Accident in Croydon
 

On 9 Sep, 11:41, Adrian wrote:
Depends how he left the bus. The doesn't appear to be much of the upper
front window remaining.

Well the bus did have an argument with a tram and lost. Given how
mangled the front of the bus is I'd guess the windows just shattered
and fell out on impact. The tram seems fairly intact in the pictures.
Apart from it having derailed you'd never know it had been in an
accident. Must be built a lot stronger than the bus.

B2003

Accident in Croydon
 

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Boltar wrote:

On 9 Sep, 11:41, Adrian wrote:

Depends how he left the bus. The doesn't appear to be much of the upper
front window remaining.

Well the bus did have an argument with a tram and lost. Given how
mangled the front of the bus is I'd guess the windows just shattered and
fell out on impact. The tram seems fairly intact in the pictures. Apart
from it having derailed you'd never know it had been in an accident.
Must be built a lot stronger than the bus.

Maybe the safety bedwetters in the HMRI have done some good after all!

Seriously, though, is it any secret that rail vehicles are built much
tougher than road vehicles?

In a situation like this, of course, that extra toughness might not have
been an advantage - rather as with giant 4x4s, it may reduce the danger to
occupants at the expense of increasing the danger to those outside it.

tom

--
And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden

Accident in Croydon
 

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Pyromancer wrote:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom Anderson
gently breathed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

You should send that to the Warrington Cycle Campaign for their
"Facility Of The Month" page - top work!

That's on my to-do list, certainly!

tom

--
And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden

Accident in Croydon
 

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, wrote:

On Sep 10, 12:29*am, Tom Anderson wrote:

diagonally across). *I just get in the bus lane and behave like a bus...

This is also my strategy. I'm getting very good at brrrmming noises.

I can ride fast enough, and more to the point accelerate rapidly enough,
that I can outperform buses in urban settings. But then I don't need
the bike lanes in the first place --- fit, alert, knows what cars do by
virtue of having driven them for twenty-five years, plus the added je ne
said quoi have having a few years' motorbike experience too. My kids,
however, don't have many of those attributes, and things like National
Cycle Routes _should_ be aimed at them: if not for children / the
nervous / the inexperienced, what's the point of traffic engineering the
roads in city centres?

The actual point has got nothing to do with the needs of any group of
cyclists at all: it's essentially a religion, in which planners, without
any reference to evidence, fervently believe that some white and green
paint will make life better for cyclists, encourage more cycling, etc. In
this, they're supported by their congregation of the equally uninformed
general public, sadly including most cyclists.

Seriously - cycle lanes have been shown time and time again to *increase*
danger to cyclists. They protect them while running alongside the main
lane, but expose them to greater danger at junctions. The way the numbers
pan out for all but the most unbejunctioned roads means that they increase
risk overall. A cavalcade of studies are listed he

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

You say that experienced cyclists like us don't need cycle lanes, but i'd
say that inexperienced cyclists need them *even less*, since they're the
ones who are at most risk to begin with, and so stand to suffer the most
from the increased risk presented by a cycle lane.

Now, where it's possible to build fully segregated routes that have no
interaction with roads at any point, or do so very infrequently, i would
agree that these can be of use to inexperienced cyclists, and even to
experienced cyclists. The trouble is that there are vanishingly few
opportunities for such things. You can build them in to new developments
if you try, but it's generally impossible to fit them into existing street
layouts without either making them useless to cars (which is a good idea,
but not popular) or spending an absurd amount on grade separation or
something. The exceptions are where there's an existing grade-separated
right of way that can be used, such as a canal towpath or a disused
railway, or an area that's already car-free, like a park, or an incredibly
lucky set of circumstances.

Perhaps the thing to do would be to stop building ('building' - can you
build anything with paint?) conventional cycle lanes altogether, and focus
the resources on building a small number of genuinely good routes where
they could do the most good, and be the most use to inexperienced cyclists
- for instance, if there's a large primary school surrounded by busy
roads, then elevating or sinking some of the roads and putting a
grade-separated ground level cycle route in to link to adjacent regions of
quieter roads.

