|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
On Thu, 28 Jun, Matt B wrote:
Ian Smith wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Matt B wrote: Ian Smith wrote: Have you ever been to Leatherhead High Street? They don't behave as you imagine. It's pedestrianised isn't it? Not any more. 'They' pedestrianised it, but then decided to let motor vehicles in for significant parts of the day, after having removed all road markings, kerbs etc. So it _is_ pedestrianised, for most of the working day anyway. They've opened it again in the evenings, to try and get some life back into the town, after it completely died with no through traffic, but haven't provided adequately for parking? You do talk ********. 1: There is no through traffic, because any traffic actually trying to get anywhere goes along the through roads parallel to the High Street. 2: 'haven't provided adequately' apart from the bloody huge great multi-storey car-park less than 100yds from the high street 3: It's a damn strange concept of 'pedestrianised' that allows unrestricted motor vehicles access 4: It's not just evenings, it's part of the afternoon and all day on Sunday (when most of the shops aren't open so the 'through traffic stopping on a whim to buy a pint of milk is a doubly crap excuse). The Sisnbury's (which is open) has lifts direct from every floor of the multi-storey into the shop, and refunds the parking charge for customers, so don't start talking crap about that. So motorists aren't really equal partners are they. That is one of the fundamental requirements of a working system - all users have equal priorities - no discrimination. Eh? There are no restrictions. Let's get this straight - not stopping motorists parking wherever they like is unfairly penalising them? Letting them do what they like is not making them equal to pedestrians? So you're saying putting in some parking restrictions would liberate the motorist? Wow, your brain must be addled. Please explain very, very slowly why not restricting parking in any way whatsoever is discriminating against motorists. So now they've got the worst of both worlds. A street designed as a pedestrian only street, but with cars allowed access at certaain times - but without proper account taken for their parking needs etc. Listen you silly prat - there are car parks all over the place. There's a multi-storey car-park no more than 100yds from any point on the previously pedestrianised bit. There's a flat car-park at one end. There are private car-parks which are open to the public at weekends which back onto the High St. They need to design it for "all mode" use, and abolish the time restrictions and provide ample and convenient parking. There is ample and convenient parking. I don't know why you've seized on that when it's so irrelevant. Presumably you advocate knocking down all the buildings to make way for this new design and yet more parking? I'm sure you know that though. Of course not. I know you're completely ignorant of what you're talking about. There is ample parking, it's a narrow street that does not work with cars and pedestrians (hence the conflicts) and the through traffic argument is complete rubbish. You _could_ knock down the remaining buildings to make it wide enough for cars to use and provide space for pedestrians, but I struggle to understand how that's going to improve the town centre. I've just seen on the BBC, that it was recently voted as one of the worst town centres in the country. One voter saying "an example of cheap and thoughtless pedestrianisation taking the heart out of a whole town". Actually, it was bull-dozing (literally - they just drew a line and demolished the existing roads and buildings) the through-road to speed the poor hard-done-by motorists in the early 70's that destroyed the town centre. They even put the new road at a constant gradient, so the perpendicular roads don't join because they are at a different level (several meters higher in places). Now we have a town centre that's isolated from most of the town by a wide fast road. And from Hansard "Leatherhead pedestrianised the whole high street; since then the centre has virtually died. Indeed, the council is now looking at ways of bringing cars back into it." The 'since then' is rubbish, as noted above. Bringing cars back into it is exactly what we've been discussing - they have simply let cars drive into a pedestrianised area, without any restrictions, and it simply doesn't work. That's the whole point of the last few postings. Anyway, since it is apparent that you are simply trolling again, I will now stop trying. We know you think removing restrictions from motorists will give everyone a beautiful idyllic street scene and the previously aggressive dominating motorist will roll over like a fluffy pussy-cat and play nicely. We also know that in most places where it's been tried it simply doesn't work. Obviously, your day-dreaming is much more realistic than what has actually happened in reality, so I guess we can just leave you in that special little world of your own. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Ads |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun, Matt B wrote: Ian Smith wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, Matt B wrote: Ian Smith wrote: Have you ever been to Leatherhead High Street? They don't behave as you imagine. It's pedestrianised isn't it? Not any more. 'They' pedestrianised it, but then decided to let motor vehicles in for significant parts of the day, after having removed all road markings, kerbs etc. So it _is_ pedestrianised, for most of the working day anyway. They've opened it again in the evenings, to try and get some life back into the town, after it completely died with no through traffic, but haven't provided adequately for parking? You do talk ********. When - certainly not in the above paragraph. It is a fair summary of the situation. 1: There is no through traffic, because any traffic actually trying to get anywhere goes along the through roads parallel to the High Street. By "through traffic" they meant traffic access to the street - ro keep its heart beating. There nothing more desolate and depressing than a deserted street, especially as is was so vibrant before. 2: 'haven't provided adequately' apart from the bloody huge great multi-storey car-park less than 100yds from the high street "Adequate" for the anti-car lobby, maybe, but obviously not adequate for those who are expected to use it. If it was "adequate" there would be no parking problems. Is the multi-story free? 3: It's a damn strange concept of 'pedestrianised' that allows unrestricted motor vehicles access "Unrestricted"? Any vehicle, any time of the day? Cars are no longer banned during the core day? 4: It's not just evenings, it's part of the afternoon and all day on Sunday So there /isn't/ unrestricted motor access then, or did you forget Mon-Sat, mornings and the other part of the afternoon? (when most of the shops aren't open so the 'through traffic stopping on a whim to buy a pint of milk is a doubly crap excuse). Is is what people want - or does no-one do it? The Sisnbury's (which is open) has lifts direct from every floor of the multi-storey into the shop, and refunds the parking charge for customers, so don't start talking crap about that. So the car-park isn't free then to non-Sainsbury customers. So motorists aren't really equal partners are they. That is one of the fundamental requirements of a working system - all users have equal priorities - no discrimination. Eh? There are no restrictions. Yes. When peds can use the streets motorists can. Let's get this straight - not stopping motorists parking wherever they like is unfairly penalising them? I'm not really talking about parking, I'm talking about street use. But obviously if people want to shop they'll need to park. Letting them do what they like is not making them equal to pedestrians? They can't "do what they like", they can't drive down the street at 11:00 am to shop. So you're saying putting in some parking restrictions would liberate the motorist? No, you said that. Parking restrictions are only necessary if other measures are wrong. There's no parking restrictions in one of my favourite towns - mainly beacause the more than adequate car park is free. Wow, your brain must be addled. Yes - I'm exasperated by your refusal to see common sense. Your prejudices have got the better of your senses - it seems. Please explain very, very slowly why not restricting parking in any way whatsoever is discriminating against motorists. The fact that they /need/ restricting - in a small town like that speaks volumes of the history with regards to the treatment of motorists - and car use. So now they've got the worst of both worlds. A street designed as a pedestrian only street, but with cars allowed access at certaain times - but without proper account taken for their parking needs etc. Listen you silly prat - there are car parks all over the place. So why is there a problem? There's a multi-storey car-park no more than 100yds from any point on the previously pedestrianised bit. There's a flat car-park at one end. There are private car-parks which are open to the public at weekends which back onto the High St. Are any of them free? They need to design it for "all mode" use, and abolish the time restrictions and provide ample and convenient parking. There is ample and convenient parking. I don't know why you've seized on that when it's so irrelevant. Are motorists finding it necessary not to use the car parks? Presumably you advocate knocking down all the buildings to make way for this new design and yet more parking? No - that would be absurd. Keep it simple. Try /free/ car parks. I'm sure you know that though. Of course not. I know you're completely ignorant of what you're talking about. There is ample parking, it's a narrow street that does not work with cars and pedestrians (hence