Way to Go
 

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Paul Corfield wrote:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/publi.../way-to-go.pdf

I'll resist the temptation to comment further and leave it to those who
are interested to respond.

The public realm stuff - getting rid of fences, poles, and other things
which get in the way of pedestrians - sounds good. The anti-bendy bigotry
less so.

What's this about a tunnel under Park Lane?

tom

--
Thinking about it, history begins now -- sarah

Way to Go
 

Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

The other frequent problem with these* is tinted windows that are too
dark to see through properly, so you can't make eye contact and you
can't see through to the other end/side.

There ought to be a law against front windows being darker than, ooh,
about 70% VLT...

If TPTB were really serious about it, they could enforce it by giving
plod cool little hand-held light transmission doofers, so that if they
suspect somebody's got windows too dark they can serve a vehicle
prohibition notice and get it off the road until the tint's been removed.

They could even put legislation in place that the installer of the tint
or seller of the vehicle could be prosecuted.

Nah, it'll never happen.

Oh, wait, what was that? Damn near five years ago?
http://www.window-tinting.net/thelaw.html

At least 23 years ago and possibly well before that :-

"Tinted Windows
[......]
For motor vehicles first registered before 1 April 1985 the windscreen
and front side windows must allow at least 70% of light to be
transmitted through them.
[.......]"
[VOSA press release 21 Sep 2004 - VOSA now have powers to stop motorists]

Way to Go
 

Excellent idea to remove roadside barriers and unnecessary street furniture.
I look forward to crossing Mansion House junction at street level without
the risk of being pinned against a metal barrier by an HGV/PCV. Likewise the
roads in the vicinity of Victoria station, which are a disgrace for
pedestrians heading in the Westminster direction. I would advocate this idea
is taken further, with road markings removed from non-trunk roads, where
possible.

Disappointed to see the document (or a summary thereof) will still be
translated into a multitude of different languages - or 'your language' as
it says. If you're resident in the United Kingdon, 'your language' is
English.

Chris

Way to Go
 

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 23:58:23 -0000, "Chris Read"
wrote:


Excellent idea to remove roadside barriers and unnecessary street furniture.
I look forward to crossing Mansion House junction at street level without
the risk of being pinned against a metal barrier by an HGV/PCV. Likewise the
roads in the vicinity of Victoria station, which are a disgrace for
pedestrians heading in the Westminster direction. I would advocate this idea
is taken further, with road markings removed from non-trunk roads, where
possible.

Disappointed to see the document (or a summary thereof) will still be
translated into a multitude of different languages - or 'your language' as
it says. If you're resident in the United Kingdon, 'your language' is
English.

Tha e ?

Way to Go
 

Chris Read wrote:

If you're resident in the United Kingdon, 'your language' is
English.

Nac adrodd a glywaist rhag ei fod yn gelwyddog!
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12198540.html
(57 010 at Sytch Lane (Slindon), 31 Jan 2005)

Way to Go
 

On 6 Nov, 15:32, wrote:
On 6 Nov, 15:04, Neil *Williams wrote:

It is a fact that a 4x4 causes no more of a traffic jam than a
normally-sized car. *A Land Rover Defender SWB, for instance, is as I
recall shorter and narrower then a Vauxhall Corsa.

Unfortunately a Land Rover Defender SWB is not representative of the
4x4 vehicles you see on the streets of London. Most 4x4 vehicles,
people carriers and other similar vehicles are that bit wider, longer
and higher and make a significant difference to other road users -
when parking, turning out of junctions, trying to move around in
queues, passing on narrow roads with parked cars. The other frequent
problem with these* is tinted windows that are too dark to see through
properly, so you can't make eye contact and you can't see through to
the other end/side.

And for cyclists, you can't easily see over these cars to anticipate
what's coming ahead.

Way to Go
 

disgoftunwells gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

And for cyclists, you can't easily see over these cars to anticipate
what's coming ahead.

Perhaps you shouldn't be sat so close behind them? I mean, it's not as if
vans/trucks/buses are any easier to see through/round/over than an SUV,
is it?

Way to Go
 

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
Launched today by the Mayor of London is this initial consultation
document on the likely direction and principles to be used in the
updated Mayoral Transport Strategy.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/publi.../way-to-go.pdf

Press release here

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...eleaseid=19568

I'll resist the temptation to comment further and leave it to those who
are interested to respond.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one seems to mention the horse any more surely we should be encouraging
the building of stables everywhere so that commuters could rent nags by the
hour or daily,the manure which is dropped could be used to fertilise organic
allotments & think of all the fun you could have dashing about town,I can,t
wait to buy a tricorn hat and breeches Tallyho!!

Way to Go
 

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, RobWilton wrote:

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
Launched today by the Mayor of London is this initial consultation
document on the likely direction and principles to be used in the
updated Mayoral Transport Strategy.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/publi.../way-to-go.pdf

Press release here

http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...eleaseid=19568

I'll resist the temptation to comment further and leave it to those who
are interested to respond.

No one seems to mention the horse any more surely we should be
encouraging the building of stables everywhere so that commuters could
rent nags by the hour or daily,the manure which is dropped could be used
to fertilise organic allotments & think of all the fun you could have
dashing about town,I can,t wait to buy a tricorn hat and breeches
Tallyho!!

You want to come and have a wander or a cycle round Ashburton Grove after
an Arsenal home match to see the flaw with that - just a handful of police
horses leave half the neighbourhood paved in ****.

No, horses are not the future. Space hoppers, on the other hand ...

tom

--
VENN DIAGRAM THAT LOOK LIKE TWO BIG CIRCLES EQUAL BAD PUBLIC POLICY.

Way to Go
 

On 7 Nov, 11:29, Adrian wrote:

Perhaps you shouldn't be sat so close behind them? I mean, it's not as if
vans/trucks/buses are any easier to see through/round/over than an SUV,
is it?

Which is rather my point. If it is the mere size of 4x4s that is the
issue for congestion, not the pollution they may emit (that a small,
low sports car may also do), then this should apply to all vehicles of
that size, even electric vans.

The real objection I have to Ken's latest iteration of the Congestion
Charge is that it became a personal vendetta against the 4x4. Not
against large vehicles, not against polluting vehicles, but
specifically against the 4x4. Personal vendettas in politics are
never good, which is probably why I don't like the idea of mayors
anyway (and why I prefer parliamentary rather than presidential
democracy).

No, incidentally, I do not own a 4x4, and even if I did I wouldn't be
wanting to drive it in London.

Boris is as bad for his personal vendetta against the bendy bus.
There are routes in London where they aren't appropriate, of course,
but there are routes (the 73, the Red Arrows) where they are *very*
appropriate and do the job vastly better than any Routemaster ever
did.

Neil