|
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"Steve Firth" wrote in message .. . iantheengineer wrote: "Steve Firth" wrote in message .. . iantheengineer wrote: When labour came to power the country had no money. ********. No not ******** FACT Writing the word "fact" in capital letters does not make your statement true. Please feel free to try again and this time, try quoting a "fact" that you think supports your case. In the meantime I'll pop off and do some work because it's going to be a good long time before you can produce any evidence in your favour. I'd say from now until hell freezes over. -- Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. Yopu to Mr Firth full of it you can counter argue but you have no facts backing you up, so I throw down the gauntlet, oh and please remove thoise rose tinted glasses popular in the 80s before examining. Bring it on |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"derek" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 19:26:39 -0000, "iantheengineer" wrote: Okay lets see, so you need to buy something what do you do. 1. Pay for it with money 2. Borrow the money When labour came to power the country had no money. It was in a huge deficit.It has taken time to gather the money for spending. They never said that they stopped road building because they were short of money. Prescott just cancelled all the schemes wholesale. In Doncaster they had widened one of the approach roads to the city right up to the river Don and Prescott cancelled the bloody bridge 1 day before the contract was due to be signed so the new road was useless. They cancelled the road improvements to make the trains seem more attractive out of political dogma. It was the series of train crashes and the Railtrack meltdown that forced them to do an about turn. It was also on the back of research that idicated that road building was not the answer Since labour came to power councils bid for work using local transport plans. And? they now bid and are awarded money on the merit and benefit the schemes give, giving it back to the local people Large road building schemes are NOT the answer. it has been proven that traffic grows according to network capacity. So we build another M25 result more traffic That can only occurr if there is a reservoir of unsatified demand, it is a sign we need more capacity, maybe another road somewhere else. There always is oh I cant be bothered see one of my other posts Ive explained it in pre-school language So we upgrade the A9 from Perth to Inverness to motorway standard. Please explain where all the extra congestion will come from and why. Okay lets see. People can only travel if they are able to travel. People desire better jobs, better homes, better standard of living. They can get these by shopping around, or how you say getting an interview and a job. So Sean who has been unemployed sees this new road going to a neighbouring conurbation ahh new oppurtunities so he goes and gets a job. So as there is no public transport he buys a second hand car off of George, who has bought a new car. Sean travels on the new road to an from work every day. Think about this multiplied and you may be getting closer to the picture Local transport plans are developed by local authorities to best solve the problems they have / prepare for the future. Each plan is judged with others and funding allocatr=ted by central government. As for the inital state of the roads ask any local government highway engineer for the truth ( i was one) and they will tell you. Yuppies were synonimus with the 80's its a known FACT. Wrong Yuppies were a '90s phenomena, as several people have told you. www.bbc.co.uk/games/pop/ index.shtml?category=brain&game=1980s_quiz - 3k Please see the mention of yuppies on the old beeb So we didnt get tax breaks during the Thatcherite days??? FACT She sold off all of the national utilities, which now make huge profits for private shareholders LOL Yorkshire Water offerred itself back into public ownership for free, and (whoever) refused it! Okay perhaps 1 exception instead of such funding going back into th coffers. All that MT ever did was to lower taxes at the expense of everything else. If you were working all well and good but if you were not ( highest levels of unemployment for years) then tough. It was coming anyway that's *why* MT got in. Remember the "Winter of discontent"? Who's got the rose tinted seebakrascopes on now? MT got in through lies and deciept but thats another story and not one I will waste my life arguing over, you have your beliefs I have mine and never the twain thankfully will meet. DG |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:17:40 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote: France has a different geographic population split, they are far less spread with concentrations of individuals in cities and very little in between, thus a lesser need to travel. ??? WTF does that lot mean? Some facts.. France has 4x the land area of the UK. The English and French populations are similar. 10% of the French population works in agriculture (presumably in the countryside), 2.5% of the English population work in agriculture. So the density of population in the English and French countriside is about the same. Hint: Probably because that's what the land will support. Although French farmers might get a bit more generous subsidies. The UK is far more spread out, How can it be? We are one quarter the size! and travel has throuigh this spread become more necessary, nbut only through a failing of the planning system over the past years. No doubt. But it's no different in France, there are just as many out of town shopping centres in France as the UK. Probably because we're both copying American ideas, a few years behind as per usual. DG |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:56:34 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote: Yopu to Mr Firth full of it you can counter argue but you have no facts backing you up, so I throw down the gauntlet, oh and please remove thoise rose tinted glasses popular in the 80s before examining. Bring it on Labour came to power in 97 with the public finances in the best state for a decade I suggest you read the treasurys own figures for that year http://archive.treasury.gov.uk/budge...t/chap4ana.htm also try figuring out how Brown managed to run a *surplus* for the the 1st four years of power by sticking to tory spending limits. greg -- $ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@' The Following is a true story..... Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:14:09 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote: They cancelled the road improvements to make the trains seem more attractive out of political dogma. It was the series of train crashes and the Railtrack meltdown that forced them to do an about turn. It was also on the back of research that idicated that road building was not the answer The like of Transport 2,000 (Transport 1997?) It would be easy to find research with the opposite conclusion. Since labour came to power councils bid for work using local transport plans. And? they now bid and are awarded money on the merit and benefit the schemes give, giving it back to the local people Large road building schemes are NOT the answer. it has been proven that traffic grows according to network capacity. So we build another M25 result more traffic That can only occurr if there is a reservoir of unsatified demand, it is a sign we need more capacity, maybe another road somewhere else. There always is oh I cant be bothered see one of my other posts Ive explained it in pre-school language So we upgrade the A9 from Perth to Inverness to motorway standard. Please explain where all the extra congestion will come from and why. Okay lets see. People can only travel if they are able to travel. People desire better jobs, better homes, better standard of living. They can get these by shopping around, or how you say getting an interview and a job. So Sean who has been unemployed sees this new road going to a neighbouring conurbation ahh new oppurtunities so he goes and gets a job. So as there is no public transport he buys a second hand car off of George, who has bought a new car. Sean travels on the new road to an from work every day. Think about this multiplied and you may be getting closer to the picture But he can do that on the existing A9, if it was a motorway it would be several times safer and a little bit quicker. So if that's a prospect it's already happened. BTW there are no neighbouring conurbations between Perth and Inverness. It's only because the resource (the road) is being used to 100% capacity and way beyond so that a 30% increase in capacity results in (eventually) 30% more cars. The NHS plans to run it's hospitals at 80% utilisation, because that figure is the most efficient. Some of our motorways are running at obscene multiples of the capacity they were designed for, in these circumstances the green weenies are correct when they say build more capacity get more cars. Examine the M62 from junction 27 (IKEA) to the Worsley interchange. Traffic from industrial west yorkshire heading north to Scotland via the M6 (BTW. The Dept of Transport have said we will only *ever* have 1 motorway route to Scotland, the M6 up the west of the country). traffic has to head *south* on the M62 to the M61 junction at Worsley before going north. It puts about 24 miles on the journey at presumably tremendous cost to the country. The M62 is over capacity around Manchester, Bradford, and Leeds it would have been much better if they had actually built the Aire Valley Motorway (M65) 20 years ago when they had the money for it, but it was filibustered out by a handful of Hooray Henry Farming Nimbys who probably use the land for hunting! BTW the IKEA traffic is so bad at that junction that the police are there ready to close it as soon as the roads sieze up when IKEA have a 1 day sale. The junction is original (since Ca. 1976) IKEA have been there 4-5 years and there is no sign/mention of any junction improvements. Local transport plans are developed by local authorities to best solve the problems they have / prepare for the future. I see there is a block on the Leeds Supertram after the Leeds City Council have already spent tens of megaquids of our money on initial investigations/research, *and* already made a start on civil engineering works out of their own money, and now the Gov's got cold feet again, and apparently kicked the whole project into touch in the last fortnight. Each plan is judged with others and funding allocatr=ted by central government. As for the inital state of the roads ask any local government highway engineer for the truth ( i was one) and they will tell you. Yuppies were synonimus with the 80's its a known FACT. Wrong Yuppies were a '90s phenomena, as several people have told you. www.bbc.co.uk/games/pop/ index.shtml?category=brain&game=1980s_quiz - 3k Won't run on my (2) computers both say "needs plug in". Please see the mention of yuppies on the old beeb So we didnt get tax breaks during the Thatcherite days??? Not me, overall my tax hasn't changed much since the Callaghan era until the recent 10% increase in NI contributions that is. FACT She sold off all of the national utilities, which now make huge profits for private shareholders LOL Yorkshire Water offerred itself back into public ownership for free, and (whoever) refused it! Okay perhaps 1 exception instead of such funding going back into th coffers. All that MT ever did was to lower taxes at the expense of everything else. If you were working all well and good but if you were not ( highest levels of unemployment for years) then tough. The pseudo prosperity we thought we were entitled to was unsustainable, it had been achieved by trading with (read ripping off the natives in) the Old British Empire as a captive market (Sterling Area) , and after the war they all kicked us into touch because we were too week to hold it all together. I don't blame them. So the shipyard workers, the dockers, the car workers, the steelworkers, and the miners tried to strike their way to the prosperity they thought they had a right to expect. Bad Move, Bad Move.. It's a pity because the country could have modernised using the new technology instead of shunning technology, letting that go to the chinese and going the "service industry" route. But, Hey - Ho.. It was coming anyway that's *why* MT got in. Remember the "Winter of discontent"? Who's got the rose tinted seebakrascopes on now? MT got in through lies and deciept but thats another story and not one I will waste my life arguing over, you have your beliefs I have mine and never the twain thankfully will meet. You surely didn't seriously expect Callaghan, with his Solomon Binding Social contract/compact to get back in? DG |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
|
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 22:51:51 +0000, derek wrote:
It was also on the back of research that idicated that road building was not the answer The like of Transport 2,000 (Transport 1997?) Ohh you mean the single issue pressure group funded mostly by bus companies. greg -- $ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@' The Following is a true story..... Only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
|
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"derek" wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:17:40 -0000, "iantheengineer" wrote: France has a different geographic population split, they are far less spread with concentrations of individuals in cities and very little in between, thus a lesser need to travel. ??? WTF does that lot mean? Some facts.. France has 4x the land area of the UK. Where did you learn this "fact". France actually has 2.23 times the land area of the UK. (Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/1996/in1.pdf) -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:01:41 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote: "derek" wrote in message .. . Im afraid countless studies have found that roadbuilding is not the answer to the problem. Countless? Who's doin' the countin'? Under what circumstances? By your reckoning road destruction *IS* a solution. From what you say we'd be better off just dynamiteing all the bridges on our motorways because roads just breed cars. So let's block all the motorways and issue everybody with rose tinted seebackrascopes and we'll all go back to living like we did in 1956 without motorways.. People have chosen to travel through the freedomn of choice that roads and increased wealth have given them, thus perpetuating the problem. To continue to build roads will continue the problem. The answer is puvblic transport, but public transport cannot cater for all journeys and therefore over time journeys will need to become more corridored. For example go into any city during the am peak and the tidality of the flow is there to be seen. IF we were to get all of the people from their cars onto public transport, or even better living nearer to the workplace, the congestion would be far less. No doubt you have a big swanky car that has one person in it most of the time taking up all of that roadspace, when really all most people need arte a seat. If roads are expected to last we need to reduce the wear and tear on them whic in itself has been brought about by the greater use of road transport That's just an indication we don't have enough roads because the one's we have are overloaded.. (the main damage to roads actually aoccurs from HGVs and PSVs, however PSVs transport peoiple more effectively). Not when they're running round empty. My (molto swanky) car does not however run around empty. This again needs more of us out of our cars. Without cars on the urban road network public transport would be faster and more reliable. I see no proof of that. As for the maintenence of roads well normally it involves patching (completed very quickly around 2 hours) Are you for real or what? 2 hours? *2* Hours ! The M1 around Long Eaton in Notts has had ongoing works for what seems to be 2-3 years. It takes tham longer than 2 hours to put the cones out! The bridge over the river Dove on the A38 near Derby (An alternative route to the M1 above, don't I know it!) has been subject to repairs (Messing about with) on and off for 5+ years. The Tinsley viaduct on the M1 at Meadowhall, Sheffield, has been restricted to 2 lanes for the last 10 - 15 ? years. these restrictions recently made semi-permanent pending an actual permanent repair in 2 years time. Hey, real soon now ! or overlaying (approx 2 days). oNly Follow the yellow brick road, Follow the yellow brick road.. Follow.. Follow.. Follow.. Follow.. Follow.. Follow.. The yellow brick road. Some.. where.. Over the rainbow.. Roads are fixed in 2 hours and resurfaced in 2 days! Why then, Oh why aren't mine? on rare occassions is a complete reconstruction carried out, and as I have said this wear and tear is due to use not age. But as you said yourself it's PSVs (mostly running empty) and HGVs that do the damage. I think your justification using ethernet capacity is a bit irrelevant. We know that building more roads is The experiences of those of us who have had to deal with Ethernet networks demonstrates how the performance of the network declines very dramatically as the number of instances of collisions, queuing, and re-transmitts increases as saturation is reached. That's what "2 Jags Prescott. Bus lanes? that's what they're there for" wanted to achieve with the motorways to get us onto the trains, but then the railways collapsed., and he'd wasted 4-5 years whilst the problem got worse. Tosser!. a) environmentally damaging No, we have already established in this thread that motorways cover an entirely trivial proportion of this country with concrete/tarmac. Some cars emit exhaust gases of a better standard than the air they aspirate, the "swanky" ones are at the better end of the performance stakes, so the more the better, they should get a tax rebate, (seriously!). That is if *you* are serious about reducing pollution. b) increases usage so essentially provides no longterm greater net capacity. Just a symptom of the fact that the existing road system is 2-5? times overloaded. So where do you stop, when the whole country is one