|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Traffic Light Timings | Saxman | UK | 46 | February 1st 09 05:49 PM |
Traffic Light Spoofer for Cyclists | Bret Cahill[_2_] | General | 27 | January 26th 09 05:50 AM |
The need for high tech traffic detectors | Greens | Techniques | 224 | September 6th 07 07:28 PM |
Bicycles, Traffic Signals, Loop Detectors -- rules where you ride? | No Name | Techniques | 27 | March 21st 07 11:38 PM |
Dealing with city hall - traffic light sensors | Mike Rocket J. Squirrel Elliott | Techniques | 31 | October 14th 05 06:45 AM |