Not sure whether this means that the various signalling suppliers are waiting for a customer to take on the technical risk of being the first to deploy UWB CBTC, or that there were costs or disadvantages that make it unattractive.

Urbalis Fluence works as you describe, but that is a very new approach to CBTC and as far as I'm aware has only one installation.

My understanding of LZB is limited, but it appears to be a fixed block system with wayside detection of trains, albeit with shorter blocks than lineside signals would usually have. This is different to SelTrac which is moving block.

It was quite tolerable, just a few moments of short lived cramping pains (similar to diarrhea pains) as the endoscope turned the corners of my insides. My recovery was about half an hour of sitting up and having tea and toast, while those that were sedated slept off the drugs.

I'd do the same again if ever I get another one, and recommend it to anyone who can't have or doesn't want sedation.

Because they have maliciously or stupidly confused the permits which would allow residents to drive through traffic filters (instead of taking a longer route), with a passport system that wouldn't let them leave the zone at all.

Traffic filters are not new to the UK, and plenty have existed for decades in cities like London without controversy or conspiracy. They do not form an impermeable cordon around an area.

They restrict through traffic on certain streets, in order to provide faster and safer routes for either bikes or buses. As far as I can tell the Oxford proposal is less restrictive than traditional filters as permits allow car driver to bypass the restrictions a certain number of times a month.

The mistake is people used to car dependence being unable to imagine any alternative, thus refusing to believe that it can be true.

Your (roughly 130 km) journey would have been less fast had those people making their shorter distance journeys by bike got into their cars instead.

There are various other posts in this thread that also give statistics, and the number of car vs bike journeys is not so far apart.

In a country that famously has more bikes then people, the idea that if half the bike journeys converted to cars there would only be a ten percent increase in traffic is quite clearly ridiculous. Especially within cities bikes carry volumes of people that would overwhelm roads if those people used space-inefficient cars.

Anyone visiting a Dutch city can see what a distortion this comment is. The sheer volume of bike traffic on largely safe infrastructure is phenomenal. Imagine if even half of these people took to cars instead, it would be gridlock. Life may be good for Dutch drivers, but only because so many others leave their cars at home.

Part of the reason the Netherlands is the perfect place for a car owner is that so many people are able to go by bike instead, freeing up space on the roads.

In the context of a large city, there certainly is differentiation in transport. You can grab a large amount of the scarce road space for yourself with a car (even more if you park on-street) or taxi, or you can take a smaller share of it by getting on a bus, bike or tram.

The wealthy are always able to buy the nicest things, and addressing income inequality is a very valid goal. But what realistic alternative is there to the price mechanism that still allows for a level of individual choice, and permits vehicle journeys that are economically necessary (e.g. tradespeople) while discouraging car journeys that could me made by other means.

As for the minimum wage earner, they are the least likely to be able to afford to keep a car. The current roads free-for-all means their bus journeys are far slower due to the traffic, and more expensive due to the larger number of buses required to maintain frequency on congested roads.

A possible solution to reduce inequality from road charging while still maintaining the benefits of the price mechanism would be to return the proceeds (after maintenance costs) to the residents of the city in the form of transport credits. These credits would be able to be spent on road access, public transport, or cycling as the individual preferred.

I don't see what's progressive about letting private cars clog the roads up and slowing down London's vast and comprehensive bus network.

One of my routes includes Hampstead and Highgate, a decent amount of climb. I tried the 3 speed hire Bromptons, but went for the 6 speed when I purchased one. The upgrade was well worth the money, I doubt I'd be able to get up those hills on the 3 speed.

I recently had a ride from Bük to Csepreg which was mainly on a separate cycleway by the road. From Csepreg I was able to enter forest tracks which were very beautiful. I've also noticed quite a bit of new infrastructure in various parts of the country.

I can imagine Hungary becoming a very appealing cycling destination if they continue to develop the network.

And where you said "It's none of your business what 10% of people are doing. I don't know how it degrades quality of life" you were also explicitly hand-waving away the costs that these businesses impose on those not directly involved in the transactions.

So yes, in my post I was at least considering these costs. In your post, you were choosing to wave them away as inconsequential. I certainly do see the difference.