BBC Story

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Just Zis Guy, Jun 24, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:31:16 +0100 someone who may be "Nathaniel Porter"
    > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
    >
    > >Of course, alternative routes would have to be provided for non-motorway traffic - these would be
    > >largely empty, as most traffic would use the
    m'way.
    >
    > That was the claim when motorways were built. Experience shows that the claim was generally false.
    >

    I don't know where you live, but in my experience non-motorway routes running alongside motorways as
    usually deserted (unless they form part of another major route)
     


  2. Jeremy Fagan

    Jeremy Fagan Guest

    "Graeme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    > >>Now this may be just me (not unusual), but these annoy me. What is the logic behind them?
    > >
    > > Why should there be logic behind them? I suspect there is emotion.
    >
    > I phrased that badly, probably as it's an expression I use regularly (left handed, engineer, male
    > = everything must be logical, Captain).
    >
    > I realise there is emotion behind them, but surely after a certain period of time (a week, a
    > month, a year?) it would be more healthy to remember the person who died by concentrating on their
    > life rather than how they died? I know if I was killed in an accident somehow, I would rather be
    > remembered for what I've done in my life (no major achievements, just a normal life with good bits
    > and not so good bits) rather than the fact I was splatted by a car/fell off a cliff/etc.
    >
    >
    > >>Most people die in bed but how many people tie bunches of fresh flowers to the bed every week?
    > >
    > > Dying in bed is usually rather more natural than a life cut short in a road crash that was
    > > probably avoidable.
    >
    > True, it was a poor example. For every other one I thought of, e.g. death in climbing accidents,
    > kayaking fatalities or falling dead of a heart attack in the freezer aisle of Safeway, I could
    > think either of an instance where I had seen well tended mini-memorials or realised that building
    > one would be seriously frowned on (the manager of your local supermarket would take a dim view of
    > you placing a fresh wreath in front of the frozen peas every week).

    Many people need somewhere to go to grieve and to remember their loved ones - hence graves can be
    very useful. It would be better for the relatives of those who are killed in crashes to have
    somewhere else where they can go - a roadside is rarely the right kind of place (peaceful, tranquil,
    clean, well-looked after?)

    The grieving process can take anything between 6 months and 2 years. 4 years, I suspect, implies
    that the person doing the grieving is stuck in the process, and needs proper help to move on.

    Jeremy
     
  3. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > > The are merely dangerous at the speed which cagers decide they ought to be able to drive them.

    > To a point. The really bad junctions (i.e. ones which allow right turns accross dual carriageways)
    > are still very dangerous, and when traffic is heavy turning traffic tends to do daft things.

    But it's not the road which is dangerous, it's the behaviour of the drivers who fail to take into
    account the conditions. I am not a fan of these kinds of junctions, but they can be safer for a
    cyclist than sliproads. The question in most road safety schemes is always "safer for whom?" and the
    answer is somehow never users of benign modes :-/

    > > There's some quite well-reviewed research which suggests that the appearance (or reality) of
    > > danger can help reduce accident rates[1].

    > True to a point, but I do think that having crossroads etc. on long distance, dual carriageway
    > routes is asking for trouble. Any speeding that is caused by the improvements could simply be
    > rectified by cameras.

    In which case you risk accident migration. More cameras is good in that it increases the fear of
    being caught and banned, which is the only thing cagers actually seem to care about[1], but HMG has
    repeatedly shown no interest whatsoever in actually improving driver behaviour.

    [1] cf. drink driving: everyone knows it's dangerous but rates dropped substantially when the
    breathalyser was introduced and the chances of prosecution went up.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
    about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
    wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.
     
  4. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > > The are merely dangerous at the speed which cagers decide they ought to be able to drive
    > > > them.
    >
    > > To a point. The really bad junctions (i.e. ones which allow right turns accross dual
    > > carriageways) are still very dangerous, and when traffic is heavy turning traffic tends to do
    > > daft things.
    >
    > But it's not the road which is dangerous, it's the behaviour of the
    drivers
    > who fail to take into account the conditions.

    Granted

    > I am not a fan of these kinds of junctions, but they can be safer for a cyclist than sliproads.

    TBH, IMO all busy long distance routes should be motorways, so cyclists & other non-motorway traffic
    would have an alternate road provided for them. I don't like the idea of building a motorway but not
    calling a motorway so as not to offend the greens, Transport 2000 etc (see A14), and ultimately
    thats what a long distance road with grade separated junctions is. .
    > The question in most road safety schemes is always "safer for whom?" and the answer is somehow
    > never users of benign modes :-/
    >

    TBH, I think they only care about pleasing some of the woolier safety campaigners.

