Cycle path sign - compulsory?

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 17:44:32 GMT someone who may be
[email hidden] (Paul) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I just don't see how it can be safe cycling when you may have to cross wet metal
at an extremely shallow angle.

If one does this then that is foolish. However, compared to the
other hazards, including lines painted on the roads, tramway tracks
are not a great problem. If they were cyclists in Germany and the
Netherlands would mostly have been killed off by now.

I spent 4.5 years living in Sheffield. There are several part of the
city tram route where the tram lines leave or join a road that I cycled
on. There is very little option in some of these cases other than to
cross the line at a shallow angle. I was not alone in coming a cropper
at one of these junctions. I think the local cycle campaign
"Pedalpushers" was trying to collect statistics at some point, but I
didn't see the results.

TL

The Luggage said:

I spent 4.5 years living in Sheffield. There are several part of the
city tram route where the tram lines leave or join a road that I cycled
on. There is very little option in some of these cases other than to
cross the line at a shallow angle.

Of course, for tram tracks not to be a hazard requires some Clueful
Implementation, and just because the Sheffield folks failed in that
respect doesn't make it necessarily the case for Any Given Tram System.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Paul said:

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:50:24 +0000, Colin McKenzie <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It is hypothesised that if there is 3' between the tram rail and the
kerb, this is enough space to cycle in (if there isn't a tram around).
But you wouldn't be able to manoeuvre to cross the rail at a steep
angle if you need to get out of this slot.

Between the rails, there's 4'6". I think I'd be safer there.

In Sheffield, I certainly preferred to cycle between the rails in the
city centre. On the more rural stretch I used, I kept left as it
allowed cars past, but they didn't tend to encroach too badly as there
was probably about 5' to the left of the left rail rather than 3'.

Quoted message said:

You see, this is where I just don't understand the tram thing.

There you are, wet road, cycling along a tram route at 5 mph, and the tram comes
up behind you. What can it do except wait?.

Nothing. The Sheffield tram drivers were very courteous, though. One of
the bits of my old commute had a long uphill stretch on a tram route.
There was no adjacent footpath, so any tram coming up behind me had to
wait until about half way up, where there was a side turning I could
use to allow the tram past. After that, they had to wait until the
junction at the top, where the tram peeled off to go to an off-road
tram stop.

I had far more problems with cars on that road than trams. Coming back
down the hill at night, I would be doing 30 mph between the rails, and
had numerous examples of the 'must overtake the cyclist at all costs'
mentality.

TL

X-No-Archive:yes

David Martin said:

Given that in the current situation, one of the main issues with PT is
the time it takes, and most of the marginal time increase is loading
time becasue *everyone* has to pay/show a pass to the driver, an
increase in speed of loading will give PT a better chance in
competition with the private car, and raise revenue.

Nice theory, but have a look at:-

"The Benefits of Improving Public Transport - Myth or Reality"
Younes_B, Transport Reviews 15(4) 333-356 Oct-dec 1995

This study looked at the effect improving rail links [1] had on traffic
levels on roads in the same corridor. The result was that traffic
levels stayed the same and PT users switched from bus to rail.

[1] Victria line in London, U-Bahn extension in West Berlin,
S-Bahn in Stuttgart

X-No-Archive:yes

Andy Leighton said:

Quoted message said:

John Pitcock <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Another comment: if pedestrians must keep off a cycle only route

I don't think I have seen that stated anywhere. As far as I know
there aren't any such cycle only routes.

I know of one cycle path, near Shotwick in Cheshire, with a
'No Pedestrians' sign at the start. I have no idea if the restriction
is legally enforceable.

On 9 Mar 2006 03:31:30 -0800 someone who may be "The Luggage"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I spent 4.5 years living in Sheffield.

Which is a prime example of how not to do it. The major problem was
the chosen form of contract. This was coupled with vague promises
not being turned into detailed specifications.

Later tramways have done better, though perfection is still elusive.

--
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

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Paul
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I should point out it's the rails, particularly when slippery, that I'm afraid
of, not homicidal tram drivers.

I just don't see how it can be safe cycling when you may have to cross
wet metal
at an extremely shallow angle.

Considering the fuss I saw people here making about some level crossing where
the tracks crossed the road at an angle of 30 degrees, I would have thought
mixing it with tracks that you might have no option but to cross at a very
shallow angle (e.g. pedestrian steps out and you have traffic to your right).

IME a side effect of having a tramway is that pedestrians tend to look
before crossing, and are less likely to randomly step out. ISTR the
Sheffield trams weigh 52 tonnes each (large, 3 section units, expected
to carry lots of people a decent distance), and Stagecoach (who operate
them) make a point of letting people know this.

A few years ago there were two bizarre fatalities within weeks of each
other - in one case someone tried to walk along the fully segregated
tram viaduct from Park Square Roundabout towards Cricket Inn Road (i.e.
the long concrete one, not the arch-suspended trams + pedestrians one
into the city centre), very late at night, and got run over by either
the last service or an empty to depot run.

Then a couple of weeks later a couple who were believed to be copulating
in the middle of the road, again late at night, got run over by a bus.

