Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

Moving house without informing the DVLA is not illegal.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Alright if you want to be ULTRA pedantic, it's not the moving house that's illegal but the not telling DVLA.
From http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Dr ... G_10021376
It is a legal requirement to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) when you change name and or address. Failure to notify DVLA could result in a œ1000 fine.
Note the terms "legal requirement". That means it's illegal if you DON'T do it.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Interesting that you can do an internet search when you want to.

You're not the boss of me.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Mister Paul I do not require or even want your approval on my postings in this forum. Your confidence in your imagined superioity is impressive, but self-defeating. I hereby give you your prize:

http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/cats/1 ... 982ka4.jpg
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's just your paranoia getting to you again mate.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Acces ... status.asp
Legal definition of a Right of Way. Note the reference to the Highway.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is the rules of the countryside you idiot. It defines a public right of way as a highway that allows a public right of passage. Now a highway could be a footpath, bridleway, clearing in a forest, anything. It makes no connection between this and a carriageway!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Did you try the other link?

You're not the boss of me.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/LAR/Acces ... status.asp
Legal definition of a Right of Way. Note the reference to the Highway.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This is the rules of the countryside you idiot. It defines a public right of way as a highway that allows a public right of passage. Now a highway could be a footpath, bridleway, clearing in a forest, anything. It makes no connection between this and a carriageway!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You really are incredibly thick, aren;t you? I posted the history of the use of the word "carriageway" just for you. A carriageway is originally a right of way that allowed carriage--carrying something, not a vehicle.
Passage and carriage, dimwit.
It was later applied to CARTways.
In what way does the law of the "countryside" in England and Wales differ from the law of the "town" when discussing a highway? The Public Highway IS ANY ROUTE TO WHICH THE PUBLIC HAVE ACCESS TO PASS AND REPASS. It is not necessarily a road.
Do us all a favour, little boy, and find tourself a dictionary

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Cretin, what name are you registered on SS as?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

domd1979 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979
Nothing to do with that. Its been known for decades that "predict and provide" does not work, and is not in the least bit sustainable (in every sense of the word). Even the government's own research has shown that.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well with respect I disagree with those conclusions. There are only a finite number of people that can ever use the roads, any growth in traffic levels cannot continue unabated for this reason. Most of the problems with congestion are for reasons I have already mentioned, and others I have not which include lack of flexibility in working hours, and road traffic incident management.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Induced traffic and the presence of latent demand for road space is well proven i.e. provide new road space and it will be filled. Lots of stuff on road traffic forecasts, and what its based on at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/dat ... /nrtf1997/

Demand for travel has continued to rise for decades. That "finite" number of people are capable of generating ever growing amounts of travel unless policies to restrain demand are implemented. Car ownership is still growing, and bear in mind 25%ish of households don't have a car, most of whom probably want one. Meanwhile cost of motoring is static, disposable income is rising, so people can afford to travel more. Demand for consumer goods is rising, as we don't manufacture much in the UK, all of that is imported, and largely transported round the country on the road network.

Flexible working hours would barely dent congestion. There's already a lot of flexibility now. Peak spreading has occurred which ties in with that - roads are operating at or over capacity for longer and longer periods each day.

Incident management - again fiddling round the edges. Essentially parallel/diversionary routes just don't have the capacity to cope with diverting traffic. Every time there's an incident on the motorway, my town gridlocks as there simply is not anywhere the traffic can go. It would be rather nice if the HA would be so kind as to close the off-slips, but guess that may not be popular...

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979
Er, nope. The amount paid by private motorists does not cover the costs they impose. Consider the cost to the treasury of: NHS treatment of those involved in accidents; cost to NHS of treating ill health due to air pollution from private transport; cost to NHS of treating conditions due to lack of exercise attributable to relying solely on the car to get around; cost of emergency services to deal with policing of traffic and dealing with accidents; provision and maintenance of road infrastructure. Then there's also other costs in terms of: cost to the economy of congestion/accidents (lost employee time, cost of extended delivery times etc) - this one is absolutely massive; loss of amenity; loss of landscape due to road construction. That should do for starters. Private transport users do not cover the cost of the above through the direct costs of using private transport.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I believe the economic benefits more than outweigh all those factors, and since our economy depends on private motoring I think its spurious to suggest that the economy is somehow operating at a net loss. The loss of landscape is miniscule - travel outside any urban conurbation and the amount of green space is immense, even in this country. Travel north of Carlisle and generally speaking, theres nothing in every direction for miles and miles.

Its disingenuous to quote these examples without also considering the social and material benefits to our society that having private transport brings.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There might be benefits to private transport - but it still comes at massive (social, economic, and environmental) cost elsewhere, there's no getting away from it!! Congestion costs the economy billions of pounds a year. If something a bit nearer to free-flow conditions could be achieved over a greater part of the network for a greater part of the day, then the economy would benefit massively. However, that could only be achieved by serious constraints on private transport (i.e. road pricing/high parking charges), massive passenger/freight modal shift, and changing the attitudes people hold that they have an automatic "right" to travel whenever, however, and wherever they like regardless of wider consequence.

On landscape, nobody has yet come up with a particularly good way of valuing loss of landscape. But it still has to be recognised as a disbenefit, and its not as simple as "oh its not much land take so not to worry". Actually, roads are a hideously inefficient use of land - a railway with the same carrying capacity as a motorway takes up far less space. Obliterating the landscape, and ruining the countryside is a cost even if the valuation of it is perhaps subjective.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The M4 bus lane doesn't represent a very efficient use of road space. And I can think of several recent examples where onslips have been converted from 2 lanes to 1 lane, and even where 4 lane single carriageway roads have been converted to 2 lanes for no apparent reason.

I'm not aware of 'SCOOT' (would appreciate some info), but this would not explain the traffic lights that are on 24/7 on the 2 motorway junctions nearest my house.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

More info on SCOOT at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal ... ntrols4107

If you're talking about traffic signals at the end of motorway on-slips, they're not there to benefit people trying to join the motorway!! Its called "ramp metering" and the idea is to try and maintain flow on the main carriageway. Not entirely sure as to the success of it or otherwise.

Reducing two lanes to one sounds like its potentially been done for road safety reasons?

rothbook · June 2007

cretin's dishonesty and cowardice certainly reminds one of SS posters.

I could demonstrate that cretin's home forum is far more anti cyclist than C+ is anti car.

It's transparent trolling, the same as banjo. They don't want a debate, they just want to drag pointless arguments out.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paulstuff about relevance and time spent<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'll take that as a tacit agreement that you were wrong to suggest that pedestrians have an basic right of way or priority over vehicular traffic.

Really, and I said this many pages ago, I am reluctant to argue with anybody who can't answer simple questions put to them. When asked to qualify statements or inferences you have made that have no basis in fact, you can't bring yourself to admit that you may have been wrong. Instead you'd rather cloud the issue and talk about something similar, or perhaps turn the question around and try to confuse anybody reading, or in this case write about moral obligations and telling people to 'grow up'.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paulyou think one thing, I disagree. The next bit is where I explain the reasoning behind my position and you do the same.

That's how debate works. Why do you want to just make a claim and not bother justifying it? That's not a very good debating tactic.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How ironic, and what a waste of time.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Sigh and yawn.
The right to use the public highway stems from Common Law and is an innate right of everyone in the country. Such right includes passage and carriage, meaning the right to carry something.
It also includes droving, driving and riding rights, depending on what type of highway one is using. Highways include any public right of way including a PEOW consisting of a track through a field.
Driving means the driving of a horse-drawn vehicle, not a mechanically-propelled vehicle. Keeping a mechanically-propelled vehicleon the public highway requires the purchase of an annual licence. Operating one on the public highway requires a driving licence of the appropriate class

Now a quick google brought up this definition of licence:
"a legal document giving official permission to do something"

right:
"Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."
Now. let me turn to Highway.
Even Mr Knobwit Bonj might accept this authority (The House of Lords):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ones07.htm

To quote:
"The land over which a public right of way exists is known as a highway; and although most highways have been made up into roads, and most easements of way exist over footpaths, the presence or absence of a made road has nothing to do with the distinction. There may be a highway over a footpath, while a well-made road may be subject only to an easement of way, or may exist only for the landowner's benefit and be subject to no easement at all."

Got that so far, little Nonjy?
Now they go on to say:
'In Clerk & Lindsell, The Law of Torts, 17th ed. (1995), para. 17-41 the current state of the law as to the question of use is summarised in these terms:

"The right of the public in respect of a highway is limited to the use of it for the purpose of passing and repassing and for such other reasonable purposes as it is usual to use the highway; if a member of the public uses it for any other purpose than that of passing and repassing he will be a trespasser." '

Now, Little Boy Bonj, have you read about carriageways yet or do you want me to spoonfeed you again?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

normal · June 2007

I'm confused now, Cretin,Little Boy Bonj?

