# What have us cyclists been saying for ages?



## Drago (21 Jan 2020)

Its official, new housing developments in the UK are too car-O-centric...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51179688

This is the latest in a long line of private car use bashing stories, and it makes me wonder if the worm is ever so slowly starting to turn?


----------



## MichaelW2 (21 Jan 2020)

Given the stiff planning regulations for individuals who build I am constantly amazed at the easy ride given to major housebuilders to build in floodzones, build shoddy quality that fails insulation standards, build pokey little shacks that will become the slums of the future. Its like we learned nothing from the hi rise horrors of 1960s except that hi rise is bad.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Jan 2020)

A new housing development round here reportedly had no pavements... I couldn't decide if it was a good or a bad thing. No pavements means the entire road is a shared use path. The concept removes ownership and there'll be no 'get orf _my_ road' excuse from grumpy drivers. I very much doubt this is what the developer had in mind... they probably discovered they could squeeze in an extra 20 houses by not putting any pavements down.


----------



## confusedcyclist (21 Jan 2020)

Drago said:


> ...and it makes me wonder if the worm is ever so slowly starting to turn?


Given sufficient financial capital and agency, as individuals, we have the power to make choices that put us in active travel friendly places, if you are lucky enough to live in a place that has a strong active travel contingent, you might improve things locally, but waiting for the rest society to catch up and improve things for you... just don't hold your breath. Society time and again falls victim to the progress trap.

Motoring is tightly bound to social status for many. Until we can effectively challenge that notion, change won't happen for reasons elaborated in the wiki page above.


----------



## Phaeton (21 Jan 2020)

There's a development near us, on a main A road where they have had to put in a roundabout just to allow homeowners to get out of the estate, there are no shops or schools within 2 miles down main roads with no footpath.


----------



## PK99 (21 Jan 2020)

In London it is now normal for apartment developments in areas with controlled parking to have NO parking spaces AND a planning ruling that residents will NOT be entitled to parking permits for street parking.


----------



## steveindenmark (21 Jan 2020)

In Denmark when they build a new housing or industrial development. the cycle paths often appear before anything else. 🏭🚴🇩🇰


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> A new housing development round here reportedly had no pavements... I couldn't decide if it was a good or a bad thing. No pavements means the entire road is a shared use path. The concept removes ownership and there'll be no 'get orf _my_ road' excuse from grumpy drivers. I very much doubt this is what the developer had in mind... they probably discovered they could squeeze in an extra 20 houses by not putting any pavements down.


Problem is those share space routes into which motor vehicles are permitted are useless to the blind and partially sighted. Where such roads exist in residential areas the blind become effectively trapped at home. Very badly executed idea.


----------



## tom73 (21 Jan 2020)

I did read about a a new estate in leeds just out side the centre that was designed with walking and cycling in mind. Building on current links into the centre. No parking unless you wanted to pay 20 grand each for a underground space. The school to be built as part of it is planned with no parking at all. Council got a bit iffy about a school with no parking but developer held in and won't to change it as it's the whole point you won't need any. Just walk or cycle to it. 

Sadly our Council is planning all on green belt a massive 1700 housing deployment inc a school and industrial park. Billed as having active travel in mind it will still have all the normal stuff just with a few "shared paths" thrown in. To top it all off they have now just added to the plan a massive link road to the motorway.


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2020)

Drago said:


> Problem is those share space routes into which motor vehicles are permitted are useless to the blind and partially sighted. Where such roads exist in residential areas the blind become effectively trapped at home. Very badly executed idea.


Is it that they are hard for people who can't see well to follow or that there is no refuge from the motorists who still have a "get orf moi road" attitude?


----------



## vickster (21 Jan 2020)

tom73 said:


> I did read about a a new estate in leeds just out side the centre that was designed with walking and cycling in mind. Building on current links into the centre. No parking unless you wanted to pay 20 grand each for a underground space. The school to be built as part of it is planned with no parking at all. Council got a bit iffy about a school with no parking but developer held in and won't to change it as it's the whole point you won't need any. Just walk or cycle to it.


What about the teachers? They may need to drive. Teacher recruitment is already tough I understand so this may just make it harder


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Jan 2020)

vickster said:


> What about the teachers? They may need to drive. Teacher recruitment is already tough I understand so this may just make it harder


if it's just outside the centre of a large city like Leeds, then presumably there's ample public transport options available.


----------



## vickster (21 Jan 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> if it's just outside the centre of a large city like Leeds, then presumably there's ample public transport options available.


True however the teachers may not live that side of the big city and need numerous changes on public transport? 
Many are overworked as it is without adding 2-4 hours of commuting to each end of the school day.
Is it a secondary or primary school, how big is it? It may only have half a dozen teachers to attract or it may need dozens. With teachers in short supply, a new school will need to be attractive to staff surely?
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing obviously but hopefully it’s a potential challenge that has been identified and considered


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Jan 2020)

If they've got any sense they'd just move closer to their place of work, or work somewhere closer to where they live. The more initiatives that force people to reconsider their reliance on owning and using a car on a daily basis, the better in my book.


----------



## PK99 (21 Jan 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> *If they've got any sense they'd just move closer to their place of work,* or work somewhere closer to where they live. The more initiatives that force people to reconsider their reliance on owning and using a car on a daily basis, the better in my book.



That might work for families with only one breadwinner, two earner families might be in some difficulty!

Are you guilty of making assumptions re traditional family structures?


----------



## vickster (21 Jan 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> If they've got any sense they'd just move closer to their place of work, or work somewhere closer to where they live. The more initiatives that force people to reconsider their reliance on owning and using a car on a daily basis, the better in my book.


Moving closer to this new school may not be feasible or practical for those teachers with established lives elsewhere. Selling and buying property for example can be very expensive and time consuming. They may have their own children in schools who can currently walk or bike there, moving they may no longer do. They may have partners whose own work fits where they currently live, should he or she then have to change jobs or commute? The family may care for or regularly visit elderly relatives close to their current location, there are a lot of scenarios to consider when saying people should just up sticks.
Not everyone is footloose and fancy free when it comes to choice of employment location. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it would work for anyone.


----------



## MontyVeda (21 Jan 2020)

lets just stick to a car-centric society then.... anything else is clearly a little too inconvenient.


