BBC Story

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "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.
    >

    Commuter traffic to London should take the train. Of course, there needs to be a decent train
    service first.

    > > > > 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.

    Yep, and I think transport policy should be getting short-distance traffic off of motorways (and
    onto other forms of transport in many cases.

    <snip>

    > > 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.
    >

    Again, this needs to be combatted. I am concerned that government tolling ideas propose that
    motorways should have higher rates - this will push people onto more unsuitable roads :-(
     


  2. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

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

    > I am concerned that government tolling ideas propose that motorways should have higher rates -
    > this will push people onto more unsuitable roads :-(

    The best solution IMO is to charge for access to destinations, as in London, not for access to
    long-distance routes. Fuel duty acts as a disincentive to drive long distances irrespective of road
    type; if it then costs money to take your car into a congested town centre people may eventually
    start to realise that there is some link between congestion and their own behaviour.

    --
    Guy
    ===

    WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.com
     
  3. Nathaniel Porter wrote:

    > Yep, and I think transport policy should be getting short-distance traffic off of motorways (and
    > onto other forms of transport in many

    I have a dim recollection of Them planning the M25 to only have junctions onto other motorways and
    the odd major non-motorway - A2, A3, etc.

    But They didn't. Twots.

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  4. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > I am concerned that government tolling ideas propose that motorways should have higher rates -
    > > this will push people onto more unsuitable roads :-(
    >
    >
    > The best solution IMO is to charge for access to destinations, as in
    London,
    > not for access to long-distance routes. Fuel duty acts as a disincentive
    to
    > drive long distances irrespective of road type; if it then costs money to take your car into a
    > congested town centre people may eventually start to realise that there is some link between
    > congestion and their own
    behaviour.
    >

    That would be a good solution, as it wouldn't punish those who drive long distances occasionally,
    whilst deterring long distance car commuting (indeed all car commuting). More practical than the
    various GPS based ideas being floated about too.
     
  5. John Blake

    John Blake Guest

    In message id <[email protected]> on Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:33:00 +0100, Just zis
    Guy, you know? wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

    ><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3013424.stm>
    >
    >
    >Tens of thousands of people die in road traffic accidents every year, including more than 3,000
    >in the UK.
    >
    >BBC News Online would also like to hear your views by filling out the form below.
    >
    >REFRESHER COURSES
    >
    >Middle-aged men are getting back on the road A concern raised by the AA is the number of
    >middle-aged men "rediscovering their youth" by getting back on their motorcycles. It can sometimes
    >be too late when they discover the road environment has changed over the last 20 to 30 years. Many
    >would benefit from refresher courses to hone their skills, which may have diminished over the years
    >and must be adapted to modern road conditions.

    Why is it that a middle aged man going from 4 wheels to 2 wheels is going to be ignorant of how the
    road environment has changed in 20-30 years, yet if he stays on 4 wheels he is going to be OK?

    Refresher tests should be random for ALL licensed road users after a period of between 5 and 10
    years from the date of passing their test. Obtaining a licence in the 1950's should not mean that
    you are automatically fit and proper to be using the roads today. Eye sight tests could also be part
    of the mandatory retesting regime.

    Failure to pass the refresher test should mean a minimum 3 month ban whilst ex drivers re learn the
    necessary road craft before taking a test as if they were a complete novice on the roads. If you
    make it draconian enough, fear of failure will cause poor drivers to take necessary steps to
    re-learn what is required to pass a refresher test at the first chance. Or they will let their
    licence lapse.

    Ongoing, knowing that you will be tested every 5 to 10 years, you will try to drive the best that
    you can all the time. Bad habits just won't be allowed to settle.

    >HITTING HOME
    >
    >Cars can be fragile machines Many people do not fully comprehend the horror of car crashes, and
    >thus do not drive accordingly. Numerous advertisements have used shocking images of accidents in
    >the hope of reforming attitudes. Some say this could be taken a step further by occasionally
    >putting badly damaged and burnt out vehicles at the roadside.

    Noooo - that will only encourage rubber neckers and slow traffic down as if it needed an excuse.

    >It would surely be a stark reminder of how fragile a car can be when travelling at speed.

    Crush more cars for persistent "minor" offences and make it a news item every so often on local news
    programmes. After a while, the message will get home and the minor infringements which are the
    greater by volume, might start to reduce in number.

    Supposed "minor" infringements could / should include speeding and parking offences. They are minor
    when "I" do it but are major when someone else does it.

    --
    I don't do arguments, read the reply properly to get the context. Kind regards. If you want to take
    it to email remove THE SPAM BLOKA
     
  6. "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    >
    > > Yep, and I think transport policy should be getting short-distance traffic off of motorways (and
    > > onto other forms of transport in many
    >
    > I have a dim recollection of Them planning the M25 to only have junctions onto other motorways and
    > the odd major non-motorway - A2, A3, etc.
    >
    > But They didn't. Twots.
    >

    Absolutely 100% agreed. Local junctions are the biggest problem with the
    M25. Second is the junctions where only 2 lanes each way go straight through (mostly on the
    northern section).

    If they'd sort these problems, 12 lanes wouldn't be necessary. Upgrade the A43 and A34 route to
    motorway, and toll the road appropriately, and it might even run smoothly.

    *sigh*
     
  7. "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
    >

    As posted elsewhere, better fuels and surfaces and noise barriers can reduce much of the impact in
    this respect.

    <snip
     
  8. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in news:3ef8884b
    [email protected]:

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

    Although there are accidents that can be avoided like this, research has shown that the percentages
    are very low and that many of those could also have been avoided by braking. (Please don't do a PS
    and say if I can't quote sources then I'm making it up, I read it over 5 years ago). It was also
    found that many of these accidents were caused in the first place by one or other of the vehicles
    travelling at above the speed limit.

    So it all comes back to the "Don't Speed" theme, funny that.

    Have fun!

    Graeme
     
  9. Not Me

    Not Me Guest

    Daniel Barlow deftly scribbled:

    > "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?

    Heheheh .. they zapped me .. ;)

    --
    Digweed
     
  10. Not Me

    Not Me Guest

    Graeme deftly scribbled:

    > "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote in news:3ef8884b
    > [email protected]:
    >
    >> There have been times (personal observation) when a judicial burst of power has helped negate
    >> potential problems ..
    >>
    >
    > Although there are accidents that can be avoided like this, research has shown that the
    > percentages are very low and that many of those could also have been avoided by braking.

    I don't doubt it .. but, as I said, 'personal observation' ... ;) It's helped me twice, having a bit
    of power, to move along a bit sharpish and avoid potential trouble. Both times, it must be said, on
    the motorway, and both times at well below the speed limit for that motorway .. ;)

    > (Please don't do a PS and say if I can't quote sources then I'm making it up, I read it over 5
    > years ago)

    Heheheh, as mine was a personal observation I wouldn't really expect a 'quotable source' in a reply,
    but it would be nice .. ;)

    --
    Digweed
     
  11. Nick Kew

    Nick Kew Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
    John Blake <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Ongoing, knowing that you will be tested every 5 to 10 years, you will try to drive the best that
    > you can all the time. Bad habits just won't be allowed to settle.

    That's also a "way out". I'd be very happy to fail a refresher test, so I could have a concrete
    excuse when someone thinks I should drive.

    More subtle, and more important, it could have a profound effect on motoring statistics. Apart from
    people like me, it would purge a far larger number of older people who no longer drive. For example,
    my father hasn't driven in well over a decade, but is still a driver as far as the statistics are
    concerned. That kind of thing makes it politically sensitive.

    --
    Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
    Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)
     
  12. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:36:23 +0100, "Not me, someone else" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >It's helped me twice, having a bit of power, to move along a bit sharpish and avoid
    >potential trouble.

    The reality, though, is that in most cases "a bit of power" is used to get into trouble in the
    first place.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  13. Andymorris

    Andymorris Guest

    Not me, someone else wrote:
    >
    > I don't doubt it .. but, as I said, 'personal observation' ... ;) It's helped me twice, having a
    > bit of power, to move along a bit sharpish and avoid potential trouble. Both times, it must be
    > said, on the motorway, and both times at well below the speed limit for that motorway .. ;)
    >

    Strange how Insurace premiums are way higher on cars with plenty of that "Safety Power" (TM).

    --
    Andy Morris

    AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

    Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
    http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
     
  14. James Hodson

    James Hodson Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:15:29 -0000, Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"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.

    Hi Graeme

    Me too. I have no problem - not that my views count here - with family and friends placing flowers
    by the road side for a few days or weeks after a fatal crash. However, I do get a little annoyed
    with those who do the same but have never known the recently killed person of people.

    Similarly, how many of those who placed flowers several years ago had ever met Diana.

    Extremely wierd, IMO.

    James

    --
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg
     
  15. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    <snip>
    > not that my views count here

    Everyone's views count here, but we reserve the right to say you're talking utter b*ll*cks if we
    feel that is the case :) (and also to say "spot on, totally agree with you there" but the former is
    usually more entertaining)

    <snip>
    > However, I do get a little annoyed with those who do the same but have never known the recently
    > killed person of people.

    Spot on, totally agree with you there :) I think this is closely related to how much publicity the
    accident gets in the media, which in turn is related to how "tragic" the accident is. Kids involved
    ("innocent lives")
    = lots of publicity = lots of flowers. Teenager involved ("must have
    brought it one themselves") = not much publicity = few or no flowers.

    It's almost as if the nation needs told what to think by the TV/newspapers, but that can't be right
    can it ;-)

    > Similarly, how many of those who placed flowers several years ago had ever met Diana.

    A prime example of media led grief.

    > Extremely wierd, IMO.

    Thank you, I do try.

    Have fun!

    Graeme
     
  16. Nathaniel Porter wrote:

    > Absolutely 100% agreed. Local junctions are the biggest problem with the M25. Second is the
    > junctions where only 2 lanes each way go straight through (mostly on the northern section).

    A couple of years ago they changed the anti-clockwise bit at Junction 25 - the A10 - to stop doing
    this (clockwise it still does). However, even now the traffic bunches up in the two outside lanes
    because people think that the inside will lead them to Enfield, Waltham Cross or Eternal Damnation
    (Edmonton). Grr!

    Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
    ===========================================================
     
  17. "Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Nathaniel Porter wrote:
    >
    > > Absolutely 100% agreed. Local junctions are the biggest problem with the M25. Second is the
    > > junctions where only 2 lanes each way go straight through (mostly on the northern section).
    >
    > A couple of years ago they changed the anti-clockwise bit at Junction 25 - the A10 - to stop doing
    > this (clockwise it still does). However, even now the traffic bunches up in the two outside lanes
    > because people think that the inside will lead them to Enfield, Waltham Cross or Eternal Damnation
    > (Edmonton). Grr!
    >

    This is a signing issue. All of the northern section of the M25 is very badly signed - the junctions
    are all signed as if all lanes carried straight through:

    http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/images/signs139.gif

    and then have seperate signs showing that the inside lane leaves.

    I think this means that when they see the same type of signs installed correctly, they get ignored
    as no-one will trust them.

    That and many can't be bothered to move to the inside lane between junctions as the know it'll
    disappear for a few hundred yards.
     
  18. James Hodson

    James Hodson Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:44:24 -0000, Graeme <[email protected]> wrote:

    >James Hodson <[email protected]> wrote in
    >news:[email protected]:
    >
    ><snip>
    >> not that my views count here
    >
    >Everyone's views count here, but we reserve the right to say you're talking utter b*ll*cks if we
    >feel that is the case :)

    ;-) By saying "not that my views count here" I meant that I don't know anyone who's died in a
    road smash.

    Of course, Graeme, my views on all other matters are far more important than everyone elses.

    James

    --
    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg
     
  19. David Hansen

    David Hansen Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:02:13 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy, you know?"
    <[email protected]> wrote this:-

    >The reality, though, is that in most cases "a bit of power" is used to get into trouble in the
    >first place.

    Agreed. It is likely that more power helps people to get into trouble far more often than it helps
    them get out. "I have a powerful car so I can overtake here" being an example.

    --
    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.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...