Search results for:

Sorry guys, can't make it earlier than 8pm tomorrow or Tuesday to officiate.

The ref should call out that the player needs to move on or they'll be deemed as pinning.

The trapping rule was clearly enforced in Florida by Zach as he would simply say "number six stop trapping" and you'd have about a second to move on or the whistle would go. As long as players know why whistles are blown the game remains calm and ordered IMO.

As in Rugby Union when the ref calls 'use the ball'?

This is going to be removed in the next edit (or seriously revised) as it's never been used/called and is a neat way to try and disallow a "cheap shot" if the ref is inexperienced.

So the team in possession can cross at any time after all 3 of the scoring are back in their own half?

§3.3 – Resuming play
§3.3.1 – Each team returns to their half of the court.
§3.3.2 – The appropriate team receives possession of the ball.
§3.3.3 – The referee establishes both teams are ready by receiving a verbal acknowledgment.

Also some confusion about this rule.

Also, there needs to be a ruling on goals and goal height. Hasn't been an issue in any of the games I have seen or played so far, but I can imagine it will be shortly.

§5.4.2 – A delay of game penalty will be assessed when a player pins the ball with his or her bicycle while leaning against the boards preventing other players from playing the ball.

I saw at least one incident yesterday during the 6 Feet Under vs Crowbangers game where this could have been called. After the game, people were claiming there was no such rule.

http://www.lfgss.com/thread77366-22.html#post3943054

This could be tasty.

"Mayor, only you have the power to keep Londoners on our streets safe"

Is this a joke!? I know Boris is pretty good but the idea that he can stand on every junction corner at every minute of the day telling cyclists to stop going up the inside of left turning lorries and for lorries to look out for them is pretty mad

Good design can help to reduce human error. You, as a traffic engineer, should know this.

I can be there at 11 to ref (head, goal, time-keeper, don't mind). Want to play as well, have to leave by 1.30pm

^ How many collisions are due to poor driving though, really?

Almost all, depending on how you define 'poor'. Very rarely is a collision caused by anything other than an error by one of the parties.

A possible way to improve the situation would be to enforce field of vision in the MOT of vehicles so correct mirrors which reduce blind spots would have to be installed sighing 12 months and liability is tracable on all vehicles that don't have said mirrors

All HGVs built since 2000 should have so-called 4th mirror (which covers the area immediately front left of driver's cab) fitted, either at time of sale or retroactively.

Legislation has been in force since 2008.

Sorry for OT but is this your blog ? http://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/bullitt-cargo-bikes-3-years-on/

Yes.

Well, you said it.

If you have answers, bring them. I certainly don't pretend to have any, but I clearly have questions you are unwilling or unable to address.

I think you'll find that the tone of your posts discourages any interaction, as they are tendentious, patronising, rhetorical, and laden with innuendo and offensive remarks. Even where there is agreement, you manage to dress it up as your interlocutor finally acceding to your long-standing beliefs, which is a little much for me to take on this particular topic, with which I have more than a passing acquaintance.

Accusing me of wanting to take us back the Stone Age is not only historically wrong (the Steam Age came before the Petrol Age), it is actually wrong, as I value the benefits of modern industrial society. Just because I think that we need to re-organise our transport system somewhat for greater efficiency doesn't mean I want be Head Druid at Stonehenge, and such rhetoric doesn't make me want debate with you, it just makes me want to respond in kind, i.e. with cheap debating tricks.

Unlike some of the more confident posters here, I have a long list of complex questions where they have only a short list of simplistic answers.

Oh yes, of course. The lonely voice of reason, drowned out by the hysterical shrieking of the lunatics.

yes, a few thousand deaths on the road every year is a price well worth paying for the difference between now and 1900 in terms of the other benefits which cheap road transport has brought us in the last century.

Just be rigorous about the cost/benefit analysis of any intervention, and stop pretending that saving a life is an infinite benefit but exponentially increasing the price of transporting goods is a negligible cost.

All more or less offensive opinions. I suggest that the thousands of deaths on the roads do have a considerable cost, not to mention that fear of being killed or seriously injured is preventing a more efficient use of the roads, which also has a cost. Your argument is a nickel & dime argument which fails to include the huge costs of death and injury caused by commercial road traffic in your calculation of the price of bread. Who pays for emergency services that attend the scene of the collisions?

I would say also stop being such a patronising git as well, but there seems little point. I'm on the right track? Oh, gee, thanks. That's really encouraging. I'll be sure to get your thoughts before I do anything further.

That wrecking the economy might kill more people than it saves.

The reductio ad absurdum of a ban on HGVs in the city during rush hour is a ban on all wheeled vehicles at all times. If everything was carried by people instead of wagons, deaths by collision would fall almost to zero, but about 4 million people would die of starvation before they could make it far enough from the city to be within reach of the fields where their food is grown.

Basically, I wasn't joking with my first post in this thread; if you want to go back to the stone age, be my guest, but HGVs are an integral part of the economy which allows a megalopolis to exist at all, and every restriction on them will be an imposition on the population, one which is likely to fall most heavily on the poorest. Middle class wankers who already pay £4 for a loaf of artisanal bread won't care, because the flour is already delivered to their artisanal baker from an artisanal mill in an inefficient small van. People who suddenly find that their Value Sliced White has gone up from 80p to £1 because the route from wheat prairie to bread factory to supermarket is now plied by 50 light vans rather than 1 big artic are going to suffer. Even if you're happy to pay the money (e.g. by withdrawing state pensions and publicly funded health care from anybody over 75), the prospect of 50 vans on the road for every artic off it is not one which fills me with hope for safer cycling or cleaner air.

Nice bit of rhetoric. Basically boils down to "it's preferable to have 7 cyclists and an unknown number of pedestrians killed each year by badly driven, badly maintained lorries than it is to regulate them so that the most dangerous designs and drivers are kept off the roads, otherwise western civilisation will collapse."

Safety on building sites has improved considerably because the building industry was subjected to an improved and fairly harsh regulatory regime. I am suggesting that the lorries that serve the construction industry are subjected to the same regime on the roads, not just on the sites.

I think his point is that in Paris its easier to limit HGVs since its London's ongoing growth that generates need to build things and stock shops

Looks more like general Francophobia to me.

Thanks Bill and apologies to Kieron. As I said previously, happy to be corrected.

However, I'd be interested to know what the British equivalent to the 43m² category is. It sounds similar to the LHV class. At 2.6m wide that would mean almost 19m long, so Paris only has a complete ban on lorries that are not legal on any road in Britain. Even the 29m² category is generous enough to not affect vehicles 2.6m x 11m, which is pretty huge and I suspect might not include anything other than articulated lorries.

Anyone simply stating that HGVs are banned in Paris would seem to be a long way from the truth.

Edit: Got my maths a bit wrong - 43m² at 2.6m wide is just over 16.5m long. Makes it almost identical to the maximum permitted length of articulated lorries on British roads.

As Kieron says in the article, it's obviously more complicated than saying Paris 0 London 16, especially when the definition of Paris and London as geographical areas is difficult to arrive at. I can't quite figure it out, as my French isn't good enough, but the ban is only in Ville de Paris, i.e. just inside the Périphérique, and it seems that there is a lot less construction traffic, specifically tipper lorries in Paris than London.

My general point, which is that it is possible to restrict access of certain categories of vehicles without the world coming to an end, is supported by TfL's assessment of what happened during the Olympics. Peter Hendy's account is available here: http://www.vref.se/download/18.11165b2c13cf48416de7e59/FUT-Urban-Freigth-Webb_low.pdf

There are clear economic benefits from cutting the numbers of people killed by lorries, not just because these deaths are an avoidable expense, but also because fear of lorries etc prevents more people from cycling. If more people cycled, it would free up more transport capacity, permitting more journeys, and more potential economic activity.

I see a small but important difference between Paris and London; the former is the moribund capital of a country which will make Greece look good within the next couple of years, the latter is the thriving heart of the (just about) viable country where every Frenchman with any initiative is setting up home to avoid the economic catastrophe which is about to engulf France

Your point is what exactly?

Can someone please post a proper reference to this Paris HGV ban I keep reading about.

I can't find anything supporting the info quoted on Bill's blog, but several sites saying HGVs are banned from entering and leaving the Paris area at specific times around the weekend. This is in addition to the weekend bans that apply throughout France, but as far as I can work out there are no restrictions whatsoever for Paris during the week.

I'm happy to be wrong, just want to see some semi-official evidence for it instead of what appears to be hearsay.

There's actually an in-line link in Kieron's original article on my blog to this Ville de Paris page outlining the rules in greater detail http://www.paris.fr/pro/dvd-stationnement-et-livraisons/la-reglementation-des-marchandises-a-paris/rub_9547_stand_25945_port_23500. It would therefore be nice for you to apologise for describing Kieron's well-researched article as 'hearsay'.

Can someone please post a proper reference to this Paris HGV ban I keep reading about.

I can't find anything supporting the info quoted on Bill's blog, but several sites saying HGVs are banned from entering and leaving the Paris area at specific times around the weekend. This is in addition to the weekend bans that apply throughout France, but as far as I can work out there are no restrictions whatsoever for Paris during the week.

Here's one, and another.

I'm happy to be wrong, just want to see some semi-official evidence for it instead of what appears to be hearsay.

This is the info page for "livraisons marchandises" from the Ville de Paris.

http://www.paris.fr/viewmultimediadocument?multimediadocument-id=25946

Are there stats on the types of HGV involved in incidents? Based purely on what I see whilst out riding is that it's construction lorries, tippers, scaffolding trucks, mixers etc that drive erratically and always pushing the limits. Is this to do with the way drivers are payed and time constraints? Again, this is only my observation but I've had less negative interaction with delivery lorries from large companies ie: Currys or Sainsburys - the drivers seem much more conscientious. Could it be the employment conditions play a part in driver behaviour?

Definitely is a strong correlation between pay & behaviour. Construction lorries are over represented in cycle fatalities, drivers typically on piece-rates.

Some data in this post: http://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/time-for-a-london-lorry-ban/

Also here: http://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/tfl-report-blames-poor-designed-maintained-construction-lorries-again/?relatedposts_exclude=272

And Kieron Yates on Paris, where there is a ban on HGVs is here:

http://buffalobillbikeblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/one-year-on-a-post-about-lorries-cyclists-and-paris-deja-vu/

Paris shows that a ban is not unrealistic. TfL also cite the Olympics as proof that drastic changes can be made to the road network in short order if it is carefully prepared. The first obstacle is the night-time ban on HGV movements.

10 years ago, when the London Bicycle Messenger Association called for a daytime ban on HGVs, almost no-one supported it. Now the government is considering it, and Boris talks about it frequently.

"Be reasonable: demand the impossible".

The Division II sub and forfeit committee feels that a substitution of Woody for Trigger is appropriate.

Div B committee sacked for inability to form a coherent sentence.

Inside job. It was Bill

You obvs weren't paying attention to what was going on in good old Blighty.

Depends how close the labs and sports "networks" were during that period, outside east germany and the USSR.

They worked very closely. David Jenkins was nicked in 1987 for commercial importation of steroids made in a lab in Mexico. According to his statements in Richard Moore's book "The Dirtiest Race In History", the steroids were made to order.