London Bus Crashes Are the Result of an Unsafe Model (ft.com) 119
An anonymous reader shares a report: Earlier this year I had one of those encounters which, afterwards, I just couldn't stop thinking about. Eight months and some digging later, I have decided to write about it. My meeting was with an American businessman called Tom Kearney, who was on a pavement in central London one Christmas when he was whacked on the head so hard that he fell to the ground, spent weeks in a coma, and only just survived. Had he been mugged? Not quite. He'd been hit by the giant wing mirror of a London bus.
[...] The most recent data show that 86 people died or were badly injured in bus collisions in London between 10 December 2023 and 31 March 2024. Kearney's analysis of TfL data suggests that around three people a day are hospitalised after bus safety incidents. That doesn't feel good, even though it's tiny in comparison to the 1.8bn annual passenger journeys. Compared with other world cities like New York and Paris the capital's buses rank in the top quartile for financial efficiency but the bottom quartile for collisions per kilometre. And the number of collisions in London has increased in the past couple of years, despite buses travelling fewer miles.
Could this have anything to do with the way that bus contracts prioritise speed? Last week, hundreds of bus drivers marched to TfL headquarters to demand better working conditions and the right to report safety concerns "without fear of retribution from TfL or employers." Drivers described the pressure of long shifts, few breaks and having to drive in sometimes blistering heat, all while being shouted at over a monitor by controllers who want them to make up the time to the next stop, and keep the right amount of distance between their bus and next. It's not surprising that a third of bus drivers, before the pandemic, reported having had a "close call" from fatigue.
With the government about to export the London franchise model to other parts of the country, someone in Whitehall needs to take a look. Michael Liebreich, a former McKinsey consultant who sat on the TfL board for six years, believes that TfL's contracting out model is "institutionally unsafe." Bus drivers are under such pressure, he thinks, that some may break the speed limit and overtake cyclists dangerously.
[...] The most recent data show that 86 people died or were badly injured in bus collisions in London between 10 December 2023 and 31 March 2024. Kearney's analysis of TfL data suggests that around three people a day are hospitalised after bus safety incidents. That doesn't feel good, even though it's tiny in comparison to the 1.8bn annual passenger journeys. Compared with other world cities like New York and Paris the capital's buses rank in the top quartile for financial efficiency but the bottom quartile for collisions per kilometre. And the number of collisions in London has increased in the past couple of years, despite buses travelling fewer miles.
Could this have anything to do with the way that bus contracts prioritise speed? Last week, hundreds of bus drivers marched to TfL headquarters to demand better working conditions and the right to report safety concerns "without fear of retribution from TfL or employers." Drivers described the pressure of long shifts, few breaks and having to drive in sometimes blistering heat, all while being shouted at over a monitor by controllers who want them to make up the time to the next stop, and keep the right amount of distance between their bus and next. It's not surprising that a third of bus drivers, before the pandemic, reported having had a "close call" from fatigue.
With the government about to export the London franchise model to other parts of the country, someone in Whitehall needs to take a look. Michael Liebreich, a former McKinsey consultant who sat on the TfL board for six years, believes that TfL's contracting out model is "institutionally unsafe." Bus drivers are under such pressure, he thinks, that some may break the speed limit and overtake cyclists dangerously.
Well, yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when conservative f-tards demand "efficiency efficiency efficiency" rather than building a safe, sane system for a public service.
The buses shouldn't have to keep such a tight timetable that they're rushing to make the next stop. They should have enough padding in the schedule to accommodate holding at each stop for a few minutes - whether that means they can drive at safe speeds and account for any issues of traffic, or issues with people who have mobility challenges needing extra time to get on or off the bus, or anything else.
I'm surprised the bus drivers aren't also being forced to pee in bottles. [forbes.com]
Re: Well, yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
The stops are every few hundred metres, max. If they padded the schedule like that, it would be faster to walk. The worst thing a bus driver can do is leave early, so they will have to wait those few minutes every stop. No thanks.
To add some numbers from experience: the supermarket is just over 15 mins walk away. If itâ(TM)s more than five minutes wait for a bus, I do walk, because itâ(TM)s faster. Even if I have 25 kg of shopping.
Re: (Score:2)
I use the buses several times a week, and almost always, we have to stop "to prove that TFL are incapable of running a bus service" or "to annoy those already late for an appointment" described as "to maintain a good service".
Basically, TFL is run by morons, and all the customers know it. These are the same morons that redesigned and rebuilt the roads for the 2012 Olympics, but failed to make sure the bends could be tr
Re: (Score:2)
That "explanation" doesn't explain anything, because back in 2012 the mayor was Boris Johnson.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the requirement that anyone who runs buses has to be as ignorant as possible of bus services is more or less universal. A favourite trick here is to de-synchronise buses, so an incoming bus arrives at a transfer point nowhere near the bus it's supposed to meet up with. The best one I know of is an hourly service cleverly scheduled to depart five minutes before the incoming bus arrives, presumably so they can claim no-one uses it and shut it down.
Another trick is to route a transfer run between two
Re: (Score:2)
The key with busses, since they have to deal with traffic and can't keep a very tight schedule like trains, is to have lots of them. That way you never wait more than a few minutes anyway.
As for wing mirrors, they should be replacing them with cameras these days.
Re: (Score:2)
But also modal filters which block cars but not buses, bus lanes and traffic lights which give high priority to bus lane traffic.
Also mounting the wing mirror higher would probably do 95% on the work at a fraction of the cost and maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
Mirrors are far more reliable than cameras. Most organizations would not sideline a bus because the camera is broken; instead, they'll operate it in an unsafe manner.
My van has retractable mirrors that can be folded in so that I can clear drive thrus, etc... and I believe a similar solution would work much better in this circumstance. It could be as simple as a servo actuated linkage which folds the outboard mirror in when the wheel is turned.
Re: (Score:2)
They already need a camera at the back by law on newer buses, and it has to be working.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, it occurred to me that they could just mount the mirrors above the height of the tallest pedestrian and avoid the problem entirely.
This is a fundamental design consideration failure. Nobody in the design process thought, "You know, on a ~12 foot high bus, we could just mount the mirrors where they wouldn't contact a pedestrian on the sidewalk..." Which means that even if they replaced the mirrors with cameras, they would likely be oriented in such a manner, or with lenses, etc... that would m
Re: (Score:2)
No, what you do is you split your route into several checkpoints. At each checkpoint, the bus will be there at a certain time. There's nothing special about checkpoints - they are regular stops. If the bus is early, it will wait at the checkpoint until the time is reached, then it
Re: (Score:2)
I think London buses already have this covered. They do hold at stops occasionally with an announcement about regulating the service*. They also sometimes drive slowly between stops.
* Actually, it's on the Tube where they regulate the service. I don't remember the exact turn of phrase they use on the buses, but it's the same concept.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised the bus drivers aren't also being forced to pee in bottles.
In front of their passengers? :-)
(Lorry drivers don't have the issue that somebody's watching)
Re: (Score:2)
Please take the politics elsewhere - they do not fit this situation. Both major UK parties, on both sides, have made good (and bad) contributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when conservative f-tards demand "efficiency efficiency efficiency" rather than building a safe, sane system for a public service.
The buses shouldn't have to keep such a tight timetable that they're rushing to make the next stop. They should have enough padding in the schedule to accommodate holding at each stop for a few minutes - whether that means they can drive at safe speeds and account for any issues of traffic, or issues with people who have mobility challenges needing extra time to get on or off the bus, or anything else.
I'm surprised the bus drivers aren't also being forced to pee in bottles. [forbes.com]
For the last point... TFL have a decent union. Severely curtails the abuse of staff, makes sure everyone gets sufficient breaks for meals, bodily functions and what not.
But I agree, timetables needn't be so tight and there should be enough services that passengers are left waiting so long that they'll end up having to drive. But that costs money and a franchise model abhors spending money. Seeing as almost every council has outsourced public transport, it's little wonder that it's poorly run and run down
Re: (Score:2)
> This is what happens when conservative f-tards demand "efficiency efficiency efficiency" rather than building a safe, sane system for a public service.
Sadiq Khan is Labour, London hasnt had a conservative Mayor for many years.
Re:Well, yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it works in London too. The problem is that there are so many cars that the buses get stuck and bunch up.
Many years ago I used to cycle along the Euston Road here in the morning:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/... [openstreetmap.org]
which was often filled with slow moving cars due to the number of drivers who entered the junctions without being able to exit (which is against the law but...)
For about two weeks they stood PCSOs (Police Community Support Officers) on every junction and lo and behold, the traffic flowed e
Re: (Score:2)
I hypothesize that bus spacing is unstable and naturally bunches.
Say you have a constant supply of passengers per hour, and a constant supply of buses and a constant time at each stop per passenger plus a constant stop cost. You can get the supply rate of buses just right that they stay equally spaced.
Now add some noise: one extra passenger turns up. The bus takes slightly longer to get going from the stop. This puts the bus behind closer. That means there is now less time between the buses so the bus behin
Re: (Score:2)
I hypothesize that bus spacing is unstable and naturally bunches.
Quite possibly true, given that the standing joke about "nothing for ages and then three turn up at once" has been around more or less forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite possibly true, given that the standing joke about "nothing for ages and then three turn up at once" has been around more or less forever.
OK. OK. I need to rant about these motherfuckers. Sure it's been nearly 30 years, but fucking hell.
I took the bus to school every day. What would happen is the front bus would get more and more and more stuffed, hoovering up all the people as the two behind caught up. Then the bust would stop at my stop and only let on 2 people because it's full, and the two utter sh
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying you don't have dedicated "school buses" over there...and had to take regular city public transportation buses to school??
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying you don't have dedicated "school buses" over there...and had to take regular city public transportation buses to school??
We do not have school buses. Some people came by public bus, others by train, bike and on foot depending on where they came from. So, yes, it's very common to see schoolkids on public transport.
Re: (Score:2)
I recently travelled by bus from the outskirts of Bristol, UK to the city center. I presume the situation is very different within a densly packed city center, but the ride into town from surrounding residential areas was quite interesting from a bus swarm behaviour perspective. It may be different going out of town too, I did not experience that while I was there
Until the city is reached, there appears to be, on average, fewer than one passenger alighting or boarding at each stop. So a bus can sail past wi
Re: Well, yeah... (Score:2)
These days all buses are GPS tracked so central ops can tell them to wait if there's a bunch forming. This i believe does happen sometimes.
Want to see riots on buses? Just have them stop for no apparant reason when the Karens onboard need to get somewhere quickly.
Topsy-turvy quartiles (Score:3)
[...] Compared with other world cities like New York and Paris the capital's buses rank in the top quartile for financial efficiency but the bottom quartile for collisions per kilometre.
Where apparently "bottom quartile" means "top quartile", but something in a top quartile doesn't mean a frowny-enough face for the author. Thanks for the careful writing and editing, Financial Times.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. The only people who don't understand what the FT wrote are those who think you win golf by taking the most number of swings. The concept of a transport system being in the bottom quartile is the concept of it being instinctively *bad*. You're conveying meaning in comparison to how good you are, the entire article is talking about performance - an important piece of context you seem to ignore. If you are in the top of collisions per kilometer you most definitely are in the bottom quartile when co
Re: (Score:2)
Collisions per kilometer is quantifiable; "badness" is a lot more subjective. You're right that it's how the author /meant/ it, which I did NOT ignore, despite what you claimed.
Perhaps you're fine with using "literally" in the way it's often used in current parlance: to mean "very". However, such usage is very often contradicted by its own definition, as is the use of "bottom quartile" in the article. This makes for unacceptable technical writing, and very poor popular writing.
Look both ways before crossing? (Score:1)
But no, this is all the fault of a 'Bus Model'. No not the model of bus, but the dispatch software set up with ridiculous schedules. Oh wait that's not the model's fault either, it is the dispatch 'engineer' or whatever they call it.
CLickbait trying to sucker us in with 'models' like Al or something...
Re: (Score:2)
And don't walk in a road facing away from traffic. You'll never see it coming.
But no, this is all the fault of a 'Bus Model'. No not the model of bus, but the dispatch software set up with ridiculous schedules. Oh wait that's not the model's fault either, it is the dispatch 'engineer' or whatever they call it.
CLickbait trying to sucker us in with 'models' like Al or something...
It's an opinion piece, not a news article. You can read the full text with additional information (summary link is paywalled) via https://archive.is/hehDF [archive.is]
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
The summary says he was walking on the pavement, which is the british word for the sidewalk. Do you walk on the sidewalk "facing away from traffic", and always looking for cars to make sure "you see it coming"? (if so... what the fuck. if i'm on the sidewalk i assume i'm safe, that's the entire point of the sidewalk).
Sounds like a bus that was turning into a busstop a bit vigorously hit a pedestrian. If that sounds normal for you... or the pedestrians fault... It's honestly the fi
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. But you do not willingly walk that close to the curb.. at least not over here. If mirrors hitting pedestrians are a common problem then the bus mirror needs to be redesigned. Over here busses are so tall I don't think the mirror can even be low enough to hit anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
CLickbait trying to sucker us
Of course. Clickbait is all you're evidentially capable of since you seemingly didn't make it past the headline and didn't put even the tiniest effort into understanding what is being talked about.
TL;DR: Read more, complain less.
STLDR: You=Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears by "model" he partly meant the planning of schedules - which are clearly unfit for purpose - all passengers will tell you that - and most will experience holding out their had for the bus to stop, catching the driver's eye, and having him pu
Re: (Score:2)
It's classic case of Goodhart's law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. In this case, they're making the buses run faster by picking up fewer passengers which defeats the point of a public bus service. I bet they hired a bunch of "consultants" for £millions of taxpayers' money with no knowledge or experience of r
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of bus stops don't have areas out of the traffic, and a lot of bus stops which used to have dedicated space to stop now have to stop in the traffic lane which blocks the road and causes danger as other vehicles have to pull into the opposite lane to pass the bus. Then passengers having just got off the bus, or rushing to get on might want to cross the road at the same time making it even more dangerous.
Buses are also rated for a maximum number of passengers (there will usually be a sign inside the bus
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of this [google.co.uk], but actually it's a bus stop at the start of a new lane. Same effect though. Convenient that there was bus as the Google car went by, and have seen them cross the curb more than this at this stop. You don't actually need a bus bay if the bus has been travelling some distance from the curb, for example if there's a bike line approaching the stop.
I don't remember the last time I've had a bus drive while I've had my hand, but maybe that's because I normally I have a seven year old an
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really such an idiot?
If a bus moving a long a sidewalk can hit your head with a mirror: then the damn mirror is misplaced.
What fucking attention do I have to pay to traffic going the same direction I am going when I am on a sidewalk?
The modern busses in Bangkok are all electric, you do not even hear them coming as the other traffic is to loud.
the angle the bus comes in at often means the front corner sweeps past some way over the pavement. And in this case it is the job of the driver not to hit anyo
Re: (Score:2)
What fucking attention do I have to pay to traffic going the same direction I am going when I am on a sidewalk?
Exactly! There is always an instinctive desire to blame everything except the motor vehicle factors when a motor vehicle crashes into someone. Here people are blaming pedestrians on the pavement for getting hit by a motor vehicle.
It's a war on motorists don't you know.
Plus it's the PeRsOnAl ReSpOnSiBiLiTy crowd who will never concede that there is a structural problem which needs a managed solution
Re: (Score:2)
You did not answer the question.
lol wut.
I figured it was a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious, and me opening with "exactly" was something of an indication that I agreed with your position.
Am I supposed to look over my shoulder every 5 steps?
Seems you're here for an argument, so you know what: sure. Now we can argue. Happy?
Other factors (Score:5, Informative)
London streets are extremely cramped. Those buses are 2.5 m wide, and the mirrors extend beyond that. The lanes are barely over 2.5 m in many places, which means those mirrors sweep the sidewalk.
The sidewalks are also narrow, and people walk along the edge of the sidewalk to avoid groups of people coming in the other direction.
London ain't Paris or Berlin (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Adding trams and bus lanes will only make the problem of narrow streets even worse.
The "congestion charge" is not about congestion, its about vehicle emissions - eg electric vehicles are exempt. So it does nothing to reduce congestion, it just pushes people towards lower emission vehicles so they can continue driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 'The "congestion charge" is not about congestion, its about vehicle emissions' -- What do you think "congestion charge" means? Are you familiar with the concept of conges
Re: (Score:2)
Adding trams and bus lanes will only make the problem of narrow streets even worse.
Nope. Kick out cars, put in a tram or bus, and you get 100x the capacity.
The "congestion charge" is not about congestion, its about vehicle emissions - eg electric vehicles are exempt.
This is not exactly correct. It came in before electric vehicles were a thing and was definitely 100% about congestion. The exemption was added later because pollution is also a huge problem in London and that was a carrot to encourage lower emi
Make some noise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You never saw a VW Type 1 (beetle) or Type 2 (kombi), or a Porsche 911? Having the engine at the rear means you can avoid a long drive shaft under torque, and you can make the floor lower so the bus is easier to board, particularly for less mobile people. Buses used to have the engine at the front, then they moved to mid-engined layouts, and finally the current rear-engined layouts.
I've never had trouble hearing when a rear-engined ICE bus is coming, whether it's diesel- or CNG-powered. The big high-torq
Re: (Score:2)
You never saw a VW Type 1 (beetle) or Type 2 (kombi), or a Porsche 911?
As a little kid, no. In fact, foreign (in the US) car sightings were rare in my area, into the 1990s.
All I'm saying is that it's a little weird to have this massive thing moving closer to you but the noisy engine that would otherwise make one look up and pay attention is still 20+ feet away.
What's the model? (Score:2)
What's this model that's being talked about? The article is paywalled, so I have no idea. The summary seems to suggest it's related to modeling driver fatigue. If that's the case, it would seem to me that the model wouldn't be the problem because it's obvious that overworking drivers can impact safety. In that case, the problem isn't the model but rather the decision maker who signed off on overworking drivers.
E pericolos spogersi (Score:2)
Do not lean out.
Nicht hinauslehnen.
Ne pas se pencher au dehors.
Re: (Score:2)
pericolosO obviously.
Monitor? (Score:2)
The monitor thing as described in the summary sounds like a combination of Orwell's Telescreen from 1984 and Vonnegut's various means to keep people from over-excelling from his short story Harrison Bergeron .
It sounds like just about the stupidest idea to put something in that distracts the driver in this way. The most they should do is to set up a notification that dispatch wishes to talk to the driver, and then dispatch has to wait until the driver responds. That way the driver can focus on actually
Re: (Score:2)
Aviate, then navigate, then communicate. It should be the same for buses (or all drivers). Pay attention to driving your death machine first and foremost, THEN figure out where you need to go, THEN worry about your phone messages or chattering passenger.
Re: (Score:1)
I prefer horses because they're generally nice animals. Unfortunately, they shit all over the street and have the capacity to buck you off and kill you if they get scared. But I guess that isn't much different than riding on a bus you can't control when the drunken bus driver decides that a shop door is actually an entrance to a tunnel. (/s for the stupid)
Re:Bicycles (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bicycles (Score:5, Interesting)
No, neither one. What is dangerous and not fit for purpose is mixing bicycles with cars and trucks on the same roadway. It cannot be done safely, its defective by design.
Holland was faced with this decades ago. The country was heavily dependent on bicycles for transport, particularly kids, and the arrival of large scale car ownership led to a rise in accidents and deaths of cyclists, again particularly children.
So they did the logical thing and installed what you see in Holland today, bicycle paths everywhere. In Holland you almost never have to cycle on a road with cars and trucks. Bicycles are still not a particularly safe mode of transport, particularly for the elderly. They are naturally unstable and falling off can be quite serious. But cycling on a dedicated path is hugely safer, and pleasanter, than cycling in the middle of cars and trucks whose one error of driver judgment can kill you immediately.
In 1971, 3,300 people died on Dutch roads, including 500 children. This gave rise to the 'stop child murder' campaign, and action to build bike paths and segregate traffic By 2023, despite a 30% population increase, traffic deaths in the Netherlands dropped to 684 overall. Child traffic fatalities (under 15) fell from over 400 in 1972 to just 20 in 2023.
It was not the only measure - there were also other car control and traffic limiting measures, including the creation of so called 'living areas' in which through traffic was prevented and speed control measures put in place. But it was the main one dealing with the car/bicycle accident epidemic, and it totally worked.
The UK has tried to have campaigns to increase cycling without providing a properly segregated infrastructure, and the experience is that it cannot be done. You can produce a temporary rise in bike use. But when people find out how dangerous and unpleasant an experience it is to cycle on mixed use roads, they stop.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that many UK cities, and London in particular, barely have enough room for motor vehicles. Either you make large parts inaccessible by road, or cyclists and cars have to share. In London the former is not an option, due to the need for things like deliveries and emergency services access.
Re: (Score:3)
False it is an option. The big problem with roads are the constant drivers. There's virtually no pedestrianized zone on the planet which isn't accessible to emergency services or deliveries, yet they are orders of magnitude safer than being an open use road for anyone.
I don't understand where this fantasy comes from that you either have a public road, or ban all motorised transport. It's literally not the model anywhere. Behind my house there's just a bike path. Only a bike path. Just for bikes. Yet every s
Re: (Score:2)
There are options, like making roads one way to reduce the number of lanes, but for London they aren't great because you tend to end up with short sections that are joined by mixed use areas.
For emergency service access you have to consider the one way roads, and the cycle only areas. While they can drive on cycle or pedestrian only areas, they have to go very slowly. So it's not impossible, but you have to look at the impact on response times.
The other issue is that pedestrians get priority over cyclists i
Re: (Score:3)
They have to be designed to force cyclists to slow down, otherwise they will plough into pedestrians at high speed, just like cars.
This has a grain of truth mixed with a hefty does of scaremongering nonsense.
The simple fact is that the speed limit for cars is 20mph, and speeding is rife with substantial numbers of drivers exceeding the limit regularly. And some drivers exceed it by a lot. There are very, very few cyclists who can maintain 20mph for any length of time. I'm a fast cyclist as they go. Not the
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they are "just like cars", I said that they can hit pedestrians. Ask me how I know.
What we need are streets that everyone can use, but it's a very difficult nut to crack. Being at war with motorists and pedestrians isn't going to help.
Drivers obviously have to learn to use the roads safely. We teach pedestrians how to use the road safely, and have special crossings that control their movement. Cyclists are a strange exception. Schools don't all teach proper bike safety, and many cyclists regula
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say they are "just like cars", I said that they can hit pedestrians.
You said:
they will plough into pedestrians at high speed, just like cars.
I see the exact phrase "just like cars". They are not going to plough into pedestrians at high speed "just like cars" because they cannot hit the same speeds as cars.
I said that they can hit pedestrians. Ask me how I know.
No, you said they'll plough into pedestrians at high speed just like cars which is daft since most cyclists aren't capable of hitting the
Re: (Score:2)
they have to go very slowly. So it's not impossible, but you have to look at the impact on response times.
People and cyclists are able to get out of emergency services way orders of magnitude more easily than cars are, and that is in big wide normal roads, not London streets with their almost universal traffic jams and barriers on the side of the road. I've seen plenty of emergencies in London, nothing there happens quickly.
It's actually a bit worse when it comes to controlling cyclists to keep pedestrians safe, because unlike cars they have no number plate and so no way to enforce safe cycling other than have people on site to do it.
This is a universally unfounded complaint. If there is enough traffic to require controlling cyclists for safety then there are enough on site people to police it. London isn't known as a ci
Re:Bicycles (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I do like Japanese cities where public transport is excellent and you can cycle around, but retrofitting London for it is not easy.
Also the climate in the UK isn't ideal for bikes in a lot of places, so there do need to be good alternatives. That usually means bus routes.
Re: (Score:2)
That usually means bus routes.
Also trams. Trams are amazing, and when one visits the continent you often find light rail networks in all sorts of smaller towns. Trams have immense capacity, are quiet and clean and the very predictable motion makes them much better for pedestrians and cyclists. Plus you can run them somewhat closer together than two lanes of a road.
London used to have a lot of trams, but they were ripped up to make room for cars. We should put them back.
Re: (Score:2)
Also trams.
With the additional advantage that they bring cyclists to fall, even when they aren't around (when they get their wheels caught in the rails).
Re: (Score:2)
Also the climate in the UK isn't ideal for bikes in a lot of places,
That's strange because, based on their numbers, the weather is ideal for bikes in Cambridge. I did not know there could be such a big weather difference in two cities so close to each other!
Re: (Score:2)
The bikes in Cambridge are mostly students. Young, fit, don't mind getting a bit wet, live near the campus anyway. There aren't even that many of them.
I get a lot of ableist push-back on bikes.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a big reason I do NOT want to live in a very dense urban setting....I prefer single home dwelling areas, with yards, no sharing of walls....basically I prefer to live where I have at least a little "elbow room".
I like to drive for life needs...and bicycle for fun and exercise.
Less congestion allows me to do that more safely.
Re: (Score:3)
London in particular, barely have enough room for motor vehicles.
London does not have enough room for motor vehicles. No barely about it.
Either you make large parts inaccessible by road, or cyclists and cars have to share. In London the former is not an option, due to the need for things like deliveries and emergency services access.
The emergency vehicle thing is pure scaremongering from the right wing "war on drivers" press. The bike infrastructure is way better for emergency vehicles. The segregated cycle
Re: (Score:2)
Not Just Bikes had a video on "How American Fire Departments are Getting People Killed" [youtu.be] just a few months ago.
Re: Bicycles (Score:2)
From the linked video:
Pedestrian deaths have increased 77% since 2010
What has changed so significantly in only 14 years? Certainly not road design. Streets around me have remaind the same (more or less) since I was a kid, 50 years ago. Not traffic volume, or pedestrian volume either. Not vehicle dedign for pedestrian safety. In fact, that has improved.
In my opinion, the only thing that is new is the anti-car culture. Promulgated by left wing politicians.
"Go ahead. Step off the curb anywhere you want. Those evil cars will have to stop." Great law makin
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, the only thing that is new is the anti-car culture.
America: some most dangerous roads in the west, and getting worse. American: it must be the fault of everything except cars and also I'm being persecuted.
I love the idea that there is an "anti-car" culture in the home of car culture.
Re: (Score:3)
The UK has tried to have campaigns to increase cycling without providing a properly segregated infrastructure, and the experience is that it cannot be done. You can produce a temporary rise in bike use. But when people find out how dangerous and unpleasant an experience it is to cycle on mixed use roads, they stop.
Fortunately, some of London has now put in infrastructure, and the result is a lot of cyclists.
Also, much better buses.
The City has vastly improved things on the London Bridge/Moorgate axis. Londo
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has tried to have campaigns to increase cycling without providing a properly segregated infrastructure, and the experience is that it cannot be done.
That's because you haven't tried it over and over and over and over and over and over again until it finally starts working.
Re:Bicycles are not dangerous (Score:2)
There is no law against cycling while insane, and a lot of people seem to take advantage of this.
There is also no law against acting as a delivery cyclist while insane - and you would clearly have to be insane to do this work - with inevitable consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on the country.
a) they are regulated everywhere - it is just not that you have mandatory yearly inspections. Because mostly you harm yourself if the bicycle is in bad shape ...
b) countries like Switzerland have license plates on the bikes
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on where you live.
There are states in the US that do not have car inspections at all.
And even the ones that do....vary in what they test, for example, I've never had a tailpipe *sniff* test for emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
Bicycle was my main mode of transport for 20 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Replace the mirrors with cameras.
Cameras can be positioned with fewer constraints, so provide a better view.
Cameras have less drag, so fuel efficiency goes up.
Re: (Score:2)
Replace the mirrors with cameras.
They might not hurt as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars that have cameras instead of wing mirrors still have cameras mounted out the side, just smaller and more aerodynamic. And that might make them more dangerous in a way for anyone smacked in a head because the energy of the impact is concentrated into a smaller area.
Re:Bicycles (Score:4, Informative)
The have already started doing that. However, there are a lot of buses - probably more than 5,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Cameras cost more than mirrors.
Cameras can and will break down which means a higher cost to replace.
Cameras need electricity to operate which means a higher cost of installation and maintenance.
Cameras will need a screen for the driver to see which means a cost to buy the screens.
Screens will need electricity to operate which means a higher cost of installation and maintenance.
Sceens will eventually fail which mean a higher cost to replace, not to mention the driver can no longer see out that side.
All that
Re: (Score:3)
Cameras cost more than mirrors.
Google says a bus side mirror costs $200.
The OEM cost for an 8mp camera in a cell phone is less than $10.
Even with a plastic case to protect it from the weather, it will be cheaper than a mirror.
Cameras can and will break down
Mirrors break too.
Cameras need electricity to operate
Buses already have electricity.
Cameras will need a screen for the driver
Many buses already have a screen for backup cameras.
The driver can no longer see out that side.
Why not? There are high-quality cameras the size of a lipstick. They block the view way less than a mirror.
Re: Bicycles (Score:3)
Buses already have electricity.
Lucas Electric
Check your assumptions (Score:2)
You might want to check your assumption that a camera is more expensive than a mirror.
A big bus mirror is around $400.
Using a cellphone as a standin for the camera and screen, we're looking at around $50.
By the same token, the electricity use would be in the cellphone range, so a rounding error compared to the lights, heating, and cooling of the bus.
Screens don't fail that often, mirrors can be busted as well, etc...
Re:Bicycles (Score:5, Insightful)
When you look in a mirror you're getting 3d dimensional information which is not the case with a camera. You're also far more likely to see bright lights, such as from bicycles since a screen will restrict the peak brightness. There is also an increased latency which could affect response times. And if it's raining, snowing or dark then you might have restricted visibility compared to a mirror.
So it's hardly surprising that any time a car replaces a mirror with a camera, the reception is decidedly mixed or negative. That doesn't mean cameras completely suck, but they are better suited for where mirrors cannot be used - blind spots, 360 views, collision avoidance systems etc.
I expect that's exactly the same on large vehicles like buses. A better solution might be to raise the driver position (and therefore the mirrors), or make the mirror casing of softer material and sacrificial so if they do hit somebody they are less likely to cause harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For non-Londoners - a bus carries about 55 passengers, at a ticket cost of about £1.60 each (pensioners and school kids go free). This covers you for about 1 hour of ride.
Most buses are on the road for about 15 hours a day, and the service r
Re: (Score:2)
Head up displays are projecting information on infinity, i.e. no parallax. They tend to have a limited field of view and an "eyebox" where your eyes have to be positioned & facing to see an image. So if you were to replace left, right, centre mirrors with such a system you'd have to project this info forwards of the driver because it is unlikely someone's head is going to be positioned in a way that they can look down the parallax tube and see everything if they were split to the left, right and center.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Replace the mirrors with cameras.
Cameras have a tiny surface area such that one unfortunate raindrop, chunk of ice/snow, or piece of crud can render it useless. My car has all sorts of cameras for parking, lane keeping, and backing up, but in rainy, snowy or other inclement weather, I frequently have to fall back too... mirrors and looking over my shoulder.
Re:Bicycles (Score:4, Interesting)
Those similar wing mirrors on a bus in Sweden came within inches of taking me out the same way - I was standing on the sidewalk, about 320 cm (1 ft) from the curb when a bus came in behind me close to the curb to stop at a bus stop about 20 meters in front of me.
Almost had a heart attack.
If I was 5ft tall it wouldn't be a problem, but for anyone over about 6 ft it's a real hazzard.
I have also been on a bus when the driver managed to hit the mirror on a pole, causing mirror glass to cascade down the side of the bus, that would have cut anyone who happened to have a window open.
It's be much better for busses to have small cameras that can offer a full view down the side of the bus without being a risk for smashing into pedestrians, and a moderate sized screen (say, 30cm) in the driver's cabin should offer a much clearer view than a mirror that is several meters away on the opposite side of the bus from the driver, as well as have an opportunity for software processing to add additional feature detection and alerts - such as something sticking half out of the rear door.
Re: Bicycles (Score:2)
Bus mirrors have to stick out that far so that you can see the wheels with them. They are inset from the body. If you've ever driven a bus then you know that this is necessary for lane keeping and line observance.