Huge rise in traffic choking the roads

[cybertect]

^^^ they're called Motorways.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I don't think this makes any sense so I can't answer it directly, but my overwhelming experience of roads where speed bumps of whatever sort have been put in is that cars drive slower, therefore as a cyclist I feel safer and I also notice a much higher level of basic human courtesy from drivers; they are cooler. When local polls are taken, large majorities of people almost always support speed-reduction measures on their own roads and those in their neighbourhoods, so I don't think I'm in the minority here.

then you simply dont' understand motion.

imagine a boat travelling accross a flat millpond. the bow wave created by it going at a constant speed is the same heigh duration and power. Now imagine the same boat accerating hard and fast for short periods before decelerating quickly and repeating the process the bow wave will be larger and have more potential energy and more displaced energy creating a big wave which is less controlled...

this is the effect that constant acceleration vs stop start acceleration has now imagine you are a pedestrain being hit by the first wave which will roll you over the car and collect you through the impact progression dissapating the energy of the impact through out the rotue travelled during the accident.

now imagine the second wave hitting a pedestrain the enertia s much larger much faster. the pedestrain will not be collected by the accident and taken over the car but be repelled away from the impact point. the pedestrain will experience all most no displacement of that enertia during this process any impact points would in fact be focuased in narrow areas which would cause breakages at those points as well as secondary fractures at the point of impact after the intail repulsion from point of impact.

so in short hand one time you'll go on to the bonnet of the car and slide off the side losing a great deal of speed and potential energy being dispalced as you go... the other you'll be thrown x feet into the air and forwards after sustaining serious primary injuries and potentially serious secondary injuries upon secondary impact as you land again....

regardless of the percived benifit to the public or cycleists the reality is in the event of an accident they are more likely to be injured seriously when form of traffic calming is in place and are accelerate decellerate than at a constant speed.

Moreover the acellerate decellerate calming way is less fuel effencent and more polluting... so it's not exactlhy eco freindly ethier...

Btw are you saying that pedestrians ought to be tested before they are allowed out, in case they impede cars? Because that's the logic of your last sentence above.

no. and no it's not.

If that's really the number of unlicenced/uninsured cars then sure if you remove them you get a one-off short term improvement in traffic flow (also an equivilent increase in traffic speed, which will of course kill loads more pedestrians and cyclists). But you've missed the point. Taking this many cars off the roads is just the equivilent of building thousands of miles of new roads - yet as we keep doing this, congestion steadfastly refuses to magically disappear. Why? Because car journeys increase back to the level of use at which congestion re-appears. Returning to the OP, the only way you can prevent this is to artificially limit the number of cars permitted on the roads, or by some complex system limiting individual mileages or somesuch.

No the effect is compounded. bad road designs, limitations in other road use couplled with increase traffic and poor provision for it (as well as under investment in roads for a significant period). This maniufactures congestion where there was none previously. for example the road outside my house didn't used to have the trafficlighs at the junciton with the side road these lights are synched with the lights before or after them causing tailback which streach back at peak times past the previous 3 set's of lights meaning that a large set of traffic at any one time is trapped, not due to wieght of traffic although this is large but simply because the lights are red when the preceeding and post light sets are on green locking this set of traffic in when the flow in and out of it is minimal.

This hasn't been caused by an increase in traffic but in a decrease in road space and a traffic control out of synch with the rest of the traffic flow through system.

Looking at it in simplistic terms sayign that congestion is simply the number of cars on the road is too black and white it's a number of factors which creates the problem. yet the call is to resovle this problem with black and white meansures where as an intelligent solution would resolve all the factors not just one.

Personally I'm against this because it leads to faster speeds which is a major obstacle to walking, cycling etc being viable alternatives to the car - and also makes our streets (and hence our cities and towns) noisy, dangerous & unsocial places. The Congestion Charge in London temporarily speeded up traffic flows and for me, as a cyclist, London became a less pleasant place to cycle. Luckily for me, guess what's happened since? The initial "improvement" gradually got less and less until it seems to have stabilised back at the same sort of level it was before. Wierd shit huh?

no it was entirely predicatable that this would happen. solvign only one issue means the other factors still have purchase on the sitaution. not viewing these thigns holoisitcally means that these solutions become one shot deals.

What's so unreasonable in anything I've posted?

you aren't seeing the whoel picture but are seeking simplisitc solutions to complex problems.

