Petition

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

Erik Sandblom said:

Den 2007-01-16 09:24:04 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:
> Erik Sandblom wrote:
>> These numbers include deaths related to freight trains, but not tram
>> or metro.
>> As you can see, 40% of "railway accidents" are arguably road accidents.
> LOL. Yes, in the same way that many "road accidents", such as those
> on zebra crossings, pavements, pelican crossings etc. are 'footpath'
> accidents! now you see how ridiculous that claim was!
Cars are required to stop at pelican crossings and rail crossings. If
they fail to do so, and there's a crash, that's a road accident, isn't it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As are pedestrians faced with a 'red man' at a pelican crossing,

Quoted message said:

That is not true and you know it

The highway code rule 22 (Pelican crossings) says: "When the red figure
shows, do not cross."

Now please explain why you think that my statement is not true, without
resorting to weasel words about the legal standing of the highway code,
or the phrase 'do not' compared to '*must not*'.

--
Matt B

Den 2007-01-19 10:54:03 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

Given that cars are more dangerous

Completely untrue - in the UK at least.

2005 figures for vehicle involvement rates in collisions resulting in
fatal or serious casualties (rate per 100 million vehicle km) [1]:

Light goods vehicles - 3.3
Heavy goods vehicles - 7
Cars - 8
Buses and coaches - 22
Pedal cycle - 57
Motorcycle - 127

You see that buses, coaches, pedal cycles and motorcycles are all /more/
dangerous per km.

Yes, Road Casualties Great Britain 2005, table 10. Interesting. Even so,
just three people in the bus for every person in the car will make the bus
safer per passenger-kilometre.

Look at table 52, Passenger deaths per billion passenger kilometres:
Air: 0,0
Rail: 0,2
Bus or Coach: 0,4
Car: 2,5

This doesn't take into account non-passengers being hit, but it shows that
more passengers in each vehicle make it safer per passenger-kilometre.

Cycle and pedestrian deaths are worse, but those numbers are meaningless
unless we know how many of the deaths are the result of being hit by a car.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and noisier

I'd say trains, buses and motor bikes are far noisier.

A bus might be twice as noisy as a car, but carries ten times as many
passengers. Then take bikes, which are much less noisy. Planes are noisy
at take-off, but noiseless over vast distances. So, with the exception of
motorcycles, cars are the noisiest form of transportation.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and less efficient

A one occupant car, say 25% occupancy, is less efficient than a 100%
occupancy bus or train - that is probably true. Similarly a 25%
occupancy train or bus is less efficient than a 100% occupancy car.

Actually a full car is less efficient than a half-empty train.

Let's say a car uses 0,07 litres of gasoline/petrol per kilometre. Each
litre contains 9,1 kWh of energy, so that's 637 watt-hours per kilometre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megajoule

A Swedish electric train uses 143 watt-hours per passenger-kilometre
(including losses in transmission), so even with four people in the car,
the car is less efficient. The 143 watts are for the average of all
Swedish trains, and they average about 40-50% occupancy.

http://www.banverket.se/templates/StandardTtH____3853.asp

A simpler number is that Swedish diesel trains use 0,007 litres of diesel
per seat-kilometre. Occupancy averages 40%. Do the math yourself :-)
page 38:
http://www.sika-institute.se/Doclib/Import/106/pm_2005_16.pdf

Even a modern short-haul efficient 180-seat airplane emits 130g carbon
dioxide per passenger at 80% occupancy, making it more efficient than one
person in a car.
http://sasems.port.se/
http://www.carbonneutral.com/cncalculators/flightcalculator.asp

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

being a liberal means curtailing unecessary driving.

Why?

Like I said, driving is the noisiest, most dangerous, and least
energy-efficient form of transport. These disadvantages all affect people
outside the car. Being a liberal does not mean being anti-social.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

Erik Sandblom said:

Den 2007-01-19 10:54:03 skrev Matt B <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

Given that cars are more dangerous

Completely untrue - in the UK at least.

2005 figures for vehicle involvement rates in collisions resulting in
fatal or serious casualties (rate per 100 million vehicle km) [1]:

Light goods vehicles - 3.3
Heavy goods vehicles - 7
Cars - 8
Buses and coaches - 22
Pedal cycle - 57
Motorcycle - 127

You see that buses, coaches, pedal cycles and motorcycles are all
/more/ dangerous per km.

