Pinch points etc.

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Talking about pinch points where cyclists become invisible.

There is a consultation in my local area for new traffic measures,
aimed at reducing speeds.
I went alon on Saturday to the public consultation, where two engineers
from Mott MacDonald were showing plans on a board.

The main comment I made was that a chicane they planned was dangerous
to cyclists - and pinch point tempts motorists to squeeze past you.

I talked with one of the engineers, and he was surprised that I was
against any on-road cycle lanes. They had an 'advisory' lane on the plan,
which in my opinion does no good.
He mentioned mandatory lanes - but what difference does a solid line
make to a ten-tonne truck running you over...

Also I'd like to hear what people on this list think of anit-skid

coatings.

Quoted message said:

Good or bad? Is it bad to have something which helps speeding drivers
slow down?

Another aspect of the plans was a red coloured central strip on the road.
At the moment it has white and maybe hatched white lines.
Red tarmac and chippings any good?

Two things I did welcome:
a) electronic signs which flash up when a driver is speeding
b) raised tables at the entrace to side streets

John - can I speak to you off-list?

If you swap xxxx-x for evil-c, you'll get my email.

cheers,
clive

John Hearns said:

Talking about pinch points where cyclists become invisible.

There is a consultation in my local area for new traffic measures,
aimed at reducing speeds.
I went alon on Saturday to the public consultation, where two engineers
from Mott MacDonald were showing plans on a board.

The main comment I made was that a chicane they planned was dangerous
to cyclists - and pinch point tempts motorists to squeeze past you.

I talked with one of the engineers, and he was surprised that I was
against any on-road cycle lanes. They had an 'advisory' lane on the plan,
which in my opinion does no good.
He mentioned mandatory lanes - but what difference does a solid line
make to a ten-tonne truck running you over...

Also I'd like to hear what people on this list think of anit-skid coatings.
Good or bad? Is it bad to have something which helps speeding drivers
slow down?

Mixed views. Don't think it helps slow them down unless they woudl have
skidded, might make them compensate for it being there in fact.
However, it does extend a fair way back from the junction in most cases
that I've seen which can add a wakeup call to them that there IS a
junction coming up.

Quoted message said:

Another aspect of the plans was a red coloured central strip on the road.
At the moment it has white and maybe hatched white lines.
Red tarmac and chippings any good?

If it's not got hatching laid over the top then there's no clear
indiction what its for. Then again there are quite a few who ignore
hatching signs these days. If it's red and hatched, it might register
on their radar again, otherwise, just pretty paint really.

Quoted message said:

Two things I did welcome:
a) electronic signs which flash up when a driver is speeding
b) raised tables at the entrace to side streets

a) I like these too. I reported a bus driver for speeding. I was on
the bus, I'd already thought he was speeding, but when the sign went off
I knew how much by 😉

b) yes, and no. Yes they slow traffic down, but they can be a right
pain in the [censored] when on a bike sometimes - they're actually quite high
with a / angle to them, rather than a more gentle tarmac slope, at least
round here.

--

Velvet

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I talked with one of the engineers, and he was surprised that I was
against any on-road cycle lanes. They had an 'advisory' lane on the plan,
which in my opinion does no good.

The only safe place to cycle for a pinch point is bang in the centre of the lane
to stop
traffic even *thinking* of trying to squeeze past.

Quoted message said:

Also I'd like to hear what people on this list think of anit-skid coatings.
Good or bad? Is it bad to have something which helps speeding drivers
slow down?

The surfaces are often rough and vibrate through the whole bike.

Quoted message said:

Another aspect of the plans was a red coloured central strip on the road.
At the moment it has white and maybe hatched white lines.
Red tarmac and chippings any good?

Central hatching keeps traffic nearer the edge, which some cyclists may not like,
but it does mean that overtaking traffic has more room to overtake if opposing
traffic is kept nearer the edge, so yes i'd say it's a good thing.

Quoted message said:

Two things I did welcome:
a) electronic signs which flash up when a driver is speeding

These are good fun to try and light up when you have either a good tailwind or a
downhill to help!

Quoted message said:

b) raised tables at the entrace to side streets

I hate these almost as much as I hate speed humps.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:09:00 +0100 someone who may be John Hearns
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I talked with one of the engineers, and he was surprised that I was
against any on-road cycle lanes.

I am not surprised that he was surprised:-)

Quoted message said:

They had an 'advisory' lane on the plan,
which in my opinion does no good.

These things serve to indicate to motorists how far they need to
park on the pavement in order to provide a car sized space on the
road. I am not sure they do anything else.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:09:00 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Also I'd like to hear what people on this list think of anit-skid coatings.
Good or bad? Is it bad to have something which helps speeding drivers
slow down?

Er, I think they help all car drivers slow down. Non-speeding drivers
will skid if they have to brake hard when somebody pulls out of a
junction when not looking. I'm sure anti-skid surfaces have helped
reduce road casualties a damned sight more than speed cameras.

Only this morning somebody pulled right out a junction in front of
them when I was plainly, clearly in view and driving a massive black
and white car. I was quite well clear of hitting them but had I been
much closer I expect the anti-skid surface might have saved my ABS
from being tested.

More about anti-skid:
http://www.ringway.co.uk/page.php?show=40

Gareth

Velvet said:

John Hearns said:

Another aspect of the plans was a red coloured central strip on the
road. At the moment it has white and maybe hatched white lines.
Red tarmac and chippings any good?

If it's not got hatching laid over the top then there's no clear
indiction what its for. Then again there are quite a few who ignore
hatching signs these days. If it's red and hatched, it might register
on their radar again, otherwise, just pretty paint really.

Hatching only means "don't drive here unless you have a reason". And the
chances of being pulled over in most areas are pretty slim, even if you're
too dim to come up with a reason.

Doki said:

Velvet said:

John Hearns said:

Another aspect of the plans was a red coloured central strip on the
road. At the moment it has white and maybe hatched white lines.
Red tarmac and chippings any good?

If it's not got hatching laid over the top then there's no clear
indiction what its for. Then again there are quite a few who ignore
hatching signs these days. If it's red and hatched, it might register
on their radar again, otherwise, just pretty paint really.

Hatching only means "don't drive here unless you have a reason". And the
chances of being pulled over in most areas are pretty slim, even if you're
too dim to come up with a reason.

That's as may be, however, the amount of times I've seen people
overtaking on hatching deliberately, when clearly it's put there to
discourage that - where dual narrows to single lanes, for example... or
overtaking on hatching that's put in to help protect those waiting to
turn right at a junction, where otherwise they might overtake without
realising a car is stopped waiting to turn right ahead..

I agree the chances of being pulled over for doing it are slim, but that
doesn't mean it's there to be used in that sort of way! I've always
seen it as an alternative to them putting in a physical barrier or
refuge of some sort, and relying on the drivers to respect the hatched
areas, though of course not all drivers are mentally wired in that way ;-)

--

Velvet

Doki said:

Velvet said:

John Hearns said:

Another aspect of the plans was a red coloured central strip on the
road. At the moment it has white and maybe hatched white lines.
Red tarmac and chippings any good?

If it's not got hatching laid over the top then there's no clear
indiction what its for. Then again there are quite a few who ignore
hatching signs these days. If it's red and hatched, it might register
on their radar again, otherwise, just pretty paint really.

Hatching only means "don't drive here unless you have a reason". And the
chances of being pulled over in most areas are pretty slim, even if you're
too dim to come up with a reason.

Ah, actually, having just looked it up, there's two different kinds
(excluding the chevron types on motorway junctions, which isn't
applicable in this case unless the planners have done something truly
bizarre!).

