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|
|/ \|

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

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|
|/ \|

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.

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

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 ...

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.

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?

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?

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