There was an accident involving a bus, a (reported to be parked) car, a 
tram, and possibly a moving car, in George Street, Croydon this morning. 
Unfortunately the pedestrian was killed, and the bus driver injured.

It seems to be a slightly out-of-the-ordinary accident - the tram and 
bus have ended up quite a way from each other.

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/Pedestrian-killed-tram-Croydon-town-centre/article-311699-detail/article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053231/Man-dies-horrific-bus-tram-pile-Croydon.html

(people should avoid the Mail's pictures if they would be offended by 
knowing it is tram 2534).
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

That was nasty, from the pictures it appears that the bus ended up on
the pavement and was corrdored(?) between bollards and shopfronts.
Anyone on the pavement wouldn't have had much chance.

On 7 Sep, 17:26, Arthur Figgis <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote:
> There was an accident involving a bus, a (reported to be parked) car, a
> tram, and possibly a moving car, in George Street, Croydon this morning.
> Unfortunately the pedestrian was killed, and the bus driver injured.
>
> It seems to be a slightly out-of-the-ordinary accident - the tram and
> bus have ended up quite a way from each other.
>
> http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/Pedestrian-killed-tram....
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053231/Man-dies-horrific-bus...
>

A pretty horrendous accident. The first link is to the Croydon
Advertiser (aka This is Croydon Today) article, which provides the
most information, whilst the Daily Mail story has the pictures.

A bus swerving to avoid a car would appear to be the genesis of the
accident. Two things in the story caught my eye in particular - first
off, the possibility that the traffic lights (which also control tram
movements) had failed, though it's important to note that this is in
no way confirmed (just because a copper on the scene says so to a
local hack doesn't mean it was so). Secondly, the apparent reason why
the bus travelled so far being that the driver had been knocked
unconscious.

The Mail story says that Police Collision Investigation officers are
looking in to the accident. It's interesting to consider where the
emphasis of investigation of incidents falls when a tram is involved,
given that HMRI is the safety regulator (for want of a better phrase)
of the tram system, and BTP is responsible for policing the system.
This incident would appear to be more of a road traffic accident and
thus fall within the domain of the local (Met) police, however *if*
(and that is a big if) the traffic signals had in some way
malfunctioned then things would become more interesting given the
interface between highway and tramway signalling.

"Mizter T"  wrote
>
> The Mail story says that Police Collision Investigation officers are
> looking in to the accident. It's interesting to consider where the
> emphasis of investigation of incidents falls when a tram is involved,
> given that HMRI is the safety regulator (for want of a better phrase)
> of the tram system, and BTP is responsible for policing the system.
> This incident would appear to be more of a road traffic accident and
> thus fall within the domain of the local (Met) police, however *if*
> (and that is a big if) the traffic signals had in some way
> malfunctioned then things would become more interesting given the
> interface between highway and tramway signalling.

It will be worth keeping an eye on the RAIB site to see if they open an
investigation, though they probably won't if, as you suggest, it was
essentially a road traffic collision.

Peter

In message <FIednSrvduwnnVnVnZ2dnUVZ8qjinZ2d@posted.plusnet>, Arthur 
Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> writes

>It seems to be a slightly out-of-the-ordinary accident - the tram and 
>bus have ended up quite a way from each other.

According to several eye-witness reports, the bus driver was knocked 
unconscious in the collision, but the bus continued running in gear 
until brought to a halt when it rammed a parked car. One can only 
speculate how worse the tragedy would have been on a weekday.
-- 
Paul Terry

Mizter T wrote:

> A bus swerving to avoid a car would appear to be the genesis of the
> accident. ... *if* (and that is a big if) the traffic signals had in
> some way malfunctioned then things would become more interesting
> given the interface between highway and tramway signalling.

I don't follow your reasoning. If the genesis of the accident is a bus
swerving to miss a car, then I can't see that the tram's signalling is
in any way implicated. 


-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632956.html
(43 084 at Basingstoke, May 1995)

Chris Tolley wrote:
> Mizter T wrote:
> 
>> A bus swerving to avoid a car would appear to be the genesis of the
>> accident. ... *if* (and that is a big if) the traffic signals had in
>> some way malfunctioned then things would become more interesting
>> given the interface between highway and tramway signalling.
> 
> I don't follow your reasoning. If the genesis of the accident is a bus
> swerving to miss a car, then I can't see that the tram's signalling is
> in any way implicated. 

Presumably the road and tram signals are interlinked in some way, to 
avoid a tram being sent into the path of cars, or vice versa.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Sep 7, 7:46 pm, "Peter Masson"  wrote:

> "Mizter T"  wrote:
>
> > The Mail story says that Police Collision Investigation officers are
> > looking in to the accident. It's interesting to consider where the
> > emphasis of investigation of incidents falls when a tram is involved,
> > given that HMRI is the safety regulator (for want of a better phrase)
> > of the tram system, and BTP is responsible for policing the system.
> > This incident would appear to be more of a road traffic accident and
> > thus fall within the domain of the local (Met) police, however *if*
> > (and that is a big if) the traffic signals had in some way
> > malfunctioned then things would become more interesting given the
> > interface between highway and tramway signalling.
>
> It will be worth keeping an eye on the RAIB site to see if they open an
> investigation, though they probably won't if, as you suggest, it was
> essentially a road traffic collision.
>

The RAIB was also at the back of my mind when I wrote the above but
for some reason not at the front of my mind.

