Apartheid on the roads

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

Quoted message said:

On "today" this morning: some talk of traffic enforcement cameras
to fine motorists who stray over white lines into bike lanes.

They probably meant enforcement against flagrant, deliberate
abuse. But that's not how the UK press will tell it. It'll
just emerge as another move towards segregation, with cyclists
pushed ever more firmly into our substandard bantustans.

Yeah, great.

--
not me guv

You can find the article here:

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article2128011.ece

Fred

fred2 said:

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

Quoted message said:

On "today" this morning: some talk of traffic enforcement cameras
to fine motorists who stray over white lines into bike lanes.

They probably meant enforcement against flagrant, deliberate
abuse. But that's not how the UK press will tell it. It'll
just emerge as another move towards segregation, with cyclists
pushed ever more firmly into our substandard bantustans.

Yeah, great.

--
not me guv

You can find the article here:

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/article2128011.ece

Fred

i'm really not sure it's

a) workable

b) make rest of traffic think thats where bikes belong.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

In article <[email hidden]>, Nick Kew
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On "today" this morning: some talk of traffic enforcement cameras
to fine motorists who stray over white lines into bike lanes.

They probably meant enforcement against flagrant, deliberate
abuse.

Why? The unbroken white line should be treated as if it's a kerb, and
any driver who mounts the kerb is an obvious danger.

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Nick Kew
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On "today" this morning: some talk of traffic enforcement cameras
to fine motorists who stray over white lines into bike lanes.

They probably meant enforcement against flagrant, deliberate
abuse.

Why? The unbroken white line should be treated as if it's a kerb,

Why?

Quoted message said:

and
any driver who mounts the kerb is an obvious danger.

Only if he is out-of-control, and only if there is someone, or something
that he is likely to collide with.

So, if there's no cyclist in the cycle lane, which is probably the case
for 99% of them 99% of the time, why not allow the free road space to be
used by motorists???

--
Matt B

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

So, if there's no cyclist in the cycle lane, which is probably the case
for 99% of them 99% of the time, why not allow the free road space to be
used by motorists???

Because when councils have spent lots of money on cycle lanes that
cyclists can't use it looks silly (although most of the time they
aren't bothered by it).

The only time I can see there being any advantage to driving in a
cycle lane is if there is an obstruction in the middle of the road
(e.g. a cyclist turning right) and if the cycle lane is empty then it
shouldn't be a problem to get around the cyclist. I suspect cameras
would only be put up where there's no excuse for driving in a cycle
lane - probably so there are less appeals against the penalties!

Something needs to be done about cars driving in and blocking cycle
lanes for no reason, or even doing it deliberately to stop cyclists
getting past. But something also needs to be done generally about
people driving (or cycling) dangerously.

peter

naked_draughtsman said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

So, if there's no cyclist in the cycle lane, which is probably the case
for 99% of them 99% of the time, why not allow the free road space to be
used by motorists???

Because when councils have spent lots of money on cycle lanes that
cyclists can't use

Not "can't use", but "don't use". If they /are/ being used then,
obviously, it would be unreasonable for a car to encroach.

Quoted message said:

it looks silly (although most of the time they
aren't bothered by it).

They /are/ silly.

Quoted message said:

The only time I can see there being any advantage to driving in a
cycle lane is if there is an obstruction in the middle of the road

Yes.

Quoted message said:

(e.g. a cyclist turning right)

Or a motor vehicle indeed.

Quoted message said:

and if the cycle lane is empty then it
shouldn't be a problem to get around the cyclist.

(or whatever), no, but is illegal.

Quoted message said:

I suspect cameras
would only be put up where there's no excuse for driving in a cycle
lane - probably so there are less appeals against the penalties!

I suspect they'll be put where it is hard to avoid using them, to
maximise revenue. What is a valid excuse?

Quoted message said:

Something needs to be done about cars driving in and blocking cycle
lanes for no reason,

Get rid of the lanes? Share the precious road space amongst all users?

Quoted message said:

or even doing it deliberately to stop cyclists
getting past.

With no lane that can't happen.

Quoted message said:

But something also needs to be done generally about
people driving (or cycling) dangerously.

Agreed, whole heartedly. We could start by removing the "innovations"
of modern traffic engineering which make it inevitable that people will
drive dangerously.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

naked_draughtsman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But something also needs to be done generally about
people driving (or cycling) dangerously.

Agreed, whole heartedly. We could start by removing the "innovations"
of modern traffic engineering which make it inevitable that people will
drive dangerously.

I assume you're talking about your "shared space" utopian vision again?

I hope they're not all as bad as this one:

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/letters/argusletters/display.var.1564975.0.so
meone_is_going_to_get_hurt_soon.php

(Sorry about the long URL)

The letter is about a street in Brighton that has had all kerbs and markings
removed.

--
Andrew Richardson
Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Andrew Richardson said:

Matt B said:

naked_draughtsman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But something also needs to be done generally about
people driving (or cycling) dangerously.

Agreed, whole heartedly. We could start by removing the "innovations"
of modern traffic engineering which make it inevitable that people will
drive dangerously.

I assume you're talking about your "shared space" utopian vision again?

I'm talking about removing the cues which make dangerous driving inevitable.

If one is given a kerb-delimited track, with a flat, dry, smooth and
clear surface, and one has have been given absolute right-of-way on it,
and one is reassured, by a number on a post, that 30 mph is a perfectly
safe speed to use it at, and one "knows" that nothing should
legitimately cross one's path, and one, "knows" from experience that
other road users usually obey the "rules of the road", and one has never
encountered any reason to behave more cautiously, is it any wonder if
one assumes one has right-of-way, and one uses that at 30 mph, and one
is indignant if another road user illegitimately obstructs one's path
and one has a crash!!!

Now, imagine how "one" might react is some of those apparent certainties
are removed. One example, from another current thread here, is that of
a mini-roundabout, when priorities become blurred lot more caution is
exercised. Another example often quoted is the improvement on safety
and flow that occurs at traffic-light-controlled junctions when the
lights are out-of-order.

Quoted message said:

I hope they're not all as bad as this one:
<http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/letters/argusletters/display.var.1564975.0.someone_is_going_to_get_hurt_soon.php>

It seems to be having "teething troubles". I'm not familiar with the
scheme, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is "a long story" to it.
Was it previously a "pedestrian only" street? Is there a history, or
even "tradition" of conflict between groups representing, say, the
blind, and the council or road authority? Perhaps there was no public
awareness campaign carried out to fully explain the philosophy and
rationale behind the scheme, and to point out how it is designed to
provide equal priority to all users, and that pedestrians have no more
right than motorists to use any particular patch of the road.

--
Matt B

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:59:58 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

I hope they're not all as bad as this one:
<http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/letters/argusletters/display.var.1564975.0.someone_is_going_to_get_hurt_soon.php>

It seems to be having "teething troubles". I'm not familiar with the
scheme, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is "a long story" to it.
Was it previously a "pedestrian only" street? Is there a history, or
even "tradition" of conflict between groups representing, say, the
blind, and the council or road authority? Perhaps there was no public
awareness campaign carried out to fully explain the philosophy and
rationale behind the scheme, and to point out how it is designed to
provide equal priority to all users, and that pedestrians have no more
right than motorists to use any particular patch of the road.

WTF are you on about? Why should a public awareness campaign be
necessary? It's intuitively obvious, and plays into everybody's natural
way of navigation, yes? According to you anyway. Or is it a load of
[censored] which requires public awareness campaigns, signposts, white lines
and all the rest of it?

If you're gonna have a public awareness campaign, why not just make
people aware of existing traffic laws and be done with it?

Marc Brett said:

WTF are you on about?

Remember, this is the clot that so desires to argue that he'll claim
you're more likely to be hit by a car somewhere where there are no
cars than somewhere where cars are being driven.

Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought even you would find it difficult to argue that you're
more likely to be hit by a car if there are no cars present, but
evidently I was wrong.

You are wrong

You've fallen into the error of assuming your opponent actually has
a coherent point of view.
Do something more productive, like argue with a dead fish.

But yes, it would be remarkable were a coherent person that advocates
something as natural and intuitive to anticipate that it will require
a programme of public education to make it work.

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

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:59:58 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

I hope they're not all as bad as this one:
<http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/letters/argusletters/display.var.1564975.0.someone_is_going_to_get_hurt_soon.php>

It seems to be having "teething troubles". I'm not familiar with the
scheme, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is "a long story" to it.
Was it previously a "pedestrian only" street? Is there a history, or
even "tradition" of conflict between groups representing, say, the
blind, and the council or road authority? Perhaps there was no public
awareness campaign carried out to fully explain the philosophy and
rationale behind the scheme, and to point out how it is designed to
provide equal priority to all users, and that pedestrians have no more
right than motorists to use any particular patch of the road.

WTF are you on about? Why should a public awareness campaign be
necessary?

You think that after a century of expecting to be told who has
right-of-way, who travels on which part of the road etc., and then
removing it all, that everyone will suddenly realise that they are now
free to behave as human beings again? It will come as a complete shock
to many people that they have had the roads returned to them after all
that time, and they may not believe or trust it. They may be reassured
if they are told officially.

Quoted message said:

It's intuitively obvious, and plays into everybody's natural
way of navigation, yes?

Yes. But suspicions of a hidden catch need to be allayed, given that we
are so used to having them.

Quoted message said:

According to you anyway.

Do you need telling who to wait for, and who to go before, when you are
walking around shops, etc.? But, if you had suffered a century of
oppression, and got used to having to give-way to certain classes of
people, or certain professions, it may take you a while to readjust to
the new-found natural freedoms.

Quoted message said:

Or is it a load of
[censored] which requires public awareness campaigns, signposts, white lines
and all the rest of it?

The public, especially pedestrians if they have had the road to
themselves for a while, may need to have it pointed-out that cars will
be present, and to be assured that they will, never-the-less, still have
equal priority to use any part of the road at any time. Why would that
mean that you will then need signs, lines, etc.?

Quoted message said:

If you're gonna have a public awareness campaign, why not just make
people aware of existing traffic laws and be done with it?

Existing traffic measures don't work. If you remove them you need, as a
matter of courtesy, to inform people - don't you?

--
Matt B

Ian Smith said:

Marc Brett said:

WTF are you on about?

Remember, this is the clot that so desires to argue that he'll claim
you're more likely to be hit by a car somewhere where there are no
cars than somewhere where cars are being driven.

Ian, shame on you. You know that is a distortion of the meaning, based
on selective and out-of-context citing. A lie in fact, and no matter
how often you repeat it it will not become true.

Quoted message said:

Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought even you would find it difficult to argue that you're
more likely to be hit by a car if there are no cars present, but
evidently I was wrong.

You are wrong

Why did you not include the rest, and the context that proves it to be a
perfectly valid point?

Quoted message said:

You've fallen into the error of assuming your opponent actually has
a coherent point of view.

He /knows/ I have.

Quoted message said:

Do something more productive, like argue with a dead fish.

I know I chewed-up your feeble attempt to discredit "shared space", and
spat it out again, but it is nothing personal. We all, unless we are so
tightly bound in preconceptions and prejudices, learn and adapt our
views, opinions, and even beliefs, from discussions and arguments, and
become better people for it. Don't become bitter, don't bite the hands
that feed you - it will always be you who comes out worse off.

Quoted message said:

But yes, it would be remarkable were a coherent person that advocates
something as natural and intuitive to anticipate that it will require
a programme of public education to make it work.

You think that after a century of being bound by ill-conceived laws,
restrictions, regulations, and conventions, that a little bit of
"rehabilitation" help would be a bad thing?

--
Matt B

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

naked_draughtsman wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only time I can see there being any advantage to driving in a
cycle lane is if there is an obstruction in the middle of the road

Yes.

Quoted message said:

(e.g. a cyclist turning right)

Or a motor vehicle indeed.

When there's a motor vehicle stopped to turn right you will find that
many following drivers automatically move as far to the left as they
can before stopping even though there is insufficient room for them to
pass. In doing so they prevent cyclists from passing them.

I find this irritating generally but particularly so when they also
block a cycle lane. In situations like this I feel I ought to be able
to move into the cycle lane, pass the stationery traffic and move back
into a reasonable position once past the obstruction. Making it easier
to pass queuing motor vehicles is about the only justification of an
on-road cycle lane I can think of but it's not safe even to do that.
I've been hit a couple of times by cars whose drivers suddenly veered
into a cycle lane.

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

naked_draughtsman said:

The only time I can see there being any advantage to driving in a
cycle lane is if there is an obstruction in the middle of the road

Quoted message said:

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(e.g. a cyclist turning right)

Quoted message said:

Or a motor vehicle indeed.

When there's a motor vehicle stopped to turn right you will find that
many following drivers automatically move as far to the left as they
can before stopping even though there is insufficient room for them to
pass. In doing so they prevent cyclists from passing them.

I find this irritating generally but particularly so when they also
block a cycle lane. In situations like this I feel I ought to be able
to move into the cycle lane, pass the stationery traffic and move back
into a reasonable position once past the obstruction. Making it easier
to pass queuing motor vehicles is about the only justification of an
on-road cycle lane I can think of but it's not safe even to do that.

Also, while it's perfectly legal to undertake a queue of traffic on a
bike some drivers creep forward and pull to the left to deliberately
stop people doing this including into cycle lanes. There are some
helpful people who move over to the right a little in these situations
- there are some good drivers out there!

peter

Matt B said:

Andrew Richardson wrote:

Quoted message said:

It seems to be having "teething troubles".

What would you change? I thought this idea was supposed to be intuitive.

Quoted message said:

I'm not familiar with the
scheme, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is "a long story" to it.

Not that I'm aware of, and I often read the local paper.

Quoted message said:

Was it previously a "pedestrian only" street?

No. It was a traditional street with a carriageway, white dividing line,
kerbs and pavements.

Quoted message said:

Is there a history, or
even "tradition" of conflict between groups representing, say, the
blind, and the council or road authority?

No idea. How is that relevant?

Quoted message said:

Perhaps there was no public
awareness campaign carried out to fully explain the philosophy and
rationale behind the scheme, and to point out how it is designed to
provide equal priority to all users, and that pedestrians have no more
right than motorists to use any particular patch of the road.

Nor motorists over pedestrians, shurely? Why did the author of the letter
have to jump out of way of a car? I was lead to believe that motorists
would be model citizens if a scheme like this were to be introduced.

--
Andrew Richardson
Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:59:58 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It seems to be having "teething troubles". I'm not familiar with the
scheme, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is "a long story" to it.
Was it previously a "pedestrian only" street? Is there a history, or
even "tradition" of conflict between groups representing, say, the
blind, and the council or road authority? Perhaps there was no public
awareness campaign carried out to fully explain the philosophy and
rationale behind the scheme, and to point out how it is designed to
provide equal priority to all users, and that pedestrians have no more
right than motorists to use any particular patch of the road.

WTF are you on about? Why should a public awareness campaign be
necessary?

Quite. And at least one person has felt strongly enough about the dangers
of such a scheme to write to the local rag about it.

Quoted message said:

If you're gonna have a public awareness campaign, why not just make
people aware of existing traffic laws and be done with it?

<AOL>

--
Andrew Richardson
Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Matt B said:

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:59:58 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's intuitively obvious, and plays into everybody's natural
way of navigation, yes?

Yes. But suspicions of a hidden catch need to be allayed, given that we
are so used to having them.

Is that why the pedestrian had to jump out of the way of the car in the
letter? Was the car driver and/or pedestrian suspicious of a catch?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

According to you anyway.

Do you need telling who to wait for, and who to go before, when you are
walking around shops, etc.?

Depends if lumps of steel weighing a ton upwards are going to be travelling
at 30-40mph in the middle of shop with you, don't you think?

Quoted message said:

Existing traffic measures don't work.

Provide evidence for this assertion please. I think they work better than
this "shared space" scheme.

Quoted message said:

If you remove them you need, as a
matter of courtesy, to inform people - don't you?

That's what signs are for. Oh hang on, you probably want rid of those too,
don't you?

--
Andrew Richardson
Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Andrew Richardson said:

Matt B said:

Andrew Richardson wrote:

Quoted message said:

It seems to be having "teething troubles".

What would you change? I thought this idea was supposed to be intuitive.

I don't know enough about it - but I suspect neither do the residents.
Trust and familiarity are obviously lacking.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not familiar with the
scheme, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is "a long story" to it.

Not that I'm aware of, and I often read the local paper.

I did a quick Google, and the New Road scheme is, apparently quite
notorious. In 1998 30 parking spaces were scrapped - to the dismay of
local traders. The council described the new scheme in 2005 thus: "The
scheme shows how excellent design can make the space feel safer and
easier to access and it sets the standard for future street design in
the city."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Was it previously a "pedestrian only" street?

No. It was a traditional street with a carriageway, white dividing line,
kerbs and pavements.

Motor traffic /was/ banned for about a year - "New Road was turned into
a pleasant street but then the council let the cars back in."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is there a history, or
even "tradition" of conflict between groups representing, say, the
blind, and the council or road authority?

No idea. How is that relevant?

I wondered if there was an ongoing battle, for which this high-profile
scheme, lead by international urban development specialists, is being
used as a pawn.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps there was no public
awareness campaign carried out to fully explain the philosophy and
rationale behind the scheme, and to point out how it is designed to
provide equal priority to all users, and that pedestrians have no more
right than motorists to use any particular patch of the road.

Nor motorists over pedestrians, shurely?

I was assuming (and correctly so, apparently) that it was more recently
pedestrian only, and cars were being let back in.

Quoted message said:

Why did the author of the letter
have to jump out of way of a car?

We only have one side of that story. However, it would appear that,
rather than the 30+ mph we can see on "normal" urban roads, the car in
question was only travelling at 15-20 mph (the pedestrian's estimate).

Quoted message said:

I was lead to believe that motorists
would be model citizens if a scheme like this were to be introduced.

What makes you think they aren't??? Are you going to judge the success
of a scheme, which was only opened within the last few days, and one of
the first in this country to embrace such a "radical" philosophy, on one
letter to the press? Let it "bed in", and let the users become
accustomed to behaving like humans to each other again. Why not visit
it and see how it feels?

--
Matt B

Andrew Richardson said:

Matt B said:

Marc Brett said:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:59:58 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's intuitively obvious, and plays into everybody's natural
way of navigation, yes?

Yes. But suspicions of a hidden catch need to be allayed, given that we
are so used to having them.

Is that why the pedestrian had to jump out of the way of the car in the
letter? Was the car driver and/or pedestrian suspicious of a catch?

The car driver was probably expecting a speed camera or a rising bollard
to appear, and not able to pay full attention to the job in hand. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

According to you anyway.

Do you need telling who to wait for, and who to go before, when you are
walking around shops, etc.?

Depends if lumps of steel weighing a ton upwards are going to be travelling
at 30-40mph in the middle of shop with you, don't you think?

Do you assert your "rights" at zebra crossings, or whilst crossing side
roads with a car about to turn in? You see - the speed and weight of
the "opponent" is irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Existing traffic measures don't work.

Provide evidence for this assertion please.

3200 deaths on our roads in 2005.

Quoted message said:

I think they work better than
this "shared space" scheme.

How many deaths, or even minor casualties, have there been there then?

--
Matt B