Category - Transport

Cycling Activists Attempt To Sell Votes

09/12/2013

I’m not sure if this is legal – but even if it is, it’s totally wrong from a moral standpoint. It’s a story in The Independent about how “cycling activists” are attempting to sway the results of local council elections by offering their votes to “bike-friendly candidates”.

Various activist groups are involved. To quote one:

Chris Peck, campaigns co-ordinator at national cycling charity CTC, said the elections were a “major opportunity to ensure that cycling is still seen as a high priority”. “Councils have huge budgets and huge power,” he said. “They are places where we need to spend a lot more effort on converting people to support cycling.”

Note how this comedian misses the point completely – as do all these radical cycling numpties. His aim is to get cyclists on roads whether it’s safe or not – and he’ll sell his vote to get his way.

The article also mentions a Birmingham cell who are calling for changes on a major link road on the strength of a single fatality of a 13-year old over two years ago, even though the driver of the lorry was jailed for dangerous driving. Again, they miss the point entirely – if the driver was at fault, what is wrong with the road? What is there that specifically needs to be changed that would have prevented the incident?

The problem is that if you asked any Spandex-wearing activist, they would have every single road in the country changed. None of them can understand that roads are dangerous by virtue of the fact that big, heavy machinery travels on them. There are those whose political maturity is still in the womb on this topic, and who seriously see banning those nasty machines from roads as a genuine solution. They forget that there are already “roads” where traffic is banned. Those roads are called “cycle paths”, and many of these Spandex-wearing politicos refuse point blank to go anywhere near them.

Those last two articles I wrote concerning cyclists have generated a lot of blog traffic via Twitter and Facebook. As I’ve pointed out before, I don’t allow comments on this blog because they’re just an excuse for juvenile prats to swear and post links to pornography sites. And the contact form makes it clear that any abuse through that will immediately be reported to the sender’s ISP (and you CAN be traced, so don’t kid yourself that you can’t), and I guess that’s why hits to that page also skyrocketed, but only produced one actual submission.

The reader who responded refers to the “idiotic” cyclist shown in the photograph in the post about HGV drivers being forced to take mandatory cycling lessons in Islington. He asks where I think he should ride instead (I’ve included the picture again). Well, the answer is simple: anywhere else – just not there! London cyclist dicing with death

Cyclists seem unable to comprehend anything that doesn’t go 100% in their favour. In this case, it just amazes me that they cannot understand that although the cyclist in the picture may well have every right to do what he’s doing, he would have to be a complete and utter pillock to actually do it.

It’s like sticking your hand in a blender or an open fire – yes, you have every right to do it if you choose to do so, but if you get injured (and even if you don’t) you’re going to have to accept that you’re still a prat.

Irrespective of who would be to blame, if one of those lorries swerved – to avoid another cyclist, for example – the cyclist would be dead. And no doubt the Spandex-clad fingers would then start pointing at the HGVs again.

The simple fact is that the degree of danger for a cyclist varies from nothing to almost total, depending on where (and how) he rides. Riding between lorries, or in among large numbers of lorries, is right up at the bad end.

Nothing can alter that, including the ridiculous idea from the Greenies that lorries should be constructed out of glass to give 360° vision in all three dimensions (or possibly all four dimensions if it’s an activist-led idea). Even if that ever happened – and it won’t – it would take decades to implement.

It’s also worth me repeating what I said to that reader in response to various other accusations:

I ride a bike
I use cycle paths
I avoid riding among traffic, especially on purpose
I teach pupils to be careful around cyclists
I teach pupils what cyclists behave like
My pupils see frequent examples of what cyclists behave like

So there is no point whatsoever trying to pretend that all cyclists are angels. They aren’t.

Shortly after I published this I received another email from a reader. Here it is in full (with his permission):

Cyclists

I have to say, I really enjoy reading your views on cyclists as they are more or less exactly the same as mine.

Where I live and teach Corby and Kettering) there is an elderly guy, who I’m told by one of my pupils used to be her geography teacher. He ‘rides’ one of those contraptions where the user is pretty much lying down, and will do so regardless of the queues of traffic building up behind him. We currently have a lot of major road works in the area, notably the A6003 between Corby and Kettering, where there are lane closures and contra flow systems in place. It’s a fairly common sight to see a queue a couple of miles long behind this idiot as he will exercise his right to ride it anywhere he wants regardless of how much chaos he creates. He’s retired, and as such I can only assume he does it for the exercise and enjoyment, I’m just not sure if the thing he’s riding is even road legs, much less how he’s not dead yet, being no more than 18 inches off the ground.

Just thought I’d get that off my chest!

I’ve mentioned these lying-down bikes before – their proper name is “recumbent bike”. Around my way you usually see them on a Sunday on narrow country lanes, surrounded by a group of middle-aged men riding two or three abreast and travelling at low speed. The rider of the recumbent usually has a beard and legs that look like something out of a toothpaste tube. All of them are trying to act as if they were 20 years younger.

The cycling militia can rant on all they like about driving instructors feeling this way, but we are just talking sense.The simple fact is that eventually someone in authority is going to see have to see sense too and stop keep trying to pander to the Spandex Corps all the time.

Roads are for motor vehicles, and cycle paths are for bicycles. And as the number of people having absolutely no road sense but being encouraged to start riding a bike increases, the Law needs to start forcing cyclists to stay off roads and keep to cycle paths.

Sixth Cyclist Killed In London In Two Weeks

21/11/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News, Transport

I started writing this a few days ago, when the headlines were trumpeting that a FIFTH cyclist in a week had been killed after being involved in a collision with a bus in Whitechapel. I’ve had to edit it now, as another story (from Camberwell) now informs us that the tally has risen to SIX in two weeks. And I’ve had to edit it again now that Boris Johnson is beginning to see sense and realise that – shock, horror – the problem might not actually lie quite so completely with the motorist at all.

After the fifth fatality, Nick Clegg – aka Minnie Mouse in our Mickey Mouse government – called for cyclists’ “superhighways” to physically separate cyclists from traffic. Yes, Minnie – sorry, Nick – they’re known as “cycle paths” here on Planet Earth, and many cyclists – particularly those belonging to the Militant Spandex Morons Wing – refuse to use them (usually in order to show other road users that they can’t be told where they can and can’t ride). This is the mentality of the people involved, unfortunately (and as I’ve said before, I’ve ridden with them, and I see them daily, and I know that this is true for many of them).

When are people going to get it into their thick skulls that cyclists and motor vehicles don’t mix, and nothing anyone can realistically do will prevent such injuries if we continue to encourage the unholy alliance that has been borne out of the Olympics and two Tour de Frances?

In spite of what the Militants would have everyone believe – on pain of prosecution for disagreeing with them, of course – roads are for motor vehicles. They are not for prats in Spandex who think they are Bradley Wiggins, and who appear to inject testosterone every morning in order to develop just the right amount of anger and attitude needed to “do a 10k” to work. Earlier today, I was parked up reading some texts when one went by muttering angrily to himself about something (possibly it was directed at me, since it’s quite common to hear this as they push themselves along inappropriate roads at speed (as an aside, you may remember Emma Way – the girl who tweeted that she’d knocked a cyclist over. She has been found not guilty of careless driving)).

What makes the first London story especially irritating is that Boris Johnson is quoted:

There’s no question of blame or finger-pointing. That doesn’t work in these circumstances.

No, Boris. That’s because in this particular case the Finger of Blame isn’t pointing at the trucker. If there was even the slightest indication that the hapless driver was at fault, the Finger of Blame would be already turning the key in the remand cell door lock! And in that same story, there is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog as some dipstick is already banging on about banning HGVs in London “during rush hour”. He hasn’t considered that “rush hour” in London is a nebulous thing that can last anywhere from 6am until after midnight depending on what has happened on the M25 and other major roads in and around the City.

Many lorries have carried warning signs like the one above for a long time now. And yet cyclists continue to ignore them. The Militants can argue all they like, but in yet another example I experienced tonight, I was at the Nottingham Knight roundabout during busy rush hour. The busy A52 crosses this, and the road I was on has one straight ahead lane (on the right), and two left turn lanes. You have to look for gaps and take your chances confidently – which I did, only to discover that some complete wanker in Spandex had pulled up into one of the left turn lanes and actually tried to cut me up!

Let’s get this in perspective: he was in the wrong lane, and he tried to cut ME up – during rush hour… on a 60/70mph road junction!

There was absolutely no reason for me to suspect he would be there, and he damned nearly got knocked off. I had to move into the inside lane nearest the roundabout prior to exit and then cut back over. And I nearly crapped myself when I noticed him as I initially accelerated away. A large proportion of cyclists are total prats like this guy, and I’d confidently bet that this particular one was a fully paid up Militant. God knows why anyone would be so stupid as to try and ride across the Nottingham Knight roundabout on a bicycle in the first place, unless it was just to show that they can.

The latest two London deaths both involved cyclists colliding with lorries. For the record, the other four cases can be summarised:

5 November – Mile End Road – cyclist in collision with a tipper truck

11 November – Central London – cyclist in collision with a coach

12 November – Croydon – cyclist in collision with a bus

13 November – Bow Roundabout – cyclist in collision with a lorry

A total of 14 cyclists have been killed in London so far this year, and nine of those involved lorries (at least two of the others involved buses or coaches, which are basically lorries with a posh top, but which don’t figure in the media stats because they’re protected by virtue of their “greenness”). The Bow story also mentions a separate incident around the same time where a cyclist was injured after colliding with a truck. Likewise, the Camberwell story also mentions a separate non-fatal incident at around the same time involving a cyclist colliding with a lorry.

I’m sure many people will be aware of the parable of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Well, politicians like Peter John (leader of Southwark Council) clearly aren’t when they call for HGVs to be banned during rush hour. The latest accident in Camberwell happened at lunch time (as did the one in Croydon) – nowhere near the official “rush hour”. Lorries and rush hour are NOT the common denominators here. Cyclists are.

The Bow story contains a telling few words. I’ve quoted them here:

The London Cycling Campaign (LCC) held a protest at the roundabout on Wednesday evening… the gathered cyclists also circled the roundabout slowly on their bikes.

You can see that many of these people simply aren’t normal. Apart from riding around aggressively with cameras strapped to their heads in order to stir things up as they see fit (and you just have to look on a few of their websites to see that that’s exactly what they wear these cameras for), they happily engage in militant traffic-disruption of this nature. For normal people, if someone is killed in a road accident they may go and lay some flowers at the roadside, carefully parking up somewhere so they can walk the last short distance. But for cyclists it’s different. They have to block the road on purpose and turn the whole thing into a quasi-politico-religious event. If it wasn’t for the 21st Century skyline, you’d be forgiven for thinking you were watching a bunch of Neolithic cave people celebrating the solstice.

Cyclists are their own worst enemies. The vast majority have no road sense whatsoever (like the “expert” I had to avoid tonight, and you can read between the lines for yourself in the Emma Way case), and of those that do they have such a piss-poor attitude that it overrides anything else. A perfect illustration of this was on the BBC Breakfast News in the wake of the fifth London fatality. They had a militant cyclist up in the Glasgow studio giving his opinion, and they showed a video that he had apparently taken on the Bat-Cam in his helmet where he was nearly wiped out by a lorry as he negotiated a roundabout.

What they didn’t discuss was how fast he had entered the roundabout in the first place, with no sign of slowing down, and quite possibly with no intention of “giving way” to anything. They didn’t discuss how difficult it is for lorries to stop – especially when they are fully laden, and especially if they’re confronted with a fast-moving idiot on a bicycle. And they didn’t discuss whether he’d actually seen the lorry in the first place. I mean, let’s be honest here. If you are a pasty white meat-bag held together with Spandex, and riding a bike that weighs only a few kilogrammes, you need your bloody head examining if you deliberately race on to a roundabout with a lorry coming at you – and that applies whether you’re wearing your Bat Cape and stupid helmet with integral camera or not. Because if anything goes wrong – like it nearly did in the case of the guy on Breakfast News, and like it could have done with me tonight – you’re going to get splattered. Not the lorry or car. But YOU. It doesn’t matter who’s right and who’s wrong if you end up in the morgue.