If (big if again) there was any malfunction of traffic signals linked
to the tram system then I presume they'd be very interested indeed,
but that's far from being a known at the moment.

On Sep 7, 8:46 pm, Chris  Tolley  wrote:

> Mizter T wrote:
> > A bus swerving to avoid a car would appear to be the genesis of the
> > accident. ... *if* (and that is a big if) the traffic signals had in
> > some way malfunctioned then things would become more interesting
> > given the interface between highway and tramway signalling.
>
> I don't follow your reasoning. If the genesis of the accident is a bus
> swerving to miss a car, then I can't see that the tram's signalling is
> in any way implicated.
>

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. In Croydon, as is the case
elsewhere with other tram systems, the highway traffic control signals
are linked in to the tram's signalling system so as to enable trams to
negotiate a variety of road junctions - this evidently requires a more
complex set of interlinking/interoperability (or even 'interlocking'
as it were) between the highway signals and the tram network's
signalling system. On top of that one can assume that at least some of
the highway signals in the area are co-ordinated with each other as
part of a traffic management setup (as I'm sure is the case in central
Croydon).

*If* the highway signals (indeed and the tram signals) had
malfunctioned then this could have caused or contributed towards the
car and/or bus (indeed and/or tram) being in the wrong place, hence
the relevance of this factor.

The reason I even mentioned signalling in the first place was the
'Croydon Today' article contained the suggestion, made by a witness,
that traffic lights might have been at fault - but one should note
that this is by no means verified information.

For the record, because local newspaper websites do get rejigged with
some regularity, here is a pertinent extract from the 'Croydon Today'
article:

<quote>
Road sweeper Martin Storm, 54, from Church Street, Croydon, who saw
the crash, said:
"The bus was coming up Park Street and swerved to avoid a car which
was coming down Wellesley Road.
"The bus driver swerved left to avoid the silver car. The bus driver
tried to avoid everything, but he couldn't avoid it.
"The car has got stuck between the tram stop and the bus and was
crushed.
The driver of the tram was really upset, but it wasn't their fault. I
was behind it all, there was blood everywhere."
He added: "The police told me the traffic lights had failed and were
all on green."
However while saying the traffic lights was one area which would be
looked at during the investigation, police today did not confirm they
had not been working.
</quote>

Source:
http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/article-311699-detail/article.html

In message , at 19:51:23 on Sun, 7 
Sep 2008, Paul Terry  remarked:
>According to several eye-witness reports, the bus driver was knocked 
>unconscious in the collision, but the bus continued running in gear 
>until brought to a halt when it rammed a parked car.

So did the bus swerve around a car and hit the tram, then later hit a 
car; or are there two dented cars? They "both" seem to be silver.
-- 
Roland Perry

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> writes:

> Presumably the road and tram signals are interlinked in some way, to
> avoid a tram being sent into the path of cars, or vice versa.

On the other hand, where a tram is running along a road, is there any
need for it to have separate signals? Would it not suffice for it to
have to obey the same red/amber/green traffic lights as other traffic?

Mizter T wrote:

> On Sep 7, 8:46 pm, Chris  Tolley  wrote:
> 
>> Mizter T wrote:
>>> A bus swerving to avoid a car would appear to be the genesis of the
>>> accident. ... *if* (and that is a big if) the traffic signals had in
>>> some way malfunctioned then things would become more interesting
>>> given the interface between highway and tramway signalling.
>>
>> I don't follow your reasoning. If the genesis of the accident is a bus
>> swerving to miss a car, then I can't see that the tram's signalling is
>> in any way implicated.
>>
> 
> Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. In Croydon, as is the case
> elsewhere with other tram systems, the highway traffic control signals
> are linked in to the tram's signalling system so as to enable trams to
> negotiate a variety of road junctions - this evidently requires a more
> complex set of interlinking/interoperability (or even 'interlocking'
> as it were) between the highway signals and the tram network's
> signalling system. On top of that one can assume that at least some of
> the highway signals in the area are co-ordinated with each other as
> part of a traffic management setup (as I'm sure is the case in central
> Croydon).
> 
> *If* the highway signals (indeed and the tram signals) had
> malfunctioned then this could have caused or contributed towards the
> car and/or bus (indeed and/or tram) being in the wrong place, hence
> the relevance of this factor.

Okay, that's clearer. Thanks.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632771.html
(20 077 at Buxton, Jun 1985)

Graham Murray wrote:

> Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.com.invalid> writes:
> 
>> Presumably the road and tram signals are interlinked in some way, to
>> avoid a tram being sent into the path of cars, or vice versa.
> 
> On the other hand, where a tram is running along a road, is there any
> need for it to have separate signals? Would it not suffice for it to
> have to obey the same red/amber/green traffic lights as other traffic?

One can imagine good reasons for there being a separate signal for the
tram, including the phasing of tram signals being different and,
especially in situations where there are multiple lanes of traffic, the
need to give a signal that applies to the tram but not to traffic.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632899.html
(33 119 at Eastleigh, 15 May 1985)

On 8 Sep, 06:26, Graham Murray  wrote:
> On the other hand, where a tram is running along a road, is there any
> need for it to have separate signals? Would it not suffice for it to
> have to obey the same red/amber/green traffic lights as other traffic?

Croydon Tramlink doesn't have a signalling system. It's fairer to say
that the traffic light system includes lights targeted at tram
drivers.

U

On Sep 8, 7:43 am, Mr Thant 
wrote:
> On 8 Sep, 06:26, Graham Murray  wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, where a tram is running along a road, is there any
> > need for it to have separate signals? Would it not suffice for it to
> > have to obey the same red/amber/green traffic lights as other traffic?
>
> Croydon Tramlink doesn't have a signalling system. It's fairer to say
> that the traffic light system includes lights targeted at tram
> drivers.

As it might have for different lanes of traffic in any case,
presumably, given that trams have their own lanes.

"Mr Thant"  wrote in message 
news:7ab357cf-d8a2-4f62-8c52-e185dce7431d@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 8 Sep, 06:26, Graham Murray  wrote:
>> On the other hand, where a tram is running along a road, is there any
>> need for it to have separate signals? Would it not suffice for it to
>> have to obey the same red/amber/green traffic lights as other traffic?
>
> Croydon Tramlink doesn't have a signalling system. It's fairer to say
> that the traffic light system includes lights targeted at tram
> drivers.
>
> U
Surely the white lights which show horizontal (stop), vertical (go) and 
diagonal (junction) count as signals? The drivers certainly treat them like 
signals!

MaxB

"Batman55"  wrote

> Surely the white lights which show horizontal (stop), vertical (go) and
> diagonal (junction) count as signals? The drivers certainly treat them
like
> signals!
>
Indeed they are. Tram drivers are not required to observe road
(red/amber/green) traffic lights, but there will be a white dot signal head
at the same location. These are also to be found at junctions, level
crossings, and at the section of interlaced track. Elsewhere the trams are
driven on sight.

Peter

Arthur Figgis wrote:
> There was an accident involving a bus, a (reported to be parked) car, a 
> tram, and possibly a moving car, in George Street, Croydon this morning. 
> Unfortunately the pedestrian was killed, and the bus driver injured.
> 
> It seems to be a slightly out-of-the-ordinary accident - the tram and 
> bus have ended up quite a way from each other.
> 
> http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/Pedestrian-killed-tram-Croydon-town-centre/article-311699-detail/article. 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053231/Man-dies-horrific-bus-tram-pile-Croydon.html 
> 
> 
> (people should avoid the Mail's pictures if they would be offended by 
> knowing it is tram 2534).

The bit that makes the least sense to me is the line, in both papers, 
"sending the bus careering about 100m down the road".  100m is a long 
way for a bus to travel apparently not under control.

Robin

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:26:26 +0100 someone who may be Graham Murray
 wrote this:-

>On the other hand, where a tram is running along a road, is there any
>need for it to have separate signals? Would it not suffice for it to
>have to obey the same red/amber/green traffic lights as other traffic?

Yes, which is why separate signals are provided.

There are many reasons why tram drivers may be given separate
signals, for example if a tram is to start off before other traffic
at a junction a separate signal is needed. The "amber" period for a
tram is a few seconds longer than for motor traffic. It is also
considered less confusing for operators of other forms of traffic.

Having decided to provide separate signals for tram drivers the next
question was what form these signals would take. The two contenders
were tram stencils on coloured lights (just as there are bike (and
possibly bus [1]) stencils in places) or white lights. In essence
the white light system was chosen as there is less chance of
confusion with signals for other forms of traffic.

White light signals could be provided by standard traffic light
units with clear lenses and the appropriate stencil. However, the
"searchlight" unit was chosen as it is smaller than a three light
traffic light unit (being fitted to the top of a pedestrian crossing
pole is a lot neater than having a second traffic light unit beside
the one for other traffic) and can provide a greater variety of
indications.

Given the limitations of operating on the roads I think the system
would be hard to improve on.



[1] I have a very vague recollection of having seen bus stencils
somewhere in the UK. Bike stencils are provided in places though,
unlike some other places, there is no stencil on the red lens.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 8 Sep, 16:35, "Batman55"  wrote:
> Surely the white lights which show horizontal (stop), vertical (go) and
> diagonal (junction) count as signals? The drivers certainly treat them like
> signals!

I didn't say it didn't have signals, I said it didn't have a
signalling system. I'm assuming the lights at junctions are
freestanding installations of minimal complexity, and the tram lights
at road junctions are just traffic lights with unusual heads. There's
nothing more elaborate than that, as far as I know.

U

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 14:28:56 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Mizter T
 wrote this:-

>Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. In Croydon, as is the case
>elsewhere with other tram systems, the highway traffic control signals
>are linked in to the tram's signalling system so as to enable trams to
>negotiate a variety of road junctions

The tramway signalling system [1] makes a request to the traffic
light controller. The request informs the traffic light controller
that a tram is approaching or waiting depending on circumstances.
How the traffic light controller responds to this request depends on
the junction and the circumstances at the time. At one extreme it
will respond immediately and change the other lights before giving a
proceed signal to the tram driver. At the other extreme it will note
the tram request and fit it in when a suitable opportunity arises.

The priority of a tram request may be increased if the tram comes to
a stand at the junction. It all depends on the junction and how that
is linked to other (road) junctions.

