S
Sniper8052(L96A1)
Guest
David Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:46:50 +1100 someone who may be Sniper8052
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for
>>pedestrians,
>
>
> You'd better try and convince some councils of this assertion. I can
> think of a few who have installed such things precisely to help
> pedestrians cross.
Yea, put in the rest of the sentence...
>> or to denote the difference between two speed limits or mark the entrance to a village,
>> although they may be used for any of the above.
Or better still quote it properly...
>> The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for pedestrians,
>> excepting at pedestrian crossings,
Don't be a **** just to try and make a point which you know full well
you can only make by misrepresenting that which was written.
I quite clearly state that they may well be used for that and other
purposes but that the primary function of traffic islands is to separate
opposing traffic where it may come into conflict.
Sniper8052
To Continue:
>>> Colin McKenzie
>>> Guest
>>> Well, I know a couple put in to stop motor vehicles hitting each other
>>> head-on by cutting corners. They act as pinch points for cyclists to
>>> be cut up in, since the gap is 3.0m and most drivers speed at 35-40.
I wasn't sure what you meant by this but the first sentence suggests my
assertion is correct. The following may be a consequence but the
primary purpose, to stop cars hitting each other, remains.
>>>> Mike Causer
>>>> Guest
>>>> In that case why is a new island being constructed this morning on a
>>>> straight road 200m from the nearest bend and 100m from the nearest road
>>>> junction, in the middle of a village? Oh, and why is it right opposite
>>>> the village hall? For that matter, why is there a half-built island on
>>>> another straight section of the same road, opposite the Sports & Social
>>>> Club, and yet another older one opposite the child nursery? They are
>>>> there in a vain attempt to get the cars, vans and lorries to slow down as
>>>> they go past these points. And to present a new hazard to cyclists of
>>>> course :-( At a place where there _is_ a serious danger of conflict
>>>> there is no room to put an island, so there isn't one.
I would suggest for that very reason, a straight road with no side
turnings invites higher speeds. If you add to this vehicles emerging
from car parks or intermittent driveways the potential for a high speed
accident is greatly increased. The fact that a number of similar
islands exist in this road leads to the conclusion that the islands
serve three purposes.
1) Their location directly opposite the exit of the car park or driveway
is to inhibit speed through that point for vehicles travelling along the
road.
2) The location inhibits drivers trying to make a quick turn in front of
oncoming traffic as the roadway is narrower requiring a slower turn and
a greater distance between oncoming vehicles and the turning vehicle to
complete the manoeuvre.
3) It prevents vehicles turning across both lanes of traffic which might
cause a danger if traffic is fast flowing.
Hence the primary purpose is still maintained.
If there's no room to manage traffic there's no room, can't fit a quart
in a pint pot!
No I don't want to know how you can do it in quantum physics
>>>>> Richard Goodman
>>>>> Guest
>>>>> Well, they often put motorcyclists and cyclists into potential conflict with
>>>>> opposing traffic when they have to go round the wrong side of the island to
>>>>> pass queuing traffic, instead of proceeding uninterupted down the middle of
>>>>> the road Of course, they aren't the only ones that do it - I've also
>>>>> been passed by cars that way on occasions, because I wouldn't let them
>>>>> squeeze me into the kerb at the pinch-points they create.
Which only proves that they are ignoring the keep left signs not that
the islands are not fulfilling their purpose.
Sniper8052
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:46:50 +1100 someone who may be Sniper8052
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for
>>pedestrians,
>
>
> You'd better try and convince some councils of this assertion. I can
> think of a few who have installed such things precisely to help
> pedestrians cross.
Yea, put in the rest of the sentence...
>> or to denote the difference between two speed limits or mark the entrance to a village,
>> although they may be used for any of the above.
Or better still quote it properly...
>> The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for pedestrians,
>> excepting at pedestrian crossings,
Don't be a **** just to try and make a point which you know full well
you can only make by misrepresenting that which was written.
I quite clearly state that they may well be used for that and other
purposes but that the primary function of traffic islands is to separate
opposing traffic where it may come into conflict.
Sniper8052
To Continue:
>>> Colin McKenzie
>>> Guest
>>> Well, I know a couple put in to stop motor vehicles hitting each other
>>> head-on by cutting corners. They act as pinch points for cyclists to
>>> be cut up in, since the gap is 3.0m and most drivers speed at 35-40.
I wasn't sure what you meant by this but the first sentence suggests my
assertion is correct. The following may be a consequence but the
primary purpose, to stop cars hitting each other, remains.
>>>> Mike Causer
>>>> Guest
>>>> In that case why is a new island being constructed this morning on a
>>>> straight road 200m from the nearest bend and 100m from the nearest road
>>>> junction, in the middle of a village? Oh, and why is it right opposite
>>>> the village hall? For that matter, why is there a half-built island on
>>>> another straight section of the same road, opposite the Sports & Social
>>>> Club, and yet another older one opposite the child nursery? They are
>>>> there in a vain attempt to get the cars, vans and lorries to slow down as
>>>> they go past these points. And to present a new hazard to cyclists of
>>>> course :-( At a place where there _is_ a serious danger of conflict
>>>> there is no room to put an island, so there isn't one.
I would suggest for that very reason, a straight road with no side
turnings invites higher speeds. If you add to this vehicles emerging
from car parks or intermittent driveways the potential for a high speed
accident is greatly increased. The fact that a number of similar
islands exist in this road leads to the conclusion that the islands
serve three purposes.
1) Their location directly opposite the exit of the car park or driveway
is to inhibit speed through that point for vehicles travelling along the
road.
2) The location inhibits drivers trying to make a quick turn in front of
oncoming traffic as the roadway is narrower requiring a slower turn and
a greater distance between oncoming vehicles and the turning vehicle to
complete the manoeuvre.
3) It prevents vehicles turning across both lanes of traffic which might
cause a danger if traffic is fast flowing.
Hence the primary purpose is still maintained.
If there's no room to manage traffic there's no room, can't fit a quart
in a pint pot!
No I don't want to know how you can do it in quantum physics
>>>>> Richard Goodman
>>>>> Guest
>>>>> Well, they often put motorcyclists and cyclists into potential conflict with
>>>>> opposing traffic when they have to go round the wrong side of the island to
>>>>> pass queuing traffic, instead of proceeding uninterupted down the middle of
>>>>> the road Of course, they aren't the only ones that do it - I've also
>>>>> been passed by cars that way on occasions, because I wouldn't let them
>>>>> squeeze me into the kerb at the pinch-points they create.
Which only proves that they are ignoring the keep left signs not that
the islands are not fulfilling their purpose.
Sniper8052
