|
Post by marlon101 on Jun 29, 2015 19:15:13 GMT
Worth remembering that this is a trialIt is indeed a trial but there is a political backdrop to all of this. The wider context is one of a public perception, albeit it stirred up by a minority, that buses go round killing and maiming pedestrians and cyclists. This initiative of relying more on technology than trained staff probably gives the critics a "warm feeling" but I fear it will be short lived. The not yet formally published TfL press release says this initiative is part of TfL's Pedestrian Safety Action Plan which strikes me as existing so TfL can say "it is doing something" rather than doing nothing. I'm not convinced that removing an element of control from professional drivers is the right way forward. I am also not convinced that potentially slowing down the bus service even more does anything to make it attractive to passengers. We're not talking here about endorsing speeding by drivers but more a recognition that making drivers ever slower and more cautious and more and more 20 mph borough wide limits will increase journey times. This in turn means more buses needed to run a given level of service which then means more budget to deliver an essentially worse service. I don't see a lot of sense in policies that are making rail ever faster and more convenient and buses ever slower and less economically efficient. It strikes me as a case of "TfL shooting itself in the foot" with the bus network and the way it relates to other modes - cycle works cause huge congestion and worsen the service, even when complete the cycle lanes may slow the bus service down permanently and we have the possibility of this technology also slowing down the bus service. At this rate the promised extra funding for improvements and extra capacity will be eaten up by having to fund more buses to run a slower existing service. It might be nice to have a positive alignment of policies rather than one that causes conflicts. Your argument makes sense. This wasn't necessarily the argument I was objecting to. I have no issues with slowing down buses, where appropriate, to existing speed limits. This is, essentially, what this device is for. Not slowing buses beyond their expected performance at present. That ought to be clear. Where you could take issue with this, if one were to glaze over the above point, is the lack of an integrated transport strategy for London. Buses in particular do not seem to have any strategic direction (unless you call the BorisMonster one?) and London as a whole is dragged for electoral reasons towards the issue of cycling. Short-term political demand suggests we will not see a correction made - buses are not sexy enough to win votes (though they can easily lose them). My road safety policy, if I was TfL and wanting to be seen to be doing something, would be to ban undertaking by cycles. This would save an extraordinary number of lives and make life considerably easier for all road users. A rule would be clear & we'd see a lot less of this nonsense where cyclists are putting themselves on the inside of vehicles & getting squashed. Forgive the arrogance, but I genuinely do not see the hole in my plan. Cyclist deaths would plummet if this were to be implemented. However this doesn't fit with the airy fairy notion of cycling as a free and green adventure where the considerate should be able to use the road without any regulation. If one accepts that the reality has changed, cycling is a big thing with an impact on transport infrastructure, we might seek to govern it more effectively and thus integrate it into the existing transport world more effectively. Instead our fanciful admiration for the free cycling spirit prevents common sense from taking place. It ought to. Cyclists rarely exercise any for themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 8:48:40 GMT
I think this trail in introducing speed intelligence technology on London Buses is a ludicrous idea because it's an established fact that RTC's happen all the time due to drivers driving too slow rather than driving too fast (usually cars). Elaborating on my point, there isn't much accidents with bus drivers going too fast as there's already a speed restriction in place in most boroughs of 20mph to prevent accidents from happening and even if it does happen it's not very common as bus drivers are trained properly to drive Londoners around. The good thing about this project of TFL's is that this is a trail. I genuinely hope that this project of TFL doesn't go ahead as we already have speed restrictions on most of London's road and by having this speed intelligence technology it would make our roads potentially even slower; it also feels like TFL are insulting bus drivers that they're not capable of driving on London's road when they're more than enough capable of doing so. I feel that the money used for this projection should be spent on addressing the issue with cycling in London as it isn't safe enough. We should invest in technology to make HGVs more safer on London's roads and introduce more cycle segregation. Yes, I acknowledge that the problem with cycling in London isn't already the drivers fault as you could have cyclist putting themselves at risk by putting themselves in blind spots etc. Pedantic hat on so apologies - only three London boroughs have a blanket 20mph limit in place (Camden, Islington & Southwark). So do Tower Hamlets (excluding most red routes)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 9:06:10 GMT
I think cycle improvement works are definitely a good thing. If cycling is safer then more people will be encouraged to cycle thus reducing the number of motorists and public transport passengers. In the long term traffic levels will go down as more people start cycling. I'm disappointed that it's taken this long but at least it's finally happening.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Jun 30, 2015 9:34:58 GMT
I think cycle improvement works are definitely a good thing. If cycling is safer then more people will be encouraged to cycle thus reducing the number of motorists and public transport passengers. In the long term traffic levels will go down as more people start cycling. I'm disappointed that it's taken this long but at least it's finally happening. No, I don't think cycling will replace public transport/cars to the extent you think it will. I'd rather do my daily Welling to Harrow journey in nice air-conditioned buses and trains thanks. I don't think it's possible to cycle up Shooter's Hill anyway. I fail to take cycling seriously as means of getting around the city; cycling for recreational reasons is different.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Jun 30, 2015 9:52:06 GMT