Yes, Road Casualties Great Britain 2005, table 10. Interesting. Even so,
just three people in the bus for every person in the car will make the
bus safer per passenger-kilometre.

As a vulnerable road user the vehicle rate, not the passenger rate is
more indicative of danger. I no more want to be hit by a full bus than
an empty bus. What I need to know is by bus km.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and noisier

I'd say trains, buses and motor bikes are far noisier.

A bus might be twice as noisy as a car, but carries ten times as many
passengers.

Again, I'd rather the continuous quiet hum of car traffic to the
intermittent roar of buses or, or worse still trains.

Quoted message said:

Then take bikes, which are much less noisy. Planes are noisy
at take-off, but noiseless over vast distances. So, with the exception
of motorcycles, cars are the noisiest form of transportation.

Indoors you can hardly hear cars. The whole house vibrates when a bus
passes, and the ornaments can rattle of shelves when a train passes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and less efficient

A one occupant car, say 25% occupancy, is less efficient than a 100%
occupancy bus or train - that is probably true. Similarly a 25%
occupancy train or bus is less efficient than a 100% occupancy car.

Actually a full car is less efficient than a half-empty train.

Electric train, or the much more prolific (and filthy) diesel?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

being a liberal means curtailing unecessary driving.

Why?

Like I said, driving is the noisiest, most dangerous, and least
energy-efficient form of transport.

You may well have said, but it is by no means true. We have seen that
cars are safer per km than the others, and the 'noise' less intrusive,
efficiency is even debatable.

Quoted message said:

These disadvantages all affect
people outside the car. Being a liberal does not mean being anti-social.

Given that the disadvantages are worse for bus and train you can see why
the charge of "anti-social" cannot stick.

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke said:

They would not be 'cheaper' local routes. They'd be 'more expensive'
local routes, if the traffic switched to them. If you don't understand
that, you don't understand how the proposed scheme works: it tracks
congestion, and charges dynamically.

You're assuming that *all* the traffic would shift. I think that's
pretty unlikely.

What you would find is that whereas now a handful of drivers will dive
off the congested main route onto a back road to avoid the traffic
jam, when drivers sitting it the jam are having to pay for the
privilege, it will be more like a couple of fistfuls who look for
alternative routes. Not enough to overcrowd the back roads to the
level of high charges, but enough to make them quite unpleasant for
people living and cycling along them.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Erik Sandblom said:

Then there's the fact that many places on the road network are notorious
for jams at particular times of day. The majority of people stuck in those
jams actually knew in advance that they were likely to get stuck. It seems
the principle of individual free choice breaks down here.

My big issue would be that the traffic jams on my daily commute seem
to be completely random. On consecutive days mid-week, in similar
weather and at the same time, four different stretches of road can
easily be independently free-flowing or a 5-minute traffic jam. That
means my journey typically takes about 45 minutes, but anything from
40 to 60 is not unusual.

So, a random bad day could bump my "congestion charge" up by over a
fiver if the charges are dynamic, which doesn't seem entirely fair!

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

Den 2007-01-21 19:53:12 skrev Stevie D <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Erik Sandblom said:

Then there's the fact that many places on the road network are notorious
for jams at particular times of day. The majority of people stuck in
those
jams actually knew in advance that they were likely to get stuck. It
seems
the principle of individual free choice breaks down here.

My big issue would be that the traffic jams on my daily commute seem
to be completely random. On consecutive days mid-week, in similar
weather and at the same time, four different stretches of road can
easily be independently free-flowing or a 5-minute traffic jam. That
means my journey typically takes about 45 minutes, but anything from
40 to 60 is not unusual.

So, a random bad day could bump my "congestion charge" up by over a
fiver if the charges are dynamic, which doesn't seem entirely fair!

Still, if you have a recurring congestion problem, a congestion charge
would help. It sounds like traffic is generally running quite close to the
capacity ceiling, say 90%. I imagine the charge should be quite low, say
fifty pence, every weekday at certain times. That might push down capacity
usage to say 80-85% from 90%, giving a very large reduction in the number
of jams. You just edge usage down from the sensitive maximum capacity a
little, that's all that's required.

The London congestion charge is much higher than fifty pence, but as I
understand it, the charge had to be much higher since the jams were more
or less permanent. The jams you're talking about, a few times per week,
would require much smaller charges to be dispersed.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies