...why 142 yards?

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3638
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 1 Oct 2018, 8:38pm

If it comes from the 1968 Layout of Roads in Rural Areas and is also triple the minimum stopping distance specified at the same date, then the question is why allow three times the stopping distance? Presumably it's in part to allow for worn brakes and wet roads, as already mentioned, and in part to allow for following traffic to slow down before running into the back of the vehicle that's stopped at the give way line. Just like the shellgripp-ed distance approaching pedestrian crossings, traffic lights etc, is usually in excess of the stopping distance.

Postboxer
Posts: 1713
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Postboxer » 1 Oct 2018, 11:52pm

Same question here on Piston Heads in 2003.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/top ... 26&t=38656

Still reading it.

Edit - Didn't get any further than this thread has.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 50331
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Mick F » 2 Oct 2018, 12:19pm

I've been keeping my eyes open looking at Give Way signs.
We're still Imperial here in Cornwall from what I've seen so far since this thread started.

Distances I've noticed are 150yds, 100yds and 50yds.
Mick F. Cornwall

peetee
Posts: 2598
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Cornwall

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby peetee » 2 Oct 2018, 12:57pm

Mick F wrote:We're still Imperial here in Cornwall from what I've seen so far since this thread started.

Distances I've noticed are 150yds, 100yds and 50yds.


Long may it be so. Burn the bridges and lock the gates.
Kernow bys vyken! 8)
Last edited by peetee on 3 Oct 2018, 9:54am, edited 1 time in total.
Winter had arrived in the land of Kernow. Along with it came wet roads and cool winds.
“Oh, my wheels and coupling rods!” Peetee exclaimed.

Brucey
Posts: 41400
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Brucey » 2 Oct 2018, 1:02pm

NetworkMan wrote:142 yards is the nearest yard to 130 metres. Could it be an EU directive? :)


129.845m.... ....seems quite likely to me. Although having said that, large parts of our infrastructure have been built in metric and signed in yards feet and inches, from well before we ever joined the EEC (as was).

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NetworkMan
Posts: 715
Joined: 25 Aug 2014, 11:13am
Location: South Devon

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby NetworkMan » 2 Oct 2018, 2:31pm

One of the first vacation jobs I had in the early 1970s was in a DO converting engineering drawings from Imperial to metric. Strange we never did quite get there ......

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 50331
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Mick F » 2 Oct 2018, 3:31pm

Another point about distances ..........

They round them up/down these days maybe to save money and make the road signs simpler.
Some distances to towns and villages are in multiples of a quarter mile, but newer ones are in whole numbers which can make a mockery of it all.

Pass one road junction and it says (say) ten miles to Xtown, and half a mile - or even a mile - later at the next junction, it still says ten miles to Xtown. Both can't be right.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16368
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby mjr » 2 Oct 2018, 4:28pm

Mick F wrote:Pass one road junction and it says (say) ten miles to Xtown, and half a mile - or even a mile - later at the next junction, it still says ten miles to Xtown. Both can't be right.

And that's on a good day. Watton 5 and 2 miles later Watton 4½.

One of the drawbacks of those cycle route signs that give distances in minutes is that many of them seem to be based off the distance that would appear on regular road signs and I think that varies between whole, half or quarter mile precisions by type of road, which is why you get stuff like Tottenham 25 mins followed 4 minutes later (according to the sign, at least) in Dalston by Tottenham 25 mins on London's Cycle Superhighways.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3638
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 2 Oct 2018, 7:12pm

Signs in minutes obviously have to assume a standard speed, which probably works better for motor vehicles, where the constraints are largely common to all - speed limits and congestion rather than power or skill - than with cycling or walking.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3638
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 2 Oct 2018, 7:28pm

Mick F wrote:Another point about distances ..........

They round them up/down these days maybe to save money and make the road signs simpler.
Some distances to towns and villages are in multiples of a quarter mile, but newer ones are in whole numbers which can make a mockery of it all.

Pass one road junction and it says (say) ten miles to Xtown, and half a mile - or even a mile - later at the next junction, it still says ten miles to Xtown. Both can't be right.

I like those pre-war AA signs found in market towns and little villages that say things like "London 217 3/4 miles" but I'd say it's they which are a mockery. Firstly, how can you give such a precise distance to somewhere as large as London? Sometimes it's specified as eg Hyde Park Corner or Oxford Circus, but that still leaves the question of route, because you certainly wouldn't find AA signposts at every junction. And moreover, being precise to a quarter-mile over such a distance leaves the measurement open to change through the cumulative effect of the slightest alterations in road layout.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16368
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby mjr » 2 Oct 2018, 8:57pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:Signs in minutes obviously have to assume a standard speed, which probably works better for motor vehicles, where the constraints are largely common to all - speed limits and congestion rather than power or skill - than with cycling or walking.

That's still no excuse for signs along the route to give the same time to the route's final destination, though!
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 14553
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Leafy suburbia

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Cyril Haearn » 2 Oct 2018, 9:22pm

What about signs showing travel time at the top and at the bottom of a long hill, they would be very different, Alston-Hartside for example
Best to stick to KMs :wink:
Entertainer, idealist, intellectual, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3638
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 3 Oct 2018, 10:38am

mjr wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:Signs in minutes obviously have to assume a standard speed, which probably works better for motor vehicles, where the constraints are largely common to all - speed limits and congestion rather than power or skill - than with cycling or walking.

That's still no excuse for signs along the route to give the same time to the route's final destination, though!

Not at all, no. And somehow that seems more irritating than the same distance repeated.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3638
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Bmblbzzz » 3 Oct 2018, 10:41am

Cyril Haearn wrote:What about signs showing travel time at the top and at the bottom of a long hill, they would be very different, Alston-Hartside for example
Best to stick to KMs :wink:

They do in some places. I remember seeing that on some of trails in NZ. Which also illustrates an advantage of signs in time rather than distance: not every km takes the same time to cover, and that knowledge can be helpful when deciding eg to stay at this hut or push on to the next. Less relevant on roads though.

Ben@Forest
Posts: 2559
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: ...why 142 yards?

Postby Ben@Forest » 5 Oct 2018, 7:30am

Bmblbzzz wrote:I like those pre-war AA signs found in market towns and little villages that say things like "London 217 3/4 miles" but I'd say it's they which are a mockery. Firstly, how can you give such a precise distance to somewhere as large as London? Sometimes it's specified as eg Hyde Park Corner or Oxford Circus, but that still leaves the question of route, because you certainly wouldn't find AA signposts at every junction. And moreover, being precise to a quarter-mile over such a distance leaves the measurement open to change through the cumulative effect of the slightest alterations in road layout.


For London all signs are to Charing Cross. I think for London black cab drivers 'The Knowledge' is a six mile radius from Charing Cross too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-35562786