Safe Speed Forums

I can't make too much sense of the second point there. It seems 'well balanced' by motoring taxation.

The first point is well made and important. It's actually amazing how helpful the ancient Christian principle - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - is in all these sorts of conflict. (With apologies to anyone who thinks that their religion got there first but the Christians nicked it. )



Mostly I don't even think it's a 'state of denial', more simple ignorance and a failure to see anything from the perspective of others. If anything, the authorities are actively encouraging such short-sighted selfish thinking and the resultant conflicts.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Its quite simple. The gist of the argument form the motoring point of view is that they have paid their road tax to use the road.
The homeowner has also paid a price for the house they selected which will have reflected, not only the property itself, but also the ambience of the surroundings. Their council tax band will also reflect this.
Thus, the 'motorist pays his tax to use the road' argument is in effect met by an equal and opposite 'the resident has paid/pays their dues for other motorists not to be there' argument.
It is what market forces are all about. If something occurs (the road gets busier) that will affect the price your propery is likely to attract, versus what you paid for it, you are going to complain.

Ta. Now I get it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yeah, that doesn't sit well with me. The price the homeowner paid was market driven, and any value derived from the surroundings of the property is attached by perception alone, it is not a chattel of the property.

Its a foolish man who pays for something his is not buying, and then tries to claim dominion over it. When you buy a house in a particular type of neighborhood, you have to be aware that you have very little say in how the character of that neighborhood may change over time, certainly with regards to road useage. Its caveat emptor I'm afraid.

It is also a foolish man who, in the kingdom where everyman's home is said to be his castle, says to the property price conscious homeowner who perceives that their leafy neighbourhood has been ruined...'tough titties to you fish face'

Rigpig said


rigpig avatar says


But, not freedom to use the Queens Highway!!

So the residents in the £100k terraced streets deserve more consideration than £1m detached residents on a larger road.

These days if you buy a terraced house on a standard 3 car wide (1 parked each side and one can pass between) street you know there will be parking and access issues. The problem in these streets are caused by the residents own cars parked on them.

Why should someone who lives in a detached house, and pays his top band council tax to park his cars off the road in his triple garage, not be allowed to use the whole highway network?


fatboytim

There appears to be an ommission here - a "rat run" is a term brought about by observing the behavior of rats!
If you ever see a real "rat run", the rat scurries from one place to another in order to not get caught.
Motorists who drive up and down a residential street with all the care afforded because of the road layout, signage and proximity (or not) of other road users will not usually draw criticism.
It's the driver who is trying to "make up" for lost time elsewhere who will attract the attention of the householder or other road user.

I use a road through a housing estate to exit Windermere, simply because it is the most direct route. It has speed humps and potholes, which will no doubt detract from the perceived value of the homes, but the traffic is in general fairly well behaved, and is rarely criticised.

However a route I use in Kendal to avoid the town centre, and shorten my journey by a great deal (therebye causing less pollution too) is constantly under attack by local residents, because of the manner in which many other motorists traverse the road!
I witnessed an accident there where the driver concerned fled the scene. I gave chase and got close enough to get his number, and he was aprehended minutes later! However, his attitude is typical of many of the drivers using the road (which has a 20 mph limit AND humps) who seek to traverse it as quickly as possible.
The trouble is the one way system in Kendal which makes a LONG drive around town necessary to reach anywhere when comnig from the Windermere direction - thus creating the "rat run".

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Hmm. I try to make this forum interseting by offering an alternative viewpoint and pursuing it with good grace and intelligently presented ideas. It is sad that there are those who cannot debate, only argue.....

A few posts ago you posted this....



Now, in order to analyse the issue and answer the question we have to look at it from both sides. Everything you (and most others) posted only appears interested in looking at it from the motorists side, so someone had to offer a residents perspective in order to ascertain whether there is a rational reason. Only adopting the motorists standpoint was never going to achieve that. So thats what i've tried to do.
Unfortunately you appear to lack both the perspicacity to realise this and the debating skills to address the issue without making it a personal attack on what you perceive to be my viewpoint.
And so, having previously being unable to resist a little dig, you come up with this crap...



My avatar is a whimsical little image, thats all. Not my outlook on life.

And, even as a counterpoint to what I've been saying, this little rant doesn't make sense...



Where am I suggesting that high band council tax payers in big houses should be denied the use of the whole highway?

Those statements are of course true but this example may help to explain the frustration of the residents of roads that become rat runs.

We used to live in a country lane in a village on the outskirts of a small town. The lane carried about 1500 vehicle per day and was plenty wide enough for cars but not wide enough to allow two lorries to pass. During the seven years we lived there lots of new houses were built in the town at the same time as the traffic flow in the town was screwed up 'to improvent the environment' or some such crap. The traffic flow in 'our' road rose to 5000 per day. At certain times you could barely get in/out of the drive. We used to reverse in and you would get people driving right up behind and blocking the drive so that you couldn't reverse and then start sounding their horns. The banks were destroyed by lorries trying to pass.

It's no wonder people complain when the volume of traffic suddenly rises to levels far beyond the capabilities of the road.

Here perhaps!

