HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rjh@cs.bham.ac.uk (Bob Hendley)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 26 Jan 93 11:17:50 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK

In article <935225175215@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk> TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk writes:
>:>
>:>>
>:>>and also the less quantifiable costs which everyone contributes to:
>:>>
>:>>cost of road repairs caused by every extra car on the road
>:>>cost of new roads / road widening needed due to the extra cars on the road
>:>>cost of pollution
>:>>
>:>>On that basis, public transport is cheaper not only for individuals but for
>:>>society as a whole.
>:>>
>:>
>:>This would appear to assume that buses (in particular) cause less
>:>damage to roads, require less road space and cause less pollution than
>:>cars.
>:>
>:>The first is clearly untrue. <deleted>
>:>
>:>
>Why? One bus will cause more damage than one car, but the arguement is
>not for us all to go and buy a bus, it's that we should share the use of
>one. One bus vs. several cars? Clearly preferable.
>

No.

Road damage increases dramatically with axle weight. This means that
a typical bus, weighing ~10 times the weight of a typical car, will
cause MUCH more than 10 times the damage of 1 car.

If you want anecdotal evidence of this, take a look at the road surface
at a bus stop that has not been reinforced. Alternatively, look at the
surface of a road that has a long standing bus lane. The results are
dramatic!



Bob



-- 
R.J.Hendley@cs.bham.ac.uk
School of Computer Science			Phone: +44 21 414 4761
University of Birmingham			Home:  +44 21 444 8656
PO Box 363, Birmingham, UK			Fax:   +44 21 414 4281
From: martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk (Martin Gorman)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Rear end drivers, etc
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:43:30 GMT
Organization: British Telecom

ianking@nnsgs52 (Ian King) writes:

>Speed Freak (ian@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk) wrote:
>: you will always be making roads 'safer'.  But how safe do want the roads to
>: be ?  Deaths are inevitable and, at a certain level, are an acceptable 
>: price for the contribution to society that the motor car makes.  The only 
>: question is, "What is the acceptable death rate ?"

>On railways even one death is unacceptable.
>
Hmm... nothing in this life is certain. One can increase/decrease the
odds, but freak accidents/human errors/machine failures will always
happen from time to time.
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:41:10 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <30682@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>
>If you stand in Princes Street, Edinburgh, on Saturday morning you
>will observe a strange phenomenon: a woman will come out of a shop
>laden with shopiing and stand on the kerb. Soon a car will draw up,
>she gets in, and is driven away. A little more observation reveals
>that outside any large shop there are lots of men driving their cars
>round and round the block waiting for their wives to come out with the
>shopping.

For those who don't know Edinburgh, Princes Street is almost unique
amongst main shopping streets in that it only has shops along one
side; the other side is taken up with Princes Street Gardens.
Although shoppers never have to cross the road, there are always
letters in the local papers calling for it to be pedestrianized.  This
baffles me (as a pedestrian) since there are many streets in the city
that might benefit from being pedestrianized, but Princes Street isn't
one of them, though the crushes on Saturdays probably constitute
a good case for widening the pavement.

Chris's observation may be a further argument against
pedestrianization!

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk
From: nib@crosfield.co.uk (nigel bromley)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Hazzard Lights
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:57:58 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <C1GKA9.4Fv@cs.bham.ac.uk> nht@cs.bham.ac.uk (Neville H Thomas) writes:
>
>Tripping up and down on the M6, I notice that when traffic
>is slowing down, the current trend is turn on the hazard warning
>lights....
>I wonder if this malpractice is happening else where (not just,
>north of Brum)?

I believe this is officially sanctioned now, the law having been changed
specifically to allow it.

But am I the only one to have noticed a problem with it? Several times I
have been confused where the car (A) in front of the one in front has used
hazard flashers on approaching a jam; the car in front obscures my view of
the nearside indicator, so I imagine that A is indicating to change lane.

A similar thing happens with a car or truck parked in a line of cars on the
left, typically a delivery lorry outside a shop. Cars passing see only the
off-side hazard flasher, and assume the truck is intending to pull out.

I think the flash pattern should be different between hazard and normal
use.
 


-- 
   Nigel Bromley        /    0442 230000 x3399  /            /     /  ,--,--,
Crosfield Electronics  / +44 442 230000 x3399  /   ,--,  '  /--,  /  '__/__/
nib@crosfield.co.uk   /    (fax 232301)       /   /  /  /  /__/  /     /
  nib@cel.uucp       /           for (;;) { pp = *ip+1; (***ip++)(); }
From: ianking@nnsgs52 (Ian King)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Rear end drivers, etc
Date: 20 Jan 1993 08:36:50 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]

Graham Toal (gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan18.132859.2943@lsl.co.uk> snail@lsl.co.uk writes:
: :Next time, read what a guy says before being 'holier-than-thou'. Also come up
: :with some sensible arguments as to why driving on an empty motorway at 71mph
: :is more dangerous than driving on an empty motorway at 70, etc.

: Because 71 becomes 80, then 90, then 100, then you go into a little dip
: with local freezing fog you couldn't see from half a mile back, and you
: hit black ice and go into a spin, crash through the barrier and kill
: three people in the oncoming car on the other side of the road.


You would kill more people than that and you would be one of them.

Regards...
.........Ian

--
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: City Traffic
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:21:32 GMT
Reply-To: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Reading

In article 935820125829@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk, TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk () writes:
>==============================================================================
>The sight of long traffic queues on the main roads in Birmingham annoys the
>hell out of me especially when most of the cars contain the driver only.
>Of course everybody realises that a group of buses is better than the
>equivalent number of cars, in terms of fuel, the environment, accidents,
>travel time etc. Unfortunately the initiative is not going to come from
>the motorists. Birmingham City Council are planning to narrow some of
>the main roads in the south of the city and introduce bus lanes. They hope
>this will make it intolerable for motorists and get them onto the buses.
>Anothe reason is the recognition that residential areas are nothing more than
>hell-holes for a few hours each day when the roads through them choke up with
>traffic, they say they want to improve the environment of these areas by
>reducing traffic, widening pavements and putting the trees back. I hope
>that this works in the long term. In the short term it will slow traffic down
>and cause long queues, this is the idea.
>
>Andy T.


The ONLY way you will get people off the roads, is to force them. You can have the 
most wonderful buses possible, but people won't use them because 'it's more
convienient' to use a car. I vote for VERY large car parking prices, and bus lanes
on every part of a bus route. Also, it would be good if some sort of priority system
for busses at traffic lights could be introduced.

I say well done to BCC, and I hope others will follow suit.

Richard Peat
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Rear end drivers, etc
Date: 22 Jan 93 12:41:36 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Graham Toal (gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: 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 came across is more than once, why was it "totally unexpected"
the second and subsequent times?

: 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...

You still seem to be missing the point somewhat.  Assessing such
possible hazards, and how they relate to the weather and traffic
conditions, is an vital part of deciding what a safe speed is, and is
a different issue to adherence to the legal speed limit.

If the road is busy, then a blown tyre poses a much greater danger
than if the road is empty.  If visibility is good, you will see the
kid in the road sooner than if the visibility is poor.  If there is
little traffic, you will have more room to manouevre around the kid
than if the road is busy.

People who do not factor such considerations into their driving plan
are not driving as well as they might, even if they never exceed the
legal speed limit.

-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: T.I.Morley@lut.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Speed Limits
Reply-To: T.I.Morley@lut.ac.uk (TI Morley)
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.
Distribution: uk
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 13:59:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.125313.6927@spider.co.uk> jmorris@spider.co.uk (John Morris) writes:
>In article <1993Jan18.153127.13273@praxis.co.uk> martin@praxis.co.uk (Martin Croxford) writes:
>>
>>"You should be nicked" for driving at an inappropriate speed. On
>>motorways this could be 100mph in most conditions, 70mph in heavy
>>rain/heavy traffic or 25mph in "normal" conditions. Outside a school
>>(assuming a 30mph limit) this could be 45mph at 3 in the morning, 35mph
>>in most other conditions or 20mph at 3.45pm when the kids are going home.
>>
>I think you are restricting the use of "inappropriate" to the safety aspects.
>I live in a house which fronts directly onto a main road, and the bedroom
>is at the front of the house. A car at 45mph is quite a lot louder than one
>at 30mph - and it really p***** me off when the gentle drift into sleep
>gets rudely aborted by some inconsiderate oaf who drives through fast 
>because "there is nobody about."
>
>John.
>
Yes I second this point. I think that the noise made by cars is a very
good reason for enforcing speed limits.

Can you imagine living by the North Circular? This is a three lane dual
carriageway with a 40mph speed limit. If you stick to 40mph you will
probably be the only person who does, mainly I think because everyone
knows it is "safe" to drive faster. (Certainly similar roads elsewhere
have higher limits.) However I'm sure that the noise, although still 
bad(!) would be a lot less if everyone did drive at 40mph rather than 
the 50-60mph which is the norm.

Noise apart another reason for sticking to the limit is the poor sod
who has to join from a side road. This is often hard enough if you
can assume that the traffic on the main road is not exceeding the 
limit. If you have to assume that most people are exceeding the limit
by 10-20mph then it becomes damn near impossible

Tim Morley (T.I.Morley)
From: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Richard T Peat)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Rear end drivers, etc
Date: 23 Jan 93 13:19:59 GMT
Reply-To: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Reading

In article 2970@lsl.co.uk, snail@lsl.co.uk () writes:
>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

   You may be right that the driver *shouldn't* be held responsible, but he will. 
I have always been told that if there is an accident (of ANY sort) on a road, and
your car is moving, YOU are to blame.

>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?
  
I think that the 71mph is not really the issue, it's only 71mph as it is over the
limit, and it is unquestioned that driving at high speeds is dangerous.
It is rather pointless arguing over 1mph, as the difference in results is
negligble. Much more difference would be noticed if for instance the speed rose
to  80, 90 or even 100mph.

Richard Peat
ssurpeat@uk.ac.rdg.susssys1
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: tjo@its.bt.co.uk (Tim Oldham)
Subject: Bus vs Car Costs (Was: Re: City Traffic)
Organization: BT Group Computing Services, Birmingham, UK
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 12:22:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.133858@cs.bham.ac.uk> roj@cs.bham.ac.uk (Robert O Jackson) writes:
>Its a shame that the cost of catching the bus from point A (or rather the
>nearest bus stop) to point B (or some point near it) costs as much as if
>not more than driving from point A to point B.

While the marginal cost of driving is certainly lower, the actual cost
of driving is usually a good deal higher than catching the bus. I could
buy a year's bus-pass with just my insurance premiums and still have
enough left over for a newspaper to read on the bus every day; to say
nothing about depreciation. The money it takes to run a car buys a lot
of public transport.

Your mileage will vary; the relative costs will depend on your travel
pattern, access to buses, car parking fees, particular bus-pass schemes,
number of passengers, costing in your time, exposure to car thieves etc
etc. 

	Tim.
-- 
Tim Oldham, BT Group Computing Services.       tjo@its.bt.co.uk
``Sounds good to me''
From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather)
Subject: Re: Small Gods Annotations
Organization: IXI Limited
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 12:49:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.104508.24667@infodev.cam.ac.uk> rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
> The serious issue about the ultra-light weight cross-country trains is
> nothing to do with leaves.  Because they are so light, they have a
> tendency only intermittently to operate track circuits that detect the
> presence of trains on a portion of track.

This is a misunderstanding of the situation. The problem is not with all
ultra-light-weight trains - indeed, it does not happen at all with the
"bus bodies on rail wheels" abominations. The problem is actually rather
different.

When a rail is left unused for a day or so, it gains a thin layer of
oxide, which is an insulator. Normally this isn't a problem, because the
front wheels of the train hunt from side to side across the rail as the
train progresses, scraping the oxide off, and the remaining axles
operate the track circuits quite happily. The problem with the class 156
trains was that the design was so *good* that the wheels don't hunt on
straight track - instead, all the wheels follow exactly the same path on
the rail [1], and the oxide never gets removed. The solution is to add
"active shunts" which send a burst of electricity through the rails,
breaking down the oxide.

[1] Skeptics should note that the BR standard ride-quality test is to
stand a pound coin on the floor of the train.

> BR's reprehensible attitude to R&D again, I'm afraid.  If only they'ld
> spent more money, they'ld have anticipated the problem before they
> installed the current generation of track circuits, and made them
> behave more reliably in today's conditions.

The track-circuit problem only occurs when the line is used *only* by
the particular kind of train. This is quite a hard situation to test
for.

Anyway, BR aren't allowed to spend their own money on such things
(*all* expenditure on new stock has to be approved by the DoT, *even*
if they are spending extra income rather than PSO money).

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited         | If you lie to the compiler,
clive@x.co.uk          | Vision Park         | it will get its revenge.
Phone: +44 223 236 555 | Cambridge   CB4 4RZ |   - Henry Spencer
Fax:   +44 223 236 550 | United Kingdom      |
From: roj@cs.bham.ac.uk (Robert O Jackson)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Assholes and Education
Date: 19 Jan 93 17:14:28 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, UK


There is already a restriction applied to bad / inexperienced / young drivers.
Its called motor insurance. Insurance premiums take into account age/experience
of the driver, how many speeding tickets/accidents he/she has had in the last
year, how many insurance claimshave been made, the type of car, the region in
which it is being driven, and whether the driver has passed an advanced test.

If these massive financial penalties are not enough then why would more education
help ?
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 16:00:42 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

snail@lsl.co.uk writes:
>In article <930122.165530.6d7.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, 
>mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) 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?

I do.  I often walk from the Science Park to the city centre.  I was
assuming, however, that people wanted to talk about general solutions to
problems, rather than solutions suitable for 18-30 year olds in good health
who aren't going shopping.  And people do drive from Chesterton to Cambridge
to go to the shops, I've followed them on my bike.


mathew
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Bus vs Car Costs (Was: Re: City Traffic)
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:21:44 GMT

In article <21168@acorn.co.uk> steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt) writes:
:Legislation to keep the insurance companies in line?  This year mine
:tried to increase my premium by 56% after a (yet another) claim-free
:year.  Needless to say I switched firms.

Maybe they read uk.transport :-)

G
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Rear end drivers, etc
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:12:11 +0000

:>: Because 71 becomes 80, then 90, then 100, then you go into a little dip
:>: with local freezing fog you couldn't see from half a mile back, and you
:>: hit black ice and go into a spin, crash through the barrier and kill
:>: three people in the oncoming car on the other side of the road.
:>
:So 71 is not more dangerous, but 100 in conditions where freezing fog and
:black ice may occur is, so the simple equation

:  (71 on empty motorway) = (100 in fog and ice)

:clears up any confusion. Glad we've got that sorted.

Fine.  So there's no problem with 71mph on an empty motoryway.

How do you feel abut 72?

G
(PS I hope our readers won't object to about 60 more followups
in this thread; the smarter readers can skip them once they get the
point...)
From: jonh@CIS.Prime.COM (Jon Huxtable)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Power limits for beginners (was Re: Assh
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:03:10 GMT
Reply-To: jonh@CIS.Prime.COM
Organization: Computervision R&D Ltd

In article 2935@edscom.demon.co.uk, ian@edscom.demon.co.uk (Ian Green) writes:
>         ...Stuff deleted ...
>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?
>I think that some incentive scheme is required here - but what?  Anyone got any
>*sensible and workable* suggestions?  Also any driving intructors read this?
>I'd like to hear your views since you see many of us shortly before we are
>unleashed onto the roads.
>
>Ian.
>-- 

The problem with an incentive scheme is that you need to identify those who
deserve the incentive. The insurance companies couldn't be expected to keep
accident data for instance (beyond their current no claims bonus scheme).
We all know that there is plenty of bad driving that does not result in any
form of prosecution.

Given the above it is unlikely that any incentive scheme will be sensible,
workable, and *fair*.

Jon

---
 -----------------------------------------------
Jon Huxtable   --     jonh@cis.prime.com 
Computervision R&D Ltd, Harston, Cambridge, UK
--  All opinions expressed are my own. --
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of
 human freedom" - William Pitt 1759-1806
 -----------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: uk.transport
From: mark@edscom.demon.co.uk (Mark Neale)
Subject: Re: Assholes and Education
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
Distribution: uk
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:25:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.171429@cs.bham.ac.uk> roj@cs.bham.ac.uk (Robert O Jackson) writes:

   There is already a restriction applied to bad / inexperienced /
   young drivers.  Its called motor insurance. Insurance premiums take
   into account ......  whether the driver has passed an
   advanced test.

I would be interested to know the percentage of insurance companies
who actually take the advanced test into account when setting
premiums.