with the bus from here is that it really does go ' round the houses ' on it's 3 mile journey into Piccadilly. Stops are aplenty, less than a minute apart in most cases and you can usually see the next stop from the one you're waiting at. You're at the mercy of all the other traffic as well...in spite of the bus lanes which just lead you into worse jams.
I read somewhere that we now have the biggest tram system in the world after Melbourne. I don't know, I haven't measured either !
|
>> I read somewhere that we now have the biggest tram system in the world after
>> Melbourne. I don't know, I haven't measured either !
You may have the finest tram system however there are lots of bigger systems.
See the bottom of this page for a list.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems
|
>> No one has yet come up with a good reason why trams need to exist at all.
>>
In general I am not in favour of them- bring back double decker trolley buses ?
The one I am just a little familar with is the Wimbledon to IKEA to ?.
This, at least for some of its route, replace a single track railway so no significant extra land needed.
Not in favour of digging up town centres at great expense.
|
1)Trams are generally able to transport a greater density of passengers than buses.
2) Trams are perceived as more reliable and preferred by passengers.
|
Tsk, oh Gaaaaahd, mass transit more efficient, so what's new FFS?
Naturally when it suits one takes the cheaper, more virtuous option. And when it really doesn't, one doesn't.
|
The question was why do trams need to exist i.e why not use buses.
|
>>
>> The one I am just a little familar with is the Wimbledon to IKEA to
>> ?.
>> This, at least for some of its route, replace a single track railway so no
>> significant extra land needed.
>>
It was not a single track railway. I lived alongside the track when I was a youngster, it ran from Wimbledon to West Croydon via Mitcham Junction (near the WW2 anti aircraft emplacements) and was a steam powered twin track later converted to standard Southern Railway third rail electric. There was a goods yard between Mitcham and Morden (opposite Ravenscraig Park on Morden road).
|
>> It was not a single track railway. I lived alongside the track when I was
>> a youngster, it ran from Wimbledon to West Croydon via Mitcham Junction (near the WW2
>> anti aircraft emplacements) and was a steam powered twin track later converted to standard Southern
>> Railway third rail electric. There was a goods yard between Mitcham and Morden (opposite Ravenscraig
>> Park on Morden road).
It was then later reduced to single track, at least from Wimbledon to Mitcham, then closed completely.
|
>>It was then later reduced to single track, at least from Wimbledon to Mitcham, then closed completely.
Thats the bit I used.
It accounts for me seeing the token being handed over on a big loop / giant key ring to the platform staff when it was single track.
|
>> It was then later reduced to single track, at least from Wimbledon to Mitcham, then
>> closed completely.
>>
I do not dispute that, just pointing out that it did not start as a single track railway. The mistake that you did not spot was Ravenscraig, that is near where I live now. It should have been Ravensbury Park. The goods yard is now an area of industrial units.
|
>> I do not dispute that, just pointing out that it did not start as a
>> single track railway. The mistake that you did not spot was Ravenscraig, that is near
>> where I live now. It should have been Ravensbury Park. The goods yard is now
>> an area of industrial units.
I live not too far from this line and often cycle across the tracks between Wimbledon and Mitcham without ( so far ) falling off.
I did notice your mistake ON but was busy looking back at the history of the line.
There is a short summary here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Croydon_to_Wimbledon_Line
And even a picture of the interleaved tracks here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramlink
|
>> I do not dispute that, just pointing out that it did not start as a
>> single track railway.
I was merely adding supplementary history leading up to the point it was converted to light railway / tram / metro.
>>The mistake that you did not spot was Ravenscraig,
Didn't want to show you up by pointing out every mistake.
|
I see in tonight's Top Gear Richard came a cropper on a bike and tram lines!
Can't say its not topical program!!
|
It seems like a really good idea to me, am I missing something?
www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-30993893
|
It's a rubbish idea. The cycle lanes take up far more space than they need to, and although London car traffic is declining that route is and will remain heavily trafficked.
Boris Johnson is good fun and has brains but he's a bike freak and anti-car wonk, silly fellow.
|
|
It wouldn't be a bad idea if cyclists were banned from the car lanes on pain of financial penalty. But they won't be, and any suggestion that they might will be met with a howl of protest from the Lycrastatsi.
|
Yes but no but...if it works very well, it will reduce the number of cars.
I don't suppose it will be dead right to start with, but get on with it I say. I might even start taking the Brompton for my irregular London meetings if it comes in my lifetime.
|
A valid point from Harleyman, if cars cannot use it I see no reason why cycles should not be prevented from using parallel roads.
But, in any case, surely less cars in London is a good idea?
|
>> surely less cars in London is a good idea?
No, it's a lousy idea. The numbers are in decline anyway, but the drivers are so rubbish that congestion is often appalling. Place is a pale shadow of its former self.
Cycling in London is hairy and always was.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 27 Jan 15 at 16:55
|
"Less cars" is a lousy idea, even though numbers are declining anyway, the drivers are rubbish and the congestion is awful not to mention that cycling is "hairy".
Right, AC, I see your point - sun peering down upon the yardarm at some point in the far distance, is it?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 27 Jan 15 at 16:57
|
>> Cycling in London is hairy and always was.
>>
>
On the contrary, cycling in London is much less 'hairy' than it was twenty years ago. The simple reason is numbers. Cycling has achieved critical mass and impinged on other road users in a way they did not before.
I'd rather ride in Central London than on some roads in Northampton.
|
>> Cycling has achieved critical mass and impinged on other road users in a way they did not before.
Quite. I run over four or five every time I go to London. Nearly, anyway.
Take your point about Northampton Brompton. Not that I know the place, but the A roads and lanes around here are dangerous in places for cyclists and pedestrians. It's much less frightening for everyone if the motor traffic takes it very easy.
Took me years to get round to that position. During those years, no one killed, only one injured through his fault not mine, and no vehicle written off, through the grace of God and my own lightning reactions and masterly vehicle control.
'All motorists are criminals by definition'. Don't bother to discuss, it's a fact.
|
>> Yes but no but...if it works very well, it will reduce the number of cars.
No it wont, its a long distance route for those who wish to drive through London from west to east.
As a cycle lane route its not needed. Keep car lorries and busses to the embankment and let cyclists use the less used back routes.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 27 Jan 15 at 18:02
|
>> As a cycle lane route its not needed. Keep car lorries and busses to the
>> embankment and let cyclists use the less used back routes.
I'm a great advocate of using the back routes but (a) they're rarely evident at first sight but need to be found and learned and (b) they don't always exist.
The only alternative to Embankment west of Blackfriars Bridge is Fleet St>Strand. Better than Embankment, at least westbound where Aldwych is not in play but parts are a jam 24/7. While there ought to be a viable alternative through Covent Garden/Lincoln's Inn but one way systems and problems crossing Kingsway S of Holborn etc mean it's not practical even with 'knowledge'.
|
The Embankment was over my risk threshold for daily use. An exclamation moment one trip in ten is OK when using it once a month, but used daily that's one a week.
Looks really good in the artists impressions but the test will be execution on the ground and particularly how junctions are handled. Need to be MUCH better than the current route along Tavistock Way etc.
|
|
This will be the same as bus lanes, reduced road space for the majority and the dedicated cycle lane under used most of the time.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 27 Jan 15 at 17:42
|
>> This will be the same as bus lanes, reduced road space for the majority and
>> the dedicated cycle lane under used most of the time.
Next time you're in London look at the set up on Tavistock Way. It's not perfect by any means but it's very well used.
|
I would like to see the London Congestion Zone price set at half a million quid per day, or similar - although with permits for those who *really* cannot manage without. The approach should also incorporate advanced and secure parking at the outskirts and 24hour public transport.
I cannot see how a total lack of cars in London can possibly be a bad thing.
|
>> I cannot see how a total lack of cars in London can possibly be a
>> bad thing.
Easy to say from someone living in chile with three cars.
|
>> Easy to say from someone living in chile with three cars.
Leave the guy alone Zero. He's just a dumb foreigner who can afford taxis. The place is crawling with them all the year round nowadays.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 27 Jan 15 at 18:29
|
Jeez, are you saying the other two have been nicked?