Single continuous white line bordering it means you should not enter
unless in an emergency. Voluntary overtaking manuevre not permitted in
this instance, ending up in it while swerving/braking to avoid causing
an accident probably more the sort of thing they mean ;-)

Broken white line bordering means you shouldn't enter the area unless it
is necessary (bit woolly, my interpretation is that overtaking using the
hatching isn't *really* necessary unless you know there's no other
chance to overtake a very slow vehicle for a long way ahead) and you can
see that it is safe to do so.

I'd say really you shouldn't be driving over a hatched area unless you
have a very good reason, overtaking not being one of them, really,
unless, as I said, it's a very slow moving vehicle.

Apparently both are there to separate lanes, or protect right-turning
traffic.

--

Velvet

Velvet said:

Doki said:

Velvet said:

John Hearns wrote:

> Another aspect of the plans was a red coloured central strip on the
> road. At the moment it has white and maybe hatched white lines.
> Red tarmac and chippings any good?
>

If it's not got hatching laid over the top then there's no clear
indiction what its for. Then again there are quite a few who ignore
hatching signs these days. If it's red and hatched, it might
register on their radar again, otherwise, just pretty paint really.

Hatching only means "don't drive here unless you have a reason". And
the chances of being pulled over in most areas are pretty slim, even
if you're too dim to come up with a reason.

That's as may be, however, the amount of times I've seen people
overtaking on hatching deliberately, when clearly it's put there to
discourage that - where dual narrows to single lanes, for example...
or overtaking on hatching that's put in to help protect those waiting
to turn right at a junction, where otherwise they might overtake
without realising a car is stopped waiting to turn right ahead..

If you can see that it's clear to do so, why not overtake in hatching? It's
generally not to a good idea to overtake at junctions, but with good
visibility it can be possible. The only problem is that hatched areas tend
not to be used so could have a fair bit of debris on them, but again, having
eyes and using them helps.

Quoted message said:

I agree the chances of being pulled over for doing it are slim, but
that doesn't mean it's there to be used in that sort of way! I've
always
seen it as an alternative to them putting in a physical barrier or
refuge of some sort, and relying on the drivers to respect the hatched
areas, though of course not all drivers are mentally wired in that
way ;-)

If you want to stop people using that bit of the road / overtaking, put
solid white lines around the hatching. If you want people to move off a bit
of tarmac for whatever reason, you put in hatching. In theory you could put
in hatching to make overtaking easier. I really don't see the need for
hatching in the middle of the road though - IME it encourages dodgy road
positioning in many cases. In Norwich, next to UEA, they spent a while
taking two cycle lanes up, and putting hatching down the centre of the road.
End result is that everyone now drives much closer to the kerb than
previously, which I imagine would make cycling far more difficult than it
would be with the cycle lanes or just a standard dashed line.

Doki said:

If you can see that it's clear to do so, why not overtake in
hatching? It's generally not to a good idea to overtake at junctions,
but with good visibility it can be possible. The only problem is that
hatched areas tend not to be used so could have a fair bit of debris
on them, but again, having eyes and using them helps.

My mate Fortescue got done for doing this on the Mighty Kawasaki. He thinks
Plod was just bored.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

Doki said:

Velvet said:

Doki said:

Velvet wrote:

>John Hearns wrote:
>
>
>
>>Another aspect of the plans was a red coloured central strip on the
>>road. At the moment it has white and maybe hatched white lines.
>>Red tarmac and chippings any good?
>>
>
>If it's not got hatching laid over the top then there's no clear
>indiction what its for. Then again there are quite a few who ignore
>hatching signs these days. If it's red and hatched, it might
>register on their radar again, otherwise, just pretty paint really.

Hatching only means "don't drive here unless you have a reason". And
the chances of being pulled over in most areas are pretty slim, even
if you're too dim to come up with a reason.

That's as may be, however, the amount of times I've seen people
overtaking on hatching deliberately, when clearly it's put there to
discourage that - where dual narrows to single lanes, for example...
or overtaking on hatching that's put in to help protect those waiting
to turn right at a junction, where otherwise they might overtake
without realising a car is stopped waiting to turn right ahead..