That bus lanes obviously need to be kept clear when there are traffic jams otherwise there's literally no alternative to cars?

yes but these levels aren't consistant 24/7 when it is at peak flow then yes the bus lnaes should be there so as to prevent the impedance of the public transport vs the private transport systems. but they aren't at peak flow at all times at non peak flow then these solutions aren't of benifit to anyone.

That Predict and Provide (the theory of constantly increasing supply in the dream that one day demand will be satisfied and traffic will "flow") has been proved to fail again and again and again and again, and that it's all you can come up with as a solution, only by the round the houses means of reducing demand temporarily by crushing some illegal cars.

again you are coming at this from a one solution fits all idea. which as stated isn't the way forward.

That car-drivers are sensationally alert to the rights given to all non-car users - buses, pedestrians, cyclists etc - and often proclaim loudly the injustice of these, and yet seem unable to see how many roads now are literally able to take half the capacity they used to because of the increase in size of cars.

or that rrivers are only too aware of the terrible road planning lack of investment poor signage and a number of other factors which they have to contend with which contradict the supposed benifits which are outlined. Couplled with the fact that they are the only group of road users unfairly penialised and have to dogmatically have to adhere to the law and are punitively pursued in a manner other road users are not.

What's unreasonable about any of these points? Or anyone elses on this thread as far as I can see. We have crossed swords on this issue before on other threads and you have claimed "unreasonableness" before. To be honest I think this is a case of "qui accuse, s'accuse". Many car-drivers are deeply addicted to their cars and become highly emotional and agitated at the prospect of losing them.

utter rot. we've crossed swords because you are indominable when it comes to this issue and look at it in too simplisitic a viewpoint to be able to discuss the matter...It's like argueeing with a fundamentalist. As for your poppycock nonsense of car addiction and the emotional attachment to them again you simply are trying to presrcibe a board brush to what is an intrecate problem. you beligerent attitude and rather patronising tone then get's peoples backs up...

I'm interested by this though - why do you say this? What do you mean when you say they will capitulate?

It's my view that private transport will eventually be banned. or at least so limited as to be elitist and prohibitive. drivers will have to comply to this reality. I also beleive there is a legislative imperitive to prevent freedom of movement of the indivual as this makes the population easier to control.

as is evidenced with ID cards/passport cost increases demoniseation of personal transport and so on. a contained population is a controllable population.

 

[roryer]

^^^ they're called Motorways.

Cool, well I don't drive so how would I know?

But in that case all we need to build are the parking lots at the end of the them and keep those bleedin slave driver car things out of our towns and cities. Don't worry I'm sure we can all be free one day!

 

[Roadkill]

Cool, well I don't drive so how would I know?

You're not seriously trying to say that you don't know what a motorway is, are you?

 

[co-op]

then you simply dont' understand motion.

...Moreover the acellerate decellerate calming way is less fuel effencent and more polluting... so it's not exactlhy eco freindly ethier...

I understand that cars accelerate and deccelerate whether there are speed bumps or not - in London cars hit their pedals hard, throttle and brake.

Moreover this tendency will (in urban conditions) increase the higher the speed being travelled at. Cars going slowly just don't bother.

no. and no it's not.

Ohhhh yes it is. [repeat until bored and/or you provide reasons]

No the effect is compounded. bad road designs, limitations in other road use couplled with increase traffic and poor provision for it (as well as under investment in roads for a significant period). This maniufactures congestion where there was none previously. for example the road outside my house didn't used to have the trafficlighs at the junciton with the side road these lights are synched with the lights before or after them causing tailback which streach back at peak times past the previous 3 set's of lights meaning that a large set of traffic at any one time is trapped, not due to wieght of traffic although this is large but simply because the lights are red when the preceeding and post light sets are on green locking this set of traffic in when the flow in and out of it is minimal.
This hasn't been caused by an increase in traffic but in a decrease in road space and a traffic control out of synch with the rest of the traffic flow through system.
Looking at it in simplistic terms sayign that congestion is simply the number of cars on the road is too black and white it's a number of factors which creates the problem. yet the call is to resovle this problem with black and white meansures where as an intelligent solution would resolve all the factors not just one.
no it was entirely predicatable that this would happen. solvign only one issue means the other factors still have purchase on the sitaution. not viewing these thigns holoisitcally means that these solutions become one shot deals.
you aren't seeing the whoel picture but are seeking simplisitc solutions to complex problems.

