First time in London after C-day

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Anthony Campbel, Feb 20, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Today I went into central London (Waterloo from Southgate) for the first time since the introduction
    of congestion charging. There certainly were fewer cars than usual but those that were there were,
    not surprisingly, going faster and the standard of driving was worse; I had 3 near misses and at
    that speed they would have been serious.

    Verdict: congestion charging has made riding in London more dangerous than it used to be. I don't
    think the clearer streets compensate for this.

    AC

    --
    <<|
    | http://www.acampbell.org.uk/cycling/
    _________ ,___o / \ __________ _\ <;_ / \ OCD Cycloclimbing ___________ (_)/ (_) / \
    http://www.ocd.org.uk
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Tags:


  2. Stephen \

    Stephen \ Guest

    "Anthony Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Today I went into central London (Waterloo from Southgate) for the first time since the
    > introduction of congestion charging. There certainly were fewer cars than usual but those that
    > were there were, not surprisingly, going faster and the standard of driving was worse; I had 3
    > near misses and at that speed they would have been serious.
    >
    > Verdict: congestion charging has made riding in London more dangerous than it used to be. I don't
    > think the clearer streets compensate for this.
    >
    I think the lack of traffic this week has been put down to half-term but apparently it's down on a
    normal half-term. Next Monday will be the 1st true test. Anyway it's raising lots of cash and
    hopefully making people rethink their travel options and as soon as the cash starts getting in to
    the tube and bus system I might not even mind on the odd day when I have to leave my bike at home.
     
  3. > Verdict: congestion charging has made riding in London more dangerous than it used to be. I don't
    > think the clearer streets compensate for this.

    Actually, after being such a fan on Day One, I'm coming 'round to the fact that there will be almost
    as many cars on the road in a few weeks' time. They stayed away because they were expecting chaos;
    chaos didn't happen, so they're coming back, slowly, now. The Aldwych was nearly back up to its
    wonderful busy self today.

    But on the whole, the streets are less crowded, and I'm a bit happier. Makes taking the lane a bit
    easier--i get to stay clear of the worst of the near-side potholes, ruts, etc. But the increase in
    speed makes lane-changing marginally trickier.

    Still, the clear weather is doing a lot to increase my general outlook on two wheeled life in the
    C-zone....*grin*

    -Luigi de Guzman (Usual run: Bankside to Aldwych/Kingsway, all inside the czone. nah, wait, c-zone.
    czone makes it look Polish: 'chone'...)
     
  4. Grant

    Grant Guest

    Raising more cash - Most of the early years money goes towards the cameras and infrastructure and
    not forgetting Capita's shareholders

    "Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]_p_A_Mntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Anthony Campbell" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > Today I went into central London (Waterloo from Southgate) for the first time since the
    > > introduction of congestion charging. There certainly were fewer cars than usual but those that
    > > were there were, not surprisingly, going faster and the standard of driving was worse; I had 3
    > > near misses and at that speed they would have been serious.
    > >
    > > Verdict: congestion charging has made riding in London more dangerous than it used to be. I
    > > don't think the clearer streets compensate for this.
    > >
    > I think the lack of traffic this week has been put down to half-term but apparently it's down on a
    > normal half-term. Next Monday will be the 1st
    true
    > test. Anyway it's raising lots of cash and hopefully making people rethink their travel options
    > and as soon as the cash starts getting in to the tube and bus system I might not even mind on the
    > odd day when I have to leave
    my
    > bike at home.
     
  5. J-P.S

    J-P.S Guest

    On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:41:41 GMT, Anthony Campbell scrawled: ) Verdict: congestion charging has made
    riding in London more dangerous ) than it used to be.

    ... What: we need more cars in London to make them all observe the speed limit? Isn't there another
    way? Surely?

    J-P
    --
    The problem can't be moustaches either, quite. The top four countries for asylum seekers are
    Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, and China. Only three of those are moustache-wearing countries.
    Perhaps if you read the Daily Mail you imagine Chinese people, men and women, with Fu Man Chu
    moustaches. That might be it.
     
  6. Dave Kahn

    Dave Kahn Guest

    "j-p.s" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:41:41 GMT, Anthony Campbell scrawled: ) Verdict: congestion charging has
    > made riding in London more dangerous ) than it used to be.
    >
    > ... What: we need more cars in London to make them all observe the speed limit? Isn't there
    > another way? Surely?

    I think the argument is that we need more cars in London to make them all stop moving.

    --
    Dave...
     
  7. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On 20 Feb 2003 17:02:11 -0800, [email protected] (Luigi de Guzman) wrote:

    >Actually, after being such a fan on Day One, I'm coming 'round to the fact that there will be
    >almost as many cars on the road in a few weeks' time.

    That would actually be a good thing in some ways - the more cars, the more revenue to be spent on
    improving the public transport infrastructure.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  8. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:29:26 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>Actually, after being such a fan on Day One, I'm coming 'round to the fact that there will be
    >>almost as many cars on the road in a few weeks' time.

    >That would actually be a good thing in some ways - the more cars, the more revenue to be spent on
    >improving the public transport infrastructure.

    No it wouldn't. It would be terrible. They are planning on burning 85m each year on administration.
    The investment in public transport could have been had far more cheaply.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email promoting
    intelligent road safety
     
  9. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:20:20 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>>Actually, after being such a fan on Day One, I'm coming 'round to the fact that there will be
    >>>almost as many cars on the road in a few weeks' time.

    >>That would actually be a good thing in some ways - the more cars, the more revenue to be spent on
    >>improving the public transport infrastructure.

    >No it wouldn't. It would be terrible. They are planning on burning 85m each year on administration.
    >The investment in public transport could have been had far more cheaply.

    Except that without the extra source of revenue none of the additional investment wouldn't be made,
    obviously.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  10. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:13:32 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>>>Actually, after being such a fan on Day One, I'm coming 'round to the fact that there will be
    >>>>almost as many cars on the road in a few weeks' time.

    >>>That would actually be a good thing in some ways - the more cars, the more revenue to be spent on
    >>>improving the public transport infrastructure.

    >>No it wouldn't. It would be terrible. They are planning on burning 85m each year on
    >>administration. The investment in public transport could have been had far more cheaply.

    >Except that without the extra source of revenue none of the additional investment wouldn't be made,
    >obviously.

    Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to fund
    public transport improvement?
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  11. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    >
    > Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to fund
    > public transport improvement?

    But the principle aim is not to fund public transport. That could have been done more cheaply by
    raising the local & national taxes.

    The main aim is to reduce congestion. Raising extra cash for PT is a benefit. (A necessary one but
    none the less not the main aim of the project).

    The jury is out on whether it will work.

    T
     
  12. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:21:32 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

    You snipped:
    =================================
    PS:
    >>No it wouldn't. It would be terrible. They are planning on burning 85m each year on
    >>administration. The investment in public transport could have been had far more cheaply.

    GC:
    >Except that without the extra source of revenue none of the additional investment wouldn't be made,
    >obviously.
    =================================

    PP
    >> Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to fund
    >> public transport improvement?

    TW:
    >But the principle aim is not to fund public transport. That could have been done more cheaply by
    >raising the local & national taxes.

    >The main aim is to reduce congestion. Raising extra cash for PT is a benefit. (A necessary one but
    >none the less not the main aim of the project).

    Why did you deliberately alter the context? Is that any way to conduct a discussion?

    >The jury is out on whether it will work.

    It certainly is.

    But the verdict is inevitable. I've stuck my neck out:

    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  13. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...

    > No it wouldn't. It would be terrible. They are planning on burning 85m each year on
    > administration. The investment in public transport could have been had far more cheaply.

    Well, at least it's dropped from 120m.

    Colin
     
  14. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > You snipped:

    Errr? Losing it again Smith? I snipped extraneous previous correspondance and your sig leaving the
    part I was replying to (in the best NG way)'

    I have now snipped all the extraneous stuff you added.
    >
    > Why did you deliberately alter the context? Is that any way to conduct a discussion?

    I didn't.

    > >The jury is out on whether it will work.
    >
    > It certainly is.
    >
    > But the verdict is inevitable. I've stuck my neck out:
    >
    > http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html

    Let's hope you are wrong -- because simply 'letting the market allocate resources' -- i.e. your
    'self correcting mechanism' has failed.

    About the only sensible comment on you page is that those switching to motor cycles and scooters
    will be at greater risk. (You could have added cyclists there as well). I suspect (though cannot
    prove) that the accident rates for motorcyclists in town will be relatively lower than the average
    (since speeds are lower). I suspect we will have to wait for some accident figures.

    > speed cameras cost lives

    Proof?? The evidence appears mixed. In Norfolk they appear to be saving lives -- See Wafflycat's
    post some time back.

    T
     
  15. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 12:22:23 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> >The jury is out on whether it will work.

    >> It certainly is.

    >> But the verdict is inevitable. I've stuck my neck out:

    >> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/congestioncharging.html

    >Let's hope you are wrong -- because simply 'letting the market allocate resources' -- i.e. your
    >'self correcting mechanism' has failed.

    I don't agree... we've had all sorts of interference. Loss of road space, loss of parking space, bus
    lanes, funny traffic light phasing etc.

    In the last decade car traffic in London has fallen by 10%, but congestion has gone up by 10%.

    http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/stats2001.pdf

    Table 3, PDF Page 10

    http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/tsgb02/4/section4.htm#4.14

    Table 4.14.

    That's ample evidence of self regulation AND daft meddling I'd say.

    >About the only sensible comment on you page is that those switching to motor cycles and scooters
    >will be at greater risk. (You could have added cyclists there as well). I suspect (though cannot
    >prove) that the accident rates for motorcyclists in town will be relatively lower than the average
    >(since speeds are lower). I suspect we will have to wait for some accident figures.

    That's not so either. Most motorcyclists are killed in town. Figures not to hand, but they are in
    TSGB somewhere.

    >> speed cameras cost lives

    >Proof?? The evidence appears mixed. In Norfolk they appear to be saving lives -- See Wafflycat's
    >post some time back.

    I'm working on proof and getting closer every day.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  16. Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 20:13:32 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >>>>Actually, after being such a fan on Day One, I'm coming 'round to the fact that there will be
    > >>>>almost as many cars on the road in a few weeks' time.
    >
    > >>>That would actually be a good thing in some ways - the more cars, the more revenue to be spent
    > >>>on improving the public transport infrastructure.
    >
    > >>No it wouldn't. It would be terrible. They are planning on burning 85m each year on
    > >>administration. The investment in public transport could have been had far more cheaply.
    >
    > >Except that without the extra source of revenue none of the additional investment wouldn't be
    > >made, obviously.
    >
    > Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to fund
    > public transport improvement?

    Ooooh. How about lots of speed cameras with huge fines and all the money dedicated to public
    transport?
     
  17. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:48:55 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to fund
    >public transport improvement?

    Conceived, yes - Bob Kiley came up with an excellent and well-proven scheme: bond issue. Approved?
    Not on your nelly. PFI is the only allowable route, despite its obvious stupidity.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
    dynamic DNS permitting)
    NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
    work. Apologies.
     
  18. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:44:01 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to fund
    >>public transport improvement?

    >Conceived, yes - Bob Kiley came up with an excellent and well-proven scheme: bond issue. Approved?
    >Not on your nelly. PFI is the only allowable route, despite its obvious stupidity.

    I've heard about skating on thin ice, but... <crack!> <splosh>

    Hang on Guy, I'll call for help.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
  19. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    Paul Smith wrote:
    > On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:44:01 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>> Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to fund
    >>> public transport improvement?

    >> Conceived, yes - Bob Kiley came up with an excellent and well-proven scheme: bond issue.
    >> Approved? Not on your nelly. PFI is the only allowable route, despite its obvious stupidity.

    > I've heard about skating on thin ice, but... <crack!> <splosh>

    Ah, the good old ad hominem response. Bugger off then, old boy, and play with your random number
    generator.

    --
    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.

    http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
     
  20. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:16:14 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>>> Are you seriously suggesting that no other scheme could have been conceived and approved to
    >>>> fund public transport improvement?

    >>> Conceived, yes - Bob Kiley came up with an excellent and well-proven scheme: bond issue.
    >>> Approved? Not on your nelly. PFI is the only allowable route, despite its obvious stupidity.

    >> I've heard about skating on thin ice, but... <crack!> <splosh>

    >Ah, the good old ad hominem response. Bugger off then, old boy, and play with your random number
    >generator.

    I thought it was rather kindly and humourous, since you assertion is so clearly 100% unsupportable.

    I even offered to call for help, but you snipped that bit.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
    cameras cost lives
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...