If you can see that it's clear to do so, why not overtake in hatching? It's
generally not to a good idea to overtake at junctions, but with good
visibility it can be possible. The only problem is that hatched areas tend
not to be used so could have a fair bit of debris on them, but again, having
eyes and using them helps.

Oh indeed, I agree, I just tend to not use hatched areas for overtaking
- as you say, often debris lurks in it, and I don't think it's
appropriate use of a hatched area when it's used for haring up the
outside of someone when a dual goes to single, and passing them at speed
on the hatching before cutting in right in front of them again... which
is what I see much of it used for.

Overtaking at junctions is more dodgy, and I have a vague idea
overtaking at junctions was frowned on by the HC, but can't recall for
sure. It's certainly true that often visibility isn't always good at
junctions when you have the side turning to consider, which is often in
front of the whatever that you want to overtake - if an eejit pulls out
of the side turning into the path of the thing you're overtaking, you
rapidly run out of road as it swerves to avoid the pulling-out eejit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I agree the chances of being pulled over for doing it are slim, but
that doesn't mean it's there to be used in that sort of way! I've
always
seen it as an alternative to them putting in a physical barrier or
refuge of some sort, and relying on the drivers to respect the hatched
areas, though of course not all drivers are mentally wired in that
way ;-)

If you want to stop people using that bit of the road / overtaking, put
solid white lines around the hatching. If you want people to move off a bit
of tarmac for whatever reason, you put in hatching. In theory you could put
in hatching to make overtaking easier. I really don't see the need for
hatching in the middle of the road though - IME it encourages dodgy road
positioning in many cases. In Norwich, next to UEA, they spent a while
taking two cycle lanes up, and putting hatching down the centre of the road.
End result is that everyone now drives much closer to the kerb than
previously, which I imagine would make cycling far more difficult than it
would be with the cycle lanes or just a standard dashed line.

I'm not sure how many drivers are aware of the distinction between solid
lines around hatching and broken ones. There certainly are cases where
hatching in the middle of the road is justified - I've seen it on sharp
bends where drivers tend to cut the corner, in an attempt to keep them
on their side of the road and stop them drifting over the centre line on
the way around.

Yes, I can see the problem when it comes to cycling and hatched central
areas - however, I'm not a great fan of cycle lanes unless they're
really decent width ones and few of them are, sadly. In some ways
making the road narrower actually helps drivers cos they have to think
about passing a cyclist rather than just assuming they can squeeze
through, but then again there are the cases where they'll come up behind
far too fast and squeeze past anyway just for the hell of it. Was there
a history of head-on collisions at that point? I'd imagine they must
have had a reason for wanting to separate the lanes - several right
turns, or anything like that?

--

Velvet

Might be useful...

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html

John Hearns said:

Also I'd like to hear what people on this list think of anit-skid coatings.
Good or bad? Is it bad to have something which helps speeding drivers
slow down?

I fear that an anti-skid road surface will drag at bike tyres, making
cycling a lot more effort. That could discourage cycling.

It may still be a good thing, of course. I wouldn't want to pass
judgment without knowing the area and studying the plans.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

in message <[email hidden]>, Gareth A.

(') said:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:09:00 +0100, John Hearns <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Also I'd like to hear what people on this list think of anit-skid
coatings.
Good or bad? Is it bad to have something which helps speeding drivers
slow down?

Er, I think they help all car drivers slow down. Non-speeding drivers
will skid if they have to brake hard when somebody pulls out of a
junction when not looking. I'm sure anti-skid surfaces have helped
reduce road casualties a damned sight more than speed cameras.

Only this morning somebody pulled right out a junction in front of
them when I was plainly, clearly in view and driving a massive black
and white car.

An old dear with (I presume) her two small grandchildren in the back of
her Astra pulled out of a carpark so close in front of my bright orange
4x4 this afternoon that I had to do an emergency stop. She never looked
to her left _at_ _all_ before her pulling out. Her grandchildren are
alive just now courtesy of the fact that I was pootling along quite
slowly and that I was paying attention.