----------



## tom73 (21 Jan 2020)

What about the teachers ? Teaching is hard work at time I know I do it. Equally many who work even more hours inc antisocial ones manage to get to work and back in much more stressful situations and many are on a less money. If the consultant Anaesthetists and A and E consultant i know can make do without driving to work. 

Both cycle in miles from work Inc snow come what may. The whole point of this development is it's asessablity by other ways it will attract a particular type of person who looking to work in place a bit different. Just as with many other work placers it won't be for everyone but pitched right it will attracted people who are willing to be different. I'd happy work in school with no parking be nice not to have play roulette with the endless rat run of on site traffic in the morning and afternoon. If your wondering would I do it well yes I do 6 mile walk in and 6 mile out. 

Or we carry on and build the developments like the one in my area which gives passing thinking to life without a car and carry on adding to the mess we are already in.


----------



## icowden (21 Jan 2020)

It's interesting in that where I am in leafy Surrey most planning applications get two key complaints:-

"The traffic infrastructure can't cope. There is too much traffic more houses will make it worse"
and
"There is not enough provision for parking - residents will end up crowding onto surrounding roads, making our parking worse"

I'm not sure how you solve those problems. When you look at the plans the developers have followed the rules. There are usually few parking spaces, provision for the car club, a disabled bay and cycle parking. The assumption seems to be that people will just ignore this as you need a car to get about in Surrey (which is true to a degree). I do think that more people need to consider whether they actually need 1 car each. We reduced from a 2 car family to a one car family without too much difficulty.


----------



## classic33 (21 Jan 2020)

tom73 said:


> *I did read about a a new estate in leeds just out side the centre *that was designed with walking and cycling in mind. Building on current links into the centre. No parking unless you wanted to pay 20 grand each for a underground space. The school to be built as part of it is planned with no parking at all. Council got a bit iffy about a school with no parking but developer held in and won't to change it as it's the whole point you won't need any. Just walk or cycle to it.
> 
> Sadly our Council is planning all on green belt a massive 1700 housing deployment inc a school and industrial park. Billed as having active travel in mind it will still have all the normal stuff just with a few "shared paths" thrown in. To top it all off they have now just added to the plan a massive link road to the motorway.


On the site of Seacroft Hospital?


----------



## cyberknight (21 Jan 2020)

We are selling ATM and out choices are restricted as Mrs CK can't drive so these new estates are out of bounds and TBH I wouldn't pay what they are asking for a shoe box anyway


----------



## presta (21 Jan 2020)

Drago said:


> Problem is those share space routes into which motor vehicles are permitted are useless to the blind and partially sighted. Where such roads exist in residential areas the blind become effectively trapped at home. Very badly executed idea.


Hans Monderman's party piece was walking through the middle of a shared space junction with his eyes shut, so what's trapping blind people, the shared space or their own lack of understanding of how it works?


----------



## confusedcyclist (21 Jan 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> lets just stick to a car-centric society then.... anything else is clearly a little too inconvenient.


Exactly, now I'm not one to ever advocate sexism or rigid gender roles, I'm fully in support of liberating women and my wife calls the shots when it comes to where we live and work as she earns the bigger wage, with my blessing of course, but we have to realise what we actually give up when we pursue modernity and market economics to it's very limits. The old ways had their problems. But they also had their benefits, mostly overlooked and long forgotten. It's only now we are starting to see the error of abandoning older social structures and economic models. One (wo)mans liberty is another man's limitation. A huge factor in booming house prices is dual income couples outbidding single earners. It forces anyone with aspirations of home ownership to compete in the market with dual income competition, with all the consequences that seemingly force some into car ownership. Of course, we have more power to shape our own lives than some care to admit, and that's part of the problem too.


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2020)

vickster said:


> Moving closer to this new school may not be feasible or practical for those teachers with established lives elsewhere. Selling and buying property for example can be very expensive and time consuming. They may have their own children in schools who can currently walk or bike there, moving they may no longer do. They may have partners whose own work fits where they currently live, should he or she then have to change jobs or commute? The family may care for or regularly visit elderly relatives close to their current location, there are a lot of scenarios to consider when saying people should just up sticks.
> Not everyone is footloose and fancy free when it comes to choice of employment location. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it would work for anyone.


Those are excuses, not genuine obstacles. No person is ever born that way, popping out of the womb needing a car to drive a lengthy commute. Nope, peoples lifestyle, outlook and level of consumption set these parameters, and these are all decisions wilfully made by adults. People had no choice in the matter prior to the car, and they'll have no choice in the matter again once unfettered private car use without consequence is at last curtailed.

Complaining never saved anyone from anything, complaining is nothing more than a futile attempt to perpetuate a situation for no other reason than it happens to be convenient to an individual, and that dog isn't going to bark much longer.

67 million people have each been getting their own way for too long, and something is about to break in spectacular style. Are you going to complain as the ship sinks from under you, or are you going to get on with the business if swimming, no matter how awkward or inconvenient it may be to any one individual? Once people suddenly have the choice taken away from them they adapt or die.


----------



## Andy in Germany (21 Jan 2020)

MichaelW2 said:


> Given the stiff planning regulations for individuals who build I am constantly amazed at the easy ride given to major housebuilders to build in floodzones, build shoddy quality that fails insulation standards, build pokey little shacks that will become the slums of the future. Its like we learned nothing from the hi rise horrors of 1960s except that hi rise is bad.



Possibly because the rules are often wroitten with "consultation" from "industry": in other words, the industry helps write the rules so it's easy for them and difficult for anyone else to build their own home.


----------



## tom73 (21 Jan 2020)

classic33 said:


> On the site of Seacroft Hospital?


Not sure It was a story I spotted on road cc of all things.


----------



## mjr (21 Jan 2020)

Why is it OK to add time to everyone's commute by allowing more pretty-much-car-only-access workplaces and clogging up roads with 2.5m x (4m + 12m stopping distance) single-occupant vehicles, but not OK to add time to anyone's commute by encouraging them to carshare, cycle or use scheduled mass transport?


----------



## icowden (21 Jan 2020)

Drago said:


> 67 million people have each been getting their own way for too long, and something is about to break in spectacular style.



Personally I remain convinced that self-driving cars are going to be the game changer. Once you can easily summon a car to take you from A to B at a reasonable cost, you no longer need to own a car. Just book one when you need one and it turns up at your house. Then roads can be simplified, driveways turned back to gardens. Autonomous cars can minimise traffic by networking. It's now a matter of "when" and not "if".