Tourist Tony · June 2007

LBB=The Boss. Originally registered here as Bonj, which is one of his SS usernames.
Cretin chose his name himself....

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979
Flexible working hours would barely dent congestion. There's already a lot of flexibility now. Peak spreading has occurred which ties in with that - roads are operating at or over capacity for longer and longer periods each day.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

One idea I had would be for the government to offer incentives to haulage companies to make their journies at night. Most of the rush hour traffic on the motorways is vehicles delivering goods. This doesn't solve the congestion into and out of cities though.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979
Incident management - again fiddling round the edges. Essentially parallel/diversionary routes just don't have the capacity to cope with diverting traffic. Every time there's an incident on the motorway, my town gridlocks as there simply is not anywhere the traffic can go. It would be rather nice if the HA would be so kind as to close the off-slips, but guess that may not be popular...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Rubber-necking is a massive part of this problem - how often have we come up on a traffic jam, only to find that its so people can watch what happened on the other side of the road. I believe the police are testing mobile screens, personally I wish they'd change the matrix signs to read "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS"

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979
There might be benefits to private transport - but it still comes at massive (social, economic, and environmental) cost elsewhere, there's no getting away from it!! Congestion costs the economy billions of pounds a year. If something a bit nearer to free-flow conditions could be achieved over a greater part of the network for a greater part of the day, then the economy would benefit massively. However, that could only be achieved by serious constraints on private transport (i.e. road pricing/high parking charges), massive passenger/freight modal shift, and changing the attitudes people hold that they have an automatic "right" to travel whenever, however, and wherever they like regardless of wider consequence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I respect your views but I think we'll have to disagree on that one. I think there are ways of reducing congestion without punishing motorists. Carrot or stick approach.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979
On landscape, nobody has yet come up with a particularly good way of valuing loss of landscape. But it still has to be recognised as a disbenefit, and its not as simple as "oh its not much land take so not to worry". Actually, roads are a hideously inefficient use of land - a railway with the same carrying capacity as a motorway takes up far less space. Obliterating the landscape, and ruining the countryside is a cost even if the valuation of it is perhaps subjective.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Completely understand where you're coming from. I'd love to live in a field with no roads around me, but its just not going to happen. You have to find the right balance I suppose.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979
More info on SCOOT at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal ... ntrols4107

If you're talking about traffic signals at the end of motorway on-slips, they're not there to benefit people trying to join the motorway!! Its called "ramp metering" and the idea is to try and maintain flow on the main carriageway. Not entirely sure as to the success of it or otherwise.

Reducing two lanes to one sounds like its potentially been done for road safety reasons?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thanks for the info, I'll read that. I was referring to traffic lights on roundabouts at motorway junctions operating well outside peak hours. As for reducing the number of lanes available there are plenty of examples around the country and its usually where cycle lanes have been installed on the road (at the side of a perfectly adaptable pavement, or bus lanes installed.

And I know cycle lanes is a hot topic, generally I'm not a fan of them, but there are some superb examples here and there where you're separated from fast moving traffic by a barrier or kerb, and where there are very few pedestrians or junctions to deal with. The annoying thing is that some councils seem happy to adapt the road, rather than adapt the space at the side of the road. I understand some cyclists will always use the road, but if theres a good quality clean dedicated cycle path as above, I'll use that rather than have traffic approach me at 60mph - and I'm not a gutter hugger either.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

A different topic completely. Many, many objections to it, but I'll just leave you with one: giving way at every side street.
I'll stay on the road.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Cretin · June 2007

Which is why I included a minor caveat about good cycle lanes without junctions. Theres one near me, 50mph single carriageway, quite wide, but with a tarmacced shared pavement at the side - its remarkably good, and only 2 junctions to cross in about 5 miles, neither of them busy. But in general I prefer the roads.

rothbook · June 2007

You gonna apologise for your lies about the families of the cyclists killed in Rhyl Cretin?

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
...

