I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In articleJvOdnYX2DI5TkYDInZ2dnUVZ7sOdnZ2d@brightvie w.co.uk,
wrote:
Pretty difficult to put your feet up on any seat in PT these days too.
Except on some main line trains.


Very common on the underground in the outer suburbs.

Have you ever been on a modern underground train?


OK, you have just conformed that you are an idiot.

You've just confirmed that you don't know the seat layout on modern
underground trains. I'll give you a clue. They are no longer drawn by
steam engines.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

newshound wrote:
On 30/03/2015 16:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:18:10 +0100, TomSawer wrote:

Why are people still going on about Clarkson and the BBC.

What has this got to do with DIY topics?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Nothing. It's a group with very catholic (with a small 'c') tastes and
interests. That's what makes it vibrant.


Not as catholic as the US site rec.metalworking, which had a lot of very
competent DIY posters; but I gave up when it became swamped with
political postings (mostly *very* right wing). Also an interesting
selection of gun nuts, I found them a bit easier to tolerate.
Do you mean rec.crafts.metalworking?

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 02/04/2015 01:37, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 18:05, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 14:39, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 9:23:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 08:11, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 31, 2015 at 10:57:39 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Which is why you need public transport bringing people into them.

A whole lot of people arent into the time waste of public transport

If the area is pedestrianised, the only other option is walking.

there are a couple more options
1. don't pedestrianise

I am strongly in favour of traffic separation, wherever possible.

2. have available or rentable individual transport units of any of several sorts

That is only a different form of public transport. Indeed, driverless
shuttles, such as those being tested at Greenwich, may be the future of
public transport.

Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The main problems with uk public transport are
a) the vehicle usually doesnt go from your origin or to your destination

Taxis do and they are a form of public transport. If necessary, mix with
train, light railway or other long distance PT.

Aiming to increase use of taxis is a mad idea. Of all transports they are the most wasteful of resources, both material and human. Its only sensible to use them to fill in gaps in any other system implemented.

A lot of people, particularly the elderly, rely upon them. I have a
cousin who used to run a very successful taxi service that specialised
in taxis for the disabled.

b) journey time is generally hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of human resource.

Well, I wouldn't do a long distance trip by bus, but around town, the
traffic usually ensures that everybody travels at much the same speed,
unless there are bus lanes, when the bus will probably be quicker. I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.

I can drive from A to B in town in a fraction the time it takes to walk to a bus stop, wait, go to the nearest stop then walk the rest.

That is going to be very dependent upon the town, the level of traffic
and whether there are effective bus lanes available. I doubt, for
example, that many car drivers beat the bus from Brighton sea front to,
say Patcham. There is a 20mph speed limit for much of the way, traffic
lights that the Green council seem to have phased to delay cars as much
as possible and bus lanes past the most congested parts.

Long distance buses/coaches are worse since there are inevitably less people doing any given long distance journey, thus times between vehicles are far longer.

I was thinking more of long distance service bus routes, like the South
Coast 700 route, which runs between Portsmouth and Brighton, taking
about four hours to do it.

Hirable vehicles of some sort would go part way to solving it, but only part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all zones might, if implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.

Which is what some of the driverless car experiments seem to be aimed at
doing.

Yes... its the sensible option. Huge vehicles made sense in Victorian times, but today much less so.

Large passenger carrying vehicles make much better use of limited road
space. I have an MoT report from 1967, where they were looking at the
advantages, if any, of small town cars. They calculated that, at 25mph,
a 14ft car needed 51ft of road, while a 10ft car needed 47ft. Assuming
they each carried 4 people, that is 12.75ft/person and 11.75ft/person
respectively. A Routemaster bus, OTOH, needed 65 feet, to carry up to 64
passengers, or near enough 1ft/person.



--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
Large passenger carrying vehicles make much better use of limited road
space. I have an MoT report from 1967, where they were looking at the
advantages, if any, of small town cars. They calculated that, at 25mph,
a 14ft car needed 51ft of road, while a 10ft car needed 47ft. Assuming
they each carried 4 people, that is 12.75ft/person and 11.75ft/person
respectively. A Routemaster bus, OTOH, needed 65 feet, to carry up to 64
passengers, or near enough 1ft/person.

That may well be true when both are full. But private cars used for
commuting pretty well never are. Mostly driver only. Buses may be full in
rush hour, but can run near empty outside it. Although it would be rare
to find a bus using up more road space per passenger than a car even
outside rush hour.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 03/04/2015 10:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
Large passenger carrying vehicles make much better use of limited road
space. I have an MoT report from 1967, where they were looking at the
advantages, if any, of small town cars. They calculated that, at 25mph,
a 14ft car needed 51ft of road, while a 10ft car needed 47ft. Assuming
they each carried 4 people, that is 12.75ft/person and 11.75ft/person
respectively. A Routemaster bus, OTOH, needed 65 feet, to carry up to 64
passengers, or near enough 1ft/person.

That may well be true when both are full. But private cars used for
commuting pretty well never are. Mostly driver only. Buses may be full in
rush hour, but can run near empty outside it. Although it would be rare
to find a bus using up more road space per passenger than a car even
outside rush hour.


The average car occupancy in 2011 was 1.6 people, although only 1.2 on
commuting trips. The average bus occupancy was 9.1 outside London and
19.3 in London.

--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
That may well be true when both are full. But private cars used for
commuting pretty well never are. Mostly driver only. Buses may be full in
rush hour, but can run near empty outside it. Although it would be rare
to find a bus using up more road space per passenger than a car even
outside rush hour.


The average car occupancy in 2011 was 1.6 people, although only 1.2 on
commuting trips. The average bus occupancy was 9.1 outside London and
19.3 in London.

Now give the bus figure for rush hour, since you've mentioned it
(commuting) for cars.

--
*You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 03/04/2015 15:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
That may well be true when both are full. But private cars used for
commuting pretty well never are. Mostly driver only. Buses may be full in
rush hour, but can run near empty outside it. Although it would be rare
to find a bus using up more road space per passenger than a car even
outside rush hour.


The average car occupancy in 2011 was 1.6 people, although only 1.2 on
commuting trips. The average bus occupancy was 9.1 outside London and
19.3 in London.

Now give the bus figure for rush hour, since you've mentioned it
(commuting) for cars.


The government figures don't give that. However, likely to be
considerably higher than the average.

--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:17:11 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/04/2015 01:37, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 18:05, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:

Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The main problems with uk public transport are
a) the vehicle usually doesnt go from your origin or to your destination

Taxis do and they are a form of public transport. If necessary, mix with
train, light railway or other long distance PT.

Aiming to increase use of taxis is a mad idea. Of all transports they are the most wasteful of resources, both material and human. Its only sensible to use them to fill in gaps in any other system implemented.

A lot of people, particularly the elderly, rely upon them. I have a
cousin who used to run a very successful taxi service that specialised
in taxis for the disabled.

And that's all good. That doesn't make it a wise thing to try to move more people to taxis from other types of transport.

b) journey time is generally hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of human resource.

Well, I wouldn't do a long distance trip by bus, but around town, the
traffic usually ensures that everybody travels at much the same speed,
unless there are bus lanes, when the bus will probably be quicker. I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.

I can drive from A to B in town in a fraction the time it takes to walk to a bus stop, wait, go to the nearest stop then walk the rest.

That is going to be very dependent upon the town, the level of traffic
and whether there are effective bus lanes available. I doubt, for
example, that many car drivers beat the bus from Brighton sea front to,
say Patcham. There is a 20mph speed limit for much of the way, traffic
lights that the Green council seem to have phased to delay cars as much
as possible and bus lanes past the most congested parts.

Long distance buses/coaches are worse since there are inevitably less people doing any given long distance journey, thus times between vehicles are far longer.

I was thinking more of long distance service bus routes, like the South
Coast 700 route, which runs between Portsmouth and Brighton, taking
about four hours to do it.

Hirable vehicles of some sort would go part way to solving it, but only part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all zones might, if implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.

Which is what some of the driverless car experiments seem to be aimed at
doing.

Yes... its the sensible option. Huge vehicles made sense in Victorian times, but today much less so.

Large passenger carrying vehicles make much better use of limited road
space. I have an MoT report from 1967, where they were looking at the
advantages, if any, of small town cars. They calculated that, at 25mph,
a 14ft car needed 51ft of road, while a 10ft car needed 47ft. Assuming
they each carried 4 people, that is 12.75ft/person and 11.75ft/person
respectively. A Routemaster bus, OTOH, needed 65 feet, to carry up to 64
passengers, or near enough 1ft/person.

If driverless pods prove viable, they can hook up when travelling the same route to save road space and improve reliability.

The figures you quote are clearly for travel at some speed. Town centres today are routinely clogged, and under those conditions karts occupy half the width and 1/4 the length of a car, making stationary queues just 1/8th as long, thus unblocking some of the junctions & roads.


NT

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
The average car occupancy in 2011 was 1.6 people, although only 1.2 on
commuting trips. The average bus occupancy was 9.1 outside London and
19.3 in London.

Now give the bus figure for rush hour, since you've mentioned it
(commuting) for cars.


The government figures don't give that. However, likely to be
considerably higher than the average.

In this part of London they're generally packed solid in rush hour. Trains
and tubes too.

--
*Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:16:44 PM UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:17:11 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/04/2015 01:37, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 6:34:44 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 01/04/2015 18:05, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 5:17:29 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:

Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The main problems with uk public transport are
a) the vehicle usually doesnt go from your origin or to your destination

Taxis do and they are a form of public transport. If necessary, mix with
train, light railway or other long distance PT.

Aiming to increase use of taxis is a mad idea. Of all transports they are the most wasteful of resources, both material and human. Its only sensible to use them to fill in gaps in any other system implemented.

A lot of people, particularly the elderly, rely upon them. I have a
cousin who used to run a very successful taxi service that specialised
in taxis for the disabled.

And that's all good. That doesn't make it a wise thing to try to move more people to taxis from other types of transport.

b) journey time is generally hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of human resource.

Well, I wouldn't do a long distance trip by bus, but around town, the
traffic usually ensures that everybody travels at much the same speed,
unless there are bus lanes, when the bus will probably be quicker. I
also suspect that the days when I could drive across London faster than
getting there by tube have long gone.

I can drive from A to B in town in a fraction the time it takes to walk to a bus stop, wait, go to the nearest stop then walk the rest.

That is going to be very dependent upon the town, the level of traffic
and whether there are effective bus lanes available. I doubt, for
example, that many car drivers beat the bus from Brighton sea front to,
say Patcham. There is a 20mph speed limit for much of the way, traffic
lights that the Green council seem to have phased to delay cars as much
as possible and bus lanes past the most congested parts.

Long distance buses/coaches are worse since there are inevitably less people doing any given long distance journey, thus times between vehicles are far longer.

I was thinking more of long distance service bus routes, like the South
Coast 700 route, which runs between Portsmouth and Brighton, taking
about four hours to do it.

Hirable vehicles of some sort would go part way to solving it, but only part way. Permitting small vehicles, eg kart size, in all zones might, if implemented sufficiently well, be the best option.

Which is what some of the driverless car experiments seem to be aimed at
doing.

Yes... its the sensible option. Huge vehicles made sense in Victorian times, but today much less so.

Large passenger carrying vehicles make much better use of limited road
space. I have an MoT report from 1967, where they were looking at the
advantages, if any, of small town cars. They calculated that, at 25mph,
a 14ft car needed 51ft of road, while a 10ft car needed 47ft. Assuming
they each carried 4 people, that is 12.75ft/person and 11.75ft/person
respectively. A Routemaster bus, OTOH, needed 65 feet, to carry up to 64
passengers, or near enough 1ft/person.

If driverless pods prove viable, they can hook up when travelling the same route to save road space and improve reliability.

The figures you quote are clearly for travel at some speed. Town centres today are routinely clogged, and under those conditions karts occupy half the width and 1/4 the length of a car, making stationary queues just 1/8th as long, thus unblocking some of the junctions& roads.

No, you've forgotten to allow for the bus lanes!

I'm not mananging to make sense of that.


NT

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 03/04/2015 16:05, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:17:11 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
....
A lot of people, particularly the elderly, rely upon them. I have a
cousin who used to run a very successful taxi service that specialised
in taxis for the disabled.

And that's all good. That doesn't make it a wise thing to try to move more people to taxis from other types of transport.

I don't recall suggesting that. I simply pointed out that there is a
form of public transport that will go from door to door. Most people are
happier than you to use fixed stops.

....
Large passenger carrying vehicles make much better use of limited road
space. I have an MoT report from 1967, where they were looking at the
advantages, if any, of small town cars. They calculated that, at 25mph,
a 14ft car needed 51ft of road, while a 10ft car needed 47ft. Assuming
they each carried 4 people, that is 12.75ft/person and 11.75ft/person
respectively. A Routemaster bus, OTOH, needed 65 feet, to carry up to 64
passengers, or near enough 1ft/person.

If driverless pods prove viable, they can hook up when travelling the same route to save road space and improve reliability.

They are still not going to achieve the passenger density of a double
decker bus.

The figures you quote are clearly for travel at some speed. Town centres today are routinely clogged, and under those conditions karts occupy half the width and 1/4 the length of a car, making stationary queues just 1/8th as long, thus unblocking some of the junctions & roads.

As I said, they are for 25mph. The average free traffic speed for buses
in a 30mph limit is 27mph. Bus lanes should allow buses to achieve free
traffic speed much of the time. However, at 10mph, the length of road
needed by a 10ft car is still 25 feet for up to four people, while at
10mph the Routemaster bus will need 32 feet for up to 64 people.


--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 11:22:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03/04/2015 16:05, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:17:11 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
...
A lot of people, particularly the elderly, rely upon them. I have a
cousin who used to run a very successful taxi service that specialised
in taxis for the disabled.

And that's all good. That doesn't make it a wise thing to try to move more people to taxis from other types of transport.

I don't recall suggesting that. I simply pointed out that there is a
form of public transport that will go from door to door. Most people are
happier than you to use fixed stops.

...
Large passenger carrying vehicles make much better use of limited road
space. I have an MoT report from 1967, where they were looking at the
advantages, if any, of small town cars. They calculated that, at 25mph,
a 14ft car needed 51ft of road, while a 10ft car needed 47ft. Assuming
they each carried 4 people, that is 12.75ft/person and 11.75ft/person
respectively. A Routemaster bus, OTOH, needed 65 feet, to carry up to 64
passengers, or near enough 1ft/person.

If driverless pods prove viable, they can hook up when travelling the same route to save road space and improve reliability.

They are still not going to achieve the passenger density of a double
decker bus.

No, ignoring bizarre multistorey configurations :) But much better density than the car & taxi rides they replace.

With computer programming of destinations and suitable pod design it also may be possible to shift passengers into and out of bus sized pods while travelling, enabling large pods to take more of the traffic than today's buses, yet take people door to door.


The figures you quote are clearly for travel at some speed. Town centres today are routinely clogged, and under those conditions karts occupy half the width and 1/4 the length of a car, making stationary queues just 1/8th as long, thus unblocking some of the junctions & roads.

As I said, they are for 25mph. The average free traffic speed for buses
in a 30mph limit is 27mph. Bus lanes should allow buses to achieve free
traffic speed much of the time. However, at 10mph, the length of road
needed by a 10ft car is still 25 feet for up to four people, while at
10mph the Routemaster bus will need 32 feet for up to 64 people.

Road vehicle density is an issue when its busiest, and pretty much a nonissue when everyone can do 27mph in a 30 zone. The biggest deal is to unclog congestion, when speed is near zero. In those conditions, a 10ft car takes maybe 13ft of lane, and a 4ft kart maybe 5 feet, two abreast. 2.5 feet of lane per just over 1 driver versus 13ft.


NT

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
wrote:
Road vehicle density is an issue when its busiest, and pretty much a
nonissue when everyone can do 27mph in a 30 zone. The biggest deal is to
unclog congestion, when speed is near zero. In those conditions, a 10ft
car takes maybe 13ft of lane, and a 4ft kart maybe 5 feet, two abreast.
2.5 feet of lane per just over 1 driver versus 13ft.

Makes more sense to walk to a 'central' point like a station or bus stop,
then. You can pack a lot of people into a pavement. Unless you are going
to totally re-design cities around moving people from door to door. But
I'll be long dead before that happens, luckily. I'd not want to live in
such a place.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 02/04/2015 02:24, Clive George wrote:
On 02/04/2015 00:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The
main problems with uk public transport are

Think you're going to generalise a bit he-

a) the vehicle usually doesnt
go from your origin or to your destination

That assumes you can park exactly at your destination. Usually not the
case in town centres.

b) journey time is generally
hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of
human resource.

Again, that depends. In general, I find PT at least as fast as a car in
rush hour. Evenings, PT usually slows down while the roads are less
congested. So the car usually wins then.

But I'm talking about London.

I use PT to get from the Dales to South London for work. Similar journey
time to driving, goes to where I want to go, can work/sleep/whatever
during that time. It's massively better than driving.



True. Now add an overnight bag, full PPE, laptop and cameras and other
basic forensic kit. Then maybe driving does not sound so bad. But try
telling that to some of my clients / authorisers (who don't even travel
with a briefcase).

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 01/04/2015 10:24, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Which is why you need public transport bringing people into them.


I spent my childhood experiencing the cold wet joys of traveling on
filthy public transport.

Me too. But have you tried the Washington DC metro?

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 02/04/2015 02:24, Clive George wrote:
On 02/04/2015 00:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The
main problems with uk public transport are

Think you're going to generalise a bit he-

a) the vehicle usually doesnt
go from your origin or to your destination

That assumes you can park exactly at your destination. Usually not the
case in town centres.

b) journey time is generally
hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of
human resource.

Again, that depends. In general, I find PT at least as fast as a car in
rush hour. Evenings, PT usually slows down while the roads are less
congested. So the car usually wins then.

But I'm talking about London.

I use PT to get from the Dales to South London for work. Similar journey
time to driving, goes to where I want to go, can work/sleep/whatever
during that time. It's massively better than driving.



