| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:26:46 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
24 files (29,813K bytes) |
| Messages: | 176,483 |
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads instead.
boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless: >>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads
instead.
It seems the County Council did not give operators sufficient notice,
which means operators did not have the statutory 56 days to announce timetable changes to the Traffic Commissioners. It means that everyone, including Stagecoach's own website, are showing incorrect timetables. Currently most are 35-45 mins late with the most-late bus running 1h06 late, which is pretty impressive on a route that's only 1h35 from end to end.
(it was 36 minutes by train in 1959; just sayin')
The County are saying 'what do you mean we didn't give notice, we gave 3 weeks, what more do you want?'... without the slightest bit of
understanding of how bus licensing works.
Theo
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads instead.
On 06/10/2025 16:50, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless: >>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads
instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too? Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however misguided? Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the busway.
Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> wrote:
On 06/10/2025 16:50, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless: >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads
instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too? Surely a >> busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however misguided? Only
motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the busway.
The problem is that in places the path is both narrow and very close to the >busway. The path is also shared between cyclists and pedestrians.
Apparently bus wing mirrors had to be changed for cameras because of the
risk of them hitting pedestrians.
On 06/10/2025 16:50, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too? Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however misguided? Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the busway.
Isn't the speed limit just temporary until fencing works are complete on
the busway? (Which admittedly is going to take several months into 2026)
It does make me wonder though how the cost-benefit would stack up now
that all the costs of creating and operating are known in detail.
JohnD <general@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
Isn't the speed limit just temporary until fencing works are complete on
the busway? (Which admittedly is going to take several months into 2026)
'Completed by the end of 2026'
It does make me wonder though how the cost-benefit would stack up now
that all the costs of creating and operating are known in detail.
It would be interesting to compare the real-life costs with the real-life costs of alternatives. I suspect Edinburgh Trams may give them a run for their money in the overspend stakes. Has there been any other comparable tram project in say the last 20 years?
On 07/10/2025 12:18, Theo wrote:
JohnD <general@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
Isn't the speed limit just temporary until fencing works are complete on >>> the busway? (Which admittedly is going to take several months into 2026)
'Completed by the end of 2026'
It does make me wonder though how the cost-benefit would stack up now
that all the costs of creating and operating are known in detail.
It would be interesting to compare the real-life costs with the real-life
costs of alternatives. I suspect Edinburgh Trams may give them a run for
their money in the overspend stakes. Has there been any other comparable
tram project in say the last 20 years?
Nottingham phase 2 ?
On 06/10/2025 16:50, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless: >>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads
instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too?
Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however
misguided?
Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the >busway.
In message <p4sdrl-sq9.ln1@castle-combe.rilynn.me.uk>, at 23:24:05 on
Mon, 6 Oct 2025, Roger <usenet@rilynn.me.uk> remarked:
On 06/10/2025 16:50, boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless: >>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads
instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too?
Plenty of the roads which cross the busway are themselves 20mph.
Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however
misguided?
Except most of the passengers using the guided bus live nowhere near any
A road, let alone busy ones.
Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the
busway.
The safety problem with the busway is pedestrians and cyclists crossing
the "track" at random places without looking. Of course, you have the
same risk on A-roads (or even B-roads).
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless: >>>>
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads >>>> instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too?
Plenty of the roads which cross the busway are themselves 20mph.
Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however
misguided?
Except most of the passengers using the guided bus live nowhere near any
A road, let alone busy ones.
Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the
busway.
The safety problem with the busway is pedestrians and cyclists crossing
the "track" at random places without looking. Of course, you have the
same risk on A-roads (or even B-roads).
Two of the three killed were not crossing the track .
https://www.reddit.com/r/cambridge/comments/1l2n554/deaths_on_guided_busway/--
https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/04/16/council-fined-for-multiple-failures-on-guided-busway/
In message <10c3gff$12q8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:59 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more useless:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads >>>>> instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too?
Plenty of the roads which cross the busway are themselves 20mph.
Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however
misguided?
Except most of the passengers using the guided bus live nowhere near any >>> A road, let alone busy ones.
Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the
busway.
The safety problem with the busway is pedestrians and cyclists crossing
the "track" at random places without looking. Of course, you have the
same risk on A-roads (or even B-roads).
Two of the three killed were not crossing the track .
Being "seriously injured" is also a safety risk, last time I looked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cambridge/comments/1l2n554/deaths_on_guided_busway/ >>
https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/04/16/council-fined-for-multiple-failures-on-guided-busway/
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c3gff$12q8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:59 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more >>>>>>useless:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads >>>>>> instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too?
Plenty of the roads which cross the busway are themselves 20mph.
Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however
misguided?
Except most of the passengers using the guided bus live nowhere near any >>>> A road, let alone busy ones.
Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the >>>>> busway.
The safety problem with the busway is pedestrians and cyclists crossing >>>> the "track" at random places without looking. Of course, you have the
same risk on A-roads (or even B-roads).
Two of the three killed were not crossing the track .
Being "seriously injured" is also a safety risk, last time I looked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cambridge/comments/1l2n554/deaths_on_guided_busway/
https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/04/16/council-fined-for-multiple-failure >>>s-on-guided-busway/
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16 miles and >only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
In message <10c3j7r$13ibb$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:39:07 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c3gff$12q8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:59 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more >>>>>>useless:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads
instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too?
Plenty of the roads which cross the busway are themselves 20mph.
Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however
misguided?
Except most of the passengers using the guided bus live nowhere near any >>>> A road, let alone busy ones.
Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the >>>>> busway.
The safety problem with the busway is pedestrians and cyclists crossing >>>> the "track" at random places without looking. Of course, you have the >>>> same risk on A-roads (or even B-roads).
Two of the three killed were not crossing the track .
Being "seriously injured" is also a safety risk, last time I looked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cambridge/comments/1l2n554/deaths_on_guided_busway/
https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/04/16/council-fined-for-multiple-failure >>>s-on-guided-busway/
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16 miles and >only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16 miles and >> >only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with,
insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
In message <1759909898-2991@newsgrouper.org>, at 07:51:38 on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> remarked:
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16 miles and
only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with,
insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
Only a ban on very low powered ones using motorways and a handful of major roads.
In message <1759909898-2991@newsgrouper.org>, at 07:51:38 on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> remarked:
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16miles and
only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with,
insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
Only a ban on very low powered ones using motorways and a handful of
major roads.
In message <10c3j7r$13ibb$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:39:07 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c3gff$12q8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:59 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more >>>>>>> useless:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads >>>>>>> instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too?
Plenty of the roads which cross the busway are themselves 20mph.
Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however
misguided?
Except most of the passengers using the guided bus live nowhere near any >>>>> A road, let alone busy ones.
Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the >>>>>> busway.
The safety problem with the busway is pedestrians and cyclists crossing >>>>> the "track" at random places without looking. Of course, you have the >>>>> same risk on A-roads (or even B-roads).
Two of the three killed were not crossing the track .
Being "seriously injured" is also a safety risk, last time I looked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cambridge/comments/1l2n554/deaths_on_guided_busway/
https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/04/16/council-fined-for-multiple-failure >>>> s-on-guided-busway/
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16 miles and >> only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway every couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the busway
(eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red lights
at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken
to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number, so were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
ps. Perhaps you could also research the number of bus incidents
(including near-misses) on the unguided sections of the approximately 30 miles route the buses take from Hinchingbrooke to Trumpington.
On 08/10/2025 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1759909898-2991@newsgrouper.org>, at 07:51:38 on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> remarked:
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16miles and
only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >>> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
Only a ban on very low powered ones using motorways and a handful of
major roads.
Unusually, one road near me bans only larger motorbikes (over 125 cc).
The old Forth Road Bridge has become a busway but exempts smaller
bikes which can't use the replacement road because it is a motorway.
On 08/10/2025 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1759909898-2991@newsgrouper.org>, at 07:51:38 on Wed, 8
Oct 2025, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> remarked:
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16
miles and
only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >>>> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
Only a ban on very low powered ones using motorways and a handful of >>major roads.
And, of course, busways. Although I would not be surprised if ...
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway every >couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building >Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the busway
(eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red lights
at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken
to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number, so >were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
On 08/10/2025 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1759909898-2991@newsgrouper.org>, at 07:51:38 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> remarked:
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16 miles >and
only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >>>> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
Only a ban on very low powered ones using motorways and a handful of major >> roads.
And, of course, busways. Although I would not be surprised if ...
On 08/10/2025 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1759909898-2991@newsgrouper.org>, at 07:51:38 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> remarked:
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16miles and
only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >>>> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
Only a ban on very low powered ones using motorways and a handful of
major roads.
Unusually, one road near me bans only larger motorbikes (over 125 cc).
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:36:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with,
insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
How bikers get affordable or any insurance in the first place mystfies me given the fatality rate.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway every
couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building
Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the busway
(eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red lights
at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken
to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number, so
were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety seriously with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who were trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has normal traffic lights which they are.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an expensive white elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who green lit it will long be retired or dead.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:13:39 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1759909898-2991@newsgrouper.org>, at 07:51:38 on Wed, 8
Oct 2025, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> remarked:
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16miles and
only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to >>>>> start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three >>>>> deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin
with,
insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a >>>>> useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
Only a ban on very low powered ones using motorways and a handful of
major roads.
Unusually, one road near me bans only larger motorbikes (over 125 cc).
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod tries to catch them.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c3j7r$13ibb$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:39:07 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c3gff$12q8l$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:51:59 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Plenty of the roads which cross the busway are themselves 20mph.Looks like the useless guided busway is about to become even more >>>>>>>> useless:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y8zd153ljo
The operators would be better off just driving the buses on the A roads
instead.
Are they not reducing the speed limit on all the other roads too? >>>>>>
Surely a busy A road is far more dangerous than a busway, however >>>>>>> misguided?
Except most of the passengers using the guided bus live nowhere near any >>>>>> A road, let alone busy ones.
Only motorways are fenced to the standard apparently required for the >>>>>>> busway.
The safety problem with the busway is pedestrians and cyclists crossing >>>>>> the "track" at random places without looking. Of course, you have the >>>>>> same risk on A-roads (or even B-roads).
Two of the three killed were not crossing the track .
Being "seriously injured" is also a safety risk, last time I looked.
https://www.reddit.com/r/cambridge/comments/1l2n554/deaths_on_guided
https://press.hse.gov.uk/2025/04/16/council-fined-for-multiple-failure >>>>> s-on-guided-busway/
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16 miles and >>> only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to
start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three
deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with,
insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway every
couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building
Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the busway
(eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red lights
at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken
to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number, so
were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
ps. Perhaps you could also research the number of bus incidents
(including near-misses) on the unguided sections of the approximately 30
miles route the buses take from Hinchingbrooke to Trumpington.
Actually the death rate on the busway is about average. Brake assert an >average of 5 road deaths per day in the UK. ThatrCOs around 1800 per year. >There are about 30,000 miles of A roads. Assuming all road deaths occur on
A roads (an over estimate), thatrCOs 1800/30000 = 0.06 deaths per mile per >year. At 16 miles you get 1 death per year. Of course, not all deaths
happen on A roads, so this is an over estimate.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:36:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with,
insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
How bikers get affordable or any insurance in the first place mystfies me
given the fatality rate.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway every >>> couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building
Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the busway >>> (eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red lights >>> at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken
to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number, so >>> were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety seriously
with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who were
trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has normal >> traffic lights which they are.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an expensive white >> elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who green >> lit it will long be retired or dead.
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to operate
like a railway.
What I donrCOt think IrCOve seen is a train that tries to be a
bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:36:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin
with, insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would
be a useful first step.
How bikers get affordable or any insurance in the first place mystfies me >given the fatality rate.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway
every couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress >>building Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of
the busway (eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used. >>
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red
lights at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a
week myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses.
The driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people
taken to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which >>incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number,
so were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety seriously >with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who were >trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has
normal traffic lights which they are.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an expensive white >elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who green >lit it will long be retired or dead.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:36:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with,
insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
How bikers get affordable or any insurance in the first place mystfies me
given the fatality rate.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway every >>> couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building
Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the busway >>> (eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red lights >>> at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken
to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number, so >>> were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety seriously
with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who were
trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has normal >> traffic lights which they are.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an expensive white >> elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who green >> lit it will long be retired or dead.
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads >inside the towns at the end.
So they build a road that tries to operate
like a railway. What I donrCOt think IrCOve seen is a train that tries to be a >bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known >technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads.
In message <10c58p2$1ea59$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:51 on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
And, of course, busways. Although I would not be surprised if ...
A busway specifically isn't a road! But I've not seen motorcyles riding either on the busway or its adjacent cycle track. Several cars however, which don't get very far.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:36:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
How bikers get affordable or any insurance in the first place mystfies me given the fatality rate.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway every >> couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building
Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the busway >> (eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red lights >> at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken
to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number, so >> were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety seriously with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who were trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has normal
traffic lights which they are.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an expensive white
elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who green lit it will long be retired or dead.
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to operate
like a railway. What I donrCOt think IrCOve seen is a train that tries to be a
bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:36:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with,
insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
How bikers get affordable or any insurance in the first place mystfies me
given the fatality rate.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway every >>> couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building
Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the busway >>> (eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red lights >>> at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken
to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number, so >>> were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety seriously
with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who were
trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has normal >> traffic lights which they are.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an expensive white >> elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who green >> lit it will long be retired or dead.
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to operate
like a railway. What I donrCOt think IrCOve seen is a train that tries to be a
bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads.
On 08/10/2025 10:36, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:36:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >>>> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
How bikers get affordable or any insurance in the first place
mystfies me
given the fatality rate.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway
every
couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building
Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the
busway
(eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red
lights
at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken >>>> to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum
number, so
were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety
seriously
with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who
were
trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has
normal
traffic lights which they are.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an
expensive white
elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who
green
lit it will long be retired or dead.
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads
inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to operate
like a railway.
A good alternative would be a road that tries to operate like a road but
has a "buses only" sign.-a The only disadvantage would be in long tunnels where two buses can just pass only if guided.
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal
roads inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to >>operate like a railway.
A good alternative would be a road that tries to operate like a road
but has a "buses only" sign. The only disadvantage would be in long
tunnels where two buses can just pass only if guided.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> posted:
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads
inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to operate
like a railway. What I donrCOt think IrCOve seen is a train that tries to be a
bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known
technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads.
Try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schienen-Stra%C3%9Fen-Omnibus
Ulf Kutzner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> posted:
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads >>> inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to operateTry
like a railway. What I donrCOt think IrCOve seen is a train that tries to be a
bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known
technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads. >>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schienen-Stra%C3%9Fen-Omnibus
Japanese DMV
<https://visitkochijapan.com/en/see-and-do/10514>
In message <10c5ba1$1gfea$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:36:01 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads >>inside the towns at the end.
No, it's *far* more than that. It follows a direct route, at speed
(although they have a temporary limit at the moment) unencumbered on the >guided part by other traffic. The route is too narrow for a conventional >bus.
The only other solution would be a tram.
bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known >>technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads.
Sadly, you can't plough a railway line through the centre of Cambridge,
and the route around St Ives to Huntingdon was very lightly built, goes >through a water meadow that's a SSSI, and has buildings and the old A14 >using the route on the approach to Huntingdon.
In message <10c5apq$1gbg8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:27:23 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety seriously >>with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who were >>trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
That scheme (Cast Iron) was a complete joke. It assumed that all the
railway track needed was cutting down a few bushes, ignored the need for
a new bridge over the Ouse, would have stopped short of St Ives and
never reached Huntingdon, and at the other end only got as far as the >Science Park. Combine that with a frequency of perhaps one train an
hour, it would have been completely useless.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an expensive white >>elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who green >>lit it will long be retired or dead.
It's not a white elephant, in the sense of being a very useful bit of >transport infrastructure that serves three P&R sites, a lot of housing
and destinations all through Cambridge City Centre. Given the state of
the other roads in its corridor, replacing it with regular buses
wouldn't work.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:54:51 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10c5ba1$1gfea$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:36:01 on Wed, 8 Oct >>2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads >>>inside the towns at the end.
No, it's *far* more than that. It follows a direct route, at speed >>(although they have a temporary limit at the moment) unencumbered on
the guided part by other traffic. The route is too narrow for a >>conventional bus.
Only at very specific locations such as under bridges, otherwise
there's plenty of room.
The only other solution would be a tram.
Which would have been a far better solution.
bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known >>>technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads. >>Sadly, you can't plough a railway line through the centre of
Cambridge,
They wouldn't have needed to. The trackbed to connect to the mainline was >still in situ beforehand and a new station in the north of cambridge could >have been built on the route.
and the route around St Ives to Huntingdon was very lightly built,
goes through a water meadow that's a SSSI, and has buildings and the
old A14 using the route on the approach to Huntingdon.
The eco stuff didn't stop the DfT ploughing the new 4 lane A14 through all >the fields around there
a few years ago so don't tell me an already existing railway trackbed
couldn't have been brought up to modern standards because of
enviromental concerns.
On 08/10/2025 10:17, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10c58p2$1ea59$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:52:51 on Wed, 8 Oct 2025, >> Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> remarked:
And, of course, busways. Although I would not be surprised if ...
A busway specifically isn't a road! But I've not seen motorcyles riding
either on the busway or its adjacent cycle track. Several cars however,
which don't get very far.
"The authorised guided busway shall be regarded as a tramway undertaking
for the purposes of the application of Part III of the 1991 Act (street >works) to it, and accordingly, the provisions of that Part relating to >tramway undertakings and tramways shall apply to the authorised guided >busway. "
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/3523/made
otramwayo means a system, mainly or exclusively for the carriage of >passengers, using vehicles guided, or powered by energy transmitted, by >rails or other fixed apparatus installed exclusively or mainly in a road.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
And the Runcorn busway is much more obviously a road.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:13:39 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1759909898-2991@newsgrouper.org>, at 07:51:38 on Wed, 8 Oct >>> 2025, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> remarked:
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItAs only 16miles and
only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to >>>>> start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three >>>>> deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >>>>> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a >>>>> useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
Only a ban on very low powered ones using motorways and a handful of
major roads.
Unusually, one road near me bans only larger motorbikes (over 125 cc).
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates >with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod >tries to catch them.
On 08/10/2025 10:48, Certes wrote:
On 08/10/2025 10:36, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:36:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >>>>> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a >>>>> useful first step.
How bikers get affordable or any insurance in the first place
mystfies me
given the fatality rate.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway
every
couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building >>>>> Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the
busway
(eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red
lights
at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The >>>>> driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken >>>>> to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum
number, so
were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety
seriously
with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who
were
trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue >>>> light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has
normal
traffic lights which they are.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an
expensive white
elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who >>>> green
lit it will long be retired or dead.
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads >>> inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to operate
like a railway.
A good alternative would be a road that tries to operate like a road but
has a "buses only" sign.-a The only disadvantage would be in long tunnels
where two buses can just pass only if guided.
Roughly what the Fareham - Gosport link ended up as. No tunnels to complicate the issue. I gather services are now suspended due to
vandalism. The buses are back on the overcrowded main road.
rCLtramwayrCY means a system, mainly or exclusively for the carriage of passengers, using vehicles guided, or powered by energy transmitted, by
rails or other fixed apparatus installed exclusively or mainly in a
road.
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has
normal traffic lights which they are.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:27:23 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has
normal traffic lights which they are.
Is there a mismatch of expectations? Emergency vehicles can't pass
flashing reds, and trains aren't expected to stop for them. They can pass normal reds, and other traffic is expected to stop (though the emergency driver still needs to ensure it's safe). Are drivers on the guided busway expected to stop for emergency vehicles? If not, then the lights should be changed to flashing ones.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:59:10 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
rCLtramwayrCY means a system, mainly or exclusively for the carriage of
passengers, using vehicles guided, or powered by energy transmitted, by
rails or other fixed apparatus installed exclusively or mainly in a
road.
An interesting definition. That would imply that the original Manchester Metrolink system was not a tramway, as only the city centre was on roads -
the rest being former heavy rail lines. And does something like https://maps.app.goo.gl/fUCjGdfEsZfnjLnq5
count as "in a road" or "next to a road"?
But a non-road can become a "road" by lack of action of the owner-
"The Court concluded that access to a private way by tolerated
trespassers rCo so long as it is not in the face of, or in defiance of,
the efforts of the landowner to prevent such access rCo is sufficient to
meet the statutory definition. Such a conclusion accorded with legal authority and the underlying purpose of the legislation relating to
traffic regulation and motoring offences. It followed that the way was
a rCyroadrCO for the purposes of Section 142." [https://excellolaw.co.uk/high-court-rules-on-the-definition-of-a-road/]
In message <10c60vc$1mktj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:48 on Wed, 8 Oct
Only at very specific locations such as under bridges, otherwise
there's plenty of room.
You are sadly misinformed.
The only other solution would be a tram.
Which would have been a far better solution.
But there was not that much money available, so nothing would have been >built, and hence thousands of much needed homes would nt have been built >either (the busway was a planning condition).
They wouldn't have needed to. The trackbed to connect to the mainline was >>still in situ beforehand and a new station in the north of cambridge could >>have been built on the route.
What's your solution to cross Milton Road?
The eco stuff didn't stop the DfT ploughing the new 4 lane A14 through all >>the fields around there
Different fields.
a few years ago so don't tell me an already existing railway trackbed >>couldn't have been brought up to modern standards because of
enviromental concerns.
The trackbed WAS NOT there. The urban parts were all built upon and the >rural parts had missing embankments as well as track. And of course the >Godmanchester Ouse bridge (which was only built of wood andhad a severe >speed restriction from new, had been gone for decades.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:30:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates >>with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod >>tries to catch them."Splash!"
Believe it or not, the police also use motorbikes.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:47:57 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:30:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates >>with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod >>tries to catch them."Splash!"
Believe it or not, the police also use motorbikes.
And how often do you ever seen them now other than escorting some worthy
in a limo? Certainly not patrolling on the roads, at least not here in
London with the Met. Maybe its different with other forces.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:47:57 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:30:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates >> >>with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod >> >>tries to catch them."Splash!"
Believe it or not, the police also use motorbikes.
And how often do you ever seen them now other than escorting some worthy
in a limo? Certainly not patrolling on the roads, at least not here in
London with the Met. Maybe its different with other forces.
With those: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Police#Equipment_and_vehicles
On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 09:09:07 GMT
Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> gabbled: >boltar@caprica.universe posted:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:47:57 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:30:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates"Splash!"
with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod
tries to catch them.
Believe it or not, the police also use motorbikes.
And how often do you ever seen them now other than escorting some worthy >> in a limo? Certainly not patrolling on the roads, at least not here in
London with the Met. Maybe its different with other forces.
With those: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Police#Equipment_and_vehicles
City of London Police is not the Metropolitan Police.
On 08/10/2025 10:36, Tweed wrote:
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 08:36:56 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >>>> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a
useful first step.
How bikers get affordable or any insurance in the first place mystfies me >>> given the fatality rate.
There's supposed to be one bus on the main section of the guideway every >>>> couple of minutes, although the excruciatingly slow progress building
Northstowe means the demand isn't there yet. Some sections of the busway >>>> (eg to and from Cambridge North Station) are quite lightly used.
Most recent smash was in April, when a fire engine jumped the red lights >>>> at one of the crossings [a B-road crossing I use maybe once a week
myself], and managed to take out not one, but two, guided buses. The
driver of one bus was "critically injured", and ten other people taken >>>> to hospital. I wonder if the driver of the fire engine (which
incidentally was reportedly crewed below the required minimum number, so >>>> were they really on a response call) lost his no-claims bonus?
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety seriously >>> with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who were >>> trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has normal >>> traffic lights which they are.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an expensive white
elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who green >>> lit it will long be retired or dead.
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads
inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to operate
like a railway.
A good alternative would be a road that tries to operate like a road but
has a "buses only" sign. The only disadvantage would be in long tunnels where two buses can just pass only if guided.
What I donrCOt think IrCOve seen is a train that tries to be a
bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known
technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads.
There are a few abroad. We had a thread about one (Norway?) recently.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Ulf Kutzner wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> posted:
The alleged logic of a busway is that the bus can operate on normal roads >>>> inside the towns at the end. So they build a road that tries to operate >>>> like a railway. What I donrCOt think IrCOve seen is a train that tries to be aTry
bus. In other words build a railway between the towns (tested and known >>>> technology) and design a vehicle that can operate both on rails and roads. >>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schienen-Stra%C3%9Fen-Omnibus
Japanese DMV
<https://visitkochijapan.com/en/see-and-do/10514>
Looks to be a more sensible solution than spending millions on concrete
when safe avoiding other traffic. It's not like a railway green which indicates that the section ahead is ualways[1] clear of obstructions.
[1] I'm coining /ualways/ to mean "always, except for the pedantic cases customary on Usenet".
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:52:51 +0100
Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> gabbled:
On 08/10/2025 09:33, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1759909898-2991@newsgrouper.org>, at 07:51:38 on Wed, 8 Oct >>> 2025, Ulf Kutzner <user2991@newsgrouper.org.invalid> remarked:
3 people have been killed on this system by buses. ItrCOs only 16 miles >> and
only runs buses. The death rate is clearly way above normal roads.
Do you have references for that assertion? As a data point for you to >>>>> start: the 16miles of A10 between Cambridge and Ely has a fatality
approximately once a month - often motorcyclists - whereas the three >>>>> deaths on the Guided Busway are spread across fourteen years.
Perhaps they should ban motorcycles on the A10? Although to begin with, >>>>> insisting they exceed the speed limit by no more than 50% would be a >>>>> useful first step.
We do have - mostly temporary - motorcycle bans here [TM]
on some roads. What about the UK?
Only a ban on very low powered ones using motorways and a handful of major >>> roads.
And, of course, busways. Although I would not be surprised if ...
I suspect even the dumbest biker would think twice about speeding along a concrete beam only a tyres width wide. Knackered Ford Focus owners OTOH...
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:47:57 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:30:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates >>>with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod >>>tries to catch them."Splash!"
Believe it or not, the police also use motorbikes.
And how often do you ever seen them now other than escorting some worthy
in a limo? Certainly not patrolling on the roads, at least not here in
London with the Met. Maybe its different with other forces.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:00:53 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:47:57 +0100They do e.g. ambulance and military escorts and deal with traffic
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:30:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates >>>>with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod >>>>tries to catch them."Splash!"
Believe it or not, the police also use motorbikes.
And how often do you ever seen them now other than escorting some worthy
in a limo? Certainly not patrolling on the roads, at least not here in >>London with the Met. Maybe its different with other forces.
troubles where a car is not the best thing to use. They do seem to be
less visible than before.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 01:57:15 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:00:53 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:47:57 +0100They do e.g. ambulance and military escorts and deal with traffic
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:30:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates >>>>>with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod >>>>>tries to catch them."Splash!"
Believe it or not, the police also use motorbikes.
And how often do you ever seen them now other than escorting some worthy >>>in a limo? Certainly not patrolling on the roads, at least not here in >>>London with the Met. Maybe its different with other forces.
troubles where a car is not the best thing to use. They do seem to be
less visible than before.
I genuinely cannot remember the last time I saw a motorbike plod other than >doing some kind of escort duty, whether its a worthy in a car or a prison van.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 01:57:15 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:00:53 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:47:57 +0100They do e.g. ambulance and military escorts and deal with traffic
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:30:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates >>>>> with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod"Splash!"
tries to catch them.
Believe it or not, the police also use motorbikes.
And how often do you ever seen them now other than escorting some worthy >>> in a limo? Certainly not patrolling on the roads, at least not here in
London with the Met. Maybe its different with other forces.
troubles where a car is not the best thing to use. They do seem to be
less visible than before.
I genuinely cannot remember the last time I saw a motorbike plod other than doing some kind of escort duty, whether its a worthy in a car or a prison van.
<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2025 01:57:15 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:00:53 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:47:57 +0100They do e.g. ambulance and military escorts and deal with traffic
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:30:08 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe
wrote:
You can't realistically ban motorbikes. They can easily hide their plates"Splash!"
with a floppy bag on the back and can leg it down narrow alleyways if plod
tries to catch them.
Believe it or not, the police also use motorbikes.
And how often do you ever seen them now other than escorting some worthy >>>> in a limo? Certainly not patrolling on the roads, at least not here in >>>> London with the Met. Maybe its different with other forces.
troubles where a car is not the best thing to use. They do seem to be
less visible than before.
I genuinely cannot remember the last time I saw a motorbike plod other than >> doing some kind of escort duty, whether its a worthy in a car or a prison van.
I thought Hampshire which covers here had given up use of them until I saw
a few weeks ago a fairly large number appeared to make a presence at a Southampton -Portsmouth Football match, an event which has started to occur again now both are in the same league and often threatens to turn into a civil war.
Then a few days later one actually drove through this village, its rare to see a police vehicle anyway let alone a Police Motor Bike .
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 10:46:09 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10c5apq$1gbg8$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:27:23 on Wed, 8 Oct >>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
This is what happens when you play trains but don't take safety seriously >>>with your mickey mouse alternative. All pointed out by the group who were >>>trying to get the proper railway reinstated (forget then name).
That scheme (Cast Iron) was a complete joke. It assumed that all the >>railway track needed was cutting down a few bushes, ignored the need
for a new bridge over the Ouse, would have stopped short of St Ives
and never reached Huntingdon, and at the other end only got as far as
the Science Park. Combine that with a frequency of perhaps one train
an hour, it would have been completely useless.
Nonsense. A new station at St Ives could have been built nearby as a P&R
just as was done at Aylesbury a few years ago and the trackbed north of >cambridge on to the main line was still in situ.
Of course once the council eventually admit the busway is an expensive white >>>elephant and decommision it in a decade or 2 the original muppets who green >>>lit it will long be retired or dead.
It's not a white elephant, in the sense of being a very useful bit of >>transport infrastructure that serves three P&R sites, a lot of housing
and destinations all through Cambridge City Centre. Given the state of
the other roads in its corridor, replacing it with regular buses
wouldn't work.
Its just a very expensive private road where buses are trapped if something >goes wrong,
has nowhere near the capacity of a railway
and will cost a
fortune in maintenance in years to come when the concrete starts to crack.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 16:59:33 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <10c60vc$1mktj$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:45:48 on Wed, 8 Oct
Only at very specific locations such as under bridges, otherwise
there's plenty of room.
You are sadly misinformed.
I can use google maps as well as anyone else and its quite clear there's >plenty of room for a normal 2 lane road on most of the route. But, oh no! >They might have had to sacrifice the cycle path! Le Horreur!
The only other solution would be a tram.
Which would have been a far better solution.
But there was not that much money available, so nothing would have
been built, and hence thousands of much needed homes would nt have
been built either (the busway was a planning condition).
The final cost of the busway was between 150-200m quid depending on source. >That equates to the cost of the first phase of the nottingham tram system >which was a far more complicated affair plus included the cost of the trams.
They wouldn't have needed to. The trackbed to connect to the mainline was >>>still in situ beforehand and a new station in the north of cambridge could >>>have been built on the route.
What's your solution to cross Milton Road?
How did the trains cross it before, magic balloons?
The eco stuff didn't stop the DfT ploughing the new 4 lane A14 through all >>>the fields around there
Different fields.
Same area with lots of woodland and arable now under concrete.
a few years ago so don't tell me an already existing railway
trackbed couldn't have been brought up to modern standards because of >>>enviromental concerns.
The trackbed WAS NOT there. The urban parts were all built upon and
the rural parts had missing embankments as well as track. And of
course the Godmanchester Ouse bridge (which was only built of wood
andhad a severe speed restriction from new, had been gone for decades.
So they knocked down some houses to build the busway did they? No.
A railway with a P&R in the exact same spot as the busway P&R outside
St Ives could have been constructed.
And what about the flippin bridge? Did they reuse it for the busway or
did they build a new one?
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 09:27:23 -0000 (UTC), boltar wrote:
A proper level crossing would have flashing red lights which even blue
light vehicles arn't allowed to cross. Meanwhile the busway just has
normal traffic lights which they are.
Is there a mismatch of expectations? Emergency vehicles can't pass
flashing reds, and trains aren't expected to stop for them. They can pass >normal reds, and other traffic is expected to stop (though the emergency >driver still needs to ensure it's safe). Are drivers on the guided busway >expected to stop for emergency vehicles?
If not, then the lights should be changed to flashing ones.
boltar remarked:Discouraged, rather than verboten?
How did the trains cross it before, magic balloons?
They crossed a narrower and far less busy road, using a level crossing,
the reinstatement of which are not allowed.
In message <10c7tf3$2g7tr$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:12 on Thu, 9 Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 16:59:33 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
What's your solution to cross Milton Road?
How did the trains cross it before, magic balloons?
They crossed a narrower and far less busy road, using a level crossing,
the reinstatement of which are not allowed.
. But, if the funding was available, there are no
technical or engingeering challenges that would be insuperable, or even particularly esoteric. The real issue is that Cambridge probably isn't big enough to justify a tram.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
. But, if the funding was available, there are no
technical or engingeering challenges that would be insuperable, or even
particularly esoteric. The real issue is that Cambridge probably isn't big >> enough to justify a tram.
Even the Edwardian heyday of the tram Cambridge was one of the places that >never progressed beyond horse trams which ceased in 1914. Oxford likewise.
On 16 Oct 2025 14:24:00 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
. But, if the funding was available, there are no
technical or engingeering challenges that would be insuperable, or even
particularly esoteric. The real issue is that Cambridge probably isn't big >>> enough to justify a tram.
Even the Edwardian heyday of the tram Cambridge was one of the places that >> never progressed beyond horse trams which ceased in 1914. Oxford likewise.
There are towns and cities in Germany that are about the same size as Cambridge, or even smaller, which have a light rail system (eg, Ulm, Schwerin). But all of them have had trams continuously since the early 20th century, or in some cases even earlier. There are no new-build light rail systems in Germany serving a Cambridge-sized population.
It's always puzzled me a little bit how, given that the UK invented
railways, we almost completely gave up on urban light rail very early on, while other countries retained and upgraded their trams and metro systems.
In retrospect, of course, we made the wrong decision. But even at the time, I'm not convinced the reasoning was sound.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 16 Oct 2025 14:24:00 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:There are towns and cities in Germany that are about the same size as
. But, if the funding was available, there are no
technical or engingeering challenges that would be insuperable, or even >>>> particularly esoteric. The real issue is that Cambridge probably isn't big >>>> enough to justify a tram.
Even the Edwardian heyday of the tram Cambridge was one of the places that >>> never progressed beyond horse trams which ceased in 1914. Oxford likewise. >>
Cambridge, or even smaller, which have a light rail system (eg, Ulm,
Schwerin). But all of them have had trams continuously since the early 20th >> century, or in some cases even earlier. There are no new-build light rail
systems in Germany serving a Cambridge-sized population.
It's always puzzled me a little bit how, given that the UK invented
railways, we almost completely gave up on urban light rail very early on,
while other countries retained and upgraded their trams and metro systems. >> In retrospect, of course, we made the wrong decision. But even at the time, >> I'm not convinced the reasoning was sound.
IrCOm guessing itrCOs because we tended to base our views of the future on the
US?
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 10:01:31 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c7tf3$2g7tr$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:12 on Thu, 9 Oct
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2025 16:59:33 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
What's your solution to cross Milton Road?
How did the trains cross it before, magic balloons?
They crossed a narrower and far less busy road, using a level crossing,
the reinstatement of which are not allowed.
A heavy rail level crossing there would certainly not be allowed now, no.
But there are plenty of light rail level crossings still being built.
Indeed, light rail often includes street running itself - that is, after
all, pretty much the definition of a tram. . . .
On 16 Oct 2025 14:24:00 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
. But, if the funding was available, there are no
technical or engingeering challenges that would be insuperable, or even
particularly esoteric. The real issue is that Cambridge probably isn't big >>> enough to justify a tram.
Even the Edwardian heyday of the tram Cambridge was one of the places that >> never progressed beyond horse trams which ceased in 1914. Oxford likewise.
There are towns and cities in Germany that are about the same size as Cambridge, or even smaller, which have a light rail system (eg, Ulm, Schwerin). But all of them have had trams continuously since the early 20th century, or in some cases even earlier. There are no new-build light rail systems in Germany serving a Cambridge-sized population.
It's always puzzled me a little bit how, given that the UK invented
railways, we almost completely gave up on urban light rail very early on, while other countries retained and upgraded their trams and metro systems.
In retrospect, of course, we made the wrong decision. But even at the time, I'm not convinced the reasoning was sound.
Mark