One idea I had would be for the government to offer incentives to haulage companies to make their journies at night. Most of the rush hour traffic on the motorways is vehicles delivering goods. This doesn't solve the congestion into and out of cities though.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No it isn't.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
...
I respect your views but I think we'll have to disagree on that one. I think there are ways of reducing congestion without punishing motorists. Carrot or stick approach.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
'Punishing' is a very loaded word- perhaps you could define what you mean by it? I'm curious to know what solutions you think there are to congestion that don't involve some sort of demand management (other than the ones you've mentioned so far, as their impact would be negligable).

...
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
... As for reducing the number of lanes available there are plenty of examples around the country and its usually where cycle lanes have been installed on the road (at the side of a perfectly adaptable pavement, or bus lanes installed.

And I know cycle lanes is a hot topic, generally I'm not a fan of them, but there are some superb examples here and there where you're separated from fast moving traffic by a barrier or kerb, and where there are very few pedestrians or junctions to deal with. The annoying thing is that some councils seem happy to adapt the road, rather than adapt the space at the side of the road. I understand some cyclists will always use the road, but if theres a good quality clean dedicated cycle path as above, I'll use that rather than have traffic approach me at 60mph - and I'm not a gutter hugger either.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Hmmm. In most built up areas what you refer to as 'the space at the side of the road' is already in use- for pedestrians! And usually inadequately so at that. The reality is that very few streets in urban areas have sufficient space available to turn into good quality segregated cycle paths, even if it were desirable to do so. I suggest you take a look at current guidance on cycling infrastructure:
http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/engineering2e.php

Cretin · June 2007

From what I see when I drive on motorways (which is very often), where traffic gets heavy lanes 1 and 2 are almost completely full of HGVs and LGVs plodding along at 56mph. The M6 and M62 are unbelievably busy at times. Elephant racing makes things even worse.

I've already given my ideas for reducing congestion, you'll have to read back through the thread as I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

On the cycle lanes I am referring to pedestrians are a rarety. And I wasn't making the suggestion that they can be implemented everywhere.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin
...
Most of the rush hour traffic on the motorways is vehicles delivering goods.
...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

From what I see when I drive on motorways (which is very often), where traffic gets heavy lanes 1 and 2 are almost completely full of HGVs and LGVs plodding along at 56mph. The M6 and M62 are unbelievably busy at times. Elephant racing makes things even worse.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You might care to take a look at Road Traffic Statistics: 2005, Table 1.4 Road traffic by vehicle type and road class. (And I also suggest that when on the motorway you concentrate on the driving and leave the traffic counts to the experts [;)])

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

I've already given my ideas for reducing congestion, you'll have to read back through the thread as I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
In which case I needn't repeat my comment, or dom1979's, on the effectiveness of those ideas!

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
On the cycle lanes I am referring to pedestrians are a rarety. And I wasn't making the suggestion that they can be implemented everywhere.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I hope your pedestrian counts are more accurate than your motorway traffic estimates![:0]

domd1979 · June 2007

HGVs do not form the majority of traffic - even on key routes like the M6.

Actually, at 56mph, they're doing you a favour because the capacity of the road is greater at lower speeds than it is at 70. That's why the M25 has variable speed limits.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

From what I see when I drive on motorways (which is very often), where traffic gets heavy lanes 1 and 2 are almost completely full of HGVs and LGVs plodding along at 56mph. The M6 and M62 are unbelievably busy at times. Elephant racing makes things even worse.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

BigWomble · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Originally posted by domd1979

The M4 bus lane doesn't represent a very efficient use of road space. And I can think of several recent examples where onslips have been converted from 2 lanes to 1 lane, and even where 4 lane single carriageway roads have been converted to 2 lanes for no apparent reason.

I'm not aware of 'SCOOT' (would appreciate some info), but this would not explain the traffic lights that are on 24/7 on the 2 motorway junctions nearest my house.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

More info on SCOOT at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal ... ntrols4107

If you're talking about traffic signals at the end of motorway on-slips, they're not there to benefit people trying to join the motorway!! Its called "ramp metering" and the idea is to try and maintain flow on the main carriageway. Not entirely sure as to the success of it or otherwise.

Reducing two lanes to one sounds like its potentially been done for road safety reasons?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The M4 bus lane turned up for the following reason.

