Traffic Light Detectors
 

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:20:48 +0000, richard wells wrote:


If they don't detect bikes - does that mean there is something wrong
with the lights/detectors?

Sefton Council says yes:

http://www.sefton.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2781

as does Plymouth:

http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/trafficsignalsfaq#waiting

and Hants:

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roads/highw...lights-faq.htm

see also this report from the ITE journal:

http://www.allbusiness.com/electroni...1487260-1.html

and there is the MOVA Traffic Control Manual which states that an
undetected bicycle can be "...a serious problem."

Traffic Light Detectors
 

On Jan 30, 5:54*pm, _
wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:20:48 +0000, richard wells wrote:

If they don't detect bikes *- does that mean there is something wrong
with the lights/detectors?

Sefton Council says yes:

http://www.sefton.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2781

as does Plymouth:

http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/trafficsignalsfaq#waiting

and Hants:

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/roads/highw...fic-lights/tra...

see also this report from the ITE journal:

http://www.allbusiness.com/electroni...lectronics-tra...

and there is the MOVA Traffic Control Manual which states that an
undetected bicycle can be "...a serious problem."

The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic-
actuated lights anyway. They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of
them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's
coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that
motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti-
motorist ****** Livingstone liked to do). As far as the trolls are
concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just
treat them as "give way" lines.

Unfortunately, that's all completely true, not that the trolls like it
to be known (so no wonder they don't like people coming onto "their"
newsgroup and saying things like that).

Traffic Light Detectors
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:41 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic-
actuated lights anyway. They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of
them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's
coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that
motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti-
motorist ****** Livingstone liked to do). As far as the trolls are
concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just
treat them as "give way" lines.

Completely wrong.

What we want is steel barriers to come down across the road, with gaps
for cyclists to go through in safety, but which prevent cars from
going anywhere with any meaningful speed.

Traffic Light Detectors
 

On Jan 31, 8:59*pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:41 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar

wrote:
The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic-
actuated lights anyway. *They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of
them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's
coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that
motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti-
motorist ****** Livingstone liked to do). *As far as the trolls are
concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just
treat them as "give way" lines.

Completely wrong.

What we want is steel barriers to come down across the road, with gaps
for cyclists to go through in safety, but which prevent cars from
going anywhere with any meaningful speed.

I don't know whether you're being sarcastic or not, but doubtless the
car-haters *would* like that. We're already halfway there with rising
bollards and permanent barriers which let cyclists through, both of
which are (like other anti-motorist measures) unreservedly applauded
by those in question.

Traffic Light Detectors
 

On Jan 31, 8:59*pm, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:41 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar

wrote:
The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic-
actuated lights anyway. *They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of
them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's
coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that
motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti-
motorist ****** Livingstone liked to do). *As far as the trolls are
concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just
treat them as "give way" lines.

Completely wrong.

What we want is steel barriers to come down across the road, with gaps
for cyclists to go through in safety, but which prevent cars from
going anywhere with any meaningful speed.

But of course the average cyclist would not be able to go through the
gap & would have to cycle on the pavement so he could feel safe.

Francis

Traffic Light Detectors
 

On Jan 31, 9:33*pm, francis wrote:
On Jan 31, 8:59*pm, Tom Crispin



wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:41 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar

wrote:
The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic-
actuated lights anyway. *They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of
them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's
coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that
motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti-
motorist ****** Livingstone liked to do). *As far as the trolls are
concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just
treat them as "give way" lines.

Completely wrong.

What we want is steel barriers to come down across the road, with gaps
for cyclists to go through in safety, but which prevent cars from
going anywhere with any meaningful speed.

But of course the average cyclist would not be able to go through the
gap & would have to cycle on the pavement so he could feel safe.

Unless the pavement was in fact a cycle lane, in which case the
average cyclist would avoid it like the plague.

Traffic Light Detectors
 

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:41 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic-
actuated lights anyway. They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of
them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's
coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that
motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti-
motorist ****** Livingstone liked to do). As far as the trolls are
concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just
treat them as "give way" lines.

Completely wrong.

What we want is steel barriers to come down across the road, with gaps
for cyclists to go through in safety, but which prevent cars from
going anywhere with any meaningful speed.

How about barriers that come down and stop cyclists going through red
lights, stop signs and raising bollard areas. In other words making
cyclists obey the Highway Code as all other road users have to do. That
would be a good start.

--
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also. Duhg Bollen.

It didn't happen. The whole thing was fabricated in a movie studio by
Jewish film directors using realistic dummies to gain international
sympathy and thus grab and retain a chunk of Arab territory and
accumulate weapons of mass destruction with help from a complicit US.
Duhg Bollens view of the Holocaust.

Duhg Bollen promised a report on how Vince can reduce his carbon
emissions by moving in November 2007. We're still waiting.

Traffic Light Detectors
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:14:49 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic-
actuated lights anyway. *They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of
them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's
coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that
motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti-
motorist ****** Livingstone liked to do). *As far as the trolls are
concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just
treat them as "give way" lines.

Completely wrong.

What we want is steel barriers to come down across the road, with gaps
for cyclists to go through in safety, but which prevent cars from
going anywhere with any meaningful speed.

We're already halfway there with rising
bollards and permanent barriers which let cyclists through, both of
which are (like other anti-motorist measures) unreservedly applauded
by those in question.

The dream is becoming a reality. I *love* the way you make me so
happy to be a cyclist.

Traffic Light Detectors
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:37:40 +0000, John Wright
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:41 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic-
actuated lights anyway. They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of
them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's
coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that
motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti-
motorist ****** Livingstone liked to do). As far as the trolls are
concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just
treat them as "give way" lines.

Completely wrong.

What we want is steel barriers to come down across the road, with gaps
for cyclists to go through in safety, but which prevent cars from
going anywhere with any meaningful speed.

How about barriers that come down and stop cyclists going through red
lights, stop signs and raising bollard areas. In other words making
cyclists obey the Highway Code as all other road users have to do. That
would be a good start.

Wrong! Not all road users do have to obey the highway code, e.g.
pedestrians.

Non compliance of the highway code by motorists is almost complete.
There are a far greater proportion of motorists who exceed speed
limits, for example, than the minority of cyclists who ignore red
light signals.

Traffic Light Detectors
 

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:37:40 +0000, John Wright
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:29:41 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

The car-hating trolls here think that there shouldn't be traffic-
actuated lights anyway. They want fixed-time lights (and plenty of
them) so that motorists get held up unnecessarily when nothing's
coming the other way, and they like them to be synched so that
motorists have to stop at every set (just like that not-at-all-anti-
motorist ****** Livingstone liked to do). As far as the trolls are
concerned, cyclists need not worry about red lights, as they can just
treat them as "give way" lines.
Completely wrong.

What we want is steel barriers to come down across the road, with gaps
for cyclists to go through in safety, but which prevent cars from
going anywhere with any meaningful speed.
How about barriers that come down and stop cyclists going through red
lights, stop signs and raising bollard areas. In other words making
cyclists obey the Highway Code as all other road users have to do. That
would be a good start.

Wrong! Not all road users do have to obey the highway code, e.g.
pedestrians.

Non compliance of the highway code by motorists is almost complete.
There are a far greater proportion of motorists who exceed speed
limits, for example, than the minority of cyclists who ignore red
light signals.

So that makes it alright then?

--
Tony the Dragon