|
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 1:58*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote: There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that... So are Newham and Haringey in Inner London (per the ONS and Census) or Outer (per the old County and ILEA)? And the reverse for Greenwich? Greenwich in, Newham and Harringey out. The 1963 London Government Act still determines central funding levels, and Newham is still grumpy about being excluded: http://apps.newham.gov.uk/aboutus/Po...nnerLondon.pdf ....so that'll be the legal definition, irrespective of what the statisticians say. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 1:57*pm, Adrian wrote:
There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still being heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation. ...or taxation. looks at price rises in fares Not being subsidised as much as everyone else != being taxed. (AIUI, Essex County Council does subsidise TfL services, hence why the Central Line is all in zone 6 - there's presumably some kind of representation of ECC within TfL that goes on as a quid pro quo. If your local authority doesn't, then why not vote for a candidate who says they will?) -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 12:58*pm, Walter Briscoe
wrote: The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted for Ken. Your memory of history differs from mine. ISTR Mrs Thatcher's government eliminated the GLC and ILEA. At the time, I thought that adding another ring of buroughs to London could have served her purpose, permanently gerrymandered London and be justified from a transport perspective. I was referring to the creation of the GLC, which most commentators suggest was carried out by the Conservative government of the time at least partly to end Labour's dominance of the LCC. The fact that Mrs T's government was /so/ unpopular in the mid-80s that Labour managed to control the GLC as well, and that she was so incapable of tolerating dissent that she abolished it as a result, is fairly irrelevant. ....and as someone has mentioned below, the Watford-type-places that would have permanently gerrymandered London for the Tories were themselves strongly opposed to integration, otherwise there's a good chance it'd've happened either in the creation of the original GLC or during the 1980s. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
John B wrote:
The fact that Mrs T's government was /so/ unpopular in the mid-80s that Labour managed to control the GLC as well, and that she was so incapable of tolerating dissent that she abolished it as a result, is fairly irrelevant. Which is not a "fact" as I've pointed out elsewhere; the drive to abolish the GLC predated Ken coming to power. Also the crucial election was 1981 (and won by Labour on a moderate manifesto with a moderate leader who was promptly deposed) and wasn't that different from 1967, 1973 or 1977 when the incumbent Westminster government lost the GLC in a mid term election. ...and as someone has mentioned below, the Watford-type-places that would have permanently gerrymandered London for the Tories were themselves strongly opposed to integration, otherwise there's a good chance it'd've happened either in the creation of the original GLC or during the 1980s. I don't think that would have worked. Remember the GLC was elected by first past the post, initially multi-member borough-wide then single-member from 1973, and the Labour majorities were often substantial. FWIW here are the seat outcomes, courtesy of http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glcresults.html From 1964 to 1973 the GLC consisted of 100 directly elected councillors and 16 Aldermen. 1964: Elected: Labour 64, Conservatives 36 Full Council: Labour 75, Conservatives 41 1967: Elected: Conservatives 82, Labour 18 Full Council: Conservatives 92, Labour 24 1970: Elected: Conservatives 65, Labour 35 Full Council: Conservatives 76, Labour 40 The election system changed to single member for the 1973 election, with the council cut to 92 elected and the Aldermen to 15. 1973: Elected: Labour 58, Conservatives 32, Liberals 2 Full Council: Labour 67, Conservatives 38, Liberals 2 Aldermen were abolished from the 1977 election onward. 1977: Conservatives 64, Labour 28 1981: Labour 50, Conservatives 41, Liberals 1 Note also the maps of results. Although there's a clear outer vs inner pattern in the years of Conservative victories, Labour victories often carried outer east and west parts, and turn the map into a north & south vs centre divide. http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glcmap.html Leaving the Aldermen to one side (as they seem to have been allocated reasonably proportionally so just reinforce the existing proportions), I can't really see the GLC as having gone Conservative on any realistic larger boundaries in 1964 or 1973, and even 1981 would have been difficult as not every additional seat would have gone Conservative. On the suggestion in this thread that the government should have expanded the boundaries to secure a majority in a 1985 election, leaving aside both the opposition to being added and the existing outer boroughs demand for outrigh abolition, I don't think it would have done the trick as it would have been just another mid-term election. Also the website, run by a Labour councillor, has a history of the GLC that challenges some of the myths about abolition: http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 22, 2:56*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote: The fact that Mrs T's government was /so/ unpopular in the mid-80s that Labour managed to control the GLC as well, and that she was so incapable of tolerating dissent that she abolished it as a result, is fairly irrelevant. Which is not a "fact" as I've pointed out elsewhere; the drive to abolish the GLC predated Ken coming to power. Also the crucial election was 1981 (and won by Labour on a moderate manifesto with a moderate leader who was promptly deposed) and wasn't that different from 1967, 1973 or 1977 when the incumbent Westminster government lost the GLC in a mid term election. ....? Surely your link below highlights the fact that the main drive to abolish the GLC came in 1983, by which time Ken had been in power for two years... http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
John B wrote:
