As usual the obvious is missed

  • Thread starter dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
  • Start date



D

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers

Guest
See

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4044803.stm

"Creative ways to beat congestion"

As usual the obvious is missed - use a bike more for those shorter journeys...
so much for "creative ways"!

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
 
Response to dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4044803.stm
>
> "Creative ways to beat congestion"
>
> As usual the obvious is missed - use a bike more for those shorter journeys...
> so much for "creative ways"!

As usual indeed. And it includes:

___
VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS

Speed limits are adjusted depending on traffic volumes and weather in
order to smooth flow, cut accidents and so reduce congestion... It works
by reducing heavy braking, stopping cars bunching together and so forming
jams... Results from the M25 have been positive, reporting a cut in
serious accidents of 10-20%...
___

So not only do there seem to be reasons other than safety for speed
limits, but they actually seem to work! Now, *that* can't be right...


Also from yesterday, there's:
<URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4043803.stm>

"Agency 'slow tackling jam misery'"

That one has a "Have Your Say" link. ;-)


--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.
 
On 27 Nov 2004 17:05:03 GMT, [email protected]omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>See
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4044803.stm
>
>"Creative ways to beat congestion"
>
>As usual the obvious is missed - use a bike more for those shorter journeys...
>so much for "creative ways"!

To be fair it almost exclusively looks at methods of cutting
congestion on motorways. Few journeys that use motorways could
reasonably be expected to be transferred to bicycle.
 
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
> See
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4044803.stm
>
> "Creative ways to beat congestion"
>
> As usual the obvious is missed - use a bike more for those shorter journeys...
> so much for "creative ways"!
>
> Cheers, helen s
>
>
> --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
> to get correct one remove fame & fortune
> h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$
>
> --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--
>
>
>
There's a bit in Martin Amis' "London Fields" where one of the
characters (Guy), driving back from hospital, complains about the
traffic. His wife rounds on him, "How many times? You *are* the traffic."

I saw there was nothing in the NAO report that suggested it might
actually be drivers' fault for making unnecessary journeys or living too
far from work (IIRC the average commute distance has doubled in the last
10 years, or something like that; my own employer used to require
staff to live within 12 miles of work to get a staff mortgage and now
only requires they live within 1.5 hours, ffs).
 
Gonzalez wrote:
>
>
> To be fair it almost exclusively looks at methods of cutting
> congestion on motorways. Few journeys that use motorways could
> reasonably be expected to be transferred to bicycle.

I transferred my 2 junctions on the M3 to a 15 mile bike commute, and I
know of a lot of my collegues who could aviod the one junction on the
motorway by using a bike with much less distance than I did.

In urban areas a lot of traffic on Motorways will be local traffic, some
of which could use a bike.

--chris
 
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers vaguely muttered something like ...
> See
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4044803.stm
>
> "Creative ways to beat congestion"
>
> As usual the obvious is missed - use a bike more for those shorter
> journeys... so much for "creative ways"!

Probably 'cos they were talking about major routes rather than 'normal'
cycling routes, which suggests they were on about longer journeys, though I
haven't read the report, only the link you posted ....

"Congestion on England's trunk roads and motorways could be cut with a
little creative thinking, according to a new report."



--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A ****** is a ******, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
 
"Mark McN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Response to dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4044803.stm
> >
> > "Creative ways to beat congestion"
> >
> > As usual the obvious is missed - use a bike more for those shorter
journeys...
> > so much for "creative ways"!
>
> As usual indeed. And it includes:
>
> ___
> VARIABLE SPEED LIMITS
>
> Speed limits are adjusted depending on traffic volumes and weather in
> order to smooth flow, cut accidents and so reduce congestion... It works
> by reducing heavy braking, stopping cars bunching together and so forming
> jams... Results from the M25 have been positive, reporting a cut in
> serious accidents of 10-20%...
> ___
>
> So not only do there seem to be reasons other than safety for speed
> limits, but they actually seem to work! Now, *that* can't be right...
>

Oh it can - and indeed this system should be rolled out across the entire
motorway network IMV

Shame its brought into disrepute by some of the less well thought out limit
schemes ;-)
 
Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
>> See
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4044803.stm
>>
>> "Creative ways to beat congestion"
>>
>> As usual the obvious is missed - use a bike more for those shorter
>> journeys...
>> so much for "creative ways"!
>>
>> Cheers, helen s
>>
>>
>> --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
>> to get correct one remove fame & fortune
>> h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$
>>
>> --Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is
>> switched off--
>>
>>
>>
> There's a bit in Martin Amis' "London Fields" where one of the
> characters (Guy), driving back from hospital, complains about the
> traffic. His wife rounds on him, "How many times? You *are* the traffic."
>
> I saw there was nothing in the NAO report that suggested it might
> actually be drivers' fault for making unnecessary journeys or living too
> far from work (IIRC the average commute distance has doubled in the last
> 10 years, or something like that; my own employer used to require staff
> to live within 12 miles of work to get a staff mortgage and now only
> requires they live within 1.5 hours, ffs).

I certainly don't like your phrase 'living too far from work'. Two
years ago I was made redundant from a job that was 4.5 miles from home,
I found another job after three weeks but it was 47 miles from home. I
was unemployed so I accepted it. No way would I consider moving to the
area, it turned out to be a **** job and I left after 12 months for a
job 37 miles from home. This was a good job and we did talk about moving
closer.Unfortunately the company made me redundant after 8 months so
again I am thankful that I didn't move closer to my workplace. Now I am
4.5 miles away again and don't use my car to travel to work. It
certainly was my fault for living too far from work, I chose to accept
those job offers but the alternative would have been £42/week Job
Seekers Allowance which does not cover my outgoings, my fault but not an
option I am afraid. If I had moved to Chesterfield I would be stuck in a
**** job which would have been no good for my health. If we had moved to
York/Taddie I would now be doing a long commute, probably to Leeds where
I am now. For some of us it is not easy to find suitable jobs in our
local area, thats just the way it is, this IS NOT OUR FAULT. I suspect
your quote refers to folk who have chosen to live in a rural area, some
distance from their jobs, but for some of us our jobs have been taken
away from us and moving home to follow work is not an option so we must
commute.
 
"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> See
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4044803.stm
>
> "Creative ways to beat congestion"

I normally drive to work earlyish avoiding congestion and it takes about 10
minutes. However, last week I left home during the rush(!) hour and it took
45 minutes.
To do it once was mind bogglingly frustrating but I mused that many of my
fellow frustratees probably do it every day, looking around most of the
cars(including mine) had only one occupant.
They must be mad. I'd have long ago kicked the car into touch and got on me
bike rather than face that situation every day (had I realised beforehand
the extent of the problem I'd have cycled that day).

And public transport in it's existing form is no solution as the buses, with
the exception of short bus lanes, were stuck in the same jams.

Pete
 
"MSeries" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I certainly don't like your phrase 'living too far from work'. Two years
> ago I was made redundant from a job that was 4.5 miles from home, I found
> another job after three weeks but it was 47 miles from home. I was
> unemployed so I accepted it. No way would I consider moving to the area,
> it turned out to be a **** job and I left after 12 months for a job 37
> miles from home. This was a good job and we did talk about moving
> closer.Unfortunately the company made me redundant after 8 months so again
> I am thankful that I didn't move closer to my workplace. Now I am 4.5
> miles away again and don't use my car to travel to work. It certainly was
> my fault for living too far from work, I chose to accept those job offers
> but the alternative would have been £42/week Job Seekers Allowance which
> does not cover my outgoings, my fault but not an option I am afraid. If I
> had moved to Chesterfield I would be stuck in a **** job which would have
> been no good for my health. If we had moved to York/Taddie I would now be
> doing a long commute, probably to Leeds where I am now. For some of us it
> is not easy to find suitable jobs in our local area, thats just the way it
> is, this IS NOT OUR FAULT. I suspect your quote refers to folk who have
> chosen to live in a rural area, some distance from their jobs, but for
> some of us our jobs have been taken away from us and moving home to follow
> work is not an option so we must commute.


House prices dictate where we live, I cannot afford to live closer to work,
28 miles each way:) Houses need to become places to live in and not
investments. This has a big effect on congestion.

A Railman
 
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:04:43 +0000 (UTC), Chris Gerhard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In urban areas a lot of traffic on Motorways will be local traffic, some
>of which could use a bike.

There are far too many junctions on British motorways for them to be
considered truly 'long distance' roads. Compare them with French
motorways which seem only to have one junction per major town, and
even that is a fair way out of town.
 
Peter B wrote:
> I normally drive to work earlyish avoiding congestion and it takes about 10
> minutes. However, last week I left home during the rush(!) hour and it took

You *drive* for 10 minutes?????????

Jayzus feck! Why would you DO that?

That short a distance if it's urban/semi-urban with 30 limits and
junctions would probably only be a 20 minute bike ride. You'd have far
less frustration. You *are* the congestion when you drive!
 
"ExGuardianReader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter B wrote:
> > I normally drive to work earlyish avoiding congestion and it takes about
10
> > minutes. However, last week I left home during the rush(!) hour and it
took
>
> You *drive* for 10 minutes?????????
>
> Jayzus feck! Why would you DO that?

Why would I not do it?

Here are some reasons why I would do it:
Because my car drivers door is one pace away from my front door at home.
Because I don't have to don special clothing regardless of the weather.
Because I can throw my lunchbox, laptop and whatever else onto the passenger
seat without worry.
Because when I arrive at work I can park a few paces away from the entrance.
Because the standing charges for the car apply even when I'm riding my bike,
a point missed by those on uk.tosspot .
Because I can.
(I could add that I'm safer from cagers but that isn't a limiting factor in
my case, to be honest).
Because I'm not on a unilateral crusade to save the planet.

But mainly because it's 10 minutes quicker at the moment, when that benefit
is eroded I will get on my bike, which is what I think I said in my other
post.

Your turn :)

Pete
 
(lot snipped)
>I am now. For some of us it is not easy to find suitable jobs in our
>local area, thats just the way it is, this IS NOT OUR FAULT. I suspect
>your quote refers to folk who have chosen to live in a rural area, some
>distance from their jobs, but for some of us our jobs have been taken
>away from us and moving home to follow work is not an option so we must
>commute.
>
Hear hear! Particularly in the Southeast it is often necessary to
travel long distances to work. I drive 32 miles each way most days,
which I'm afraid is not cyclable for me. Public transport for the same
journey is unreliable, stressful and about 2.5 hours.
Employment is not the long-term thing it used to be, so paying a huge
wedge of stamp duty every job change doesn't appeal much.
Adjusting the cost of long journeys to work may have an effect, but
whether it will result in shorter journeys or wage inflation remains to
be seen.

Pete
--
Peter Grange
 
Peter B wrote:
> Because the standing charges for the car apply even when I'm riding my bike,

In that case, sell your car.

d.
 
"davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter B wrote:
> > Because the standing charges for the car apply even when I'm riding my
bike,
>
> In that case, sell your car.

Why?

And who the **** are you to tell me to?
 
Peter B wrote:
> Why?

Because you're paying for something you're not using.

> And who the **** are you to tell me to?

Your mum. Now go straight to your room you naughty boy and don't speak
to me like that again.

d.
 
"davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter B wrote:
> > Why?
>
> Because you're paying for something you're not using.

Ah, but I do use it for lots of other trips besides commuting.

> > And who the **** are you to tell me to?
>
> Your mum. Now go straight to your room you naughty boy and don't speak
> to me like that again.

Sorry, can I still stay up late?

Pete :)
 
"Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote:

|
| "ExGuardianReader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| > Peter B wrote:
| > > I normally drive to work earlyish avoiding congestion and it takes about
| > > 10 minutes. However, last week I left home during the rush(!) hour and it
| > > took
| >
| > You *drive* for 10 minutes?????????
| >
| > Jayzus feck! Why would you DO that?
|
| Why would I not do it?
|
| Here are some reasons why I would do it:
| Because my car drivers door is one pace away from my front door at home.
| Because I don't have to don special clothing regardless of the weather.
| Because I can throw my lunchbox, laptop and whatever else onto the passenger
| seat without worry.
| Because when I arrive at work I can park a few paces away from the entrance.
| Because the standing charges for the car apply even when I'm riding my bike,
| a point missed by those on uk.tosspot .
| Because I can.
| (I could add that I'm safer from cagers but that isn't a limiting factor in
| my case, to be honest).
| Because I'm not on a unilateral crusade to save the planet.
|
| But mainly because it's 10 minutes quicker at the moment, when that benefit
| is eroded I will get on my bike, which is what I think I said in my other
| post.

I once chose to drive to work (5 mins, I think I got it down to 3 if
there were no queues) because the only way to cycle involved a
dual-use underpass and there were none of those pavement ramp things
to get from the road to the underpass, so the whole thing just wasn't
smooth enough & it irritated the hell out of me. Also you could get to
the shops and back in the lunch hour with a car but it would be
pushing it on a bike. Also at the time I felt that somebody owed me
something so I took the luxury choice...

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
a little bit of drizzle and the motoring world goes mad(der than usual) :-(
Replies
17
Views
938
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
T
Is this usual?
Replies
8
Views
589
UK and Europe
Simon Proven
S
G
  • Locked
Is this usual?
Replies
16
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Dave Kahn
D
P
  • Locked
Anti-chill tip - obvious really
Replies
1
Views
851
UK and Europe
Clogicrogerc
C
W
especially missed today
Replies
5
Views
444
UK and Europe
Peter Grange
P
Top Bottom Back