As you know, sometimes lived, sometimes worked in London over many years.
|
>> As you know, sometimes lived, sometimes worked in London over many years.
Yeah FMR, used to meet cats like you all the time back in the day.
'Hey meester, I no want Buckingham House or Whitehall or that crap! What I want Soho jig jig you get me? Rumpy pumpy you say in Europa?'
Dunno why you foreign chaps mistake one for a pimp so often. Must be in your genes.
:o}
|
>> Yeah FMR, used to meet cats like you all the time back in the day.
I doubt it, although I am quite sure you tried.
|
>> I doubt it, although I am quite sure you tried.
I'm tempted to shriek: 'Ooooh! Get her!', but I won't.
I hope my attempts at badinage haven't misled you FMR. I don't really think you're a seedy Latino element. Decently cosmopolitan is cool in my book.
That way you can thumb your nose offensively at all races and cultures. It isn't easy, but you can but try, innit, what?
|
Nearly landed this one yesterday morning........
youtu.be/UtVVLpeYjjg
Coming out of a one way street........probably never saw the signs due to his hoodie !
If I'd been going any quicker I may have hit him but I'm always aware of people crossing the road there due to a student hall of residence further up round the next corner.
|
Inner city ground like that you've got to be prepared for the unexpected round any corner. Perhaps he'd come from the student halls?
I wonder if he knew it was one way, if you're going to do an illegal contra-flow it's a good idea to keep tucked in. Not like you need to be in a defensive primary with regard to following cars.
London now has quite a few official cycle contra-flows in one ways. Worked well on odd occasion I used them. Funny signage though, rather than No Entry the exit end shows a 'no motor vehicles' prohibition. Apparently, although No Entry with an 'except buses' message has been commonplace for decades, there was opposition from DfT to other qualifiers like 'except cycles'.
|
On an off chance that I might get a place, I entered this event this year. Surprise, surprise!
I didn't get a slot.
I am mulling over whether to try for a charity place. Arthritis Research is a charity close to my heart (I had juvenile arthritis as a kid) and they have slots on offer for a pledge of £650. The trouble is, will my friends cough up or will it cost me dear?
Has anyone else here done it in previous years?
|
Number 1 is daft; number 2 is hilarious, unless you're a cyclist in which case the barriers will probably be sued for harassment.
3 is probably pretty normal, I'm afraid. It shouldn't be but sadly it is.
tinyurl.com/otqvutd
|
|
I would imagine if I was driver in the third, I would, at the least, have a cleaning bill for my seat!!
|
During the week I drove past a guy on an electric bike - to all intents and purposes it looked like a normal bike but really weird seeing the legs weren't pedalling and it was rattling along at about 25mph. Then when it took off to go round the roundabout there was no shaking from side to side whilst accelerating away.
Looked really weird but the reality is for many people with maybe small commuting distances, it is probably all the vehicle they need for that work commute.
|
"........ it was rattling along at about 25mph."
I thought it was a legal requirement that electric bikes were restricted to 15mph.
|
|
I've ridden one - it was given to the Office where I worked on a sort of promo for a Ride to Work scheme a few years ago. Quite odd sensation - not for me though.
|
I thought it was a legal requirement that electric bikes were restricted to 15mph
It is, see:
www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules
But there are a lot of naughty overpowered ones about!
|
|
I'd have pointed and shouted "JUDAS !"
|
WOW
I just found a photo of brompy after his bike accident
tinyurl.com/ojyzoma
|
Six weeks into 2015 and already 4 cyclists have died on the capital's roads. All involved HGVs, the most recent yesterday was, yet again, a tip/skip vehicle:
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/20/woman-killed-by-lorry-while-riding-london-boris-bike
Accident occurred where roads are fenced off from pavements in long running construction project near Victoria station.
|
>>Six weeks into 2015 and already 4 cyclists have died on the capital's roads. All involved HGVs, the most recent yesterday was, yet again, a tip/skip vehicle<<
Surely for a reasoned discussion of this statement of fact, we need to know who was to blame in each of those accidents?
Pat
|
It would be of interest but let's assume that for the sake of argument the cyclist was at fault in every accident. Would that obviate the need to find a solution to the problem or change that solution ?
The problem to me is that large trucks and cycles simply do not mix in the crowded and congested streets of inner London. Somehow they need to be kept apart. If not there will always be casualties.
|
Well as the driver wasn't arrested - its pretty clear who was at fault in the last incident.
It does not take too much common sense (given the huge publicity about the deaths) to realise riding up the inside of a tipper lorry is dangerous. Probably ignored the sign warning against doing so on the lorry as well.
Still thats ok, the cycling lobby says the sign shouldn't be there anyway.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 21 Feb 15 at 09:11
|
>> Well as the driver wasn't arrested - its pretty clear who was at fault in
>> the last incident.
Or that witness statements are still being collected/analysed with investigation in process.
>> Still thats ok, the cycling lobby says the sign shouldn't be there anyway.
There has been a perfectly good sign in use for ten or more years covering nearside passes. The cycling lobby objected (a) to it being replaced by one that warned against ANY passes and (b) the application of signs to vehicles as small as car derived vans.
Both are a blatant attempt to transfer/mitigate driver's responsibility to watch out.
|
>> Both are a blatant attempt to transfer/mitigate driver's responsibility to watch out.
>>
Or to wake up riders to the dangers?
(a bit like normal roadsigns do to all roadusers, ie road narrows etc?)
Last edited by: swiss tony on Sat 21 Feb 15 at 10:01
|
>> Both are a blatant attempt to transfer/mitigate driver's responsibility to watch out.
>>
Seems fairly reasonable to me, if people on pushbikes want to ignore the signs they are free to.
|
>> Seems fairly reasonable to me, if people on pushbikes want to ignore the signs they
>> are free to.
A motor vehicle analogy would have similar signs cautioning against passing either side of HGVs on the motorway.
If a truck in lane 1 moves over your car as you pass it in lane 2 then there's contributory negligence on your part for disregarding the warning.
Does that sound reasonable?
|
>> Does that sound reasonable?
>>
Well I wouldn't really relate the two, a mway and a busy city narrow lanes are two far apart to really compare. But to answer your question, I don't think there would be negligence on my part no more than if I fitted one to my car. Eg in your example replace the truck with a car. Law isn't my thing so I could well be wrong.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 21 Feb 15 at 17:16
|
>> A motor vehicle analogy would have similar signs cautioning against passing either side of HGVs on the motorway.
I think you are beginning to lose the plot!
Thats exactly what you said was wrong in an earlier post!!!
'' Bromptonaut Sat 21 Feb 15 09:51
There has been a perfectly good sign in use for ten or more years covering nearside passes. The cycling lobby objected (a) to it being replaced by one that warned against ANY passes and (b) the application of signs to vehicles as small as car derived vans.
Both are a blatant attempt to transfer/mitigate driver's responsibility to watch out. ''
So... what exactly do you agree with, no signs, nearside sign, or both side signs?
|
>> >> A motor vehicle analogy would have similar signs cautioning against passing either side of
>> HGVs on the motorway.
>>
>> I think you are beginning to lose the plot!
>> Thats exactly what you said was wrong in an earlier post!!!
My plot is clear. I'm not saying it would be right in the M/way scenario. On the contrary, I'm drawing an analogy to illustrate why they're wrong in the urban cycling situation..
>> '' Bromptonaut Sat 21 Feb 15 09:51
>>
>> There has been a perfectly good sign in use for ten or more years covering
>> nearside passes. The cycling lobby objected (a) to it being replaced by one that warned
>> against ANY passes and (b) the application of signs to vehicles as small as car
>> derived vans.
>>
>> Both are a blatant attempt to transfer/mitigate driver's responsibility to watch out. ''
>>
>> So... what exactly do you agree with, no signs, nearside sign, or both side signs?
Warnings on nearside of LGVs are a good idea - there's a clear danger which people are missing. Offside warnings and warnings on light vans are unnecessary overkill and dilute the essential message.
|
>> >> Well as the driver wasn't arrested - its pretty clear who was at fault
>> in
>> >> the last incident.
>>
>> Or that witness statements are still being collected/analysed with investigation in process.
>>
No that is not applicable. You know and I know that a caution is the first option if there is the slightest doubt, witness statements or no.
|
>> The problem to me is that large trucks and cycles simply do not mix in the crowded and congested streets of inner London. Somehow they need to be kept apart. If not there will always be casualties.
>>
I think you have hit the nail on the head there.
Cycles MUST be moved away from heavy traffic. The problem is how?
London is a very old city, not designed for anywhere near the traffic it has today. (or the type of traffic!)
Bikes on footpaths? Maybe - but only where that doesn't create dangers to pedestrians .
Trucks have to be used in cities - goods must get to shops etc..
Maybe the only safe answer is to ban the riding of cycles in certain areas?
After all they are know as pushbikes....
|
>> Trucks have to be used in cities - goods must get to shops etc..
The issue in London is with one specific subset of LGVs and it's not those getting goods to the shops.
|
|
But they must be there for a specific reason, what alternative is there?
|
>> But they must be there for a specific reason, what alternative is there?
They're tip/skip trucks and the reason for their presence/numbers is London's ongoing construction boom.
The issues are around (a) design of these vehicles - poor visibility/large blindspots (b) road markings, junction layouts traffic control and (c) cyclist training.
(a) is going to be costly to solve. Cameras and proximity sensors have been suggested but driver's sensory overload might be a problem. Alternative designs have been canvassed using bus or dustcart components - lower driving position and much more glass around cab doors.
(b) Is where, IMHO, there is 'low hanging fruit'. A few junctions (Bow flyover for example) are notorious. Better advance stop boxes, bike phases on traffic lights, removal of 'death trap' cycle lanes that lead the inexperienced into the danger zone are a few suggestions.
IMHO a contributing factor in most recent accident is a narrow interim road layout contained by temporary fencing on both sides. Not only is the fencing itself a crush risk but it's already marginal safety is susceptible to being further compromised by contractors moving fences without proper safety supervision. I saw this happening a couple of years ago during ongoing work in Malet St/Montague Place for street 'improvements' and to facilitate extension work at the British Museum
(c) Is a matter of public campaigning with a particular focus on London's students and younger/transient workers. Posters on buses, social netwroking messages, handouts at Freshers' events street exhibitions etc etc.
|
>> >> But they must be there for a specific reason, what alternative is there?
>>
>> They're tip/skip trucks and the reason for their presence/numbers is London's ongoing construction boom.
I thought it might building related.
You mean these www.flickr.com/photos/truck_photos/8194930899/
or
these www.egaprecycling.co.uk/skip.html
|
>> I thought it might building related.
>> You mean these www.flickr.com/photos/truck_photos/8194930899/
>>
>> or
>>
>> these www.egaprecycling.co.uk/skip.html
Both types are disproportionately involved in bike accident but worst offenders are similar to the Bardon Aggregates vehicle. That one however looks as though it's concerned with delivering stuff to sites. The biggest problem I think is with clearing rubble etc during demolition phase.
While there are several large and reputable companies such as Keltbray there is also a large 'cowboy' element. Google the name Dennis P U T Z - (for some reason his surname triggers the swear filter) and ask how on earth he got employed. Ditto the guy who's lorry killed Eilidh Cairns and who went on to be involved in another fatal - this time a pedestrian in Marylebone.
If I'd added a (d) to my earlier list it would be for concerted action by VOSA and Met Police with zero tolerance for loading and regulatory failures.
|
>> Surely for a reasoned discussion of this statement of fact, we need to know who
>> was to blame in each of those accidents?
>>
>> Pat
We need to know the facts in each case. Blame can be apportioned later. For my money the issue with this one is the way in which a temporary road layout was fenced in. I got into it on foot a year or so ago; it's frighteningly narrow and very busy.
|
Very sad for all concerned.
I was with SWM in the Vitara this lunchtime waiting at the top of a local road to turn left into one of the village's busiest A roads. Amongst the traffic passing, which was a lot, was a pedal tricycle. The type with two front wheels and one rear.
Between the front wheels was an open topped box, big enough to sit a fridge in. In the box were two smiling toddlers, obviously having a good time with Dad. He looked like a whole food/grow your own dirndl type.......out protecting the environment. I guessed where he was off to, the veggie supermarket a few hundred yards further on.
