Keep left signs
Discussion
Philbes said:
Do they never test these things before they lay the final markings?
Definitely not judging by the number of mini-roundabouts in Gloucestershire where the gap between the island and the kerb is less than the width of a car. The bus drivers just ignore the islands and drive straight over with the wheels each side of the small central hump.
I watched trafpol do the same with a painted zig zag section of road near us recently. I followed them
BigBob said:
.......... or put a conductor back on the school buses to make sure they dont head for the front of the bus to cross.
Don't know if anyone has followed the current trial in South Wales re a School Bus crash where a child died?
HTV Wales/BBC Wales news last night quoted "None of the children were wearing seatbelts. The Adult chaperone on the bus stated - It was NOT part of my duties to make sure they wore seatbelts" FFS - why was she there then?
BB
No doubt to prevent the infinitely more serious issue of UNKNOWN MEN looking at the children.
Haven't read the whole thread, but just down the road from me they have kerbed across a bus stop lay-by, so now instead of being able to pull off the road the bus has to stop in the lane of traffic. It's a single carriageway road, one lane this side and two on the other, the middle lane being for on-coming traffic turning right.
You now either wait behind the bus for an unknown length of time or drive against the arrow in the wrong lane. Brilliant design paid for by us. Accident potential increase of 100%.
You now either wait behind the bus for an unknown length of time or drive against the arrow in the wrong lane. Brilliant design paid for by us. Accident potential increase of 100%.
KB_S1 said:
Do they never test these things before they lay the final markings?
Obviously not, in Aberdeen some years ago they added a lane to a road, so that you had 2 lanes going in one direction, and one in the other, now visualise this, long sweeping bend to the LEFT, as you are driving in your lane, (the one lane going in one direction), the lane markings to your right are a dotted line on your side, solid on the other side.
Obvious that the oncoming traffice in their outside lane cannot come into yours, but you can overtake a vehicle in your lane, and use the outside lane of the oncoming traffic, only problem is you are overtaking ON A BLIND BEND.
I wrote to the council pointing this out, they replied and said, we make up the road first, then do a safety check, (MARVELOUS I THOUGHT), 6 months later, they changed the road markings. Incidently I copied my letter to the Chief Constable, made sod all difference.
mk6fiesta said:
I can confirm, as a bus driver, that they do this on purpose!
Theres a paricualr stop on one the routes that I do that is designed exactly like this, and cars get trapped by the island.
Perhaps other PHers who are more insightful than I am can explain some justification for this. It is beyond me.
What possible legitimate reason can there be for intentionally creating a hazard and inducing tailbacks? Apart from the motives of Ken Livingstone and other walking cancers, who are possessed by an obsessive hatred of cars and seek to invent means of perverting their official powers in order to abuse motorists, is there ANY justification for these willful obstructions?
Can the BIBs, Police Driving Instructors or other insiders on PH enlighten the rest of us?
It's an essential element of the car-hater's armoury, to achieve 'modal shift' from individualist private transport (cars) to collectivist public transport (comrade) they try to make motorists' life hell in as many ways as possible. The bus stops in London that were recessed are now being paved over with buses deliberately stopping in the road to hold up cars - which can't of course venture into bus lanes. Traffic light phasing, placement of islands, one-way and no-turn systems, parking scarcity, you name it. This is PLANNED.
turbobloke said:I strongly suspect that you're right.
It's an essential element of the car-hater's armoury, to achieve 'modal shift' from individualist private transport (cars) to collectivist public transport (comrade) they try to make motorists' life hell in as many ways as possible. The bus stops in London that were recessed are now being paved over with buses deliberately stopping in the road to hold up cars - which can't of course venture into bus lanes. Traffic light phasing, placement of islands, one-way and no-turn systems, parking scarcity, you name it. This is PLANNED.
My question was whether anyone could cite any "legitimate reason". A private, subversive and undemocratic collectivist agenda is not legitimate.
flemke said:It is most definitely policy flemke, there's no doubt about it. There is indeed no justification - except within the bankrupt ideology of the car haters.
It's an essential element of the car-hater's armoury, to achieve 'modal shift' from individualist private transport (cars) to collectivist public transport (comrade) they try to make motorists' life hell in as many ways as possible. The bus stops in London that were recessed are now being paved over with buses deliberately stopping in the road to hold up cars - which can't of course venture into bus lanes. Traffic light phasing, placement of islands, one-way and no-turn systems, parking scarcity, you name it. This is PLANNED.
My question was whether anyone could cite any "legitimate reason". A private, subversive and undemocratic collectivist agenda is not legitimate.
Public transport as we know it (not as it is very very rarely in other cultures) is energy inefficient, dangerously polluting, inconvenient, unpleasant, more dangerous, inflexible, severely limited, more costly, and just plain unpleasant compared to car use. It is however very good at spreading infectious diseases on its grubby surfaces and through its fetid atmosphere.