Quote Rigpig

Contrary to the conclusion you've jumped to, I am writing from the perspective of someone who lives on a 'main but residential road' (with 3 schools in 1/4 mile).
I seldom use the side streets the the main road users live on, but they are happy block me in or out of my driveway while they queue for 300yds to get thru the lights two blocks further up the road.

I won't use their roads if they don't use mine, seems fair to me, but somehow I feel this would not be acceptable to the 'RR' residents, as far as I can see it's just hypocritical.

Do the lives of kids who live on main roads have less value, than those who live on side streets?

I was brought up on a 'main road' and feared the injuries my mum would give me, more than an accident, if I was caught to close to the road.

I might not have asthma, and I may have had a higher IQ, had I not had to suffer the lead and other pollutants pumped out by the sidestreet dwellers driving past my home on the 'main road'

I accept the above damage caused to me only due to the fact I can have the same rights as others to use the highway.

When doing Highways Works we often got complaints at the office from people whose roads (usually country lanes) got more traffic avoiding the works, a diplomatic 'tough' is the response.

fatboytim

Or perhaps not.
I've read it several times and cannot for the life of me see how you are drawing the inference you are from the above statements.
To make it absolutely clear, I am not saying that people who live in big, expensive houses should be denied the use of some of the highway. I have no issue with people who make a success of their lives and can afford the trappings that go with it.



The only conclusion I drew was that judging from the way your posts were couched you have an axe to grind, and have already decided that RR complainants are unreasonable and therefore are just a bunch of NIMBYs.

That raises some fascinating issues...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The big house owner on the big road pays more for less amenity, they seldom use the sidestreets, but sidestreet dwellers are happy to spoil the ambience of the big house owners environment by driving outside the big property.


Market forces, yes please, let's make that if you don't have an off road parking space you can't have a car! That would suit me fine, and make side streets much safer.

The crux of my argument is most of the RR roads problems are caused by the residents cars parked outside their houses, they are the problem but just can't accept it.

A road is a road is a road, Rigpig have you given all the emotional arguments yet, as I am waiting for rational/logical reasons for the NIMBYism.

What about Paul's fascinating issues?.

fatboytim

You are having a laugh aren't you?
After at least two posts filled with semi-coherent, rambling bollocks you have the front to ask me for a rational argument?

Personally I have a neutral view on the subject, however in order to help us examine the issue, as you intimated you wanted to at the outset, I've tried to offer an insight in to why a NIMBY may think about the issue the way they do. You appear to have such an enormous axe to grind on this subject that you are failing totally to see this and now appear to be on some personal crusade to argue me into a corner.
So, sorry but I'm not playing silly buggers with you any more. You'll just have to look elsewhere for your answer, if indeed you actually are intersted in finding one and didn't just want a rant about it.
Good evening to you.

fatboytim wrote


Rigpig wrote,


So it is just NIMBYism, and their psychology of 'I can use yours, but you can't use mine'.

You've confirmed my thoughts, that there is no logical argument for their attitude. Thanks!.

fatboytim

Has anyone ever played city?

You try and built a sensible road system but all the drivers start using the lower capacity roads in your grid for "rat runs" so you have to start building cul de sacs and forcing people onto the main roads...

Bet it happens just the same in real life.

Divide and rule

Our inept (or devious?) government causes congestion >
> motorists find short cuts past the congestion (just like I have to every day when bypassing the west dual carriageway out of Portsea Island !!!!)
> the residents get annoyed and vents anger on the 'rat runners'
> the rats argue with the NIMBYs claiming right of way
> the residents demand that something be done
> government responds by introducing congestion charging!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I disagree.

That is a symptom, not the root cause...

If LA's didn't (here we go again!) create congestion, there would be no need for motorists to hunt for less-aggravated routes...

And as an owner of a 4-bed detached on a nice & quiet estate, I have no problem with taxed & insured vehicles driving up my( ) road.

If it's a public road, (which it is) then the public can use it...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Ok, here goes.

I live on a 'rat run'. Its a narrow street with terraced houses on both sides. Those of us on the 'lower' side of the street are fortunate enough to have rear access for parking, but those on the other side don't and therefore have to park on the street. Our side has double yellows all along it and with the cars parked on the other side there is JUST enough room for two cars to pass without having to use the pavement. The road is almost perfectly straight and vehicles entering the stretch of road restricted by parked cars from either end can see if there is a car already within the restricted stretch.

The road is only used as a rat run in one direction because one end joins half way round a one way system. At the other end is a blind 90deg. turning onto another similar street which is crossed by the alleyway that access the rear of the properties on the 'lower' side.

Personally I don't have a problem with the volume of traffic - its not really that high. What I have a problem with is the inappropriate use of speed (I would estimate some vehicles are travelling in excess of 40mph), the tailgating of those of us who are trying to park, the impatience (also from residents it has to be said) of those who can't just wait at the end of the restricted section and instead have to force their way through, but most of all the fact that 'rat runners' take the corner at the end as though nothing's going to be coming the other way - ie at 30 on the wrong side.

From my POV, the term 'rat run' has little to do with volume of traffic and much more to do with attitude.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Listen you cock-knocker if you want to have a proper debate with me I'm prepared to have one. But don't bother trying to score pathetic points by selective quoting OK?