Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
No recent travel & transport from BBC stories as at 16:35 01 May 2025
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 05/05/25 - Walk to Pilning
10/05/25 - BRTA Westbury
10/05/25 - Model Railway Show, Calne
13/05/25 - Melksham TUG / AGM

On this day
1st May (1972)
Bristol Parkway station opens

Train RunningCancelled
13:10 Gloucester to Weymouth
15:21 Reading to Gatwick Airport
15:30 Warminster to Bristol Temple Meads
15:54 Reading to Gatwick Airport
16:00 Oxford to London Paddington
16:00 Cardiff Central to Taunton
16:07 Reading to Basingstoke
16:28 Basingstoke to Reading
16:33 Reading to Basingstoke
16:47 Bristol Temple Meads to Warminster
16:59 Gatwick Airport to Reading
16:59 Basingstoke to Reading
17:00 Oxford to London Paddington
17:15 Reading to Basingstoke
17:20 Basingstoke to Reading
17:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
17:38 Reading to Basingstoke
17:50 Gloucester to Salisbury
17:57 Reading to Basingstoke
18:29 Warminster to Bristol Temple Meads
18:32 Reading to Basingstoke
18:54 Reading to Gatwick Airport
19:05 Reading to Basingstoke
19:25 Reading to Basingstoke
20:11 Salisbury to Bristol Temple Meads
20:29 Gatwick Airport to Reading
Short Run
13:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
16:30 London Paddington to Taunton
17:30 London Paddington to Taunton
18:10 Taunton to Cardiff Central
Delayed
13:48 London Paddington to Carmarthen
14:32 London Paddington to Cheltenham Spa
14:48 London Paddington to Swansea
15:00 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
15:28 Weston-Super-Mare to London Paddington
15:30 Bristol Temple Meads to London Paddington
16:07 Didcot Parkway to Oxford
16:18 London Paddington to Carmarthen
16:22 Swansea to London Paddington
16:35 Didcot Parkway to Banbury
16:35 Oxford to Didcot Parkway
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
May 01, 2025, 16:36:00 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[102] Steam excursion - except there's much more diesel than steam!
[101] Brighton Belle - merged topics
[87] Cash payments for transport services
[84] "Save the Last Remaining British Rail Hovercraft from Destruct...
[41] May Timetable Change
[40] Longer distance canal walks - public transport for one way sec...
 
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
  Print  
Author Topic: Changes to cycle policy - 3/4 Aug 13  (Read 41986 times)
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4524


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: May 10, 2019, 16:48:37 »

Bus drivers are meant to be trained to a somewhat higher standard than SUV drivers and, as mjones says, plenty of bull bars are in use. As ever, the UK (United Kingdom) allows the near-useless, but bans things that would help cycling.

It doesn't matter how good a driver is if a pedestrian hits bull bars or any other similar feature on the front of a vehicle they will be much more seriously injured than if the hit a front end that is properly engineered for pedestrian safety.
Logged
mjray
Full Member
***
Posts: 31


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: May 15, 2019, 14:21:12 »

It doesn't matter how good a driver is if a pedestrian hits bull bars or any other similar feature on the front of a vehicle they will be much more seriously injured than if the hit a front end that is properly engineered for pedestrian safety.
If a bike rack is really like bull bars (and I think that's unproven) then either ban both or neither. The current situation is absurd.

Secondly, the reduced risk of collision with a vehicle driven by a higher-qualification driver should be factored in, no matter how much some try to pretend it's irrelevant.

And finally, once a vehicle hits a pedestrian (and that's the way round it usually is to cause injury, not what ellendune wrote!) then the pedestrian has basically lost anyway.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4524


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: May 15, 2019, 17:14:19 »

It doesn't matter how good a driver is if a pedestrian hits bull bars or any other similar feature on the front of a vehicle they will be much more seriously injured than if the hit a front end that is properly engineered for pedestrian safety.
If a bike rack is really like bull bars (and I think that's unproven) then either ban both or neither. The current situation is absurd.

Secondly, the reduced risk of collision with a vehicle driven by a higher-qualification driver should be factored in, no matter how much some try to pretend it's irrelevant.

And finally, once a vehicle hits a pedestrian (and that's the way round it usually is to cause injury, not what ellendune wrote!) then the pedestrian has basically lost anyway.

There is research that demonstrates that solid bars and harder more concentrated edges like bars (such as are found on bikes when stowed sideways) considerably increase the injuries to pedestrians when there is an impact as they concentrate the loads on smaller areas of the body.  Ordinarily a pedestrian has a reasonable chance of survival with impact at 20mph, but with these sorts of things that reduces the chance of survival significantly so the vehicle would have to be going much slower. 

Here is an old article by Christian Woolmar from the independent  in 1994
Logged
mjray
Full Member
***
Posts: 31


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: May 16, 2019, 13:21:20 »

If a bike rack is really like bull bars (and I think that's unproven) then either ban both or neither. The current situation is absurd.

Secondly, the reduced risk of collision with a vehicle driven by a higher-qualification driver should be factored in, no matter how much some try to pretend it's irrelevant.

And finally, once a vehicle hits a pedestrian (and that's the way round it usually is to cause injury, not what ellendune wrote!) then the pedestrian has basically lost anyway.

There is research that demonstrates that solid bars and harder more concentrated edges like bars (such as are found on bikes when stowed sideways) considerably increase the injuries to pedestrians when there is an impact as they concentrate the loads on smaller areas of the body.  Ordinarily a pedestrian has a reasonable chance of survival with impact at 20mph, but with these sorts of things that reduces the chance of survival significantly so the vehicle would have to be going much slower. 

Here is an old article by Christian Woolmar from the independent  in 1994
Nothing in that article about bike racks being like bull bars and on second look, there doesn't seem to be anything in your whole message replying to any point I made!

Also, if (and I say it's still unproven) current bike racks are like bull bars, it's surely not beyond the wit of man to invent a bike rack with a pedestrian protection panel on its front. Airbags, even. Short-haul buses are hardly as streamlined as trains to begin with.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4524


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: May 16, 2019, 21:34:08 »

Nothing in that article about bike racks being like bull bars and on second look, there doesn't seem to be anything in your whole message replying to any point I made!

Also, if (and I say it's still unproven) current bike racks are like bull bars, it's surely not beyond the wit of man to invent a bike rack with a pedestrian protection panel on its front. Airbags, even. Short-haul buses are hardly as streamlined as trains to begin with.

I didn't think I claimed it mentioned bikes.  I was using engineering judgement (I am an engineer after all) to make then connection. I am well disposed towards cyclists and as you say if you added a pedestrian protection panel with crumple zones that that could overcome the problem, but I somehow doubt that bus companies will make the effort.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules via admin@railcustomer.info. Full legal statement (here).

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page