----------



## sheddy (21 Jan 2020)

Increase in private motoring = decline of public transport


----------



## Slioch (21 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> Autonomous cars can minimise traffic by networking. It's now a matter of "when" and not "if"



Absolutely agree. The bit I'm not looking forward to though will be the transitional period when other "more vulnerable" road users will be required to take a leap of faith to share the same roadspace with these vehicles. That will be interesting!


----------



## confusedcyclist (21 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> It's now a matter of "when" and not "if".



What makes you so sure?
http://energyskeptic.com/2020/nasa-explains-why-self-driving-cars-may-not-be-in-your-future/

If anything I'd wager that our pending energy crunch will force many back to being rooted in place, there will be little energy to waste on powering 2 tonne steel cages.


----------



## lane (21 Jan 2020)

I was reading s critique of a new housing estate at the weekend which forced reliance on the car. One resident said "we have to drive to KFC and McDonald's".


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2020)

Our local tv were once interviewing mums outside a school and asking them why the drove there.? One said "I've got no choice but to drive - it's a 20 minute walk." I tell you, when the Vatican invades we'll be unable to stop them if that's the example parents set their kids.


----------



## Andy in Germany (21 Jan 2020)

Drago said:


> Those are excuses, not genuine obstacles. No person is ever born that way, popping out of the womb needing a car to drive a lengthy commute. Nope, peoples lifestyle, outlook and level of consumption set these parameters, and these are all decisions wilfully made by adults. People had no choice in the matter prior to the car, and they'll have no choice in the matter again once unfettered private car use without consequence is at last curtailed.



This is something that I find frustrating. When people say "Oh, but I couldn't ............. without my car" or even more annoying "Yes but it's easy for you, you don't need a car" what they actually mean is "I made a set of decisions and in order to live the way I chose, I have to drive a car." I'm not saying that's automatically "bad", but then call it what it is.

I made a set of decisions as well, but I started by deciding I didn't want to drive a car, and that there would also be a cost in that decision. Sometimes it is frustrating when I have to ride to work in the cold or the rain, again, or wait for a bus because I don't want to have to dry off the third time that week, but that's a consequence of my decision. At the moment my choice of places to work has been much reduced because some are either only accessible by car, or they want me to drive. This is a consequence of my decision: I'll survive, but spare me this business about how I'm "lucky" that I don't need a car. It's a conscious choice for all of us.


----------



## Andy in Germany (21 Jan 2020)

confusedcyclist said:


> What makes you so sure?
> http://energyskeptic.com/2020/nasa-explains-why-self-driving-cars-may-not-be-in-your-future/
> 
> If anything I'd wager that our pending energy crunch will force many back to being rooted in place, there will be little energy to waste on powering 2 tonne steel cages.



Aside from that, we already have the "technology" to make our towns safe and pleasant places to live, work and travel. A place where walking and cycling everywhere you need to go is a much more attractive place to live, and we know people have more relationships and a stronger sense of comminuty than places that are clogged by cars. In terms of happiness, it really is a no-brainer. It is also the cheapest and simplest solution.


----------



## Drago (21 Jan 2020)

Andy in Germany said:


> This is something that I find frustrating. When people say "Oh, but I couldn't ............. without my car" or even more annoying "Yes but it's easy for you, you don't need a car" what they actually mean is "I made a set of decisions and in order to live the way I chose, I have to drive a car." I'm not saying that's automatically "bad", but then call it what it is.
> 
> I made a set of decisions as well, but I started by deciding I didn't want to drive a car, and that there would also be a cost in that decision. Sometimes it is frustrating when I have to ride to work in the cold or the rain, again, or wait for a bus because I don't want to have to dry off the third time that week, but that's a consequence of my decision. At the moment my choice of places to work has been much reduced because some are either only accessible by car, or they want me to drive. This is a consequence of my decision: I'll survive, but spare me this business about how I'm "lucky" that I don't need a car. It's a conscious choice for all of us.



Here here. An oft quoted one I hear is "I couldn't live without my car here in the country." Erm, I live there too and do just fine on my bike and, occasionally, the bus.
















PS - before some pedant mentions it I do have a car (well, 2 of them). One I'm keeping as a present for my niece when her birthday rolls around, and then other sits idle for sometimes more than a month at a time and only moves for SAR callouts. Saving live and limb emergency response is the only time I drive it, everything else is my bike and the occasional dollop of public transport.


----------



## tom73 (21 Jan 2020)

One of the things about growing up was my dad being made redundant. Money become a problem so we sold the car. Meaning most of my childhood it was walking or the bus. Unlike most of my mates so I’m happy to mostly be car free.
Even when me and Mrs 73 go out for the it’s normally train or day trip. It’s a a lot less messing about give her a rest she drives enough for work. W e get time to talk and enjoy the ride. plus you get to sleep on the way home.  
We’ve made that choice maybe a bit more cost but lot more enjoyable. Yes we drive for our holiday but once I park the car that’s it till home time. It’s walking , local bus or the odd stream train. Again much better time all round. If only our car could take a rack I’d never be off the bike  

Choices need making or even harden ones will have no say. We need a total rethink sadly we may not have time to do it.


----------



## classic33 (21 Jan 2020)

tom73 said:


> One of the things about growing up was my dad being made redundant. Money become a problem so we sold the car. Meaning most of my childhood it was walking or the bus. Unlike most of my mates so I’m happy to mostly be car free.
> Even when me and Mrs 73 go out for the it’s normally train or day trip. It’s a a lot less messing about give her a rest she drives enough for work. W e get time to talk and enjoy the ride. plus you get to sleep on the way home.
> We’ve made that choice maybe a bit more cost but lot more enjoyable. Yes we drive for our holiday but once I park the car that’s it till home time. It’s walking , local bus or the odd stream train. Again much better time all round. *If only our car could take a rack I’d never be off the bike*
> 
> Choices need making or even harden ones will have no say. We need a total rethink sadly we may not have time to do it.


Don't you think you'd stand out a bit too much?


----------



## tom73 (21 Jan 2020)

@classic33 ?


----------



## classic33 (21 Jan 2020)

tom73 said:


> @classic33 ?


You on the bike, on top of the car.