great network of asphalt??? It seems that motorways currently use up one two thousandth of the surface of this country. So that is not a currently a limiting factor. How about at the same point as you stop producing food, stop building houses, building schools, and stop building hospitals? When the need is met, stoopid. Why not use the technologies to reduce travel more??? A very good question. It seems the Great British public aren't ready for it. Maybe the technology is not good enough yet. Do you imagine I could sell a £25,000 machine by sending a media message picture of it to a customers mobile phone? Or by setting up a poxy 20 minute, low resolution, smeary video conferencing session? How do I do the routine maintenance on it, once it's sold and installed? It's in Torquay BTW 480 KM and 5 hours 11 mins away in my "swanky" car. BTW I have 7 CWT of tools, spare parts, test equipment, and manuals with me. Fuel cost £65.00 Nat Express 10 hours 5 minutes. (What about me bits?) £47 +£40 Taxis + 2 additional hotel nights @ £108.00 Railtrack 6 hours 32 minutes (What about me bits?) £155 +£40 taxis +1 additional hotel night @£54.00 DG |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
Steve Firth wrote:
Paul Weaver wrote: Traveling over land from the Mediterranean to the Channel in 12 hours is evil. I'll say, it takes me 11 hours to get from the southern Adriatic to the Channel. To take as long as 12 hours from the Med, I'd have to be driving a truck. I have to ask, How? Brindisi/Calais used to take me two long days driving. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
Usenet wrote:
In message , Chris Jones writes Surely new roads giving people new possibilities to travel, meet friends and relatives, and go for days out should be celebrated? After all, that means our standard of living has increased, surely. New roads promise the idea of emancipation, when they really only offer a new version of hell. 1. Any new road is quickly filled by drivers doing exactly what you're doing; taking advantage of a supposedly easier way to travel from 'here' to 'there'. And why shouldn't they if that's what they want, who are you to deny them? 2. New roads cost. Not just the building cost, but all those other factors: loss of trade to local shops, loss of views, communities cut off from each other, and my favourite bete-noire - the bloody noise! There are vast areas of Southern England where it's now impossible to get away from the sound of cars and motor-bikes screaming along at top speed (a jam on the M25 now provides a gentle respite for the communities alongside it - say anywhere up to 3 miles away). If we (the people) can afford it and that's what we (the majority) want, Why not? Your objections seem selfishly based. 3. Older road-planing cost us loads. The way roads are/were costed was to value the land, meaning it was always cheaper to go though areas which weren't farmland or housing. Trouble was, in these over-crowded islands, that meant the areas that were cheapest were also the areas that benefited least from roads: common land, woodland, SSI, etc. Still, it gives a nice view from the car, doesn't it? Yeah great view, especially for those who are stuck with living in concrete jungles, If they can get access to a car they can at least experience what life is like beyond walking/bus distances. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
iantheengineer wrote:
"Paul Weaver" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 09:59:51 +0000, iantheengineer wrote: What about all the other people???? Do you forget the miners strikes when I don't much care. You see in the private industry if your company doesnt sell Cheaply, it goes bust, shareholders lose big time, normal workers move to other industries, they adapt, or should. good ol MT decided to close all of the pits so we imported cheap coal from Africa. Now most of the pits have closed Africas coal price has risen dramatically, oh yeah she was an absolute genius! Any 5 year old could have seen that coming Of course instead of depleteing our coal reserves we still have them, so in 50 years When there's hardly any left, we can reopen the pits and make big bucks. Okay who is going to fund the re-opening of the flooded and unsafe mines??? You?? Anyone who can see a profit in it |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
|
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:01:08 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote: "derek" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 20:17:40 -0000, "iantheengineer" wrote: France has a different geographic population split, they are far less spread with concentrations of individuals in cities and very little in between, thus a lesser need to travel. ??? WTF does that lot mean? Some facts.. France has 4x the land area of the UK. Where did you learn this "fact". France actually has 2.23 times the land area of the UK. Must have been From a Frenchman. Does that figure include Martinique etc? ;-) DG |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"Paul Weaver" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:09:26 +0000, iantheengineer wrote: Oh my god she converted somone, live in the South par chance????? My family were always big Maggie fans. When she Started we lived in Brum, then moved up to Manchester. Throws your stereotype out a little don't it? Oh your the one then |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... Not at all I have a car my wife has a car we enjoy days out in the car. The continentals actually have higher levels of car ownership, just they use them less. Can you give details of that lower car use than the UK ? Does anyone quote the sopurce of facts in this NG but anyway this makes part of the point http://www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/ebptbench/05.htm about modal split. The rest of the point was in the broadsheets, however it is repeated here for your enjoyment. http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/key/01.htm |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
It would be easy to find research with the opposite conclusion.