Many road junctions may be linked and the road bods may not give
trams absolute priority. However, trams are carrying many people in
a small amount of road space and thus can be given a high priority
than other forms of traffic.

[1] generally just detector loops. An advance detector is placed
some way in the rear of the signals. A stop detector is placed at
the stop mark. A cancel detector is placed after the lights, if the
proceed signal has not already been replaced by the white dot then
this detector will initiate this. One detector can perform more than
one function, for example a cancel detector can also function as the
advance detector for signals further along the tramway.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 12:01:01 +0100, David Hansen wrote:

> [1] I have a very vague recollection of having seen bus stencils
> somewhere in the UK. Bike stencils are provided in places though, unlike
> some other places, there is no stencil on the red lens.

Bus stencils are used in several places in Birmingham.

-- 
Regards
Alex

http://www.badphorm.co.uk/

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 12:11:07 +0100, Mr Thant wrote
> On 8 Sep, 16:35, "Batman55"  wrote:
>> Surely the white lights which show horizontal (stop), vertical (go) and
>> diagonal (junction) count as signals? The drivers certainly treat them like
>> signals!
> 
> I didn't say it didn't have signals, I said it didn't have a
> signalling system. I'm assuming the lights at junctions are
> freestanding installations of minimal complexity, and the tram lights
> at road junctions are just traffic lights with unusual heads. There's
> nothing more elaborate than that, as far as I know.

That's still a signalling system.  A 'system' isn't *always* about technology 
don't y'know

R.C. Payne wrote:

> The bit that makes the least sense to me is the line, in both papers, 
> "sending the bus careering about 100m down the road".  100m is a long 
> way for a bus to travel apparently not under control.

If you started an ordinary car and put it into low gear before jumping
out of it, how far do you think it would go? (NB I am not advocating
anything other than a thought experiment.)

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9633014.html
(45 145 at Leicester, 3 Sep 1979)

R.C. Payne wrote:
> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> There was an accident involving a bus, a (reported to be parked) car, 
>> a tram, and possibly a moving car, in George Street, Croydon this 
>> morning. Unfortunately the pedestrian was killed, and the bus driver 
>> injured.
>>
>> It seems to be a slightly out-of-the-ordinary accident - the tram and 
>> bus have ended up quite a way from each other.
>>
>> http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/Pedestrian-killed-tram-Croydon-town-centre/article-311699-detail/article. 
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053231/Man-dies-horrific-bus-tram-pile-Croydon.html 
>>
>>
>> (people should avoid the Mail's pictures if they would be offended by 
>> knowing it is tram 2534).
> 
> The bit that makes the least sense to me is the line, in both papers, 
> "sending the bus careering about 100m down the road".  100m is a long 
> way for a bus to travel apparently not under control.
> 
> Robin

A lot of the buses near me do that every day.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

David Hansen wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:26:26 +0100 someone who may be Graham Murray
>  wrote this:-
> 
>> On the other hand, where a tram is running along a road, is there any
>> need for it to have separate signals? Would it not suffice for it to
>> have to obey the same red/amber/green traffic lights as other traffic?
> 
> Yes, which is why separate signals are provided.
> 
> There are many reasons why tram drivers may be given separate
> signals, for example if a tram is to start off before other traffic
> at a junction a separate signal is needed. The "amber" period for a
> tram is a few seconds longer than for motor traffic. It is also
> considered less confusing for operators of other forms of traffic.
> 
> Having decided to provide separate signals for tram drivers the next
> question was what form these signals would take. The two contenders
> were tram stencils on coloured lights (just as there are bike (and
> possibly bus [1]) stencils in places) or white lights. In essence
> the white light system was chosen as there is less chance of
> confusion with signals for other forms of traffic.
> 
> White light signals could be provided by standard traffic light
> units with clear lenses and the appropriate stencil. However, the
> "searchlight" unit was chosen as it is smaller than a three light
> traffic light unit (being fitted to the top of a pedestrian crossing
> pole is a lot neater than having a second traffic light unit beside
> the one for other traffic) and can provide a greater variety of
> indications.
> 
> Given the limitations of operating on the roads I think the system
> would be hard to improve on.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] I have a very vague recollection of having seen bus stencils
> somewhere in the UK. Bike stencils are provided in places though,
> unlike some other places, there is no stencil on the red lens.
> 
> 

I seem to remember the last time I was in Amsterdam there were cycle, 
bus & tram stencils on traffic lights.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

On 8 Sep, 11:47, "R.C. Payne"  wrote:

> Arthur Figgis wrote:
> > There was an accident involving a bus, a (reported to be parked) car, a
> > tram, and possibly a moving car, in George Street, Croydon this morning> > Unfortunately the pedestrian was killed, and the bus driver injured.
>
> > It seems to be a slightly out-of-the-ordinary accident - the tram and
> > bus have ended up quite a way from each other.
>
> >http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/Pedestrian-killed-tram...> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053231/Man-dies-horrific-bus...
>
> > (people should avoid the Mail's pictures if they would be offended by
> > knowing it is tram 2534).
>
> The bit that makes the least sense to me is the line, in both papers,
> "sending the bus careering about 100m down the road".  100m is a long
> way for a bus to travel apparently not under control.
>

The Croydon Advertiser (aka This Is Croydon Today) story suggested
that the bus driver may have been knocked unconscious after colliding
with the tram, which would go towards explaining the distance the bus
travelled whilst out of control.

The media are reporting that the driver of the bus has been arrested.

"Chris"  wrote in message
news:dc4d6cb5-7543-4d9f-b7a3-e9a383b16da9@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> The media are reporting that the driver of the bus has been arrested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7603444.stm

It is also reported that the fatality was a bus passenger, and not a
pedestrian as initial information suggested.

Peter

R.C. Payne wrote:
> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> There was an accident involving a bus, a (reported to be parked) car, 
>> a tram, and possibly a moving car, in George Street, Croydon this 
>> morning. Unfortunately the pedestrian was killed, and the bus driver 
>> injured.
>>
>> It seems to be a slightly out-of-the-ordinary accident - the tram and 
>> bus have ended up quite a way from each other.
>>
>> http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/latestnews/Pedestrian-killed-tram-Croydon-town-centre/article-311699-detail/article. 
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053231/Man-dies-horrific-bus-tram-pile-Croydon.html 
>>
>>
>> (people should avoid the Mail's pictures if they would be offended by 
>> knowing it is tram 2534).
> 
> The bit that makes the least sense to me is the line, in both papers, 
> "sending the bus careering about 100m down the road".  100m is a long 
> way for a bus to travel apparently not under control.

Obviously I haven't measured it, but it is of that order.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On 8 Sep, 18:54, "Peter Masson"  wrote:
> "Chris"  wrote in message
>
> news:dc4d6cb5-7543-4d9f-b7a3-e9a383b16da9@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The media are reporting that the driver of the bus has been arrested.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7603444.stm
>
> It is also reported that the fatality was a bus passenger, and not a
> pedestrian as initial information suggested.
>
> Peter

I thought initial reports mentioned 'blood everywhere'?.....only
inside the bus then, and likely not even there.

Chris  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> It is also reported that the fatality was a bus passenger, and not a
>> pedestrian as initial information suggested.

> I thought initial reports mentioned 'blood everywhere'?.....only inside
> the bus then, and likely not even there.

Depends how he left the bus. The doesn't appear to be much of the upper 
front window remaining.

Chris wrote:
> On 8 Sep, 18:54, "Peter Masson"  wrote:
>>"Chris"  wrote in message
>>
>>news:dc4d6cb5-7543-4d9f-b7a3-e9a383b16da9@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>The media are reporting that the driver of the bus has been arrested.
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7603444.stm
>>
>>It is also reported that the fatality was a bus passenger, and not a
>>pedestrian as initial information suggested.
>>
>>Peter
> 
> I thought initial reports mentioned 'blood everywhere'?.....only
> inside the bus then, and likely not even there.

The reports I have read suggest the passenger had been upstairs, and was 
ejected from the bus during (part of) the accident.  This would make 
sense of the confusion as to whether he had been a passenger or a 
pedestrian.

Robin

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:26:32 +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:

> There was an accident involving a bus, a (reported to be parked) car, a
> tram, and possibly a moving car, in George Street, Croydon this morning.
> Unfortunately the pedestrian was killed, and the bus driver injured.

I thought I saw that junction somewhere before when looking at trains on 
youtube, here's that junction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRW0q4MXvDU

> [1] I have a very vague recollection of having seen bus stencils
> somewhere in the UK. Bike stencils are provided in places though,
> unlike some other places, there is no stencil on the red lens.

Birmingham, at the junction of Longmore Street and Belgrave Middleway.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Birmingham,+Warwickshire,+UK&ie=UTF8&ll=52.464554,-1.89261&spn=0.004602,0.01001&z=17

Buses and Bikes can go straight on from Longmore Street into Horton
Square, cars can only go left.  There's both a bus stencil and a bike
stencil, and bizarrely they have separate lanes.

The layout is hideous, as the dedicated bike lane to cross the
Middleway heading north is in the middle of the road and the bike lane
runs along a widened pavement to the west (where you'd expect it) and
then crosses into the middle of Longmore Street unprotected (where you
sort of expect it).  But coming from Horton Square you end up again in
in the centre of the road and are expected to move right, into the bi-
directional bike lane, unprotected.  So you have massive traffic light
protection for a move across Belgrave Middleway, but fifteen yards the
other side you have to make a weird, unprotected move which drivers
won't be expecting: from the perspective of a driver heading north,
they'll confront  oncoming bikes heading south in the middle of the
road crossing to the western side of the road.

This is part of National Cycle Route 5, and is the recommended route
to cycle from the South West of the city into Birmingham (along Gooch
Street) and is also a useful route towards the Grand Union at Camp
Hill locks (cycling on belgrave Middleway is hard work when you can
cut diagonally across).  I just get in the bus lane and behave like a
bus...

ian

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, i.g.batten@batten.eu.org wrote:

>> [1] I have a very vague recollection of having seen bus stencils 
>> somewhere in the UK. Bike stencils are provided in places though, 
>> unlike some other places, there is no stencil on the red lens.
>
> Birmingham, at the junction of Longmore Street and Belgrave Middleway.
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Birmingham,+Warwickshire,+UK&ie=UTF8&ll=52.464554,-1.89261&spn=0.004602,0.01001&z=17
>
> Buses and Bikes can go straight on from Longmore Street into Horton
> Square, cars can only go left.  There's both a bus stencil and a bike
> stencil, and bizarrely they have separate lanes.
>
> The layout is hideous, as the dedicated bike lane to cross the Middleway 
> heading north is in the middle of the road and the bike lane runs along 
> a widened pavement to the west (where you'd expect it) and then crosses 
> into the middle of Longmore Street unprotected (where you sort of expect 
> it).  But coming from Horton Square you end up again in in the centre of 
> the road and are expected to move right, into the bi- directional bike 
> lane, unprotected.  So you have massive traffic light protection for a 
> move across Belgrave Middleway, but fifteen yards the other side you 
> have to make a weird, unprotected move which drivers won't be expecting: 
> from the perspective of a driver heading north, they'll confront 
> oncoming bikes heading south in the middle of the road crossing to the 
> western side of the road.

Yes, that's a classic bit of cycle lane dickery. That point should at the 
very least be protected by an island rather than some crosshatching, and 
should really have some lights on it too.

I note that there's a primary school to the east, with access from that 
road. Would this not be an ideal place for a pedestrian crossing, with 
which the cycle lane crossover could be integrated?

Really, though, the solution is just not to build cycle lanes. Copious 
research shows that in situations like this - indeed, in almost all urban 
situations - they cause more accidents than they prevent.

Anyway, some more dickery in return - i've been meaning to post this photo 
for ages, and you've prompted me to do so:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

It's about here:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=51.52544%2C-0.126214

> This is part of National Cycle Route 5, and is the recommended route to 
> cycle from the South West of the city into Birmingham (along Gooch 
> Street) and is also a useful route towards the Grand Union at Camp Hill 
> locks (cycling on belgrave Middleway is hard work when you can cut 
> diagonally across).  I just get in the bus lane and behave like a bus...

This is also my strategy. I'm getting very good at brrrmming noises.

tom

-- 
Baby got a masterplan. A foolproof masterplan.

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as 
i.g.batten@batten.eu.org gently breathed:

>I just get in the bus lane and behave like a
>bus...

At least you can drop to the racing position for low bridges.  Possibly 
that's what the next generation of double-deckers needs?  :-)

-- 
  - DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds.  <http://www.sheepish.net>
  - <http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom 
Anderson  gently breathed:

>http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

You should send that to the Warrington Cycle Campaign for their 
"Facility Of The Month" page - top work!

-- 
  - DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds.  <http://www.sheepish.net>
  - <http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

On Sep 10, 12:29 am, Tom Anderson  wrote:

> > diagonally across).  I just get in the bus lane and behave like a bus> This is also my strategy. I'm getting very good at brrrmming noises.

I can ride fast enough, and more to the point accelerate rapidly
enough, that I can outperform buses in urban settings.  But then I
don't need the bike lanes in the first place --- fit, alert, knows
what cars do by virtue of having driven them for twenty-five years,
plus the added je ne said quoi have having a few years' motorbike
experience too.   My kids, however, don't have many of those
attributes, and things like National Cycle Routes _should_ be aimed at
them: if not for children / the nervous / the inexperienced, what's
the point of traffic engineering the roads in city centres?

ian

In article ,
 Tom Anderson  wrote:

> Anyway, some more dickery in return - i've been meaning to post this photo 
> for ages, and you've prompted me to do so:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

You do know about this, don't you?  You should submit your photo.

<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/index.ht
m>

Sam

On 9 Sep, 11:41, Adrian  wrote:
> Depends how he left the bus. The doesn't appear to be much of the upper
> front window remaining.

Well the bus did have an argument with a tram and lost. Given how
mangled the front of the bus is I'd guess the windows just shattered
and fell out on impact. The tram seems fairly intact in the pictures.
Apart from it having derailed you'd never know it had been in an
accident. Must be built a lot stronger than the bus.

B2003

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Boltar wrote:

> On 9 Sep, 11:41, Adrian  wrote:
>
>> Depends how he left the bus. The doesn't appear to be much of the upper 
>> front window remaining.
>
> Well the bus did have an argument with a tram and lost. Given how 
> mangled the front of the bus is I'd guess the windows just shattered and 
> fell out on impact. The tram seems fairly intact in the pictures. Apart 
> from it having derailed you'd never know it had been in an accident. 
> Must be built a lot stronger than the bus.

Maybe the safety bedwetters in the HMRI have done some good after all!

Seriously, though, is it any secret that rail vehicles are built much 
tougher than road vehicles?

In a situation like this, of course, that extra toughness might not have 
been an advantage - rather as with giant 4x4s, it may reduce the danger to 
occupants at the expense of increasing the danger to those outside it.

tom

-- 
And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Pyromancer wrote:

> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom Anderson 
>  gently breathed:
>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/
>
> You should send that to the Warrington Cycle Campaign for their 
> "Facility Of The Month" page - top work!

That's on my to-do list, certainly!

tom

-- 
And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, i.g.batten@batten.eu.org wrote:

> On Sep 10, 12:29 am, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>
>>> diagonally across).  I just get in the bus lane and behave like a bus...
>>
>> This is also my strategy. I'm getting very good at brrrmming noises.
>
> I can ride fast enough, and more to the point accelerate rapidly enough, 
> that I can outperform buses in urban settings.  But then I don't need 
> the bike lanes in the first place --- fit, alert, knows what cars do by 
> virtue of having driven them for twenty-five years, plus the added je ne 
> said quoi have having a few years' motorbike experience too.  My kids, 
> however, don't have many of those attributes, and things like National 
> Cycle Routes _should_ be aimed at them: if not for children / the 
> nervous / the inexperienced, what's the point of traffic engineering the 
> roads in city centres?

The actual point has got nothing to do with the needs of any group of 
cyclists at all: it's essentially a religion, in which planners, without 
any reference to evidence, fervently believe that some white and green 
paint will make life better for cyclists, encourage more cycling, etc. In 
this, they're supported by their congregation of the equally uninformed 
general public, sadly including most cyclists.

Seriously - cycle lanes have been shown time and time again to *increase* 
danger to cyclists. They protect them while running alongside the main 
lane, but expose them to greater danger at junctions. The way the numbers 
pan out for all but the most unbejunctioned roads means that they increase 
risk overall. A cavalcade of studies are listed here:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

You say that experienced cyclists like us don't need cycle lanes, but i'd 
say that inexperienced cyclists need them *even less*, since they're the 
ones who are at most risk to begin with, and so stand to suffer the most 
from the increased risk presented by a cycle lane.

Now, where it's possible to build fully segregated routes that have no 
interaction with roads at any point, or do so very infrequently, i would 
agree that these can be of use to inexperienced cyclists, and even to 
experienced cyclists. The trouble is that there are vanishingly few 
opportunities for such things. You can build them in to new developments 
if you try, but it's generally impossible to fit them into existing street 
layouts without either making them useless to cars (which is a good idea, 
but not popular) or spending an absurd amount on grade separation or 
something. The exceptions are where there's an existing grade-separated 
right of way that can be used, such as a canal towpath or a disused 
railway, or an area that's already car-free, like a park, or an incredibly 
lucky set of circumstances.

Perhaps the thing to do would be to stop building ('building' - can you 
build anything with paint?) conventional cycle lanes altogether, and focus 
the resources on building a small number of genuinely good routes where 
they could do the most good, and be the most use to inexperienced cyclists 
- for instance, if there's a large primary school surrounded by busy 
roads, then elevating or sinking some of the roads and putting a 
grade-separated ground level cycle route in to link to adjacent regions of 
quieter roads.

Or to spend the money on extra police or traffic wardens (or cameras) to 
enforce traffic laws at key conflict points. And, since a minor but 
significant fraction of cyclist casualties stem from cyclist errors, i 
mean enforcing them against cyclists as well as motorists!

tom

-- 
And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden

In article ,
Tom Anderson   wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Boltar wrote:
>
>> Well the bus did have an argument with a tram and lost. Given how 
>> mangled the front of the bus is I'd guess the windows just shattered and 
>> fell out on impact. The tram seems fairly intact in the pictures. Apart 
>> from it having derailed you'd never know it had been in an accident. 
>> Must be built a lot stronger than the bus.
>
>Maybe the safety bedwetters in the HMRI have done some good after all!
>
>Seriously, though, is it any secret that rail vehicles are built much 
>tougher than road vehicles?
>
>In a situation like this, of course, that extra toughness might not have 
>been an advantage - rather as with giant 4x4s, it may reduce the danger to 
>occupants at the expense of increasing the danger to those outside it.

Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone probably
consists of other vehicles.

Nick
-- 
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 9th August 2008)
        "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
                -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Nick Leverton  writes:

> Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone probably
> consists of other vehicles.

So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:29:48 +0100 someone who may be Tom Anderson
 wrote this:-

>Anyway, some more dickery in return - i've been meaning to post this photo 
>for ages, and you've prompted me to do so:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/twic/2844493252/

That is certainly good enough for the Warrington Cycle Campaign
farcility of the month spot.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 07:34:27PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

> Or to spend the money on extra police or traffic wardens (or cameras) to 
> enforce traffic laws at key conflict points. And, since a minor but 
> significant fraction of cyclist casualties stem from cyclist errors, i 
> mean enforcing them against cyclists as well as motorists!

The latter would mean making cyclists identifiable, with number plates.
Good idea.

Unfortunately, cameras won't work.  Cameras can't spot an awful lot of
bad behaviour, such as silly lane changes, unless monitored by a person.
And if you're going to have a person, why not just have them stand next
to the junction in question?

-- 
David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist

There's no problem so complex that it can't be solved
by killing everyone even remotely associated with it

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Graham Murray wrote:

> Nick Leverton  writes:
>
>> Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone probably
>> consists of other vehicles.
>
> So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a 
> collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since impossible 
situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide. Thus, all cars 
should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be no more 
collisions. QED.

Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road users.

tom

-- 
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Tom Anderson  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone
>>> probably consists of other vehicles.

>> So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
>> collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.

> That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since impossible
> situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide. Thus, all cars
> should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be no more
> collisions. QED.
> 
> Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road
> users.

<shrug>
Just give 'em all Landies.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, Adrian wrote:

> Tom Anderson  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>>> Like (according to Ian Banks) Land-Rovers, a tram's crumple zone
>>>> probably consists of other vehicles.
>>>
>>> So Land-Rover driver will just have to hope that if they do have a
>>> collision that it is not with another Land-Rover.
>>
>> That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since impossible
>> situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide. Thus, all cars
>> should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be no more
>> collisions. QED.
>>
>> Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road
>> users.
>
> <shrug>
> Just give 'em all Landies.


Fair enough.

Could you make a bus derivative of a Land Rover?

tom

-- 
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

Tom Anderson  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>>> That would result in a logically impossible situation. Since
>>> impossible situations cannot occur, Land Rovers cannot ever collide.
>>> Thus, all cars should be replaced with Land Rovers, and there would be
>>> no more collisions. QED.
>>>
>>> Er, although i'm not sure how great that would be for non-car road
>>> users.

>> <shrug>
>> Just give 'em all Landies.

> Fair enough.
> 
> Could you make a bus derivative of a Land Rover?

Since some countries get 12 seats in a 110 Station Wagon, you could do a 
passible imitation of a bus with a 130, let alone a 150...

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008, David Cantrell wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 07:34:27PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> Or to spend the money on extra police or traffic wardens (or cameras) to
>> enforce traffic laws at key conflict points. And, since a minor but
>> significant fraction of cyclist casualties stem from cyclist errors, i
>> mean enforcing them against cyclists as well as motorists!
>
> The latter would mean making cyclists identifiable, with number plates. 
> Good idea.

Only if you wanted to do it with cameras. If there were actual people, 
they could stop them there and then.

> Unfortunately, cameras won't work.  Cameras can't spot an awful lot of 
> bad behaviour, such as silly lane changes, unless monitored by a person.

Current cameras don't. I wouldn't say that camera's can't - it's just a 
matter of the right software. Software is unlikely to be good as a human 
brain, but it can do some quite amazing and unexpected things. Have you 
come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software 
can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to 
uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic! Detecting dangerous 
lane changes would seem trivial by comparison.

> And if you're going to have a person, why not just have them stand next 
> to the junction in question?

Well, because one person can monitor more than one camera. Also, is 
suspect that one person can work longer and more productively in a 
sheltered office environment than a wet and windy street corner.

Not that i'm against having more lawmen on the streets. That would be a 
good thing. But it might noet be the optimal allocation of resources.

tom

-- 
It involves police, bailiffs, vampires and a portal to hell under a
tower block in Hackney.

On Sep 11, 8:52 pm, Tom Anderson  wrote:
> brain, but it can do some quite amazing and unexpected things. Have you
> come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software
> can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to
> uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic!

Thats what the companies who sell the software keep saying. Personally
I have my doubts about how reliable it would be. If software still
isn't up to the task of doing decent object or handwriting or speech
recognition then what are the odds it can *reliably* spot a specific
person in a crowd by the way they walk? I'll believe it when I see it.

B2003

On 12 Sep, 09:59, Boltar  wrote:
> On Sep 11, 8:52 pm, Tom Anderson  wrote:
>
> > brain, but it can do some quite amazing and unexpected things. Have you
> > come across this gait analysis business, for instance? Basically, software
> > can extract enough unique information about the way someone walks to
> > uniquely identify them in a crowd. Big-brother-tastic!
>
> Thats what the companies who sell the software keep saying. Personally
> I have my doubts about how reliable it would be. If software still
> isn't up to the task of doing decent object or handwriting or speech
> recognition then what are the odds it can *reliably* spot a specific
> person in a crowd by the way they walk? I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> B2003

It's yet another attempt at trying to get computers to do things that
people do well.  Computers are best used for things that people don't
do well.

Computers can do thousands of totally accurate calcluations in a
second, which people can't, so that's what they should be used for.
It doesn't mean that computers are cleverer than people for all tasks.

People, on the other hand, can recognise each other and understand
speech.  Trying to get a computer to do this is like trying to get a
car to walk upstairs, just because it's better than a person at doing
70 mph and therefore supposedly faster in all contexts.

On Sep 12, 10:38 am, MIG  wrote:
> It's yet another attempt at trying to get computers to do things that
> people do well.  Computers are best used for things that people don't
> do well.

I think its just paranoid politicians clutching at any techno straw
thats dangled in front of them. If they seriously think people can't
change their way of walking to avoid being spotted perhaps they should
go and find out about this novel thing known as "acting". Actors do it
all the time in different roles. Theres no reason to believe Mr
Terrorist (or more likely Mr Expired Parking Ticket Man) can't do it
as well.

> People, on the other hand, can recognise each other and understand
> speech.  Trying to get a computer to do this is like trying to get a
> car to walk upstairs, just because it's better than a person at doing
> 70 mph and therefore supposedly faster in all contexts.

Computers will get there in the end , though I'm not convinced this
Brave New World will be as wonderful as all the techno evengelists
want us to believe. Machines might have done a lot of physical donkey
work for us for 2 centuries but then horses did it before that , and
its not our physicality that makes us human - its our brains and
minds. If you replace human thinking with machine thinking you're
taking away everything.

B2003

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 09:14:13PM +0100, Tom Anderson wrote:

> Could you make a bus derivative of a Land Rover?

Mine would seat 13 passengers + driver.  So in TfL service that would be
39 passengers, 20 of whom wouldn't have valid tickets.

-- 
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

Compromise: n: lowering my standards so you can meet them