Or to spend the money on extra police or traffic wardens (or cameras) to
enforce traffic laws at key conflict points. And, since a minor but
significant fraction of cyclist casualties stem from cyclist errors, i
mean enforcing them against cyclists as well as motorists!

tom

--
And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden

Accident in Croydon
 

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Pyromancer) wrote:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom
Anderson gently breathed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

You should send that to the Warrington Cycle Campaign for their
"Facility Of The Month" page - top work!

I use the segregated cycle lane sections to the west of that location
between the Bedford Way/Tavistock Sq junction and Marchmont St on my way
from Westminster to King's Cross station.

I don't use the section between Marchmont St and Judd St illustrated and
have never seen this nonsense.

I turn off at Marchmont Street too, so i rarely have to negotiate the
bloody thing either. The day i took that, i was riding from the west end
to the City, and that seemed like a good route.

I can't for the life of me think why that crossover isn't arranged at
the lights on the Judd St junction

Quite!

but then they wouldn't have the anti-cyclist lights arrangement at the
Marchmont St junction if they were that sensible.

Oh christ! That junction! AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!! It makes me INSANE WITH
RAGE whenever i see it, or even think about it. It's an affront to common
sense and human dignity. One day, i'm going to burn it down.

tom

--
And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden

Accident in Croydon
 

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Boltar wrote:

Well the bus did have an argument with a tram and lost. Given how
mangled the front of the bus is I'd guess the windows just shattered and
fell out on impact. The tram seems fairly intact in the pictures. Apart
from it having derailed you'd never know it had been in an accident.
Must be built a lot stronger than the bus.

Maybe the safety bedwetters in the HMRI have done some good after all!

Seriously, though, is it any secret that rail vehicles are built much
tougher than road vehicles?

In a situation like this, of course, that extra toughness might not have
been an advantage - rather as with giant 4x4s, it may reduce the danger to
occupants at the expense of increasing the danger to those outside it.

Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone probably
consists of other vehicles.

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 9th August 2008)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Accident in Croydon
 

Nick Leverton writes:

Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone probably
consists of other vehicles.

So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

Accident in Croydon
 

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Pyromancer) wrote:

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom
Anderson gently breathed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

You should send that to the Warrington Cycle Campaign for their
"Facility Of The Month" page - top work!

I use the segregated cycle lane sections to the west of that location
between the Bedford Way/Tavistock Sq junction and Marchmont St on my
way from Westminster to King's Cross station.

I don't use the section between Marchmont St and Judd St
illustrated and have never seen this nonsense.

I turn off at Marchmont Street too, so i rarely have to negotiate
the bloody thing either. The day i took that, i was riding from the
west end to the City, and that seemed like a good route.

I can't for the life of me think why that crossover isn't
arranged at the lights on the Judd St junction

Quite!

but then they wouldn't have the anti-cyclist lights arrangement
at the Marchmont St junction if they were that sensible.

Oh christ! That junction! AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!! It makes me
INSANE WITH RAGE whenever i see it, or even think about it. It's an
affront to common sense and human dignity. One day, i'm going to
burn it down.

Indeed so. I've got an email from a Camden cycling officer I keep meaning
to follow up to have a site meeting about those signals (and a more minor
irritation at Tavistock Square). I have a Camden cycling councillor
contact to whom I've talked about it too but it's one of things for which
I need to get a round tuit.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Accident in Croydon
 

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:29:48 +0100 someone who may be Tom Anderson
wrote this:-

Anyway, some more dickery in return - i've been meaning to post this photo
for ages, and you've prompted me to do so:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

That is certainly good enough for the Warrington Cycle Campaign
farcility of the month spot.


--
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

Accident in Croydon
 

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 07:15:03PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

In a situation like this, of course, that extra toughness might not have
been an advantage - rather as with giant 4x4s, it may reduce the danger to
occupants at the expense of increasing the danger to those outside it.

