On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:43:49 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:56:41 on Mon, 30 Nov
2015, d remarked:
The M25, for example. Its capacity is highest when
traffic isn't moving, because the gap between vehicles is minimised.
Throughput is typically highest at a speed somewhere between 40 and
60mph.

Actually it's more like 15mph, although that's unacceptably low to set a
speed limit.

Oh give it time. I'm sure the "Speed X - 10 causes less 2 * less fatalities"
argument work its magic and we'll all soon be back to walking pace with a man
with a red flag in front. Once 20mph is everywhere we'll soon have the
campaigns for 10mph kicking off. But remember - Think Of The Children!

Not many pedestrians on the M25.

Well with all the migrant scum bailing out of lorries maybe we'll have to
start putting pedestrian crossings on it.

Anyway, I was being slightly facetious but the point still stands. Don't
be surprised if a 50mph limit becomes mandatory in the next few years.

--
Spud

Clive Page wrote:
But as a
libertarian at heart I think this reduces passenger choice in a
rather serious way. I nearly always walk up escalators, even long
ones, unless I have

As a libertarian are you arguing that your choice to walk should trump
the choice of others to stand side-by-side?

If you are arguing there should be no rule at all then I agree that
might work in some places. But my expereince of travelling across
London with people who find escalators difficult, and really want a
companion alongside them, is that a fair few passengers are prepared to
pursue vigorously their "right to walk".

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

In message , at 08:50:44 on Tue, 1 Dec
2015, Clive Page remarked:

I'd like to see the figures in a peer-reviewed publication

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/sn...f/2002-11-01Go
utamDutta.pdf
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:50:44 on Tue, 1 Dec
2015, Clive Page remarked:

I'd like to see the figures in a peer-reviewed publication

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/sn...f/2002-11-01Go
utamDutta.pdf

Isn't that the same one I mentioned way up-thread?

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:13:28 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
Roland Perry;152175 Wrote:
Not many pedestrians on the M25.
--
Roland Perry

That won't deter the anti-motor car fanatics!

Their ultimate goal is quite obviously to get rid of the private car
altogether. They seem to think that because they're fit and healthy and live
only a few hundred metres from a tube station in their organic fair trade
right-on ghetto in London and never go anywhere outside the M25 unless they're
in an aircraft, then everyone else must be in a similar situation. I guess if
you're old or infirm and live in an area that poor or no PT so rely on your
car to go anywhere, you can just go **** off and die.

--
Spud

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 10:36:49 on Tue, 1 Dec 2015, Recliner
remarked:

I'd like to see the figures in a peer-reviewed publication

http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/sn...f/2002-11-01Go
utamDutta.pdf

Isn't that the same one I mentioned way up-thread?

Yes, but Clive must have missed it.
--
Roland Perry

In article , d () wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:13:28 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
Roland Perry;152175 Wrote:
Not many pedestrians on the M25.

That won't deter the anti-motor car fanatics!

Their ultimate goal is quite obviously to get rid of the private car
altogether. They seem to think that because they're fit and healthy and
live only a few hundred metres from a tube station in their organic fair
trade right-on ghetto in London and never go anywhere outside the M25
unless they're in an aircraft, then everyone else must be in a
similar situation. I guess if you're old or infirm and live in an
area that poor or no PT so rely on your car to go anywhere, you can
just go **** off and die.

As my mother found when age required her to give up driving at age 89, she
could rely on online shopping and hire cars (arthritis made the step up to
London-type cabs too difficult).

She could have used the tube longer if her nearest tube station, East
Putney, wasn't one of the least accessible on the system (no other means of
accessing platforms but long steep staircases).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 07:52:39 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:13:28 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
Roland Perry;152175 Wrote:
Not many pedestrians on the M25.

That won't deter the anti-motor car fanatics!

Their ultimate goal is quite obviously to get rid of the private car
altogether. They seem to think that because they're fit and healthy and
live only a few hundred metres from a tube station in their organic fair
trade right-on ghetto in London and never go anywhere outside the M25
unless they're in an aircraft, then everyone else must be in a
similar situation. I guess if you're old or infirm and live in an
area that poor or no PT so rely on your car to go anywhere, you can
just go **** off and die.

As my mother found when age required her to give up driving at age 89, she
could rely on online shopping and hire cars (arthritis made the step up to
London-type cabs too difficult).

Thats fine so long as you don't have much of a life and are happy to stay at
home most of the time. Also minicabs cost a fortune. If she'd used more than
a few of those a week that would be her state pension gone.

--
Spud

On 01/12/2015 09:38, Robin wrote:
As a libertarian are you arguing that your choice to walk should trump
the choice of others to stand side-by-side?

Well of course. What's the point of being a libertarian if you can't be
selfish.

That was, of course, a somewhat light-hearted comment.

If you are arguing there should be no rule at all then I agree that
might work in some places. But my expereince of travelling across
London with people who find escalators difficult, and really want a
companion alongside them, is that a fair few passengers are prepared to
pursue vigorously their "right to walk".

This is a difficult issue, I agree. But at many stations there are now
perfectly good lifts which are much more suitable for those with luggage
or walking difficulties. Is the reason that people are so unwilling to
use lifts that nobody knows they are there? I admit they are often
tucked away and badly signposted. Or could it be that they like getting
to their destination as quickly as possible and lifts are sometimes
slower? If the latter, then they may see the point of allowing those
of us still tolerably fit to walk up an escalator on the left-hand side.


--
Clive Page

wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2015 07:52:39 -0600
wrote:
In article , d () wrote:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:13:28 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
Roland Perry;152175 Wrote:
Not many pedestrians on the M25.

That won't deter the anti-motor car fanatics!

Their ultimate goal is quite obviously to get rid of the private car
altogether. They seem to think that because they're fit and healthy and
live only a few hundred metres from a tube station in their organic fair
trade right-on ghetto in London and never go anywhere outside the M25
unless they're in an aircraft, then everyone else must be in a
similar situation. I guess if you're old or infirm and live in an
area that poor or no PT so rely on your car to go anywhere, you can
just go **** off and die.

As my mother found when age required her to give up driving at age 89, she
could rely on online shopping and hire cars (arthritis made the step up to
London-type cabs too difficult).

Thats fine so long as you don't have much of a life and are happy to stay at
home most of the time. Also minicabs cost a fortune. If she'd used more than
a few of those a week that would be her state pension gone.

Probably cheaper than running your own car for the same purposes, however.