They're back!

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:02:54 +0100, Matt B <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Chris Johns said:

Matt B said:

Hehe. Like more hospital waiting lists are caused by too many ill
people. There never used to be waiting lists in the good old days ;-)
More roads

There probably weren't. There were less treatements available, so more
people would have died from things we can now treat.

Ah, we have to allow for progress, yes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

/may/ free latent demand, but who are we to deny those who wish to use
the roads that right? A cursory look at traffic levels and road
provision shows

What 'right'?

As we all know, you could be forgiven for concluding that, practically,
and perceptually, our system actually gives the motorist more rights
than pedestrians, what with the way roads are delineated with kerbs, and
pedestrians are provided with 'pedestrian crossings', and they have to
stop look left, look right etc.

Quoted message said:

They have a right (or permission, if they drive) to use the roads that
are there now. Do I have the right to a congestion-free journey to/from
work everyday? I'll await the new road to be built from my door to the
office then.

And here lies the misunderstanding. We don't necessarily need new roads
to solve congestion, just clever use of the ones we already have. By
all means provide sufficient roads of sufficient capacity to deal with
inter-city journeys, but in-town allow for traffic to actually /flow/ on
the excellent streets that we already have but do not allow to be used.

Quoted message said:

How many more roads do we need to build? There is a finiate amount of
space, unless you plan we turn it all into roads so we can all excercise
our 'right' to drive.

See above - first let's use the ones we already have.

Quoted message said:

The general over-use of 'rights' does rather annoy me, usually because
it's used in the sense of "well its my right to do this, to hell with
anyone else".

Surely it is our /collective/ right to have free use of the highways,
without giving de facto priority to motorists, and the utter waste of
their capacity and potential by highway engineers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

beyond doubt that there is no causal link between the two. What we
will also see is the direct causal link between poor traffic
engineering and congestion in our cities.

Poor traffic engineering also can make cycling more hazardous that it
needs to be.

Exactly. Why should we tolerate it. We need safe roads for all users,
and equal priority for all.

Matt, just want to say I really like your reply.

burt said:

He isn't the only one that's angry. I am too, because our city has been
taken over by idiots like him who think that they have a right to drive
anywhere, anytime at any speed and never mind the pollution, danger and
inconvenience they cause.

Get out of your car and get a life Mr Harding."

Nice 🙂

Keep us posted if Mr Harding rears his head?

P

Peter wrote on 14/10/2006 07:13 +0100:

Quoted message said:

burt said:

He isn't the only one that's angry. I am too, because our city has been
taken over by idiots like him who think that they have a right to drive
anywhere, anytime at any speed and never mind the pollution, danger and
inconvenience they cause.

Get out of your car and get a life Mr Harding."

Nice 🙂

Keep us posted if Mr Harding rears his head?

P

Why not suggest to the editor that they do an article where Burt or
ANOther urcer accompany Mr Harding, a photographer and journalist on a
bike ride first down the cycle path and then down the road and see what
he thinks of the cycle path, the trees and his fellow impatient
motorists once he has actually tried it?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Jeremy Parker said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Here you let yourself down, and leave yourself open to exactly the
same criticism that you make of the original letter writer.
Congestion is generally due to poor supply and/or design of road
infrastructure, and not the fault of the road user (cyclist or
motorist).

[snip]

A shortage, of road space, or anything, is the very definition of
supply and demand not matching.

An economist would talk about distortions in the price mechanism
interfering with market clearing.

Ken Livingstone, good capitalist that he is, is trying to do
something about that, with his congestion charge, but really, people
ought to have to buy a driving permit on E-bay, before each time they
set off, so we could get an accurate idea of what the correct
congestion charge really is.

Just like we should do with the supply of hospital beds then ;-)

What about designing the roads to cope with the demand rather than
designing them to create congestion, which can then be charged for?

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeremy Parker said:

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in

Ken Livingstone, good capitalist that he is, is trying to do something
about that, with his congestion charge, but really, people ought to have
to buy a driving permit on E-bay, before each time they set off, so we
could get an accurate idea of what the correct congestion charge really
is.

Just like we should do with the supply of hospital beds then ;-)

What about designing the roads to cope with the demand rather than
designing them to create congestion, which can then be charged for?

You mean just like we've done for the last few generations, with a 100%
failure rate? I think it might be time for "evidence-based policies" and
the Monty Python solution: something completely different.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter wrote on 14/10/2006 07:13 +0100:

Quoted message said:

burt said:

He isn't the only one that's angry. I am too, because our city has been
taken over by idiots like him who think that they have a right to drive
anywhere, anytime at any speed and never mind the pollution, danger and
inconvenience they cause.

Get out of your car and get a life Mr Harding."

Nice 🙂

Keep us posted if Mr Harding rears his head?

P

Why not suggest to the editor that they do an article where Burt or
ANOther urcer accompany Mr Harding, a photographer and journalist on a
bike ride first down the cycle path and then down the road and see what he
thinks of the cycle path, the trees and his fellow impatient motorists
once he has actually tried it?

Nice idea, thanks Tony.

Danny Colyer said:

Simon Brooke said:

Burt, if you haven't already sent your letter, could you include that
photo? Danny, if it's yours, could you put a higher resolution version up
somewhere for him? It makes the point rather clearly.

I've no objection to the photo being used. I've found a higher
resolution version on my hard drive:
<url:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-corrd.jpg>

Unfortunately this picture was taken using a film camera, so this is as
good as it gets without finding the print and scanning it again. Which
would involve moving furniture.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Bristol to Bath by unicycle: <http://www.bristoltobathonaunicycle.co.uk>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Very good response. As has been said, the picture tells it all.
Worthy of wider distribution.

Peter.