Blackfriars Bridge update

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by John Hearns, Jul 26, 2004.

  1. John Hearns

    John Hearns Guest

    I just heard on London Today that the bus river
    has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
     
    Tags:


  2. davek

    davek Guest

    John Hearns wrote:
    > Foound an article on the Evening Standard website:
    >
    > http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/londonnews/articles/12157482?source=Evening Standard


    "But TfL insists that most cyclists heading north over the bridge go
    straight into the City and not left along the Embankment, so it is safer
    to put cyclists in the middle of the road where they can head across the
    junction rather than on the left, forcing them to pull out in front of
    traffic to get to the City."

    I agree with this - up to a point. The problem is not so much the
    position of the cycle lane as the fact that motorists cross over it from
    one lane to the other with no regard for any cyclists that may be using
    it - not to mention complete disregard for the solid white line that
    segregates the inside of the cycle lane with the left-hand lane. If TfL
    put a line of bollards along the solid white line then maybe motorists
    would get the message to get in the proper sodding lane when they are
    given the opportunity, ie at the start of the bridge, before the cycle
    lane starts.

    d.
     
  3. Gonzalez

    Gonzalez Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:04:30 +0100, John Hearns <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >I just heard on London Today that the bus river
    >has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.


    Would that be the river of busses which flow over Blackfriars Bridge.
     
  4. "davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]

    > I agree with this - up to a point. The problem is not so much the
    > position of the cycle lane as the fact that motorists cross over it from
    > one lane to the other with no regard for any cyclists that may be using
    > it - not to mention complete disregard for the solid white line that
    > segregates the inside of the cycle lane with the left-hand lane. If TfL
    > put a line of bollards along the solid white line then maybe motorists
    > would get the message to get in the proper sodding lane when they are
    > given the opportunity, ie at the start of the bridge, before the cycle
    > lane starts.


    Bollarding off a lane is going to stop traffic overtaking cyclists in the left
    hand lane, meaning cyclists getting hassled when they hold up faster traffic (like
    you get in contraflows at roadworks)
     
  5. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:38:52 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be davek
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >I agree with this - up to a point. The problem is not so much the
    >position of the cycle lane as the fact that motorists cross over it from
    >one lane to the other with no regard for any cyclists that may be using
    >it - not to mention complete disregard for the solid white line that
    >segregates the inside of the cycle lane with the left-hand lane. If TfL
    > put a line of bollards along the solid white line then maybe motorists
    >would get the message to get in the proper sodding lane when they are
    >given the opportunity, ie at the start of the bridge, before the cycle
    >lane starts.


    They need to reduce the number of general traffic lanes by one if
    they are to provide a cycle lane. Otherwise cyclists should be
    claiming the appropriate general traffic lane.


    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
    I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
    prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  6. davek

    davek Guest

    Adrian Boliston wrote:
    > Bollarding off a lane is going to stop traffic overtaking cyclists in the left
    > hand lane, meaning cyclists getting hassled when they hold up faster traffic (like
    > you get in contraflows at roadworks)


    If it's a choice between being "hassled" or being flattened by a bus, I
    know which I'd choose.

    d.
     
  7. Squeaker

    Squeaker New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you've hit the nail on the head - the present lane is dangerous because drivers can make their decision to change lanes over the whole length of the bridge. I was wondering whether a physical obstruction along the cycle lane would help. Without one, I can't see how cyclists keeping close to the left-hand kerb (if you imagine for a while that the cycle lane wasn't there) and who want to go straight on along New Bridge Street can avoid having to cross the path of fast-moving left-turning traffic at some stage. The only other thing I can think of (which would never happen in a million years) would be to do away with the far left-hand lane altogether (extend the pavement?) so that cyclists reaching the north end of the bridge can "take the lane" and go straight ahead the same way they do on London Bridge. But sadly I don't think Blackfriars is going to get safer any time soon.
     
  8. John Hearns wrote:

    > I just heard on London Today that the bus river
    > has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.


    I note that he is apparently a resident of Edmonton. This explains a great
    deal.

    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  9. Pete Biggs

    Pete Biggs Guest

    The cycle lane should be scrapped altogether.

    Cyclists are better off using the inside lane, before crossing over to the
    next lane before the junction at the north end if they are going straight
    on. The cyclist should start looking behind well before the junction to
    spot a gap in the traffic to be ready to make a manoeuvre when it is safe
    to do so. If no decent gap comes in time then either stop and wait until
    there is a gap or walk the bike on the pavement and use the crossings as a
    pedestrian.

    It's interesting that the Standard article mentions the junction being
    like the kind of thing you get on fast roads. Well, yes it is, so you
    should do the same thing as you would on a 70 mph trunk A road--what I've
    described above. Not cycle the whole bloody thing in no-mans land!

    ~PB
     
  10. Dave Larrington wrote:

    > John Hearns wrote:
    >
    >> I just heard on London Today that the bus river
    >> has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

    >
    > I note that he is apparently a resident of Edmonton. This explains a great
    > deal.


    Tired from commuting in every day from Canada?

    --
    Keith Willoughby
    Welcome to the police state - http://tinyurl.com/3cptb
     
  11. Pete Biggs wrote:

    > The cycle lane should be scrapped altogether.
    > Cyclists are better off using the inside lane, before crossing over to the
    > next lane before the junction at the north end if they are going straight
    > on. The cyclist should start looking behind well before the junction to
    > spot a gap in the traffic to be ready to make a manoeuvre when it is safe
    > to do so.


    I was with you up to this point.

    > If no decent gap comes in time then either stop and wait until
    > there is a gap or walk the bike on the pavement and use the crossings as a
    > pedestrian.


    No. Hang the right arm out, repeatedly looking behind, and if still
    no-one gives way, make threatening little wobbles to the right until
    someone does.

    Stopping is absolute last resort, but might happen occasionally if
    none of the above works. The above has always worked for me, up to
    now, on Hanger Lane A406 (with 2 lanes to get across).

    > It's interesting that the Standard article mentions the junction being
    > like the kind of thing you get on fast roads. Well, yes it is, so you
    > should do the same thing as you would on a 70 mph trunk A road--what I've
    > described above. Not cycle the whole bloody thing in no-mans land!


    Yes. You generally need to be taking a lane in these situations, and
    the left one gives drivers fewer ways to get past. If there's a cycle
    lane between 2 general lanes, I'd want 2.5m width - which is wide
    enough for another general lane.

    Colin McKenzie

    --
    The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
    it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!
     
  12. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:04:30 +0100, John Hearns <[email protected]>
    wrote (more or less):

    >I just heard on London Today that the bus river
    >has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.


    I wonder if this means

    a) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
    in this instance, based on the notoriety of the case

    b) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
    in this instance, based on the fact the driver was using what's now
    accepted as a systemically flawed traffic layout

    c) they're just generally lowering the bar on dangerous driving, so as
    to tackle motor vehicle operators tendency to excuse their fatalities
    by 'SMIDSY'[1]

    d) the driver was actually driving as hugely dangerously as one
    traditionally needs to drive to be charged with dangerous driving in
    cases involving a motor vehicle killing a non-motorised road-user.

    To be consistent, it would have to be d).

    My hope is for c).

    My fear is a) or b).



    --
    Cheers,
    Euan
    Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
    Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  13. Gawnsoft <[email protected]> writes:
    > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:04:30 +0100, John Hearns <[email protected]>
    > wrote (more or less):
    >
    > >I just heard on London Today that the bus river
    > >has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

    >
    > I wonder if this means
    >
    > a) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
    > in this instance, based on the notoriety of the case
    >
    > b) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
    > in this instance, based on the fact the driver was using what's now
    > accepted as a systemically flawed traffic layout
    >
    > c) they're just generally lowering the bar on dangerous driving, so as
    > to tackle motor vehicle operators tendency to excuse their fatalities
    > by 'SMIDSY'[1]
    >
    > d) the driver was actually driving as hugely dangerously as one
    > traditionally needs to drive to be charged with dangerous driving in
    > cases involving a motor vehicle killing a non-motorised road-user.
    >
    > To be consistent, it would have to be d).
    >
    > My hope is for c).
    >
    > My fear is a) or b).


    As is my fear. Who do you think we write to in this instance to
    protest this point?

    A
     
  14. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > John Hearns wrote:
    >
    > > I just heard on London Today that the bus river
    > > has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

    >
    > I note that he is apparently a resident of Edmonton. This explains a great
    > deal.


    Oi, mush! (Edmontonspeak for "Excuse me".) I spent my first 9 years
    growing up there, and was educated at Edmonton County School. Come to
    think of it, so were Norman Tebbitt and Kriss Akabusi. Maybe that
    explains a lot too.

    --
    Dave...

    When I was kidnapped, my parents snapped into action. They rented out
    my room. — Woody Allen
     
  15. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On 27 Jul 2004 11:44:21 +0100, Ambrose Nankivell
    <[email protected]> wrote (more or less):

    >Gawnsoft <[email protected]> writes:
    >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 15:04:30 +0100, John Hearns <[email protected]>
    >> wrote (more or less):
    >>
    >> >I just heard on London Today that the bus river
    >> >has been charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.

    >>
    >> I wonder if this means
    >>
    >> a) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
    >> in this instance, based on the notoriety of the case
    >>
    >> b) they're lowering the bar for being able to charge dangerous driving
    >> in this instance, based on the fact the driver was using what's now
    >> accepted as a systemically flawed traffic layout
    >>
    >> c) they're just generally lowering the bar on dangerous driving, so as
    >> to tackle motor vehicle operators tendency to excuse their fatalities
    >> by 'SMIDSY'[1]
    >>
    >> d) the driver was actually driving as hugely dangerously as one
    >> traditionally needs to drive to be charged with dangerous driving in
    >> cases involving a motor vehicle killing a non-motorised road-user.
    >>
    >> To be consistent, it would have to be d).
    >>
    >> My hope is for c).
    >>
    >> My fear is a) or b).

    >
    >As is my fear. Who do you think we write to in this instance to
    >protest this point?


    I'm tempted to write to my local MP - A. Darling.

    I'm trying to frame it so that it can legitimately have applicability
    to our constituency.


    --
    Cheers,
    Euan
    Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
    Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  16. Dave Kahn wrote:

    > Oi, mush! (Edmontonspeak for "Excuse me".) I spent my first 9 years
    > growing up there, and was educated at Edmonton County School. Come to
    > think of it, so were Norman Tebbitt and Kriss Akabusi. Maybe that
    > explains a lot too.


    My chum Mr. Sunshine, a north London chap to the tips of his extensive
    collection of offensive weapons, always refers to Edmonton as "the death of
    the soul", just as Murdock refers to Basingstoke as "the experimental
    inbreeding centre".

    C'est la vie. Or something.

    --

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
Loading...
Loading...