Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:33:26 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote:

Nuxx Bar wrote:

How else do you explain the
bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses?

Where? TIA.


Don't want to steal your thunder John but when I took the local
Council to task over school bus services they said that since
deregulation they didn't run the bus services any more so couldn't be
held responsible for presence or absence of buses.

So a bus lane with no buses, not an impossibility AFAICS.

DG

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

On Feb 3, 6:32*pm, "Brimstone" wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 5:51 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous
and illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for
it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you thinking
of minicabs?

I'd query "thinking".

The current rules seem to go back to 1999, I don't know how they
changed, if they did.

On one hand it seems to be fine to hail a taxi if it isn't dangerous
or causing a nuisance (which it usually is), but on the other hand
drivers can't ply their trade away from a rank. *Seems to depend on
whether they are moving.

Which rules are you quoting?-

This is why I say "seems" and hope from a contribution who knows more
detail. The relevant Acts would seem to have been updated in 1999 for
the GLA, but there's a lot to wade through to find anything relevant,
for example, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/Revise..._18500007_en_1
which seems to be all about the setting up of ranks, and there's loads
of other bits and pieces.

My general understanding of where taxis can ply trade may apparently
not apply to moving taxis, from what it says on TfL. The Cambridge
report refers to danger and nuisance, but TfL doesn't.

It's confusing, given that it's difficult for a taxi to be able to
claim not to be plying for trade when it comes to refusing someone.

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

On Feb 3, 1:50 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
What's a car lane? Why aren't bikes allowed in that?

I didn't say they weren't. For the purposes of my post, "car" meant
all other traffic.

Spiffing, a shame that bus drivers on the 94 don't realise this.

The Dutch approach would be pavement-cycle lane-kerbstone-bus lane-all
other traffic, with the cycle lane usually going around the back of
the bus shelter at stops. This seems to work, but it does require the
Dutch approach to the cycle lane in that it has absolute priority over
all other traffic including when crossing side roads.

The pedestrians inevitably straying into the cycle lanes would also
need to be dealt with, it needs a culture shift. The fact that
cyclists in Amsterdam, in my experience, are a lot more sure of
themselves and their rights, makes it better. If cyclists in the UK
were as assertive, and avoided the gutter lanes that councils like,
the roads would be a much better place for all.

Bikes are faster than buses and should be on the outside of them.

I don't mind taxis *being* in bus lanes, but it should certainly be

I've never understood the reason why congestion-causing private
transport vehicles were allowed in express public transport lanes.

the case that they should not be permitted to *stop* in bus lanes,
other than perhaps at marked bus stops. Options might be to provide
"taxi stop" lay-bys or just require them to stop on side-streets
instead of Red Routes, on which *nothing*[1] should be stopping except
for buses at marked bus stops.

When I used to drive in to London, hardly a day went by without me
seeing a "broken down" bus parked in some awful place, including bus
lanes. They need to sort their own herd out.

which someone could design the temporary road layout to minimise
disruption. Bin collections could be sensibly carried out overnight,
perhaps, rather than in the morning rush.

I'm personally not a fan of bin lorries -- they smell and it's hard to
overtake them on back roads :)

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 6:32 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 5:51 pm, "Brimstone"
wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous
and illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for
it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you
thinking of minicabs?

I'd query "thinking".

The current rules seem to go back to 1999, I don't know how they
changed, if they did.

On one hand it seems to be fine to hail a taxi if it isn't dangerous
or causing a nuisance (which it usually is), but on the other hand
drivers can't ply their trade away from a rank. Seems to depend on
whether they are moving.

Which rules are you quoting?-

This is why I say "seems" and hope from a contribution who knows more
detail. The relevant Acts would seem to have been updated in 1999 for
the GLA, but there's a lot to wade through to find anything relevant,
for example,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/Revise..._18500007_en_1
which seems to be all about the setting up of ranks, and there's loads
of other bits and pieces.

My general understanding of where taxis can ply trade may apparently
not apply to moving taxis, from what it says on TfL. The Cambridge
report refers to danger and nuisance, but TfL doesn't.

It's confusing, given that it's difficult for a taxi to be able to
claim not to be plying for trade when it comes to refusing someone.

The basic legislation covering Hackney Carriages is still the 1847 Town and
Police Clauses Act. It would appear that some places have added to it over
the years but the essentials haven't changed.

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

Nuxx Bar wrote:
Would you not
agree with me that the militant cyclists who hate all other forms of
private transport (and care about that more than saving lives) are
tarnishing the reputation of you and other reasonable cyclists?

If you also hold the positions that
* fundamentalist suicide bombers are tarnishing the reputation of all
university graduates
* drunk people are tarnishing the reputation of all reasonable pedestrians
* militant feminists are tarnishing the reputation of all reasonable women
* people with made-up names who crosspost inflammatory crap on usenet
are tarnishing the reputation of all reasonable simian bipeds

then I will at least grant that you are logically consistent. I
suspect, however, that you're probably just making **** up to try and
get a reaction.


-dan

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

On 3 Feb, 15:33, Nick wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:19 am, "Pete Biggs"
p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs .tc wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't mind if motorcyclists were allowed to use bus lanes.
Motorcyclists rarely cause me any bother, and I'd rather more people used
motorbikes rather than cars.

But I don't believe any *sensible* motorcyclist need be at more risk if they
do not use bus lanes.

Hard luck. *It's not my fault, so don't be rude to me please (by posting
offensive messages aimed at *all* cyclists). *No one surveyed me.

As above, I wasn't trying to be rude to reasonable cyclists, and I
tried to make that clear. *I apologise if I didn't. *Would you not
agree with me that the militant cyclists who hate all other forms of
private transport (and care about that more than saving lives) are
tarnishing the reputation of you and other reasonable cyclists?

Divide and rule, eh?

I think militant cyclist make drivers more aware of cyclists which makes
us all safer.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You don't get it.
Militant cyclist **** people off and turn all cyclists into objects of
hate

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

On Feb 3, 7:38*pm, "Brimstone" wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 6:32 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 5:51 pm, "Brimstone"
wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is dangerous
and illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As for
it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you
thinking of minicabs?

I'd query "thinking".

The current rules seem to go back to 1999, I don't know how they
changed, if they did.

On one hand it seems to be fine to hail a taxi if it isn't dangerous
or causing a nuisance (which it usually is), but on the other hand
drivers can't ply their trade away from a rank. Seems to depend on
whether they are moving.

Which rules are you quoting?-

This is why I say "seems" and hope from a contribution who knows more
detail. *The relevant Acts would seem to have been updated in 1999 for
the GLA, but there's a lot to wade through to find anything relevant,
for example,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/Revise...a/1850/cukpga_...
which seems to be all about the setting up of ranks, and there's loads
of other bits and pieces.

My general understanding of where taxis can ply trade may apparently
not apply to moving taxis, from what it says on TfL. *The Cambridge
report refers to danger and nuisance, but TfL doesn't.

It's confusing, given that it's difficult for a taxi to be able to
claim not to be plying for trade when it comes to refusing someone.

The basic legislation covering Hackney Carriages is still the 1847 Town and
Police Clauses Act. It would appear that some places have added to it over
the years but the essentials haven't changed.-

I can't find within that the bit that regulates where they are allowed
to trade, other than the general area that the licence covers.

Either it's assumed from an earlier definition of a hackney carriage,
or it's been added later, or I just can't see it for some reason.

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

On Feb 3, 4:33 pm, "John Rowland"
wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:

How else do you explain the
bus lanes that were installed where there were no buses?

Where? TIA.

Kew Bridge for one.

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 7:38 pm, "Brimstone" wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 6:32 pm, "Brimstone"
wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 3, 5:51 pm, "Brimstone"
wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
MIG wrote:

Hailing taxis and having them dart over to the kerb is
dangerous and illegal in any case, regardless of any bus lanes.

It's not dangerous if the driver doesn't do it dangerously. As
for it being illegal ... what *are* you talking about? Are you
thinking of minicabs?

I'd query "thinking".

The current rules seem to go back to 1999, I don't know how they
changed, if they did.

On one hand it seems to be fine to hail a taxi if it isn't
dangerous or causing a nuisance (which it usually is), but on the
other hand drivers can't ply their trade away from a rank. Seems
to depend on whether they are moving.

Which rules are you quoting?-

This is why I say "seems" and hope from a contribution who knows
more detail. The relevant Acts would seem to have been updated in
1999 for the GLA, but there's a lot to wade through to find
anything relevant, for example,
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/Revise...a/1850/cukpga_...
which seems to be all about the setting up of ranks, and there's
loads of other bits and pieces.

My general understanding of where taxis can ply trade may apparently
not apply to moving taxis, from what it says on TfL. The Cambridge
report refers to danger and nuisance, but TfL doesn't.

It's confusing, given that it's difficult for a taxi to be able to
claim not to be plying for trade when it comes to refusing someone.

The basic legislation covering Hackney Carriages is still the 1847
Town and Police Clauses Act. It would appear that some places have
added to it over the years but the essentials haven't changed.-

I can't find within that the bit that regulates where they are allowed
to trade, other than the general area that the licence covers.

Precisely.

Either it's assumed from an earlier definition of a hackney carriage,
or it's been added later, or I just can't see it for some reason.

You've identified it above.

Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew
 

On Feb 3, 3:33 pm, Nick wrote:
Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:19 am, "Pete Biggs"
p...@pomegranateremovehighlyimpracticalfruitbiggs .tc wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't mind if motorcyclists were allowed to use bus lanes.
Motorcyclists rarely cause me any bother, and I'd rather more people used
motorbikes rather than cars.

But I don't believe any *sensible* motorcyclist need be at more risk if they
do not use bus lanes.

Hard luck. It's not my fault, so don't be rude to me please (by posting
offensive messages aimed at *all* cyclists). No one surveyed me.

As above, I wasn't trying to be rude to reasonable cyclists, and I
tried to make that clear. I apologise if I didn't. Would you not
agree with me that the militant cyclists who hate all other forms of
private transport (and care about that more than saving lives) are
tarnishing the reputation of you and other reasonable cyclists?

Divide and rule, eh?

I think militant cyclist make drivers more aware of cyclists which makes
us all safer.

I don't think they make anyone safer.