If you assume that the tram will be carrying a great many more people
than any other vehicle that it runs into (an assumption which, IME,
would hold pretty much all the time in Croydon) then that's a good
trade-off.

--
David Cantrell | Nth greatest programmer in the world

I remember when computers were frustrating because they did
exactly what you told them to. That seems kinda quaint now.
-- JD Baldwin, in the Monastery

Accident in Croydon
 

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 07:34:27PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

Or to spend the money on extra police or traffic wardens (or cameras) to
enforce traffic laws at key conflict points. And, since a minor but
significant fraction of cyclist casualties stem from cyclist errors, i
mean enforcing them against cyclists as well as motorists!

The latter would mean making cyclists identifiable, with number plates.
Good idea.

Unfortunately, cameras won't work. Cameras can't spot an awful lot of
bad behaviour, such as silly lane changes, unless monitored by a person.
And if you're going to have a person, why not just have them stand next
to the junction in question?

--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

There's no problem so complex that it can't be solved
by killing everyone even remotely associated with it

Accident in Croydon
 

David Cantrell gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

In a situation like this, of course, that extra toughness might not
have been an advantage - rather as with giant 4x4s, it may reduce the
danger to occupants at the expense of increasing the danger to those
outside it.

If you assume that the tram will be carrying a great many more people
than any other vehicle that it runs into (an assumption which, IME,
would hold pretty much all the time in Croydon) then that's a good
trade-off.

A quick google suggests that the Croydon trams have a capacity of 200
people and a kerb weight of 36t - so a laden weight of about 50t

Compare that to a typical current double-decker, with a capacity of 60(?)
and a kerb weight of 12t, so a laden weight of about 16.5t

There's also the greater impact avoidance of a bus than a tram - a bus
can swerve, whereas a tram can't - and the greater impact deflection of a
bus than a tram - same reason.

Accident in Croydon
 

On Sep 11, 11:50*am, Adrian wrote:
A quick google suggests that the Croydon trams have a capacity of 200
people and a kerb weight of 36t - so a laden weight of about 50t

Compare that to a typical current double-decker, with a capacity of 60(?)
and a kerb weight of 12t, so a laden weight of about 16.5t

There's also the greater impact avoidance of a bus than a tram - a bus
can swerve, whereas a tram can't - and the greater impact deflection of a
bus than a tram - same reason.

OTOH, it sounds possible from the confused reports so far that the
bus's ability to swerve was the problem in the first place (if it
swerved into the tram's path to avoid a car: far better to just hit
the car and contain the accident there).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Accident in Croydon
 

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Graham Murray wrote:

Nick Leverton writes:

Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone probably
consists of other vehicles.

So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since impossible
situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide. Thus, all cars
should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be no more
collisions. QED.

Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road users.

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Accident in Croydon
 

Tom Anderson gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone
probably consists of other vehicles.

So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since impossible
situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide. Thus, all cars
should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be no more
collisions. QED.

Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road
users.

shrug
Just give 'em all Landies.

Accident in Croydon
 

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

but then they wouldn't have the anti-cyclist lights arrangement at the
Marchmont St junction if they were that sensible.

Oh christ! That junction! AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!! It makes me INSANE
WITH RAGE whenever i see it, or even think about it. It's an affront to
common sense and human dignity. One day, i'm going to burn it down.

Indeed so. I've got an email from a Camden cycling officer I keep
meaning to follow up to have a site meeting about those signals (and a
more minor irritation at Tavistock Square). I have a Camden cycling
councillor contact to whom I've talked about it too but it's one of
things for which I need to get a round tuit.

Have you spoken to anyone from the Camden Cycling Campaign? The whole
Seven Stations route is their baby, and they're heavily involved with the
design and modification of the route along Tavistock Place. You can find
all sorts of fragments of information with some searches on their site:

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/

Although it seems to be silent on the matter of those lights.

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Accident in Croydon
 

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 07:34:27PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

Or to spend the money on extra police or traffic wardens (or cameras) to
enforce traffic laws at key conflict points. And, since a minor but
significant fraction of cyclist casualties stem from cyclist errors, i
mean enforcing them against cyclists as well as motorists!

The latter would mean making cyclists identifiable, with number plates.
Good idea.

Only if you wanted to do it with cameras. If there were actual people,
they could stop them there and then.

Unfortunately, cameras won't work. Cameras can't spot an awful lot of
bad behaviour, such as silly lane changes, unless monitored by a person.

Current cameras don't. I wouldn't say that camera's can't - it's just a
matter of the right software. Software is unlikely to be good as a human
brain, but it can do some quite amazing and unexpected things. Have you
come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software
can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to
uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic! Detecting dangerous
lane changes would seem trivial by comparison.

And if you're going to have a person, why not just have them stand next
to the junction in question?

Well, because one person can monitor more than one camera. Also, is
suspect that one person can work longer and more productively in a
sheltered office environment than a wet and windy street corner.

Not that i'm against having more lawmen on the streets. That would be a
good thing. But it might noet be the optimal allocation of resources.

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Accident in Croydon
 

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Adrian wrote:

Tom Anderson gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone
probably consists of other vehicles.

So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since impossible
situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide. Thus, all cars
should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be no more
collisions. QED.

Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road
users.

shrug
Just give 'em all Landies.


Fair enough.

Could you make a bus derivative of a Land Rover?

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Accident in Croydon
 

Tom Anderson gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since
impossible situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide.
Thus, all cars should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be
no more collisions. QED.

Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road
users.

shrug
Just give 'em all Landies.

Fair enough.

Could you make a bus derivative of a Land Rover?

Since some countries get 12 seats in a 110 Station Wagon, you could do a
passible imitation of a bus with a 130, let alone a 150...

Accident in Croydon
 

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

but then they wouldn't have the anti-cyclist lights arrangement at
the Marchmont St junction if they were that sensible.

Oh christ! That junction! AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!! It makes me INSANE

WITH RAGE whenever i see it, or even think about it. It's an affront

to common sense and human dignity. One day, i'm going to burn it
down.

Indeed so. I've got an email from a Camden cycling officer I keep
meaning to follow up to have a site meeting about those signals
(and a more minor irritation at Tavistock Square). I have a
Camden cycling councillor contact to whom I've talked about it
too but it's one of things for which I need to get a round tuit.

Have you spoken to anyone from the Camden Cycling Campaign? The
whole Seven Stations route is their baby, and they're heavily
involved with the design and modification of the route along
Tavistock Place. You can find all sorts of fragments of information
with some searches on their site:

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/

Although it seems to be silent on the matter of those lights.

Thanks, I've not come across them up to now, no.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Accident in Croydon
 

On Sep 10, 11:18*am, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,

(Pyromancer) wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom
Anderson gently breathed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

You should send that to the Warrington Cycle Campaign for their
"Facility Of The Month" page - top work!

I use the segregated cycle lane sections to the west of that location
between the Bedford Way/Tavistock Sq junction and Marchmont St on my way
from Westminster to King's Cross station.

I don't use the section between Marchmont St and Judd St illustrated and
have never seen this nonsense. I can't for the life of me think why that
crossover isn't arranged at the lights on the Judd St junction

Well it is, as a result of the previous one, in that anyone continuing
east along Tavistock Place has to make the reverse move after a few
yards, across the path of cyclists heading west.

The whole assumption seems to be that all cyclists heading east will
turn south down Hunter Street, but I can't see why they should.

As for why the path has to stay on the north, I'm guessing that it
must be something to do with how one can get on to it at the Tottenham
Court Road end, where it is against the one-way flow of Torrington
Place. I can't remember how one gets to it from Tottenham Court Road,
unless there's a contraflow bike lane there.

but then
they wouldn't have the anti-cyclist lights arrangement at the Marchmont
St junction if they were that sensible.

Accident in Croydon
 

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:18*am, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,

(Pyromancer) wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom
Anderson gently breathed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

You should send that to the Warrington Cycle Campaign for their
"Facility Of The Month" page - top work!

I use the segregated cycle lane sections to the west of that location
between the Bedford Way/Tavistock Sq junction and Marchmont St on my
way from Westminster to King's Cross station.

I don't use the section between Marchmont St and Judd St illustrated
and have never seen this nonsense. I can't for the life of me think
why that crossover isn't arranged at the lights on the Judd St
junction

Well it is, as a result of the previous one, in that anyone continuing
east along Tavistock Place has to make the reverse move after a few
yards, across the path of cyclists heading west.

The whole assumption seems to be that all cyclists heading east will
turn south down Hunter Street, but I can't see why they should.

As for why the path has to stay on the north, I'm guessing that it
must be something to do with how one can get on to it at the Tottenham
Court Road end, where it is against the one-way flow of Torrington
Place. I can't remember how one gets to it from Tottenham Court Road,
unless there's a contraflow bike lane there.

It all sounds like assumptions that it is provided for cyclists making
particular journeys when they make a multitude of journeys. I turn North
at Marchmont St for example, as do many others, and have never used it as
far West as Tottenham Court Road.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Accident in Croydon
 

On Sep 11, 8:52 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
brain, but it can do some quite amazing and unexpected things. Have you
come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software
can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to
uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic!

Thats what the companies who sell the software keep saying. Personally
I have my doubts about how reliable it would be. If software still
isn't up to the task of doing decent object or handwriting or speech
recognition then what are the odds it can *reliably* spot a specific
person in a crowd by the way they walk? I'll believe it when I see it.

B2003

Accident in Croydon
 

On 12 Sep, 09:59, Boltar wrote:
On Sep 11, 8:52 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

brain, but it can do some quite amazing and unexpected things. Have you
come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software
can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to
uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic!

Thats what the companies who sell the software keep saying. Personally
I have my doubts about how reliable it would be. If software still
isn't up to the task of doing decent object or handwriting or speech
recognition then what are the odds it can *reliably* spot a specific
person in a crowd by the way they walk? I'll believe it when I see it.

B2003

It's yet another attempt at trying to get computers to do things that
people do well. Computers are best used for things that people don't
do well.

Computers can do thousands of totally accurate calcluations in a
second, which people can't, so that's what they should be used for.
It doesn't mean that computers are cleverer than people for all tasks.

People, on the other hand, can recognise each other and understand
speech. Trying to get a computer to do this is like trying to get a
car to walk upstairs, just because it's better than a person at doing
70 mph and therefore supposedly faster in all contexts.

Accident in Croydon
 

On Sep 12, 10:38 am, MIG wrote:
It's yet another attempt at trying to get computers to do things that
people do well. Computers are best used for things that people don't
do well.

I think its just paranoid politicians clutching at any techno straw
thats dangled in front of them. If they seriously think people can't
change their way of walking to avoid being spotted perhaps they should
go and find out about this novel thing known as "acting". Actors do it
all the time in different roles. Theres no reason to believe Mr
Terrorist (or more likely Mr Expired Parking Ticket Man) can't do it
as well.

People, on the other hand, can recognise each other and understand
speech. Trying to get a computer to do this is like trying to get a
car to walk upstairs, just because it's better than a person at doing
70 mph and therefore supposedly faster in all contexts.

Computers will get there in the end , though I'm not convinced this
Brave New World will be as wonderful as all the techno evengelists
want us to believe. Machines might have done a lot of physical donkey
work for us for 2 centuries but then horses did it before that , and
its not our physicality that makes us human - its our brains and
minds. If you replace human thinking with machine thinking you're
taking away everything.

B2003

Accident in Croydon
 

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 09:14:13PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

Could you make a bus derivative of a Land Rover?