She drove off apparently oblivious. There are some terrifying drivers on
the roads.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; when in the [censored], the wise man plants courgettes

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:48:21 +0100,

Doki said:

If you want to stop people using that bit of the road / overtaking, put
solid white lines around the hatching. If you want people to move off a bit

<snip>

Even solid white lines don't mean you can't enter the area. The law is a
mess - IIRC (and check up on this before you rely on it :-)

If the gap between the two solid white lines is less than 1.2m then you
can't enter the gap (treat as double white lines)

If the gap between the two solid white lines is greater than 1.2m then
treat as though the area was enclosed by dashed white lines (maybe you
can't cross the further solid line?) UNLESS this area is on a motorway
where you can't enter the hatched area.

Hatched areas can be a good place to overtake because you can be
reasonably confident that the car/lorry infront is not going to
start drifting over and if someone does come hurtling the other
way at 120mph there is still room for you all to pass

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Tim Woodall said:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:48:21 +0100,

Doki said:

If you want to stop people using that bit of the road / overtaking, put
solid white lines around the hatching. If you want people to move off a bit

<snip>

Even solid white lines don't mean you can't enter the area. The law is a
mess - IIRC (and check up on this before you rely on it :-)

If the gap between the two solid white lines is less than 1.2m then you
can't enter the gap (treat as double white lines)

If the gap between the two solid white lines is greater than 1.2m then
treat as though the area was enclosed by dashed white lines (maybe you
can't cross the further solid line?) UNLESS this area is on a motorway
where you can't enter the hatched area.

Hatched areas can be a good place to overtake because you can be
reasonably confident that the car/lorry infront is not going to
start drifting over and if someone does come hurtling the other
way at 120mph there is still room for you all to pass

Tim.

This isn't what the highway code says.

It makes no mention (unless it's in the double-white-lines bit) of the
width of the gap.

It does make it abundantly clear in the words I described that a solid
white line means you MUST NOT enter the hatched area EXCEPT in an emergency.

And hatched areas aren't always big enough to prevent the head-on you
describe from happening.

--

Velvet

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Talking about pinch points where cyclists become invisible.

There is a consultation in my local area for new traffic measures,
aimed at reducing speeds.
I went alon on Saturday to the public consultation, where two engineers
from Mott MacDonald were showing plans on a board.

The main comment I made was that a chicane they planned was dangerous
to cyclists - and pinch point tempts motorists to squeeze past you.

The critical thing with pinch points is that they should either be:
a) Wide enough to allow safe overtaking (4.5m at an absolute minimum)
- in which case there will be no traffic calming effect at all. OR
b) Narrow enough that not even the dimmest of drivers would contemplate
attempting to overtake (less than 3.0m).
Anything in between is bad news for cyclists. Unfortunately engineers like
to compromise so you tend to end up with 3.5m gaps (ie not wide enough
to overtake but not narrow enough to make this obvious to drivers).

Quoted message said:

I talked with one of the engineers, and he was surprised that I was
against any on-road cycle lanes. They had an 'advisory' lane on the plan,
which in my opinion does no good.
He mentioned mandatory lanes - but what difference does a solid line
make to a ten-tonne truck running you over...

The key thing with a cycle lane is the width.
Anything less than 2m and you are better off without it.

Advisory lanes are better - because motor vehicles are allowed to encroach
the cycle lane then the engineer is permitted to make the general traffic
lane
narrower than the vehicles using it and maintain a full width cycle lane.
(ie a 2m cycle lane next to a 2.5m traffic lane). If vehicles need to
encroach the
cycle lane then that is no problem - so long as there is no cyclist using it
at the time.
If there is a cycle lane then it indicates the amount of space the cyclist
needs.

Unfortunately most engineers are idiots - at least when it comes to
designing
for cyclists - so they get everything the wrong way round. They insist on
maintaining
a full width traffic lane (which they would have to do with a mandatory
lane)
So you end up with a half width cycle lane next to a 3.5m traffic lane. This
positively
encourages dangerous overtaking and take space away from cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Also I'd like to hear what people on this list think of anit-skid

coatings.

Quoted message said:

Good or bad? Is it bad to have something which helps speeding drivers
slow down?

Yes. As with most safety features they treat it as a performance enhancement
and thus approach junctions faster, knowing that they can brake harder.

The dressing is also awfull to ride on and tends to be lumpy.

Quoted message said:

Another aspect of the plans was a red coloured central strip on the road.
At the moment it has white and maybe hatched white lines.
Red tarmac and chippings any good?

These are good, as drivers can use this to overtake cyclists with greater
clearance - so long as they don't put islands in the hatched bit.

If the traffic is clogged these enable cyclists to overtake queues more
easily.

Quoted message said:

Two things I did welcome:
a) electronic signs which flash up when a driver is speeding
b) raised tables at the entrace to side streets

They need to be carefull to set the tables back so that you don't ride
up the ramp at a tangent if you are turning into the side street.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:15:08 GMT,

Velvet said:

Tim Woodall said:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:48:21 +0100,

Doki said:

If you want to stop people using that bit of the road / overtaking, put
solid white lines around the hatching. If you want people to move off a bit

<snip>

Even solid white lines don't mean you can't enter the area. The law is a
mess - IIRC (and check up on this before you rely on it :-)

If the gap between the two solid white lines is less than 1.2m then you
can't enter the gap (treat as double white lines)

If the gap between the two solid white lines is greater than 1.2m then
treat as though the area was enclosed by dashed white lines (maybe you
can't cross the further solid line?) UNLESS this area is on a motorway
where you can't enter the hatched area.

Hatched areas can be a good place to overtake because you can be
reasonably confident that the car/lorry infront is not going to
start drifting over and if someone does come hurtling the other
way at 120mph there is still room for you all to pass

Tim.

This isn't what the highway code says.

It makes no mention (unless it's in the double-white-lines bit) of the
width of the gap.

It does make it abundantly clear in the words I described that a solid
white line means you MUST NOT enter the hatched area EXCEPT in an emergency.

But there are other places where the highway code is wrong - or at least
economical with the truth so one more doesn't surprise me. But for this
one, like the one about overtaking approaching a pedestrian crossing,
if you follow the "guidance" in the HC you won't unwittingly break the
law even if there are times when you can break the HC without breaking
the law. (But remember that failure to follow the advice in the HC can
count against you if you do have an accident even if you don't break
the law)

This hatched area issue comes up regularly on the IAM forum (IAM members
only) but it appears that the actual law (Traffic sign regulations ... )
will cost $$$$$ (GBP :-) and I don't have a copy so I'm only quoting
others.

Quoted message said:

And hatched areas aren't always big enough to prevent the head-on you
describe from happening.

No, but if they are wide enough to fit a car in then you can be
confident that they are >1.2m and if you can't fit a car in them
then, unless you are better at estimating distances than me, you might
be pushing your luck with the 1.2m bit anyway.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Howard said:

Might be useful...

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/pinchpoints.html

Very much so. The thing that bugs me about pinch points is that, as
far as I can detect, cyclists are not thought of at all by those who
put them in.

They are good at frightening inexperienced cyclists, who don't know to
claim the lane. Drivers racing to get there first and then cutting in
can happen to any cyclist.

The widths to remember are 2.8m and 4.5m. If the islands have to be
there, making one side narrow enough to prevent overtaking and the
other wide enough for it to be safe is better than putting them in the
middle.

If an island is for pedestrians, a zebra crossing is a better option
if the road is narrower than 10.2 m or so.

One island I know of seems to be to prevent head-on collisions on a
blind bend. The correct solution is surely a speed camera.

This is relevant to me: I have some money to modify some existing
pinchpoints, but there's no spare road width and it's not easy to get
authorisation for speed cameras.

Colin McKenzie

--
The great advantage of not trusting statistics is that
it leaves you free to believe the damned lies instead!