Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Feb 03, 2026 06:47

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:40 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Daily telegraph

Quote:
Car-sharing lanes to target junction blackspots
By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:07am GMT 21/03/2008

Up to 12 priority lanes allowing motorists with passengers to bypass the worst traffic blackspots will be built around the country under plans to encourage car sharing.

The new "high occupancy vehicle" (HOV) lanes will allow drivers to avoid the most congested junctions between busy motorways. Lone drivers who use the lanes face being stopped by the police or photographed by automatic cameras and fined.

The country's first HOV lane was opened in Yorkshire yesterday, but The Daily Telegraph understands that a series of others will follow.

Officials are considering at least another dozen such sites across the motorway network, where new "gateway bypass schemes" could be built at traffic blackspots. The Highways Agency is studying the worst bottlenecks, where drivers often face long delays as they try to exit one motorway and join another.

The focus of Government multiple-passenger plans switched to junctions after feasibility studies suggested that using HOV lanes on main stretches of motorways could lead to accidents.

Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, opened the first motorway car-share lane, a 1.7-mile section in West Yorkshire. The lane links the southbound M606 from Bradford to the eastbound M62 towards Leeds, allowing users to bypass a heavily congested section where the two motorways merge. It is estimated that cars using the lane will save an average of six to eight minutes per journey.

It is open to cars, vans and taxis with two or more occupants. Minibuses, coaches and buses can also use the lane, along with motorcyclists, whether carrying passengers or not. Ms Kelly said: "We have identified around 500 miles of motorway as potential priority sites for new traffic management measures."

Edmund King, the president of the AA, said: "It is unlikely that such a short stretch will tempt many potential car-sharers out of the driving seat."

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Valle Crucis wrote:

Take Mr. Tintern, who, like you, does a unique job - he maintains visualization software for computer aided drug-designers. He commutes about 20 miles each way to work, as it is too dear to move closer. But the roads are clogged up, and Mr. Tintern gets angry about that. He wants the general taxpayer (me and you) to just improve the road he drives on so that he can get to work more easily. But he doesn't want his taxes to go up. There are many people in the town where he works (Cambridge) with the smarts to do his work, but he'll work for less than they want.



What a selfish git! Fancy him wanting to get to work more easily at the general taxpayer's expense! Just as well there aren't more people like him wanting less congestion on the roads!

...oh, hang on a minute...

maybe there are actually LOADS of people wanting more road space...

...come to think of it, maybe the MAJORITY of road users want less congestion? In fact, maybe these road users are also Council tax payers? (as well as road tax payers, fuel duty payers, VAT (on motoring related expenses) payers, insurance premium tax payers, congestion charge payers...)

Sorry, but I think that's a really silly example. If it was JUST Mr. Tintern, then there wouldn't be any congestion - IT'S JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY!!!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:31 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
weepej wrote:
Bombus, your council tax funds the roads, not your vehicle excise duty. You've seriously got to get out of this, "I pay for the roads therefore they are mine", mentality, it's making you crazy.



Yeah, get a grip man!
EVERYONE knows that if every motorist stopped contributing to the state coffers by means of road tax, fuel duty, VAT (on motoring related expenses), company car tax, insurance premium tax, congestion charge etc...

...the government would still have plenty to spend on the roads because they're funded out of COUNCIL tax - so it wouldn't matter at all really! I mean, it's not like they'd have to make any cuts anywhere else or anything like that! :roll:


weepej wrote:
...(and it certainly didn't pay for the road outside my house which was put down before cars were owned by more than 0.000005% of the population).


Or the A5, come to think of it. The Romans very kindly built that for us a few thousand years ago - so it hasn't cost us anything really!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:43 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I like the idea of car sharing - in fact, years ago, I used to do it. I lived in Preston, a colleague lived in a village just North of Preston. We'd meet up each morning and leave one of the cars under the roundabout where the M55 joins the M6 and both go off to Blackpool in the same car. Looking at the number of cars that were parked under there, it used to be a popular thing to do. Unfortunately, it ws then fenced off so you can't anymore.

I then tried it again when I lived in Manchester. I worked in the centre and lived outside it. I had no colleagues who lived within walking distance of me but a few who lived within a short drive of a common point in our journey. Again, the problem was finding somewhere to leave one of the cars. After one occasion when I came back to a seat covered in broken glass and some wires hanging out of the dashboard where my radio used to be, I gave up on that one!

For a whole load of reasons already mentioned in this thread, car sharing between neighbours is unlikely to happen - but car sharing amongst colleagues for a SIGNIFICANT part of a common commute COULD happen if the government were to set aside SECURE, FREE parking areas at various points. For example, a section of each motorway service station car park (or adjacent to it if that wasn't possible)? Underneath motorway intersections? train stations, and other transport interchanges? I realise that space is at a premium and it won't be easy but I'm convinced it WOULD make a difference. It's not like the camera network for monitoring HOV lanes won't cost anything either! (well, not if they were ONLY used for that purpose, anyway :wink: ).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:17 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 13:41
Posts: 514
Location: Thames Valley
^ LOL! This government, investing in parking - a measure to make the lives of motorists easier?

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 13:31 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
weepej wrote:
You've seriously got to get out of this, "I pay for the roads therefore they are mine", mentality, it's making you crazy.

Not that that's the kind of thing that a troll would say or anything.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 14:46 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
I didn't get a chance to try it out yesterday and the bank holiday traffic jams don't seem to have materialised today so it will be sometime next week before I do.

First, it is a new lane, although most of it is stolen from hard shoulder, well used hard shoulder I might add.

I can see potential gains for those in the 2+ lane on the M606 section, missing out the traffic lights on the roundabout. After that though 2+ traffic seems to be hemmed into a single lane, joining the M62 some way further along than the main traffic. Any gains could easily be lost by being stuck behind a dawdler on this long uphill stretch.

I also wonder about the lack of joined up thinking. J25 (the junction preceding this on the affected side of the M62) has had traffic lights fitted to reduce traffic joining the motorway, this extra lane can only increase throughput of J26 and without improving flow further along it will do little or nothing to overall journey times. J27 is currently a bottleneck.

Lastly, I will find it somewhat ironic as I use the 2+ lane on my way to a completely unnecessary family day out bypassing traffic vital for the local and national economy. Surely it should be the other way around?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 22:00 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:27
Posts: 301
Mole wrote:
If it was JUST Mr. Tintern, then there wouldn't be any congestion


I know... there's not enough road to go around. And if we made enough road to go around now, there's still not enough road to go around in future because people commute further and further, soaking up any advantage, and costing the earth in taxes at the same time! What a waste, eh?

That is why we are where we are today. No matter how much road we build, people move further out, and congestion stays the same or worsens. And the locals could do the jobs, but grasping commuters do it for less money because they buy cheapo houses miles away! It's a mad world, I tell you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 23:59 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Valle Crucis wrote:
I know... there's not enough road to go around. And if we made enough road to go around now, there's still not enough road to go around in future because people commute further and further, soaking up any advantage, and costing the earth in taxes at the same time! What a waste, eh?

That is why we are where we are today. No matter how much road we build, people move further out, and congestion stays the same or worsens. And the locals could do the jobs, but grasping commuters do it for less money because they buy cheapo houses miles away! It's a mad world, I tell you.


Oh please! The last decade has seen virtually no new roads being built - if you exclude the under-utilised M6 toll road. We haven't had enough road to go around for decades now. And that hasn't exactly stopped people from commuting further and further, has it?
The govt keep telling us that you can't build your way out of congestion - when they haven't even tried!
:roll:

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 00:52 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Valle Crucis wrote:
Mole wrote:
If it was JUST Mr. Tintern, then there wouldn't be any congestion


I know... there's not enough road to go around. And if we made enough road to go around now, there's still not enough road to go around in future because people commute further and further, soaking up any advantage, and costing the earth in taxes at the same time! What a waste, eh?

That is why we are where we are today. No matter how much road we build, people move further out, and congestion stays the same or worsens. And the locals could do the jobs, but grasping commuters do it for less money because they buy cheapo houses miles away! It's a mad world, I tell you.


Sorry but I still don't follow the argument. Don't get me wrong, I've a lot of time for the argument that we can't just keep building roads - it's like me solving my obesity problem by buying bigger trousers! THAT much, I CAN follow.

But as far as "grasping" commuters go - surely they get cheaper houses and then just spend more on commuting?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 01:33 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 15:49
Posts: 393
Mole wrote:
I like the idea of car sharing - in fact, years ago, I used to do it.


I also like the idea, but in practice it doesn't really work.

Either:
(1) the person you car-share with is a lunatic driver and you never want to be given a lift by them again
(2) you start and/or finish work at different times, thus making sharing impractical
(3) as you've said, there's nowhere to park your car when you meet up
(4) your car share buddy likes to (a) talk about work, or (b) listen to an extremely annoying radio station, on the commute in thus making the journey unnecessarily stressful


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 01:43 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
bombus wrote:
weepej wrote:
You've seriously got to get out of this, "I pay for the roads therefore they are mine", mentality, it's making you crazy.

Not that that's the kind of thing that a troll would say or anything.


Hmmmm....

I'm reviewing.. the situation :roll:



Hey - I just noticed it's one year for me! My paper anniversary :D


I remember my very first post, in completely unknown territory on forums for me, in which dear Paul shifted my long and heartfelt post to its own spot and called it 'Coming in from the cold' :cloud9:


I had absolutely no idea what to expect, but I received a wonderful reception from people whom I still love and respect to this day, (and many more who wouldn't know it)...

For all my faults or quirks I'm still here, and for all the right reasons I hope.


Here's to you Paul! :drink: Like many here, I suspect, I never got to say thank you - but that's okay. I'm sure you knew. ;)


Love Tone



(And I'm not sorry for the topic drift)

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:28 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:27
Posts: 301
Mole wrote:
But as far as "grasping" commuters go - surely they get cheaper houses and then just spend more on commuting?


Yes, it's completely pointless, isn't it? Worse than pointless, because they
do the locals down in the villages they live in by forcing up house prices and
do the locals down in the towns where they work by forcing down wages! And
they do the taxpayers down by asking for bailouts for wider roads. That's
where greed gets us - nowhere but a traffic jam.

But how can we get some altruism into that equation as well? Newbury
showed that more roads don't work, so that's out of the frame.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Valle Crucis wrote:
Newbury showed that more roads don't work, so that's out of the frame.

With respect, this is not true. The Newbury bypass makes a huge difference to South Cost to Midlands traffic and journey times.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:50 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:27
Posts: 301
malcolmw wrote:
Valle Crucis wrote:
Newbury showed that more roads don't work, so that's out of the frame.
With respect, this is not true. The Newbury bypass makes a huge difference to South Cost to Midlands traffic and journey times.


The highway review report seems to ignore a major problem - bottleneck shuffling. Any removal of the tightest bottleneck from a network moves the issue to the next tightest bottleneck. The very act of changing South Coast to Midlands traffic and journey times means more traffic travels from the South Coast to Midlands. The end nodes suffer further congestion. It’s happening, look around us - that is what people here are complaining about.

Add to this all the other impacts. Newbury increased the death toll significantly, the pollution levels are up because traffic goes up. Commuters are enabled to live further from their work, pricing out the locals both at home (where house prices shoot up) and at work (where wages shoot down)! It’s even madder than I thought, eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 17:27 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Your point being? Shut the bypass? Even you don't talk that much nonsense.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 18:48 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:27
Posts: 301
Johnnytheboy wrote:
you don't talk that much nonsense.


Thanks for being nice, but I already knew that! My preference is not to spend money on making things worse all the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 20:23 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
I think that may well be the most fatuous post I've ever read, even from ol' "basingwerk-with-exclamation-marks" here.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 20:26 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:27
Posts: 301
Johnnytheboy wrote:
I think ...


Are you sure about that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 13:31 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Now it's merely the second most fatuous post I've ever read, basingwerk.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.039s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]