Sounds like yet another politically correct, self-interested, minority group trying to impose its own tunnel vision views on the vast majority of the populace.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
Sounds like yet another politically correct, self-interested, minority group trying to impose its own tunnel vision views on the vast majority of the populace.
Almost as bad as the self-interested minority of the population who are car-owners, then. The tunnel-vision of the vocal car-first lobby has imposed its views on others simply by making the streets so unsafe so for cyclists and pedestrians that the parents in the UK no longer feel it's safe to let their kids play outside or walk/cycle to school.
And when the authorities try even small steps to redress the balance by simple measures like speed bumps, the same self-intersted minority of car-owners howl about the injustice of not being able to drive as fast as they like past people's homes ... while complaining that even the 30mph limit in urban areas is too slow.
(I'd prefer not to discuss things through these negative labels, but I just wanted to point out that this name-calling game can be played by both sides of the argument).
|
|
Why not change your screen name to "Transport 2000 mouthpiece" and be done with it, NW?
|
Why not change your screen name to "Transport 2000 mouthpiece" and be done with it, NW?
I guess for much the same reasons as you haven't changed your screen name to "ABD mouthpiece" or "Safespeed mouthpiece" :)
I'm not a member of Transport 2000, don't agree with everything they do or say, and make up my own mind. But I do think they have some worthwhile things to say, and that a mention of them doesn't deserve a torrent of name-calling.
|
|
|
|
NoWheels: According to recent statistics almost half of pedestrians killed on the roads are intoxicated. Where I live the vast majority of cyclists do not use lights at night and a frighteningly large number cycle on the wrong side of the road. I have been nearly run over several times by high speed lycra clad cyclists on pavements and had verbal abuse from them. I have had a child cycle into my car (slow moving due to nearby houses and parked cars) and I had to pay for the replacement tyre, the replacement wing mirror and the damage to the wing panel. I nearly seriously injured a cyclist who cycled in across the front of my car when the light had changed to green, and the reward for a small parp on the horn was some foul mouthed abuse.
Do the local police take any steps to warn people of the dangers of drink walking or dangerous cycling? Do they heck.
Fortunately we do not live in a Stalinist dictatorship, though the upcoming road charging sounds like a nice way to remove the riff raff from the roads so that they do not impede the progress of the rich and chauffeur driven politicians.
Rant over.
Back on thread, the A3 through Guildford can be dangerous, given the number of crashes that I see. I think one problem with a dual carriageway compared with a motorway is that side roads can be at 90 degrees, which means that traffic must slow dramatically before turning, creating a huge speed differential between the two lanes, and hence an increased danger.
Leif
|
>>Do the local police take any steps to warn people of the dangers of drink walking or dangerous cycling? Do they heck.
Is it possible for a drunk cyclist to be banned from driving if they have a car licence?
Cheers, SS
|
>>Do the local police take any steps to warn people of the dangers of drink walking or dangerous cycling? Do they heck. Is it possible for a drunk cyclist to be banned from driving if they have a car licence? Cheers, SS
My brother was banned from driving for drink walking ... in Sweden. Presumably in the UK a drunk cyclist could in theory be done for being drunk in charge of a vehicle?
Leif
|
My brother was banned from driving for drink walking ... in Sweden. Presumably in the UK a drunk cyclist could in theory be done for being drunk in charge of a vehicle? Leif
>>
Yep.
About ten years ago, the Leicester Mercury had two stories on the same page : one was a man drunk in charge of a bicycle (I'm sure his brief tried to argue that as he wasn't riding it, he was okay), one a man drunk in charge of a pram (complete with infant). Both were convicted and fined.
|
|
|
|
>>Almost as bad as the self-interested minority of the population who are car-owners, then>>
The fact that there are more than 32m vehicles on the road hardly makes car owners "a minority of the population."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>>more than 32m vehicles on the road>>
Should read, of course, on "the roads" - not, as might be contstrued, on the A96...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that, NoWheels.
They are absolutely right when they say "At present the A96 is noisy and dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians". It is not the sort of road I would be happy cycling along or walking along. And that is to be expected, since there is no real alternative route between Inverness & Aberdeen. In an area of comparatively low population density, no matter how good the public transport is, it is not going to significantly reduce the number of cars on the road.
|
It's not the road that is dangerous it's the people who use them
If a car is stuck behind a lorry doing 40mph on a single carriage way then he may look to pass him and if the road is busy in both directions the manouvere will be more dangerous than on a quiet road. If it is upgraded to a dual carriageway the can pass in safety and theoretically the road will become safer.
|
>>It's not the road that is dangerous it's the people who use them
Yup.Fully agree BH
--
Steve
|
>>It's not the road that is dangerous it's the people who use them Yup.Fully agree BH -- Steve
Very true, but surely it makes sense to engineer roads to be as safe as possible, rather than take the "That's bad driving that killed him. It's just tough" attitude. One aspect of this is that you could have a crash through no fault of your own due to someone else driving badly on a so-called 'dangerous road'.
Leif
|
|
|
|
>>They are absolutely right when they say "At present the A96 is noisy and dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians".>>
Presumably then we can assume that creating a dual carriageway stretch (preferably with proper cycle paths or pavements that incorporate cycling and pedestrian lanes) would prove very much safer?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>Cockle is the only one talking sense here.
Absolutely.
|
At the latest count, total number of vehicles registered in the UK was 30.5 million, of which 28 million are private cars.
Where do you get the 28 million from, HJ?
The DfT records 23,899,000 private cars in 2001 and 24,985,000 in 2003. See tinyurl.com/bbxdt
The 2003 total of 31,207,000 vehicles includes over a million motorbikes, 426,000 goods vehicles, 96,000 buses etc
|
In a thread a few weeks ago I posted information provided on the DVLA website which stated that there were more than 32m registered vehicles (all types) on our roads in 2003, but I can't find it again or on the DVLA site...:-(
The details were on a standard DVLA website page rather than the table which NoWheels's link provides.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>>Are they dangerous?
Well, they aren't called duel carriageways for nothing, are they?
|
|
Some duel carriageways can be, as they often have narrower carriageways, more and sharper bends than motorways and, worst of all, dangerous junctions. In addition, you have traffic on them that is not allowed on motorways (JCBs etc.).
|
"Carriageways" - such a quaint term. So Dick Turpin-esque don't you think? :+D
|
Machika I like the idea of "duel" carriageways. Most apt!
|
|
A Freudian slip, no doubt from reading the previous post, lol. Very apt though, as you say.
|
|
|
|
|