----------



## Vantage (22 Jan 2020)

I had an argument with a chap in the ctc forum once about his 'need' for the car. 
He said that he needed it as his new job was 45 miles away and to do that twice daily on a bike would kill him. Fair enough. 
But if he hadn't had the car in the first place, would he have looked so far from his home for a job? No. 
But there weren't any local jobs so he had to look further afield. Pah! His car allowed that way of thinking. 
I never once worked further away than 10 miles from home. It took a bit longer to find those jobs but find them I did. 

What amazes me about this is that people from town A travel to town B for a job. 
So people from town B have to travel to town A for a job. 
If people stuck to jobs in their own towns we wouldn't have the car centric society that developed because of the car in the first place. Its madness.


----------



## Andy in Germany (22 Jan 2020)

Vantage said:


> I had an argument with a chap in the ctc forum once about his 'need' for the car.
> He said that he needed it as his new job was 45 miles away and to do that twice daily on a bike would kill him. Fair enough.
> But if he hadn't had the car in the first place, would he have looked so far from his home for a job? No.
> But there weren't any local jobs so he had to look further afield. Pah! His car allowed that way of thinking.
> I never once worked further away than 10 miles from home. It took a bit longer to find those jobs but find them I did.



It looks like I may have to get a job some distance away from where we currently live, which means we may have to move. On the other hand where we live has notoriously high rent costs so that may be all to the good as we currently live in a tiny apartment.

And why does it have such high rental costs? Because we have "good communication links" ie the Autobahn network is nearby and we're near the airport, so we're paying for something we don't use.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> Personally I remain convinced that self-driving cars are going to be the game changer. *Once you can easily summon a car to take you from A to B at a reasonable cost, you no longer need to own a car. Just book one when you need one and it turns up at your house.* Then roads can be simplified, driveways turned back to gardens. Autonomous cars can minimise traffic by networking. It's now a matter of "when" and not "if".


isn't that a taxi?


----------



## mjr (22 Jan 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> isn't that a taxi?


"Reasonable cost" may be the difference, especially if you live out of a big urban area. Taxis often only become reasonably-priced once 3 or 4 share.


----------



## icowden (22 Jan 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> isn't that a taxi?



No. Taxis are expensive, because the driver needs to be paid. Taxis can take too long to turn up. Driverless fleets can work 24 hours a day without rest or error. They can be a *lot* cheaper (well until they become self-aware and form a union ) than taxis.

Ownership of a car is calculated to be around £5.22 per day (£162 per month) not including any purchase finance. It costs £6 to go from my house to the station in a taxi. Driving today would be getting my girls to school, ad-hoc trip to school to deliver forgotten bag and back again, getting my wife to work and back again. In a taxi, this would probably be around £50. 

In a driverless fleet, I can summon a vehicle. Pack the girls into it knowing it is secure, and not worrying about dodgy drivers. Off they go. Wife gets a different vehicle to work and back. I get a vehicle to the school and back for the bag drop. Imagine if each of those trips was under a pound. It would no longer make sense to own a car. Plus, I can summon a driverless for a longer trip or period of time, knowing that when I am not using it, it will toddle off and continue working. Emissions are reduced, many many less vehicles need to be made. Most cars sit around doing absolutely nothing. 

My car will sit on my drive for 20 out of 24 hours today. We have millions of vehicles doing nothing. Imagine reducing to hundreds of thousands, but all working. Many less parking facilities and spaces needed. No parking charges. No parking tickets. Better road safety. No drunk / drugged / incompetent drivers.

It's the future I tell ya!!


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jan 2020)

if driverless cabs become the norm... i think you'll both be a tad disgruntled at the cost per journey


----------



## lane (22 Jan 2020)

The fact is most car use is between a short 2 hour window mornings and night. Everyone would want a car at the same time there would be very little reduction in numbers. When you take the girls to school everyone else is wanting a cat at the same time.


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Jan 2020)

We need to get back into the general mindset of allowing kids to walk to and from school. It's better for their health and the environment.


----------



## Andy in Germany (22 Jan 2020)

lane said:


> The fact is most car use is between a short 2 hour window mornings and night. Everyone would want a car at the same time there would be very little reduction in numbers. When you take the girls to school everyone else is wanting a cat at the same time.



This could have a number of consequences/possible problems:


There will either have to be a surplus built into the system, which will increase the price per kilometre, and meaning there will not be a massive reduction in vehicles overall, and/or there's simply not enough vehicles at peak times.
This will either leave a lot of people disgruntled at the price, or a lot of people without transport, or those who can afford it will pay a premium to get a car at peak times.
This also leaves a practical problem: all those cars will need recharging at once, assuming they are battery powered, so there will be a big increase in energy demand twice a day, in fact this is about the same time as we already have peaks, compounding the problem.
Availability or cost issues will lead a lot of people to look for alternatives, either cycling, public transport or a non-autonomous car. These people could potentially be excluded from the more desirable jobs (Or indeed any job, see below).
So at this point, unless there is separate infrastructure for at least private vehicles and public transport/active transport, buses and cars will still get stuck in traffic at peak times: and users of other transport forms will be disadvantaged for the benefit of the relatively small number of people able to afford to use the new system.

Unfortunately a belief in "Technology" has become in many ways an alternative religion, so people are told the next big technological advance will solve the problems caused by the last big technological advance, and the process repeats itself.

Instead of building automatic vehicles and making our towns for them, it would be far cheaper, easier, and more pleasant just to make use of technology we already have, and design neighbourhoods that everyone can access by walking and cycling, and connect these by public transport...


----------



## lane (22 Jan 2020)

Virtually every transport system in the world suffers from a problem of "peak demand" either increasing prices or resulting in congestion - no matter if it is rail, car, bus or air. Any peak demand built into the system will inevitably result in either one of these issues whatever the mode.


----------



## lane (22 Jan 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> We need to get back into the general mindset of allowing kids to walk to and from school. It's better for their health and the environment.



Partly mindset but also investment in infrastructure to make it possible. I have posted previously suspend all expenditure on road schemes for 5 years and invest in cycling infrastructure by which time we should have the best in the world. At very little real cost because most road improvement schemes ultimately achieve XXXX all.


----------



## icowden (22 Jan 2020)

MontyVeda said:


> We need to get back into the general mindset of allowing kids to walk to and from school. It's better for their health and the environment.



In order to do that you have to live close enough to the school. For us it's a 15 minute drive but about 90 minutes walk (about 5 miles). Plus with the amount of gear they have to bring to and from (instruments, pe kits, swimming kit, huge amounts of school books) walking just isn't a feasible option. Cycling might be on some days but the route is too dangerous at present.