For example: http://www.conservatives.com/getfile.../1664&type=pdf |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"NM" wrote
Yeah great view, especially for those who are stuck with living in concrete jungles, If they can get access to a car they can at least experience what life is like beyond walking/bus distances. Most concrete jungles and drab housing estates seem to have been created around the car. Had they not been built perhaps people would not be screaming to get out. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"iantheengineer" wrote in message
... "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... Not at all I have a car my wife has a car we enjoy days out in the car. The continentals actually have higher levels of car ownership, just they use them less. Can you give details of that lower car use than the UK ? Does anyone quote the sopurce of facts in this NG but anyway this makes part of the point http://www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/ebptbench/05.htm about modal split. The claim that a higher proportion of journeys is by car, even if true, does not show that there is higher car use. The rest of the point was in the broadsheets, however it is repeated here for your enjoyment. http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/key/01.htm I can't see anything there about levels of car use. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:10:39 -0000, "DavidR"
wrote: "NM" wrote Yeah great view, especially for those who are stuck with living in concrete jungles, If they can get access to a car they can at least experience what life is like beyond walking/bus distances. Most concrete jungles and drab housing estates seem to have been created around the car. Had they not been built perhaps people would not be screaming to get out. You are not making yourself clear. The first "Concrete Jungle" was a reference in a 1961 movie to New York City. The second was in a sleazy 1982 movie about lesbians and innocents in a women's prison. In what sense were these "created around the car" ? A common interpretation is that of poor people living in poor quality socialised housing systems, served by socialised medicine, IE the NHS. Socialised transport systems, I.E. public transport, and everybody gets educated in a nice socialised education system AKA a "Bog Standard Comprehensive" (TM) Blunkett.. Ever waited for a bus in Drumchapel, Castlemilk, or Blackbird Leys? Quote from a colleague from Glasgow "She came from Easterhouse so she's no education" DG |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... Not at all I have a car my wife has a car we enjoy days out in the car. The continentals actually have higher levels of car ownership, just they use them less. Can you give details of that lower car use than the UK ? Does anyone quote the sopurce of facts in this NG but anyway this makes part of the point http://www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/ebptbench/05.htm about modal split. The claim that a higher proportion of journeys is by car, even if true, does not show that there is higher car use. The rest of the point was in the broadsheets, however it is repeated here for your enjoyment. http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/key/01.htm I can't see anything there about levels of car use. I quote A central cause of these high congestion levels is that British people make more use of cars than any other European country, despite having below average car ownership. Almost nine out of ten motorised journeys (car, bus, motorbike) in the UK are by car, compared with an EU average of just over eight out of ten. This proves my point whole heatedly but no doubt memebers of this NG will question the data, but what can you do, people will always doubt studies unless they themselves do them |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"PeterE" wrote in message ... iantheengineer wrote: Speed humps are used to prevent speeding idiots and save lives. Do you REALLY think that a local authority with limited funds would waste it n putting in humps for the sake of it. Yes. Otherwise why do we see speed humps being installed while at the same time the roads are full of potholes? And they don't save lives. Ask the Ambulance Service. -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "If laws are to be respected, they must be worthy of respect." Yes they do I can produce the stats if required from ROSPA that have been statistically proven to a 90-95% confidence interval, however no doubt you will doubt these, I have given up with this NG. They seem to think that government bodies sit thinking of ways to waste momey and alienate the public, dont you think you are missing the bigger picture??? I have in the past worked for government bodies and in my opinion they operate better than the private sector, however the private sector is prepared to flount rules and legislation the public sector cannot. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"JNugent" wrote in message ... wrote: "Paul Weaver" wrote: Chris Jones wrote: Don't be silly, we're nowhere near that. I don't think the motorway network even takes up 1% of the land in this country, there's plenty of space for more. Motorways take about 50 square miles of the UK - 0.05% of the total land area. So????? So it makes you look pretty silly when you ranted: "So where do you stop, when the whole country is one great network of asphalt???", doesn't it? Look it up, an analogy. It was an extreme statement of a truth we are ina a society that would keep paving over green areas to provide faster access. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:48:47 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote: http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/key/01.htm I can't see anything there about levels of car use. A central cause of these high congestion levels is that British people make more use of cars than any other European country, despite having below average car ownership. Almost nine out of ten motorised journeys (car, bus, motorbike) in the UK are by car, compared with an EU average of just over eight out of ten. This proves my point whole heatedly but no doubt memebers of this NG will question the data, but what can you do, people will always doubt studies unless they themselves do them This seems far more balanced and reasonable to me: http://www.conservatives.com/getfile.../1664&type=pdf -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed cameras cost lives |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:53:35 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote: Speed humps are used to prevent speeding idiots and save lives. Do you REALLY think that a local authority with limited funds would waste it n putting in humps for the sake of it. Yes. Otherwise why do we see speed humps being installed while at the same time the roads are full of potholes? And they don't save lives. Ask the Ambulance Service. Yes they do I can produce the stats if required from ROSPA that have been statistically proven to a 90-95% confidence interval, however no doubt you will doubt these, I have given up with this NG. They seem to think that government bodies sit thinking of ways to waste momey and alienate the public, dont you think you are missing the bigger picture??? I've read plenty of research on speed bumps effectiveness been completely unimpressed. For example, has any research ever allowed for the loss of life in delayed ambulances (expect the recent work by the London Ambulance service of course). How much have they ever allowed for traffic displacement, regression to the mean, and increases in pedestrian carelessness? Have they ever tried to evaluate the effect of weakened suspension and shock absorbers on apparently unrelated accidents? (to name a few examples). And if they haven't, how the hell are we to judge which effects are the largest? And why on earth are 20mph zone accidents more likely to result in death or serious injury? http://www.safespeed.org.uk/percentages.html -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed cameras cost lives |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"iantheengineer" wrote in message
... "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... Not at all I have a car my wife has a car we enjoy days out in the car. The continentals actually have higher levels of car ownership, just they use them less. Can you give details of that lower car use than the UK ? I can't see anything there about levels of car use. I quote A central cause of these high congestion levels is that British people make more use of cars than any other European country, despite having below average car ownership. Almost nine out of ten motorised journeys (car, bus, motorbike) in the UK are by car, compared with an EU average of just over eight out of ten. That claims that other countries make many more journeys by motorbikes, not make less use of cars. This proves my point whole heatedly but no doubt memebers of this NG will question the data, but what can you do, people will always doubt studies unless they themselves do them I see no numbers for passenger miles in cars for any countries. (even though the latest ones are at http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups /dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_025223.pdf |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"derek" wrote in message ... On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:01:41 -0000, "iantheengineer" wrote: "derek" wrote in message .. . Im afraid countless studies have found that roadbuilding is not the answer to the problem. Countless? Who's doin' the countin'? Under what circumstances? By your reckoning road destruction *IS* a solution. From what you say we'd be better off just dynamiteing all the bridges on our motorways because roads just breed cars. So let's block all the motorways and issue everybody with rose tinted seebackrascopes and we'll all go back to living like we did in 1956 without motorways.. People have chosen to travel through the freedomn of choice that roads and increased wealth have given them, thus perpetuating the problem. To continue to build roads will continue the problem. The answer is puvblic transport, but public transport cannot cater for all journeys and therefore over time journeys will need to become more corridored. For example go into any city during the am peak and the tidality of the flow is there to be seen. IF we were to get all of the people from their cars onto public transport, or even better living nearer to the workplace, the congestion would be far less. No doubt you have a big swanky car that has one person in it most of the time taking up all of that roadspace, when really all most people need arte a seat. If roads are expected to last we need to reduce the wear and tear on them whic in itself has been brought about by the greater use of road transport That's just an indication we don't have enough roads because the one's we have are overloaded.. (the main damage to roads actually aoccurs from HGVs and PSVs, however PSVs transport peoiple more effectively). Not when they're running round empty. My (molto swanky) car does not however run around empty. This again needs more of us out of our cars. Without cars on the urban road network public transport would be faster and more reliable. I see no proof of that. As for the maintenence of roads well normally it involves patching (completed very quickly around 2 hours) Are you for real or what? 2 hours? *2* Hours ! The M1 around Long Eaton in Notts has had ongoing works for what seems to be 2-3 years. It takes tham longer than 2 hours to put the cones out! The bridge over the river Dove on the A38 near Derby (An alternative route to the M1 above, don't I know it!) has been subject to repairs (Messing about with) on and off for 5+ years. The Tinsley viaduct on the M1 at Meadowhall, Sheffield, has been restricted to 2 lanes for the last 10 - 15 ? years. these restrictions recently made semi-permanent pending an actual permanent repair in 2 years time. Hey, real soon now ! or overlaying (approx 2 days). oNly Follow the yellow brick road, Follow the yellow brick road.. Follow.. Follow.. Follow.. Follow.. Follow.. Follow.. The yellow brick road. Some.. where.. Over the rainbow.. Roads are fixed in 2 hours and resurfaced in 2 days! Why then, Oh why aren't mine? on rare occassions is a complete reconstruction carried out, and as I have said this wear and tear is due to use not age. But as you said yourself it's PSVs (mostly running empty) and HGVs that do the damage. I think your justification using ethernet capacity is a bit irrelevant. We know that building more roads is The experiences of those of us who have had to deal with Ethernet networks demonstrates how the performance of the network declines very dramatically as the number of instances of collisions, queuing, and