Cattle truck transport mode isn't fit for humans and is mostly despised by those who have no choice but to use it though they'd dearly like an alternative... oh, except a few folk who actually like buses and trains for individual reasons...I think I offended a PHers mum last time around
Trouble is, the pinkos were affronted by Maggie's comment (if you're over 30 and have to use a bus you're a failure...or similar) so after BLiar conned his way to power Prescott's Pie Club aka the DETR made a start on making life miserable for 35 million toffs in cars
and the rest is history. 
I read in the paper today 'That the North London Borough of Barnet has ripped out hundreds of speed humps,and instead of choking junctions to restrict car access, have improved drivers sight-lines and ripped out mini-roundabouts. This decision led to heavy critisism by Road safety experts and Ken Livingstone, In April 2004,The London Mayor withheld 1.4 million from the borough's traffic management budget.
However official figures show that casualties in Barnet in the first 6 months of 2005 fell by 14.9 % to 683 compared to the same period in 2004, nearly double the London average , London wide fall of 8.8%. The figures mean Barnet exceeded Gov. targets demanding a 40 % accident cut by 2010 . Accidents are down 45 % 4 years ahead of deadline. Council officials said they were 'delighted' by the figures.
In 2003 ,the London Ambulance Service said speed humps could be responsible for up to 500 deaths annually among heart attack patients on their way to hospital.'
Its obvious that most road calming measures have failed to do what they said they would do on the box, most don't work, if anything they probably increase the numbers of vehicle accidents. As witnessed by all the bent,broken, busted,bumped,bollards etc on our roads!!!
However official figures show that casualties in Barnet in the first 6 months of 2005 fell by 14.9 % to 683 compared to the same period in 2004, nearly double the London average , London wide fall of 8.8%. The figures mean Barnet exceeded Gov. targets demanding a 40 % accident cut by 2010 . Accidents are down 45 % 4 years ahead of deadline. Council officials said they were 'delighted' by the figures.
In 2003 ,the London Ambulance Service said speed humps could be responsible for up to 500 deaths annually among heart attack patients on their way to hospital.'
Its obvious that most road calming measures have failed to do what they said they would do on the box, most don't work, if anything they probably increase the numbers of vehicle accidents. As witnessed by all the bent,broken, busted,bumped,bollards etc on our roads!!!
gilberninvader said:Yes, the safety improvements look promising - need to see next year's as well really - but what an absolutely brilliant f
Barnet ripped out speed humps, life got better, but they got fined by Ken
k off to Transport for Lefties and their pathetic loser mentality and their car hatred. No more bouncing over humps either so in memoriam and in celebration... 
Folks, I haven't read the whole thread either - just scanned to see if my comments have been put forward by anyone else (if they have and I missed them, I apologise).
As many have said, this is deliberate. The 'central reservation' is a refuge. Traditionally used on high traffic volume roads, these are being put in more as a traffic calming measure as well as a safety measure.
From the planner's POV the refuge provides a safe(r) crossing point for those leaving the bus at this stop. Moving the stop or the refuge reduces it's efeectiveness because the pedestrian exiting the bus will not walk down the road to use a refuge, hence it must be placed close to the stop.
In addition, the refuge acts as a traffic calming measure slowing cars down that are about to overtake any stationary bus. This is also the planner's intention in case any child or numpty decides to exit the bus and cross the road immediately in front of the then stationary bus and thus preventing any oncoming vehicle seeing them until they are in the road.
The Scandinavians have tried a very interesting experiment of removing all street furniture (including things like barriers, guard rails and even demarkation lines) to introduce the effect that vehicles travelling in both directions and pedestrians share the same area. This makes the drivers more aware and has shown significant reductions in accidents owing to the drivers feelng less 'secure' and driving more 'sensibly'.
I would be amazed if you can succeed in getting either the refuge or the stop moved as this would substantially diminish the effectiveness of the planned speed reduction.
(As an aside, there was a fatal accident just a few hundred yards from my house last year when a 9 year old boy stepped out from in front of a stationary bus into the path of a car overtaking the bus at approximately 40mph (It is a 30 limit; the road at this point has two lanes merging into one; it is also just over a light controlled cross roads. Cars at this junction gun it from the two lanes in order to be the first when it reduces to one lane - just where the bus stop is located). I had to pass the incident shortly after it happened. The boy was literally knocked out of his shoes and the image that will stick in my mind for many years to come will be his two polished school shoes in the road immediately in front of the car that killed him.)
Sorry that these things slow you down, cause you some frustration or otherwise p*ss you off. The fact is, that's exactly what they're supposed to do because there are far too many numpties with a death wish .... and there are also far too many kids who deserve a second chance.
As many have said, this is deliberate. The 'central reservation' is a refuge. Traditionally used on high traffic volume roads, these are being put in more as a traffic calming measure as well as a safety measure.
From the planner's POV the refuge provides a safe(r) crossing point for those leaving the bus at this stop. Moving the stop or the refuge reduces it's efeectiveness because the pedestrian exiting the bus will not walk down the road to use a refuge, hence it must be placed close to the stop.
In addition, the refuge acts as a traffic calming measure slowing cars down that are about to overtake any stationary bus. This is also the planner's intention in case any child or numpty decides to exit the bus and cross the road immediately in front of the then stationary bus and thus preventing any oncoming vehicle seeing them until they are in the road.