    > > > There's some quite well-reviewed research which suggests that the appearance (or reality) of
    > > > danger can help reduce accident rates[1].
    >
    > > True to a point, but I do think that having crossroads etc. on long distance, dual carriageway
    > > routes is asking for trouble. Any speeding
    that
    > > is caused by the improvements could simply be rectified by cameras.
    >

    <snip>

    >
    >but HMG has repeatedly shown no interest whatsoever in actually improving driver behaviour.
    >

    <cynic> Of course not, it doesn't make money! </cynic
     
  5. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    "Graeme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Simon Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > We have "death markers" which consist of bunches of flowers tied to lamp posts. One such marker
    > > has been tended to for 4 years.
    > >
    >
    > Now this may be just me (not unusual), but these annoy me. What is the logic behind them? I can
    > sort of understand placing flowers there after any accident, but to tend them for any period of
    > time afterwards?

    I just checked when the bloke died. It was 20 AUG 00, so it's little under 3 years, not 4 like I
    said, but whenever I pass the spot I think of his widow who must still be grieving to put fresh
    flowers there after all this time.

    --
    Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W http://www.simonmason.karoo.net
     
  6. Iarocu

    Iarocu Guest

    David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:31:16 +0100 someone who may be "Nathaniel Porter"
    > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
    >
    > >Of course, alternative routes would have to be provided for non-motorway traffic - these would be
    > >largely empty, as most traffic would use the m'way.
    >
    > That was the claim when motorways were built. Experience shows that the claim was generally false.

    My experience shows the claim is often true. For example the A74 from Gretna to Hamilton now has
    only light local traffic following construction of the M74. The B3181/A38 from Exeter to Taunton has
    light traffic as most traffic goes on the nearby M5. The old A9 where it still exists between
    Pitlochry and Inverness carries only light local traffic as all through traffic is on the new A9
    (not a Motorway but the same principle in action). All these examples are good roads to cycle on
    having been built with reasonable gradients and corners to cope with motor traffic unlike cycle
    paths which often have blind corners and sharp turns unsafe over walking speeds. cheers Iain C
     
  7. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:42:05 +0100 someone who may be "Nathaniel Porter"
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >TBH, IMO all busy long distance routes should be motorways, so cyclists & other non-motorway
    >traffic would have an alternate road provided for them.

    The "alternate" road is likely to have an inferior gradient profile, longer route and many other
    problems. Perhaps no great problem for someone on a leisure ride, but a problem for someone
    going to work.

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
    keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
     
  8. "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:42:05 +0100 someone who may be "Nathaniel Porter"
    > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
    >
    > >TBH, IMO all busy long distance routes should be motorways, so cyclists & other non-motorway
    > >traffic would have an alternate road provided for
    them.
    >
    > The "alternate" road is likely to have an inferior gradient profile, longer route and many other
    > problems. Perhaps no great problem for someone on a leisure ride, but a problem for someone going
    > to work.
    >

    Why not a road parallel to the motorway? A third carriageway if you like?
     
  9. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Why not a road parallel to the motorway? A third carriageway if you like?

    Because some of the motorway traffic would divert to the parallel road to avoid congestion caused by
    the existence of the motorway.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
     
  10. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > Why not a road parallel to the motorway? A third carriageway if you
    like?
    >
    > Because some of the motorway traffic would divert to the parallel road to avoid congestion caused
    > by the existence of the motorway.
    >

    Assuming the motorway causes congestion for the sake of argument (and because we've already argued
    that to death :) ) But this doesn't happen where the parrellel road pre-dates the motorway - see
    the A5 / A5183 (replaced by the M1). Also, why isn't the M45 jammed full of cars going to Birmingham
    via the A45? It runs parrallel to the congested M6, yet the M45 is very quiet, even at rush hour.
    What about the A50, which again runs parallel to the West Midlands section of the M6 between the M6
    and M1? Why isn't this clogged up with cars trying to avoid Birmingham?

    I think you overrate the intelligence of many motorists if you think they'll stray off the blue
    lines to avoid delays, unless they absolutely have to.
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > > > Why not a road parallel to the motorway? A third carriageway if you
    > like?

    > > Because some of the motorway traffic would divert to the parallel road
    to
    > > avoid congestion caused by the existence of the motorway.

    > But this doesn't happen where the parrellel road pre-dates the motorway - see the A5 / A5183
    > (replaced by the M1).

    This is where I grew up:
    <http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=513744&y=203906&z=1&sv=513750,20375 &st=4&ar=Y>

    The Wasa5 is a notorious commuter rat-run for Luton-dwellers who work in St Albans.

    > Also, why isn't the M45 jammed full of cars going to Birmingham via the
    A45?
    > It runs parrallel to the congested M6, yet the M45 is very quiet, even at rush hour.

    Wasn't last time I drove it, but I don't do it often enough to comment. I have seen the boy racers
    burning down the A33 parallel to the M3 in the mornings though.

    > I think you overrate the intelligence of many motorists if you think
    they'll
    > stray off the blue lines to avoid delays, unless they absolutely have to.

    Those who drive the same route every day are strongly motivated to do just that - hence urban
    "rat runs."

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.com
     
  12. "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> writes:

    > inviting an accident to happen. There have been times (personal observation) when a judicial burst
    > of power has helped negate potential problems ..

    You got electrocuted by a magistrate?

    -dan
    --

    http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
     
  13. Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

    > "Nathaniel Porter" wrote:
    >> Why not a road parallel to the motorway? A third carriageway if you like?
    >
    > Because some of the motorway traffic would divert to the parallel road to avoid congestion caused
    > by the existence of the motorway.

    To say nothing of the smell and nasty noise...

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  14. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > > > Why not a road parallel to the motorway? A third carriageway if you
    > > like?
    >
    > > > Because some of the motorway traffic would divert to the parallel road
    > to
    > > > avoid congestion caused by the existence of the motorway.
    >
    > > But this doesn't happen where the parrellel road pre-dates the
    motorway -
    > > see the A5 / A5183 (replaced by the M1).
    >
    > This is where I grew up:
    >
    <http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=513744&y=203906&z=1&sv=513750,20375
    > &st=4&ar=Y>
    >
    > The Wasa5 is a notorious commuter rat-run for Luton-dwellers who work in
    St
    > Albans.
    >

    Do you mean the A1081 (ex A6)? Taking the A5/ A5183 from Luton seems a bit of a daft route. And I
    don't think this is a fair comparison - motorways are for long distance traffic (Leicester to St
    Albans for example). I would hardly call Luton to St Albans a long distance journey.

    > > Also, why isn't the M45 jammed full of cars going to Birmingham via the
    > A45?
    > > It runs parrallel to the congested M6, yet the M45 is very quiet, even at rush hour.
    >
    > Wasn't last time I drove it, but I don't do it often enough to comment. I have seen the boy racers
    > burning down the A33 parallel to the M3 in the mornings though.
    >

    I can't comment on this example, but if its just boy racers then I think the problem is with boy
    racers rather than having the alternative route.

    > > I think you overrate the intelligence of many motorists if you think
    > they'll
    > > stray off the blue lines to avoid delays, unless they absolutely have
    to.
    >
    > Those who drive the same route every day are strongly motivated to do just that - hence urban
    > "rat runs."
    >

    Again, I don't think this is a fair comparison. The reason people stick to motorways for long
    distance journeys is largely because they fear they will get lost on other routes (regardless of the
    standard of the route). This isn't so much of an issue in urban areas as management schemes often
    make navigation difficult on all roads.

    Additionally, driving on a congested motorway is often still faster than driving on an uncongested
    A/B road, as the standard of A/B roads dictates slower speeds, so there isn't much advantage to
    rat running.

    Just my $0.02
     
  15. "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    >
    > > "Nathaniel Porter" wrote:
    > >> Why not a road parallel to the motorway? A third carriageway if you like?
    > >
    > > Because some of the motorway traffic would divert to the parallel road to avoid congestion
    > > caused by the existence of the motorway.
    >
    > To say nothing of the smell and nasty noise...
    >

    1) Motorists don't avoid motorways to avoid the smell and the noise
    2) The smell (and more importantly pollution) could easily be reduced by forcing motorists to use
    cleaner fuels
    3) Motorways aren't actually that noisy, especially with improvements in surfaces and sound
    barriers. Railway lines are worse IMHO (based on an anecdotal comparision between the M1
    northbound at J14*, and the line passing through Canley level crossing, Coventry)

    *The motorway was closed southbound at the time due to an accident, which is why I was on the
    motorway out of a car at the time, and also why I only heard the northbound carriageway. Even taking
    into account the stoppage southbound, and the fact southbound is more busy at the time of day (about
    4:30 on a weekday), the railway line has it beat on noise. All IMHO, of course.
     
  16. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > > The Wasa5 is a notorious commuter rat-run for Luton-dwellers who work in
    > St
    > > Albans.

    > Do you mean the A1081 (ex A6)?

    Oops, yes, the Wasa6 not the Wasa5. But the point remains: a substantial proportion of the traffic
    on the motorways at peak periods is commuter traffic joining for a couple of junctions, so yes it is
    a fair comparison.

    > > > I think you overrate the intelligence of many motorists if you think
    > > they'll
    > > > stray off the blue lines to avoid delays, unless they absolutely have
    > to.

    > > Those who drive the same route every day are strongly motivated to do
    just
    > > that - hence urban "rat runs."

    > Again, I don't think this is a fair comparison. The reason people stick to motorways for long
    > distance journeys is largely because they fear they
    will
    > get lost on other routes

    Long distance journeys are not a large proportion of journeys, though. Look at the changes in levels
    of congestion on the M6, M25, M1 during the day. Peak periods, Car Park Full, off-peak is tolerable.
    A lot of those people are going just one or two junctions.

    > Additionally, driving on a congested motorway is often still faster than driving on an uncongested
    > A/B road, as the standard of A/B roads dictates slower speeds, so there isn't much advantage to
    > rat running.

    But on the less congested road you get to maintain the illusion of control on a relatively traffic
    free road, rather than maintaining a higher average but constrained by congestion.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.com
     
  17. Al_mossah

    Al_mossah Guest

    "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    > >
    > > > "Nathaniel Porter" wrote:
    > > >> Why not a road parallel to the motorway? A third carriageway if you like?
    > > >
    > > > Because some of the motorway traffic would divert to the parallel road to avoid congestion
    > > > caused by the existence of the motorway.
    > >
    > > To say nothing of the smell and nasty noise...
    > >
    >
    > 1) Motorists don't avoid motorways to avoid the smell and the noise
    > 2) The smell (and more importantly pollution) could easily be reduced by forcing motorists to use
    > cleaner fuels
    > 3) Motorways aren't actually that noisy, especially with improvements in surfaces and sound
    > barriers. Railway lines are worse IMHO (based on an anecdotal comparision between the M1
    > northbound at J14*, and the line passing through Canley level crossing, Coventry)
    >
    > *The motorway was closed southbound at the time due to an accident, which
    is
    > why I was on the motorway out of a car at the time, and also why I only heard the northbound
    > carriageway. Even taking into account the stoppage southbound, and the fact southbound is more
    > busy at the time of day (about
    > 9:30 on a weekday), the railway line has it beat on noise. All IMHO, of course.
    >
    I'd choose to live next to a railway rather than a motorway. Yes, the train is noisy, but it's gone
    in a flash, leaving a lovely calm relatively silent environment. the road noise is continuous and
    relentless.

    Peter
     
  18. Nathaniel Porter wrote:

    > 1) Motorists don't avoid motorways to avoid the smell and the noise

    No, but cyclists would be more vulnerable than most to the smell and nasty noise generated by a
    nearby M-way.

    > 3) Motorways aren't actually that noisy, especially with improvements in surfaces and sound
    > barriers. Railway lines are worse IMHO (based on an anecdotal comparision between the M1
    > northbound at J14*, and the line passing through Canley level crossing, Coventry)

    Neither is much fun, as a trip along the Oxford Canal once demonstrated. Both the M40 and the
    railing-way were Loud, but the latter wasn't constant. One may prefer this. Or not.

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  19. "al_Mossah" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > "Nathaniel Porter" wrote:
    > > > >> Why not a road parallel to the motorway? A third carriageway if you like?
    > > > >
    > > > > Because some of the motorway traffic would divert to the parallel road to avoid congestion
    > > > > caused by the existence of the motorway.
    > > >
    > > > To say nothing of the smell and nasty noise...
    > > >
    > >
    > > 1) Motorists don't avoid motorways to avoid the smell and the noise
    > > 2) The smell (and more importantly pollution) could easily be reduced by forcing motorists to
    > > use cleaner fuels
    > > 3) Motorways aren't actually that noisy, especially with improvements in surfaces and sound
    > > barriers. Railway lines are worse IMHO (based on an anecdotal comparision between the M1
    > > northbound at J14*, and the line passing through Canley level crossing, Coventry)
    > >
    > > *The motorway was closed southbound at the time due to an accident,
    which
    > is
    > > why I was on the motorway out of a car at the time, and also why I only heard the northbound
    > > carriageway. Even taking into account the stoppage southbound, and the fact southbound is more
    > > busy at the time of day
    (about
    > > 9:30 on a weekday), the railway line has it beat on noise. All IMHO, of course.
    > >
    > I'd choose to live next to a railway rather than a motorway. Yes, the
    train
    > is noisy, but it's gone in a flash, leaving a lovely calm relatively
    silent
    > environment. the road noise is continuous and relentless.
    >

    I suppose this is a matter of preference, but I'd rather the motorway. I'd rather have a constant
    noise that I can get used to and adjust to than have a silence followed by the roar of a train,
    followed by silence and so on. The constant noise would be easier to blank out.

    Of course, both railways and motorways should be designed so as few people as possible are affected
    by them, because living next to either is hardly ideal.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...