This is what cyclists waste tax payers' money on

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...mned-12216449?

£500,000 to make a road look like a roundabout to "confuse drivers" so they slow down for a non-existant roundabout.

I've got news for you psycholists. Confusing drivers is a BAD and DANGEROUS idea.

--
Flanders and Swann on MOT tests:
Our car is getting a bit old, it'll have to be tested soon.
You know they started these tests for 10-year-old cars, they brought it down to six, now five, they'll bring it down to three.
There's even been some talk of having them tested before they leave the factories."

On 03/02/2017 17:16, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...mned-12216449?


£500,000 to make a road look like a roundabout to "confuse drivers" so
they slow down for a non-existant roundabout.

Where does the £500,000 come from. It seems a lot to spend on a few
bricks. Presumably someone on the council's "mate" got the contract?

On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 17:24:40 -0000, Nick wrote:

On 03/02/2017 17:16, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...mned-12216449?

£500,000 to make a road look like a roundabout to "confuse drivers" so
they slow down for a non-existant roundabout.

Where does the £500,000 come from. It seems a lot to spend on a few
bricks.

Jeremy Clarkson said so in today's Grand Tour episode. Jeremy never lies.

Presumably someone on the council's "mate" got the contract?

Probably. There can be no other reason for councils constantly re-doing things that were fine.

--
Exersize: the act of removing excess baggage

On 03/02/2017 17:24, Nick wrote:

On 03/02/2017 17:16, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...mned-12216449?



£500,000 to make a road look like a roundabout to "confuse drivers" so
they slow down for a non-existant roundabout.

Where does the £500,000 come from. It seems a lot to spend on a few
bricks. Presumably someone on the council's "mate" got the contract?

That's the sort of money that such "improvements" cost.

No private developer would pay that sort of money, even for exactly the
same work done, but with councils, the price doesn't matter. AAMOF,
$500,000 for that probaly isn't as bad as some schemes.

There used to be a (real) roundabout at the junction of The Strand and
Chapel Street in Liverpool. It worked fine. About 40 years ago, it was
replaced by a complex set of traffic lights because the roundabout was
letting the traffic through too freely. Even in the 1970s, uprooting the
roundabout, leveling the plot, installing new and differently-positioned
storm drains (think about it), re-routing the pedestrian footways and
erecting the lights and control boxes cost about £3,000,000.

On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 18:27:38 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 03/02/2017 17:24, Nick wrote:

On 03/02/2017 17:16, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...mned-12216449?



£500,000 to make a road look like a roundabout to "confuse drivers" so
they slow down for a non-existant roundabout.

Where does the £500,000 come from. It seems a lot to spend on a few
bricks. Presumably someone on the council's "mate" got the contract?

That's the sort of money that such "improvements" cost.

No private developer would pay that sort of money, even for exactly the
same work done, but with councils, the price doesn't matter. AAMOF,
$500,000 for that probaly isn't as bad as some schemes.

There used to be a (real) roundabout at the junction of The Strand and
Chapel Street in Liverpool. It worked fine. About 40 years ago, it was
replaced by a complex set of traffic lights because the roundabout was
letting the traffic through too freely. Even in the 1970s, uprooting the
roundabout, leveling the plot, installing new and differently-positioned
storm drains (think about it), re-routing the pedestrian footways and
erecting the lights and control boxes cost about £3,000,000.

That was done in Kincardine, Scotland, twice. Traffic lights --- roundabout --- traffic lights.

--
Whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

On 04.02.2017 06:16, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:


****wits.



Thanks greatly for that esteemed accolade from YOU

After all I ride a bicycle, a very convenient delightful economical
viable means of transport, and we all know that YOU think bicyclists are
the ****witted pits of humanity.
I really feel complimented by that, because YOU said it.

It really is a very great compliment to be called a ****wit by YOU.
Especially by YOU.
And I have no ****ing interest in looking good in YOUR eyes.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...mned-12216449?

£500,000 to make a road look like a roundabout to "confuse drivers" so they slow down for a non-existant roundabout.

Quite a few drunk drivers might spend 30 min. in that "loop" before they had to stop and take a **** and then pass out in the front seat.

We need to get more public safety advantages like this here in the U.S.!

Is there a patent? There are all kinds of road interchange patents.

I've got news for you psycholists. Confusing drivers is a BAD and DANGEROUS idea.

Humans, being naturally lazy, will do whatever is easiest. Here the easiest thing to do is to confuse drivers.

Of the 4 billion cyclists on the planet, not one would ever get confused by some brick work.


Bret Cahill

On 06/02/17 04:02, Bret Cahill wrote:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...mned-12216449?

We need to get more public safety advantages like this here in the
U.S.!

I was surprised in my recent visit to the land of the automobile how
well your junctions work for pedestrians (on top of having more
courteous drivers (*)). The physical details of junction connections and
driver control are more similar to mainland Europe, than to the UK.
Walking through UK residential areas, towns and cities is, in many ways,
less well provisioned.

(*) Does the US have a system of presumed liability?

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...mned-12216449?

We need to get more public safety advantages like this here in the
U.S.!

I was surprised in my recent visit to the land of the automobile how
well your junctions work for pedestrians (on top of having more
courteous drivers (*)). The physical details of junction connections and
driver control are more similar to mainland Europe, than to the UK.
Walking through UK residential areas, towns and cities is, in many ways,
less well provisioned.

(*) Does the US have a system of presumed liability?

It's up to the jury which may have pretty much the same effect.

Coast highway and other roads in Northern California aren't much different than those in the UK, scenic which draws a lot of cyclists, but narrow, poorly graded, wet pavement, blind hair pin curves w/o shoulders. (All 6 of the 6 "concerns" to borrow an insurance industry term.)

In the Klamath area apparently a cyclist can push a button on the side of at least one stretch of windy road which lights up a road sign a few miles ahead and/or behind of the cyclist warning drivers that a cyclist is nearby.

If you don't want to require motorists to pay $3 cycling transponder receivers, then this is another way to do something almost as good.

That's the only one I've seen or heard of anywhere. Maybe they just put it up. It's easy to see how that got pioneered in that region. CalTrans is always setting up motorist operated one lane road signals because of mud slides anyway. The motorist stops, gets out of his car, punches a button and the light turns green.

All they had to do was replace the red light down the road with "cyclist."


Bret Cahill

On 07/02/17 18:46, Bret Cahill wrote:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...mned-12216449?


We need to get more public safety advantages like this here in
the U.S.!

I was surprised in my recent visit to the land of the automobile
how well your junctions work for pedestrians (on top of having more
courteous drivers (*)). The physical details of junction
connections and driver control are more similar to mainland Europe,
than to the UK. Walking through UK residential areas, towns and
cities is, in many ways, less well provisioned.

(*) Does the US have a system of presumed liability?

It's up to the jury which may have pretty much the same effect.

I think the idea of presumed liability is that the driver has to produce
a plausible story, rather than the victim having to prove (beyond doubt)
that the driver does not have a plausible story.

Coast highway and other roads in Northern California aren't much
different than those in the UK, scenic which draws a lot of cyclists,
but narrow, poorly graded, wet pavement, blind hair pin curves w/o
shoulders. (All 6 of the 6 "concerns" to borrow an insurance
industry term.)

I was in New England, Boston, New York and Washington early fall.
Driving, not cycling, through New England and walking in the cities.
The roads in NE are wider than the UK and on the state roads the
pavement (USA meaning) often extended for a few feet outside the lane.

I am not sure I would want to cycle in the US country. Not necessarily
for safety but for the sheer boredom of following the same road for
miles on end and not being able to go out and back on a different route.
Where I live there is a comprehensive network of single track roads -
previously farm tracks, often as little as 8ft wide - which are paved.
Over there, the surface often seems to change to hardpack when leaving
the primary roads.