Which is not a "fact" as I've pointed out elsewhere; the drive to abolish the GLC predated Ken coming to power. Also the crucial election was 1981 (and won by Labour on a moderate manifesto with a moderate leader who was promptly deposed) and wasn't that different from 1967, 1973 or 1977 when the incumbent Westminster government lost the GLC in a mid term election. ...? Surely your link below highlights the fact that the main drive to abolish the GLC came in 1983, by which time Ken had been in power for two years... http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html The drive began at the borough council level because they realised they didn't need it and didn't get enough out of it - the GLC provided about 16% of services at the time of "Streamlining the Cities" (and the metropolitan county councils 26%) compared to 87% for the shire counties. The 1979 Marshall Report only narrowly recommended against abolition and the drive was ongoing. That was a trend predating Livingstone. What you're referring to is the pressure acted on by central government, but it would abolished anyway regardless of who was leading it (although a populist Conservative leader might have temporarily withstood the tide from a Conservative government). |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
|
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 22 Oct, 11:49, MIG wrote:
Travelling between Trafalgar Square and Camden Town is better on a 24 than on a 29. *I know people who let the 29 go in the hope that a 24 will turn up, and I've done so myself at times. Similarly where there is a choice of 36/436 or 53/453 etc. While it's often possible for individual passengers to have a more pleasant journey by switching to a double decker, it's not possible to switch a whole bendy bus load of passengers onto double deckers and get the same result. Therein lies the bendy bus paradox. U |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
John B wrote:
"I am informed that, thankfully, there have been no fatal accidents arising from collisions between cyclists and articulated buses in London since the introduction of articulated vehicles." "Serious incidents are defined by TfL as those where a cyclist may have required treatment, including in hospital. There was one serious incident involving a cyclist in each of the years 2005/06 and 2006/07, and two in 2007/08." http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/as...en_answers.pdf In other words, the data collated by TfL and accepted by the mayor clearly shows that bendy buses are not dangerous for cyclists. Sorry, it isn't as simple as that. Lack of casualties doesn't equal lack of danger. It might equally indicate that cyclists are avoiding the danger in various ways that delay them - taking another route, not overtaking when they would pass an ordinary bus, for example. Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in London. It appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but this may be because their routes are more predictable rather than because of greater inherent safety. I know that: - if I try to pass a bendy bus at red traffic lights, and it's first in the queue, it can start moving before I'm past, whereas I can get past a normal bus between red and green - as a fairly fast cyclist, bendy buses rarely get completely past me before having to slow down or move in. Ordinary buses often do. The obvious solution to lack of capacity on bus services is to get more people cycling - most London bus journeys can be done quicker by bike. The way to increase cycling is to help people to feel safe on the road - e.g. by removing bendy-buses, though that isn't the most important thing to do. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
|
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 23, 12:40*am, wrote:
Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in London. It appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but this may be because their routes are more predictable rather than because of greater inherent safety. The biggest difference is that many HGVs are actually so badly designed that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads near vulnerable road users (including pedestrians as well as cyclists). On faster roads they are often dangerous to cars too. For some reasons cement mixers are some of the worst, even sporting signs on their rears drawing attention to the fact that they are too dangerous to be allowed on the roads. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement lorries are obviously terrifying, driven by people who understand that, and dealt with by pedestrians, drivers and cyclist who understand that. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote:
The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection. The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer would have to be shorter reducing the max load. As for under run protection - remember that these things have to go over hump backed bridges and other things where if they had fairings going down to the ground there would be a high risk of grounding. B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 23, 1:24 am, John B wrote:
I'd be interested to see a breakdown of fatalities/injuries by HGV class. My expectation would be that big vans were by far the biggest killers, not least because 40-tonne container trucks and cement Them and 7.5 tonners who as far as I can see are generally driven by transit drivers who've been given a promotion for the day. B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
|
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote: The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection. The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer would have to be shorter reducing the max load. As for under run protection - remember that these things have to go over hump backed bridges and other things where if they had fairings going down to the ground there would be a high risk of grounding. Tippers, Skip Lorries and Cement Lorries are not, I believe, required to have side protection. This is because they frequently work 'off-road'. With other vehicles the side guards do offer some protection. In addition the 'exempt' vehicle are often 'owner drivers' on piece work. The temptation to cut corners is too great for safety. A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating. A cyclist hit by an overtaking bus recieved only relatively minor injuries. If it had been a skip lorry they would have been lucky to survive. I think ALL HGVs should have a fully functioning 'black box' rather than just a tacho. Jim Chisholm |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
"J. Chisholm" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating. To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters. If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to- rights guilty. If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre, basically committing suicide. Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame. If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist is utterly to blame. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 23 Oct, 10:03, Adrian wrote:
"J. Chisholm" gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating. To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters. If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to- rights guilty. If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre, basically committing suicide. Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame. If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist is utterly to blame. The best survival tactic for the cyclist is to get to the front, or else they are bound to be on the inside of something when the queue moves. Sometimes due to bad luck, the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front. If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. So indicating does make a difference (whether that was the situation in Cambridge I don't know). |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating. To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters. If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to- rights guilty. If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre, basically committing suicide. Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame. If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist is utterly to blame. The best survival tactic for the cyclist is to get to the front, or else they are bound to be on the inside of something when the queue moves. Sometimes due to bad luck Bad luck, my arse. If you've not JUST seen them go red, assume they're about to go green, and be on the defensive. Same applies t'other way round - as long as you've not JUST seen 'em go green, you should assume they're about to go red, and be prepared to stop. the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front. So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights change. If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. Why the impatience? So indicating does make a difference (whether that was the situation in Cambridge I don't know). What ever happened to "discretion is the better part of valour"? "He who runs away lives to fight another day"? Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that you're meant to overtake stuff...? |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 23, 10:29 am, MIG wrote:
If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. So indicating Whats the point of going to the front of a queue anyway? Unless its really busy traffic they'll all overtake you in seconds as soon as the light changes so what have you gained? B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 23 Oct, 10:44, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 10:29 am, MIG wrote: If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. *So indicating Whats the point of going to the front of a queue anyway? Unless its really busy traffic they'll all overtake you in seconds as soon as the light changes so what have you gained? So that you can get past the junction before they all turn left into you, or veer towards the kerb etc etc. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 23 Oct, 10:42, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: A left turning cement truck killed a cyclist in Cambridge. There was disputed evidence about whether he was even indicating. To be honest, I'm not sure that indicating or not actually matters. If the wagon overtook the cyclist immediately before turning left, then the indicators are irrelevant - the HGV driver is absolutely bang-to- rights guilty. If the cyclist was undertaking the wagon as the wagon slowed down with a junction or entrance coming up on the left, then the indicators are irrelevant - the cyclist made a monumentally ****ing stupid manouvre, basically committing suicide. Same applies if they were both stationary at lights. If the wagon pulled up next to a cyclist already there, then the driver is utterly to blame. If the cyclist went up the inside of a stationary wagon, then the cyclist is utterly to blame. The best survival tactic for the cyclist is to get to the front, or else they are bound to be on the inside of something when the queue moves. Sometimes due to bad luck Bad luck, my arse. If you've not JUST seen them go red, assume they're about to go green, and be on the defensive. Same applies t'other way round - as long as you've not JUST seen 'em go green, you should assume they're about to go red, and be prepared to stop. the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front. So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights change. And then you are stuck on the inside of a queue of vehicles that may be turning left and whose drivers may not have seen you. That's why you need to get to the front. If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. Why the impatience? What I said. You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do with impatience. So indicating does make a difference (whether that was the situation in Cambridge I don't know). What ever happened to "discretion is the better part of valour"? "He who runs away lives to fight another day"? Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that you're meant to overtake stuff...? Not at a queue at a junction. That's totally irrelevant. How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway? Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of the road? |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 23, 10:52 am, MIG wrote:
So that you can get past the junction before they all turn left into you, or veer towards the kerb etc etc. Why would they turn left into you if you stay behind them? And if you're really in such a hurry to cross the lights why not just get off the bike , wheel it across the pedestrian crossing and get on again the other side before the traffic has had the green light? B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front. So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights change. And then you are stuck on the inside of a queue of vehicles No, you're between two vehicles in the normal position in the road. that may be turning left and whose drivers may not have seen you. That's why you need to get to the front. Umm, no. The vehicles behind you can see you - because you're in front of them. Not in a potential blind spot in the gutter. The vehicles in front of you don't need to know you're there, because you're behind them and not overtaking them. If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. Why the impatience? What I said. You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do with impatience. ********. Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that you're meant to overtake stuff...? Not at a queue at a junction. Well, no, you're not actually MEANT to overtake queues at junctions anyway. That's totally irrelevant. Clearly. How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway? Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"? Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of the road? Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway? Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling and basic road positioning. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 23 Oct, 11:10, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: the lights change just as you are trying to get to the front. So stay behind the wagon. Then it doesn't matter WHEN the lights change. And then you are stuck on the inside of a queue of vehicles No, you're between two vehicles in the normal position in the road. that may be turning left and whose drivers may not have seen you. * That's why you need to get to the front. Umm, no. *The vehicles behind you can see you - because you're in front of them. Not in a potential blind spot in the gutter. The vehicles in front of you don't need to know you're there, because you're behind them and not overtaking them. If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. Why the impatience? What I said. *You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do with impatience. ********. Obviously the people who designed those green areas at the front don't agree with you. Why not, indeed, go past the wagon on the RIGHT? Y'know, the side that you're meant to overtake stuff...? Not at a queue at a junction. Well, no, you're not actually MEANT to overtake queues at junctions anyway. That's totally irrelevant. Clearly. How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway? Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"? Either that or leapfrog over the vehicles. I can't imagine what you have in mind. Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of the road? Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway? By taking a fairly rigid bicycle through a two-foot gap at right angles to the direction of traffic. Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling and basic road positioning. It seems to me that you've never seen a road. Maybe you've seen one described in a book and misunderstood. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 23 Oct, 11:03, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 10:52 am, MIG wrote: So that you can get past the junction before they all turn left into you, or veer towards the kerb etc etc. Why would they turn left into you if you stay behind them? Because the queue continues to build up and many of the drivers in it won't have seen you. Or do you suggest scooting backwards till you are at the back of any possible queue? And if you're really in such a hurry to cross the lights why not just get off the bike , wheel it across the pedestrian crossing and get on again the other side before the traffic has had the green light? Like I said, nothing to do with hurry. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: What I said. Â*You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do with impatience. ********. Obviously the people who designed those green areas at the front don't agree with you. No, they're to help the impatient survive despite their best efforts. How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway? Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"? Either that or leapfrog over the vehicles. I can't imagine what you have in mind. Fairly straightforward, I'd have thought. Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of the road? Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway? By taking a fairly rigid bicycle through a two-foot gap at right angles to the direction of traffic. Umm, why are you putting yourself into the position where you have to DO that? Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling and basic road positioning. It seems to me that you've never seen a road. Maybe you've seen one described in a book and misunderstood. Are you talking to yourself again? Because I well understand that, for cyclists, there's rather more to the road than the gutter and "the bit for cars". |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 23 Oct, 12:56, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: What I said. *You get to the front to help you survive, nothing to do with impatience. ********. Obviously the people who designed those green areas at the front don't agree with you. No, they're to help the impatient survive despite their best efforts. How would you squeeze between the bumpers to get to the right anyway? Why do you need to "squeeze between the bumpers"? Either that or leapfrog over the vehicles. *I can't imagine what you have in mind. Fairly straightforward, I'd have thought. Would it be safe to pop out from between vehicles into the middle of the road? Of course it wouldn't. But why would you be doing that, anyway? By taking a fairly rigid bicycle through a two-foot gap at right angles to the direction of traffic. Umm, why are you putting yourself into the position where you have to DO that? Seems to me like you don't have the first clue about defensive cycling and basic road positioning. It seems to me that you've never seen a road. *Maybe you've seen one described in a book and misunderstood. Are you talking to yourself again? Because I well understand that, for cyclists, there's rather more to the road than the gutter and "the bit for cars". I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators might make a difference to a cyclist. Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of cyclists shouldn't be on the road, and if they weren't then it wouldn't make any difference to them whether anyone indicated. No doubt that would work. I won't waste any more time on this. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 23, 12:51 pm, MIG wrote:
On 23 Oct, 11:03, Boltar wrote: On Oct 23, 10:52 am, MIG wrote: So that you can get past the junction before they all turn left into you, or veer towards the kerb etc etc. Why would they turn left into you if you stay behind them? Because the queue continues to build up and many of the drivers in it won't have seen you. Or do you suggest scooting backwards till you are at the back of any possible queue? Err no, you act like any other vehicle and stand in the middle of the lane so cars can't pass you while in the queue or head up the right hand side to the end of the queue then sit at the head of it so everyone has seen you including the vehicles at the front. Like I said, nothing to do with hurry. Then why bother? B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators might make a difference to a cyclist. Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight. Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of cyclists shouldn't be on the road Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of my killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying, then your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills. I won't waste any more time on this. shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of HGVs at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 23 Oct, 13:06, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators might make a difference to a cyclist. Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight. Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of cyclists shouldn't be on the road Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of my killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying, then your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills. I won't waste any more time on this. shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of HGVs at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue. From decades of cycling experience (and survival) I politely pointed that it is helpful to cyclists if vehicles use indicators correctly. To justify your suggestion that use of indicators makes no difference, you have heaped abuse on me. Kindly desist. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators might make a difference to a cyclist. Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight. Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of cyclists shouldn't be on the road Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of my killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying, then your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills. I won't waste any more time on this. shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of HGVs at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue. From decades of cycling experience (and survival) I politely pointed that it is helpful to cyclists if vehicles use indicators correctly. Nobody has said otherwise, if you bother extracting your head from your arse long enough to actually read what has been written. To justify your suggestion that use of indicators makes no difference, My suggestion that IN THIS INSTANCE it was unlikely that indicators would have made a difference, since somebody had clearly ****ed-up major league with or without them being used... Anybody with a lonely working neuron and a quarter of a clue doesn't rely on the other idiots on the road indicating correctly, helpful though it undoubtedly is. As a result, they don't put themselves in stupid situations where they become reliant on a lack of indication being correct. Meanwhile, you made out that you had absolutely no choice but to cycle down the left of traffic waiting at traffic lights, and it weally, weally wouldn't be your fault if that resulted in your suicide. shrug I'm starting to hope it does. you have heaped abuse on me. Kindly desist. Kindly **** off, as you've already promised you would, you sanctimonious bore. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote: The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection. The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer would have to be shorter reducing the max load. They could put the engine on top of the cab. That would make the transmission a bit complicated, though. tom -- Virtually everything you touch has been mined. -- Prof Keith Atkinson |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Oct 23, 3:25 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
They could put the engine on top of the cab. That would make the transmission a bit complicated, though. Would probably look quite good though :) I suppose in theory they could have the engine offset to one side and have a one person only cab on the other side at the same level. Though I suspect HGV drivers actually like their high up view lording it over the rest of us :) B2003 |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:45:52AM -0700, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:27=A0pm, David Cantrell wrote: Route 38 had a better service before it went all bendy. By which I mean there were more seats (which were more comfortable) and a more frequent service, with journey times being about the same. There was also less fare-dodging. But more standing capacity with bendies, right? Which is the important thing when the issue is bus-you-can-get-on vs bus-you-can't. I don't recall seeing a 38 that was so rammed that people couldn't get on - neither pre- nor post-bendification. Certainly not two of them in a row (and two RMs have about the same capacity as one Bendy). Although sometimes you might have to *horror* go upstairs. Occasionally I use the number 8. They're quite often full with many people standing downstairs, but with plenty of seats available upstairs. I conclude that most people are stupid cattle. Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it makes more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the administrative unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates what happens on issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the centre, which is of peripheral interest to them at best It's not of peripheral interest though, because an awful lot of us in the outer boroughs work in the inner boroughs or at least travel through them. The vast majority of my use of public transport in London is either inside zone 1, or on the journey from home to zone 1. It's very much in my interests for inner London to have good transport even though I live in one of the outer boroughs. I believe that inner London would have better transport if Bendy buses were to be got rid of. -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information PLEASE NOTE: This message was meant to offend everyone equally, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, politics, choice of beer, operating system, mode of transport, or their editor. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:20:43AM -0700, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:52=A0pm, Adrian wrote: They don't. The vast majority are just as heavily affected - perhaps even more so, when it comes to transport decisions - than those who live more centrally. Many of those who live centrally could easily walk or cycle to work (or for leisure/shopping/etc) should buses & tubes not be available or viable. Those who live further out can't. For rail and tube transport, you're right. For bus transport, I disagree - there are very few people who live in outer London boroughs and commute into the centre via bus; buses are a way of getting people between parts of outer London, of getting people between parts of inner London Lots of us in outer London will travel inwards by train or tube and then use a bus for the last bit of the journey. There's also quite a lot of people who use the bus to get from outer to inner London - to hubs like Brixton, from where they transfer to the Victoria line. And I, for example, find it more convenient, once I've got to Victoria or London Bridge on the train, to use a bus for the last bit of my journey to work instead of using two tubes. There's a reason why major railway stations often have a bus station attached to them y'know! -- David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness Just because it is possible to do this sort of thing in the English language doesn't mean it should be done |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
|
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
On 23 Oct, 15:17, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators might make a difference to a cyclist. Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight. Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of cyclists shouldn't be on the road Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of my killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying, then your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills. I won't waste any more time on this. shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of HGVs at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue. From decades of cycling experience (and survival) I politely pointed that it is helpful to cyclists if vehicles use indicators correctly. Nobody has said otherwise, if you bother extracting your head from your arse long enough to actually read what has been written. To justify your suggestion that use of indicators makes no difference, My suggestion that IN THIS INSTANCE it was unlikely that indicators would have made a difference, since somebody had clearly ****ed-up major league with or without them being used... Anybody with a lonely working neuron and a quarter of a clue doesn't rely on the other idiots on the road indicating correctly, helpful though it undoubtedly is. As a result, they don't put themselves in stupid situations where they become reliant on a lack of indication being correct. Meanwhile, you made out that you had absolutely no choice but to cycle down the left of traffic waiting at traffic lights, and it weally, weally wouldn't be your fault if that resulted in your suicide. shrug I'm starting to hope it does. you have heaped abuse on me. *Kindly desist. Kindly **** off, as you've already promised you would, you sanctimonious bore. I apologise for boring you by responding in a normal, polite way to your posting. One knows where one is with Boltar, but I won't make the same mistake with you again. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
Colin McKenzie gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: The queue exists because more cars are trying to get through than one cycle of the lights can accommodate. I filter on my bike to ensure that I only have to wait one cycle. It may not be necessary to go all the way to the front - but there may be no other gaps in the queue. So, when you start to approach the back of the queue, you make sure it's clear to do so, move to the right hand edge of the lane, and pass to the right of any left-turning lanes. If the traffic starts moving before you've got to the front of the lane, then it's not an issue, because they won't be going far/fast, and you can move back to the primary position or wherever you prefer fairly easily, before repeating it at the next lights... No squeezing through two-foot gaps (although any vaguely competent drivers will have left much larger gaps than that anyway). No diving into oncoming traffic. Nothing but safe and seamless advance planning and manouvering. No problems. |
Boris admits bendy-buses are safe - but he'll axe them anyway
Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 10:29 am, MIG wrote: If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. So indicating Whats the point of going to the front of a queue anyway? Unless its really busy traffic they'll all overtake you in seconds as soon as the light changes so what have you gained? Maybe - but at the next queue the bike will pass again and probably stay in front this time. Equally often, you're straight into the next queue. The queue exists because more cars are trying to get through than one cycle of the lights can accommodate. I filter on my bike to ensure that I only have to wait one cycle. It may not be necessary to go all the way to the front - but there may be no other gaps in the queue. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk