ihie_guidelines : Messages : 184-237 of 251

OK Adrian

Don't panic I'll get someone onto this.

Tony Sharp

From: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Carey
Sent: 05 November 2008 13:40
To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ihie_guidelines] New Forum for Guidelines

Hi Judith,

I signed up to the forum but a week or so ago but have had no message
confirming my 'acceptance'.

I have tried to log-in but am not accepted. I tried to change my
password - I was allowed to do this, but then when I tried to log in
with the new password I was not accepted.
"Some problems were encountered
You do not have permission to sign in to the site."

Help!

AC

At 13:56 22/10/2008, you wrote:

>Please sign up to the Forum on www.motorcycleguidelines.org.uk
>as we want to close down the Yahoo group.Thanks

___________________________________________________________________________

South Gloucestershire Council - rated a maximum '4 star' council by the Audit Commission

___________________________________________________________________________

********************************************************************** ��This email and any files transmitted with it from South Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the South Gloucestershire Council Postmaster at the address below. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. postmaster@... �**********************************************************************

#236

From: Adrian Carey <adrian@...>
Date: Wed Nov 5, 2008 1:39 pm
Subject: Re: New Forum for Guidelines

adriancarey49

Offline

Hi Judith,

I signed up to the forum but a week or so ago but have had no message
confirming my 'acceptance'.

I have tried to log-in but am not accepted. I tried to change my
password - I was allowed to do this, but then when I tried to log in
with the new password I was not accepted.
"Some problems were encountered
You do not have permission to sign in to the site."

Help!

AC

At 13:56 22/10/2008, you wrote:

>Please sign up to the Forum on www.motorcycleguidelines.org.uk
>as we want to close down the Yahoo group.Thanks

#233

From: "Judith Walker" <secretary@...>
Date: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:56 pm
Subject: New Forum for Guidelines

ihie2004

Offline

Please sign up to the Forum on www.motorcycleguidelines.org.uk
  as we want to close down the Yahoo group.Thanks

#231

From: "Judith Walker" <secretary@...>
Date: Thu Sep 4, 2008 4:03 pm
Subject: Bids invited for motorbike jctn trials

ihie2004

Offline

Researchers are inviting local authorities to come forward to take part in trials of allowing motorcyclists to use Advanced Stop Lines at road junctions. TRL is looking for 12 sites to test the impacts of the measure in a project funded by the DfT that will help inform future guidance. It is particularly interested to hear from local authorities with sites where there are high flows of both motorcycles and cycles and relatively high turning proportions at the signalised junction.

Councils are invited to contact Sandra Woodjetts on 01344 770 721 or email swoodjetts@....

#230

From: "rc015b9785" <rc015g2947@...>
Date: Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:25 am
Subject: Re: TfL says no to motorcycles in bus lanes

rc015b9785

Offline

Ken said the 3 PTW-friendly bus lanes would stay as such but there'd
be no more. Can Boris just call the last 'Tanner Test' report "dogma"
and ignore it; isn't that 'dogma' itself? Do the Kingston & Richmond
reports prove PTW-friendly bus lanes are safe and where are they
published? Does the Mayor incur any liability for a policy that
contradicts professional advice?

follows>Mayor's Question Time on 21st May re a question he was asked
about motorcyles using bus lanes.  The questioners, Richard Tracey
and Brian Coleman are both Conservatives and Len Duvall, who
interjects, is Labour.

888/2008 - Motorcycles in Bus Lanes
Richard Tracey (on behalf of Brian Coleman)
Will the Mayor instruct TfL to ensure that motorcycles can use bus
lanes?
Boris Johnson (Mayor of London):  I have talked to TfL about this.
It would be an exaggeration to say that they are enthusiastic but
they are of course very happy to go ahead with this idea.  Only 5% of
London roads are actually controlled by TfL but in those boroughs
where they have already gone ahead with it - Kingston and Richmond -
there has been a very interesting reduction in fatalities of
vulnerable road users, which is very heartening.  There are already
motorbikes in the bus lanes with absolutely no ill effects.  Since we
all want to encourage a modal shift, do we not, out of cars and on to
two wheeled traffic of all kinds -
Len Duvall (AM):  Is that a hierarchy?
Boris Johnson (Mayor of London):  It is just a modal switch.  I am
not saying it is a hierarchy; it is a modal switch.  I think that the
decision that I have announced, to go ahead and allow motorcycles in
bus lanes, will be not only welcome but will also lead to absolutely
no increase in danger on the roads.  If anything, according to at
least some studies I have seen, quite the reverse.
Richard Tracey (AM):  I know that my colleague, Mr Coleman, would
want to congratulate you on your decision, based on evidence, whereas
your predecessor apparently asked TfL to rewrite their report to fit
in with his pre-formed views.  We ought to condemn that ought we not?
Boris Johnson (Mayor of London):  Of course.  As you will have seen
to an extent that is almost painful throughout these proceedings, I
am willing to listen and willing to take on board the views of others
and not to be driven solely by dogma.

--- In ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com, "Ross Corben"
<rc015g2947@...> wrote:
>
> see below
> Does this mean TfL will be removing PTW entitlement to use the
three 'trial' bus lanes (East India Dock Road, Brixton Road &
Finchley Road)? Does it also mean the successful effects of
Westminster's, Richmond's and Kingston's trials are called into
question?

#226

From: "Ross Corben" <rc015g2947@...>
Date: Mon May 12, 2008 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers

rc015b9785

Offline

I have signed the petition as it's an admirable idea and because I'd be interested in finding out if there is a material that can be stuck to covers which won't wear off or a highway spec inlaid cover that can be filled with appropriate material and will take heavy loads.

Of course, someone should invent an inlaid cover for the footway which cannot be put in the wrong way round, so all the hard work that goes into chopping tactiles and paving slabs isn't wasted when someone puts it back in the wrong way round and leaves it

rosscorben@...

>Matthew Hutchinson, Plymouth UK, is petitioning for a change on the
road for bikers, to cover up all manhole covers with gripped surfaces
to stop bikers coming off.

Please take a look, sign and forward this to your contacts or post the
message on your website if you believe that we can make a difference.

Thanks.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/motorcycleman<

#225

From: "Judith Walker" <secretary@...>
Date: Fri May 9, 2008 9:37 am
Subject: Manhole Covers

ihie2004

Offline

Matthew Hutchinson, Plymouth UK, is petitioning for a change on the
road for bikers, to cover up all manhole covers with gripped surfaces
to stop bikers coming off.

Please take a look, sign and forward this to your contacts or post the
message on your website if you believe that we can make a difference.

Thanks.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/motorcycleman

#224

From: "Ross Corben" <rc015g2947@...>
Date: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:41 pm
Subject: TfL says no to motorcycles in bus lanes

rc015b9785

Offline

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=16214

see below

Does this mean TfL will be removing PTW entitlement to use the three 'trial' bus lanes (East India Dock Road, Brixton Road & Finchley Road)? Does it also mean the successful effects of Westminster's, Richmond's and Kingston's trials are called into question?

------

Quote

12-3-2008
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today said that he would not be changing the rules of London�s major roads to allow motorbikes to ride in bus lanes. His decision follows the publication of a report into a trial, which has provided no clear evidence of safety benefits to motorcyclists and potential disbenefits to pedestrians and cyclists
...
�The final published report shows that at present, the only robust aspect of the evidence is the Tanner Test, which shows only a very small safety benefit for motorcyclists against a larger disbenefit for other vulnerable road users. On this basis I do not propose to further allow motorcyclists to use bus lanes
...
TfL Managing Director of Surface Transport, David Brown said:
...�We undertook this trial to see if we could improve road safety for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. The results to date do not support a change in policy in this area.
...
The report can be found on the GLA website at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/transport/streets.jsp
The key Tanner Test results from the report are [given]
...

