HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Speed Limits and Humps
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:41:23 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Richard Porter (rap@bnr.co.uk) wrote:
: This got me thinking about some so-called "traffic calmiing" methods.  They
: have recently introduced a series of humps in the middle of a village I
: frequently pass through, so instead of pootling through at a steady 30 in
: top I find I am now continually accelerating and slowing down in second, which
: must make a lot more noise for the residents. Moreover, instead of looking
: out for children, stray animals, elderly pedestrians, etc. my concentration
: is partially diverted to looking for the next hump and adjusting my speed
: to the optimum for the suspension.  Is this really a contribution to road
: safety?

I wonder about that too.  They are introducing slaloms in parts of
Cambridge; one such scheme is Ditton Lane (B1047) heading north
towards the A45.  In this scheme, big triangular protrusions stick out
of the pavement into the road.  They are staggered in such a way that
oncoming vehicles are forced much closer together than normal.  Also
there are small islands in the middle of the road, with a lamp-post
planted on them for extra danger.

Now this scheme is intended to slow traffic down, and it probably
does.  But I question whether it makes the road safer.  As you say,
dodging the obstructions takes up a significant amount of drivers'
attention, which would be better concentrated elsewhere.  And
deliberately making drivers pass closer together than the width of the
road demands seems to be asking for trouble, especially on a stretch
of road popular with cyclists.

The protrusions limit severely the options available for evasive
action, should it be necessary.  It is surely only a matter of time
before someone is killed *because* of the obstructions; perhaps then
people will start to question the implementors of such schemes.

I can't wait till it snows.  Once those protrusions are hidden by
snow, they'll be hard to dodge, despite the posts that stick out of
them.  People will be clipping them with their wheels and losing
control of their vehicles.  There's already been at least one instance
of similar "traffic calming measures" being dug up and removed in
Cambridge because it caused too much inconvenience/danger.
-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Assholes and Education
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:21:51 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Richard T Peat (ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk) wrote:
: Quite, but is the test really to blame? Most people say that you learn to drive
: one way for the test, and learn to drive properly afterwards.

On here maybe.  I suspect the popular consciousness says no such
thing; witness the common image of tearing up the L-plates on passing
the test.

It is unrealistic to coach people to a low standard, then expect them
to realise that it is too low, and go on to teach themselves the rest.
And it is impossible to reach any consistent driving style/standard
that way!

: Why shouldn't there be regular testing, and anybody who fails to meet the 
: standard is automatically banned. This should introduce a similar standard,
: and method of driving across all drivers, instead of the current situation
: where everybody drives however they want because they haven't been
: brought up to a unified standard.

Re-tests are a good idea, but the standard of driving required should
still be raised, and that means more training.  How else will people
learn the consistent method of driving that you mention, are they
supposed to guess?

The advanced driving book I have says testing is no substitute for
training, and I agree with it.  (No, I haven't undertaken any advanced
training yet, but least I've read some books).

-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: bemj1@cl.cam.ac.uk (Bernie Jones)
Subject: Re: Hazzard Lights
Followup-To: uk.transport
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK
Distribution: uk
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:59:58 GMT

In article <C1GKA9.4Fv@cs.bham.ac.uk>, nht@cs.bham.ac.uk (Neville H Thomas)
wrote:
> 
> 
> Tripping up and down on the M6, I notice that when traffic
> is slowing down, the current trend is turn on the hazzard warning
> lights.
> 
> In most vehicles the hazzard warning light is difficult to reach
> (e.g. behind the steering wheel on my car). It certainly wasn't
> intended to be switched on whilst the vehicle is in motion.
> 
> I wonder if this malpractice is happening else where (not just,
> north of Brum)?

No - it happens everywhere (but mostly on motorways). The idea is that
when a car is braking _alot_, i.e. for a traffic jam or accident, the
emergency lights warn the cars behind that you're not just testing your
brakes or slowing down to 60, but are going to come to a stop or near
stop.
It certainly isn't in the Highway Code, and probably isn't legal, but I
have found it useful in the past, which is why I do it now.

--
Bernie Jones            (0)223-335478             bernie.jones@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QG, GB
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Power limits for beginners (was Re: Assholes and Education)
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:11:27 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Ian Green (ian@edscom.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Given that - and the fact that people (me included in my younger days,
: probably) generally don't seem to want to be educated, how do we persuade
: people to drive in a more sensitive, considerate and therefore safe manner?

Fundamentally, by making people more sensitive, considerate etc etc in
their basic personality.  I think this is a question of very early
experience, at the pre-school and early school ages, and very
critically a matter of continual and genuine parental example.
-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
From: asmith@acorn.co.uk (Andy Smith)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Bus vs Car Costs (Was: Re: City Traffic)
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:55:26 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK

roj@cs.bham.ac.uk (Robert O Jackson) writes:

>Are you taking into account the hidden costs of:

>Taxis late at night / in strange towns where you don't know
>the bus times

Or where there are no buses at all?

>Train or other transport costs when travelling further afield

The privatisation of BR, with fares likely to rise about 50%. don't
you just wonder what the government did with the 19.2 Billion that we
gave them in transport taxes last year? Maybe if they spent some of this
on public tansport, such as providing good underground services in other
major cites, and good rail links to all population centres, or extending
the underground out to car parks on the outer ring roads, the idea might
work.

If I wanted to go into London to a show, I have no choice but to use the
car. The nearest train station is over 5 miles away, and the last train to
there from Cambridge is at 9pm leaving Cambridge, which would mean leaving   
London at 8pm. For two of us, the total journey costs 28 pounds.

Driving down to the bottom of the M11 and catching the underground costs
just over 15 pounds total for two (this gets better with more people).

Until public transport is AS flexible and as cost effective as the car
people will not switch. And with the privatisation of BR, where they will
have to answer to share holders, even more are likely to switch to using
cars!

>Maybe the solution to city conjestion is more teleworking ?

I agree, but don't forget the social implications of working at home.

>-roj

Andy
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: ian@edscom.demon.co.uk (Ian Green)
Subject: Re: Speed Limits and Humps
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: uk
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:07:43 GMT

Richard Porter (rap@bnr.co.uk) wrote:
: This got me thinking about some so-called "traffic calmiing" methods.  They
: have recently introduced a series of humps in the middle of a village I
: frequently pass through, so instead of pootling through at a steady 30 in
: top I find I am now continually accelerating and slowing down in second, which
: must make a lot more noise for the residents. Moreover, instead of looking
: out for children, stray animals, elderly pedestrians, etc. my concentration
: is partially diverted to looking for the next hump and adjusting my speed
: to the optimum for the suspension.  Is this really a contribution to road
: safety?

: Richard Porter

This is another of my pet hates!!  The most stupid system must be that 
introduced in the centre of Milton Keynes.  Here there are two parallel roads
just north and south of the shopping centre.  People cross these in preset
places where the under-cover walkways emerge from the shops.  The powers that
be decided to install speed ramps exactly at these points!  This has given rise to a variety of problems.....

1.	The ramps bring the road level to the same as the edge of the pavement
	so that lots of people believe they are pedestrian crossings.  This is
	made even worse because the unwary pedestrian sees the cars slowing
	to take the ramp and assumes that they are slowing to let him/her
	across.

2.	All of the bus stops are along one of the roads, so just as the bus is
	coming to a stop it lurches violently as people try to stand up from 
	their seats.

3.	A car with a weak front suspension will be fine on a flat straight
	road but is more vulnerable to failure when that suspension is placed
	under stress.  I fear that it is only a matter of time before such a
	car suffers a failure of its front suspension on one of these ramps and
	ploughs into the queue of people at the bus stops close to each ramp.

Anybody know of the justification for these things??  Anybody know who holds
the responsibility for planning road systems in general - i.e. who to lobby??

Ian.

-- 
/--------------------------------------v----------------------------------\
| Opinions expressed are my own and    | Phone: +44 908 585858 or 284508  |
| not necessarily those of my employer | Fax:   +44 908 584620            |
\--------------------------------------^----------------------------------/
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Dispell The Myth Of Imortality
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:43:17 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Peter Rose (pr@praxis.co.uk) wrote:

: I believe that seeing the aftermath of an accident first hand and close up
: is one of the best deterents to bad driving that I can imagine. I do not
: think that rubber-necking at accidents as you drive past them really has
: sufficient impact (unless it is a really spectacular pile up or bodies etc
: are visible).

I agree with the thrust of your posting, but make the following
observation: it will help to deter *reckless* driving, rather than
*bad* driving.  It is possible to be ever so careful, but still be a
bad driver.

A very good idea though, especially combined with a better standard of
driving test.
-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Hazzard Lights
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:29:49 +0000

:|> It should be an ofence to use emergency flashers when there is no real
:|> emergency. Drivers who use hazard warning lights while parked at the side
:|> of a street should be booked automatically for, on their own admission,
:|> causing a hazard. If the nearside light is obscured you can never tell
:|> whether a vehicle is signalling to pull out or is just parked.


:Rubbish.  Where I live there is a shortage of parking space, because
:...
:supplies, and local people need tradesmen and services.  I am the first
:to complain about unnecessary obstruction and the "immunity" some
:people claim for their hazard lights, but at the same time it is
:sometimes necessary to be a "hazard".

Only very occasionally is a parked car with hazard lights on a hazard (and
if it is, it shouldn't be there).  The vast majority I see appear to be
people who think hazard warning lights mean 'Don't book me for parking, I
won't be more than a few seconds'.  (Then of course they disappear for
ten minutes...)

G
From: snail@lsl.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Rear end drivers, etc
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:32:01 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Laser-Scan Ltd., Cambridge

In article <C17D7D.Ay4@demon.co.uk>, gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.144627.2953@lsl.co.uk> snail@lsl.co.uk writes:
> :And you miss the point entirely. The people who advocate a higher limit
> :have also been saying educate people so that they know how to drive safely
> :and considerately. Someone doing so (regardles of the speed limit) would not
> :drive at such speed in the conditions you describe. Indeed I doubt if you'd
> :survive at 50mph, for the circumstances described. So that nullifies that
> :argument, despite the fact that Motorways don't have 'little dips' in them.
> 
> As someone who used to regularly do London to edinburgh by M1/M6, I can assure
> you there *are* places where you come across totally unexpected fog.  However,
> if you want a better argument - pick a 'safe speed' over the limit and tell
> me what happens when you unexpectedly blow a tyre.  Or some kid decides
> to play 'chicken' on the M1 right in front of you, drunk, at 1am...

No problem. The *SAME* thing happens to you as at present when travelling at
60 or 70 mph. Basically thats it, unless a) you're lucky, or b) you're
a rally driver who is used to this happening, and therefore know how to
handle this situation.

As for the kid playing chicken, well that's his/her life in *their* hands,
you'd still be in a right mess at 20mph or 30mph with such an individual,
except that they stand more of a chance of killing the driver at higher
speeds. The driver cannot be held repsonsible for the actions of people
knowingly doing things that are so blatantly stupid, such as playing chicken
whilst drunk or sober.

Funny though, the M6 heads toward Glasgow, why didn't you use the A1? Unless
of course you used the M8/A8.

Graham, please present some coherent argument as to why 71 mph is more
dangerous than 70 mph. 70 mph is a completely arbitary figure. I have not
once asserted it is a safe speed to drive at. I have stated that I believe,
that in some circumstances it is no more dangerous to drive at a higher speed
than 70, than it is to drive at 70. I think the problem you have is that 70mph
is the law, and thus you cannot address 71mph. If the law said that 80 or
90 mph was the maximum speed limit on the motorway, would you still be
arguing this point with me? That is would you be arguing against driving at
71mph?
-- 
snail@lsl.co.uk      

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless
 means to side with the powerful, not to be Neutral."
                                                     Quote by Freire.
                                                     Poster by OXFAM.
From: amatthew@gssec.bt.co.uk (Alan Matthews)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:43:58 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: BT

In article <21132@acorn.co.uk>, steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt) writes:
|> I would very happily use public transport for more of my travel needs
|> if it had the following properties:-
|> 
|> 1) Operates as near to "door-to-door" as practicable.
|> 2) Operates frequently enough that I don't have to plan my life
|>    around the timetable.
|> 3) Operates 24 hours a day without degradation of service at night.
|> 
|> Until they can claim these three properties, the public transport
|> lobby are not even *trying* to compete with the private vehicle.

The argument that people will use public transport if it is comfortable
enough / cheap enough / convenient enough is a fallacy. Even under these
ideal conditions people will still want to take the car.

I live on the South side of Glasgow around four miles from the city centre.
The nearest train station is about 200 yards away, with trains to the centre
every 10-15 mins during the rush hour. There is a bus stop about 50 yards
away with buses around every 5 minutes during the rush hour. There is a 
regular night bus service. 

In other words the three conditions you describe are satisfied. But that
doesn't stop people driving to work - by 9 am my street is empty of cars.

The only way to encourage people to use public transport is to make it
worth their while. Voluntary schemes aren't going to work. Government has
to get involved either with legislation, or, better in partnership with
big employers.

If big companies were to get together with local authorities and provide
"travel everywhere" - type travel cards to all their employees this would
be more likely to have an impact. The cost of this would be minimal in
comparison to the cost of other "perks" like company cars, discount
schemes etc. The increased revenue to the local authorities could then
be used to improve bus and train services.

The money people save on wearing their cars out travelling three miles
across town with a cold engine over potholed roads could then be put to 
better use ?


Alan

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Matthews, BT, Software Development Division, | Phone : +44 41 220 2471
West TEC, 24 Highburgh Road, Glasgow G12 9ND      | amatthews@gssec.bt.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinions, not BT's
From: dam@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (David Morning)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Assholes and Education
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:05:09 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Science Dept.

>> martin@praxis.co.uk (Martin Croxford) writes:
>>> I question a system that allows bad drivers on the roads, especially
>>> in powerful cars.

Simple solution, spend 5 years after passing your test driving a Reliant Robin
irrespective of age. Sit a test again and if you pass, spend 5 years in a
1 litre class basic car with restricted power, as happened to mopeds about
15 years ago when manufacturers started churning out 12 HP 'super mopeds' to
side step the then new law on 16 year olds ...that's 240BHP/litre !!!
Now they get 2HP and speed governed to boot.
Don't see why car drivers should be any different.

Dave

--
From: snail@lsl.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:37:23 GMT
Organization: Laser-Scan Ltd., Cambridge

In article <930122.165530.6d7.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt) writes:
> Another factor is that people tend to ignore the time taken to find parking
> when they calculate their journey time by car.  You may have to wait ten
> minutes to get a bus into Cambridge from Chesterton, but you can easily spend
> twenty minutes queueing for a parking space on Saturdays.

Huh? If I lived in Chesterton (and I nearly did, till someone out bid me) I'd
walk or cycle everywhere. The walk is OK, only one horribly large roundabout
to negotiate, and you can avoid that. Why get the bus, unless you're old,
unfit or unwell, or carrying a lot of stuff? You should be most of the way into
Cambridge in ten minutes (waiting for the bus) from Chesterton.
-- 
snail@lsl.co.uk      

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless
 means to side with the powerful, not to be Neutral."
                                                     Quote by Freire.
                                                     Poster by OXFAM.
From: ianking@nnsgs52 (Ian King)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Ian King's suggestions
Date: 20 Jan 1993 09:55:34 GMT
Organization: Northern Telecom Europe Ltd
Distribution: uk
Reply-To: ianking@lon40.nt.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: nnsgs52.lon40.nt.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Martin Croxford (martin@praxis.co.uk) wrote:

: Ian King (ianking@nnsgs52) wrote:

: > How about these suggestions?
: > 1. get rid of the "keep your distance" signs. I dont think people understand
: >    what they mean.

: The problem is that people don't know what a safe distance is.

: > 2. put up "Dont Drive Too Close" signs at more regular intervals. Preferably
: >    over the middle lane on the bridges.

: Again, people don't know what "too close" is. There used to be (still is
: ?) a stretch of M1, southbound, south of the M6 interchange where
: "two-second gap" lines were painted. Nearly everybody ignored them.

: > 3. attach 70mph signs to alternate motorway signal posts

: I like this one. But would it encourage people to drive at 70mph when not
: safe to do so ?

The signs dont mean *drive* at 70mph... they mean the limit is 70mph. But
maybe some people are daft enough to believe the former ;-( sigh...

: > 4. Put up signs saying keep left except when overtaking.

: Excellent idea, although lot of people might not understand.

: > 5. Put up posters showing pictures of fatal accidents.

: Yes. Video nasties on TV and as part of the driving test(s) please.

: > 6. ban AA-roadwatch bulletins. They are usually inaccurate. 

: Are they *all* inaccurate ?

No not all the time when regarding road works and *really* major-accidents-
that-happened-two-hours-ago.

: > 7. bring back the police road reports. When they say theres an accident there
: >    is.

: Do they *cause* accidents just so they're not wrong ? :-)

Hmmmm.......   :-)


--
ADVANCE MICRO COMPUTERS LTD & Wolverton Rail | EMAIL: ianking@amicro.demon.co.uk
 PO Box 362, Olney, Nr. Milton Keynes,       |   or   ianking@lon40.nt.com
  Bucks, MK46 5ES, ENGLAND, UK.              |                ^^^^^^^^^^^^ UK not USA
   TEL: +44 (0)234-711615 FAX: +44 (0)234-240976 MOBILE: +44 (0)831-535618
From: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Richard T Peat)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Assholes and Education
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:20:02 GMT
Reply-To: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Reading

In article 2971@lsl.co.uk, snail@lsl.co.uk () writes:
>Hmmm, never seen that one on an insurance form. Anyone know of firms who do
>this? NOt that I dis-believe Robert, just never heard of it.
> 

My father has passed an advanced test, and gets cheaper insurance. I think that
the IAM arranges with certain companies for the cheaper rates.

Richard Peat
From: cam@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Motorway Madness
Date: 22 Jan 93 14:34:34 GMT
Reply-To: cam@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland

In article <1993Jan21.143852.71@logica.co.uk> adrian@pluto.logica.co.uk writes:
>darby@andersen.co.uk (Dave Darby) writes:

>Yeah - HEAR HEAR!  To my mind the police could do a great many things worse
>than just automatically stopping anyone who pulls into another driver's
>stopping distance.  These crass and selfish people create a situation in which
>good drivers are discouraged because they continually get unfairly delayed by
>these arseholes.

And how much do you get delayed by a selfish driver forcing you back a
few car lengths? A few seconds at most, until the unlucky break that you
miss a traffic light change, which turns it into maybe half a minute.

I recommend an experiment: drive from home to the office like a selfish
maniac a few times, and then drive to the office carefully and safely,
comparing the two average times. I expect you to be amazed at how little
difference it makes.  I was, and that experiment was one of the reasons
I stopped struggling to stay ahead in my rush hour commutes. It didn't
make sense being at least ten times more likely to have an accident for
the sake of arriving at work at most one minute earlier.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aipna   +44 (0)31 667 1011 x2550
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205