Traffic calming

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 20:46:50 +1100 someone who may be Sniper8052
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for
pedestrians,

You'd better try and convince some councils of this assertion. I can
think of a few who have installed such things precisely to help
pedestrians cross.

Yea, put in the rest of the sentence...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or to denote the difference between two speed limits or mark the entrance to a village,
although they may be used for any of the above.

Or better still quote it properly...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The purpose of traffic islands is not to provide a safe area for pedestrians,
excepting at pedestrian crossings,

Don't be a [censored] just to try and make a point which you know full well
you can only make by misrepresenting that which was written.

I quite clearly state that they may well be used for that and other
purposes but that the primary function of traffic islands is to separate
opposing traffic where it may come into conflict.

Sniper8052

To Continue:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Colin McKenzie
Guest

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, I know a couple put in to stop motor vehicles hitting each other
head-on by cutting corners. They act as pinch points for cyclists to
be cut up in, since the gap is 3.0m and most drivers speed at 35-40.

I wasn't sure what you meant by this but the first sentence suggests my
assertion is correct. The following may be a consequence but the
primary purpose, to stop cars hitting each other, remains.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Mike Causer
> Guest

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In that case why is a new island being constructed this morning on a
> straight road 200m from the nearest bend and 100m from the nearest road
> junction, in the middle of a village? Oh, and why is it right opposite
> the village hall? For that matter, why is there a half-built island on
> another straight section of the same road, opposite the Sports & Social
> Club, and yet another older one opposite the child nursery? They are
> there in a vain attempt to get the cars, vans and lorries to slow down as
> they go past these points. And to present a new hazard to cyclists of
> course :-( At a place where there _is_ a serious danger of conflict
> there is no room to put an island, so there isn't one.

I would suggest for that very reason, a straight road with no side
turnings invites higher speeds. If you add to this vehicles emerging
from car parks or intermittent driveways the potential for a high speed
accident is greatly increased. The fact that a number of similar
islands exist in this road leads to the conclusion that the islands
serve three purposes.

1) Their location directly opposite the exit of the car park or driveway
is to inhibit speed through that point for vehicles travelling along the
road.
2) The location inhibits drivers trying to make a quick turn in front of
oncoming traffic as the roadway is narrower requiring a slower turn and
a greater distance between oncoming vehicles and the turning vehicle to
complete the manoeuvre.
3) It prevents vehicles turning across both lanes of traffic which might
cause a danger if traffic is fast flowing.

Hence the primary purpose is still maintained.

If there's no room to manage traffic there's no room, can't fit a quart
in a pint pot!

No I don't want to know how you can do it in quantum physics 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Richard Goodman
>> Guest

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Well, they often put motorcyclists and cyclists into potential conflict with
>> opposing traffic when they have to go round the wrong side of the island to
>> pass queuing traffic, instead of proceeding uninterupted down the middle of
>> the road Of course, they aren't the only ones that do it - I've also
>> been passed by cars that way on occasions, because I wouldn't let them
>> squeeze me into the kerb at the pinch-points they create.

Which only proves that they are ignoring the keep left signs not that
the islands are not fulfilling their purpose.

Sniper8052

"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Richard Goodman

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Well, they often put motorcyclists and cyclists into potential
>>> conflict with
>>> opposing traffic when they have to go round the wrong side of the
>>> island to
>>> pass queuing traffic, instead of proceeding uninterupted down the
>>> middle of
>>> the road Of course, they aren't the only ones that do it - I've also
>>> been passed by cars that way on occasions, because I wouldn't let
>>> them
>>> squeeze me into the kerb at the pinch-points they create.

Which only proves that they are ignoring the keep left signs not that the
islands are not fulfilling their purpose.

Well, that may be true, but my point, to the extent that I had one, other
than making a wisecrack, was more about whether the purpose of many of them
is actually useful or needed? Whether anyone bothers to check that, eg.,
there is evidence of reducing the number of accidents in an area or whether
they've made matters worse for some classes of users or in general? To the
extent that they serve the purpose of separating opposing 'traffic', it
means mainly motorised traffic with more than two wheels, and tends to
ignore or conflicts with the needs of cyclists (from the point of view of
creating pinch points and who do not generally need 'separating' from
conflicting traffic). What, for example, would be your view on redesigning
road layouts and removing many of the separating features and signs on our
roads in the way that is described in the article referred to in the 'Roads
gone wild' thread, as way of seeing that all forms of traffic took account
of other's presence - instead of just relying on signs and features to tell
them what to do?

Rich

Richard Goodman said:

Well, that may be true, but my point, to the extent that I had one, other
than making a wisecrack, was more about whether the purpose of many of them
is actually useful or needed? Whether anyone bothers to check that, eg.,
there is evidence of reducing the number of accidents in an area or whether
they've made matters worse for some classes of users or in general? To the
extent that they serve the purpose of separating opposing 'traffic', it
means mainly motorised traffic with more than two wheels, and tends to
ignore or conflicts with the needs of cyclists (from the point of view of
creating pinch points and who do not generally need 'separating' from
conflicting traffic). What, for example, would be your view on redesigning
road layouts and removing many of the separating features and signs on our
roads in the way that is described in the article referred to in the 'Roads
gone wild' thread, as way of seeing that all forms of traffic took account
of other's presence - instead of just relying on signs and features to tell
them what to do?

Rich

Like the body of law in this country road signs and safety features have
evolved purely because 'the public' cannot be trusted to behave in a
correct and altruistic manner towards each other.
Most traffic calming methods provide a positive benefit to the majority
of road users and are put in place to answer a specific problem. Whilst
it may be the case that a consequence of some measures is to the
detriment of a small group of road users the benefit to the vast and
overwhelming majority cannot be disregarded. The idea that the baby and
the bath water should be thrown out together horrifies me. I regularly
see the results of collisions and, perhaps as a result of my training as
a pursuit driver, appreciate the intention of the designers when
approaching traffic calming measures better than most.
As a result of the earlier postings I have made a concious assessment of
the road features on my commute, around my home address and on my patch
over the last week. I have not found a single instance in which I could
not see the logic behind the various road treatments. Certainly the
removal of these features would lead to vastly increased dangers for a
majority of traffic with a consequence of higher speeds, more road
traffic incidents/accidents, injuries, deaths and increased costs to the
NHS/Police and public purse.
As to the effects on cyclists, a number of build out points where I live
are now shaped as a 'D' with a gap between the straight side of the 'D'
and the kerb to allow the passage of cycles but not motor traffic, this
may be an answer in some situations. However as a cyclist I have not
found that I have ever, to my recollection, been forced into conflict
with a motorised road user at these points sufficient to cause me
concern. I may, or may not, have just been lucky. Given the distances
and time I spend on my bike this seems unlikely, but whenever I ride, or
drive I do so defensively. By taking possession of the road one informs
the other road user of one's intent by position causing them to alter
their behaviour.
In short I think the removal of signs and traffic features that have
evolved would in general be to the detriment of most road users and
might well be more detrimental to cyclists as a whole than might be
appreciated from reading these posts. Changing the mindset of cyclists
to dictate the behaviour of motorised road users on the approach to or
through these points may be of a more positive benefit.

Sniper8052

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:47:28 GMT someone who may be
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You'd better try and convince some councils of this assertion. I can
think of a few who have installed such things precisely to help
pedestrians cross.

Yea, put in the rest of the sentence...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or to denote the difference between two speed limits or mark the entrance to a village,
although they may be used for any of the above.

Putting in the rest of the sentence makes no difference to the point
I made. It is simply unnecessary clutter.

I can take you to locations where islands have been provided as a
safe area for pedestrians; not part of a (formal) pedestrian
crossing, where there is no difference in speed limits and neither
is it the entrance to a village. Neither is the purpose to separate
opposing traffic which might otherwise come into conflict.

Quoted message said:

Or better still quote it properly...

I did.

Quoted message said:

Don't be a [censored]

Excellent, the resort of those with no better arguments.

Quoted message said:

just to try and make a point which you know full well
you can only make by misrepresenting that which was written.

I did not misrepresent what was written. My point remains.

Quoted message said:

I quite clearly state that they may well be used for that and other
purposes

Some other purposes.

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

David Hansen said:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 09:47:28 GMT someone who may be
"Sniper8052(L96A1)" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You'd better try and convince some councils of this assertion. I can
think of a few who have installed such things precisely to help
pedestrians cross.

Yea, put in the rest of the sentence...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or to denote the difference between two speed limits or mark the entrance to a village,
although they may be used for any of the above.

Putting in the rest of the sentence makes no difference to the point
I made. It is simply unnecessary clutter.

I can take you to locations where islands have been provided as a
safe area for pedestrians; not part of a (formal) pedestrian
crossing, where there is no difference in speed limits and neither
is it the entrance to a village. Neither is the purpose to separate
opposing traffic which might otherwise come into conflict.

Quoted message said:

Or better still quote it properly...

I did.

Quoted message said:

Don't be a [censored]

Excellent, the resort of those with no better arguments.

Quoted message said:

just to try and make a point which you know full well
you can only make by misrepresenting that which was written.

I did not misrepresent what was written. My point remains.

Quoted message said:

I quite clearly state that they may well be used for that and other
purposes

Some other purposes.

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sniper

I disagree entirely, the rest of the sentence is not unnecessary clutter it has relevance and is essential to the meaning of to the topic under discussion. You sought to misrepresent what had been written and did so in a clumsy and foolhardy manner.
This would not be the first occasion where you have been taken to task for trying to imply one thing from another where the first was not present.
If you wish to continue to make ridiculous assertions I suggest you pick your words more carefully and work through your argument before making a fool of your opinion in public.

Sniper8052

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------