Census

lardyninja

I went through a traffic census this morning, like this one:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle3971799.ece

Interestingly they seemed to be only interested in motorists and
completely ignored bus passengers and cyclists. Is this normal?

LN

Ian Smith

On Thu, 05 Jun, lardyninja <lardyninja@gmx.net> wrote:
> I went through a traffic census this morning, like this one:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle3971799.ece
>
> Interestingly they seemed to be only interested in motorists and
> completely ignored bus passengers and cyclists. Is this normal?

Yes, I think so. I've been through a few by bike, and never been
asked anything.

Why would a highway authority want to learn anything about cyclists?
It is readily apparent they have already decided all are a pointless,
worthless inconvenience that must (unfortunately) be tolerated on the
roads intended for valuable and important motor-lords.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

bugbear

Ian Smith wrote:
>
> Why would a highway authority want to learn anything about cyclists?
> It is readily apparent they have already decided all are a pointless,
> worthless inconvenience that must (unfortunately) be tolerated on the
> roads intended for valuable and important motor-lords.

Sad but true.

Cycle facilities aren't for the convenience;
they're to get cyclist off the roads for the convenience
of cars.

BugBear

David Hansen

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:16:17 +0100 someone who may be lardyninja
<lardyninja@gmx.net> wrote this:-

>I went through a traffic census this morning, like this one:
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle3971799.ece

Victims should take note of the law on such impositions, which is
given as the 1988 Road Traffic Act by the Scottish Government (does
not apply in Northern Ireland, appears to apply in the rest of the
UK) <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/12/20455/49117>.

In particular Section 35
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_3#pt1-pb9-l1g35>

While a police bod may insist that a vehicle operator or pedestrian
stops and proceeds to a particular point, 35(3)states that, "The
power to give such a direction as is referred to in subsection (2)
above for the purposes of a traffic survey shall be so exercised as
not to cause any unreasonable delay to a person who indicates that
he is unwilling to provide any information for the purposes of the
survey."

So, the quickest way of escaping from this repression seems to be to
state that one is unwilling to provide any information and does not
wish to be caused unnecessary delay. Any subsequent unnecessary
delay should be followed up.

It is good to see that the police have reduced crime to such low
levels that they have time to waste on this nonsense. Personally,
since they have reduced crime to such low levels, I think the best
approach would be to sack the officers who have this time to spare
and reduce my taxes by the appropriate amount.

>Interestingly they seemed to be only interested in motorists and
>completely ignored bus passengers and cyclists. Is this normal?

The only one I have seen at close quarters involved no police bods.
Council bods were trying to question cyclists using the Forth Road
Bridge. Being stupid [1] the council bods had set up their census
point half way along the climb from near sea level to the top of the
bridge. Not only would a cyclist have to stop half way up the climb
but they would then have cooled down as they answered the questions.
They would have cooled down on a cold spring morning while on their
way to work. Stupid. If it was not deliberately designed to
discourage co-operation I can only imagine it was designed by
someone with no idea of cycling.


[1] I suppose if I was to be generous I could say that they were not
stupid, but instead displayed a complete lack of understanding of
cyclists.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Adam Lea

"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng4fn3t.emj.ian@acheron.smithnet...
> On Thu, 05 Jun, lardyninja <lardyninja@gmx.net> wrote:
>> I went through a traffic census this morning, like this one:
>>
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/co...icle3971799.ece
>>
>> Interestingly they seemed to be only interested in motorists and
>> completely ignored bus passengers and cyclists. Is this normal?
>
> Yes, I think so. I've been through a few by bike, and never been
> asked anything.
>
> Why would a highway authority want to learn anything about cyclists?
> It is readily apparent they have already decided all are a pointless,
> worthless inconvenience that must (unfortunately) be tolerated on the
> roads intended for valuable and important motor-lords.
>

Well it depends what information they need. If it is to establish the
primary routes through a junction in order to plan an improvement then
stopping cyclists, which would make up a small fraction of the traffic and
would be unlikely to be representitive of the general traffic conditions,
would be pointless.

David Hansen

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:49:12 +0100 someone who may be "Adam Lea"
<asrl07@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-

>> Why would a highway authority want to learn anything about cyclists?
>> It is readily apparent they have already decided all are a pointless,
>> worthless inconvenience that must (unfortunately) be tolerated on the
>> roads intended for valuable and important motor-lords.
>
>Well it depends what information they need. If it is to establish the
>primary routes through a junction in order to plan an improvement then
>stopping cyclists, which would make up a small fraction of the traffic and
>would be unlikely to be representitive of the general traffic conditions,
>would be pointless.

Junction "improvements" are seldom of benefit to cyclists. They
usually make traversing the junction more dangerous for cyclists.
Speaking to cyclists is not pointless, unless (as is the case) they
have already decided all are a pointless, worthless inconvenience
that must (unfortunately) be tolerated on the roads intended for
valuable and important motor-lords.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Adam Lea

"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h4ph44h2hchkuo630391kh1defh2s48jbi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:49:12 +0100 someone who may be "Adam Lea"
> <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>>> Why would a highway authority want to learn anything about cyclists?
>>> It is readily apparent they have already decided all are a pointless,
>>> worthless inconvenience that must (unfortunately) be tolerated on the
>>> roads intended for valuable and important motor-lords.
>>
>>Well it depends what information they need. If it is to establish the
>>primary routes through a junction in order to plan an improvement then
>>stopping cyclists, which would make up a small fraction of the traffic and
>>would be unlikely to be representitive of the general traffic conditions,
>>would be pointless.
>
> Junction "improvements" are seldom of benefit to cyclists. They
> usually make traversing the junction more dangerous for cyclists.
> Speaking to cyclists is not pointless, unless (as is the case) they
> have already decided all are a pointless, worthless inconvenience
> that must (unfortunately) be tolerated on the roads intended for
> valuable and important motor-lords.
>

No I think sometimes they are just ignorant of cyclists needs. One shouldn't
really make sweeping generalisations just because ones particular experience
of a highway authority is bad.

Ian Smith

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 00:31:34 +0100, Adam Lea <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> "David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:h4ph44h2hchkuo630391kh1defh2s48jbi@4ax.com...
> >
> > Junction "improvements" are seldom of benefit to cyclists. They
> > usually make traversing the junction more dangerous for cyclists.
> > Speaking to cyclists is not pointless, unless (as is the case) they
> > have already decided all are a pointless, worthless inconvenience
> > that must (unfortunately) be tolerated on the roads intended for
> > valuable and important motor-lords.
>
> No I think sometimes they are just ignorant of cyclists needs. One
> shouldn't really make sweeping generalisations just because ones
> particular experience of a highway authority is bad.

Are you saying that I shouldn't assume that all highway authority
works are bad just because all highway authority works are bad?

I would agree that in general one should not ascribe to malice that
which can be adequately explained by incompetence, but in the case of
many actions of highway authorities incompetence simply doesn't come
close.

This month's FOTM, for example - that can't be explained by a
highway engineer not really understanding cyclist's needs. "Oh, I
thought climbing over a railing would make the journey easier for
cyclists". Incompetence doesn't come close - it's negligence in the
extreme, and so extreme that actually a deliberate and wilful attempt
to obstruct cyclists and render the 'facility' useless looks more
likely.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

David Hansen

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 00:31:34 +0100 someone who may be "Adam Lea"
<asrl07@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-

>No I think sometimes they are just ignorant of cyclists needs.

I am sure that is sometimes the case. Another example would be
someone who "does something" for cyclists by installing wheel
benders outside their office and is then genuinely disappointed when
the "ungrateful" cyclists say they would prefer Sheffield Stands.

However, ignorance can be easily overcome by proper research before
doing something. It can also only be used as an excuse once or
twice.

When cyclists have repeatedly said what they desire, including
publishing (sometimes sending in) and referring to documents and
photographs then it is no longer possible to claim ignorance. Then
it is clear that the officials concerned have decided that cyclists
are a pointless, worthless inconvenience that must (unfortunately)
be tolerated on the roads intended for valuable and important
motor-lords.

>One shouldn't
>really make sweeping generalisations just because ones particular experience
>of a highway authority is bad.

There are two sweeping generalisations in that sentence. The first
is that I am the only one who feels this way. The second is that I
have only experienced one council. Both are wrong.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Ian Jackson

In article <slrng4kfmu.saf.ian@acheron.smithnet>,
Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>This month's FOTM, for example - that can't be explained by a
>highway engineer not really understanding cyclist's needs. "Oh, I
>thought climbing over a railing would make the journey easier for
>cyclists". Incompetence doesn't come close - it's negligence in the
>extreme, and so extreme that actually a deliberate and wilful attempt
>to obstruct cyclists and render the 'facility' useless looks more
>likely.

One possible explanation is that someone pointed out to the highway
authority that the short section of shared use path - terminating mere
yards later in a difficult and dangerous style of junction - was worse
than nothing.

Or perhaps they've had complaints from pedestrians, who are often also
disadvantaged by the stupid craze for pavement cycling.

Putting in that barrier may have been an easy (cheap!) way of getting
rid of the useless farcility without actually putting everything back
just as it was (which would, in some bureaucracies, be too obvious an
admission of earlier error).

--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

Colin Nelson

"David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message news:87pk4416msnomaqo45nvuqji5vf9ov1kvq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 00:31:34 +0100 someone who may be "Adam Lea"
> <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
> >No I think sometimes they are just ignorant of cyclists needs.
>
> I am sure that is sometimes the case. Another example would be
> someone who "does something" for cyclists by installing wheel
> benders outside their office and is then genuinely disappointed when
> the "ungrateful" cyclists say they would prefer Sheffield Stands.
>
> However, ignorance can be easily overcome by proper research before
> doing something. It can also only be used as an excuse once or
> twice.
>
> When cyclists have repeatedly said what they desire, including
> publishing (sometimes sending in) and referring to documents and
> photographs then it is no longer possible to claim ignorance. Then
> it is clear that the officials concerned have decided that cyclists
> are a pointless, worthless inconvenience that must (unfortunately)
> be tolerated on the roads intended for valuable and important
> motor-lords.
>
> >One shouldn't
> >really make sweeping generalisations just because ones particular experience
> >of a highway authority is bad.
>
> There are two sweeping generalisations in that sentence. The first
> is that I am the only one who feels this way. The second is that I
> have only experienced one council. Both are wrong.
>
>
> --
> David Hansen, Edinburgh
> I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54


I'm fairly sure that every Highways Planning dept has a copy of the 'Best Practice' document ... somewhere around. One of the problems is that the document is only an 'advisory' one. I have seen a copy, and I'm certain that if fairly serious attempts were made to follow the guidelines life (in cycling usage terms) could be a lot more enjoyable (and safer).

David Hansen

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:49:07 +0100 someone who may be "Colin Nelson"
<colin.nelson2@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-

>I'm fairly sure that every Highways Planning dept has a copy of the 'Best Practice'
>document ... somewhere around. One of the problems is that the document is only an
>'advisory' one. I have seen a copy, and I'm certain that if fairly serious attempts
>were made to follow the guidelines life (in cycling usage terms) could be a lot more
>enjoyable (and safer).

The City of Edinburgh Council presumably has copies of an excellent
guide which it (or to be precise ISTR one of its predecessors)
wrote, as well as various other ones.

It is not ignorance that causes them to come up with some crap
schemes which are anti-cycling, including much to do with trams.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Ian Smith

On 07 Jun 2008, Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <slrng4kfmu.saf.ian@acheron.smithnet>,
> Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >This month's FOTM, for example - that can't be explained by a
> >highway engineer not really understanding cyclist's needs. "Oh, I
> >thought climbing over a railing would make the journey easier for
> >cyclists". Incompetence doesn't come close - it's negligence in the
> >extreme, and so extreme that actually a deliberate and wilful attempt
> >to obstruct cyclists and render the 'facility' useless looks more
> >likely.
>
> One possible explanation is that someone pointed out to the highway
> authority that the short section of shared use path - terminating mere
> yards later in a difficult and dangerous style of junction - was worse
> than nothing.
>
> Or perhaps they've had complaints from pedestrians, who are often also
> disadvantaged by the stupid craze for pavement cycling.
>
> Putting in that barrier may have been an easy (cheap!) way of getting
> rid of the useless farcility without actually putting everything back
> just as it was (which would, in some bureaucracies, be too obvious an
> admission of earlier error).

Exactly - a deliberate and wilful attempt to obstruct cyclists.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Adam Lea

"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrng4kfmu.saf.ian@acheron.smithnet...
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 00:31:34 +0100, Adam Lea <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> "David Hansen" <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:h4ph44h2hchkuo630391kh1defh2s48jbi@4ax.com...
>> >
>> > Junction "improvements" are seldom of benefit to cyclists. They
>> > usually make traversing the junction more dangerous for cyclists.
>> > Speaking to cyclists is not pointless, unless (as is the case) they
>> > have already decided all are a pointless, worthless inconvenience
>> > that must (unfortunately) be tolerated on the roads intended for
>> > valuable and important motor-lords.
>>
>> No I think sometimes they are just ignorant of cyclists needs. One
>> shouldn't really make sweeping generalisations just because ones
>> particular experience of a highway authority is bad.
>
> Are you saying that I shouldn't assume that all highway authority
> works are bad just because all highway authority works are bad?
>

I dispute that all highway authority works are bad.