Forum Topics

Floating bus stops not such a great idea after all

From Highways Magazine:The roll-out of floating bus stops has been halted by the Government as it responds to campaigns surrounding pedestrian safety.The Government has ordered an immediate suspension of bus stops where pedestrians board and disembark directly from or to a cycle lane.The pause was announced by Simon Lightwood, the local transport minister, in a statement to MPs on 26 June, with the minister referring to them as ‘problematic’ to people with visual impairments.The main concern highlighted by campaigners is that the floating stops force pedestrians – particularly vulnerable pedestrians or those with disabilities – to avoid cyclists using the bike lanes between the stops and the pavement.A UCL study commissioned by the charity The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association showed that guide dogs avoid using floating bus stops due to meeting cyclists travelling at speed.El Briggs, head of policy, public affairs and campaigns at The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, said: ‘Our research has shown the significant fear, anxiety and distress caused by bus stop boarders for disabled people.‘Our research shows bus stop boarders are confusing, difficult to detect, and can create frightening near-misses with cyclists. No one should have to risk stepping into harm’s way just to board or leave a bus.’Sarah Gayton, of the National Federation of the Blind UK, also commented: ‘All types of floating bus stops are not safe or accessible for blind people, as well as all bus passengers.‘Guidance will not resolve this design flaw. The only solution is for the bus to pull up to the pavement curb where passengers can board and alight without crossing any cycle lane.‘We want cyclists to be safe, but not at the expense of the most vulnerable people; pedestrians, but particularly blind and disabled pedestrians.’

Simon Hayes ● 42d40 Comments ● 3d

Guy's blog Glyphosate

Guy when you say "has fairly clear evidence of hurting insects and less clear evidence it may be carcinogenic." What evidence?When making the decision to ban Glyphosate, why did you believe the alternatives suggested would work? How was it a surprise that they didn't. Any competent, knowledgeable gardener could have told you they wouldn't.Acid formulas and hot foam or steam are "mechanical" systems for removing weeds. They kill the top growth of plants by burning them. Glyphosate is  "systemic". It is absorbed into the plant and down into the roots, it stops cell reproduction, so as old cells die new ones aren't produced and the plant dies.Burning the top of the plant away will only kill plants with a weak root structure that doesn't store energy; annuals and recently developed perennial and trees. Perennials have evolved to store energy in their  roots. They die back in winter and then re grow in spring, so can recover from having their leaves burned off. Trees, once they have put on some growth, will recover from having leaves burned. This is well known so the most basic enquiries would have enabled you to understand that.We are going through a period of rejecting science. The anti vax movement being another example. I don't believe you have any evidence that Glyphosate harms insects any more than you had evidence that alternative methods of killing weeds would work.That people reject science in favour of what people who are not scientists say is regrettable, but you were a Council Cabinet member making a decision that has cost, I believe, in excess of £1 million in revenue, made pavements unsafe and left an expensive legacy of capital repairs needed to fix roads and pavements damaged by roots and being stabbed at with hoes.As a Local Authority you have a public body, The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) to advise you on managing risks. The HSE says that Glyphosate is safe for people and the environment.  In rejecting your own advisers advice you have cost the Council a huge amount of money. You have helped spread disinformation causing concern in the public by repeating assertions that have no basis, just like the anti vax movement. How do yo justify that?

Kathleen Healy ● 17d36 Comments ● 5d

St Paul’s Green - teenagers in the playground

Coming back from coffee and the shops, I saw around half a dozen teenaged boys (in school uniform, but sadly no identifiable blazer badges) playing very roughly on the zip wire in the children’s playground on the green. They were all well into their teens, voices broken, tall and (a couple of them) quite hefty. They were so rough that I feared they were going to break the equipment. Heart pounding, I decided to go for it and asked - nicely - if they would please be careful, as the playground was for little kids. Of course, there was a load of lip in return, including: ‘This is a public park’. Yes, It’s a public park, but the playground isn’t. You want public, go and play on the grass. Some tedious back and forth ensued. I used some choice language and walked off, only stopping to have a look at the Rules & Regs board by the gate, which stated that the playground was for under 11s. I pointed at the sign and one of them shouted ‘I’m blind’ - I shouted back that he was… well, something else more, ahem, ‘fundamental’, if you get my drift. (I’d like to point out that I do not merely spew filth - I enunciate clearly, like an effing lady.)As a child, I was always frightened of the older children when I went to the swings. (By older, I mean 9 or 10, not 15 or 16.) Perhaps I was oversensitive, but seeing older children roughhousing filled me with terror. I’m sure I wasn’t alone in that at the time or - indeed - now. It’s intimidating, makes the atmosphere horrible for children and parents and knackers the playground equipment. I don’t know I what - if anything - can be done. There’s obviously no funding for a full-time park keeper. Even if there were one, I don’t think that teenagers would take any notice of them. When I was little, park keepers were scary authority figures; now, they’re probably as intimidated as the rest of us. My poor husband is sure that I’m going to end up knifed, but I feel that sometimes you do have to call out this sort of thing. It may not be the hottest anti-social behaviour ticket, but it’s really not acceptable. Or am I just yelling into the abyss?

Tracie Dudley Craig ● 69d8 Comments ● 32d