HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk (Michael!)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:06:22 GMT
Reply-To: bane@vtx.ma.man.ac.uk
Organization: Magic Michael's Mushroom Factory.

In article <C17pFx.224@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk>, ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Richard T Peat) writes:
|> 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


It *IS* possible NOW to have priority systems for buses at traffic lights. This can 
achieved by fitting some kind bus-sensors just before traffic lights. Another
alternative is to change the timings of traffic lights so that they no longer are
optimum for 30mph cars but rather are optimal for buses. Personnally I think the first
idea is the best and will work whereas the 2nd would be very hard to implement because
how do you determine how long a bus will stop at a bus stop?

Michael

PS: There is a pathetic situation in Manchester (UK) at the moment - there is this new
RLT/Metro-link tram system which has to stop at traffic lights and wait for the cars.
STUPID or what????
From: roj@cs.bham.ac.uk (Robert O Jackson)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Hazzard Lights
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:44:28 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, UK

I always put my hazard warning lights on when I come upon the tail of a motorway
jam. If the car in front of you is slowing from 80 mph to 0 then I think this is
a definite hazard. Brake lights don't really distinguish between a slight
decrease in speed and hard breaking and I think giving extra warning to the
drivers behind me is well worth the 'risk' of putting on hazard lights.
From: snail@lsl.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Bus vs Car Costs (Was: Re: City Traffic)
Date: 25 Jan 93 12:31:03 GMT
Organization: Laser-Scan Ltd., Cambridge

In article <1993Jan22.150050.8972@lut.ac.uk>, T.I.Morley@lut.ac.uk writes:
> Trouble is of course that once you've got a car it is the marginal cost
> that matters. I'm in favour of public transport, but I don't intend to
> give up my car.
> 
> One way of evening things up is to try to decrease the fixed cost of
> having a car and increase the marginal cost. The most obvious way of
> doing this is to reduce or abolish road tax and increase the tax (duty?)
> on fuel to compensate. Can anyone think of anything else that can be
> done on these lines?

You could also reduce outlay on buying the car. This would be easy in the UK,
since the car manufacturers sell their cars cheaper abroad than here, despite
having to export them from the UK. Once this was done, you could increase the
fuel levy even more, since the motorist would have more to spend (in the short
term).
-- 
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: roj@cs.bham.ac.uk (Robert O Jackson)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 20 Jan 93 13:38:58 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, The University of Birmingham, UK

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.
From: TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:52:20 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
NNTP-Posting-Host: ibm3090.bham.ac.uk

==============================================================================
Steve Hunt writes:

>TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk wrote:
>: I see you must be one of those people who sees having to wait a couple
>: of minutes for a bus as being a reason to drive. I am not arguing the
>
>No, I am one of those people who live where public transport
>is almost non-existent.
>

And you are therefore on of the people who I feel are perfectly justified in
using your car to get to work if you work in a city. It's the people who
have the alternative I would like to see using public transport.

Andy T.
From: martin@praxis.co.uk (Martin Croxford)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Speed limits
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:01:11 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Praxis, Bath, U.K.


Richard Peat ssurpeat@uk.ac.rdg writes:

> In article 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.
> 
> So, do you propose having massive limit signs that list all the various
> different limits under different coditions. Or maybe change all the limit
> signs for changing displays.

I don't propose "having massive limit signs" (tho "changing display"
signs are an interesting possibility). I am trying to make the point that the
speed limit signs are not necessarily an indication of the safest maximum
speed.  

> Anyway, why should the speed be any different at 3 in the morning. There
> are still people around, and at that time less aware anyway. Just because
> it's 3 in the morning, does not mean that hitting someone at 45mph will
> be any less dangerous does it? 

On some stretches of 30mph road 45mph is safe at certain times of the
day/night. If there are people about then 45mph might not be safe. If
there are no people then 45mph might be reasonable. Depends on
conditions. How do we know what speed is reasonable in a given set of
conditions ? Through education and experience. If in doubt, drive at the
speed limit. But what if the speed limit is too high ?

About three years ago, at around 2 in the morning, I was driving through
the outskirts of Godalming with some very drunk people in the car (I
hadn't been drinking - I'd gone to pick up some friends from a party). I
was stopped by the police in a 30mph zone, having been driving at
around 40-45mph. I got out of the car and promptly apologised for
exceeding the limit. The policeman's response was that I hadn't been
driving with excessive speed; he and his colleague were concerned that 
I was as drunk as my passengers (they had seen us get in the car) -
having established that I wasn't he apologised for delaying me and that
was it. 

In an ideal driving world drivers would be penalised for driving with
excess speed for the conditions, rather than just "speeding". Cameras
will faithfully record evry vehicle that breaks the speed limit - how much
better if the camera could faithfully record every vehicle that is
travelling with excessive speed.

Training all drivers to the level that police drivers are trained would do
more for road safety than rigorous application of the law. 
--
Martin Croxford
martin@praxis.co.uk
These are my opinions
From: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Richard T Peat)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Assholes and Education
Date: 23 Jan 93 13:02:32 GMT
Reply-To: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Reading

In article 21153@acorn.co.uk, steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt) writes:
>You're can't be serious.  You can penalise someone as much as you like
>for being a bad driver, but it won't magically make them a good
>driver.  

In that case, why don't we just ban any so called 'bad drivers' permenantly?

Richard Peat
ssurpeat@uk.ac.rdg.susssys1
From: snail@lsl.co.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Assholes and Education
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:59:56 GMT
Organization: Laser-Scan Ltd., Cambridge

In article <930121.180052.4j6.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> martin@praxis.co.uk (Martin Croxford) writes:
>> I question a system that allows bad drivers on the roads, especially
>> in powerful cars.
> 
> Delete the words "bad" and "powerful" from that last sentence, and you have
> my sentiments exactly.
> 
> You probably think I'm being unnecessarily harsh.  If so, try being a cyclist.

Hi Mathew :-)

I am both. Cyclists get in my way when I cycle. They go to slow - Cycle
quickly, and putting all that energy in, only to stop for someone pedaling
in the wrong gear, Aaaargh!

When I drive, I give cyclists a lot of room when overtaking them. If no room, I
wait behind them. No problem. I suppose I'm the exception. However cycling to
my parents of friends in Glasgow, isn't really an option.
-- 
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: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:32:27 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk wrote:
: I see you must be one of those people who sees having to wait a couple
: of minutes for a bus as being a reason to drive. I am not arguing the

No, I am one of those people who live where public transport
is almost non-existent.

: wider issues of public v. private transport, I _am_ talking about rush
: hour traffic within Birmingham. You are hardly going to have to plan your
: life around the timetable of inner-city buses at _this_ time, your
: arguement is more applicable to train and plane timetables.

Perhaps you do all your travelling during the daytime.  I don't.
I travel to my place of work, then go out socialising or whatever,
and then need to travel home at midnight, one, two in the morning
or whatever.  What do you mean the buses stop at eleven?

: Come back to the real world, you attacked BCC's strategy as being
: simple-minded, how do you intend getting businesses to do what you
: say? Either entire places of work come in at different times and
: so have a hell of a time communicating with each other in the overlaps
: or the people at each place of work have different working hours......

I didn't say it was easy, just that it would be good if it could be
accomplished.  There are plenty of jobs where 9 to 5 is not important.
I've *never* worked 9 to 5, and I never intend to _ I feel it is a
stultifying practise that should be abhorred, like the shops being
shut on Sunday.

: I hope your on a wind up on this point. Your suggesting that we
change : working practices to such an extent to pander to the
motorist? I prefer

No, no, it reduces the peak load on the whole transport system, which
means it can be run more economically and effectively.  For example,
rail operators will no longer need to keep a load of extra rolling
stock that is only needed twice a day.  Buses will run more freely
because the roads will be clearer.
-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:49:22 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

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.

A recent survey in Vienna reported that during the dayitme 1/3 of the
cars in the city centre were driving around looking for somewhere to
park.

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.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: re: motorway madness
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:56:13 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
NNTP-Posting-Host: ibm3090.bham.ac.uk

==============================================================================
Ian Green writes:

>If the car pulling in really does leave you 'nose-to-tail' then it's a fairly
>safe bet that you hadn't left a big enough gp in the first place.

Twit

Andy T.
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Speed Limits
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:10:58 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

K. P. Williams (ssukwill@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk) wrote:

[ reformatted for 80 columns ]

: Anyway, why should the speed be any different at 3 in the morning.

Because the density of traffic on a road has a profound effect on the
way traffic flows, and thus on what a sensible speed is.

Take the motorways.  They were designed for higher speeds than 70mph,
but for a much lower traffic density than we have today.  At night the
traffic density is closer to (probably lower than) the design density.
It seems reasonable to expect that this will be reflected by the
maximum safe speed being higher at night than it is in the day.  For
example, during the rush hour 70mph is too fast on the M25, but at
night it is fine.

: Just because it's 3 in the morning, does not mean that hitting someone
: at 45mph will be any less dangerous does it?

No, but should be easier to avoid incidents when there is less traffic
around.  At night there are far fewer other road users to deal with,
so each can get a bigger share of your attention.  Thus you should be
able to do a better job of reading the road and predicting the actions
of other road users than you can in the day.  Obviously vision is the
main drawback; when relying on headlights, visual distance is usually
the primary constraint on your speed, and you may have to adjust your
speed when switching from main beam to dipped and back.

[ Aside: The above is referring mainly to the open road.  The fact
that you say "45mph" suggests that you are thinking mostly about urban
roads.  I agree that most urban roads present a different set of
hazards and have quite high enough limits already.  I tend to default
to discussing rural A-roads and motorways as that is where I do the
vast majority of my driving. ]

--Steve
-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
From: steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Bus vs Car Costs (Was: Re: City Traffic)
Date: 23 Jan 93 18:45:21 GMT
Organization: Acorn Computers Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

: Trouble is of course that once you've got a car it is the marginal cost
: that matters. I'm in favour of public transport, but I don't intend to
: give up my car.

Yes.  The problem is that while public transport is good for some
kinds of journey, most people find they need private transport for
other journeys that the public system can't satisfy (night travel,
whatever).  So they own a car.  Now, the standing cost of car
ownership is very high, so they have to use it for most of their
journeys, even ones that *could* be made with public transport, to
save money on the marginal cost.

This is why the public transport system needs to be *very* good, and
meet the three criteria I posted before, to persuade people that they
can do without cars altogether.  (Yes, I know some posters on here are
able to do without private transport; all I can say is you must live
very different lives than I do).

: One way of evening things up is to try to decrease the fixed cost of
: having a car and increase the marginal cost. The most obvious way of
: doing this is to reduce or abolish road tax and increase the tax (duty?)
: on fuel to compensate. Can anyone think of anything else that can be
: done on these lines?

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.
-- 
				Steve Hunt	steve@acorn.co.uk
From: ken@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Ken Johnson)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Dispell The Myth Of Imortality
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:18:16 GMT
Followup-To: uk.transport
Distribution: uk
Organization: William's Wonderful Wonky Widget Warehouse


The police did something along these lines in the 1950's.  They would
put spectacularly wrecked cars (not bodies though) in places where they
could be clearly seen.  There was one on Edmonton Green for a time,
which I recall vividly.  The practice had no effect on road accidents,
but it did rather horrify people.  The fact is that people are quite
capable of erecting psychological defences against the horrific.  A
subtler approach (Try telling _her_ drunk driving doesn't hurt anyone)
is more likely to be productive. 

Incidentally anyone who reads The Oldie (e.g.  current issue) will have
seen Auberon Waugh's asinine invective in facour of drunk driving.  Do
write a letter to them if you have a moment. 


-- 
Son, all the pretty, intelligent, healthy     #    I have discovered of this
young women are taken. It's a basic rule of   #    basic rule of the universe
the universe, and if you don't like it, go    #    a most remarkable proof,
somewhere else.        -- my dad  1906-1992   #    which this .signature is too
From: TREHARAJ@ibm3090.bham.ac.uk
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: City Traffic
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:52:15 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
NNTP-Posting-Host: ibm3090.bham.ac.uk

==============================================================================
:Bob Hendley writes:
:>===============================================================================
:>
:>In article <1993Jan22.143422.23243@gssec.bt.co.uk> amatthew@gssec.bt.co.uk (Alan Matthews) writes
:>
:>>Try taking into account the cost to an individual (over a year) of:
:>>
:>
:>[some deleted]
:>
:>>
:>>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.

Andy T.
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Motorway Madness
From: adrian@pluto.logica.co.uk (Adrian Putley)
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:38:52 GMT
Reply-To: adrian@pluto.logica.co.uk
Organization: Logica Industry Ltd, UK

darby@andersen.co.uk (Dave Darby) writes:
>	[...]
>
>Finally I hate the idiots who insist on trying to squeeze their car between
>you and the car in front.  ...

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.

Adrian Putley		Logica Industry Ltd	Medina House, Business Park 4,
putleya@logica.co.uk				Randalls Way, Leatherhead,
(+44 71) 637 9111 x5715				Surrey  KT22 7TW, UK
From: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (Richard T Peat)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Speed Limits
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:04:36 GMT
Reply-To: ssurpeat@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Reading

In article 21130@acorn.co.uk, steve@acorn.co.uk (Steve "daffy" Hunt) writes:
>: Just because it's 3 in the morning, does not mean that hitting someone
>: at 45mph will be any less dangerous does it?
>
>No, but should be easier to avoid incidents when there is less traffic
>around.  At night there are far fewer other road users to deal with,
>so each can get a bigger share of your attention.  Thus you should be
>able to do a better job of reading the road and predicting the actions
>of other road users than you can in the day.  Obviously vision is the
>main drawback; when relying on headlights, visual distance is usually
>the primary constraint on your speed, and you may have to adjust your
>speed when switching from main beam to dipped and back.
>

	It's a lot easier to see other cars coming at night, although it
doesn't help that most of them seem to have a complete disregard for everyone
else, and keep their headlights full beam.

	It's a lot harder to see pedestrians, and there are still some around
at that time. Motorways I agree you can go somewhat faster. Having driven along
the M4 and M25 at 3am, it's lovely, no prats pulling in in front of you, or
floating along in the middle lane. And best of all, no lorries trying to break
the speed limit.

Richard Peat
uk.ac.rdg.susssys1
From: rap@bnr.co.uk (Richard Porter)
Newsgroups: uk.transport
Subject: Re: Hazzard Lights
Date: 26 Jan 1993 13:31:31 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Limited
Distribution: uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs193.bnr.co.uk

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 hazzard warning lights.

>I wonder if this malpractice is happening else where (not just,
>north of Brum)?

I've noticed this a few times, and I agree with your verdict. The first
time someone did this in front of me I naturally assumed that he was in some
sort of difficulty and prepared to change lanes in order to get past. I
had of course seen the traffic build-up ahead of him and was slowing down
anyway. The emergency flashers were totally unnecessary and gave the
wrong message. If you are stationary at the back of a queue it is wise
to apply the foot brake until someone else pulls up behind.

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.

Richard