So, while he was getting exercise, saving the whales, showing off, etc why wasn't he thinking of his small kids, unable to escape exhaust fumes while stuck in the traffic......he wasn't going to filter with that thing. They were very vulnerable to a rear ender as well...likely to be shunted under the bumper of a vehicle in front of them.
I don't know if there's ever been a serious accident with one of these things...or the plastic things they drag behind...but I'm sure there'll be one eventually. I'd like to see them banned on the road...give the kids a ride in the park if they have to use one. I've got them on my dashcam but I think the rear cam will have a better view, I'll have a look tomorrow.
Rantette over !
|
Generally, odd pedal powered transport gets a wider berth than normal cycles. The makers of my recumbent tadpole trike say this, and I reckon I agree with them. A flag also helps.
So it might not be as bad as you think.
|
|
Ten years ago or so, when I lived in Walthamstow, I'd often see two men commuting in from the Epping direction on recumbents (with flags). They didn't appear worried by the traffic. I wonder if they're still around.
|
>> Ten years ago or so, when I lived in Walthamstow, I'd often see two men
>> commuting in from the Epping direction on recumbents (with flags). They didn't appear worried by
>> the traffic. I wonder if they're still around.
They may have appeared unworried by traffic but being alert and prepared doesn't look obvious.
|
>> They may have appeared unworried by traffic but being alert and prepared doesn't look obvious.
I wasn't implying that they were being stupid, merely that they seemed to agree with SlidingPillar's contribution: "Generally, odd pedal powered transport gets a wider berth than normal cycles. The makers of my recumbent tadpole trike say this, and I reckon I agree with them. A flag also helps."
I was rather hoping, however, that someone would reply, "Yes, I've seen them too."
For the record, I lost the courage to cycle on the road years ago. It's undoubtedly connected with being seriously injured a motorcycle accident in my twenties and suffering the consequences ever since. Fortunately, I now live within a short drive of several cycle tracks of various kinds.
|
>> I wasn't implying that they were being stupid, merely that they seemed to agree with
>> SlidingPillar's contribution: "Generally, odd pedal powered transport gets a wider berth than normal cycles.
Sorry, Pavlov had control then; I though you were suggesting cavalier disregard for safety and a near certainty that they'd been squashed.
Like you I saw a fair number of recumbent regulars on my London commute. There was also one one working as a messenger in 'Legal London' who I saw almost daily in Chancery Lane or Breams Buildings for all of eleven years I worked there.
|
Ted,
Barrow bikes like that are commonplace in the Netherlands, quite a few in London too. Seem to recall some press coverage of one stopped by plod in Woburn Place during the November 2013 Met purge when focus was last on truck fatalities.
Were the kids in it any more affected by fumes than if they'd been in a pushchair on the pavement? O for that matter in a car - don't think the pollen filter deals with PMs, never mind NOx.
There are all sorts of 'what ifs' about rununders/runovers with kids in barrows or trailers but what are the real accident numbers? Pretty negligible I'd wager.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 20 Feb 15 at 23:09
|
Brompy...
I would think they would be much more affected if the bike pulled up behind something older, perhaps an old diesel like mine. The kids would only be about three feet from the exhaust pipe.....chucking the muck directly at them...not all riders are going to think about this aspect.
I'm sure there hasn't been a serious accident yet but there's always a first time...and that will end up in big tears. s*** happens...a lot !
It's a parent's duty to protect their children......I don't think these people are thinking about that in their search for ' green-ness '.
Just my opinion...I have some professional experience of child deaths on the road.
|
I know of no statistics or evidence. I still wouldn't put my kids in one and I think people who do are irresponsible.
And before you trot it out, no I don't have a thing about cyclists.
|
>> There are all sorts of 'what ifs' about rununders/runovers with kids in barrows or trailers
>> but what are the real accident numbers? Pretty negligible I'd wager.
Probably due to the fact their numbers are very small, because most parents without a cycling axe to grind or point to prove can instantly see they are death traps.
|
Tram track dispute. - Old Navy
