On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 07:34:27PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

Or to spend the money on extra police or traffic wardens (or cameras) to
enforce traffic laws at key conflict points. And, since a minor but
significant fraction of cyclist casualties stem from cyclist errors, i
mean enforcing them against cyclists as well as motorists!

The latter would mean making cyclists identifiable, with number plates.
Good idea.

Unfortunately, cameras won't work. Cameras can't spot an awful lot of
bad behaviour, such as silly lane changes, unless monitored by a person.
And if you're going to have a person, why not just have them stand next
to the junction in question?

--
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

There's no problem so complex that it can't be solved
by killing everyone even remotely associated with it

David Cantrell gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

In a situation like this, of course, that extra toughness might not
have been an advantage - rather as with giant 4x4s, it may reduce the
danger to occupants at the expense of increasing the danger to those
outside it.

If you assume that the tram will be carrying a great many more people
than any other vehicle that it runs into (an assumption which, IME,
would hold pretty much all the time in Croydon) then that's a good
trade-off.

A quick google suggests that the Croydon trams have a capacity of 200
people and a kerb weight of 36t - so a laden weight of about 50t

Compare that to a typical current double-decker, with a capacity of 60(?)
and a kerb weight of 12t, so a laden weight of about 16.5t

There's also the greater impact avoidance of a bus than a tram - a bus
can swerve, whereas a tram can't - and the greater impact deflection of a
bus than a tram - same reason.

On Sep 11, 11:50*am, Adrian wrote:
A quick google suggests that the Croydon trams have a capacity of 200
people and a kerb weight of 36t - so a laden weight of about 50t

Compare that to a typical current double-decker, with a capacity of 60(?)
and a kerb weight of 12t, so a laden weight of about 16.5t

There's also the greater impact avoidance of a bus than a tram - a bus
can swerve, whereas a tram can't - and the greater impact deflection of a
bus than a tram - same reason.

OTOH, it sounds possible from the confused reports so far that the
bus's ability to swerve was the problem in the first place (if it
swerved into the tram's path to avoid a car: far better to just hit
the car and contain the accident there).

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Graham Murray wrote:

Nick Leverton writes:

Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone probably
consists of other vehicles.

So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since impossible
situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide. Thus, all cars
should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be no more
collisions. QED.

Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road users.

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Tom Anderson gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone
probably consists of other vehicles.

So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since impossible
situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide. Thus, all cars
should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be no more
collisions. QED.

Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road
users.

shrug
Just give 'em all Landies.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

but then they wouldn't have the anti-cyclist lights arrangement at the
Marchmont St junction if they were that sensible.

Oh christ! That junction! AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!! It makes me INSANE
WITH RAGE whenever i see it, or even think about it. It's an affront to
common sense and human dignity. One day, i'm going to burn it down.

Indeed so. I've got an email from a Camden cycling officer I keep
meaning to follow up to have a site meeting about those signals (and a
more minor irritation at Tavistock Square). I have a Camden cycling
councillor contact to whom I've talked about it too but it's one of
things for which I need to get a round tuit.

Have you spoken to anyone from the Camden Cycling Campaign? The whole
Seven Stations route is their baby, and they're heavily involved with the
design and modification of the route along Tavistock Place. You can find
all sorts of fragments of information with some searches on their site:

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/

Although it seems to be silent on the matter of those lights.

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 07:34:27PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

Or to spend the money on extra police or traffic wardens (or cameras) to
enforce traffic laws at key conflict points. And, since a minor but
significant fraction of cyclist casualties stem from cyclist errors, i
mean enforcing them against cyclists as well as motorists!

The latter would mean making cyclists identifiable, with number plates.
Good idea.

Only if you wanted to do it with cameras. If there were actual people,
they could stop them there and then.

Unfortunately, cameras won't work. Cameras can't spot an awful lot of
bad behaviour, such as silly lane changes, unless monitored by a person.

Current cameras don't. I wouldn't say that camera's can't - it's just a
matter of the right software. Software is unlikely to be good as a human
brain, but it can do some quite amazing and unexpected things. Have you
come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software
can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to
uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic! Detecting dangerous
lane changes would seem trivial by comparison.

And if you're going to have a person, why not just have them stand next
to the junction in question?

Well, because one person can monitor more than one camera. Also, is
suspect that one person can work longer and more productively in a
sheltered office environment than a wet and windy street corner.

Not that i'm against having more lawmen on the streets. That would be a
good thing. But it might noet be the optimal allocation of resources.

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Adrian wrote:

Tom Anderson gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone
probably consists of other vehicles.

So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since impossible
situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide. Thus, all cars
should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be no more
collisions. QED.

Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road
users.

shrug
Just give 'em all Landies.


Fair enough.

Could you make a bus derivative of a Land Rover?

tom

--
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Tom Anderson gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since
impossible situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide.
Thus, all cars should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be
no more collisions. QED.

Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road
users.

shrug
Just give 'em all Landies.

Fair enough.

Could you make a bus derivative of a Land Rover?

Since some countries get 12 seats in a 110 Station Wagon, you could do a
passible imitation of a bus with a 130, let alone a 150...

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

In article ,
(Tom Anderson) wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Colin Rosenstiel wrote:

but then they wouldn't have the anti-cyclist lights arrangement at
the Marchmont St junction if they were that sensible.

Oh christ! That junction! AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!! It makes me INSANE

WITH RAGE whenever i see it, or even think about it. It's an affront

to common sense and human dignity. One day, i'm going to burn it
down.

Indeed so. I've got an email from a Camden cycling officer I keep
meaning to follow up to have a site meeting about those signals
(and a more minor irritation at Tavistock Square). I have a
Camden cycling councillor contact to whom I've talked about it
too but it's one of things for which I need to get a round tuit.

Have you spoken to anyone from the Camden Cycling Campaign? The
whole Seven Stations route is their baby, and they're heavily
involved with the design and modification of the route along
Tavistock Place. You can find all sorts of fragments of information
with some searches on their site:

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/

Although it seems to be silent on the matter of those lights.

Thanks, I've not come across them up to now, no.

--
Colin Rosenstiel