twenty questions

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

I am - and so are the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch), sadly: see http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/130214_R032013_Sandilands.pdf and http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/120530_R082012_Piccadilly_Gardens.pdf 

[JayMac]

Minor pedantic point.

grahame's picture was from Dublin, so it won't be the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) being apoplectic. It'll be the RAIU. Or maybe the Garda. Looking at the RAIU website there are no investigations listed for tram v pedestrian fatalities although there have been at least three since the LUAS started operating.

[stuving]

I still don't see anything in the picture to trigger Mr. Growser the inspector to have a seizure. No doubt buggy-pushers would be best advised (and are advised by LUAS) to use the flat crossing at the end of the platform. But they are pedestrians, so advice has only a limited effect (being Irish is not relevant). In any case, one of the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) reports you cite shows that providing a crossing place can make pedestrians less likely to look both ways first. Or are you looking at a super-3D version of the picture, and can see a tram coming?

I'm sure there are some specific issues about public use and awareness of tram systems, such as how people cope with the different regimes they may run under - on-street mixed traffic, in pedestrian-only areas, in tram stations, on-street reserved but unfenced, on-street fenced off, out-of-town as a railway, etc., etc. But I am not aware of any serious concern that trams and pedestrians just can't be safely mixed - without which you can't have trams. And don't the same considerations apply to guided buses? Or just buses? We have noted here before that the safety regime applied to rail is stricter than to equivalent non-rail road transport.

I've been saying for years that if we had somehow avoided ever having road vehicles, but had reached our current state of technology and public opinion, you could not really introduce them now. Just think: "You mean lumps of metal of a ton or more whizzing past pedestrians at lethal speeds only separated by a foot or two? You must be mad. And anyone can drive one? Now you're being silly. I could just about accept professional drivers only, otherwise we have to go back to the man with the flag idea..."

[Red Squirrel]

"You mean lumps of metal of a ton or more whizzing past pedestrians at lethal speeds only separated by a foot or two? You must be mad..."

The double-standards here can be shocking. The bus lanes introduced as part of the Greater Bristol Bus Network on Gloucester Rd, Bristol (a busy shopping area), have buses travelling at full speed inches from pedestrians on crowded pavements; at times the buses' wing mirrors overhang the pavements.

[thetrout]

The trams in Croydon spring to mind as well as the Manchester Metrolink

[bobm]

Just as a topical aside, there is a television programme on the history of British Trams at 10pm this evening (2nd July) on BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) 4.  It is a repeat showing, but I must have missed it before.

[grahame]

Cambridge is Britain's top cycling city:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23274432

Of 16 riders on cycles in the video, only 3 were wearing helmets.   And the chap who's job it is to promote cycle use wasn't one of them.  He rode up helmetless.

[Red Squirrel]

Cambridge is Britain's top cycling city:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23274432

Of 16 riders on cycles in the video, only 3 were wearing helmets.   And the chap who's job it is to promote cycle use wasn't one of them.  He rode up helmetless.

...from which I infer that you think they should all be wearing helmets?

There are 'cyclists', and there are 'people on bikes'. Cyclists are sporty types who wear lycra and helmets. People on bikes are regular folk just getting around.

People on bikes shouldn't need helmets any more than pedestrians do, and IMHO^▸ ('in my humble opinion') everything possible should be done to make this form of cycling safer and more 'normal'. The Dutch, for the most part, don't wear them. But don't listen to me banging on about it, here is a better argument than I can make . The key conclusion is that:

That is the lesson from the Netherlands, that we need more cyclists and better bike paths more than we need helmets

...oh, and one other thing: Just remember that cycling is the only pursuit that does you good even if you don't do it - everyone benefits from cleaner air and more road space.

Edit: Typo

[grahame]

...from which I infer that you think they should all be wearing helmets?

The law leaves it up to the individual.  But I do think it might be a good idea for the chap who's promoting cycling to set a good example.   Rather like the law letting us cross the road against red pedestrian lights, but it being a good idea to hold back and set a good example by waiting in front of our or other people's children.

Interesting perspective at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/jul/09/bike-blog-cycling-road-safety