I *think* in both cases alcohol was involved.

I never heard of any incidents involving cyclists though, an I rode over
the tracks myself from time to time. Possibly being on a hybrid with
reasonably chunky tyres helped, the groove for tram rails is much
smaller (and the railhead also smaller) than a full-weight railway's
rails are.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Paul
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

You see, this is where I just don't understand the tram thing.

There you are, wet road, cycling along a tram route at 5 mph, and the
tram comes
up behind you. What can it do except wait?.

All it can do is slow down to 5 mph and wait until you either turn left, risk
death by trying to turn right moving across slippery tram rails or get off and
lift your bike onto the pavement to let it pass.

I really must go and have a look at the Croyden tram and see how it all works.

The Supertram in Sheffield runs right past a major LBS at one point. The
tramlines are towards the centre of the road, leaving plenty of space.
Never had a problem cycling while there were trams running on that road,
though common sense says that if you're going slower than the tram then
slowing down a bit more to let it pass quicker is a good idea.

If you're already going at "cycling enthusiast" speed the chances are
you'll outrun the tram anyway as it tends to stop for passengers.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as John
Pitcock <[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

I was the original poster and have been following the discussion.

The consensus is that the blue round cycle sign does NOT make it compulsory
for a cyclist to use this route and not a nearby road.

This seems to be an anomaly in the colour coding of signs: H.C. says "Signs
with blue circles but no red border mostly give positive instruction.". My
1968 edition says "Route for cyclists and moped riders only (compulsory)".

I would take (compulsory) there to mean that "no other vehicle may use
this route", rather than it being compulsory for cyclists to do so.

A bit like the signs on the London Underground that appeared to insist
you could only use the escalators if you were carrying a dog at the
time.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom Crispin
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:41:19 GMT, "ian henden" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now count the cars doing the same thing. Yes: you will see the ocassional
redlight jumper, but certainly nowhere near the number of cyclists red light
jumping!

Quoted message said:

I have explained this to you time and time again. This is simply not
true, yet you continue to present it as fact.

Quoted message said:

Do a proper survey.

I've not done a survey, but I have noticed a fundamental difference in
the way car drivers and cyclists jump red lights.

When the lights first change, quite a lot of car drivers will still "nip
through" in the first couple of seconds. But (the odd lunatic in a BMW
excepted) by and large once the lights have been red for a few seconds
the drivers will obey them.

Some cyclists on the other hand will come tearing up between lines of
stationary cars and shoot straight through the red lights long after all
other traffic has stopped, regardless of whether there's anyone crossing
the road.

This difference may sound subtle but it makes a huge difference in lots
of people's minds. Going throuhgh just as, or just a second or so after,
the lights go red is regarded as "amber gambling" and most people accept
it. Cyclists doing it will raise no more eyebrows than car drivers
will.

Cyclists who "crash" long-red lights on the other hand are regarded as
flagrant law-breakers. These are the ones who really annoy everyone
else, and who get all cyclists a bad name with wider society.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Pyromancer said:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom Crispin
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:41:19 GMT, "ian henden" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now count the cars doing the same thing. Yes: you will see the ocassional
redlight jumper, but certainly nowhere near the number of cyclists red light
jumping!

Quoted message said:

I have explained this to you time and time again. This is simply not
true, yet you continue to present it as fact.

Quoted message said:

Do a proper survey.

I've not done a survey, but I have noticed a fundamental difference in
the way car drivers and cyclists jump red lights.

When the lights first change, quite a lot of car drivers will still "nip
through" in the first couple of seconds. But (the odd lunatic in a BMW
excepted) by and large once the lights have been red for a few seconds
the drivers will obey them.

Some cyclists on the other hand will come tearing up between lines of
stationary cars and shoot straight through the red lights long after all
other traffic has stopped, regardless of whether there's anyone crossing
the road.

This difference may sound subtle but it makes a huge difference in lots
of people's minds. Going throuhgh just as, or just a second or so after,
the lights go red is regarded as "amber gambling" and most people accept
it. Cyclists doing it will raise no more eyebrows than car drivers
will.

Cyclists who "crash" long-red lights on the other hand are regarded as
flagrant law-breakers. These are the ones who really annoy everyone
else, and who get all cyclists a bad name with wider society.

Cyclists I've obseved going through lights on red do so very
cautiously. This is not the case with the "amber gamblers".
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

Pyromancer said:

The Supertram in Sheffield runs right past a major LBS at one point. The
tramlines are towards the centre of the road, leaving plenty of space.

That's all well and good, but further up the road the pavement lunges in
(and rises up) to meet the tramway at a platform; with dragons-teeth
tank traps, er, discouragements to pedestrians on either side. And in
the middle of the road there's a sodding pedestrian refuge. Hopping
into the four-foot between the rails is essential.

Cyclist injuries amongst Sheffield cyclists from going into, or skidding
on, the tracks, are common - I think virtually all cyclists of my
acquintaince have had a spill. Mostly just the one, we learn quick.

R.

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pyromancer said:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom Crispin
<[email hidden]> gently breathed:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:41:19 GMT, "ian henden" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

[..]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cyclists who "crash" long-red lights on the other hand are regarded as
flagrant law-breakers. These are the ones who really annoy everyone
else, and who get all cyclists a bad name with wider society.

Cyclists I've obseved going through lights on red do so very
cautiously. This is not the case with the "amber gamblers".
--

Oh, so it's OK for cars also to go through red lights "cautiously". What
about driving on the pavement "cautiously". Is that OK too?

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pyromancer wrote:

[..]

Quoted message said:

Cyclist injuries amongst Sheffield cyclists from going into, or skidding
on, the tracks, are common - I think virtually all cyclists of my
acquintaince have had a spill. Mostly just the one, we learn quick.

But only from first hand experience, not from observing others? :o).

IanH

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pyromancer said:

The Supertram in Sheffield runs right past a major LBS at one point. The
tramlines are towards the centre of the road, leaving plenty of space.

That's all well and good, but further up the road the pavement lunges in
(and rises up) to meet the tramway at a platform; with dragons-teeth tank
traps, er, discouragements to pedestrians on either side. And in the
middle of the road there's a sodding pedestrian refuge. Hopping into the
four-foot between the rails is essential.

Cyclist injuries amongst Sheffield cyclists from going into, or skidding
on, the tracks, are common - I think virtually all cyclists of my
acquintaince have had a spill. Mostly just the one, we learn quick.

R.

When I bought my new bike from Langsett Cycles in January I noticed that
there is a purpose built ( new at the same time as a the tramway?) cycle
path running here as well. I am distinctly not a cycle path enthusiast but
I wondered, since it is a "new" build, what it was like and if it actually
goes anywhere thus being a bit useful. The few times I have been on that
road it has been virtually traffic free since all the main traffic is on the
A61(?) running parallel about 100 metres away
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Pyromancer said:

ISTR the
Sheffield trams weigh 52 tonnes each (large, 3 section units, expected
to carry lots of people a decent distance), and Stagecoach (who operate
them) make a point of letting people know this.

Because, of course, being hit by a 52 ton object at 30 mph is soooo much worse
than being hit by a 1 ton object.

I think the fact that your inattention cannot be mitigated by a tram driver
swerving is more cause for concern.

But, then again, no one steps onto a road *expecting* to be hit.

in message <[email hidden]>, John

Pitcock ('j-pitcock(nospam)@msn.com') said:

What can a cyclist do when coming to a pedestrian on the wrong side
(moving onto the pedestrians' side is illegal)?

Get back on the public road, where he belongs.

Quoted message said:

Another comment: if pedestrians must keep off a cycle only route then
these cycle facilities are one of the few public thoroughfares that
pedestrians can't use (there's nothing to stop people walking on a road
unless specifically prohibited). What sanction is there against a
pedestrian using such a route?

None. Why should there be?

Quoted message said:

How can cyclists proceed along a cycle
path obstructed by pedestrians?

Stop and wait for the pedestrian to get out of the way, or get off the
bike and walk.

Quoted message said:

What are the implications in the event of a cycle/pedestrian collision
a) on the cyclist's side of a shared path

Both will be injured; the cyclist will almost certainly be deemed to have
been in the wrong.

Quoted message said:

b) on a cycle only path?

Both will be injured; the cyclist will almost certainly be deemed to have
been in the wrong.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; If you're doing this for fun, do what seems fun. If you're
;; doing it for money, stop now.
;; Rainer Deyke

in message <[email hidden]>, David Hansen

(') said:

If it is not already done somewhere for buses and trams it soon will
be, as it is just a matter of making what is available at stops
available on WWW.

Someone has done this as a Goggle map hack - a map showing the current
position of every bus in some city (?Seattle?), and the expected time of
arrival of the next bus at every stop, updated in real time. Very cool
hack, but I can't find the URL just now.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Anagram: I'm soon broke.

in message <[email hidden]>, Jim Ley

(') said:

David Hansen said:

Quoted message said:

- in
fact given there are 3 entrances to 3 buses it would suggest faster
loading of the multiple buses.

Not in the least. A tram has four wide doors on each side and level
boarding from the platform.

So how is the payment done? as you're suggesting non-payment to the
driver, in which case you need more staff to deal with the
fare-avoidance, so there's another higher cost...

Quoted message said:

If it is not already done somewhere for buses and trams it soon will
be, as it is just a matter of making what is available at stops
available on WWW.

Which is completely irrelevant, having to power up the computer and
look something up is not exactly something which is useful to the vast
majority of users.

My computer is powered up in my pocket at all times. It's called a
'phone'; you may have heard of them. It even has bluetooth to enable
automatic communication with nearby bus stops.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall

Tom Crispin wrote:
[snip]

Quoted message said:

Cyclists I've obseved going through lights on red do so very
cautiously. This is not the case with the "amber gamblers".

Come down to Medway, and you'llsee a few non-cautious cyclists go
through red lights.

I wish I'd seen the plonker who passed me to go through a red light
last week just a second earlier. I'd have signalled left and knocked
the idiot off his bike. As it was, I had to make do with calling him a
prat in a very loud voice. This seemed to mollify the pedestrians who
were crossing the road at the time.

TL