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/transport/docs/p2ws_bus_lanes_report.pdf

Quote

Other London borough schemes
There have been other trials in three London boroughs, Westminster, Kingston and Richmond. Table 8 gives a summary of the performance of each scheme.
In September 2005 the City of Westminster introduced the measure in the form of a trial on a total of ten lengths of bus lane. The overall impact suggests that there are safety benefits for all vulnerable road users. In the 14 months of the measure, the figures have returned a 24% reduction in pedestrian casualties, and 17% reduction for both pedal cycles and P2Ws.
There are four schemes introduced in the Royal Borough of Kingston, with two having collected 36 months after data sets and two with 31 months data sets. The collective casualty figures have shown reductions for all vulnerable road users with pedestrian casualties down by 17%, P2Ws down by 29% and pedal cycle casualties down by 50%.
Two schemes have been introduced in Richmond. These schemes have been operating for 31 months and have seen a 33% reduction in pedestrian casualties, and 67% reduction in P2W casualties. There has, however, been an increase from 0 to 3 in pedal cycle injuries.
However, none of these schemes has been assessed against a control, so comparisons cannot be made of the statistical significance of the results compared with general trends.

see http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Ptw-bus-lane-project-2004-results.pdf
Status: 18-month review report
Version 4
Date: 19/11/04

Quote

The report examines each of the three trial sites under each of these monitoring categories and considers two control corridors as a comparison. The report concludes that further consideration of casualty data is needed. Therefore, a further 18-months of casualty data is to be collected for the trial sites, together with the control corridors. In addition, casualty analysis will be undertaken at the four borough routes that have been introduced since the TfL trials commenced.
...
In September and October 2002, TfL introduced three pilot schemes on the TLRN whereby riders of powered two wheelers (motorcycle, scooters and mopeds, hereafter referred to as ptws) were permitted to use bus lanes during the times of bus lane operation.
...
Arguments against permitting ptws into bus lanes centre on the principle of private motorised vehicles being allowed access to bus lanes, additional vehicles in bus lanes having a negative impact on other users (notably buses and cyclists), and a potential increase in road safety conflicts between ptws and pedal cyclists and between ptws and unaccustomed pedestrians.
...
Four further schemes in London, two in Richmond and two in Kingston have recently been introduced by the relevant London Boroughs (not as part of TfL's trials).
...
Note: the congestion charge was introduced after the ptw trials started, ... traffic entering the congestion charging zone is down by 18%, and inbound PTW traffic is up by 15% on 2002
...
For the trial sites, in the seventeen months since the beginning of the experiments the overall number of collisions fell by 9% and those involving ptws fell by 11%. In comparison on the control corridors the overall number of collisions fell by 6.5% and those involving ptws remained constant. For the TLRN as a whole the overall number of collisions fell by 14% and those involving ptws fell by 18%.
.....
Pedal cyclists have been the most vociferous opponents of permitting powered two wheelers into bus lanes
...

#216

From: "Nich Brown" <n.brown@...>
Date: Mon Aug 6, 2007 2:03 pm
Subject: RE: Sensor warns drivers of the proximity of motorbikes

n1chb

Offline

A similar device is used by competitors in the annual Dakar Rally to prevent drivers of racing 4X4’s hurtling into the back of bikers obscured by dust clouds and sand storms – let’s see now, racing across the Sahara or commuting in London? I know which I would rather do..!

Nich Brown

Director of Research & Statistical Services

Motor Cycle Industry Association of Great Britain

Tel 024 76408036

Fax 024 76408001

1 Rye Hill Office Park, Birmingham Road, Allesley, Coventry CV5 9AB. Tel: 02476 408000. Fax: 02476 408001

www.mcia.co.uk Your Primary Source of Information on the UK Motor Cycle Industry

This email is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Motor Cycle Industry Association Ltd .

If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.If you have received this email in error please forward it to n.brown@...

Motor Cycle Industry Association Ltd, 1 Rye Hill Office Park, Birmingham Road, Allesley, Coventry CV5 9AB. Registered in England No. 1113282.

-----Original Message-----
From: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Judith Walker
Sent: 06 August 2007 14:44
To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ihie_guidelines] Sensor warns drivers of the proximity of motorbikes

A student at Brunel University has created a device that warns car
drivers when motorbikes are nearby. The invention, designed by Sam
Bairstow, an industrial design student, aims to reduce motorcyclist
fatalities involving cars. I-SAW, Intelligent Situation Awareness,
allows the motorbike to communicate with vehicles on the road using
radio frequency transmissions. A transmitter under the motorbike seat
relays information to all other vehicles within the radius of the
transmitted signal. The car driver, who would have a receiver placed
on the car dashboard, is initially alerted to the motorcyclist's
presence via visual LED readout. However, if at any time the car
driver performs a manoeuvre whilst the motorbike is in range, the
driver is further warned by an auditory alarm and vibration through the
steering wheel. Sam Bairstow, who came up with the idea after
commuting on his motorbike, said that by increasing safety, he believed
more people would consider travelling by motorbike.

Source: TEC July 2007

#215

From: "Judith Walker" <secretary@...>
Date: Mon Aug 6, 2007 1:44 pm
Subject: Sensor warns drivers of the proximity of motorbikes

ihie2004

Offline

A student at Brunel University has created a device that warns car
drivers when motorbikes are nearby.  The invention, designed by Sam
Bairstow, an industrial design student, aims to reduce motorcyclist
fatalities involving cars. I-SAW, Intelligent Situation Awareness,
allows the motorbike to communicate with vehicles on the road using
radio frequency transmissions.  A transmitter under the motorbike seat
relays information to all other vehicles within the radius of the
transmitted signal.  The car driver, who would have a receiver placed
on the car dashboard, is initially alerted to the motorcyclist's
presence via visual LED readout.  However, if at any time the car
driver performs a manoeuvre whilst the motorbike is in range, the
driver is further warned by an auditory alarm and vibration through the
steering wheel.  Sam Bairstow, who came up with the idea after
commuting on his motorbike, said that by increasing safety, he believed
more people would consider travelling by motorbike.

Source: TEC July 2007

#211

From: "Judith Walker" <secretary@...>
Date: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:03 pm
Subject: Safer Motorcycling through Work

ihie2004

Offline

A new RoSPA guide to help keen riders to promote safer motorcycling in
their workplace.

Free printed copies until 11 May or download the pdf.

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/motorcycling_through_work.pdf

#205

From: "Richard Pearson" <richardlmpearson@...>
Date: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:17 am
Subject: Useful Links

richardlmpea...

Offline

DfT Child Road Safety Strategy 2007
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/documents/publications/91868

Changing Lanes
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/documents/publications/91893

Second Review of the Government's Road Safety Strategy
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/documents/publications/91865

Road Safety Strategy: Statement by Dr Stephen Ladyman
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/documents/publications/91871

Ladyman unveils driver testing and training revamp
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/filter/?item=91829

Road deaths can be reduced through education and enforcement
http://www.info4local.gov.uk/filter/?item=91884

#204

From: "Andrew Bailey" <abailey@...>
Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:06 pm
Subject: RE: IHIE Guidelines NEW web Site!!

ndybailey

Offline

Hi Tony.

Thanks for the email.
Will do.


Do you think the Skid Resistance Standard (HD 28/04) is ok?
Do you think that there are any specific cautions to
consider in applying HD28/04 on local roads, wrt PTWs?

Regards,
Andy

>>> "Tony Sharp" <tony.sharp@...> 23/02/07 15:51 >>>
Andrew,

The guidelines do make rference to HFS but if you think that some
re-wording to 'punch it up a bit' would help with your (and of course
others) policies let me have some ideas.

tony

________________________________

From: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Bailey
Sent: 23 February 2007 15:47
To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ihie_guidelines] IHIE Guidelines NEW web Site!!



Hi Tony.

Sounds like great news.

Im developing our skid policy in relation to HD28/04 (and the
forthcoming IAN). Do you think that there are any specific cautions to
consider in applying the Standard, wrt to PTWs - or do you feel that
it
is generally well founded for application on local roads, in this
context?

Many thanks,

Andy Bailey

Group Manager (Policy, Performance and Procurement)
Rutland County Council
24 - 34 Station Approach, Oakham
Rutland
LE15 6QW
01572 772371 'phone
07789 032428 mobile
01572 722395 fax

>>> "Tony Sharp" <tony.sharp@...
<mailto:tony.sharp%40southglos.gov.uk> > 23/02/07 15:22 >>>
The IHIE guidelines seem to have gone from strength to strength from
a very successful launch in 2005; winning a Prince Michael Award in
the same year; providing a template for the ACEM European Guidelines
Launched in 2006) and now predicted to exhaust the present print run
in the next month or so.

IHIE could have just reprinted the guidelines but aware that there
is still a problem of 'penetration' amongst some Central and Local
Government Authorities, Highway professionals and riders
representatives and aware of the success of the ACEM Guidelines
(which were only available as a PDF and download 10,000+ times) IHIE
are actively considering making the guidelines available on the 'web'

Subject to funding from the DfT Road Safety Grant Challenge fund,
work is due to start of a major web site for the Guidelines for
Motorcycling.

The domain name www.motorcycleguidelines.org.uk has been registered
and a preferred contractor, FUSED, identified for building the site.
A small editorial team based on the original guidelines 'steering
group' will oversee the site development.

IHIE would like to see the new web site as a `hub' for information
relating to Traffic Management, Planning & Traffic Policy and I
believe it important that members of this forum are involved.

As part of the web site the guidelines will be available as a PDF
download (chapter by chapter)
The existing content of the guidelines is currently under review
for `minor' revisions. I do not intend to undertake a complete re-
write of the Guidelines but PLEASE let me know where such `minor'
changes could be made.

The web site will also have links to the documents and reports
presently on the CD Rom that accompanies the guidelines but PLEASE
let me know of any other documents / web sites that it would be
useful to link to.

There will be a forum similar to the current IHIE Guidelines YAHOO!
Web site that will allow members to raise queries and pass on good
practice
A moderated registration will however be required for the forum/
future updates and this will (hopefully) mean reduction in the
occasional 'spamming' received of late.

Please do give this some consideration and let me have your thoughts
on the matter

Kind regards

Tony Sharp
Vice President IHIE

Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums &amp;
communities.
Links

__________________________________________________________
This INBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Messagelabs
service.

If you have any queries regarding e-mail or attachments please contact
the
IT Helpdesk, Tel. Ext 368 or 01572 758 368, Fax: 01572 758 316,
e-mail ITHelpdesk@... <mailto:ITHelpdesk%40rutland.gov.uk>

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________
Community Portal:
http://www.rutnet.co.uk <http://www.rutnet.co.uk>  A guide to Rutland
for residents, visitors and business
Customer Service Centre:
01572 722 577
enquiries@... <mailto:enquiries%40rutland.gov.uk>
Council Website:
http://www.rutland.gov.uk <http://www.rutland.gov.uk>

This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs
service.

The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally
privileged and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s).

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
__________________________________________________________




**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from South
Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify the South Gloucestershire Council
Postmaster at the address below.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has
been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

postmaster@...
**********************************************************************

_________________________________________________________________________
This INBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Messagelabs
service.

If you have any queries regarding e-mail or attachments please contact
the
IT Helpdesk, Tel. Ext 368 or 01572 758 368, Fax: 01572 758 316,
  e-mail ITHelpdesk@...
_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________
Community Portal:
http://www.rutnet.co.uk A guide to Rutland for residents, visitors and business
Customer Service Centre:
01572 722 577
enquiries@...
Council Website:
http://www.rutland.gov.uk

This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs service.

The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally privileged and
are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s).

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
________________________________________________________________________

#203

From: "Tony Sharp" <tony.sharp@...>
Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:51 pm
Subject: RE: IHIE Guidelines NEW web Site!!

ajmsharp

Offline

Andrew,

The guidelines do make rference to HFS but if you think that some re-wording to 'punch it up a bit' would help with your (and of course others) policies let me have some ideas.

tony

From: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Bailey
Sent: 23 February 2007 15:47
To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ihie_guidelines] IHIE Guidelines NEW web Site!!

Hi Tony.

Sounds like great news.

Im developing our skid policy in relation to HD28/04 (and the
forthcoming IAN). Do you think that there are any specific cautions to
consider in applying the Standard, wrt to PTWs - or do you feel that it
is generally well founded for application on local roads, in this
context?

Many thanks,

Andy Bailey

Group Manager (Policy, Performance and Procurement)
Rutland County Council
24 - 34 Station Approach, Oakham
Rutland
LE15 6QW
01572 772371 'phone
07789 032428 mobile
01572 722395 fax

>>> "Tony Sharp" <tony.sharp@southglos.gov.uk> 23/02/07 15:22 >>>
The IHIE guidelines seem to have gone from strength to strength from
a very successful launch in 2005; winning a Prince Michael Award in
the same year; providing a template for the ACEM European Guidelines
Launched in 2006) and now predicted to exhaust the present print run
in the next month or so.

IHIE could have just reprinted the guidelines but aware that there
is still a problem of 'penetration' amongst some Central and Local
Government Authorities, Highway professionals and riders
representatives and aware of the success of the ACEM Guidelines
(which were only available as a PDF and download 10,000+ times) IHIE
are actively considering making the guidelines available on the 'web'

Subject to funding from the DfT Road Safety Grant Challenge fund,
work is due to start of a major web site for the Guidelines for
Motorcycling.

The domain name www.motorcycleguidelines.org.uk has been registered
and a preferred contractor, FUSED, identified for building the site.
A small editorial team based on the original guidelines 'steering
group' will oversee the site development.

IHIE would like to see the new web site as a `hub' for information
relating to Traffic Management, Planning & Traffic Policy and I
believe it important that members of this forum are involved.

As part of the web site the guidelines will be available as a PDF
download (chapter by chapter)
The existing content of the guidelines is currently under review
for `minor' revisions. I do not intend to undertake a complete re-
write of the Guidelines but PLEASE let me know where such `minor'
changes could be made.

The web site will also have links to the documents and reports
presently on the CD Rom that accompanies the guidelines but PLEASE
let me know of any other documents / web sites that it would be
useful to link to.

There will be a forum similar to the current IHIE Guidelines YAHOO!
Web site that will allow members to raise queries and pass on good
practice
A moderated registration will however be required for the forum/
future updates and this will (hopefully) mean reduction in the
occasional 'spamming' received of late.

Please do give this some consideration and let me have your thoughts
on the matter

Kind regards

Tony Sharp
Vice President IHIE

Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums & communities.
Links

__________________________________________________________
This INBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Messagelabs
service.

If you have any queries regarding e-mail or attachments please contact
the
IT Helpdesk, Tel. Ext 368 or 01572 758 368, Fax: 01572 758 316,
e-mail ITHelpdesk@rutland.gov.uk
__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________
Community Portal:
http://www.rutnet.co.uk A guide to Rutland for residents, visitors and business
Customer Service Centre:
01572 722 577
enquiries@rutland.gov.uk
Council Website:
http://www.rutland.gov.uk

This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs service.

The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally privileged and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s).

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
__________________________________________________________

********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it from South Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the South Gloucestershire Council Postmaster at the address below. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. postmaster@... **********************************************************************

#202

From: "Andrew Bailey" <abailey@...>
Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: IHIE Guidelines NEW web Site!!

ndybailey

Offline

Hi Tony.

Sounds like great news.

Im developing our skid policy in relation to HD28/04 (and the
forthcoming IAN). Do you think that there are any specific cautions to
consider in applying the Standard, wrt to PTWs - or do you feel that it
is generally well founded for application on local roads, in this
context?

Many thanks,

Andy Bailey

Group Manager (Policy, Performance and Procurement)
Rutland County Council
24 - 34 Station Approach, Oakham
Rutland
LE15 6QW
01572 772371 'phone
07789 032428 mobile
01572 722395 fax




>>> "Tony Sharp" <tony.sharp@...> 23/02/07 15:22 >>>
The IHIE guidelines seem to have gone from strength to strength from
a very successful launch in 2005; winning a Prince Michael Award in
the same year; providing a template for the ACEM European Guidelines
Launched in 2006) and now predicted to exhaust the present print run
in the next month or so.

IHIE could have just reprinted the guidelines but aware that there
is still a problem of 'penetration' amongst some Central and Local
Government Authorities, Highway professionals and riders
representatives and aware of the success of the ACEM Guidelines
(which were only available as a PDF and download 10,000+ times) IHIE
are actively considering making the guidelines available on the 'web'

Subject to funding from the DfT Road Safety Grant Challenge fund,
work is due to start of a major web site for the Guidelines for
Motorcycling.

The domain name www.motorcycleguidelines.org.uk has been registered
and a preferred contractor, FUSED, identified for building the site.
A small editorial team based on the original guidelines 'steering
group' will oversee the site development.

IHIE would like to see the new web site as a `hub' for information
relating to Traffic Management, Planning & Traffic Policy and I
believe it important that members of this forum are involved.

As part of the web site the guidelines will be available as a PDF
download (chapter by chapter)
The existing content of the guidelines is currently under review
for `minor' revisions. I do not intend to undertake a complete re-
write of the Guidelines but PLEASE let me know where such `minor'
changes could be made.

The web site will also have links to the documents and reports
presently on the CD Rom that accompanies the guidelines but PLEASE
let me know of any other documents / web sites that it would be
useful to link to.

There will be a forum similar to the current IHIE Guidelines YAHOO!
Web site that will allow members to raise queries and pass on good
practice
A moderated registration will however be required for the forum/
future updates and this will (hopefully) mean reduction in the
occasional 'spamming' received of late.

Please do give this some consideration and let me have your thoughts
on the matter

Kind regards

Tony Sharp
Vice President IHIE









Yahoo! Groups - Join or create groups, clubs, forums &amp; communities.
Links





_________________________________________________________________________
This INBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Messagelabs
service.

If you have any queries regarding e-mail or attachments please contact
the
IT Helpdesk, Tel. Ext 368 or 01572 758 368, Fax: 01572 758 316,
  e-mail ITHelpdesk@...
_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________
Community Portal:
http://www.rutnet.co.uk A guide to Rutland for residents, visitors and business
Customer Service Centre:
01572 722 577
enquiries@...
Council Website:
http://www.rutland.gov.uk

This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs service.

The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally privileged and
are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s).

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
________________________________________________________________________

#201

From: "Tony Sharp" <tony.sharp@...>
Date: Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:22 pm
Subject: IHIE Guidelines NEW web Site!!

ajmsharp

Offline

The IHIE guidelines seem to have gone from strength to strength from
a very successful launch in 2005; winning a Prince Michael Award in
the same year; providing a template for the ACEM European Guidelines
Launched in 2006) and now predicted to exhaust the present print run
in the next month or so.

IHIE could have just reprinted the guidelines but aware that there
is still a problem of 'penetration' amongst some Central and Local
Government Authorities, Highway professionals and riders
representatives and aware of the success of the ACEM Guidelines
(which were only available as a PDF and download 10,000+ times) IHIE
are actively considering making the guidelines available on the 'web'

Subject to funding from the DfT Road Safety Grant Challenge fund,
work is due to start of a major web site for the Guidelines for
Motorcycling.

The domain name www.motorcycleguidelines.org.uk has been registered
and a preferred contractor, FUSED, identified for building the site.
A small editorial team based on the original guidelines 'steering
group' will oversee the site development.

IHIE would like to see the new web site as a `hub' for information
relating to Traffic Management, Planning & Traffic Policy and I
believe it important that members of this forum are involved.

As part of the web site the guidelines will be available as a PDF
download (chapter by chapter)
The existing content of the guidelines is currently under review
for `minor' revisions. I do not intend to undertake a complete re-
write of the Guidelines but PLEASE let me know where such `minor'
changes could be made.

The web site will also have links to the documents and reports
presently on the CD Rom that accompanies the guidelines but PLEASE
let me know of any other documents / web sites that it would be
useful to link to.

There will be a forum similar to the current IHIE Guidelines YAHOO!
Web site that will allow members to raise queries and pass on good
practice
A moderated registration will however be required for the forum/
future updates and this will (hopefully) mean reduction in the
occasional 'spamming' received of late.

Please do give this some consideration and let me have your thoughts
on the matter

Kind regards

Tony Sharp
Vice President IHIE

#197

From: Adrian Carey <adrian@...>
Date: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:25 pm
Subject: Re: TEC Article

adriancarey49

Offline

Well done Bucks. I just hope the guide posts are deformable - just in case!

Adrian

At 14:49 30/01/2007, you wrote:

I've just uploaded a file form the Jan edition of TEC which has an
interesting article about motorcycle accidents in Bucks CC.

Richard.
TPi

#196

From: "Richard Pearson" <richardlmpearson@...>
Date: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:49 pm
Subject: TEC Article

richardlmpea...

Offline

I've just uploaded a file form the Jan edition of TEC which has an
interesting article about motorcycle accidents in Bucks CC.

Richard.
TPi

#195

From: "Director of Public Affairs MAG-UK" <public-affairs@...>
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2006 2:20 pm
Subject: Re: domed road studs

trevorhbaird

Offline

All

This was reported in the MAG Activists newsletter http://www.network.mag-uk.org/sept05p10.html last year.

We didn't get much feedback.

However I will chase up our Eastern Region Rep who was looking into this.

Cheers

Trevor Baird
Public Affairs Director (MAG UK)

----- Original Message -----

From: ndybailey

To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 1:43 PM

Subject: [ihie_guidelines] domed road studs

Hi
Any more comments for Phillipa?

Regards
Andy
Rutland CC

>>> "Moffatt, Phil (DSD)" <phil.moffatt@staffordshire.gov.uk>
05/12/06 09:40 >>>
Philippa,

The following from our head of maintenance policy sums up our view:

If I recall correctly, the manufacturers of domed road studs have
developed
an equally effective model that has a lower height - this is the one
which
we now use in Staffordshire.

I'm familiar with the arguments against the use of domed road studs
from our
own previous deliberations (Staffordshire Highways Specification
Group),
following an article in Motorcycle news several months ago. However,
I do
not recall anything other than similar anecdotal comments about them
than
those included in the forwarded email - I'm certainly not aware of any
Highway Authority who has gone about removing them. I understand
that the
Highway Agency also continue with their use.

The reflective properties (360 degree visibility) offer significant
improvement over the traditional studs, most agreeing that the
benefits out
weight what others believe to be the potential problems with their
use i.e.
slip hazard for motorcyclists or impact injury from the protruding
feature.
The protruding element has been controlled to a great degree with the
lower
height model and the surface area of the domed stud is no greater
than that
of stick-on studs and in fact is less than the traditional inset iron
shoe
variety. On balance domed studs therefore appear to be a good
product, with
significant road safety benefits for all road users.

Hope this helps.

Phil.

-----Original Message-----
From: philippayoung@warwickshire.gov.uk
[mailto:philippayoung@warwickshire.gov.uk]
Sent: 04 December 2006 11:29
To: neil.edgar@cheshire.gov.uk; paul.robinson@Derbyshire.gov.uk;
skarkowski@leics.gov.uk; jjbutlin@northamptonshire.gov.uk;
suzanneheydon@nottscc.gov.uk; SDrummond@rutland.gov.uk;
phil.moffatt@staffordshire.gov.uk; dclee@worcestershire.gov.uk;
Peter.Andrews@env.lancscc.gov.uk
Subject: Re Road Dangers - Glass domed road studs

Dear All
We have received a complaint about the use of glass domed road studs
(see
below). Can you let me know if you have any experience with their use
or
have a policy of not using them.
Thanks
Philippa

Philippa Young

Team Leader

Safety Engineering

Environment and Economy
Warwickshire County Council

Email : <mailto:philippayoung@warwickshire.gov.uk>
philippayoung@warwickshire.gov.uk

Web : <http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/> www.warwickshire.gov.uk

----- Forwarded by Philippa Young/PT/WarksCC on 04/12/2006 11:26 -----

Tony Iwanikiw/PT/WarksCC

03/11/2006 17:22

To: anneolds@lineone.net
cc: Philippa Young/PT/WarksCC@WarksCC, Peter
Samwell/PT/WarksCC@WarksCC, Alan Mycock/PT/WarksCC@WarksCC, Andrew
Savage/PT/WarksCC@WarksCC
Subject: Re Road Dangers - Glass domed road studs

Dear Madam

I refer to your recent correspondence which had been forwarded to me
to
reply to. I apologise for the delay in my reply.
I am unaware of any evidence to support the claim that the glass
domed road
stud poses any greater highway safety issue than the conventional
catseye
type or plastic stick on studs. To date we have not recieved any
complaints
regarding the use of domed studs which we have been installing on our
Principal Roads for approximately 3 years and have no record of any
accidents where the studs have allegedly caused or contributed to the
accident. On the contrary we have had a number of comments where
individuals
have praised the effectiveness of this type of stud.
I will investigate this issue further with my colleagues from our Road
Safety Unit and the Midlands Regional Highway Engineering Group and
if there
is valid and compelling evidence to support your safety/danger
allegation I
will propose a review of our policy.
I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Tony Iwanikiw

Network Team Manager

Network Management ' (01926) 414088

Environment and Economy
Warwickshire County Council

Email : <mailto:tonyiwanikiw@warwickshire.gov.uk>
tonyiwanikiw@warwickshire.gov.uk

Web : <http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/> www.warwickshire.gov.uk

Dear sir , I have sent the email below twice now and have not yet
had a
reply or an answer. We've travelled the road many times since
sending this
email and still notice that these very dangerous cats eyes are still
in the
road. There has been a lot of notice in the media about the dangers
of
these ,especially to people on motorbikes, and as I have said many
councils
are removing them. Please advise as to what Stratford Council are
going to
do about them.
Thanks Anne Olds.

Dear sir, Due to the extremely dangerous effect of glass 'Dome
shaped' cat's
eyes most councils have decided to remove the ones fitted and not to
continue fitting them. With other councils arriving at this decision
why
then is Stratford District County Council fitting these extremely
dangerous
cats's eyes on the main Stratford to Banbury A422 road through
Pillerton
Priors and also on the B4086 Edgehill to Kineton Road. Road safety is
paramount and a matter of much attention so it seems strange that
Stratford
Council is increasing the danger to road users by fitting these cat's
eyes
and putting lives at risk.
Regards, Anne Olds.

#194

From: "ndybailey" <abailey@...>
Date: Wed Dec 6, 2006 1:43 pm
Subject: domed road studs

ndybailey

Offline

Hi
Any more comments for Phillipa?

Regards
Andy
Rutland CC

>>> "Moffatt, Phil (DSD)" <phil.moffatt@...>
05/12/06 09:40 >>>
Philippa,



The following from our head of maintenance policy sums up our view:



If I recall correctly, the manufacturers of domed road studs have
developed
an equally effective model that has a lower height - this is the one
which
we now use in Staffordshire.



I'm familiar with the arguments against the use of domed road studs
from our
own previous deliberations (Staffordshire Highways Specification
Group),
following an article in Motorcycle news several months ago.  However,
I do
not recall anything other than similar anecdotal comments about them
than
those included in the forwarded email - I'm certainly not aware of any
Highway Authority who has gone about removing them.  I understand
that the
Highway Agency also continue with their use.



The reflective properties (360 degree visibility) offer significant
improvement over the traditional studs, most agreeing that the
benefits out
weight what others believe to be the potential problems with their
use i.e.
slip hazard for motorcyclists or impact injury from the protruding
feature.
The protruding element has been controlled to a great degree with the
lower
height model and the surface area of the domed stud is no greater
than that
of stick-on studs and in fact is less than the traditional inset iron
shoe
variety.  On balance domed studs therefore appear to be a good
product, with
significant road safety benefits for all road users.



Hope this helps.





Phil.





-----Original Message-----
From: philippayoung@...
[mailto:philippayoung@...]
Sent: 04 December 2006 11:29
To: neil.edgar@...; paul.robinson@...;
skarkowski@...; jjbutlin@...;
suzanneheydon@...; SDrummond@...;
phil.moffatt@...; dclee@...;
Peter.Andrews@...
Subject: Re Road Dangers - Glass domed road studs




Dear All
We have received a complaint about the use of glass domed road studs
(see
below). Can you let me know if you have any experience with their use
or
have a policy of not using them.
Thanks
Philippa


Philippa Young


Team Leader





Safety Engineering


Environment and Economy
Warwickshire County Council


Email :  <mailto:philippayoung@...>
philippayoung@...


Web :  <http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/> www.warwickshire.gov.uk




----- Forwarded by Philippa Young/PT/WarksCC on 04/12/2006 11:26 -----





Tony Iwanikiw/PT/WarksCC

03/11/2006 17:22


                  To: anneolds@...
                  cc: Philippa Young/PT/WarksCC@WarksCC, Peter
Samwell/PT/WarksCC@WarksCC, Alan Mycock/PT/WarksCC@WarksCC, Andrew
Savage/PT/WarksCC@WarksCC
  Subject: Re Road Dangers - Glass domed road studs



Dear Madam

I refer to your recent correspondence which had been forwarded to me
to
reply to. I apologise for the delay in my reply.
I am unaware of any evidence to support the claim that the glass
domed road
stud poses any greater highway safety issue than the conventional
catseye
type or plastic stick on studs. To date we have not recieved any
complaints
regarding the use of domed studs which we have been installing on our
Principal Roads for approximately 3 years and have no record of any
accidents where the studs have allegedly caused or contributed to the
accident. On the contrary we have had a number of comments where
individuals
have praised the effectiveness of this type of stud.
I will investigate this issue further with my colleagues from our Road
Safety Unit and the Midlands Regional Highway Engineering Group and
if there
is valid and compelling evidence to support your safety/danger
allegation I
will propose a review of our policy.
I thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.


Tony Iwanikiw


Network Team Manager





Network Management  ' (01926) 414088


Environment and Economy
Warwickshire County Council


Email :  <mailto:tonyiwanikiw@...>
tonyiwanikiw@...


Web :  <http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/> www.warwickshire.gov.uk



  Dear sir , I have sent the email below twice now and have not yet
had a
reply or an answer. We've travelled  the road many times since
sending this
email and still notice that these very dangerous cats eyes are still
in the
road. There has been a lot of notice in  the media about the dangers
of
these ,especially to people on motorbikes, and as I have said many
councils
are removing them. Please advise as to what Stratford Council are
going to
do about them.
Thanks Anne Olds.



Dear sir, Due to the extremely dangerous effect of glass 'Dome
shaped' cat's
eyes most councils have decided to remove the ones fitted and not to
continue fitting them. With other councils arriving at this decision
why
then is Stratford District County Council fitting these extremely
dangerous
cats's eyes on the main Stratford to Banbury A422 road through
Pillerton
Priors and also on the B4086 Edgehill to Kineton Road.  Road safety is
paramount and a matter of much attention so it seems strange that
Stratford
Council is increasing the danger to road users by fitting these cat's
eyes
and putting lives at risk.
Regards, Anne Olds.

#193

From: "Brian Wood" <bmmwood@...>
Date: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:52 am
Subject: Fw: Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4

bwood_cycles...

Offline

Tony,

Section 2.23 of the Design Manual states "The RRRAP is not capable, at present, of assessing the risk to motorcyclists." This seems to imply that, in the future, RRRAP will be able to assess the risk to motorcyclists. Is this issue currently being addressed? Or is this wishful thinking?

Also section 4.23 refers to 'accommodation bridges', what are accommodation bridges?

Safe riding,

----- Original Message -----

From: Tony Sharp

To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:19 PM

Subject: [ihie_guidelines] Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4

Andrew,

I've uploaded documentation on `Bikeguard' onto the website.

Bikeguard is now approved for use on the whole of the HA network
and, therefore (?), should be considered `best practice' on Local
Authority networks.

You should also be aware that DMRB has be updated to reflect its use
in

VOLUME 2 HIGHWAY STRUCTURES: DESIGN (SUBSTRUCTURES AND SPECIAL
STRUCTURES) MATERIALS: SECTION 2 SPECIAL STRUCTURES PART 8
TD 19/06 REQUIREMENT FOR ROAD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

This can be downloaded from

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol2/sect2/td1906_a.pdf

TD 19/06 includes the following section covering the fitment of
motorcycle protection to post and rail safety barriers (essentially
bikeguard)

3.41 At sites identified, e.g. through accident records, to be high
risk to powered two-wheel vehicles, such as tight external bends,
consideration must be given to the form of VRS chosen to minimise
the risk to this category of driver. Any special requirements must
be stated in the contract.

3.42 At such high risk sites, it is recommended to use an `add on'
motorcycle protection system to post and rail type safety barriers
to minimise the risk of injury to motorcyclists. The Design
Organisation must check with the safety barrier manufacturer that
any such proposed protection will not invalidate the tests on the
safety barrier.
Such `add on' products must be approved by the Overseeing
Organisation and be compatible with the safety barrier to which it
is being attached as these products are not included within BS EN
1317.

Regards

Tony Sharp

#192

From: "Brian Wood" <bmmwood@...>
Date: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:25 am
Subject: Re: Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4

bwood_cycles...

Offline

Tony,

Also section 4.23 refers to 'accommodation bridges', what are accommodation bridges?

Safe riding,

----- Original Message -----

From: Tony Sharp

To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 8:19 PM

Subject: [ihie_guidelines] Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4

Andrew,

I've uploaded documentation on `Bikeguard' onto the website.

Bikeguard is now approved for use on the whole of the HA network
and, therefore (?), should be considered `best practice' on Local
Authority networks.

You should also be aware that DMRB has be updated to reflect its use
in

VOLUME 2 HIGHWAY STRUCTURES: DESIGN (SUBSTRUCTURES AND SPECIAL
STRUCTURES) MATERIALS: SECTION 2 SPECIAL STRUCTURES PART 8
TD 19/06 REQUIREMENT FOR ROAD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

This can be downloaded from

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol2/sect2/td1906_a.pdf

TD 19/06 includes the following section covering the fitment of
motorcycle protection to post and rail safety barriers (essentially
bikeguard)

3.41 At sites identified, e.g. through accident records, to be high
risk to powered two-wheel vehicles, such as tight external bends,
consideration must be given to the form of VRS chosen to minimise
the risk to this category of driver. Any special requirements must
be stated in the contract.

3.42 At such high risk sites, it is recommended to use an `add on'
motorcycle protection system to post and rail type safety barriers
to minimise the risk of injury to motorcyclists. The Design
Organisation must check with the safety barrier manufacturer that
any such proposed protection will not invalidate the tests on the
safety barrier.
Such `add on' products must be approved by the Overseeing
Organisation and be compatible with the safety barrier to which it
is being attached as these products are not included within BS EN
1317.

Regards

Tony Sharp

#191

From: "Director of Public Affairs MAG-UK" <public-affairs@...>
Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:12 am
Subject: Re: Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4

trevorhbaird

Offline

For your information, it might be worth knowing that FEMA (Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations), which we (MAG UK) are a member off, is taking part in discussions for a standard within CEN that would require crash barriers to be tested on motorcycles and that motorcycle friendly crash barrier systems would have a CEN standard, especially when fitted to current barrier systems.

We see this as negating member states having to test these various systems in their own country, as has happened with the Bikeguard system.

Therefore leaving Highways Agencies the "freedom" to fit these systems in their country without too much complication :-)

Cheers

Trevor.B

Trevor Baird
Public Affairs Director (MAG UK)

----- Original Message -----

From: Tony Sharp

To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:19 AM

Subject: [ihie_guidelines] Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4

Andrew,

I've uploaded documentation on `Bikeguard' onto the website.

Bikeguard is now approved for use on the whole of the HA network
and, therefore (?), should be considered `best practice' on Local
Authority networks.

You should also be aware that DMRB has be updated to reflect its use
in

VOLUME 2 HIGHWAY STRUCTURES: DESIGN (SUBSTRUCTURES AND SPECIAL
STRUCTURES) MATERIALS: SECTION 2 SPECIAL STRUCTURES PART 8
TD 19/06 REQUIREMENT FOR ROAD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

This can be downloaded from

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol2/sect2/td1906_a.pdf

TD 19/06 includes the following section covering the fitment of
motorcycle protection to post and rail safety barriers (essentially
bikeguard)

3.41 At sites identified, e.g. through accident records, to be high
risk to powered two-wheel vehicles, such as tight external bends,
consideration must be given to the form of VRS chosen to minimise
the risk to this category of driver. Any special requirements must
be stated in the contract.

3.42 At such high risk sites, it is recommended to use an `add on'
motorcycle protection system to post and rail type safety barriers
to minimise the risk of injury to motorcyclists. The Design
Organisation must check with the safety barrier manufacturer that
any such proposed protection will not invalidate the tests on the
safety barrier.
Such `add on' products must be approved by the Overseeing
Organisation and be compatible with the safety barrier to which it
is being attached as these products are not included within BS EN
1317.

Regards

Tony Sharp

#190

From: "Tony Sharp" <tony.sharp@...>
Date: Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:19 am
Subject: Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4

ajmsharp

Offline

Andrew,

I've uploaded documentation on `Bikeguard' onto the website.

Bikeguard is now approved for use on the whole of the HA network
and, therefore (?), should be considered `best practice' on Local
Authority networks.

You should also be aware that DMRB has be updated to reflect its use
in

VOLUME 2 HIGHWAY STRUCTURES: DESIGN (SUBSTRUCTURES AND SPECIAL
STRUCTURES) MATERIALS: SECTION 2 SPECIAL STRUCTURES PART 8
  TD 19/06 REQUIREMENT FOR ROAD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS

This can be downloaded from

http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol2/sect2/td1906_a.pdf

TD 19/06 includes the following section covering the fitment of
motorcycle protection to post and rail safety barriers (essentially
bikeguard)

3.41 At sites identified, e.g. through accident records, to be high
risk to powered two-wheel vehicles, such as tight external bends,
consideration must be given to the form of VRS chosen to minimise
the risk to this category of driver. Any special requirements must
be stated in the contract.

3.42 At such high risk sites, it is recommended to use an `add on'
motorcycle protection system to post and rail type safety barriers
to minimise the risk of injury to motorcyclists. The Design
Organisation must check with the safety barrier manufacturer that
any such proposed protection will not invalidate the tests on the
safety barrier.
Such `add on' products must be approved by the Overseeing
Organisation and be compatible with the safety barrier to which it
is being attached as these products are not included within BS EN
1317.

Regards

Tony Sharp

#189

From: "Director of Public Affairs MAG-UK" <public-affairs@...>
Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:20 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification -Highways Agency Area4

trevorhbaird

Offline

Thanks Andy

Keep us informed.

For your info if you go to http://www.network.mag-uk.org/barriers/index.html there is lots of "stuff" there on crash barriers.

And off course the IHIE Guidelines has a section on barriers ;-)

Cheers

Trevor.B

----- Original Message -----

From: Andrew Bailey

To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:34 AM

Subject: [ihie_guidelines] Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification -Highways Agency Area4

Hi
Thats the one.

Have fired it up to Les Unwin in Derbyshire to see if they have / could
consider on their tricky sites.

Regards

Andy Bailey

Group Manager (Policy, Performance and Procurement)
Rutland County Council
24 - 34 Station Road, Oakham
Rutland
LE15 6QW
01572 772371 'phone
07789 032428 mobile
01572 722395 fax

>>> "Director of Public Affairs MAG-UK" <public-affairs@mag-uk.org>
09/11/06 17:49 >>>
Hi Andrew

Doesn't ring a bell.

Unless this http://www.network.mag-uk.org/barriers/bikeguard.pdf or
this
http://www.network.mag-uk.org/sept06p1.html

If you could fax a copy that would be appreciated.

08704448449

Cheers

Trevor.B

Trevor Baird
Public Affairs Director (MAG UK)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Bailey" <ABailey@rutland.gov.uk>
To: <chief-executive@mag-uk.org>; <Tony.Sharp@southglos.gov.uk>;
<ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 5:19 PM
Subject: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency
Area4

> Hi
> I wondered if you had seen the briefing note from the Highways
Agency
> regarding the (allegedly) motorcycle friendly installation on the
> A2070?
>
> I only have it in hard copy - I could fax it if you want to see it.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Andy Bailey
>
> Group Manager (Policy, Performance and Procurement)
> Rutland County Council
> 24 - 34 Station Road, Oakham
> Rutland
> LE15 6QW
> 01572 772371 'phone
> 07789 032428 mobile
> 01572 722395 fax
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________
> Community Portal:
> http://www.rutnet.co.uk A guide to Rutland for residents, visitors
and business
> Customer Service Centre:
> 01572 722 577
> enquiries@rutland.gov.uk
> Council Website:
> http://www.rutland.gov.uk
>
> This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs
service.
>
> The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally
privileged and are intended
> solely for the use of the addressee(s).
>
> The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
> necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
>
__________________________________________________________

Yahoo! Groups Links

__________________________________________________________
This INBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Messagelabs
service.

If you have any queries regarding e-mail or attachments please contact
the
IT Helpdesk, Tel. Ext 368 or 01572 758 368, Fax: 01572 758 316,
e-mail ITHelpdesk@rutland.gov.uk
__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________
Community Portal:
http://www.rutnet.co.uk A guide to Rutland for residents, visitors and business
Customer Service Centre:
01572 722 577
enquiries@rutland.gov.uk
Council Website:
http://www.rutland.gov.uk

This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs service.

The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally privileged and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s).

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
__________________________________________________________

#188

From: "Andrew Bailey" <abailey@...>
Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:34 am
Subject: Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4

ndybailey

Offline

Hi
Thats the one.

Have fired it up to Les Unwin in Derbyshire to see if they have / could
consider on their tricky sites.

Regards


Andy Bailey

Group Manager (Policy, Performance and Procurement)
Rutland County Council
24 - 34 Station Road, Oakham
Rutland
LE15 6QW
01572 772371 'phone
07789 032428 mobile
01572 722395 fax




>>> "Director of Public Affairs MAG-UK" <public-affairs@...>
09/11/06 17:49 >>>
Hi Andrew

Doesn't ring a bell.

Unless this http://www.network.mag-uk.org/barriers/bikeguard.pdf or
this
http://www.network.mag-uk.org/sept06p1.html

If you could fax a copy that would be appreciated.

08704448449

Cheers

Trevor.B

Trevor Baird
Public Affairs Director (MAG UK)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Bailey" <ABailey@...>
To: <chief-executive@...>; <Tony.Sharp@...>;
<ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 5:19 PM
Subject: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency
Area4


> Hi
> I wondered if you had seen the briefing note from the Highways
Agency
> regarding the (allegedly) motorcycle friendly installation on the
> A2070?
>
> I only have it in hard copy - I could fax it if you want to see it.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Andy Bailey
>
> Group Manager (Policy, Performance and Procurement)
> Rutland County Council
> 24 - 34 Station Road, Oakham
> Rutland
> LE15 6QW
> 01572 772371 'phone
> 07789 032428 mobile
> 01572 722395 fax
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
> Community Portal:
> http://www.rutnet.co.uk A guide to Rutland for residents, visitors
and business
> Customer Service Centre:
> 01572 722 577
> enquiries@...
> Council Website:
> http://www.rutland.gov.uk
>
> This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs
service.
>
> The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally
privileged and are intended
> solely for the use of the addressee(s).
>
> The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
> necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
>
________________________________________________________________________





Yahoo! Groups Links





_________________________________________________________________________
This INBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the Messagelabs
service.

If you have any queries regarding e-mail or attachments please contact
the
IT Helpdesk, Tel. Ext 368 or 01572 758 368, Fax: 01572 758 316,
  e-mail ITHelpdesk@...
_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________
Community Portal:
http://www.rutnet.co.uk A guide to Rutland for residents, visitors and business
Customer Service Centre:
01572 722 577
enquiries@...
Council Website:
http://www.rutland.gov.uk

This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs service.

The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally privileged and
are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s).

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
________________________________________________________________________

#187

From: "Andrew Bailey" <abailey@...>
Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 5:19 pm
Subject: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area 4

ndybailey

Offline

Hi
I wondered if you had seen the briefing note from the Highways Agency
regarding the (allegedly) motorcycle friendly installation on the
A2070?

I only have it in hard copy - I could fax it if you want to see it.

Regards


Andy Bailey

Group Manager (Policy, Performance and Procurement)
Rutland County Council
24 - 34 Station Road, Oakham
Rutland
LE15 6QW
01572 772371 'phone
07789 032428 mobile
01572 722395 fax




_________________________________________________________________________
Community Portal:
http://www.rutnet.co.uk A guide to Rutland for residents, visitors and business
Customer Service Centre:
01572 722 577
enquiries@...
Council Website:
http://www.rutland.gov.uk

This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs service.

The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally privileged and
are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s).

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
________________________________________________________________________

#186

From: "Director of Public Affairs MAG-UK" <public-affairs@...>
Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4

trevorhbaird

Offline

Hi Andrew

Doesn't ring a bell.

Unless this http://www.network.mag-uk.org/barriers/bikeguard.pdf or this
http://www.network.mag-uk.org/sept06p1.html

If you could fax a copy that would be appreciated.

08704448449

Cheers

Trevor.B

Trevor Baird
Public Affairs Director (MAG UK)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Bailey" <ABailey@...>
To: <chief-executive@...>; <Tony.Sharp@...>;
<ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 5:19 PM
Subject: Innovative Safety Barrier Modification - Highways Agency Area4


> Hi
> I wondered if you had seen the briefing note from the Highways Agency
> regarding the (allegedly) motorcycle friendly installation on the
> A2070?
>
> I only have it in hard copy - I could fax it if you want to see it.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Andy Bailey
>
> Group Manager (Policy, Performance and Procurement)
> Rutland County Council
> 24 - 34 Station Road, Oakham
> Rutland
> LE15 6QW
> 01572 772371 'phone
> 07789 032428 mobile
> 01572 722395 fax
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Community Portal:
> http://www.rutnet.co.uk A guide to Rutland for residents, visitors and
business
> Customer Service Centre:
> 01572 722 577
> enquiries@...
> Council Website:
> http://www.rutland.gov.uk
>
> This OUTBOUND e-mail has been scanned for viruses via the MessageLabs service.
>
> The e-mail and any attachment(s) are confidential, may be legally privileged
and are intended
> solely for the use of the addressee(s).
>
> The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not
> necessarily those of Rutland County Council DC.
> ________________________________________________________________________

#185

From: "Keith Firth" <keith.firth@...>
Date: Tue Oct 3, 2006 1:57 pm
Subject: RE: TfL publish report on 3 year study of Bus Lane Access

keithfirth

Offline

Tony et al,

Having been through this and comparing it to the report produced in 2004 I must say that I am (at best) disappointed with the conclusions reached and this is for a number of reasons:

The latest report states that 'most cyclists are against the measure', yet in the previous study respondents clearly identified cars in the bus lane, behaviour of buses and roadworks as considerably more of a perceived problem for cyclists and indeed that actual reported incidents between cyclists and motorcyclists was very low - there seems to be a dramatic difference in the results of this 'market research';

Previous work showed that the use of bus lanes by non-permitted vehicles fell dramatically following the change to allow PTWs, there is no update or reference to this data;

The previous report identified increases in general traffic flow of 13% across all sites, and so has the dramatic reduction reported in the new report occured in the last 18 months? The previous report also had figures for the A41, yet these do not seem to be available for the latest report;

The previous report identified large increases in bus lane use by (now) permitted vehicles on the A13 of around 40% to 2004, yet the latest report shows that there was a decline in traffic using the bus lane between 2002-2004 and only an increase since 2004, there is no reference to the other sites

The conclusion from the 2004 report was that further casualty data was needed in order to make a robust assessment yet indicated that accident rates involving PTWs had not altered following implementation, yet the latest report states that the 'collision rate is too low to obtain statistically significant results', that 'the before and after data that do exist are of limited use in identifying effects of the changes' and that 'analysis of collision data provides generally inconclusive evidence' - yet still the report conclusion is that there are 'possible' negative effects.

As there are no accident rates to compare, just a percentage change in the number of accidents, it is not possible to determine how the reduction by 30% and 45%of two forms of accident compare to the increase by 33% and 40% of other forms of accident - this seems to be a crucial factor in the analysis and conclusions;

It is very disappointing that after 4 years of research and 2 reports there is still the conclusion that an extension of the trial period is required;

The final conclusion that 'the majority do not support the use of bus lanes by PTWs' is wholly unquantified and not supported by any data contained within this or any other report, there is no evidence from TfL buses or operators that this is the case and even the cyclist study of 2004 did not show this to be the case, indeed the complete opposite - only 7% of cyclists stated that removing PTWs would be an improvement.

The report does, however, highlight the FACTS that in the study area the PTW speeds are excessive, that there is a problem with PTWs approaching pedestrian facilities and a problem with right-turning vehicles turning through queues across the bus lane. I would suggest that this should lead to mitigation measures being trialled, such as speed cameras on the approaches to the pedestrian facilities where particular problems are being encountered (these may be justified through accident prevention), and the use of signs to warn drivers on the approach to a junction of the likelihood of oncoming traffic in the bus lane - but also to traffic in the bus lane to warn of the possibility of a right-turning vehicle.

The fault of this last category of incident is clearly that of the right-turning vehicle and would seem to be a problem regardless of permitted traffic. I understand that there is a perception that increasing the number of vehicles in the bus lane increases the likelihood of such an accident, yet I would suggest that increasing the volume of traffic gives greater presence to the bus lane and could increase drivers awareness of the possibility of opposing traffic. There is the problem, of course, that as most bus lanes in London do not permit use by PTWs, a driver may mistakenly believe in these instances that it is unreasonable to look for PTWs.

I am not convinced that the studies demonstrate anything other than that bus lane use by permitted vehicles goes up (at some point) and (without mitigating measures) accident type alters, and I am still concerned with what seems to be a general presumption against the use of bus lanes by PTWs regardless of extensive research resulting in 'inconclusive evidence' and the success of schemes in Bristol, Reading and other sites.

Regards,

Keith

Keith Firth

Associate Director

Colin Buchanan

Newminster House

27-29 Baldwin Street

Bristol

BS1 1LT

Tel 0117 917 0822

Fax 0117 925 1609

Mob 07885 827108

keith.firth@...

www.cbuchanan.co.uk

From: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony Sharp
Sent: 03 October 2006 08:40
To: ihie_guidelines@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ihie_guidelines] TfL publish report on 3 year study of Bus Lane Access

Transport for London has now reported back on their 3-year study
of `experimental' Motorcycle Access by Motorcycles into Bus Lanes.

I've posted the report in the file section

Regards

Tony Sharp

............................................................................................................................................................................................

DISCLAIMER

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to this email.

Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of Colin Buchanan, do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions of business.

We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses. We do not accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses.

#184

From: "Tony Sharp" <tony.sharp@...>
Date: Tue Oct 3, 2006 7:40 am
Subject: TfL publish report on 3 year study of Bus Lane Access

ajmsharp

Offline

Transport for London has now reported back on their 3-year study
of `experimental' Motorcycle Access by Motorcycles into Bus Lanes.

I've posted the report in the file section

Regards

Tony Sharp