The Scandinavians have tried a very interesting experiment of removing all street furniture (including things like barriers, guard rails and even demarkation lines) to introduce the effect that vehicles travelling in both directions and pedestrians share the same area. This makes the drivers more aware and has shown significant reductions in accidents owing to the drivers feelng less 'secure' and driving more 'sensibly'.
I would be amazed if you can succeed in getting either the refuge or the stop moved as this would substantially diminish the effectiveness of the planned speed reduction.
(As an aside, there was a fatal accident just a few hundred yards from my house last year when a 9 year old boy stepped out from in front of a stationary bus into the path of a car overtaking the bus at approximately 40mph (It is a 30 limit; the road at this point has two lanes merging into one; it is also just over a light controlled cross roads. Cars at this junction gun it from the two lanes in order to be the first when it reduces to one lane - just where the bus stop is located). I had to pass the incident shortly after it happened. The boy was literally knocked out of his shoes and the image that will stick in my mind for many years to come will be his two polished school shoes in the road immediately in front of the car that killed him.)
Sorry that these things slow you down, cause you some frustration or otherwise p*ss you off. The fact is, that's exactly what they're supposed to do because there are far too many numpties with a death wish .... and there are also far too many kids who deserve a second chance.
Sad story J1mmyD but it fails to consider all the consequences, in isolation the strategy has plausibility. Those folk held up where bus stops and islands are placed just to gate cars (the safety angle is a convenience) are likely to try frustration overtakes later. The accidents aren't necessarily prevented, just moved to another location.
I've also been forced - no choice as they went across both carriageways - to cycle through two large rivers of blood from a fatal accident where a schoolboy did a similar thing and stepped out without looking in front of the school bus, they were still in the process of removing the body. Such events are tragic in the extreme and deeply shocking but if anything because of that we need to look at road safety policy in its entirety to make the best decisions and avoid quick fixes that offer the guise of safety but are really no such thing.
I've also been forced - no choice as they went across both carriageways - to cycle through two large rivers of blood from a fatal accident where a schoolboy did a similar thing and stepped out without looking in front of the school bus, they were still in the process of removing the body. Such events are tragic in the extreme and deeply shocking but if anything because of that we need to look at road safety policy in its entirety to make the best decisions and avoid quick fixes that offer the guise of safety but are really no such thing.
'Tis a sad story, Turbo. Every accident is a sad story in it's own right.
I understand the comment on frustration and later overtakes (although I gave up being frustrated behind the wheel years ago - I carry a flask for traffic jams and an emergency supply of nicorette, marlboro lights and chocolate depending on whether or not I'm quitting/not quitting or just have low sugar).
The problem is, I don't see a much better solution to what is an obviously more dangerous location than somewhere further on.
Planners in the UK (and most other places) work on the principle of seperating pedestrians and vehicles. There are other approaches, some have different benefits and pitfalls but in this instance I do believe the central refuge is the best for the most vulnerable party in this instance - the pedestrian.
If there are more suitable alternatives then I'd be interested to hear about them. I'll even put them forward to local councils but you have to consider cost implications and effectiveness.
I understand the comment on frustration and later overtakes (although I gave up being frustrated behind the wheel years ago - I carry a flask for traffic jams and an emergency supply of nicorette, marlboro lights and chocolate depending on whether or not I'm quitting/not quitting or just have low sugar).
The problem is, I don't see a much better solution to what is an obviously more dangerous location than somewhere further on.
Planners in the UK (and most other places) work on the principle of seperating pedestrians and vehicles. There are other approaches, some have different benefits and pitfalls but in this instance I do believe the central refuge is the best for the most vulnerable party in this instance - the pedestrian.
If there are more suitable alternatives then I'd be interested to hear about them. I'll even put them forward to local councils but you have to consider cost implications and effectiveness.
J1mmyD said:We need a root and branch overhaul of the country's failing road safety policy and a cull on the politically correct, ignorant and mendacious personnel in charge of it. There's an annual £40 billion excess of income over expenditure in transport taxes and duties, with funding like that available - and (please!) don't remind me what they do with it instead in any of their wasteful and ineffective money throwing games - no government that's genuine and serious about road safety improvements would take the line these muppets have done.
The problem is, I don't see a much better solution to what is an obviously more dangerous location than somewhere further on.
Sticking plasters won't cure the cancer, it needs cutting out.
J1mmyD said:
........but in this instance I do believe the central refuge is the best for the most vulnerable party in this instance - the pedestrian.
If there are more suitable alternatives then I'd be interested to hear about them. I'll even put them forward to local councils but you have to consider cost implications and effectiveness.
One alternative might be to educate children that roads are DANGEROUS and they should be paying attention to what's going on around them. Roads ARE NOT play areas, football pitches or somwhere to skateboard.
We occasionally see adverts on TV telling youngsters to keep off railway tracks, don't play around electricity pylons etc - never seen one yet telling kids not to play in a busy road.
BB
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff