A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

shared spaces.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 16th 16, 08:15 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,135
Default shared spaces.

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 16/11/2016 19:49, Bill Wright wrote:
On 16/11/2016 16:22, Martin wrote:

Around a couple of cyclists a day come to grief in the Leiden area


It must be very jarring.

Bill

Have you accumulated a collection of jokes like this?


He's got the capacity to produce jokes like that all day long.

  #12  
Old November 17th 16, 06:53 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,747
Default shared spaces.

We are currently fighting a few 'go cycle' schemes in Kingston Upon Thames
where they are supposedly helping cyclists, but the number of different
designs mean that pedestrians mix with cyclists at some places which has
already resulted in problems at bus stopps as cyclists assume they have
right of way, and pedestrians need to get across cycle path to bus stop.
Also at crossings and other places where designs join cyclists need to
cross busy traffic with just a painted message on the road warning drivers.
It seems like the planners are using it like some sort of behavioural
experiment with the elderly, slow disabled and dimwits as the casualties.

I really despair sometimes at how stupidly money is wasted on things that
won't work or are so much of a compromise they hinder all users equally.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 16/11/2016 13:23, MartinR wrote:

The town of Drachten, in the Netherlands, has removed all road signs and
markings - apparently it works quite well, although if it's anything like
Amsterdam or Copenhagen you probably have to expect a collision with
cyclist.


I thought Copenhagen gave priority of cycles over cars, so that if you
drive into a cyclist it is automatically your fault. At least, that was
the scenario when I visited there in the early 1980s, it might have
changed since.

Jim



  #13  
Old November 17th 16, 06:56 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,747
Default shared spaces.

Yes that has been said many times over here as well.
The big question is, why?
Why is the pavement, cycle lane traffic lane light controlled crossing
apparently demonised.
Besides one dweeb at the council told me its safer as vehicle drivers
cyclists and pedestrians can make eye contact. I did point out that blind
people might have some difficulty there.. :-)
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:47:26 +0000, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 16/11/2016 13:23, MartinR wrote:

The town of Drachten, in the Netherlands, has removed all road signs and
markings - apparently it works quite well, although if it's anything
like Amsterdam or Copenhagen you probably have to expect a collision
with cyclist.


Around a couple of cyclists a day come to grief in the Leiden area

I thought Copenhagen gave priority of cycles over cars, so that if you
drive into a cyclist it is automatically your fault. At least, that was
the scenario when I visited there in the early 1980s, it might have
changed since.


Same in NL. It's ********!!!
--

Martin in Zuid Holland





  #14  
Old November 17th 16, 06:57 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,747
Default shared spaces.

Yes and they show no capacity for change either.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
news
On 16/11/2016 16:22, Martin wrote:

Around a couple of cyclists a day come to grief in the Leiden area


It must be very jarring.

Bill



  #15  
Old November 17th 16, 07:01 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,747
Default shared spaces.

However we do need to change the current views of councils on these areas
nonetheless.
I'd really like to know why people think they are to be put in. In the old
days we went for pedestrianisation, and ran shuttle busses in from outside
car parks, now it seems that has turned around and cars are required in
towns not designed for as many as there are and these creative ideas are
brought in to try to squeeze the proverbial quaart into a pint pot between
buildings.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"NY" wrote in message
...
"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 16/11/2016 19:49, Bill Wright wrote:
On 16/11/2016 16:22, Martin wrote:

Around a couple of cyclists a day come to grief in the Leiden area

It must be very jarring.

Bill

Have you accumulated a collection of jokes like this?


He's got the capacity to produce jokes like that all day long.



  #16  
Old November 17th 16, 07:11 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,747
Default shared spaces.

Very well put and almost exactly what is being said at some of the scheme
call ins around here. The problem is they have been given money by TFL to
build these things and it seems maaking safe crossing points puts it out of
budget, My heart bleeds for them but I aint going near these places on my
own.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"NY" wrote in message
...
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
What exactly is the point of attempting to mix pedestrians, cyclists
drivers disabled and blind people together?
I have been told by a friend that these parts of towns are disliked by
most users.
Drivers because its stressful watching out for people who are deaf, blind
listening to headphones, riding bikes etc.
Cyclists as they are not sure where to ride as they get shouted at by
both drivers and pedestrians, Pedestrians as they feel they need eyes in
the back of their heads
Wheelchair users who often get stuck in the middle of the traffic. Blind
cos they have no edge to follow and hence never really know where they
are while being sworn at by cyclists and nearly getting run over by
drivers.
Who likes them? The planners of course as they look cool in the computer
generated graphics they present to councillors for approval. Its even got
to the state now where accidents like the fatal running over of a child
in Jersey are brushed under the carpet and much made of new trees planted
around the edges of such places instead.
Somebody needs to get themselves a life and realise that curbs were
invented for many reasons, and the main one was as a demarcation line to
keep the dangerous from the vulnerable.

What brought this on? well these town centre ideas seem to be the fodder
for local regional news programs at the moment, and it seems to me that a
whole lot of money is wasted on them which then need to be altered and
new crossings put back about 2 years later when 'footfall' gets lower
due to folk going elsewhere to shop.


As a pedestrian, a cyclist and a motorist, I LOATHE shared spaces. I like
in all situations to know who I have priority over and who has priority
over me: in general, faster vehicle has priority over slower
vehicle/person, to avoid pace-of-the-slowest, but with clearly-understood
places where those rules are temporarily reversed so a pedestrian can
safely cross a cycle track or a road. Making everyone equal, when they
capable of very different speeds, stopping distance and manoeuvrability,
is a recipe for disaster - or else it slows everyone down to the pace of
the slowest.

A system which allows everyone to travel at a sensible speed for their
abilities (eg cyclist at 15 mph, car/lorry at 30 mph) while still being
safe, is much better than one which makes people so unsure of where the
next hazard is coming from that they all slow down to 10 mph. Any fool can
make a road safe by slowing everyone down (shared space), but that is
draconian: it takes intelligence to keep traffic moving sensibly while
still being safe (segregation with rules and traffic lights / zebra
crossings).

If I was in charge of road layout I would ideally go for three separate
lanes: pedestrian, cyclist, road - with suitable crossing places and with
tactile markings between pedestrian and cycle lane for blind people.
Failing that, I would opt for mandatory cycle lanes on roads, and I would
discontinue all such markings some distance (50 metres?) before every
junction and strictly police all rules about cyclists not overtaking
queuing traffic on the left if it is indicating to turn left. And I would
specifically remove the cycle lanes which force left-turning cars to
position themselves away from the kerb to allow cyclists to pass them on
the left; instead left-turning vehicles of any sort (bike, car, lorry)
should be able to get close to the kerb and therefore not need to check on
their passenger side for anything coming from that side. The current law
actually says that a left-turning car with a green light must give way to
a cyclist on the left who is going straight on, whereas the normal rule,
in the absence of idiotic road markings is "if I'm in front of you and I'm
turning left, do not overtake me on that side". I've seen some junctions
where no cars can ever turn left at busy times because they are blocked by
a stream of cyclists overtaking them on the left in order to go straight
on.

Cyclists want to have their cake and eat it: they want to be treated as
"just part of the traffic" but they also want preferential priority at
road junctions.

When I cycle, I ride as if I were driving a car, obeying all the same
rules, and as if I had a number plate which meant I could be reported and
prosecuted if I broke those rules. I make good progress and don't cower
near the kerb, but I am also respectful of traffic that wants to get past
me. In very slow traffic when I can ride as fast as the cars, I usually
take up a position mid-way between the left and right of the car in front,
so I can easily be seen by the driver behind me and the one ahead of me
(via his mirror), ready to move over to the left if traffic speeds up
beyond the speed I can ride at. I do not try to squeeze past slow traffic
on either side - if traffic near a junction is really bad I may dismount
and walk on past the junction, but that is the only way that I will try to
get ahead of the queue. In all other cases I do the same as when I'm
driving: curse inwardly and just grin and bear it.



  #18  
Old November 17th 16, 10:03 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
pinnerite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default shared spaces.

Brian Gaff wrote:

Perhaps we need to bring back the unicycle?
Brian


During the reign of 'Red Ken' green tracks started to be laid alongside
roads, where possible. In North Harrow, there was adequate space, although I
have never seen a 'bike' using them. One particular short stretch on a road
that 'cuts a corner' there is little traffic of any kind let alone a 'bike',
yet an inordinate amount of money was thoughtlessly spent on 'greening' that
stretch.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud cycle tracks, I used those on the Great North
Way' regularly in my young teens but planning for cyclists seems to be
energised by knee-jerk reactions these days.

In my opinion we need the complete separation of bikes and protected
vehicles otherwise the deaths and injuries will continue to pile up.

Alan

--
Mageia 5 for x86_64, Kernel:4.4.16-desktop-1.mga5
KDE version 4.14.5 on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition.

  #19  
Old November 17th 16, 10:37 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default shared spaces.

On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:19:47 +0100
Martin wrote:
priority over a car or truck is bonkers. I never did when I cycled in The
Netherlands. What do you do about lycra clad fools who ignore the cycle paths?


Not much you can do really. Cycle lanes are advisory, not compulsory. But if
one of these idiots does get hit by a vehicle on the road when there was a
perfectly good cycle lane available then it should count against him when
blame is apportioned.

--
Spud

  #20  
Old November 17th 16, 11:58 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 586
Default shared spaces.

In article ,
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:19:47 +0100
Martin wrote:
priority over a car or truck is bonkers. I never did when I cycled in The
Netherlands. What do you do about lycra clad fools who ignore the cycle paths?


Not much you can do really. Cycle lanes are advisory, not compulsory. But if
one of these idiots does get hit by a vehicle on the road when there was a
perfectly good cycle lane available then it should count against him when
blame is apportioned.



It's "perfedctly good" that's the point. So many are on the nearside of a
main road with all the drains and surface break up (potholes). Our local
authority won't look at a hole until it's 50mm deep - not good for bikes.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.