re-transmitts increases as saturation is reached. That's what "2 Jags Prescott. Bus lanes? that's what they're there for" wanted to achieve with the motorways to get us onto the trains, but then the railways collapsed., and he'd wasted 4-5 years whilst the problem got worse. Tosser!. a) environmentally damaging No, we have already established in this thread that motorways cover an entirely trivial proportion of this country with concrete/tarmac. Some cars emit exhaust gases of a better standard than the air they aspirate, the "swanky" ones are at the better end of the performance stakes, so the more the better, they should get a tax rebate, (seriously!). That is if *you* are serious about reducing pollution. b) increases usage so essentially provides no longterm greater net capacity. Just a symptom of the fact that the existing road system is 2-5? times overloaded. So where do you stop, when the whole country is one great network of asphalt??? It seems that motorways currently use up one two thousandth of the surface of this country. So that is not a currently a limiting factor. How about at the same point as you stop producing food, stop building houses, building schools, and stop building hospitals? When the need is met, stoopid. Why not use the technologies to reduce travel more??? A very good question. It seems the Great British public aren't ready for it. Maybe the technology is not good enough yet. Do you imagine I could sell a £25,000 machine by sending a media message picture of it to a customers mobile phone? Or by setting up a poxy 20 minute, low resolution, smeary video conferencing session? How do I do the routine maintenance on it, once it's sold and installed? It's in Torquay BTW 480 KM and 5 hours 11 mins away in my "swanky" car. BTW I have 7 CWT of tools, spare parts, test equipment, and manuals with me. Fuel cost £65.00 Nat Express 10 hours 5 minutes. (What about me bits?) £47 +£40 Taxis + 2 additional hotel nights @ £108.00 Railtrack 6 hours 32 minutes (What about me bits?) £155 +£40 taxis +1 additional hotel night @£54.00 DG Lets face it Derek, you will never get your arse out of your car until the carbon monoxide from the polluted atmosphere leaks into it and we all die a horrible death. What business are you in needing all these tools? Do you only travel for business? Do you never travel for other reasons???No amount of fact figures, studies will ever change your mind as you, and many others in this NG only believe what they want to believe so that they can sleep soundly at night. In answer to your question about who does the maintenance on your product well what can I say. You sold the product to them to inflate your pockets. If you couldnt have provided it someone else would have in the locality or they would have managed with what they had got perviously. As for the roadworks it obviously depends upon the length of works and the type of works. When you next go past try opening your eyes and assessing what work is being carried out. Obviously if you are patching its a quick job, if you are relaying then it is a much bigger task, if you are fittimg safety fencing / lighting or drainage then it takes even longer. Surely in whatever it is that you do, some jobs take longer than others. For your sort of work it isnt realistic to expect you to use public transport, but there are many other jobs that use cars, where PT could be used. Most office workers commute to a city with a briefcase. If they werent on the road then you would have less congestion. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"NM" wrote in message m... iantheengineer wrote: "Paul Weaver" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 09:59:51 +0000, iantheengineer wrote: What about all the other people???? Do you forget the miners strikes when I don't much care. You see in the private industry if your company doesnt sell Cheaply, it goes bust, shareholders lose big time, normal workers move to other industries, they adapt, or should. good ol MT decided to close all of the pits so we imported cheap coal from Africa. Now most of the pits have closed Africas coal price has risen dramatically, oh yeah she was an absolute genius! Any 5 year old could have seen that coming Of course instead of depleteing our coal reserves we still have them, so in 50 years When there's hardly any left, we can reopen the pits and make big bucks. Okay who is going to fund the re-opening of the flooded and unsafe mines??? You?? Anyone who can see a profit in it and now it will cost millions to get them workable again, oh yeah, MT what a great economic brain |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"David J Rainey" wrote in message ... In article , says... Yeah whatever I think you will find I am right The facts have been posted. You are quite wrong. David What facts??? everyone berates me for facts yet provide no sources of their own other than their senile memories. I said yuppies came from the 1980s, evertyone said rubbish, I post a link it all goes quiet, how many more facts do you want, I can prove mine can you yours??? |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"Steve Firth" wrote in message ... iantheengineer wrote: Please prove this point and I will accept it You're the one who claimed that the economy was bankrupt when Labour came to power. It's up to you to prove your case. -- Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. Its always upto me, I keep proving my points but no-one else does, I throw down the gauntlet. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"Paul Smith" wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 16:48:47 -0000, "iantheengineer" wrote: http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/key/01.htm I can't see anything there about levels of car use. A central cause of these high congestion levels is that British people make more use of cars than any other European country, despite having below average car ownership. Almost nine out of ten motorised journeys (car, bus, motorbike) in the UK are by car, compared with an EU average of just over eight out of ten. This proves my point whole heatedly but no doubt memebers of this NG will question the data, but what can you do, people will always doubt studies unless they themselves do them This seems far more balanced and reasonable to me: http://www.conservatives.com/getfile...rt&ref=POLICYD OCUMENT/1664&type=pdf -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email If its from the Cons ( there is no play on words) then it couldnt be less balanced speed cameras cost lives |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... Not at all I have a car my wife has a car we enjoy days out in the car. The continentals actually have higher levels of car ownership, just they use them less. Can you give details of that lower car use than the UK ? I can't see anything there about levels of car use. I quote A central cause of these high congestion levels is that British people make more use of cars than any other European country, despite having below average car ownership. Almost nine out of ten motorised journeys (car, bus, motorbike) in the UK are by car, compared with an EU average of just over eight out of ten. That claims that other countries make many more journeys by motorbikes, not make less use of cars. This proves my point whole heatedly but no doubt memebers of this NG will question the data, but what can you do, people will always doubt studies unless they themselves do them I see no numbers for passenger miles in cars for any countries. (even though the latest ones are at http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups /dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_025223.pdf I suggest you read it again |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"JNugent" wrote in message ... wrote: "JNugent" wrote: wrote: "Paul Weaver" wrote: [ ... ] Motorways take about 50 square miles of the UK - 0.05% of the total land area. So????? So it makes you look pretty silly when you ranted: "So where do you stop, when the whole country is one great network of asphalt???", doesn't it? Look it up, an analogy. It was an extreme statement of a truth we are ina a society that would keep paving over green areas to provide faster access. Look up "analogy". It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. Look up "truth". It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. I have never heard the expression "an extreme statement of a truth" before, but I don't think characterising motorway land-usage of 0.05% as "the whole country is one great network of asphalt" has much to do with truth, let alone any concept of "extreme statement" of it. I suggest you re-read the definition of analogy, I did look it up before I used it and it says "partial similarity" but then again I dont suppose you own a dictionary to cross check |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "iantheengineer" wrote in message ... To continue to build roads will continue the problem. The answer is puvblic transport, but public transport cannot cater for all journeys and therefore over time journeys will need to become more corridored. For example go into any city during the am peak and the tidality of the flow is there to be seen. IF we were to get all of the people from their cars onto public transport, or even better living nearer to the workplace, the congestion would be far less. cars. Without cars on the urban road network public transport would be faster and more reliable. How fast would urban public transport be with no cars on the road? (and no vans, cycles, taxis etc. if that helps). Is this a question, is it not obvious enough. It will be exactly the travel time + the stops for pick up/drop off, without any delay occurring due to congestion, and there would be no need for bus lanes! |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"JNugent" wrote in message ... wrote: Ive explained it in pre-school language Indeed, indeed. But you should aim higher and try to rise above your natural milieu. I have to lower my standards to be understood by the lay people. |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"Steve Firth" wrote in message . .. iantheengineer wrote: They cancelled the road improvements to make the trains seem more attractive out of political dogma. It was the series of train crashes and the Railtrack meltdown that forced them to do an about turn. It was also on the back of research that idicated that road building was not the answer That's good. Then building more rail links mustn't be the answer either. There's no point improving the Channel Tunnel route because all it will do is create more traffic. Similarly no point in having MPs, all they will do is create more laws. Lets get rid of unions while we are at it, all they will do is get bigger, attract more nmembers then squander their dues on rich living for workshy *******s. I can really go with your thinking on this one, ianthepillock. -- Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for friendly advice in a flame-free environment. Not everything works on the same principles are you so stupid??? Water flows under gravity does that mean rock will too??? According to Steve yes, so when we build culverts for rocks we need to design them the same as for water??!??? The point you are missing is that without the ability to travel people do not consider travel, as soon as you give the means to travel and this becomes as or more convenient than not travelling giving them a new job with better money etc etc, then they will travel. Thius we have one extra car on the road already covering longer distances. It is the road network that has given the labour market the freedom to move. Now somewhere there is a happy medium, we cant stay in the dark ages all confined to our villages, but similarily we cannot keep travelling at the rates we do. Anyway Steve I think theres a village missing an idiot isnt it time you returned |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:20:15 -0000, "iantheengineer"
wrote: http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/key/01.htm This seems far more balanced and reasonable to me: http://www.conservatives.com/getfile.../1664&type=pdf If its from the Cons ( there is no play on words) then it couldnt be less balanced You prefer the word of an raving ignoramus and spin merchant like Begg? http://www.safespeed.org.uk/begg.html Really? Why not write to him and ask him to answer my questions? -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed cameras cost lives |
Britains Crap Roads, Answers wanted
"iantheengineer" wrote in message
... "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... I see no numbers for passenger miles in cars for any countries. I suggest you read it again I have done. Where does it give any numbers for car passenger-miles per person-year in the UK? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk