[TCUG] Re: Puffin- kerbside detection systems
- From: Dick Andrews <RAndrews@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tcug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:18:41 +0100
I think most users will be disappointed that type approval does not include
"reliability or functionality". Indeed one wonders what the point of type
approval is if the product doesnt last or function. One seems to spend ones
life persuading manufacturers to deliver equipment in the first place. We
are now being advised to seek "immediate remedial action from suppliers"!
Having said that I do not have a problem with nearside detectors (touch
wood) - mainly Monitron, and 40 sites.
Dick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bull Peter [SMTP:Peter.Bull@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 01 October 2003 13:52
> To: TCUG e-mail list posting (E-mail)
> Subject: [TCUG] Puffin- kerbside detection systems
>
>
> Suku Phull at DfT has been picking up the reports of problems that some
> people have been having with kerbside detectors - he's sent me the
> following e-mail which will be of interest, please contact Suku if you
> would like more information., his e-mail address is suku.phull at the
> dft.gsi site which ends in gov.uk (that should be proof against
> spammers!).
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> I have been reading some of the comments on the TCUG "chat line" about
> problems associated with kerbside detection. Although kerbside detection
> is not mandatory at all Puffin sites it does however play an important
> integral role in managing the demand by providing a balance between the
> needs of the pedestrians and the motorists. Puffin does this by:
> cancelling unwanted demands to cross, especially during quieter periods of
> the day; extending the clearance period in accordance with walking speeds.
> There are of course situations, based on local factors, where neither
> detection systems are necessary.
>
> Few years a go the Department and HA produced a specification for the
> kerbside detector. There are number of companies which are able to supply
> fully type approved detection systems against this spec. It is worth
> noting that the general aim of the spec was to outline minimum functional
> requirements and it was not meant to be over prescriptive. The reason for
> this was to allow innovation. Most sites vary in complexity and it is for
> each individual authority to discuss specific requirements with the
> supplier. The authority should ensure that the equipment procured is fit
> for the purpose. Although type approval should ensure that each detection
> system satisfies the minimum requirements within a particular
> specification, but there is no mechanism which relates to the reliability
> or functionality of the system, especially in terms of site specific
> requirements.
>
> To improve the functionality and reliability of the available detection
> systems, pressure needs to be applied on manufacturers from the QA and
> procurement angle. I would also recommend that authorities that are
> responsible for Puffin installations and those that are still experiencing
> problems with detectors, in particular kerbside, should seek immediate
> remedial action from suppliers. Faulty detectors should be rejected and
> replacements sought. Such action ought to make the suppliers more aware of
> the problems in the field and should encourage them to get their products
> right in the future.
> The Department is actively looking at emerging detection systems on the
> market through a research project. Products that are near market are being
> investigated for their suitability for pedestrian/vehicular traffic
> control applications. I will keep you informed of progress.
>
> If any of your members wish to discuss any specific or general issues
> concerning Puffins then please feel free to give them my contact. They can
> contact me either via email or by 'phone on: 0207 944 2148.
>
>
> Suku Phull
>
>
>
>
> The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be
> disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee. If you are not the
> addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email
> software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any
> responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has
> been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect that the message
> may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