We don't have any useful public transport in that direction. Even the school bus network is too far from us to be useful, and would be more expensive than driving.


----------



## lane (22 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> In order to do that you have to live close enough to the school. For us it's a 15 minute drive but about 90 minutes walk (about 5 miles). Plus with the amount of gear they have to bring to and from (instruments, pe kits, swimming kit, huge amounts of school books) walking just isn't a feasible option. Cycling might be on some days but the route is too dangerous at present.
> 
> We don't have any useful public transport in that direction. Even the school bus network is too far from us to be useful, and would be more expensive than driving.




It's all your fault you should have made sure you live right next door to the school or just not had any children. Shame on you.


----------



## Andy in Germany (22 Jan 2020)

lane said:


> Virtually every transport system in the world suffers from a problem of "peak demand" either increasing prices or resulting in congestion - no matter if it is rail, car, bus or air. Any peak demand built into the system will inevitably result in either one of these issues whatever the mode.



This problem already exists, of course, my point is that with this 'solution', unless you deliberately price people out, you are investing a lot of money for a whole lot of nothing: all the above problems you mention are compounded because we're dealing with lots of vehicles, so they wouldn't reduce congestion, while effectively excluding many people from travelling because they will fill existing roads.

If we're going to invest millions in solving a problem, then making our towns accessible for active travel and improving public transport, which can move many more people along a given road per hour, is far more sensible than pouring it into yet another new technology.


----------



## tom73 (22 Jan 2020)

So much research is going into climate change but one key part is missing. In the Uk it turns out only 2% is going into Social science. Which as a SS Grad is puzzling without really knowing why people make the choices they do you can't start to change them. Many now know they need to change but very few do. Many say I wolund if ... or I'd pay more for... But most won't no party get's to power who say's we will but tax up and give it to ...... 

We are for sure going to need sticks as well carrots unless we really understand why society continues to carry on the way it is. 
We can't work out which sticks will work and with which social groups. Many pushed for a sugar tax without really understand it's effects.
The fact that it's bring in more money than they thought say most are willing to pay it. Equally they really only effect the ones who can't afford it but have no choice to pay it. Equally we can't fully understand which carrots really work and which just end up as an easy way for big boys to make even more out of public money.


----------



## Drago (22 Jan 2020)

Sticks, big sticks, are what is required. The problem is that the people who are able to wield a big stick have a vested interest in getting themselves elected again in 5 years, so their view is very short and their actions often acquiesce to the electorate. An independent is what's required, created with cross part support, and given sweeping powers to do what is required without fear of electoral backlash. Democracy is nice when the going is good, but jf the public won't act at a time of existential crisis then a benign dictatorship is what is necessary.

Alas, none of this will ever happen. As the last house is engulfed by rising g sea levels the owner, with their last breath, will complain that they needed the car to get to work 4 miles away.


----------



## rogerzilla (22 Jan 2020)

I'm not sure why people buy these houses. I looked at one on a new estate. Parking hell even on a weekday lunchtime. Bought a 1980s house with plenty of parking space for £50,000 less.


----------



## classic33 (22 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> In order to do that you have to live close enough to the school. For us it's a 15 minute drive but about 90 minutes walk (about 5 miles). Plus with the amount of gear they have to bring to and from (instruments, pe kits, swimming kit, huge amounts of school books) walking just isn't a feasible option. Cycling might be on some days but the route is too dangerous at present.


Lived three miles, straight line distance, from the school, but walked to and from school daily for the last two years I was there. Crossing a busy "A" road, in an area known for it's accident rate. Never bothered me, but walking has been given the "unsafe" tag.


----------



## Drago (22 Jan 2020)

rogerzilla said:


> I'm not sure why people buy these houses. I looked at one on a new estate. Parking hell even on a weekday lunchtime. Bought a 1980s house with plenty of parking space for £50,000 less.


Lego boxes, houses for those with no imagination and low expectations.


----------



## Tom B (23 Jan 2020)

One estate near where I used to live built in the late 90s early 00s has a through walking route (but not through to vehicles) to a school.

Yet they built the lawns down to the road with no pavement. Okay it's a quietish road but with 50odd houses. How was that ever allowed? 

I walked across the lawns.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2020)

Tom B said:


> One estate near where I used to live built in the late 90s early 00s has a through walking route (but not through to vehicles) to a school.
> 
> Yet they built the lawns down to the road with no pavement. Okay it's a quietish road but with 50odd houses. How was that ever allowed?
> 
> I walked across the lawns.


Why didn't you walk on the road? I suspect it was a "home zone" where that was the intention.


----------



## Tom B (23 Jan 2020)

I've said it before but the age of travel is going to come to an end. The idea of living in Blackpool and working in Manchester and driving will come to and end.

The idea of a cheap weekend flight break will be over and foreign holidays less frequent.

We will become less car dependant and live work and play much closer to home. Someone mentioned that they drive their kids 5 miles to school, once again school buses will become the norm and people will stop making excuses and get on with it. When I was at school in the 90s my mate got a bus to town then The school bus complete with school bag, violin case and PE kit. My neighbours kids made the reverse trip to faith to an RC school. Forgotten schoolbags tough, use scrap paper, borrow / use lost and found PE kit etc. Life lesson


Anyway.. when oil dries up and less oil is refined with less waste product, aiui there will be less bitumin around what will they surface the roads with anyway.


----------



## Tom B (23 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> Why didn't you walk on the road? I suspect it was a "home zone" where that was the intention.



I was an angsty youth full of angsty youthful indignation about the absence of a pavement and it was my way of rebelling. Obviously they took immediate note and built pavements.

I get the homezone intention there was however no signage that I recall and little room for two cars passing. I thought and still think it's poor, albeit with good intentions.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2020)

Tom B said:


> I get the homezone intention there was however no signage that I recall and little room for two cars passing. I thought and still think it's poor, albeit with good intentions.


Government has a bad habit of only signposting such things where motorists enter.

Good intentions, indeed! Where has that taken us? All together now: this ain't no upwardly-mobile highway...


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Jan 2020)

Just checked, and the Elder Son's school was 10km away, while the other two attend one 6 km distant. They travel by public transport or bike depending on mood. This is entirely normal here, and schoolkids get a very reasonably priced all modes/all zones pass for Stuttgart, usable 24/7.