The M4 had two widths, 2 lanes and 3 lanes. When 3 lanes of traffic tried moving into 2 lanes, the M4 locked up. Their solution was simple - turn one of the 3 lanes into a bus lane (essentially free) leaving 2 lanes into 2, with a higher capacity. [:)]

Where it all went wrong - lots of 'experts' who didn't understand the engineering behind it started spouting off, including the self-appointed experts on Top Gear. For some reason, a lot of politicians, otherwise very assertive, don't want to stand up for themselves, and this was no different. Shortly after the new setup opened, there was a major crash on the M4, and the motorway locked up. These 'experts' announced that this was due to the bus lane, and the government just rolled over and played dead.

The final nail in the coffin was when a government minister in a hurry on the M4 (why do I think of John Prescott?) decreed by fiat that their car was now a bus. Pathetic.

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

BigWomble · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domd1979

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Originally posted by domd1979

The M4 bus lane doesn't represent a very efficient use of road space. And I can think of several recent examples where onslips have been converted from 2 lanes to 1 lane, and even where 4 lane single carriageway roads have been converted to 2 lanes for no apparent reason.

I'm not aware of 'SCOOT' (would appreciate some info), but this would not explain the traffic lights that are on 24/7 on the 2 motorway junctions nearest my house.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

More info on SCOOT at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal ... ntrols4107

If you're talking about traffic signals at the end of motorway on-slips, they're not there to benefit people trying to join the motorway!! Its called "ramp metering" and the idea is to try and maintain flow on the main carriageway. Not entirely sure as to the success of it or otherwise.

Reducing two lanes to one sounds like its potentially been done for road safety reasons?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's a slightly obscure text on SCOOT. I shall explain...

When you have two or more signal-control junctions, one after the other along the road that you're on, it would be nice if when you arrived at the second junction the traffic lights were also turning green, and so on. This is called a green wave - if you watched it happen on a long straight road, the green lights will come on one after the other, on into the distance. It doesn't always happen that nicely - in the real world, these things don't tend to. But it is a major gain on having individually controlled junctions. This process is called 'TRANSYT', and was invented by TRL.

The settings are sensitive to the amount of traffic at each signal controlled junction, and the amount of traffic varies throughout the day. The traditional response is to develop lots of different settings, and change them throughout the day. However, this is inaccurate, and when the settings change the junctions get badly hit.

SCOOT is a computer program that recalculates TRANSYT on every traffic light cycle. It is expensive, and very clever. It is very reliable, but if it breaks, it falls back to a pre-calculated setting - no harm done. It is the best scheme available today.

One of the things that SCOOT can be asked to do is to allocate less time to side roads when the main road is getting congested. This stops the main road locking up solid. However, it is a bit controversial for those people stuck on the side road!

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

BigWomble · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Originally posted by domd1979

Thanks for the info, I'll read that. I was referring to traffic lights on roundabouts at motorway junctions operating well outside peak hours. As for reducing the number of lanes available there are plenty of examples around the country and its usually where cycle lanes have been installed on the road (at the side of a perfectly adaptable pavement, or bus lanes installed.

And I know cycle lanes is a hot topic, generally I'm not a fan of them, but there are some superb examples here and there where you're separated from fast moving traffic by a barrier or kerb, and where there are very few pedestrians or junctions to deal with. The annoying thing is that some councils seem happy to adapt the road, rather than adapt the space at the side of the road. I understand some cyclists will always use the road, but if theres a good quality clean dedicated cycle path as above, I'll use that rather than have traffic approach me at 60mph - and I'm not a gutter hugger either.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The traffic lights on the roundabout are there to increase capacity (TRANSYT again, only this time in a circle [:)]). Why they operate outside of peak hours I don't know - whether because the extra capacity is still required, or because it's poorly set up, I don't know. The Highways Agency can tell you.

Bus lanes in towns and cities do not reduce the capacity of a road. If you imagine a signalised junction, with two lanes of cars stretching back from the stop line as far as the eye can see, and the traffic light is set to red. Now it is set to green, and both columns move off. Only a certain distance of cars (which is called the 'set-back' length) actually make it through the junction that time, the rest fill in slowly from the back. If the two lanes are left intact back from the stop line, that 'set-back' distance, the junction is unaffected, and since this is the limiting factor on traffic flows, so is the capacity of the road. The rest of the road can be reduced to one lane, and a bus lane introduced without affecting the capacity one jot.

In fact, since there is now a bus lanes, more people may catch the bus, relieving demand on the roads, and effectively increasing the capacity.

For the bus lane on the M4, please see the earlier post.

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

Sigh and yawn.
The right to use the public highway stems from Common Law and is an innate right of everyone in the country. Such right includes passage and carriage, meaning the right to carry something.
It also includes droving, driving and riding rights, depending on what type of highway one is using. Highways include any public right of way including a PEOW consisting of a track through a field.
Driving means the driving of a horse-drawn vehicle, not a mechanically-propelled vehicle. Keeping a mechanically-propelled vehicleon the public highway requires the purchase of an annual licence. Operating one on the public highway requires a driving licence of the appropriate class

Now a quick google brought up this definition of licence:
"a legal document giving official permission to do something"

right:
"Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."
Now. let me turn to Highway.
Even Mr Knobwit Bonj might accept this authority (The House of Lords):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... ones07.htm

To quote:
"The land over which a public right of way exists is known as a highway; and although most highways have been made up into roads, and most easements of way exist over footpaths, the presence or absence of a made road has nothing to do with the distinction. There may be a highway over a footpath, while a well-made road may be subject only to an easement of way, or may exist only for the landowner's benefit and be subject to no easement at all."

Got that so far, little Nonjy?
Now they go on to say:
'In Clerk & Lindsell, The Law of Torts, 17th ed. (1995), para. 17-41 the current state of the law as to the question of use is summarised in these terms:

"The right of the public in respect of a highway is limited to the use of it for the purpose of passing and repassing and for such other reasonable purposes as it is usual to use the highway; if a member of the public uses it for any other purpose than that of passing and repassing he will be a trespasser." '

Now, Little Boy Bonj, have you read about carriageways yet or do you want me to spoonfeed you again?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Look, this subject has been done and dusted, the argument is over, I won it. Again. Blithering on about some ancient statute about the right to pull a horse-drawn carriage down a path through a field is no more going to dig you out of your rather ugly hole than is the 12th century pilgrims' act which give pedestrians the right to 'wander free'. So stop pissing into the wind, and drop it. You're like a dog with a bone.
Like I keep saying, this argument is about modern, tarmac roads - which while we're on the subject, are there because of the need to use them by cars - not about some paths through fields which have been there since Dick Turpin's time.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

Bonj, once again, you are wrong, you're making yourself look even more stupid the more you fail to acknowledge it. Do stop.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Mister Paul · June 2007

Ignoring the childishness of Bonj, this recent discussion about signalling is most interesting.

Please continue...

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

My assertion's been confirmed, yet you won't argue with the actual point that Regulator made, which summarises exactly my point, but instead keep on and on arguing against me - about anything and everything that I post. I thus have to conclude that your argument is with me personally, rather than the points I make. Why, god knows.

Mister Paul · June 2007

Whoever you are talking to, and it isn't clear Bonj, you're talking rubbish.

The whole car v ped road argument came out of some ridiculous, aggressive and bullying statements you made about your presence on the road in your car and in relation to pedestrians. It was wrong then, and after pages and pages of pettiness, your attitude remains that same. It's unfortunate that you've prevented yourself from learning anything from this discussion, choosing instead to focus on erratically dragging the argument here and there in an attempt to pick up some points. All you've done is shown your ignorance time and again.

Or are traffic lights really set to make sure that they stop you?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

domd1979 · June 2007

Unless you've got a nice bus service on the side road... then you program it to prioritise the bus on approach...

The really mega stuff comes with GPS tracking on buses. Its possible to have a set up that as the bus approaches signals, the controller at the signals knows if that bus is on time, early or late. If the bus is late then the signals go into an extended green phase so the bus doesn't get further held up.

Also, you can use UTC to re-locate queues and store queueing traffic - usually away from a town centre to maintain traffic flow in or near to the town centre.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BigWomble
One of the things that SCOOT can be asked to do is to allocate less time to side roads when the main road is getting congested. This stops the main road locking up solid. However, it is a bit controversial for those people stuck on the side road!

Ta - Arabic for moo-cow
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

dondare · June 2007

I'd welcome Regulator to join us again.

Putting tarmac on an old road or even a completely new one doesn't obliterate the old laws, and neither does anything else that's actually taken place. Whatever makes you think the law has been changed?

You're not the boss of me.

Mystery Shopper · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by normal

I'm confused now, Cretin,Little Boy Bonj?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Another Country heard from.

What's in my trolley?

Jon G · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Look, this subject has been done and dusted, the argument is over, I won it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you mean Parliament has agreed with you and is about to change the relevant statutes? Nothing else could really be described as 'winning the argument'.

Jon

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories