Naked road scheme in London

Badger

mt99999@hotmail.com wrote:
>>What about buses and lorries?
>
> I was usinf terms loosely. It is common for drivers to cede more ROW
> to buses than other vehicles. I expect peds would behave similarly
> but the bus driver would need to negotiate this within this road

Probably from bitter experience of having PSV drivers using size to
intimidate, a number of PSV drivers see the highway code rule reminder
on their bus:
198- Buses, coaches and trams. Give priority to these vehicles when you
can do so safely, especially when they signal to pull away from stops.
Look out for people getting off a bus or tram and crossing the road.

as an excuse to ignore:
135- Before moving off you should
use all mirrors to check the road is clear
look round to check the blind spots (the areas you are unable to see in
the mirrors) signal if necessary before moving out
look round for a final check.
Move off only when it is safe to do so.

Niel.

lardyninja

I've been following this debate and I'd just like to make a small point
about the following paragraph.

Trevor Barton wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:01:00 -0000, Nathaniel Porter wrote:
> >
> Roads as we have them in this country are primarily intended for
> use by motorists -

Most roads in this country precede the invention of the motor vehicle
by many centuries. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the
original reason for tarmaccing the roads was for the benefit of
cyclists. But ICBW.

they are by far the largest majority of users.
> Like it or lump it, they always will be.

Well, "always" is a long time ;-) Do you have access to a crystal ball?

Cyclist can argue all
> they like that they have an equal right to use the roads, and legally
> they are correct. Practically speaking, however, we have the road
network
> we do because of the needs of the majority of its users - motorists.
> The majority of users are always going to attract the majority of
> the attention - funding, provision of facilities, etc.

Interestingly, the prioritisation of the roads design for motor
vehicles began when motorists were a small minority. This was probabaly
because they were also drawn mainly from the wealthy and powerful
elite.

That may
> not suit us as cyclists, but it's also arguable that that's only fair
> way of allocating resources.

Well that's a very monetaristic way of looking at things. It just
depends on what your politics are really. There are lots of things
which which are not given public funding in relation to use because
there may be a social cost involved which governments try to reduce.

Also, there are quite legitimate arguments
> in favour of reducing car use, of course, but realistically that's
> never going to happen.
>

Well, "never" is a long time ;-) Do you have access to a crystal ball?


LN

PS Just found the reference I was looking for:
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/w...ad?OpenDocument

Tony Raven

lardyninja wrote:
>
> Most roads in this country precede the invention of the motor vehicle
> by many centuries. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the
> original reason for tarmaccing the roads was for the benefit of
> cyclists. But ICBW.
>

'tis true. From John Forester:

"The League of American Wheelmen was formed at the start of the cycling
age, in 1880. It was the organization by which American cyclists both
coordinated their cycling activities and represented their interests in
this new transportational activity to government and to society. At that
time, the bicycle was the King of the Road. Its inventors aimed for a
vehicle that was faster than walking but cheaper than horses; they
outdid themselves by producing the first personal vehicle that was both
cheaper and faster than horses. Trains, invented fifty years before,
were faster, but they went only where the tracks ran and only when the
train schedule permitted. The bicycle was an epoch-making invention, the
first practical new highway vehicle since the invention of the
horse-drawn cart thousands of years before.


The bicycle did not require new highway technology. Smooth and durable
road surfaces (macadamized roads) had been developed sixty years before,
but too few roads had been so improved. One of the aims of the LAW (and
of the Cyclists' Touring Club, formed in England a year later) was to
get more roads macadamized, the start of the good roads movement."

http://www.johnforester.com/LAW/LAWReform.htm

Tony

Trevor Barton

On 10 Jan 2005 07:44:34 -0800, lardyninja wrote:
> I've been following this debate and I'd just like to make a small point
> about the following paragraph.
>
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:01:00 -0000, Nathaniel Porter wrote:
>> >
>> Roads as we have them in this country are primarily intended for
>> use by motorists -
>
> Most roads in this country precede the invention of the motor vehicle
> by many centuries. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the
> original reason for tarmaccing the roads was for the benefit of
> cyclists. But ICBW.

Yes, of course you're right, but as implied by your crystal ball
reference below things change - these days the car is predominant
and so nowadays roads are predomianntly intended for use by motor
vehicles rather that foot or animal traffic, simply because thet's
the vasty majority of their use.

> they are by far the largest majority of users.
>> Like it or lump it, they always will be.
>
> Well, "always" is a long time ;-) Do you have access to a crystal ball?

No, true enough, but they're unlikely given continued progress in
technology in the direction it's curently going (avoiding the term
"forward progress" ;-)) that they will ever be predominantly for
foor or cycle use again.

> Cyclist can argue all
>> they like that they have an equal right to use the roads, and legally
>> they are correct. Practically speaking, however, we have the road
> network
>> we do because of the needs of the majority of its users - motorists.
>> The majority of users are always going to attract the majority of
>> the attention - funding, provision of facilities, etc.
>
> Interestingly, the prioritisation of the roads design for motor
> vehicles began when motorists were a small minority. This was probabaly
> because they were also drawn mainly from the wealthy and powerful
> elite.

Possibly, but also I guess motor vehicles needed a better class of
road as well, and it was probably seen as "the thing of the future".
There is little advantage in a car, especially an early car, on
a cart-track.

> That may
>> not suit us as cyclists, but it's also arguable that that's only fair
>> way of allocating resources.
>
> Well that's a very monetaristic way of looking at things. It just
> depends on what your politics are really. There are lots of things
> which which are not given public funding in relation to use because
> there may be a social cost involved which governments try to reduce.

I think that at the end of the day all spending is governed by monrtaristic
principles, otherwise it wouldn't be spending, after all. Many choices
are made on more actuarial principles - it would be cheaper for many
individuals if the govt didn't pay for the NHS, but it'd be more
expensive across all society for it not to.

> Also, there are quite legitimate arguments
>> in favour of reducing car use, of course, but realistically that's
>> never going to happen.
>>
>
> Well, "never" is a long time ;-) Do you have access to a crystal ball?

Well, no, but never in my lifetime seems a fair bet :-)

--
Trevor Barton

JLB

Trevor Barton wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2005 07:44:34 -0800, lardyninja wrote:

>>Most roads in this country precede the invention of the motor vehicle
>>by many centuries. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the
>>original reason for tarmaccing the roads was for the benefit of
>>cyclists. But ICBW.
>
>
> Yes, of course you're right, but as implied by your crystal ball
> reference below things change - these days the car is predominant
> and so nowadays roads are predomianntly intended for use by motor
> vehicles rather that foot or animal traffic, simply because thet's
> the vasty majority of their use.

[snip]

If you had instead simply said "nowadays roads are predomianntly used by
motor vehicles rather that foot or animal traffic" your argument would
not have been hurt at all and the statement would have been
uncontentious. However, I agree with lardyninja; it is, at the least,
odd to claim that something that was put in place by people who had not
even dreamt of motor vehicles is predominantly intended for the use of
motor vehicles. The fact of who uses a road most is not evidence of
anyones intent, or else we could change the intent merely by gathering a
sufficient number of cyclists on a particular road.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Trevor Barton

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:00:48 +0000, JLB wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>> On 10 Jan 2005 07:44:34 -0800, lardyninja wrote:
>
>>>Most roads in this country precede the invention of the motor vehicle
>>>by many centuries. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the
>>>original reason for tarmaccing the roads was for the benefit of
>>>cyclists. But ICBW.
>>
>>
>> Yes, of course you're right, but as implied by your crystal ball
>> reference below things change - these days the car is predominant
>> and so nowadays roads are predomianntly intended for use by motor
>> vehicles rather that foot or animal traffic, simply because thet's
>> the vasty majority of their use.
>
> [snip]
>
> If you had instead simply said "nowadays roads are predomianntly used by
> motor vehicles rather that foot or animal traffic" your argument would
> not have been hurt at all and the statement would have been
> uncontentious. However, I agree with lardyninja; it is, at the least,
> odd to claim that something that was put in place by people who had not
> even dreamt of motor vehicles is predominantly intended for the use of
> motor vehicles. The fact of who uses a road most is not evidence of
> anyones intent, or else we could change the intent merely by gathering a
> sufficient number of cyclists on a particular road.

Oh come on! You can use that sort of reductionist argument if you want,
but it doesn't have much bearing on what I said. I didn't say anything
about what they *were* intended for when they were first built, but you
can hardly deny that in htis day and age roads are predominantly intended
for motor vehicles. Every aspect of roads as we have them today is
based around the needs of them: they are planned with motor vehicles
predominantly in mind, upgraded and maintained with motor vehicles
in mind, surfaced, kerbed, and signposted with motor vehicles in mind,
and most of the rules of the road are set with motor vehicles in mind,
even those that pertain to pedestrians and cyclists. You name me one
road (in the generally accepted use of the word) outside of the one in
London that started this thread that is not predominantly for the use
of motor vehicles?

After all, if roads weren't designed and built for motor vehicles we'd
not have half the threads we do in urc, would we? And, your last comment
is right, too. If you did gather a sufficient number of cyclists on
a road then you would ultimately change the intent of the road - if
planners saw that each day 20,000 cyclists were using the road and
only 10,000 motorists, then the intent of the road would change. Wouldn't
it then become a cycle path, though, and therefore despised by cyclists
who would no longer use it, leading to ... :-)

--
Trevor Barton

dkahn400

Trevor Barton wrote:

> After all, if roads weren't designed and built for motor vehicles
> we'd not have half the threads we do in urc, would we? And, your
> last comment is right, too. If you did gather a sufficient number
> of cyclists on a road then you would ultimately change the intent
> of the road - if planners saw that each day 20,000 cyclists were
> using the road and only 10,000 motorists, then the intent of the
> road would change. Wouldn't it then become a cycle path, though,
> and therefore despised by cyclists who would no longer use it,
> leading to ... :-)

No, even if there were no cars at all and we were back to nothing more
than muscle power we would still have horse drawn vehicles as well as
pedestrians and cyclists. There would still be a need for properly
surfaced roads sufficiently wide to carry the traffic on them. There
wouldn't be the same perceived need though to clutter them with signs,
road markings and complex schemes, which brings us back to the point of
this thread.

--
Dave...

Trevor Barton

On 11 Jan 2005 01:16:32 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>
>> After all, if roads weren't designed and built for motor vehicles
>> we'd not have half the threads we do in urc, would we? And, your
>> last comment is right, too. If you did gather a sufficient number
>> of cyclists on a road then you would ultimately change the intent
>> of the road - if planners saw that each day 20,000 cyclists were
>> using the road and only 10,000 motorists, then the intent of the
>> road would change. Wouldn't it then become a cycle path, though,
>> and therefore despised by cyclists who would no longer use it,
>> leading to ... :-)
>
> No, even if there were no cars at all and we were back to nothing more
> than muscle power we would still have horse drawn vehicles as well as
> pedestrians and cyclists. There would still be a need for properly
> surfaced roads sufficiently wide to carry the traffic on them. There
> wouldn't be the same perceived need though to clutter them with signs,
> road markings and complex schemes, which brings us back to the point of
> this thread.

Although I suspect that if it ever came to the point where there were
no cars at all and we were back to muscle power there'd also be no
bicycles, and no means of properly surfacing the roads either; If
civilisation ever catastophically fails there are no longer the
readily available natural resources to reboot it, and not a lot
of free-standing tar or readily accessable oil will be available
for the next quite a few million years. And so long as civilisation
doesn't catastrophically fail, I can't see cars or their equivalents
dissappearing, although I guess they could move off the ground at
some point. Fantastic, pilot rage.

--
Trevor Barton

JLB

Trevor Barton wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:00:48 +0000, JLB wrote:
>
>>Trevor Barton wrote:
>>
>>>On 10 Jan 2005 07:44:34 -0800, lardyninja wrote:
>>
>>>>Most roads in this country precede the invention of the motor vehicle
>>>>by many centuries. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the
>>>>original reason for tarmaccing the roads was for the benefit of
>>>>cyclists. But ICBW.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, of course you're right, but as implied by your crystal ball
>>>reference below things change - these days the car is predominant
>>>and so nowadays roads are predomianntly intended for use by motor
>>>vehicles rather that foot or animal traffic, simply because thet's
>>>the vasty majority of their use.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>If you had instead simply said "nowadays roads are predomianntly used by
>>motor vehicles rather that foot or animal traffic" your argument would
>>not have been hurt at all and the statement would have been
>>uncontentious. However, I agree with lardyninja; it is, at the least,
>>odd to claim that something that was put in place by people who had not
>>even dreamt of motor vehicles is predominantly intended for the use of
>>motor vehicles. The fact of who uses a road most is not evidence of
>>anyones intent, or else we could change the intent merely by gathering a
>>sufficient number of cyclists on a particular road.
>
>
> Oh come on! You can use that sort of reductionist argument if you want,
> but it doesn't have much bearing on what I said. I didn't say anything
> about what they *were* intended for when they were first built, but you
> can hardly deny that in htis day and age roads are predominantly intended
> for motor vehicles. Every aspect of roads as we have them today is
> based around the needs of them: they are planned with motor vehicles
> predominantly in mind, upgraded and maintained with motor vehicles
> in mind, surfaced, kerbed, and signposted with motor vehicles in mind,
> and most of the rules of the road are set with motor vehicles in mind,
> even those that pertain to pedestrians and cyclists. You name me one
> road (in the generally accepted use of the word) outside of the one in
> London that started this thread that is not predominantly for the use
> of motor vehicles?

All the evidence you cite in the above paragraph to argue about the
intention of those who provide or maintain roads is quite different to
the grounds you used before. The only reason you gave previously for
asserting that roads are intended for motor vehicles is that they are
mostly used by motor vehicles. That is a non-sequiter. Do you think that
hills are intended for hill walkers? The sea intended for ships?

> After all, if roads weren't designed and built for motor vehicles we'd
> not have half the threads we do in urc, would we?

I did not argue that I knew what the intent was, I only supported
lardyninja in pointing out the lack of logic in your post.

And, your last comment
> is right, too. If you did gather a sufficient number of cyclists on
> a road then you would ultimately change the intent of the road - if
> planners saw that each day 20,000 cyclists were using the road and
> only 10,000 motorists, then the intent of the road would change. Wouldn't
> it then become a cycle path, though, and therefore despised by cyclists
> who would no longer use it, leading to ... :-)

It might, but why dilute your argument, which was doing perfectly well
without any mention of any intent, by making a claim about the intent
behind something that could not be sustained on the grounds you advanced?


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB

Trevor Barton wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2005 01:16:32 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
>
>>Trevor Barton wrote:
>>
>>
>>>After all, if roads weren't designed and built for motor vehicles
>>>we'd not have half the threads we do in urc, would we? And, your
>>>last comment is right, too. If you did gather a sufficient number
>>>of cyclists on a road then you would ultimately change the intent
>>>of the road - if planners saw that each day 20,000 cyclists were
>>>using the road and only 10,000 motorists, then the intent of the
>>>road would change. Wouldn't it then become a cycle path, though,
>>>and therefore despised by cyclists who would no longer use it,
>>>leading to ... :-)
>>
>>No, even if there were no cars at all and we were back to nothing more
>>than muscle power we would still have horse drawn vehicles as well as
>>pedestrians and cyclists. There would still be a need for properly
>>surfaced roads sufficiently wide to carry the traffic on them. There
>>wouldn't be the same perceived need though to clutter them with signs,
>>road markings and complex schemes, which brings us back to the point of
>>this thread.
>
>
> Although I suspect that if it ever came to the point where there were
> no cars at all and we were back to muscle power there'd also be no
> bicycles, and no means of properly surfacing the roads either;

So how did the development and use of bicycles precede cars and motor
vehicles? Were they only ridden indoors?

[snip]


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Trevor Barton

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:20:56 +0000, JLB wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2005 01:16:32 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
>>
>>>Trevor Barton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>After all, if roads weren't designed and built for motor vehicles
>>>>we'd not have half the threads we do in urc, would we? And, your
>>>>last comment is right, too. If you did gather a sufficient number
>>>>of cyclists on a road then you would ultimately change the intent
>>>>of the road - if planners saw that each day 20,000 cyclists were
>>>>using the road and only 10,000 motorists, then the intent of the
>>>>road would change. Wouldn't it then become a cycle path, though,
>>>>and therefore despised by cyclists who would no longer use it,
>>>>leading to ... :-)
>>>
>>>No, even if there were no cars at all and we were back to nothing more
>>>than muscle power we would still have horse drawn vehicles as well as
>>>pedestrians and cyclists. There would still be a need for properly
>>>surfaced roads sufficiently wide to carry the traffic on them. There
>>>wouldn't be the same perceived need though to clutter them with signs,
>>>road markings and complex schemes, which brings us back to the point of
>>>this thread.
>>
>>
>> Although I suspect that if it ever came to the point where there were
>> no cars at all and we were back to muscle power there'd also be no
>> bicycles, and no means of properly surfacing the roads either;
>
> So how did the development and use of bicycles precede cars and motor
> vehicles? Were they only ridden indoors?

Well, they were developed in an environment in which there were plenty
of accessible coal, iron ore, tar, oil, and the like sitting round
waiting to be collected. If civilisation were to collapse, which
I pointed out in the bit you snipped, there would be none of that,
because we've taken all the easily accessible stuff.

--
Trevor Barton

Julesh

David Martin wrote:
> Julesh wrote:
>
>> David Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Trevor Barton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] OK, taking livestock on the road is explicitly banned for some
>>> roads, eg London Bridge[3]
>>>
>>> [2] Some licenses have conditions such as medical conditions for a
>>> car driving license, or an expiry period.
>>>
>>> [3] Unless you are a freeman of the City of London.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regrettably your point 3 is a commonly-held fallacy. There is no such
>> right[1].
>
>
> Umm.. OK, should look at my dad's certificate more closely...
>
> ..d

When Mrs H. became a Freeman a couple of years ago she was told that any
attempts at driving cattle or other livestock over any of the City's
bridges would not be appreciated :-)

They did do a joke ceremony a while ago where they closed one of the
bridges so interested parties could have a go though.


Julesh

Trevor Barton

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:17:54 +0000, JLB wrote:
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:00:48 +0000, JLB wrote:
>>
>>>Trevor Barton wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 10 Jan 2005 07:44:34 -0800, lardyninja wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Most roads in this country precede the invention of the motor vehicle
>>>>>by many centuries. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the
>>>>>original reason for tarmaccing the roads was for the benefit of
>>>>>cyclists. But ICBW.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, of course you're right, but as implied by your crystal ball
>>>>reference below things change - these days the car is predominant
>>>>and so nowadays roads are predomianntly intended for use by motor
>>>>vehicles rather that foot or animal traffic, simply because thet's
>>>>the vasty majority of their use.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>If you had instead simply said "nowadays roads are predomianntly used by
>>>motor vehicles rather that foot or animal traffic" your argument would
>>>not have been hurt at all and the statement would have been
>>>uncontentious. However, I agree with lardyninja; it is, at the least,
>>>odd to claim that something that was put in place by people who had not
>>>even dreamt of motor vehicles is predominantly intended for the use of
>>>motor vehicles. The fact of who uses a road most is not evidence of
>>>anyones intent, or else we could change the intent merely by gathering a
>>>sufficient number of cyclists on a particular road.
>>
>>
>> Oh come on! You can use that sort of reductionist argument if you want,
>> but it doesn't have much bearing on what I said. I didn't say anything
>> about what they *were* intended for when they were first built, but you
>> can hardly deny that in htis day and age roads are predominantly intended
>> for motor vehicles. Every aspect of roads as we have them today is
>> based around the needs of them: they are planned with motor vehicles
>> predominantly in mind, upgraded and maintained with motor vehicles
>> in mind, surfaced, kerbed, and signposted with motor vehicles in mind,
>> and most of the rules of the road are set with motor vehicles in mind,
>> even those that pertain to pedestrians and cyclists. You name me one
>> road (in the generally accepted use of the word) outside of the one in
>> London that started this thread that is not predominantly for the use
>> of motor vehicles?
>
> All the evidence you cite in the above paragraph to argue about the
> intention of those who provide or maintain roads is quite different to
> the grounds you used before. The only reason you gave previously for
> asserting that roads are intended for motor vehicles is that they are
> mostly used by motor vehicles. That is a non-sequiter. Do you think that
> hills are intended for hill walkers? The sea intended for ships?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say that
roads are not intended for anything, or are you just criticising my use
of the word intended, or are you just making argument because you've
taken agin me? Roads are an artificial construct, put there by someone for
a purpose. That means that there must be some intention behind the
decision to make a road somewhere. That intention was certainly for
easier foot traffic, rather than hacking your way through virgin forest,
and later became predominantly for, I dunno, horses, and then carriages
and perhaps bicycles and now cars. Noone designs a road these days with
the intent that it will predominately be used by cyclists or pedestrians
(except in the exception of cycle ways, and footpaths, which are classes
of road intended intended for bikes and pedestrians, but are a small
minority).

Hills and the sea are not artificial, so excluding the spiritual there
is no intent on their being there. I suppose you could make a sea
intended for use by ships if you had a big enough digger.

Nothing I said as far as I'm concerned changes what I said in the
original "crystal ball" paragraph quoted above. I'm not sure what
you believe roads are predmoniantly intended for, these days, or
are you saying that the're not intended for anything? Or are you
operating under a differnet understanding of "intent" than I?

--
Trevor Barton

Ambrose Nankivell

In news:slrncu7oij.jfk.tmb@sheep.isotek.co.uk,
Trevor Barton <tmb@Xisotek.co.uk> typed:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:20:56 +0000, JLB wrote:
>> Trevor Barton wrote:
>>> On 11 Jan 2005 01:16:32 -0800, dkahn400 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Trevor Barton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> After all, if roads weren't designed and built for motor vehicles
>>>>> we'd not have half the threads we do in urc, would we? And, your
>>>>> last comment is right, too. If you did gather a sufficient number
>>>>> of cyclists on a road then you would ultimately change the intent
>>>>> of the road - if planners saw that each day 20,000 cyclists were
>>>>> using the road and only 10,000 motorists, then the intent of the
>>>>> road would change. Wouldn't it then become a cycle path, though,
>>>>> and therefore despised by cyclists who would no longer use it,
>>>>> leading to ... :-)
>>>>
>>>> No, even if there were no cars at all and we were back to nothing
>>>> more than muscle power we would still have horse drawn vehicles as
>>>> well as pedestrians and cyclists. There would still be a need for
>>>> properly surfaced roads sufficiently wide to carry the traffic on
>>>> them. There wouldn't be the same perceived need though to clutter
>>>> them with signs, road markings and complex schemes, which brings
>>>> us back to the point of this thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> Although I suspect that if it ever came to the point where there
>>> were no cars at all and we were back to muscle power there'd also
>>> be no bicycles, and no means of properly surfacing the roads either;
>>
>> So how did the development and use of bicycles precede cars and motor
>> vehicles? Were they only ridden indoors?
>
> Well, they were developed in an environment in which there were plenty
> of accessible coal, iron ore, tar, oil, and the like sitting round
> waiting to be collected. If civilisation were to collapse, which
> I pointed out in the bit you snipped, there would be none of that,
> because we've taken all the easily accessible stuff.

Well, the bridge at Ironbridge was smelted with charcoal. And there's plenty
of iron ore or reworkable steel around, and almost limitless aluminium
supplies, should someone be able to make electricity. I'd suggest using the
first output to make wind turbines.

A