The Highway Code says:

61

Cycle Routes and Other Facilities. Use cycle routes, advanced stop lines, cycle boxes and toucan crossings unless at the time it is unsafe to do so. Use of these facilities is not compulsory and will depend on your experience and skills, but they can make your journey safer.

69

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

71

You MUST NOT cross the stop line when the traffic lights are red. Some junctions have an advanced stop line to enable you to wait and position yourself ahead of other traffic (see Rule 178).
Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 36(1)

72

On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Just before you turn, check for undertaking cyclists or motorcyclists. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

73

Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space between them and the kerb.

76

Full details about the correct procedure at roundabouts are contained in (see Rules 184 to 190). Roundabouts can be hazardous and should be approached with care.

77

You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge. If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you should

be aware that drivers may not easily see you

take extra care when cycling across exits. You may need to signal right to show you are not leaving the roundabout

watch out for vehicles crossing your path to leave or join the roundabout.

78

Give plenty of room to long vehicles on the roundabout as they need more space to manoeuvre. Do not ride in the space they need to get round the roundabout. It may be safer to wait until they have cleared the roundabout.

79

Do not ride across equestrian crossings, as they are for horse riders only. Do not ride across a pelican, puffin or zebra crossing. Dismount and wheel your cycle across.

82

Level crossings/Tramways. Take extra care when crossing the tracks (see Rule 306). You should dismount at level crossings where a ‘cyclist dismount’ sign is displayed.

The problem is that virtually all cyclists contravene at least some of these rules (and more besides). Hand signals are a thing of the past – even if they’re used at all, they’re done badly. The guy in Scotland who was nearly wiped out certainly didn’t decide that it would be “safer to wait” – he just pelted on to the roundabout in front of a lorry which would quite possibly have been unable to stop in time anyway. The prat I encountered today was certainly in the wrong lane and behaving dangerously. You see them riding on busy trunk roads when there is a cycle path less than a metre away from them. And they will skip red traffic lights or ride on to pavements to avoid them at the drop of a hat. They frequently ride more than two abreast – even on narrow country roads – when they’re in full-on testosterone mode, blocking traffic on purpose (and it IS on purpose, believe me). And we’re not talking about a small number of transgressors here. Either through bloody-mindedness or stupidity, a huge number of cyclists behave like this.

And the number of cyclists is growing.

When I’m teaching people to drive, I drum it into them early on that they should plan to stop at junctions and roundabouts, and treat being able to keep moving as a bonus, and only then after they have properly assessed the situation. As a driver, and as an instructor, there is nothing I hate more than going round a roundabout, only to have people pull out in front of me. Even if I don’t physically HAVE to hit the brakes, the fact my foot moves just in case is just as bad. But there are many cases where lorries have already committed themselves before I come into view, and since they weigh up to 40 tonnes they aren’t going to accelerate away very quickly anymore than they’re going to stop in the middle of the roundabout when they see me. So I slow down to let them go.

So why is it that cyclists think they have the right of way in these circumstances?

However, it seems that a modicum of reality is returning to the ridiculous situation created by the Olympics and Tour de France. After two years of idiots who think they’re Greenies trying to introduce some sort of racial cleansing programme against those who say a bad word about cyclists, a few people in high places are starting to see a glimmer of light – which others are still trying hard to extinguish. The third story reports that Boris Johnson has talked of banning headphones for cyclists – clearly implicating them in a number of incidents. The Militants have attacked this as you can imagine.

The simple fact is that if these cyclists weren’t next to the lorries or buses at the time then they wouldn’t have been hit. Now whether that means they were there because they’d ridden badly is open to debate, but since several of these accidents happened on corners it doesn’t take a genius to work out that that is a possibility.

In spite of this – and in spite of the photo shown above – Chris Boardman is now asking for a ban on HGVs.

Mr Johnson said there had to be a “much bigger conversation about HGVs” and the dangers they pose when they turn left.

But he said imposing a peak-time ban risked damaging London companies and creating a “serious influx as soon as the ban is over”.

Boardman is in cloud cuckoo land. Boris Johnson appears to have at last made contact with reality. The only thing that can definitely be said is that cyclists are clearly too stupid to follow rules and safety advice. It’s like putting labels on things like mattresses (e.g. “do not eat”) – except in the case of cyclists, some prat is trying to remove all motor vehicles from the equation.

Restrictions and rules need to be applied to cyclists. Cyclists need to abide by these rules by Law. And we need to stop encouraging cyclists to get on to busy roads. If they want to ride they should go to country parks and do it, or stick to cycle paths. By Law.

Reducing The Cost Of Motoring

25/10/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, DSA, News, Transport

This story has been covered in the press and in a DSA email alert, Apparently, the government (I’m not sure if they mean Mickey or Donald) has decided that drivers need their help. According to The Mail, this means freezing the MoT charge until 2015, erecting signs along motorways to warn motorists of rip-off prices, and “reviewing” the cost of the driving test and provisional licence. Oh, and some stuff about stopping liars and lawyers cashing in on whiplash claims.

The one about road signs is already the only issue that matters as far as The Mail is concerned.

But in all honesty, it is just a joke. The MoT costs nearly £55, and if I remember correctly that went up from the previous price of £38 about four years ago. An MoT is only required for cars older than three years, and it has to be renewed annually after the first one, so if the price went up now it would only jump by £10-£20. That would equate to a massive additional outlay equivalent up to 5½ pence per day.

I think we’re all grateful to the government for freezing that one until 2015 (even though it will then go up by a larger amount to make up for lost time)!

Then there is the plan to erect illuminated price signs along the motorways so that you know how much it costs to fill up at the services en route.

Ministers hope it will highlight the sums being charged by some garages that believe they have a ‘captive market’, and encourage them to compete for custom.

So, these would be illuminated signs like the ones you get outside garages on non-motorway routes? Fantastic idea, and well worth the hundreds of thousands of pounds of MPs’ time which were no doubt required to come up with it!

Returning to Planet Earth, there is then the “review” of the cost of the driving test and a provisional licence. The test costs £62 at the moment, and somehow I can’t really imagine the price going down. Of course, a lot of instructors out there – especially the ones who have recently been trying to get into politics themselves – believe that the test is too expensive on the grounds that the hourly pro rata rate is more than instructors can command for lessons. Some will even go so far as to mention how the test only cost about £5 back in the 70s – even though £5 in 1970 would be worth £65.50 in 2013 money! Even after decimalisation the equivalent today would have been £35 or more. Therefore, the test has not gone up by that much.

But above all that, the structure of the part of government that manages tests is far too bureaucratic to justify being able to cut the price, and the only possible direction – apart from freezing it artificially – is upwards.

Oh yes. And the provisional licence costs £50. It is paid for once by 99% of the population.

If the idiots really wanted to cut costs for motorists they could do two things:

cut fuel duty

prosecute Nottingham City Council for commencing protracted simultaneous road works across the City

Buying A Car After Your Test

22/10/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Driving Tests, General, Transport

I’ve had a run of passes recently, and on the run up to their tests many pupils ask for advice on buying a car. It’s a difficult question to answer, because we’ve all heard the stories about dodgy second-hand motors.

Some pupils can’t afford much, and what I tend to do is point out various car dealers as we drive around on our lessons. There are a lot of them springing up, and many specialise is very cheap cars – starting at below £1,000. However, it is definitely a case of “buyer beware”, and I never recommend one dealer over another (unless it’s a big one that I have experience of). One of my current pupils has dealt with one of these cheap car outlets and had a really bad experience (I saw the car, and it had a missing interior mirror and the gear stick was loose).

But it’s much easier to make a few recommendations when someone has a little more money to spend, because then you can point out the main dealerships – or approved second-hand car dealers. You can also find plenty of online resources to help you find the right car, like this one for used Honda Civics. Of course, a Civic might be too big for some people, so you can search for Jazzes and other models as you see fit. If you get the right site, all the links are to approved dealers, so you have that extra level of security.

These days, most manufacturers also have a strong social networking presence, and this often appeals to the younger driver. Sticking with Honda, they have Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube pages, as well as the ubiquitous main website. Judging from the activity on them – particularly Facebook – younger drivers really do use these things to find out information.

Of course, no one is saying that you have to buy from these sources, but having them there to browse through certainly opens up possibilities.

I had a pupil pass her test today, and the first thing she mentioned driving back from the test centre was how she now had to make the decision about which car to buy. She couldn’t afford a new one – but she had a budget with her boyfriend of a few thousand, and that opens up a lot of possible options. I also mentioned to her the lease option, or the car auction route (we have a big auctioneer with a Nottingham branch). Again, these are just two of many ways of sourcing a car these days.

When I see my ex-pupils driving around in their own car – whether it is a new one as a gift from wealthy parents, or a jalopy they have been saving up for – it gives me a warm feeling inside (and it’s not just from the chilli con carne I had for supper). If I helped them find the car, that feeling is just that little bit stronger.

Still More Nottingham Road Works!

20/10/2013

DOAADI

ADI, General, Transport

The idiots at Nottingham City Council (NCC) just haven’t got a clue! From Monday, the Bardills roundabout on the A52 towards Derby will see the start of three weeks of major road works.

The A52 is (or was) the only way to get to Long Eaton without being gridlocked by overrunning tram works in Beeston and Chilwell. But not anymore. You see, the A52 along Clifton Boulevard is currently backed up to Clifton Bridge every rush hour, and from anywhere between 3pm (when the mummies start the school run) and 7.30pm (when the flow finally eases) entirely as a result of Tramicide (that’s a word I coined to simplify what the tram stands for). Of course, if there is an event on at Nottingham’s Ice Arena – one of the worst-sited entertainment venues in the known universe – then traffic can be much worse, as city-bound roads also become gridlocked.

Much of the ring road traffic is trying to get on to University Boulevard, which is gridlocked due to tram works.That which isn’t is trying to get on to Derby Road to go to… well, Derby. Or to Strelley and Broxtowe, which are blocked off at Aspley Lane due to part 1 of “ring road junction improvements”. That which remains on the Middleton Boulevard will notice a recently-erected sign declares that the next part of “ring road improvements” is due to begin this month before any single one of the others is anywhere near completion.

And to make matters worse, there is a sign on the A60 as you approach the Nottingham Knight roundabout – some 8 miles from Bardills – which advises motorists of the road works and to find an “alternative route”. Where, for God’s sake. The imbeciles have got every “alternative route” blocked!

It’s pathetic. Such incompetence is hard to imagine in any single organisation or individual, and yet NCC appears to be staffed completely by such individuals. So this story on the BBC website makes you smile in an ironic sort of way.

Just a reminder of an article I wrote back in November last year – almost 12 months ago to the day. Cllr Jane Urquhart was then quoted regarding the impending closure of the main Chilwell road:

We’re going to maintain the maximum possible access… we’re continuing to have the discussions and work with our County Council highways colleagues and the tram project team…

Well, as I say, a year down the line, Chilwell is STILL closed, and so are numerous other roads in Beeston and Chilwell. All have been long term closures, with absolutely no end in sight. Exactly the same is true of Clifton where, I believe, the Clifton Chinese on Varney Road has closed permanently due to the loss of business caused by tram works there. Other retailers have previously mentioned their own reduced takings – in some cases down from hundreds of pounds a day (in Clifton) to just a few tens. And Wilford is similarly gridlocked by the insane attempts to “maintain the maximum possible access”.

All the traffic prevented from going one way, and then another, and then yet another, is being funnelled into an ever decreasing number of bottlenecks. That’s why Nottingham is at a standstill every night. And as the BBC report says, many of these closures are expected to last into next year.

So it is hilarious to see Urquhart – now a much braver soul than the frightened rabbit she was this time last year – pontificating one more time.

All the works are part of a £750m investment to build a better Nottingham and deliver a world-class integrated transport system for the city.

The work we are doing causes disruption while we are doing it but it’s always our aim of giving us a better transport system for the future.

One thing that hasn’t changed is the utter bollocks she habitually spouts. It is difficult to fathom how such ineffectual specimens as her rise to positions like the one she holds, when they are clearly useless at what they do (and the growing road chaos caused by the group of which she is the “leader” is proof enough of that statement). Her idea of “better” is six steps back, then one step forward. And that’s if we’re lucky.

The tram – both the original, and Phase II (which is primarily responsible for the current chaos) is a monumental waste of money and resources. Once the gleam wears off the new stuff, it looks shabby and ill-kept. All the original tram installations look filthy, and the trains themselves a mess as they don their oft-changed advertising livery. The green LED illuminations on the bridges are long gone (or broken). The trains are nearly always empty – even if they are busy during rush hour, it’s only on one or two stages, and the average is pulled down by the dearth of passengers 80% of the time. That’s why fares have gone up to the point where passengers are seeking alternative modes of transport. Trams are NOT environmentally friendly to start with – and they are even less so when there is no one on them.

And as a closing comment, out on the roads today I saw two Severn Trent repair sites with the ubiquitous temporary lights – and a flood on Mapperley Plains at the junction with Coppice Road, which is really going to cause hold ups when Severn Trent dig up that road.

Increasing The Minimum Driving Age… Continued

16/10/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, DSA, News, Transport

I told you we hadn’t heard the last of this one. It’s going to run, and run… and then run some more. Especially with driving instructors like this opening their mouths.

In spite of almost every organisation welcoming the changes at least in part (though the AA’s spokesman and president is so far removed from reality his views are highly misleading), this driving instructor from Wigan is against it.

But Pat Caulwell, of Gidlow Motoring School, said the recommendations would be punishing the majority of young drivers because of the irresponsible actions of the few.

As I’ve pointed out many times, driving instructors are not usually the sweetest grapes on the bunch, and consequently Mr Caulwell appears incapable of understanding the concept of risk. Every single driver is a risk. Every single new driver is a bigger risk, and every single young new driver is a huge risk. The accident statistics prove it, and it’s why insurance premiums are higher for young new drivers.

Risk is a probability, not a certainty. If you look at something like a coin toss, where the probability (or risk) of a head or tail is 50:50, then this would equate to a young driver having the same risk of an accident as an experienced one. However, although they only make up 12% of the driving population, they account for 25% of all road deaths and serious accidents – just imagine how many they’d account for if they made up 50% of the driving population! If you compare that to a coin toss, you’re going to be coming up with tails a lot more than heads..

People like Caulwell need to get a grip and face up to the reality that young drivers are a huge risk. Even if the majority manage not to have accidents, they still could. A significant minority do – and since we’re talking about fatalities here, there is much more at stake than a paltry 5 minutes of fame in an obscure rag for someone who doesn’t understand what he’s talking about.

One in five young drivers have an accident of some sort within the first six months of passing their test. Carrying three passengers triples the underlying accident risk. With these fact staring you in the face, airtime should not given to people like Caulwell, who clearly haven’t got a clue. And to hell with namby-pamby nonsense like “working shifts” and “looking for a job”. No one should be allowed to endanger someone else’s life just so they can “work shifts”. When I was younger, I went through several periods of not being able to run a car, but I still got to work whenever I needed to.

A licence is a privilege, not a right. A car is a luxury, not a necessity.

American Roundabouts

13/10/2013

DOAADI

ADI, News, Transport, World

Almost two years ago, I wrote about North-American Roundabouts, and how they were becoming more popular to the extent that websites about them were appearing. Even back then, some American states were whingeing that they were a “European import” and that they increased accidents. The Americans appear to be even worse than the Brits when it comes to grabbing the wrong end of the snake.

Just because people are stupid doesn’t mean that it is wrong to expect them to do things – even new things – that are better and safer for everyone overall. And using roundabouts is a good example, since they’re are designed to improve traffic flow in congested areas. But how do you prove that they actually work to people – in this case, an entire nation – who are frightened of them?

Whenever I’m doing the first roundabouts lesson with a pupil I always explain how and why roundabouts keep traffic flowing, whereas simple crossroads (light-controlled or otherwise) don’t. I just explain logically – and it’s enough – but given the Americans’ preference for rigid and inflexible rules (that was the Wall Street Journal’s conclusion in that previous article), more proof is obviously needed for them.

There’s a TV show called Mythbusters (if you search this site you’ll find several stories involving it). They go into detail in proving or disproving common beliefs about everyday things – anything from things which happen in action movies to normal things like traffic accidents. According to this recent news story they have put roundabouts to the test under the premise that they are either “a curse or cure for congested intersections” (in the words of the news item I’ve linked to). The story is brand new, so I would imagine it’ll be a little while before we see the show over here.

Apparently, they have compared a “4-stop intersection” (so, more or less equivalent to a light-controlled junction in UK-speak) with a roundabout. The found that the light-controlled junction averaged 385 vehicles over a 15-minute period compared to 460 vehicles for the roundabout over a similar period. Or in other words, the roundabout allowed 20% more traffic through. The news article, in The Detroit News, concludes:

There are a lot of drivers out there who fear and loathe roundabouts, mainly because they don’t understand them…

…Roundabouts eliminate T-bone and front end crashes. Any crash that does occur is minor because speeds inside roundabouts are usually limited to 25 mph and both vehicles are traveling in the same direction.

The story finishes by referring to how many roundabouts there are in certain cities – they count them in the low tens – and advises that more are coming.

So, roundabouts do improve traffic flow. Someone from America should come over and explain that to the idiots responsible for the “improvements” to Nottingham’s Ring Road, and the Tramicide in Clifton. They’re taking roundabouts out and replacing them with… yep, you guessed it. Traffic lights.

Nottingham City Council is committed to making life as hard as possible for the motorist, while simultaneously introducing absolutely anything that the spotty faced interns from the year’s graduate intake thinks might benefit pedestrians. I note from the Aspley Lane work that although the road is down to one lane (with huge tailbacks) this weekend, they’ve done the important stuff already and installed tactile paving for the dozens of crossings that the junction will now include (it had one before), and that’s even before they’ve built the pavements! And it’s all for the school 200 metres down the road, and for the nearby zoo (sorry, I mean the Broxtowe Estate), not for the tens of thousands of motorists who travel along the Ring Road each day on important business.

You can watch the Mythbusters segment here.

Increasing The Learning Age – Update

11/10/2013

DOAADI

ADI, Bad Drivers, Driving Tests, DSA, News, Transport

Another hot story is the one about raising the age at which people can take their tests to 18. As I mentioned in this article, there are plans to introduce a graded licence system and to introduce various restrictions on new drivers. So it is a little surprising to hear what the AA president, Edmund King, has to say after casting doubt on the plan:

What we’d like to see is to teach people to drive more carefully before they pass their test.

I think Mr King is about as far above the actual process of teaching “people to drive” as it’s possible to get. In other words, totally out of touch with reality. No one down at the sharp end with an ounce of intelligence would believe it were that simple. It’s wishy-washy nonsense.

The fact – and it IS a fact, Mr King – is that new drivers have already been taught how to drive properly. They’ve already been taught how to drive carefully. The fact that they do not is down to their experience, maturity, and upbringing. It is impossible to reconcile the first two without the passage of time. Experience takes time to develop, as does maturity.

The most mature 17-year old in the world could still be involved in an accident because of inexperience. And the most experienced 17-year old (if such existed) could still have an accident as a result of immaturity. It is a basic Law of Nature. It has held true since the first written records of human history, and it has persisted until the present.

And still you get people who think that a few namby-pamby words can make it all all right.

New drivers need to be kept out of certain high-risk situations until they have developed experience and maturity. It’s not as if these new proposals want to wrap them in cotton wool or anything – the aim is just to keep cars full of immature prats off the roads, especially at night, in the face of overwhelming evidence to support it.