True. Now add an overnight bag, full PPE, laptop and cameras and other
basic forensic kit. Then maybe driving does not sound so bad. But try
telling that to some of my clients / authorisers (who don't even travel
with a briefcase).

On Thursday, I'm going to Edinbugh with suitcase, music case & harp. I'm
not even thinking of public transport.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 31/03/2015 19:24, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:03:50 +0100, newshound
wrote:
I don't quite remember food rationing though.

Surely you remember this: http://tinyurl.com/2hlnzr


Sweets? In 1953 we were so poor that I was lucky to be allowed to lick
the dog.

I do remember the budget when sweets were first taxed though.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
newshound wrote:
I use PT to get from the Dales to South London for work. Similar
journey time to driving, goes to where I want to go, can
work/sleep/whatever during that time. It's massively better than
driving.



True. Now add an overnight bag, full PPE, laptop and cameras and other
basic forensic kit. Then maybe driving does not sound so bad. But try
telling that to some of my clients / authorisers (who don't even travel
with a briefcase).

Of course if you have to carry tools of the trade a car or van will be the
only way. But that really doesn't apply to the majority of people who
choose to commute by car.

I don't care how people choose to commute. Only when they talk rubbish
about PT based on experience years old.

--
*I'm really easy to get along with once people learn to worship me

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
charles wrote:
On Thursday, I'm going to Edinbugh with suitcase, music case & harp. I'm
not even thinking of public transport.

Can you actually do that on your own? The harp was one of the few
instruments that got delivered to a session.

--
*How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 04/04/2015 15:53, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 11:22:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03/04/2015 16:05, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:17:11 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
...
A lot of people, particularly the elderly, rely upon them. I have a
cousin who used to run a very successful taxi service that specialised
in taxis for the disabled.

And that's all good. That doesn't make it a wise thing to try to move more people to taxis from other types of transport.

I don't recall suggesting that. I simply pointed out that there is a
form of public transport that will go from door to door. Most people are
happier than you to use fixed stops.

...
Large passenger carrying vehicles make much better use of limited road
space. I have an MoT report from 1967, where they were looking at the
advantages, if any, of small town cars. They calculated that, at 25mph,
a 14ft car needed 51ft of road, while a 10ft car needed 47ft. Assuming
they each carried 4 people, that is 12.75ft/person and 11.75ft/person
respectively. A Routemaster bus, OTOH, needed 65 feet, to carry up to 64
passengers, or near enough 1ft/person.

If driverless pods prove viable, they can hook up when travelling the same route to save road space and improve reliability.

They are still not going to achieve the passenger density of a double
decker bus.

No, ignoring bizarre multistorey configurations :) But much better density than the car & taxi rides they replace.

With computer programming of destinations and suitable pod design it also may be possible to shift passengers into and out of bus sized pods while travelling, enabling large pods to take more of the traffic than today's buses, yet take people door to door.


The figures you quote are clearly for travel at some speed. Town centres today are routinely clogged, and under those conditions karts occupy half the width and 1/4 the length of a car, making stationary queues just 1/8th as long, thus unblocking some of the junctions & roads.

As I said, they are for 25mph. The average free traffic speed for buses
in a 30mph limit is 27mph. Bus lanes should allow buses to achieve free
traffic speed much of the time. However, at 10mph, the length of road
needed by a 10ft car is still 25 feet for up to four people, while at
10mph the Routemaster bus will need 32 feet for up to 64 people.

Road vehicle density is an issue when its busiest, and pretty much a nonissue when everyone can do 27mph in a 30 zone. The biggest deal is to unclog congestion, when speed is near zero. In those conditions, a 10ft car takes maybe 13ft of lane, and a 4ft kart maybe 5 feet, two abreast. 2.5 feet of lane per just over 1 driver versus 13ft.

You are still going to face the problem they found with the concept of
small personal transport vehicles in 1967 - virtually nobody wanted to
use them. A survey found that, besides most people disliking them simply
because they were small, small vehicles were rated badly for both
comfort and safety.


--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
On Thursday, I'm going to Edinbugh with suitcase, music case & harp.
I'm not even thinking of public transport.

Can you actually do that on your own? The harp was one of the few
instruments that got delivered to a session.

It's a "small harp", "lever harp" or "clarsach", not a pedal harp.

But I do know people who can manage to take their own pedal harp in a
large estate car all by themselves.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:25:38 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/04/2015 15:53, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 11:22:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03/04/2015 16:05, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:17:11 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:

With computer programming of destinations and suitable pod design it also may be possible to shift passengers into and out of bus sized pods while travelling, enabling large pods to take more of the traffic than today's buses, yet take people door to door.


The figures you quote are clearly for travel at some speed. Town centres today are routinely clogged, and under those conditions karts occupy half the width and 1/4 the length of a car, making stationary queues just 1/8th as long, thus unblocking some of the junctions & roads.

As I said, they are for 25mph. The average free traffic speed for buses
in a 30mph limit is 27mph. Bus lanes should allow buses to achieve free
traffic speed much of the time. However, at 10mph, the length of road
needed by a 10ft car is still 25 feet for up to four people, while at
10mph the Routemaster bus will need 32 feet for up to 64 people.

Road vehicle density is an issue when its busiest, and pretty much a nonissue when everyone can do 27mph in a 30 zone. The biggest deal is to unclog congestion, when speed is near zero. In those conditions, a 10ft car takes maybe 13ft of lane, and a 4ft kart maybe 5 feet, two abreast. 2.5 feet of lane per just over 1 driver versus 13ft.

You are still going to face the problem they found with the concept of
small personal transport vehicles in 1967 - virtually nobody wanted to
use them. A survey found that, besides most people disliking them simply
because they were small, small vehicles were rated badly for both
comfort and safety.

Suspension & safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer control can be expected to much improve safety.


NT

I thought this was a DIY site
 

National Prosthertiser
/And you have confirmed that you cant spell...;-) /q

Fack aff! Of all the 'personalities' on this news group, you are the worst fir spilling mushtajes shurely?

Jum L

I thought this was a DIY site
 

newshound wrote:
On 02/04/2015 02:24, Clive George wrote:
On 02/04/2015 00:46, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Its something very different to what we know as public transport. The
main problems with uk public transport are

Think you're going to generalise a bit he-

a) the vehicle usually doesnt
go from your origin or to your destination

That assumes you can park exactly at your destination. Usually not the
case in town centres.

b) journey time is generally
hugely increased compared to car travel, resulting in a vast waste of
human resource.

Again, that depends. In general, I find PT at least as fast as a car in
rush hour. Evenings, PT usually slows down while the roads are less
congested. So the car usually wins then.

But I'm talking about London.

I use PT to get from the Dales to South London for work. Similar journey
time to driving, goes to where I want to go, can work/sleep/whatever
during that time. It's massively better than driving.



True. Now add an overnight bag, full PPE, laptop and cameras and other
basic forensic kit. Then maybe driving does not sound so bad. But try
telling that to some of my clients / authorisers (who don't even travel
with a briefcase).

And don't forget the pleasure of catching all those colds from other
travelers !

I thought this was a DIY site
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I don't care how people choose to commute. Only when they talk rubbish
about PT based on experience years old.


My experience is current.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

I thought this was a DIY site
 

JimK wrote:
National Prosthertiser
/And you have confirmed that you cant spell...;-) /q

Fack aff! Of all the 'personalities' on this news group, you are the worst fir spilling mushtajes shurely?

Jum L

I don't mind, I accept that I will make some mistakes now and then.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

newshound wrote:
On 01/04/2015 10:24, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where
people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Which is why you need public transport bringing people into them.


I spent my childhood experiencing the cold wet joys of traveling on
filthy public transport.

Me too. But have you tried the Washington DC metro?


No, but I've tried Chicago and (shudder) Atlanta. Chicago trains were
good, but I've not tried the buses. My last Greyhound experience put me
off long distance PT bus travel in the US. We normally drive everywhere.
Houston has a bus service, but it's very limited in scope.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:39:25 PM UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
wrote:

Suspension& safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer
control can be expected to much improve safety.

Small vehicles = small wheels. Potholes seem worse now than I recall.
I can well understand small vehicles being unpopular, particularly if
you are overweight or have luggage/children/pushchairs.

Computerised vehicles could learn where potholes are, and when its easy enough to move over a little to avoid them, do so.

If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of sizes would make most sense, along with the ability for them to connect and permit passengers to walk through from one to the next, maybe while in motion.


NT

I thought this was a DIY site
 

Huge wrote:
On 2015-04-04, wrote:
newshound wrote:
On 01/04/2015 10:24, Capitol wrote:
Nightjarcpb@ wrote:
On 31/03/2015 21:00, Capitol wrote:
Nightjarcpb@ wrote:

They also work well if run through pedestrianised areas, both keeping
them separate from other traffic and putting them close to where
people
want them.

Pedestrianised areas are bad news for local town centre shops (and
locally for small shopping areas). A number of US towns have
depedestianised the town centre as no one would go there.

Yes, but Americans have a weird relationship with their cars.


How is it any different from here?

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 04/04/2015 21:23, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:25:38 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/04/2015 15:53, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 11:22:07 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 03/04/2015 16:05, wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:17:11 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:

With computer programming of destinations and suitable pod design it also may be possible to shift passengers into and out of bus sized pods while travelling, enabling large pods to take more of the traffic than today's buses, yet take people door to door.


The figures you quote are clearly for travel at some speed. Town centres today are routinely clogged, and under those conditions karts occupy half the width and 1/4 the length of a car, making stationary queues just 1/8th as long, thus unblocking some of the junctions & roads.

As I said, they are for 25mph. The average free traffic speed for buses
in a 30mph limit is 27mph. Bus lanes should allow buses to achieve free
traffic speed much of the time. However, at 10mph, the length of road
needed by a 10ft car is still 25 feet for up to four people, while at
10mph the Routemaster bus will need 32 feet for up to 64 people.

Road vehicle density is an issue when its busiest, and pretty much a nonissue when everyone can do 27mph in a 30 zone. The biggest deal is to unclog congestion, when speed is near zero. In those conditions, a 10ft car takes maybe 13ft of lane, and a 4ft kart maybe 5 feet, two abreast. 2.5 feet of lane per just over 1 driver versus 13ft.

You are still going to face the problem they found with the concept of
small personal transport vehicles in 1967 - virtually nobody wanted to
use them. A survey found that, besides most people disliking them simply
because they were small, small vehicles were rated badly for both
comfort and safety.

Suspension & safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer control can be expected to much improve safety.

Large cars are still much more comfortable than small ones, even if
small cars today are probably more comfortable than many large cars of
1967. I suspect that many people will be quite dubious of the safety of
fully automatic vehicles for quite a long time. You also have the basic
problem of people not liking them, simply because they are small.


--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 05/04/2015 10:23, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:39:25 PM UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
wrote:

Suspension& safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer
control can be expected to much improve safety.

Small vehicles = small wheels. Potholes seem worse now than I recall.
I can well understand small vehicles being unpopular, particularly if
you are overweight or have luggage/children/pushchairs.

Computerised vehicles could learn where potholes are, and when its easy enough to move over a little to avoid them, do so.

There are already cars that look at the road just ahead of their wheels
and adjust the suspension to suit as the wheel passes over that bit. Not
cheap cars though.

If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of sizes would make most sense, along with the ability for them to connect and permit passengers to walk through from one to the next, maybe while in motion.

I doubt that they would link physically, although they may well link
electronically, allowing them to travel much closer than if they were
driving individually.


--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:11:12 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/04/2015 21:23, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:25:38 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/04/2015 15:53, wrote:

Road vehicle density is an issue when its busiest, and pretty much a nonissue when everyone can do 27mph in a 30 zone. The biggest deal is to unclog congestion, when speed is near zero. In those conditions, a 10ft car takes maybe 13ft of lane, and a 4ft kart maybe 5 feet, two abreast. 2.5 feet of lane per just over 1 driver versus 13ft.

You are still going to face the problem they found with the concept of
small personal transport vehicles in 1967 - virtually nobody wanted to
use them. A survey found that, besides most people disliking them simply
because they were small, small vehicles were rated badly for both
comfort and safety.

Suspension & safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer control can be expected to much improve safety.

Large cars are still much more comfortable than small ones, even if
small cars today are probably more comfortable than many large cars of
1967.

Comfort certainly doesnt come into the decision to take public transport, yet masses do. Comfort level is whatever you choose to make it.

I suspect that many people will be quite dubious of the safety of
fully automatic vehicles for quite a long time.

Many will. But its relatively easy to demonstrate much higher safety of computer drivers than human.

You also have the basic
problem of people not liking them, simply because they are small.

Lots of people buy small cars, so it doesnt seem to be a big problem for most.
And why would they need to be small? Pods can be a mix of sizes.
Bear in mind that small had very different implication in 67 than today. Then it normally meant cheap, borderline and unsafe.


NT

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:15:00 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/04/2015 10:23, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:39:25 PM UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
wrote:

Suspension& safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer
control can be expected to much improve safety.

Small vehicles = small wheels. Potholes seem worse now than I recall.
I can well understand small vehicles being unpopular, particularly if
you are overweight or have luggage/children/pushchairs.

Computerised vehicles could learn where potholes are, and when its easy enough to move over a little to avoid them, do so.

There are already cars that look at the road just ahead of their wheels
and adjust the suspension to suit as the wheel passes over that bit. Not
cheap cars though.

Hence I'm not suggesting it

If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of sizes would make most sense, along with the ability for them to connect and permit passengers to walk through from one to the next, maybe while in motion.

I doubt that they would link physically, although they may well link
electronically, allowing them to travel much closer than if they were
driving individually.

Linking physically has some real upsides, and should be doable safely on dual carriageways and other wide roads.


NT

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In article ,
wrote:
Comfort certainly doesnt come into the decision to take public
transport, yet masses do.

Eh? The trains round here give as smooth a ride as any car.

--
Is the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 05/04/2015 13:29, wrote:
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:11:12 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/04/2015 21:23, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:25:38 PM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 04/04/2015 15:53, wrote:

Road vehicle density is an issue when its busiest, and pretty much a nonissue when everyone can do 27mph in a 30 zone. The biggest deal is to unclog congestion, when speed is near zero. In those conditions, a 10ft car takes maybe 13ft of lane, and a 4ft kart maybe 5 feet, two abreast. 2.5 feet of lane per just over 1 driver versus 13ft.

You are still going to face the problem they found with the concept of
small personal transport vehicles in 1967 - virtually nobody wanted to
use them. A survey found that, besides most people disliking them simply
because they were small, small vehicles were rated badly for both
comfort and safety.

Suspension & safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer control can be expected to much improve safety.

Large cars are still much more comfortable than small ones, even if
small cars today are probably more comfortable than many large cars of
1967.

Comfort certainly doesnt come into the decision to take public transport,

It does if you are trying to get people to use it instead of cars.

I suspect that many people will be quite dubious of the safety of
fully automatic vehicles for quite a long time.

Many will. But its relatively easy to demonstrate much higher safety of computer drivers than human.

If being able to demonstrate the superiority of a system over emotional
choices, we would have an electricity supply system without wind
generators and with lots of nuclear power.

You also have the basic
problem of people not liking them, simply because they are small.

Lots of people buy small cars, so it doesnt seem to be a big problem for most.

That rather depends upon what you class as a small car. The 1967 report
was looking at bubble car size or smaller. Today's equivalent is
probably something like the Smart car.

And why would they need to be small? Pods can be a mix of sizes.
Bear in mind that small had very different implication in 67 than today. Then it normally meant cheap, borderline and unsafe.

What has changed is that we expect more from our cars today, so while
they are much superior to the equivalent cars of 1967, they are still
cheap, poorly equipped and unsafe compared to their contemporaries.


--
Colin Bignell

I thought this was a DIY site
 

On 03/04/2015 05:22, F Murtz wrote:
newshound wrote:
On 30/03/2015 16:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 16:18:10 +0100, TomSawer wrote:

Why are people still going on about Clarkson and the BBC.

What has this got to do with DIY topics?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Nothing. It's a group with very catholic (with a small 'c') tastes and
interests. That's what makes it vibrant.


Not as catholic as the US site rec.metalworking, which had a lot of very
competent DIY posters; but I gave up when it became swamped with
political postings (mostly *very* right wing). Also an interesting
selection of gun nuts, I found them a bit easier to tolerate.
Do you mean rec.crafts.metalworking?

Yes. It's a while since I subscribed.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
Comfort certainly doesnt come into the decision to take public
transport, yet masses do.

Eh? The trains round here give as smooth a ride as any car.


My local underground doesn't. The train is better, but goes to the
wrong places and access is poor.

I thought this was a DIY site
 

In message ,
writes
On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 11:15:00 AM UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 05/04/2015 10:23, wrote:
On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 10:39:25 PM UTC+1, Capitol wrote:
wrote:

Suspension& safety have come a long way since 67 of course. Computer
control can be expected to much improve safety.

Small vehicles = small wheels. Potholes seem worse now than I recall.
I can well understand small vehicles being unpopular, particularly if
you are overweight or have luggage/children/pushchairs.

Computerised vehicles could learn where potholes are, and when its
easy enough to move over a little to avoid them, do so.

There are already cars that look at the road just ahead of their wheels
and adjust the suspension to suit as the wheel passes over that bit. Not
cheap cars though.

Hence I'm not suggesting it

If we ever have computer driven pods, I suspect a good mix of sizes
would make most sense, along with the ability for them to connect
and permit passengers to walk through from one to the next, maybe
while in motion.

I doubt that they would link physically, although they may well link
electronically, allowing them to travel much closer than if they were
driving individually.

Linking physically has some real upsides, and should be doable safely
on dual carriageways and other wide roads.

Mulling over the driverless car mixed with conventional human operators,
I think there may need to be changes to the current highway code.

F'rinstance..... minor road crossing a major one. Two vehicles arrive at
the same time, both turning right. Humans will make eye contact and
proceed safely. Obviously, two computer controlled pods could do the
same but how do you cater for one of each? Worse still if a mixed queue
forms.


NT

--
Tim Lamb