Well, to cut congestion i think old people should be looked at majorly - They lose all control of their vehicles when they get old in most cases and should have to take a test every year...this would reduce the number of cars on the road significantly....
a guy i was talking to who is an engineer feels that when more and more cars are introduced onto the roads the roads will be solid with traffic and there will be one large train pulling all the cars along like carriages.....IMO this is a load of rubbish but he wasnt joking! lol
|
"Well, to cut congestion i think old people should be looked at majorly - They lose all control of their vehicles when they get old in most cases and should have to take a test every year...this would reduce the number of cars on the road significantly...."
Ageism in my opinion is as reprehensible and unacceptable as racism and sexism. Senior members of society have the right to enjoy their freedom the same as anyone else. I think a test every year is a step too far, regular medicals yes, which is a sensible precaution for everyone.
Don't forget we'll all be "old" eventually.
VD5D.
|
|
|
">Well, to cut congestion i think old people should be looked at majorly - They lose all control of their vehicles when they get old in most cases<"
And there I was thinking that young drivers were statistically more likely to crash than older drivers .. thanks for putting me straight Carmad ....
|
|
|
I have what would seem to be a 'radical' solution, if not yet actually classified as heresy by Alistair Darling. Since last year apparently saw the first 12 month period in over 40 years where not a single yard was added to the motorway / A-road network, would it be too absurd to suggest that an increase in capacity - ie: investment in a major widening programme - might be overdue?
The long-standing 'predict and under-provide' policy stinks of anti-democratic social engineering. In fact it's almost totalitarian in its thinking; make the day-to-day experience of driving unbearable enough and people will not merely consider other forms of transport, they will actually travel less!
In other words, people are being asked to accept significant curtailment of their personal freedoms for some undefined greater good. It doesn't even work! Trains could run at 10 minute intervals, petrol could quadruple in cost, average journey times continue to increase, and I would still refuse to give up the comfort, convenience and privacy of my own car.
The argument for `road charging', is built on the absurd premise that the roads are currently `free'. I have a strong suspicion that the one positive outcome of the Central London congestion charge will be to wipe this particular idea, which is almost entirely about revenue raising anyway, from the political agenda.
So, here are some of the principle arguments against widening motorways and selected A-roads...
1. It will cause massive environmental damage
I don't agree - the negative environmental impact of widening existing roads has been hugely overstated, and is certainly far, far less than building new routes. Reducing the incidence of 30-mile tailbacks on the M25 or M6 can only be good for the environment.
2. It will do nothing to solve the problem of urban congestion
Actually, improving traffic flow on major roads will do a great deal to divert non-local traffic away from town and city centres. My own commute to work is a clear-cut choice between two routes - one mostly B-roads & towns, the other all motorway. It's the same for many others.
3. Traffic levels will instantly increase to absorb all the new capacity
The kind of idiocy that spouts unchallenged from the mouths of anti-car presssure groups. It will do no such thing. Journeys are undertaken on major routes through necessity, not on an idle whim. There is no great army of potential new car users waiting to take to the roads, and the relatively small additional volumes of diverted urban traffic should be easily accommodated.
4. It will divert resources away from badly need improvements to the public transport system
Why should it? The UK manages to invest about half what the other major Western economies do in its road network, and we certainly don't enjoy significantly lower taxation.
Yes, public transport requires greater investment, but over 90% of all traffic is carried by the road network, so it makes absolutely no sense to starve it of cash at the expense of other parts of the transport infrastructure, or vice-versa. Try halting the growth of the vast social security budget to find the resources.
|
|
|
to cut congestion i think old people should be looked at majorly
Why not, what a good idea.
Of course, there is the slight issue with the fact that they have less accidents than younger people, less traffic offences than younger people and don't tend to drive at rush hour, as younger people do,and therefore overall cause *much* less congestion than younger people, typically can afford more reliable cars than younger people and are thus less likely to breakdown, and have spent many more years paying Road Fund Licence and other taxation funding the roads.
But other than that.............
|
Of course, there is the slight issue with the fact that they have less accidents than younger people, less traffic offences than younger people and don't tend to drive at rush hour, as younger people do,and therefore overall cause *much* less congestion than younger people, typically can afford more reliable cars than younger people and are thus less likely to breakdown, and have spent many more years paying Road Fund Licence and other taxation funding the roads. But other than that.............
Why not look at it the other way and ban anyone under the age of let's say 21 from the road.. that would get rid of the most accident prone and irresponsible subset, then we'd only have the very old & slow and the white van crowd to look out for..
Boff
My wife says I don't listen to her, or something like that
|
|
|
|
|