the conflicts) and the through traffic argument is complete rubbish. I've quoted from what other residents have said - there is obviously a divide in the town. Have motorists been persecuted there in the past? You _could_ knock down the remaining buildings to make it wide enough for cars to use and provide space for pedestrians, but I struggle to understand how that's going to improve the town centre. Why? Is there not a street there now? I've just seen on the BBC, that it was recently voted as one of the worst town centres in the country. One voter saying "an example of cheap and thoughtless pedestrianisation taking the heart out of a whole town". Actually, it was bull-dozing (literally - they just drew a line and demolished the existing roads and buildings) the through-road to speed the poor hard-done-by motorists in the early 70's that destroyed the town centre. Funny, I hear it was vibrant until it was pedestrianised. They even put the new road at a constant gradient, so the perpendicular roads don't join because they are at a different level (several meters higher in places). Now we have a town centre that's isolated from most of the town by a wide fast road. And from Hansard "Leatherhead pedestrianised the whole high street; since then the centre has virtually died. Indeed, the council is now looking at ways of bringing cars back into it." The 'since then' is rubbish, as noted above. Bringing cars back into it is exactly what we've been discussing - they have simply let cars drive into a pedestrianised area, without any restrictions, and it simply doesn't work. It's not likely too is it. For the stated reasons. It's a street designed for peds only. Motorists are tolerated for limited hours. Hardly complying with the "shared space" philosophy is it. That's the whole point of the last few postings. Yes. Equal treatment, not occasional concessions. -- Matt B |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007, Matt the Berk wrote:
Ian Smith wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun, Matt B wrote: So it _is_ pedestrianised, for most of the working day anyway. They've opened it again in the evenings, to try and get some life back into the town, after it completely died with no through traffic, but haven't provided adequately for parking? You do talk ********. When - certainly not in the above paragraph. It is a fair summary of the situation. 1: There is no through traffic, because any traffic actually trying to get anywhere goes along the through roads parallel to the High Street. By "through traffic" they meant traffic access to the street - ro keep its heart beating. There nothing more desolate and depressing than a deserted street, especially as is was so vibrant before. It wasn't deserted. It had pedestrians walking about substantially free of the risk of serious injury. It had children who were allowed to let go of their parent's hand. It had blind people who could navigate themselves (very relevant because Leatherhead is the former site of a RNIB school and has an unusually high proportion of blind residents) and wheel-chair users who could move around the street with ease. 2: 'haven't provided adequately' apart from the bloody huge great multi-storey car-park less than 100yds from the high street "Adequate" for the anti-car lobby, maybe, but obviously not adequate for those who are expected to use it. If it was "adequate" there would be no parking problems. Is the multi-story free? So what you're saying is that it's not good enough merely to apply no restriction at all to motorists, you have to actually subsidise them. I have never seen the car-park full. 3: It's a damn strange concept of 'pedestrianised' that allows unrestricted motor vehicles access "Unrestricted"? Any vehicle, any time of the day? Cars are no longer banned during the core day? At certain times there is unrestricted access, yes. If you think it relevant that at other times of day motor vehicles are not permitted you are way dumber than I thought. Do you actually think the parent of a small child will say "oh well, my child would have been safe from traffic if we were here four hours ago, so I'll let them run free amongst the cars that are here now"? Does the pedestrian say "Although this car is now forcing me out of the way that's fine because if I'd been here at this time yesterday it wouldn't have done so"? If so, you really should be locked up, for your own safety. Let's get this straight - not stopping motorists parking wherever they like is unfairly penalising them? I'm not really talking about parking, I'm talking about street use. But obviously if people want to shop they'll need to park. You were talking about parking. You said not restricting the parking of motorists showed they weren't given equal status with pedestrians. No, you said that. Parking restrictions are only necessary if other measures are wrong. Parking restrictions are needed where it is unsafe to park, or where it blocks or obstructs