[TCUG] Re: Bleep and Sweep pedestrian crossings
- From: "Harrison David" <david.harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 21 Apr 2005 22:46:00 -0000
Steve
Back in October 2004 I noticed only some 4 replies starting on 6 October=
and concluding 7 October. That effectively answered the original question=
so the debate concluded. Here in Newcastle we never tried Bleep and Sweeep=
(BAS) and simply relied on twirly knobs only on all the dual carriageway=
sites. I had a case under a Section 278 job just prior to the exchanges in=
October where I had recommended the provision of our very first BAS on an=
unlinked pair of new puffins on a dual carriageway for a new site to repla=
ce an existing footbridge, which would have had to be demolished to allow=
the development to go ahead.=20
I had (probably wrongly) assumed that throughout the country BAS would have=
become widely used, and we had simply lagged behind others=20in adopting=
its use where we could not otherwise provide audibles. We had read up on=
TAL 4/91 et al and assumed that BAS would have become quite common in the=
intervening 13 years. As it happens, the Section 278 became academic and=
I appear to avoided possible error in advocating the solution in the case=
in question. I had also been challeging the assumption under BVPI 165 that=
several of our sites really ought to have audibles as well if we could, bu=
t strictly only BAS because of proximity of the two independent crossings=
over he dual carriageway where they are of the order of 10m or so apart.=
That might have dragged down our 95% for a while, but that would have been=
the a fair price to pay if we could have improved the situation for the be=
nefit of the customers.
In view of the lack of much debate on the issue, I have now concluded that=
we probably need to think again. My conclusion is that there are probably=
relatively few actual sites throughout the country, and a somewhat mixed=
view of a small number who have actually tried using BAS.=20
I would be grateful for any further responses to give a better statisical=
basis for my current doubts. The straw pole in Ocober is a bit 'thin'. If=
people don't want to swamp the freelist, perhaps you could let me know dir=
ect <david.harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> how many BAS sites you have or if you=
have decided consiously to have none. If I get much more direct than throu=
gh the freelist, I'll post the outcome in a couple of weeks or so.
Thanks
David Harrison
Newcastle=20City Council
(usual disclaimers apply)
-------------------------
My impression is that with the benefit of hindsight =20
Fleckney, Kevan (06/10/2004 11:31):
>Stephen
>
>There are too sites here in sunny Torbay; one is on a dual carriageway and
>the=20other is on a single carriageway. Reliability has been a problem, th=
ere
>are always one or two units that don't work. Apparently they can fill with
>water which stops them from making a noise - a small hole in the base allo=
ws
>water to drain out! I cannot say that I have heard bleep and sweep change
>volume according to the background noise thouigh. On the bright side, we
>have had no complaints about them from the public.
>
>Kevan Fleckney
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: stephen.falconer@xxxxxxxxxxxx=20
>> Sent: 06 October 2004 12:12
>> To: tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [TCUG] Bleep and Sweep pedestrian crossings
>>=20
>> Here in Leeds we did try, many years ago, two operate two dual crossings
>> with "Bleep and Sweep". which we were not too happy with, due in part to
>> maintenance problems and also the effectiveness of their operation. Can=
I
>> ask if anybody still uses this form of pedestrian indication on crossings
>> and whether or not they consider them successful.
>>=20
>> Steve Falconer
>> UTMC
>> Leeds City Council
>> 0113 2476768
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
>>=20
>> The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the
>> intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient,
>> please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please
>> delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.=20
>>=20
>> Service of legal documents is not accepted by email =20
>> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F
>>=20
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
>> the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
>the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
-----------------------------------------------------------
A message from the TCUG mailing list. For information about
the list visit //www.freelists.org/webpage/tcug
Other related posts:
