Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#202
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 16:14:24
on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked: At least out-of-town taxis now only risk getting a ticket (assuming they aren't allowed in that particular bus lane), rather than a smashed sump. Smashed sumps in general happened to chancers not out-of-town taxis. The first one to get a lot of publicity was an out-of-town taxi. Will *all* transgressors get ANPR tickets now, or is there still scope for chancing? -- Roland Perry |
#203
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 16:14:24
on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 16:07:44 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis. The train company, more likely. They control access to the station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway. No, it's the council. On what basis do you make that mendacious claim? Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard. I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the article say exactly? "promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the district." What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway land? Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If they do it confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such permits. That's all an irrelevant sideshow. You claimed it was the railways who wanted the dress code - I disagree and say it's the council. No. I said the railway controls access to station forecourts with whatever conditions they deem appropriate. Which is irrelevant to new rules from the council. You mentioned dress code, not me. Yes, in a report of the proposed new taxi-code from the COUNCIL. You then disputed that the [new] dress code was something the council wanted. -- Roland Perry |
#204
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#205
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 08:19:03 on Thu, 20 Apr
2017, d remarked: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:14:24 -0500 wrote: This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on cost grounds. Comparing to clearing the ground, casting the concrete and moving into place, how much extra in percentage terms would bolting a pair of steel guiderails into place cost? It can't be that great and I'd be surprised if they didn't recycle the old rail track to create them. Isn't Colin saying they *didn't* cast concrete guided sections for Cambridge North. In effect it must be just "a normal road, buses only". Which has other benefits, such as not being restricted to buses-with-guide-wheels. See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. Presumably the short length of guiderail is to prevent guided buses falling into the "car trap". But an unguided bus could drive through the gap if done carefully enough - a couple of inches clearance either side. http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...9_42dd46aa.jpg Of course, it's an accident waiting to happen, because sooner or later a driver will forget that the onward road isn't guided and take his hands off the wheel. The drivers are not the sharpest tools in the box. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20427214 "[Stagecoach] said it thought the driver had misjudged the entrance to busway, causing it to leave the tracks. The bus was left at a 45-degree angle across the entrance, before being recovered from the scene a few hours later." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-21479277 "Passenger Michaela Murray said the bus she was on slowed down for horses and another bus hit it from behind." http://assets9.heart.co.uk/2016/27/c...ay-crash-july- 2016-1467897287-article-0.jpg and probably the worst: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35841300 "A guided bus driver who crashed near Cambridge injuring five passengers was travelling at more than 53mph in a 30mph zone, a report concluded. .... The "excessive speed" at a junction between one set of guide tracks and another made it "unlikely the bus was under the driver's control". -- Roland Perry |
#206
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 09:44:24 on Thu, 20 Apr
2017, Roland Perry remarked: See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. If I'd pasted it in! https://goo.gl/maps/HBDgRgXMfkn -- Roland Perry |
#207
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 08:19:03 on Thu, 20 Apr 2017, d remarked: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:14:24 -0500 wrote: This is probably true but the unguided section at Orchard Park probably and the approach section to Cambridge North station definitely are unguided on cost grounds. Comparing to clearing the ground, casting the concrete and moving into place, how much extra in percentage terms would bolting a pair of steel guiderails into place cost? It can't be that great and I'd be surprised if they didn't recycle the old rail track to create them. I suggest you come to Cambridge and have a closer look at Guided Busway construction. You wouldn't then spout that nonsense. Isn't Colin saying they *didn't* cast concrete guided sections for Cambridge North. In effect it must be just "a normal road, buses only". Which has other benefits, such as not being restricted to buses-with-guide-wheels. Not so. The steel guide rails at the entrance and exit to the roadway prevent anything other than guided buses from entering. There's a similar arrangement controlling access from the guideway across Harrison Way at St Ives. See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. Presumably the short length of guiderail is to prevent guided buses falling into the "car trap". But an unguided bus could drive through the gap if done carefully enough - a couple of inches clearance either side. http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...9_42dd46aa.jpg Of course, it's an accident waiting to happen, because sooner or later a driver will forget that the onward road isn't guided and take his hands off the wheel. The drivers are not the sharpest tools in the box. Which are amongst the reasons why it's probably illegal under the ROGS regulations. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-20427214 "[Stagecoach] said it thought the driver had misjudged the entrance to busway, causing it to leave the tracks. The bus was left at a 45-degree angle across the entrance, before being recovered from the scene a few hours later." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-21479277 "Passenger Michaela Murray said the bus she was on slowed down for horses and another bus hit it from behind." http://assets9.heart.co.uk/2016/27/c...ay-crash-july- 2016-1467897287-article-0.jpg and probably the worst: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-35841300 "A guided bus driver who crashed near Cambridge injuring five passengers was travelling at more than 53mph in a 30mph zone, a report concluded. ... The "excessive speed" at a junction between one set of guide tracks and another made it "unlikely the bus was under the driver's control". -- Colin Rosenstiel |
#208
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 16:14:24 on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked: At least out-of-town taxis now only risk getting a ticket (assuming they aren't allowed in that particular bus lane), rather than a smashed sump. Smashed sumps in general happened to chancers not out-of-town taxis. The first one to get a lot of publicity was an out-of-town taxi. Will *all* transgressors get ANPR tickets now, or is there still scope for chancing? No idea. The media have gone very quiet on this. I do see chancers and clueless tourists driving through the New Square gate at times, usually late at night. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
#209
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: In message , at 16:14:24 on Wed, 19 Apr 2017, remarked: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: In message , at 16:07:44 on Tue, 18 Apr 2017, remarked: The licencing authority doesn't want tourists arriving at the station to be greeted by a load of scruffs in beaten up taxis. The train company, more likely. They control access to the station forecourt. It's not part of the public highway. No, it's the council. On what basis do you make that mendacious claim? Reading between the lines of the article in the Ely Standard. I'm not certain about the position in Ely but I am in Cambridge. It's railway land and I think the Ely station forecourt is too. What did the article say exactly? "promotes public safety and a professional taxi service in the district." What does that say that implies the station forecourt is not railway land? Do taxis require a permit to ply for hire at the station? If they do it confirms it is railway land. Councils don't issue such permits. That's all an irrelevant sideshow. You claimed it was the railways who wanted the dress code - I disagree and say it's the council. No. I said the railway controls access to station forecourts with whatever conditions they deem appropriate. Which is irrelevant to new rules from the council. True. I don't understand why you think council rules on dress code are anything to do with taxi access to the station. You mentioned dress code, not me. Yes, in a report of the proposed new taxi-code from the COUNCIL. You then disputed that the [new] dress code was something the council wanted. It's not a local feature in Cambridge. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
#210
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 13:32:46
on Thu, 20 Apr 2017, remarked: The steel guide rails at the entrance and exit to the roadway prevent anything other than guided buses from entering. .... See this Streetview of the somewhat ******* child. Presumably the short length of guiderail is to prevent guided buses falling into the "car trap". But an unguided bus could drive through the gap if done ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ carefully enough - a couple of inches clearance either side. http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/...9_42dd46aa.jpg Of course, it's an accident waiting to happen, because sooner or later a driver will forget that the onward road isn't guided and take his hands off the wheel. The drivers are not the sharpest tools in the box. Which are amongst the reasons why it's probably illegal under the ROGS regulations. So is speeding. -- Roland Perry |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Woking to Heathrow | London Transport | |||
Woking to Heathrow | London Transport | |||
Jetpod - Woking to London in 4 minutes | London Transport |