Mine would seat 13 passengers + driver. So in TfL service that would be
39 passengers, 20 of whom wouldn't have valid tickets.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

Compromise: n: lowering my standards so you can meet them

Accident in Croydon
 

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 08:52:33PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
The latter would mean making cyclists identifiable, with number plates.
Good idea.
Only if you wanted to do it with cameras. If there were actual people,
they could stop them there and then.

Good luck catching a cycle courier when you're on foot!

Have you
come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software
can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to
uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic! Detecting dangerous
lane changes would seem trivial by comparison.

A lane change is only dangerous by nature of the other traffic around
it. To spot a dangerous lane change you need to "understand" the whole
picture.

And if you're going to have a person, why not just have them stand next
to the junction in question?
Well, because one person can monitor more than one camera.

Not very well. And even if they can, once they've spotted a cyclist (or
a pedestrian, or a horse rider, or a driver) being naughty they thenr
have to dispatch someone to go and nick 'em, by which time it's too late.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

"Cynical" is a word used by the naive to describe the experienced.
George Hills, in uknot

Accident in Croydon
 

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 08:52:33PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:
The latter would mean making cyclists identifiable, with number plates.
Good idea.
Only if you wanted to do it with cameras. If there were actual people,
they could stop them there and then.

Good luck catching a cycle courier when you're on foot!

Taser!

Have you
come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software
can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to
uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic! Detecting dangerous
lane changes would seem trivial by comparison.

A lane change is only dangerous by nature of the other traffic around
it. To spot a dangerous lane change you need to "understand" the whole
picture.

Yes. And i don't think that's beyond the abilities of a computer. It won't
be as good as a human, but if it can be 80% as good for 1% of the cost,
then that's a win.

And if you're going to have a person, why not just have them stand next
to the junction in question?

Well, because one person can monitor more than one camera.

Not very well. And even if they can, once they've spotted a cyclist (or
a pedestrian, or a horse rider, or a driver) being naughty they thenr
have to dispatch someone to go and nick 'em, by which time it's too
late.

if it's a driver, they just note the plate and send them a fine.

Non-plated road users can't be caught in this way, but then they account
for a tiny fraction of dangerous road use.

tom

--
Subvert the paradigm!

Accident in Croydon
 

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, MIG wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:18*am, (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote:
In article ,

(Pyromancer) wrote:
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom
Anderson gently breathed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

You should send that to the Warrington Cycle Campaign for their
"Facility Of The Month" page - top work!

I use the segregated cycle lane sections to the west of that location
between the Bedford Way/Tavistock Sq junction and Marchmont St on my way
from Westminster to King's Cross station.

I don't use the section between Marchmont St and Judd St illustrated and
have never seen this nonsense. I can't for the life of me think why that
crossover isn't arranged at the lights on the Judd St junction

Well it is, as a result of the previous one, in that anyone continuing
east along Tavistock Place has to make the reverse move after a few
yards, across the path of cyclists heading west.

The whole assumption seems to be that all cyclists heading east will
turn south down Hunter Street, but I can't see why they should.

No. And since the route continues to the east, via the recently and
expensively rearranged Ampton Street, that can't actually be one of their
assumptions. Which makes the current layout completely inexplicable.

As for why the path has to stay on the north, I'm guessing that it must
be something to do with how one can get on to it at the Tottenham Court
Road end, where it is against the one-way flow of Torrington Place. I
can't remember how one gets to it from Tottenham Court Road, unless
there's a contraflow bike lane there.

There isn't. You cross over TCR, then come down Huntley Street to
Torrington Place. I think. If you're coming from the western end of the
SSL, on New Cavendish Street, that is.

tom

--
Subvert the paradigm!

Accident in Croydon
 

On 2008-09-12, Tom Anderson wrote:
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---910079544-1465376680-1221240855=:22240
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT


Should you not know better than to send it to Usenet like that? MIME
_and_ 8bit - well, really!

Accident in Croydon
 

In article ,
Tom Anderson wrote:

--
Subvert the paradigm!

Have you considered the cogno-intellectual implications of that ?

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 9th August 2008)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996