Next Mayor of London

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

Never mind the type of bus.

Why are buses allowed to ignore yellow box junctions? This one of my particular hate-filled rants.

AND: do buses have a place in a modern city?

The more I think about it the more it seems to me stupid to have cycle lanes and bus routes on the same road.

Especially when you realise that on some streets, the only traffic is cyclists, black cabs and a MASSIVE queue of buses all trying to pull out past each other at the same time. If we ever meet up at the Morpeth, I confidently predict that we'll end up in a an increasingly bitter shared rant at the evils of the London bus.

notsoblue

Anti-bus? Really? While I only ever seem to use them when I'm drunk and the tube is shut, I'm pretty glad they're there. Loads of people rely on them. Though admittedly there are some situations where they're worse than useless. I used to live just off of Fulham Palace Road and if there was any traffic along there it was quicker to walk than get the bus. Its not perfect, but I do think they're necessary in a city. More so than private cars.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

Anti-bus? Really? While I only ever seem to use them when I'm drunk and the tube is shut, I'm pretty glad they're there. Loads of people rely on them. Though admittedly there are some situations where they're worse than useless. I used to live just off of Fulham Palace Road and if there was any traffic along there it was quicker to walk than get the bus. Its not perfect, but I do think they're necessary in a city. More so than private cars.

Perhaps I should clarify: it's not so much the buses as those that drive them - or at least sit in the driver's seat. They are streets ahead, in terms of frequency and coverage, of, say, Bristol, but the standard of driving is just appalling sometimes given that they are supposed to be specially trained.

DonDaddyD

In short bus drivers are c*nts. Yes, all of them.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

Anti-bus? Really? While I only ever seem to use them when I'm drunk and the tube is shut, I'm pretty glad they're there. Loads of people rely on them. Though admittedly there are some situations where they're worse than useless. I used to live just off of Fulham Palace Road and if there was any traffic along there it was quicker to walk than get the bus. Its not perfect, but I do think they're necessary in a city. More so than private cars.

Perhaps something smaller - 20 seater maybe - has a place in a modern city. But not the things we have. They have roughly the same footprint as a cement mixer, and the double deckers are taller. They are simply TOO BIG. Case in point: look at Oxford Street, which is almost devoted (W of Oxford Circus) to buses. On the few occasions I go there I see queues of the things going nowhere, because the one at the front is picking up, and all of the rest are too big to go round. Nutty.

And bus lanes? Pass the flame thrower. Too many of them with hours and days of operation that are impossible to justify. So it's a real joy when the bus drivers decide that they would rather use the regular road. Even though the bus lane is empty.

The popular image of "London's red buses" has a lot answer for. Any mayoral candidate who pledged a root and branch overhaul of buses in London would get my vote.

notsoblue

What do you think about Boris' new bus design, G66?

Agree about impracticality, at busy times buses in London are quite useless on many routes.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

What do you think about Boris' new bus design, G66?

Agree about impracticality, at busy times buses in London are quite useless on many routes.

I haven't seen one in the flesh. From what I've read, three sets of doors (questionable though whether the rear set will be left open whilst on the move - I'd be amazed if it was) and two staircases.

For me, anything that shortens the time that a bus stands still is a good thing.

Will these do that? Hard to say. When I were a nipper Routemasters were still in widespread use. Their successors were much slower due to the time spent paying the driver as you got on. Season tickets and Oyster cards and what not don't seem to have improved that link in the chain. Routemasters still seem (at least in the memory) to have the speed of an F1 pitstop vs a fill of a 90 litre tank at the local Shell station.

A pretty fundamental problem - the sheer footprint of the things - remains though.

sketchley

Bus Driver. Some aren't that bad but two recent classics I've had are

One bus driver having pulled out in front of me having been (as far as he said anyway) "flashed out" by another car, told me in no uncertain terms that it was in fact my responsibility to ensure the lane he was pulling in to was clear and not his and I should go and read the highway code.

Only a couple of days ago a bus driver bibbed at me when behind then overtook and pulled in to bus stop left hooking me (almost) in the process. When I shook my head he opened window and told me he only bibbed to let me know what he was about to do. Muppet.

As I said though most are ok and will wait for cyclist to come passed before pulling out, it much worse when driving a car, bus will simply just pull out. Noticeable difference on a bike.

mybreakfastconsisted

Labour candidate Ken Livingstone today vowed to change traffic lights at all junctions to give cyclists a five-second head-start over other traffic. And green lights for cyclists are being considered by Boris Johnson at Bow, where two cyclists were killed last year.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... -safety.do

I haven't heard Ken say much about cycling before now.

sketchley

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Labour candidate Ken Livingstone today vowed to change traffic lights at all junctions to give cyclists a five-second head-start over other traffic. And green lights for cyclists are being considered by Boris Johnson at Bow, where two cyclists were killed last year.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... -safety.do

I haven't heard Ken say much about cycling before now.

Nice idea, but will only work if cyclist can get to front and the ASL / junction isn't blocked. However I'm not sure they can do this without changes in the road traffic act to allow the extra signals (or indeed permission for cyclist to jump the red for motorist), unless that is there's a separate lane put in on the left for cyclist only with different light control, but then you get a horrid problem if both lanes are on green and a car is turning left.....

Personally if they want my vote they could commit to make key routes into and out of London motor vehicle free during rush hour, or ban HGV from central London in rush hour or make the Dartford crossing free so less HGV traffic comes through the centre, or start enforcing mandatory cycle lanes and ASLs effectively, or simply make a commitment to fast uninterrupted cycles lanes designed to make the cyclist flow freely and not the motorist, or maybe banning right turns (or left for that matter) on to of from superhighways except at traffic light junctions, or changing red route enforcement so that black cabs, mini cabs and good vehicles don't have an exemption, or look at introducing strict liability, or simply pledge to stop the priority on traffic flow being given to motor vehicles, I could go on....

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

In short bus drivers are c*nts. Yes, all of them.

A very accurate profile. Its almost as if you met my sister's ex-husband!

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

Nice idea, but will only work if cyclist can get to front and the ASL / junction isn't blocked. However I'm not sure they can do this without changes in the road traffic act to allow the extra signals (or indeed permission for cyclist to jump the red for motorist), unless that is there's a separate lane put in on the left for cyclist only with different light control, but then you get a horrid problem if both lanes are on green and a car is turning left.....

Yes, I agree. It sounds like a nice idea when delivered as a one sentence vow, but I think it would be rather different in real life. Can't see how it can be done at pelicans.

Plus where is the money going to come from to add additional, differently phased lights to every set of traffic lights in London?

I also suspect that given Ken's form for mucking around with traffic light phasing, he see this as an easy way to increase the period of red at each set of lights he can get at in order to bugger up the traffic even more.

notsoblue

I'm not sure that (in Central London) there are enough slow cyclists, or that traffic is moving fast enough to make the 5-second head start idea a good solution to the problem that they're trying to solve. Sounds to me like it will result in situations where you have 10-20 motorists all being held up for 5 vital seconds at a junction just for a single cyclist.

mybreakfastconsisted

Greg66 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

I also suspect that given Ken's form for mucking around with traffic light phasing, he see this as an easy way to increase the period of red at each set of lights he can get at in order to bugger up the traffic even more.

Urban myth. The re-phasing of traffic lights began in 1992 to bring London’s signals in line with national
standards for pedestrian crossings. Yhere have been widespread suggestions London Mayor Ken Livingstone deliberately made congestion worse in the run-up to the charge by adjusting traffic light phases and embarking on major roadwork schemes.

In fact, the lights were changed to keep traffic out of Trafalgar Square during improvement work and the roadworks were part of long-term major schemes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2749187.stm

mybreakfastconsisted

Cyclists would have a five-second head-start on other traffic at dangerous junctions and all cycle lanes would be reviewed for safety if Ken Livingstone is re-elected as Mayor of London.
Mr Livingstone made his pledge as the Times campaign for safer cycling amassed a total of 25,000 written pledges of support, and more than 1,300 letters were written to MPs urging them to support the campaign and attend a parliamentary debate.
Greater Manchester Police also gave their backing to the campaign, joining a growing list of politicians, celebrities and businesses who support the call for “Cities fit for cycling”.
A debate in the House of Lords this week also suggested that ministers consider mimicking a new scheme in Paris that would allow cyclists in Britain to run through red lights if they are turning left at a T-junction.
About 70 per cent of cycling fatalities are at junctions and many occur when cyclists are forced to pull away from green lights alongside lorries whose drivers do not see cyclists in their blind spots.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 315346.ece

sketchley

http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/ken-livingstone

http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/boris-johnson

http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/brian-paddick

And even though he's not standing for Mayor (I hope) http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/bob-crow

notsoblue

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Cyclists would have a five-second head-start on other traffic at dangerous junctions and all cycle lanes would be reviewed for safety if Ken Livingstone is re-elected as Mayor of London.
Mr Livingstone made his pledge as the Times campaign for safer cycling amassed a total of 25,000 written pledges of support, and more than 1,300 letters were written to MPs urging them to support the campaign and attend a parliamentary debate.
Greater Manchester Police also gave their backing to the campaign, joining a growing list of politicians, celebrities and businesses who support the call for “Cities fit for cycling”.
A debate in the House of Lords this week also suggested that ministers consider mimicking a new scheme in Paris that would allow cyclists in Britain to run through red lights if they are turning left at a T-junction.
About 70 per cent of cycling fatalities are at junctions and many occur when cyclists are forced to pull away from green lights alongside lorries whose drivers do not see cyclists in their blind spots.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 315346.ece

Thats some pretty shameless band-wagon jumping electioneering... And it doesn't really even offer a rational solution to the problem.

mybreakfastconsisted

And The Times campaign is a shameless ruse to sell papers. I couldn't give a flying flip so long as the roads are made safer.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I also suspect that given Ken's form for mucking around with traffic light phasing, he see this as an easy way to increase the period of red at each set of lights he can get at in order to bugger up the traffic even more.

Urban myth. The re-phasing of traffic lights began in 1992 to bring London’s signals in line with national
standards for pedestrian crossings. Yhere have been widespread suggestions London Mayor Ken Livingstone deliberately made congestion worse in the run-up to the charge by adjusting traffic light phases and embarking on major roadwork schemes.

In fact, the lights were changed to keep traffic out of Trafalgar Square during improvement work and the roadworks were part of long-term major schemes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2749187.stm

Not an urban myth. An established fact.

Two years ago former mayor Ken Livingstone was accused by the RAC Foundation and the Tories of rephasing lights to slow down traffic and force people out of their cars and onto other forms of transport.

TfL said the move was to assist pedestrians and ensure the smooth introduction of the extension to the congestion charge zone.

Both your quote and mine show that the lights *were* rephased by Ken prior to the CC coming in, to favour pedestrians.

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I couldn't give a flying flip so long as the roads are made safer.

Will a five second headstart do that? At the moment cars tend to speed off from traffic lights because they can't. They are swamped by slower moving cyclists. Give the cyclists a headstart and the area around the cars will be clear when the lights go green. They will be free to accelerate, meaning that now when they pass the cyclists they will be travelling much faster than previously.

Ken doesn't cycle, does he? How has be established what's good for cyclists in London? He has previously said he wants us licensed and wearing plates, and wants helmets to be compulsory (presumably more to kill Boris bikes stone dead - way to waste money Kenny!). He doesn't sound much like the cyclist's saviour.

mybreakfastconsisted

Greg66 wrote:

Not an urban myth. An established fact.

It's an established fact that the RAC Foundation made the accusation.

It's also an established fact that the accusation's bollocks.

mybreakfastconsisted

For example, the saga of the changing of traffic
lights has become so embedded in urban myth that
it will probably never be overcome. (The truth is
traffic lights have been re-signalled over a long
period to bring pedestrian crossing-times in line
with a national standard – a process started by
the Conservative government in 1992.) Changing
traffic lights back and abolishing road-works have
be come “s e r ious” al t e rnat ive s to conge s t ion
charging, but as Professor Begg states: “if it was
simply a case of tweaking the traffic lights and
trying to keep traffic flowing, getting rid of vans
that are parked on yellow lines, it would be a lot
easier…. we cannot get away from the fact that
the basic problem here is too many vehicles chasing
too little road space.”

http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/ ... estion.pdf

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Not an urban myth. An established fact.

It's an established fact that the RAC Foundation made the accusation.

It's also an established fact that the accusation's bollocks.

This is the bit you're having trouble with

TfL said the move was to assist pedestrians and ensure the smooth introduction of the extension to the congestion charge zone.

It is conceded by TFL that they did it, and that it was to hold traffic on red lights for longer.


The source of the material you're finding is an answer given by Livingstone himself in 2002 at the London Assembly: http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/sup ... do?id=2268

If you choose to accept that answer as true, good for you. Many might regard it as a politician's self serving answer. Many might also marvel at how wonky eyed you have to be to consider that the Traf Sq redesign is a success for traffic.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

Ken doesn't cycle, does he? How has be established what's good for cyclists in London? He has previously said he wants us licensed and wearing plates, and wants helmets to be compulsory (presumably more to kill Boris bikes stone dead - way to waste money Kenny!). He doesn't sound much like the cyclist's saviour.

+1, Bit OT, but the bit in bold is the primary reason why cycle facilities in London aren't as good as they can be. The people who make the policy and plan the infrastructure just don't cycle.

mybreakfastconsisted

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Not an urban myth. An established fact.

It's an established fact that the RAC Foundation made the accusation.

It's also an established fact that the accusation's bollocks.

This is the bit you're having trouble with

TfL said the move was to assist pedestrians and ensure the smooth introduction of the extension to the congestion charge zone.

It is conceded by TFL that they did it, and that it was to hold traffic on red lights for longer.


The source of the material you're finding is an answer given by Livingstone himself in 2002 at the London Assembly: http://www.london.gov.uk/mqt/public/sup ... do?id=2268

If you choose to accept that answer as true, good for you. Many might regard it as a politician's self serving answer. Many might also marvel at how wonky eyed you have to be to consider that the Traf Sq redesign is a success for traffic.

From your own link:

Ken Livingstone:

I can bring before the Assembly, if you want, a person in our Traffic Unit who was there during GLC days, before I was Leader, has stayed there all the way through all the political changes of control since and he will tell you that the re-phasing of traffic lights to increase the pedestrian phase by two to five seconds, was a decision taken in 1992. The work started in 1992 and has been going on ever since. He will also tell you that the impact of this on traffic flow is fairly minimal.

You claimed:

Greg66 wrote:

I also suspect that given Ken's form for mucking around with traffic light phasing, he see this as an easy way to increase the period of red at each set of lights he can get at in order to bugger up the traffic even more.

You think Ken was mayor in 1992?

notsoblue

Does it really matter about the traffic lights?

mybreakfastconsisted

notsoblue wrote:

Does it really matter about the traffic lights?

When the congestion charge was mooted an awful lot of scare stories were published under Wadley at the old Standard. Dishonest guff from motoring lobby groups like the RAC Foundation abounded, estate agents were quoted as saying house prices would collapse, the sky would turn blood-red and we'd all end up eating horses like in that film:

We Ended Up Eating Horses.

It's a load of old bum gravy swallowed by the gullible and malcontents.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

You think Ken was mayor in 1992?

Even you cannot honestly believe that it takes 10 years to rephase London's traffic lights.

"Work has been going on" means "this has been on someone's to do list and as such has been "under review"* since 1992". When it suited Livingstone to pull it out of the long grass and implement the changes, they were implemented.


* Meaning "not formally rejected, but not being acted upon either"

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

Does it really matter about the traffic lights?

A mayorial candidate is attempting to win votes by claiming that he will rephase lights in favour of cyclists.

He's not a cyclist, he doesn't like cyclists particularly, it's unclear whether it would improve safety for cyclists, and he's got form for using lights to deter motorists, who, in a particularly chippy way, he hates.

So one might conclude that a mayorial candidate is on this occasion being particularly disingenuous.

Not that he was ever in any danger of getting my vote, mind.

jzed

notsoblue wrote:

Does it really matter about the traffic lights?

Yeah some fecker has been mucking about with the traffic lights along my racetrack. Does it slow me down - yes. Does it slow down everyhting else yes.

NKR has been fecked the last week. Only explanation seems to be someone titting around with the traffic light sequencing.

I'm curious as to why suddenly all these lights are going on red more often and staying on red for longer when there is no fecking traffic or pedestrians around.

Only logical conclusion is Wrath Ron has paid someone to slow me down.

mybreakfastconsisted

Greg66 wrote:

When it suited Livingstone to pull it out of the long grass and implement the changes, they were implemented.

Got any evidence for that?

First you claimed Ken had form for tampering with traffic lights. Your own link shows it had begun long before he was elected. Now you claim Ken rushed it through.

The coverage in the London Evening Standard was perhaps the most extraordinary, given its formal editorial position of support for the charge. The cutting edge of its attack was the "discovery" in March 2002 of "the great traffic light conspiracy". This was the theory that London's traffic lights were being fixed in order to increase congestion in the run-up to the scheme. They would then be unfixed to ease congestion after charging began.

Analysing the Standard's coverage of the "conspiracy" reveals some of the less savoury tricks of the British media trade. First, the conspiracy was never properly sourced. The paper's first report attributed the story to a "source" without indicating anything about the source's reliability or seniority. Subsequently the story was sourced back to the paper itself - the "conspiracy" was usually described as "first revealed by the Evening Standard".

In fact, the source was probably a Tory member of the London Assembly after a briefing from Transport for London that either she, or the Standard reporter, misunderstood. But Livingstone couldn't win. Admit that there was a conspiracy, and he would be deceiving the people of London. Insist there was no conspiracy, and he was "refusing to come clean". The mayor was either guilty or guilty.

[/quote]

The Great Traffic Light Conspiracy:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200405170011