other users. Unless you're going to define "where other measures are wrong" as including anywhere where there are existing buildings, you are talking rubbish. I agree, if we demolish the whole country and put completely flat unobstructed tarmac absolutely everywhere, there will be little need of parking restrictions. Meanwhile, on planet Earth, you are talking unmitigated crap again. Wow, your brain must be addled. Yes - I'm exasperated by your refusal to see common sense. Your prejudices have got the better of your senses - it seems. It is not common sense to allow unrestricted parking in a street that is too narrow to allow parking and pedestrians and motor vehicles to pass and re-pass. The motorists park anyway, the motorists squeeze through aggressively and the pedestrians become unable to pass and re-pass safely and are obliged (at risk of serious injury) to cower and give way. Please explain very, very slowly why not restricting parking in any way whatsoever is discriminating against motorists. The fact that they /need/ restricting - in a small town like that speaks volumes of the history with regards to the treatment of motorists - and car use. More crap. Are you honestly advocating demolishing every street that is too narrow to allow pavements and unlimited parking bays and through traffic? It seems you are, and then you're accusing me of a refusal to see common sense? There isn't physically space for what you advocate. You would require the demolition of just about every town centre more than about 30 years old. It was actually this sort of change that wrecked the town centre in the first place. I've already explained that - it was pandering to the motorist that destroyed the centre. Listen you silly prat - there are car parks all over the place. So why is there a problem? Because despite the car-parks all over the place irresponsible motorists still choose to park in dangerous and inconvenient locations. They do this despite your assurance that when freed from restriction every motorist becomes a model member of society, considerate of all and never doing anything remotely inconsiderate or dangerous. Presumably you advocate knocking down all the buildings to make way for this new design and yet more parking? No - that would be absurd. Keep it simple. Try /free/ car parks. But you've said we need to allow full-time unrestricted vehicle access, unrestricted parking and plenty of space for pedestrians. That physically does not fit between the frontages of the buildings. The motorists park anyway, and the cars force their way through. Car parks aren't free. Land in Surrey is not free. What you actually want is yet more subsidy of motorists by tax-payers. You _could_ knock down the remaining buildings to make it wide enough for cars to use and provide space for pedestrians, but I struggle to understand how that's going to improve the town centre. Why? Is there not a street there now? Not that is wide enough to do what you say is obviously necessary. Actually, it was bull-dozing (literally - they just drew a line and demolished the existing roads and buildings) the through-road to speed the poor hard-done-by motorists in the early 70's that destroyed the town centre. Funny, I hear it was vibrant until it was pedestrianised. You've also heard differently (I just told you). I've heard that wearing a foil hat will protect you from orbital mind-control rays. Doesn't make it true. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
On 28 Jun, 23:05, Tony Raven wrote:
Pyromancer wrote on 28/06/2007 17:25 +0100: On 28 Jun, 11:31, Matt B wrote: Just for a moment assuming you're not a troll Ah the delusions of a troll wrestler. From the debate in this thread I don't think he really is a troll, rather a particularly fanatical religious preacher. He truly *believes* that his "shared space" idea really is the panacea to all the problems of road use, and hence can't / won't see any other argument as valid. But given that, then yes, arguing with him is somewhat pointless, it's a bit like arguing with a Jehovah's Witness. |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
in message .com,
Pyromancer ') wrote: He truly *believes* that his "shared space" idea really is the panacea to all the problems of road use, and hence can't / won't see any other argument as valid. No, he doesn't. He doesn't want shared space, unless as a corollary he gets the revocation of speed limits and most other road safety law. Isn't that true, Troll? If we said, OK, shared space everywhere in all towns, but the speed limit in shared space will be 20mph, you wouldn't accept that, would you? You wouldn't even accept that if the speed limit in shared space stayed at 30mph, would you? -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI ;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
The other view point, there is one you know... twisted the electrons to say:
and some people think i talk tosh, tut Well I notice you're unable to answer the question as to why some people feel unable to make progress without breakingthe speed limit. Did you not want to admit that it might just be because they're habitual criminals? -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
On 27 Jun, 17:44, Marc Brett wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:45:22 +0100, Matt B Higher speeds reduce the time available to react to emergencies, increase stopping distance, I agree with you up to this point. increase crash risk and severity. I am not sure they increase crash-risk. They increase fuel consumption, pollution, vulnerability to national security oil disruptions. Not necessarily. The optimal speed for higher MPG is usually around 55mph, so limiting speeds to 40mph on roads would be more polluting than allowing vehicles to travel at 50mph. They reduce quality of life for peds, cyclists, children, the elderly, and anyone who breathes. To some extent but it depends on where this traffic is. Actually I find as a cyclist the worst exhaust fumes are usually those from buses. They even increase travel times, given the increased bunching and delays from additional crashes. Ignoring the supposed "additional crashing" there is no reason why they should increase travel times. They make driving for the elderly more difficult. Those who are not able to drive competently under road conditions should not be driving at all. I would advocate regular retesting. It's entirely rational to make speed control the cornerstone of road safety policy. No, having speed limiters on cars would cause more rolling-road-blocks as a vehicle finds it cannot accelerate through its overtaking manoeuvre of another slightly slower moving vehicle. In addition it would cause a lot more misjudgements with drivers thinking they had time to complete a manouevre (eg an overtake on a single-carriageway road) only for the limiter to prevent them from completing it, possibly leaving them with nowhere to go. btw, as a cyclist I find bumps in the road (to slow down traffic ) to be far more of a hazard than if they weren't there. Even if they are the type that have a gap in the middle for me to go through, I have to manoeuvre to the gap in front of traffic, plus the traffic is of course speed-up/ slow-down so the motor vehicle won't always be able to go clear of me after overtaking which is far more preferable for me. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:02:35 -0700, Earl Purple
wrote: On 27 Jun, 17:44, Marc Brett wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:45:22 +0100, Matt B Higher speeds reduce the time available to react to emergencies, increase stopping distance, I agree with you up to this point. increase crash risk and severity. I am not sure they increase crash-risk. They increase fuel consumption, pollution, vulnerability to national security oil disruptions. Not necessarily. The optimal speed for higher MPG is usually around 55mph, so limiting speeds to 40mph on roads would be more polluting than allowing vehicles to travel at 50mph. Wrong. It varies according to vehicle, but I think you'll find that for most cars, driving 30-40 mph in a high gear will be more efficient that 55 mph. They reduce quality of life for peds, cyclists, children, the elderly, and anyone who breathes. To some extent but it depends on where this traffic is. Actually I find as a cyclist the worst exhaust fumes are usually those from buses. You'd rather 50 cars replaced that bus? As a cyclist. They even increase travel times, given the increased bunching and delays from additional crashes. Ignoring the supposed "additional crashing" there is no reason why they should increase travel times. Think on that next time you're stuck in a crash-caused jam. There's a 28% chance that crash was speed-related. Are you getting to your destination quicker? The pranged driver thought he was. Now he's slowed down hundreds of others. They make driving for the elderly more difficult. Those who are not able to drive competently under road conditions should not be driving at all. I would advocate regular retesting. **** 'em, in other words. It's entirely rational to make speed control the cornerstone of road safety policy. No, having speed limiters on cars would cause more rolling-road-blocks as a vehicle finds it cannot accelerate through its overtaking manoeuvre of another slightly slower moving vehicle. Eh? Exceeding the speed limit is ok when overtaking? In addition it would cause a lot more misjudgements with drivers thinking they had time to complete a manouevre (eg an overtake on a single-carriageway road) only for the limiter to prevent them from completing it, possibly leaving them with nowhere to go. Eh? Exceeding the speed limit is ok when overtaking? btw, as a cyclist I find bumps in the road (to slow down traffic ) to be far more of a hazard than if they weren't there. Even if they are the type that have a gap in the middle for me to go through, I have to manoeuvre to the gap in front of traffic, plus the traffic is of course speed-up/ slow-down so the motor vehicle won't always be able to go clear of me after overtaking which is far more preferable for me. Motorists should give you as much space as they would a car when overtaking. What's the matter with taking up the entire lane? |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
On 29 Jun, 15:27, Marc Brett wrote:
Not necessarily. The optimal speed for higher MPG is usually around 55mph,so limiting speeds to 40mph on roads would be more polluting than allowing vehicles to travel at 50mph. Wrong. It varies according to vehicle, but I think you'll find that for most cars, driving 30-40 mph in a high gear will be more efficient that 55 mph. Depends on the road, although I did once drive a very new Fiat Ulysses that showed me the MPG you would achieve at your present rate. On some downhill parts your optimum was as high as 65mph. It is however true that pushing it up a hill you use more and you may find 35mph more efficient than 50mph. I wouldn't know about HGVs on a flat road. To some extent but it depends on where this traffic is. Actually I find as a cyclist the worst exhaust fumes are usually those from buses. You'd rather 50 cars replaced that bus? As a cyclist. It would rarely be as many as 50. And I could probably find the space to pass them all anyway far more easily than to pass the buses, especially the bendy ones. Think on that next time you're stuck in a crash-caused jam. There's a 28% chance that crash was speed-related. Are you getting to your destination quicker? The pranged driver thought he was. Now he's slowed down hundreds of others. Speed-related or speed-limit related? They make driving for the elderly more difficult. Those who are not able to drive competently under road conditions should not be driving at all. I would advocate regular retesting. **** 'em, in other words. If they can't drive appropriately then don't let them drive. As long as they can they can keep their licence no matter how old they are. Which is fairer than it is at the lower end where a 16-year old isn't even allowed to take a test. It's entirely rational to make speed control the cornerstone of road safety policy. No, having speed limiters on cars would cause more rolling-road-blocks as a vehicle finds it cannot accelerate through its overtaking manoeuvre of another slightly slower moving vehicle. Eh? Exceeding the speed limit is ok when overtaking? I would say sometimes. Say it's a dual-carriageway D2 and the vehicle in the left lane is going at 3mph below the speed limit, say 47mph in a 50. I think it would be safer to overtake them at least 5mph more than their speed so you would need to do 52mph to achieve that. In addition it would cause a lot more misjudgements with drivers thinking they had time to complete a manouevre (eg an overtake on a single-carriageway road) only for the limiter to prevent them from completing it, possibly leaving them with nowhere to go. Eh? Exceeding the speed limit is ok when overtaking? If it's the only way to get you out of danger. The vehicle you were overtaking may have speeded up. btw, as a cyclist I find bumps in the road (to slow down traffic ) to be far more of a hazard than if they weren't there. Even if they are the type that have a gap in the middle for me to go through, I have to manoeuvre to the gap in front of traffic, plus the traffic is of course speed-up/ slow-down so the motor vehicle won't always be able to go clear of me after overtaking which is far more preferable for me. Motorists should give you as much space as they would a car when overtaking. What's the matter with taking up the entire lane?- Hide quoted text - Do they have to give me the space to pass them back later though when they hit a roadblock, including a vehicle coming the otehr way? |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
Pyromancer wrote on 29/06/2007 14:05 +0100:
On 28 Jun, 23:05, Tony Raven wrote: Pyromancer wrote on 28/06/2007 17:25 +0100: On 28 Jun, 11:31, Matt B wrote: Just for a moment assuming you're not a troll Ah the delusions of a troll wrestler. From the debate in this thread I don't think he really is a troll, rather a particularly fanatical religious preacher. He truly *believes* that his "shared space" idea really is the panacea to all the problems of road use, and hence can't / won't see any other argument as valid. Ah the continued delusions of a troll wrestler. -- Tony "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
for insiders - moral majority, please do not read | Sandy | Racing | 3 | May 29th 07 11:20 AM |
The Myth of the LBS Redux: E-bay or not e-bay? | Doug Taylor | Techniques | 68 | November 6th 06 09:43 PM |
Law abiding motorists | Tony Raven | UK | 38 | September 24th 05 08:40 PM |
A Majority of Mountain Bikers Break the Law (was Inconsiderate bikers) | Gary S. | Social Issues | 0 | August 6th 04 05:27 PM |
< |
Rob Bruce | UK | 17 | February 12th 04 05:58 PM |