I think cycle improvement works are definitely a good thing. If cycling is safer then more people will be encouraged to cycle thus reducing the number of motorists and public transport passengers. In the long term traffic levels will go down as more people start cycling. I'm disappointed that it's taken this long but at least it's finally happening. If cycling numbers are to increase then educating the cyclists MUST MUST go hand in hand. I've just returned home from Kingston, along the Portsmouth Road which can only be classified as single lane. 3(!!!) cyclists riding abreast. Yesterday at the New Malden roundabout by the bus stand, a woman cyclists so close to a an artic I had this dread of what was to happen. Fortunately she dismounted and crossed the road. We've all seen and had experiences like this. The army doesn't hand out rifles without training going hand in hand. And a bike is a weapon. Kinetic energy of a 10 stone man riding at 30mph hitting an OAP.Frightening.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jun 30, 2015 10:45:00 GMT
I think cycle improvement works are definitely a good thing. If cycling is safer then more people will be encouraged to cycle thus reducing the number of motorists and public transport passengers. In the long term traffic levels will go down as more people start cycling. I'm disappointed that it's taken this long but at least it's finally happening. No, I don't think cycling will replace public transport/cars to the extent you think it will. I'd rather do my daily Welling to Harrow journey in nice air-conditioned buses and trains thanks. I don't think it's possible to cycle up Shooter's Hill anyway. I fail to take cycling seriously as means of getting around the city; cycling for recreational reasons is different. I agree, London is not a city where cycling should be taken seriously to the extent that it would even remotely be presented as an alternative means of transport, it's hardly Amsterdam. Apart from the obvious 'around the corner' trip, leisure and recreational reasons, London is hardly built for such an activity and I find the insistence in encouraging more to cycle ridiculous given the potential 'dangers' imposed on cyclists which they always seem to have an excuse about.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 30, 2015 13:32:58 GMT
I think cycle improvement works are definitely a good thing. If cycling is safer then more people will be encouraged to cycle thus reducing the number of motorists and public transport passengers. In the long term traffic levels will go down as more people start cycling. I'm disappointed that it's taken this long but at least it's finally happening. If cycling replaced cars, a journey time on a bus would increase as buses would be stuck in bunches of cyclists. What's needs to be done is to reduce the number of people using cars in London by improving public transport rather than pouring endless amounts of money into cycle projects which actually just cause more congestion and inconvenience.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Jun 30, 2015 14:02:24 GMT
I never went over the speed limit when I was in service so this wouldn't have affected me.
But
One thing I can see happening is drivers won't be bothered about the speed they will just floor it and ride the limiter so rather than driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions they'll be driving on the limiter.
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Jun 30, 2015 16:00:30 GMT
I never went over the speed limit when I was in service so this wouldn't have affected me. But One thing I can see happening is drivers won't be bothered about the speed they will just floor it and ride the limiter so rather than driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions they'll be driving on the limiter. And when the speed limit changes, VROOM *Lurches forward and has an accident*.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Jun 30, 2015 20:13:01 GMT
I think cycle improvement works are definitely a good thing. If cycling is safer then more people will be encouraged to cycle thus reducing the number of motorists and public transport passengers. In the long term traffic levels will go down as more people start cycling. I'm disappointed that it's taken this long but at least it's finally happening. No, I don't think cycling will replace public transport/cars to the extent you think it will. I'd rather do my daily Welling to Harrow journey in nice air-conditioned buses and trains thanks. I don't think it's possible to cycle up Shooter's Hill anyway. I fail to take cycling seriously as means of getting around the city; cycling for recreational reasons is different. I think your circumstances mean you're not minded to take cycling as a 'utility' option seriously. Welling into London over Shooters Hill, let alone Harrow, is a hike. But in a bigger sense I just don't think it's in the culture out there. Cycling isn't just seen as not being a logical option, it is actively looked down on and people who take up the activity - whether they do it courteously and within the letter of the law or not - are poorly regarded on the road as a single entity. There is a big, big divide in London between suburban areas where it isn't in the culture save for a few 'MAMIL's* and kids, and Inner London where a lot of people are a comfortable 30-or-less minute ride to their work and exorbitant rents mean half of their wages go on housing costs, so an extra £25 on a travelcard is not an attractive proposition, the net effect being that numbers through areas like Islington and Hackney are very high and it is in the culture there. I live my life with one foot in each world and the lack of understanding (in both directions) is a constant source of frustration for me. I fail to see the distinction between the anti-bike sentiment prevalent in outer London and the anti bus sentiment prevalent in places like Surrey which is so entrenched that the few services that do run in the rural parts of the country are subsidised to the eyeballs. But ultimately neither are regarded 'seriously', they are both things 'other people' do and 'we don't'. And both suffer for it in their own way as a result. My strong suspicion is that the demographic changes, especially in Inner London, mean that cycling numbers are going to continue to creep up regardless of what infrastructure is put in - or not. You can either cater to their needs and their safety concerns or you don't. Give them lanes, give them segregation where it can be achieved, get them out of the way of other road vehicles where possible, keep traffic flow predictable. Probably slightly slower overall with a few lanes taken out for segregation etc, but it is at least predictable and life can carry on around it. And hopefully fewer people will end up under tipper lorries.
|
|
|
Post by daveb0789 on Jul 5, 2015 17:41:51 GMT
Just my thoughts. I think the number of bus stops should be reduced to allow journey times to be reduced. Fares should be reduced to make it ludicrously cheap to travel by bus compared with the tube. That might encourage cyclists who normally cycle onto buses instead of cycling usually to save money.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 5, 2015 17:49:21 GMT
Just my thoughts. I think the number of bus stops should be reduced to allow journey times to be reduced. Fares should be reduced to make it ludicrously cheap to travel by bus compared with the tube. That might encourage cyclists who normally cycle onto buses instead of cycling usually to save money. So you make the bus network less convenient by removing stops and increasing walking distances to stops and you also increase subsidy and expect people on bikes to give up using cycles? I don't think you understand the psyche of people who cycle out of choice. Part of their reasoning is that a cycle gives door to door transport at low cost. Your bus policy is almost the antithesis of cyclist preferences so would fail to attract them on to the bus. You are also worsening the bus service for people who rely on relatively short distances to stops. The elderly, mums with children and people who are lugging shopping would just love you - not! You would also put TfL in breach of its own guidelines because more homes would be more than 400m away from a bus stop. Doing this would mean TfL would need to run more services to fill in the gaps which would cost money it doesn't have. That's the economics of the mad house. One final note is that Sir Peter Hendy expects there to be no operating grant for any TfL services by 2019. Quite how anyone expects there to be a functional bus network with £400m less subsidy per year I do not understand.
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Jul 5, 2015 18:23:05 GMT
Just my thoughts. I think the number of bus stops should be reduced to allow journey times to be reduced. Fares should be reduced to make it ludicrously cheap to travel by bus compared with the tube. That might encourage cyclists who normally cycle onto buses instead of cycling usually to save money. I don't think you'd lure folk away from their bicycles with the carrot of cheap, fast buses. My guess is that many people initially turn to cycling in London as a way of saving money but it is the speed and convenience that keeps them on the road through all seasons and after a few pay rises. Now I am out of the mindset of splashing out £20-30 a week on a bus pass/travelcard it looks like very poor value compared to the marginal running costs of a bicycle. If you hit a windfall it would go on a nicer bike above a season ticket. You'd also need to trim a hell of a lot of time off the typical bus journey to make it attractive - although the average travelling speed of an express bus and a bicycle might be comparable there's still no competition on door-to-door times. Taking my own (cycle) commute as an example, I can get from South Tottenham to Lincoln's Inn for 8:55 as long as I am out of the door by 8:30. If I took the tube that would need to be 8:15, by bus I'd guess 8:00. If I sustained an injury or for some other reason needed to return public transport for my commute then I'd go for the tube first - bus travel is definitely a third choice on most medium-distance (e.g. 2-3 zone) trips.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 26, 2015 7:38:34 GMT
I never went over the speed limit when I was in service so this wouldn't have affected me. But One thing I can see happening is drivers won't be bothered about the speed they will just floor it and ride the limiter so rather than driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions they'll be driving on the limiter. This would cause more accidents as drivers would then never check the speedo and almost constantly ride the limit, any accident they have they may not see themselves in the wrong and site the excuse they wasn't breaking the speed limit. This system is a load of bullocks. I even saw a 19 last week reach 30mph in the so called 20 zone. I also have a leaflet given to drivers about 3 months ago, I would try and post it here.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 26, 2015 7:42:55 GMT
Pedantic hat on so apologies - only three London boroughs have a blanket 20mph limit in place (Camden, Islington & Southwark). So do Tower Hamlets (excluding most red routes) Same Hackney. It is ridiculous they can waste money painting 20 on the roads, but they have ridiculous road surfaces. To me it seems the councils with the crapest road layouts and surfaces do this. Tower Hamlets a toilet compared to other boroughs, the WORST in London imo. I have complained and they seem to be the worst to repaint white lining, and also dealing with pot holes and subsidence. There are places where even stop lines at traffic lights have completely faded and they would not repaint them. But yet a farce comes up to repaint 20mph and always the yellow lines as it brings them revenue.
|
|