So it's a complex system in other words, and there are many factors which can lead to jamming in any individual case. I get that. I was however answering points you made which suggested (in your language "simplistically") that reducing cars would solve the congestion problem. I made the (admittedly simple) point that supply cannot ever be made to meet demand on this issue (unless you reduce the number of cars on the roads using some means or other). The demand is - all experience all over the world tells us - infinitely elastic, it just goes up and up. Supply can't meet it. In this case congestion is inevitable. So like it, lump it or find another method. I advocate the third of those options.

yes but these levels aren't consistant 24/7 when it is at peak flow then yes the bus lnaes should be there so as to prevent the impedance of the public transport vs the private transport systems. but they aren't at peak flow at all times at non peak flow then these solutions aren't of benifit to anyone.

As roryer pointed out; if the road is jammed then clearly the bus lane should remain bus only otherwise the whole point of the lane is negated. If the road isn't jammed then who cares anyway?

again you are coming at this from a one solution fits all idea. which as stated isn't the way forward.
or that rrivers are only too aware of the terrible road planning lack of investment poor signage and a number of other factors which they have to contend with which contradict the supposed benifits which are outlined. Couplled with the fact that they are the only group of road users unfairly penialised and have to dogmatically have to adhere to the law and are punitively pursued in a manner other road users are not.

Just nonsense old boy, although it is standard driver-bleat. Car drivers probably break the law more than all other groups put together*. Many otherwise routinely law-abiding people think nothing of jumping red lights, breaking the speed limits, blatting their horn in attempts to intimidate other road users, etc etc. The idea of driver-as-victim is just rubbish. When they start obeying the laws (and once I have recovered from the shock), I will start listening to their "greivances", but until then forget it.



*utterly indefensible statistic alert

utter rot. we've crossed swords because you are indominable when it comes to this issue and look at it in too simplisitic a viewpoint to be able to discuss the matter...It's like argueeing with a fundamentalist. As for your poppycock nonsense of car addiction and the emotional attachment to them again you simply are trying to presrcibe a board brush to what is an intrecate problem. you beligerent attitude and rather patronising tone then get's peoples backs up...

Guess it depends where you're coming from. You seem (to me) ready to go off on one about this subject (and have done in the past). I don't see what I post as belligerent. Patronising sometimes maybe... - and that's because I think drivers often revert to some pretty infantile responses when their behaviour is questioned. This irrationality also underscores my feeling that a lot of drivers have over-identified with their cars. You either see it or you don't, huh.

It's my view that private transport will eventually be banned. or at least so limited as to be elitist and prohibitive. drivers will have to comply to this reality. I also beleive there is a legislative imperitive to prevent freedom of movement of the indivual as this makes the population easier to control.

as is evidenced with ID cards/passport cost increases demoniseation of personal transport and so on. a contained population is a controllable population.

If it's a personal liberty argument you want to make (on the political level), I'm a but more sympathetic to that kind of line. But cars are the most controllable, identify-able, biddable, registered, and generally unlibertarian technology there is in general use. It's no surprise to me at all that the govt has decided to (in effect) deal with the whole ID Card issue by using Drivers Licences as backdoor ID cards.




'Twas a mighty post though GlC.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I understand that cars accelerate and deccelerate whether there are speed bumps or not - in London cars hit their pedals hard, throttle and brake.

Moreover this tendency will (in urban conditions) increase the higher the speed being travelled at. Cars going slowly just don't bother.

this is true however factors such as are being discuissed all add to this.

It's ok to be wonderfully optimistiic when looking at removing cars from the road or private transport when contrasting it to utopia values of if only it was like this but the reality is that road calming (amongst other things) contributes to this. It's not a change one thing and it all get's better it's a change significant things and it'll get better as i said previously there is no one size fits all approach to this.

So it's a complex system in other words, and there are many factors which can lead to jamming in any individual case. I get that. I was however answering points you made which suggested (in your language "simplistically") that reducing cars would solve the congestion problem. I made the (admittedly simple) point that supply cannot ever be made to meet demand on this issue (unless you reduce the number of cars on the roads using some means or other). The demand is - all experience all over the world tells us - infinitely elastic, it just goes up and up. Supply can't meet it. In this case congestion is inevitable. So like it, lump it or find another method. I advocate the third of those options.

this presumes that in a declineing population in terms of age groups there will be a greater uptake than was perivously. It also presumes that the infrastructure was sufficent in the first place or built to accept the capacity which is currently does.

Neither is particularlly true.

the roads were enver built with future capacity in mind only existing capacity or projected for the next 5 10 years... which isn't sufficent to look at the problem longer term it's a band aid for a gunshot wound in effect...

the numebr of car drivers has been falling for the last few years and the number of say journies by car into London has been falling even prior to the congestion charge (indeed the oft repeated the targets for the Congestion charged were technically met on day one of the CC as the figures showed the car population had already fallen below that level before the measure had even been introduced.) so in other words we have hit peak demand for the present and the population is aging so there will be less cars on the roads, longer term anyway almost by default...

As roryer pointed out; if the road is jammed then clearly the bus lane should remain bus only otherwise the whole point of the lane is negated. If the road isn't jammed then who cares anyway?

well quite but there's still no need to have a disparate system which isn't uniform, and in areas is deliberately misleading. In many places it's designed to trip you up catch you out to maximise revenue.

Just nonsense old boy, although it is standard driver-bleat. Car drivers probably break the law more than all other groups put together*. Many otherwise routinely law-abiding people think nothing of jumping red lights, breaking the speed limits, blatting their horn in attempts to intimidate other road users, etc etc. The idea of driver-as-victim is just rubbish. When they start obeying the laws (and once I have recovered from the shock), I will start listening to their "greivances", but until then forget it.

I think you'll find there are a number of laws which anyone individual may break durign the course of a day without even considering it... drivers are more visable and therefore attract more attention.

It isn't however to say that they are unfiarly targetted because they are unfairly targetted. in no other industry or section of society do you have a captive audenince where the majority of users will rely on that will keep paying and can therefore be attacked all most without question.

motorists are used to absorbing costs; they've had to. Car tax petrol tax, road tax, value added tax, when ever they are increased the cost of the motoring is absorbed by the current generation each sucessive generation will merely pay that because that's what it costs... so the revenue generation benifits are infinate. This being known they then set about maximising that revenue potential. Like any niche captive market place.

And like it or lump it it is a captive market place. London centric views aside the rest opf the coutnry doens't have nearly as good a network of accessable convinent public transport. until it does then the car will be the principal method of travel. It of course doesn't help if out of town shopping centres are built which then further entrench that postition etc...

so again this moves those on basic or fixed incomes out of the countryside and into the towns where they have to change jobs or retrian. It is the modern form of enclourses act where the poorest are shifted out of the land and into the towns to maximise labour and land profits...

Guess it depends where you're coming from. You seem (to me) ready to go off on one about this subject (and have done in the past). I don't see what I post as belligerent. Patronising sometimes maybe... - and that's because I think drivers often revert to some pretty infantile responses when their behaviour is questioned. This irrationality also underscores my feeling that a lot of drivers have over-identified with their cars. You either see it or you don't, huh.

yes because byt he time the significance of the moaning minnies who seek to run other peoples lives and their half brained poorly thought out schemes is apperent we will have lost that freedom of movement wholesale. It's an authoritarian beligerent attitude which underpins both sides of the argument which polarises it in to pro and anti...

sadly this then becomes a pissing contest.

there are some important issues to be covered in this debate, which are never addressed.

The pro argument needs to view their useage as pervasive in many cases and the rampant consumerism which attaches itself to car culture doesn't help.

There should be less poluting methods of transport which should via implamented standards give equally priorities and attension to all road users.

The anti argument needs to reflect on the tone of it's debate as well as conceeding that personal transport is a desireable thing in many circumstances.

If it's a personal liberty argument you want to make (on the political level), I'm a but more sympathetic to that kind of line. But cars are the most controllable, identify-able, biddable, registered, and generally unlibertarian technology there is in general use. It's no surprise to me at all that the govt has decided to (in effect) deal with the whole ID Card issue by using Drivers Licences as backdoor ID cards.

But the simple fact is that prior to the current raft of carbashing by subsiquent voices both external and internal to paliment this wasn't the case... they were registered and taxed and this was it...

monitoring cameras came in first for cars... then for the rest of the public...

and as for it being a unliberatarina technology my guess is that you have't then got a licence. or you'd know the falicy of that whole argument.

what it generally boils down too is non practicioners moralising over practioners... and this will never work never has...

something should be done to make the whole pro and con arguments less devicive but it won't because it's good to keep the little men squabbling amongst themselves... it's stops them looking upwards...




'Twas a mighty post though GlC.[/QUOTE]

 

[roryer]

You're not seriously trying to say that you don't know what a motorway is, are you?

Yesh, they're a crime against nature aren't they?