We are frequently told that we aren't "mobile" but the boys are more independent and know their way around Stuttgart better than many of their car-shuttled peers, because if they want to visit someone or go somewhere they just take public transport instead of having to wait until the parental taxi/driver is available.

Incidentally, Stuttgart is considered pretty mediocre for public transport in Germany, so it doesn't take _that _much to make car free life possible.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (23 Jan 2020)

Tom B said:


> I was an angsty youth full of angsty youthful indignation about the absence of a pavement and it was my way of rebelling. Obviously they took immediate note and built pavements.



Pavements are just another example of the tyranny of the motor car. Roads were originally for walking on. The whole width. Pavements only came about after the motoring lobby wanted those on foot confined to the very edges. Nothing should halt the progress of the motorist!

The space has been stolen and we want it back!


----------



## Drago (23 Jan 2020)

I had a 3.5 mile walk each way to school. No matter the weather, there were no excuses- thigh deep snow was considered no justification for turning up late or having a day off. 5 decades on and most adults probably don't walk that far in a week.


----------



## Andy in Germany (23 Jan 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Pavements are just another example of the tyranny of the motor car. Roads were originally for walking on. The whole width. Pavements only came about after the motoring lobby wanted those on foot confined to the very edges. Nothing should halt the progress of the motorist!
> 
> The space has been stolen and we want it back!



And now they are used for parking because obviously motorists are more important because...

I think this about pedestrian lights as well: why am I standing here pressing a button? surely the car drivers should be the ones to stop and have to ask permission to proceed.

Worse, German junction lights work to a sequence and the button is often a placebo; to add potential injury to insult, cars turning right can turn when pedestrians have a green light, in the expectation that they will wait. To me this means that whenever you cross legally there's likely to be a car coming, so I have a habit of crossing when there's a gap in the traffic regardless of the light colour on the basis no cars at all is safer than a turning car that may or may not stop.

Now I think about it, there's a pedestrian/cycle crossing light in Esslingen that at least senses you approaching and changes so you don't have to wait, but even so...


----------



## Drago (23 Jan 2020)

Funnily enough I was at a light controlled bike crossing in Northampton today and had exactly the same thought about crossing priorities. I also believe the button does nothing at all, no matter when you press it the sequence remains identical.


----------



## classic33 (23 Jan 2020)

Drago said:


> Funnily enough I was at a light controlled bike crossing in Northampton today and had exactly the same thought about crossing priorities. I also believe the button does nothing at all, no matter when you press it the sequence remains identical.


We're due to get the first "super crossing", sometime before 2023. Pedestrian controlled on a five way junction. 

Should go down well.


----------



## mjr (23 Jan 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Pavements are just another example of the tyranny of the motor car. Roads were originally for walking on. The whole width. Pavements only came about after the motoring lobby wanted those on foot confined to the very edges. Nothing should halt the progress of the motorist!
> 
> The space has been stolen and we want it back!


Not exactly. The law prohibiting driving and cycling on footways is the Highways Act 1835 which predates the earliest motorists. 

But I suspect pavements became much more common after the start of the motoring boom.


----------



## classic33 (23 Jan 2020)

Those who rant at cyclists for pavement riding tend not to rant at motorists committing the exact some offence. The offence was introduced in 1835. While all other parts of the 1835 Highway Act have been either amended or repealed, clause 72 remains in force. It’s a juicy one:

_“If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon.”_

The key phrase is “carriage of any description”. That is a cover-all that is still in force. Motor cars were classed as carriages in the 1903 Motor Car Act; bicycles were so classified in 1888.


----------



## DaveReading (23 Jan 2020)

Andy in Germany said:


> To me this means that whenever you cross legally there's likely to be a car coming, so I have a habit of crossing when there's a gap in the traffic regardless of the light colour on the basis no cars at all is safer than a turning car that may or may not stop.



Are they no longer so hot on jaywalking in Germany as they used to be ?


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2020)

classic33 said:


> While all other parts of the 1835 Highway Act have been either amended or repealed, [...]


Only two other sections remain in force and they've only had bits removed rather than substantial amendments. Section 5 defines "highway" in law still today, while section 78 requires people to drive on the left. Strangely, almost no one rants about these being outdated Hanoverian (not even Victorian, as they're before 1837) traffic laws that need replacing...


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Jan 2020)

DaveReading said:


> Are they no longer so hot on jaywalking in Germany as they used to be ?



I get some pretty high-voltage scowls sometimes, I know that.

One particularly grumpy person told me "They'll take your licence if you're caught" but as I've not driven a car in years and don't ever intend to do so, that's not my greatest concern.



Drago said:


> Funnily enough I was at a light controlled bike crossing in Northampton today and had exactly the same thought about crossing priorities. I also believe the button does nothing at all, no matter when you press it the sequence remains identical.



I've experimented by not pressing the button on a couple of junction crossings locally* and found they reacted exactly the same way, so now I wait well back from the traffic (If you look at videos of traffic light crashes most of them end up with cars skidding to the corners, right where pedestrians are supposed to wait) until they change of their own accord.

_*To compensate for a lack of a social life_.


----------



## Tom B (24 Jan 2020)

Drago said:


> Funnily enough I was at a light controlled bike crossing in Northampton today and had exactly the same thought about crossing priorities. I also believe the button does nothing at all, no matter when you press it the sequence remains identical.



Last summer noticed that one of TFGMs upgraded beelines simple road pelican tooucan crossing at the end of a cycle route took an age to change to red when the button was press. This is not what beelines is all about I though, so I fired off a fault report.

In fairness they sent an engineer out who tested the crossing and replies directly to me statiing that the crossing as encountered by me had a 90 second delay from button being pressed to the red sequence starting.

He took my point and apologeticly changed it to a 60 second delay if there had been be red within 2/3mins.

The reasoning is to allow people crossing to build up and avoid too many changes and stopping the traffic too often. In practice you stand there on your own waiting like a turkey for Christmas and In reality people don't wait, they chance their arm and cross. 

I dunno I sort of seems like it's paying lip service to the notion of prioritising cycling and walking without actually doing it.

I have issues with the bee lines project anyway, mainly that there is no money for ongoing maintenance which falls to local authorities. The same local authorities that can't afford to repaint a 100m cycle lane or an asl box.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2020)

Tom B said:


> The same local authorities that can't afford to repaint a 100m cycle lane or an asl box.


Yet strangely find millions to repair carriageways? It's won't pay, not can't afford. Arguably there should be some dedicated maintenance funding to bypass that broken decision but it's not "can't afford".

Traffic lights... Ah, traffic lights. In theory the crossing can default green until vehicles are detected but in practice 90+% of them wait the maximum 66 seconds between button push and green, unless they change when they detect a gap in motorists (and most people have crossed anyway) or the button's a placebo that just lights up a "WAIT" symbol. I've complained in the past and basically been told the timing won't be changed because it'd limit the number of motorists who can get through and people crossing can treat the red man as "give way" if they want. Noone seems to care that the most vulnerable people are left standing at the kerb where motorists often crash for about a minute at each arm of a junction that they cross.


----------



## Andy in Germany (24 Jan 2020)

Tom B said:


> *The reasoning is to allow people crossing to build up and avoid too many changes and stopping the traffic too often.* In practice you stand there on your own waiting like a turkey for Christmas and In reality people don't wait, they chance their arm and cross.
> 
> I dunno I sort of seems like it's paying lip service to the notion of prioritising cycling and walking without actually doing it.



In other words to inconvenience pedestrians and cyclists and prioritise motor vehicles, then grudgingly stop motor vehicles for the shortest possible time so they don't have their Very Important Journeys delayed too much.

I've often said that traffic light junctions aren't there for pedestrians: they are there marginalise pedestrians and keep them out of the way.


----------



## icowden (24 Jan 2020)

There is a good article here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23869955

The upshot is that if a pedestrian crossing is at a junction, the crossing is likely to be automated during the busiest times (e.g. 7am to 7pm) and to be on "manual" during quieter times. So most of the time for most people, most crossing buttons are inactive. This is to enable better traffic management.


----------



## icowden (24 Jan 2020)

Tom B said:


> Someone mentioned that they drive their kids 5 miles to school, once again school buses will become the norm and people will stop making excuses and get on with it.



It was me - and I pointed out that the stop for the school bus is about 2.5 miles away. On top of that it would be more expensive to pay for the school bus than to drive the extra 10 minutes to the school. For kids living much further away, the majority actually get the school bus. It's just the poor local infrastructure that is the problem, and that the closer you are, the less cost effective a school bus becomes.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> [...] So most of the time for most people, most crossing buttons are inactive. This is to enable better traffic management.


And that is the normal Orwellian definition of "traffic" to exclude foot and cycle traffic, so the most efficient use of space is discouraged and the construction industry paid to bury moreof the countryside under wasteful acres of tarmac that is mostly unoccupied by people.


----------



## icowden (24 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> And that is the normal Orwellian definition of "traffic" to exclude foot and cycle traffic...



Not sure Orwell ever defined traffic. Traffic control and traffic signals significantly pre-date the invention of the motor-car. Pretty much all "roads" whether paved or not, were based on commerce and movement of goods. You can't really complain therefore that existing road infrastructure favours the automobile having been based on pre-existing road structures. 

The disadvantage of being an "old" country is that our roads were seldom planned to be efficient and spacious. They were the tracks around fields or the major safe routes between towns and cities. It's only when you go to much more newly settled countries like the USA where you find vast wide roads created specifically for the motor car.

The difference that is now starting to happen is that we are finding ways to finally reduce the number of cars and find other ways of travelling.To wind back from convenience to improve our health.


----------



## mjr (24 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> Not sure Orwell ever defined traffic.


Maybe not, but if his Ministry of Truth had defined it, it would probably be to only include one blessed type of vehicle and not count people or goods, wouldn't it?



icowden said:


> Traffic control and traffic signals significantly pre-date the invention of the motor-car. Pretty much all "roads" whether paved or not, were based on commerce and movement of goods. You can't really complain therefore that existing road infrastructure favours the automobile having been based on pre-existing road structures.


Where the old structures survive, they're sometimes not so bad and just need the odd bollard to stop through motoring, especially in towns, but current road infrastructure has often obliterated pre-existing road structures when it's been deliberately suboptimised to favour automobilists. Looking at two roads near me where one cyclist died this morning and another cycleway user was seriously injured last night, one is a cheapskate-quasi-motorway cut fresh through green fields without even footways, while the other is now a nine-lane monster that has gobbled up almost all of the common of the nearest village. I think it's pretty valid to complain that they are motorist-favouring screwups which should be undone.


----------



## confusedcyclist (24 Jan 2020)

Part of the problem is, we live in an economy where it isn't always easy to live without a car, in a market economy you have to compete and take every advantage, or your products gets squeezed out. It's a race to the bottom, and so our roads. Until we acknowledge this, nothing will change. We need an economy that thrives on slack, not taut competition for comparative advantage. It's no wonder under such social arrangement no one cares to think about the harm our transport policies cause.


----------



## Drago (25 Jan 2020)

The people that do live without a car do just fine. The people that are too lazy too seek any alternative make excuses.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (25 Jan 2020)

icowden said:


> Not sure Orwell ever defined traffic. Traffic control and traffic signals significantly pre-date the invention of the motor-car.



Can you give some examples of this with dates please?

Thanks.


----------



## mjr (26 Jan 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Can you give some examples of this with dates please?


1868 - first traffic light installed.
1869 - first traffic light exploded, injuring nearby policeman.
1881 - Trouvé's electric automobile demonstrated.
1885 - Benz Motorwagen built.


----------



## classic33 (26 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> 1868 - first traffic light installed.
> 1869 - first traffic light exploded, injuring nearby policeman.
> 1881 - Trouvé's electric automobile demonstrated.
> 1885 - Benz Motorwagen built.


_"Before traffic lights, traffic police controlled the flow of traffic. A well-documented example is that on London Bridge in 1722."_

Mary Ward, killed in 1869.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> 1868 - first traffic light installed.
> 1869 - first traffic light exploded, injuring nearby policeman.
> 1881 - Trouvé's electric automobile demonstrated.
> 1885 - Benz Motorwagen built.



Didn‘t realise you are also icowden. Either way, I’d say 13 years between first TL and first car does not class as a significantly pre dates.

Besides, having just checked, first car was 1769. 99 years before first traffic light.

Main point is, we all know that if we remove motorised traffic from roads we can also remove traffic lights. The mass spread of traffic lights is primarily down to motorised traffic.

Plus that is traffic lights what about pelican or toucan crossings? Did they exist in any great number before the car?


----------



## Wodman (26 Jan 2020)

As a lifelong “greenie” and cyclist, it sticks in the craw a bit to be told how simple it is to live near to your workplace. I run a business in the New Forest and can’t afford half a million plus for a three bed semi near to work, so have to live twenty miles away in Dorset, where house prices are near half that. A three hour, 40 mile bus trip (on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays) doesn’t really work.

I have been waiting twenty years for a job to come up locally that doesn’t involve a fifty per cent pay cut....

ln another ten years I look forward to retiring and spending time on Internet forums telling everyone how they should live their lives in a perfect world, rather than having to make the best of the excuse for an integrated transport system that currently exists.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Jan 2020)

Tom B said:


> Last summer noticed that one of TFGMs upgraded beelines simple road pelican tooucan crossing at the end of a cycle route took an age to change to red when the button was press. This is not what beelines is all about I though, so I fired off a fault report.
> 
> In fairness they sent an engineer out who tested the crossing and replies directly to me statiing that the crossing as encountered by me had a 90 second delay from button being pressed to the red sequence starting.
> 
> ...



Why not let the motorised traffic build up rather than inconvenience pedestrians and cyclists?


----------



## Tom B (26 Jan 2020)

You may well ask. Any stopped MPV traffic usually catches up to the rest of the traffic at the major junction towards town or at one of the numerous side junctions heading the opposite way.

I'd sort of accept a delay if it only occured if the button was pressed a few seconds after the last red cycle finished.


----------



## Drago (26 Jan 2020)

The people causing the delays should suffer. Every effort should be made to smooth the way for those who don't gridlock the roads.


----------



## mjr (26 Jan 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Didn‘t realise you are also icowden. Either way, I’d say 13 years between first TL and first car does not class as a significantly pre dates.


I didn't realise your message was meant to be a private conversation and you'd posted it in the wrong place.

I'll correct the other mistakes in the message after an insignificant delay, if I'm still alive and remember.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (26 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> I didn't realise your message was meant to be a private conversation and you'd posted it in the wrong place.
> 
> I'll correct the other mistakes in the message after an insignificant delay, if I'm still alive and remember.



I was responding to icowden as I’d quoted him. Besides your dates for first car we’re out by 100 years 😂


----------



## confusedcyclist (27 Jan 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> Main point is, we all know that if we remove motorised traffic from roads we can also remove traffic lights. The mass spread of traffic lights is primarily down to motorised traffic.


Primarily, yes. But the Netherlands still has to use traffic lights to signal congested cycle paths in densely populated urban areas. We can perhaps cope without them in quieter areas, and maybe outside peak times in the dense areas, but not always. Even large crowds of pedestrians, particularly during events, need to be sufficiently controlled otherwise there is a real risk of fatal crushing. Signals may well be human, not electronic lighting, but it's still traffic management of sorts. Of course, these are problems of large urban conurbations and metropolises, and not your typical market town.


----------



## mjr (27 Jan 2020)

YukonBoy said:


> I was responding to icowden as I’d quoted him. Besides your dates for first car we’re out by 100 years 😂


No, it wasn't. A steam engine is not a car, just as a policeman directing traffic is not a traffic light. You have to draw the line somewhere sensible, else the first car is probably before Christ!


----------



## classic33 (27 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> No, it wasn't. A steam engine is not a car, just as a policeman directing traffic is not a traffic light. You have to draw the line somewhere sensible, else the first car is probably before Christ!


Explain Mary Ward, Kings County then.


----------



## Milkfloat (27 Jan 2020)

classic33 said:


> Explain Mary Ward, Kings County then.


A steam powered vehicle with a limit of 4 mph in the countryside and 2 mph in urban areas is quite a bit away from the modern idea of a car 

As a side note - the first passenger carrying self propelled vehicle in 1803 was run on closed roads in London, so already a sign of the motorists view of might is right. After that first run, they crashed it and the idea was given up for monay years.


----------



## icowden (27 Jan 2020)

classic33 said:


> Explain Mary Ward, Kings County then.



I think when we talk about infrastructure for cars we are really talking about the birth of mass produced cars in 1913, rather than occasional steam powered vehicles. Roads at the time of Mary ward would have predominantly been filled with horse pulled carts and carriages (or just horses). Traffic control was still required, just using people rather than traffic lights.

With the mass production of cars, suddenly fully surfaced roads start being a requirement. Speeds start to quickly increase, and traffic lights start saving money. Then we get the development of the electric circuit along side and the invention of the microchip which again explodes growth of traffic management which can be done more effectively and on a far greater scale from a control centre (usually).

Going back to the "point" (which has now almost been completely lost in a debate about the history of the motor car). Routes in the UK have a long history. We have roman roads. In "newer" countries such as the US, new cities were designed pretty much alongside the motor car rather than being based on existing farmland and residential areas. Sure they may have re purposed some native american routes, but most US towns and cities were/ are built using a grid system, and as there is lots of land, it tends to be a widely spaced one.

So UK roads weren't designed for cars, just re-purposed for them. Hence they can tend to be narrow, twisty, illogical etc. I agree with @mjr and @YukonBoy that lots more could be done to improve roads for all users, and that designing idiotic cycle lanes isn't a good solution (plenty of those around me).


----------



## Ming the Merciless (27 Jan 2020)

mjr said:


> No, it wasn't. A steam engine is not a car, just as a policeman directing traffic is not a traffic light. You have to draw the line somewhere sensible, else the first car is probably before Christ!



It was a car the engine happened to be steam but just as with modern cars the engine is often an ICU. The type of engine doesn’t change whether it was a car.


----------



## Johnno260 (7 Feb 2020)

They’re planning to increase my village by over 50% it’s a joke, in the town hall meeting they pitched it to us as almost all trips will be done using the existing sustainable cycle paths, there are zero paths. 

there were three avid cyclists in the meeting and the guy was quickly shot down in flames, it got worse though as he said traffic increase would be a min as traffic was clocked going avg 40mph through the village, so 40 in a 30 is ok? lol


----------



## Mike_P (7 Feb 2020)

I cannot wait to see what happens locally to me, North Yorkshire proposed a relief road for Harrogate which went to a public vote and the majority opposed it in favour apparently of sustainable transport measures. Suspect the vast majority voted against the road and not for the sustainable stuff. Wait till they find out the sustainable measures mean deterring car use


----------

