Silly commuting racing

smokey_bacon

Totally unremarkable commute. Two weeks off meant no SCR at all. My bike was clean though so I felt like I was winning against most of the competition. Did get a cheery good morning from the protesters at PS which made me smile. Also guy on a very new looking green & yellow Spec Crux with Sram 1x......nice bike sir!

kingstonian

Congrats to the twunt who stuck to my back wheel right along Chelsea Embankment all the way to Parliament Square, and then along Embankment to Blackfriars, studiously avoiding my gaze whenever a set of lights slowed us down. I don't mind a bit of wheelsucking, everyone does it, but that was ridiculous.

anonymousblackfg

cjcp wrote:

What's wrong with you? It's a nature reserve, with areas of special scientific interest, with tunnelling badgers and stuff. It's absolutely suited for through traffic.

Whether or not motorised vehicles should be allowed to commute through there is a social media can o'worms. Twitter could easily have a melt down over it. It's the equivalent of the "helmet/no helmet" debate, or "Shimano or CampagNOlo?"...

I do love that position of the Royal Parks claiming it's a nature reserve, therefore people and leisure can not be prioritised. However, motor traffic can?!?

Decentish commute, trying my new Surbo to South Wimbledon route, though having missed a turn I ended up having to ride the very piece of road I meant to avoid.

smokey_bacon

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Decentish commute, trying my new Surbo to South Wimbledon route, though having missed a turn I ended up having to ride the very piece of road I meant to avoid.

Which way do you go?

wolfsbane2k

cjcp wrote:

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

itboffin wrote:

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

itboffin wrote:

perhaps they've seen sense and are tunnelling right across the park removing the roads once and for all, you know like a park.

How dare you propose common sense prevail in the park? :roll:

when i was a kid and used to go to the park, you could have walked in the roads because there was no traffic

mind you that was a VERY long time ago, in fact now a scary long time ago :?

oh damn i'm super old

I googled the park - surely it should be shut to commuter vehicles. Unless I'm missing something, it seems desperately inappropriate for through traffic.

What's wrong with you? It's a nature reserve, with areas of special scientific interest, with tunnelling badgers and stuff. It's absolutely suited for through traffic.

Whether or not motorised vehicles should be allowed to commute through there is a social media can o'worms. Twitter could easily have a melt down over it. It's the equivalent of the "helmet/no helmet" debate, or "Shimano or CampagNOlo?"...

And don't mention the "no commercial vehicles" clause, eh?

anonymousblackfg

Smokey Bacon wrote:

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Decentish commute, trying my new Surbo to South Wimbledon route, though having missed a turn I ended up having to ride the very piece of road I meant to avoid.

Which way do you go?

Normal: Berrylands, New Malden, B&Q flyover, A298 south of Raynes Park, Wimbledon Chase, Sawf Wimbledon.
Trial: Tolworth, Warren Drive (A3 underpass), West Barnes Lane, Grand Drive (I was meant to cut behind the David Lloyd through the park) then back streets or back on the Kingston Road up to Sawf Wimbledon.

mtb-idle

cars rule, we should know that by now

rower63

MTB-Idle wrote:

cars rule, we should know that by now

access to clean water, clean air, and the right to drive: basic human rights

mtb-idle

I almost forgot, I was steaming along Narrow Street heading into Canary Wharf via Westferry this morning when I had a close shave.

It's a great road, not actually too narrow as you might expect from the name and relatively quiet on the car front. That is probably due to the numerous humps in the road to discourage the cars but which with my superior MTB skills as Phil Liggett & Paul Sherwen might say allow me to pull away from the other riders as I seem to be the only one who can continue to pedal over the humps.

Anyroad up, there I was flying along when some numpty on a bike, yes a bike pulls out from the side road on the right and is aiming to cut across in front of me.

A loud shout from me (and some bloke who I only just realised was on my six) and numpty managed to swerve away enough for us to avoid a three bike pile up.

Me and the other bloke laughed about it once we paused at the lights at Westferry DLR but seriously it was heart in mouth time and too close for comfort.

veronese68

I had to drive in today, went through Richmond Park. :oops:

asprilla

I still think a Toll would be the best idea. Spend less than 30 minutes in the park in a motorised vehicle and pay £2.

veronese68

Asprilla wrote:

I still think a Toll would be the best idea. Spend less than 30 minutes in the park in a motorised vehicle and pay £2.

Sound in theory, but people are morons. You'll get people stopping by the gates waiting for their clock to click over the 30 minute mark. Just charge everyone except for blue badge holders, and me of course.

tgotb

Take a step back - *why* do people think it would be a good idea to limit the number of cars driving through the park?

1. Reduce pollution?
Traffic will be slower/heavier outside the park, which will not only shift the pollution towards residential areas, it will also increase the total amount of pollution generated.

2. Improve the tranquil environment in the park?
If limiting car traffic makes the park a nicer place, the next target could be through traffic on bicycles. Blatting across the park at 20mph on our way to work doesn't really do anything positive for the park.

3. Encourage people to shift to different (non-car) modes of transport?
Is there any evidence that this would actually work?

smokey_bacon

TGOTB wrote:

Take a step back - *why* do people think it would be a good idea to limit the number of cars driving through the park?

Purely selfish reasoning for me. I much perfer riding through the park in the evening at this time of the year when there are no cars around than I do during normal hours. If it could happen more that would be great but like you say it just shifts the issue elsewhere which is not practical.

mtb-idle

TGOTB wrote:

Take a step back - *why* do people think it would be a good idea to limit the number of cars driving through the park?

1. Reduce pollution?
Traffic will be slower/heavier outside the park, which will not only shift the pollution towards residential areas, it will also increase the total amount of pollution generated.

2. Improve the tranquil environment in the park?
If limiting car traffic makes the park a nicer place, the next target could be through traffic on bicycles. Blatting across the park at 20mph on our way to work doesn't really do anything positive for the park.

3. Encourage people to shift to different (non-car) modes of transport?
Is there any evidence that this would actually work?

If you look at the Royal Parks website within their main purposes it states "to promote the use and enjoyment of the Royal Parks for public recreation, health and well-being including through the provision of sporting and cultural activities and events which effectively advance the objects;"

Cycling and fun runs/Park Runs would appear to fit into this purpose. Taking a shortcut in a motor vehicle to avoid London traffic would appear not to fit.

kingstongraham

TGOTB wrote:

Take a step back - *why* do people think it would be a good idea to limit the number of cars driving through the park?

1. Reduce pollution?
Traffic will be slower/heavier outside the park, which will not only shift the pollution towards residential areas, it will also increase the total amount of pollution generated.

2. Improve the tranquil environment in the park?
If limiting car traffic makes the park a nicer place, the next target could be through traffic on bicycles. Blatting across the park at 20mph on our way to work doesn't really do anything positive for the park.

3. Encourage people to shift to different (non-car) modes of transport?
Is there any evidence that this would actually work?

1) Is there any evidence of this leading to increased pollution overall? The traffic is already heavy and slow outside the park. At evening rush hour this time of year, no cars can go through the park anyway, so it would make no massive difference to the overall level of traffic.

2) Limiting, not eliminating car traffic. The park should be accessible, which means the car parks still being open, but no reason to leave via a different gate than you have entered through. There are already bicycle only roads in the park, so this shouldn't be a reason to restrict cycle use.

3) I doubt it. People who drive now already must price in an additional hour on their journey for nights when there is any slight issue, so they are the hard core car users.

tgotb

MTB-Idle wrote:

If you look at the Royal Parks website within their main purposes it states "to promote the use and enjoyment of the Royal Parks for public recreation, health and well-being including through the provision of sporting and cultural activities and events which effectively advance the objects;"

Cycling and fun runs/Park Runs would appear to fit into this purpose. Taking a shortcut in a motor vehicle to avoid London traffic would appear not to fit.

OK, that makes sense. Hard to argue that cycling doesn't tick the health and well-being box.

However, *why* is it better for our health and well-being than taking an alternate route that avoids the park? If the fresh air is better for our lungs, and the scenery uplifiting for our mental health, why deny those same benefits to car users? It's hard to deny that driving through the park is a far more pleasant experience than driving along neighbouring streets...

tgotb

KingstonGraham wrote:

1) Is there any evidence of this leading to increased pollution overall? The traffic is already heavy and slow outside the park. At evening rush hour this time of year, no cars can go through the park anyway, so it would make no massive difference to the overall level of traffic.

Not evidence, but it seems reasonable to conclude that emissions from the cars displaced from the park will be greater because they're now travelling more slowly, and spending more time stationary with their engines running. Assuming the vehicles already outside the park are slowed further (due to the increase in volume), their emissions will also increase.

hopkinb

TGOTB wrote:

It's hard to deny that driving through the park is a far more pleasant experience than driving along neighbouring streets...

Gets my blood pressure up driving through the park; all those bl00dy cyclists, clogging up the place, pretending they're in the tour of France. Lycra louts. Never stick to the speed limits, don't pay road tax, aren't insured, I saw one run a red light once, and ride on the pavement, nearly hit an old lady he did. Self-righteous tree-huggers the lot of 'em.

rower63

Yes but note also the effect whereby increasing capacity also tends to increase traffic, apparently. I wonder if the reverse is true? If so, closing off the Park to cars will reduce traffic and concomitant pollution.

rower63

hopkinb wrote:

TGOTB wrote:

It's hard to deny that driving through the park is a far more pleasant experience than driving along neighbouring streets...

Gets my blood pressure up driving through the park; all those bl00dy cyclists, clogging up the place, pretending they're in the tour of France. Lycra louts. Never stick to the speed limits, don't pay road tax, aren't insured, I saw one run a red light once, and ride on the pavement, nearly hit an old lady he did. Self-righteous tree-huggers the lot of 'em.

You jest, but I've been to a handful of Friends of Richmond Park meetings over the years - they do not like cyclists, at least they didn't then. The arguments you present jokingly were exactly those brought up, except you missed one - pelotons break up herds of deer.

anonymousblackfg

MTB-Idle wrote:

If you look at the Royal Parks website within their main purposes it states "to promote the use and enjoyment of the Royal Parks for public recreation, health and well-being including through the provision of sporting and cultural activities and events which effectively advance the objects;"

Cycling and fun runs/Park Runs would appear to fit into this purpose. Taking a shortcut in a motor vehicle to avoid London traffic would appear not to fit.

Or as I was told from the Royal Parks in an e-mail when I questioned the above:

We have no plans to ban traffic within the park. The park itself has in the past, and for the foreseeable future been classed as a nature reserve, not a leisure destination. We allow classes, events, companies to operate on our reserve through permits and payment. The general public are perfectly welcome to come and go as they please and do whatever they wish, as long as they adhere to our guidelines and rules.

hopkinb

rower63 wrote:

pelotons break up herds of deer.

:shock:

Unlike the cars, which poison them with their exhaust fumes, or if that takes too long, just mow them down.

The only thing I've seen that breaks up the herds in the park is that dog Fenton. Chriiist.

tgotb

rower63 wrote:

Yes but note also the effect whereby increasing capacity also tends to increase traffic, apparently. I wonder if the reverse is true? If so, closing off the Park to cars will reduce traffic and concomitant pollution.

I've often wondered about this on a more general sense; I suspect it is true, presumably with a delayed effect in both directions. The question then becomes, "What's the right amount of capacity?"
Dynamite all the motorways, and you'll presumably cut long-term pollution, but food will become more expensive and we'll no longer be able to order cheap bike parts online.
Dynamite all the roads, you'll cut pollution way more, everything will get a lot more expensive, and you'd have to commute from the suburbs to Central London on a horse (or MTB). That'll take all day, but it won't matter because your job won't exist anyway. Maybe retrain as a blacksmith; your suburb will be needing a few because Screwfix went out of business when they dynamited the motorways, and the cycle-haters are all riding around on horses which need new shoes.

I don't have an answer to the "right amount of capacity" question; it's an interesting problem...

rick_chasey

TGOTB wrote:

rower63 wrote:

Yes but note also the effect whereby increasing capacity also tends to increase traffic, apparently. I wonder if the reverse is true? If so, closing off the Park to cars will reduce traffic and concomitant pollution.

I've often wondered about this on a more general sense; I suspect it is true, presumably with a delayed effect in both directions. The question then becomes, "What's the right amount of capacity?"
Dynamite all the motorways, and you'll presumably cut long-term pollution, but food will become more expensive and we'll no longer be able to order cheap bike parts online.
Dynamite all the roads, you'll cut pollution way more, everything will get a lot more expensive, and you'd have to commute from the suburbs to Central London on a horse (or MTB). That'll take all day, but it won't matter because your job won't exist anyway. Maybe retrain as a blacksmith; your suburb will be needing a few because Screwfix went out of business when they dynamited the motorways, and the cycle-haters are all riding around on horses which need new shoes.

I don't have an answer to the "right amount of capacity" question; it's an interesting problem...

Entirely depends surely on the number of journeys made by car which are more efficient (and that's quite far reaching, space efficient as well as time & cost), via other modes of transport, as a result of x level of capacity.

Surely the optimum is where every journey that is optimum by car is taken, but all other journeys by other more efficient modes; cycling, public transport, walking etc.

Bigger roads usually come at the expense of infrastructure for other forms of transport - no-one's gonna cycle or walk down a 6 lane road each way.

I suspect bigger roads usually mean people taking car journeys when, in an ideal world, they are not optimum for the journey.

Ever try walking in LA? not worth it - the infrastructure isn't there for 95% of the city.

drhaggis

Veronese68 wrote:

I had to drive in today, went through Richmond Park. :oops:

This is something I don't get. Back when I lived in Teddington, I'd never ever think about driving to work (in Bloomsbury). I'd just hop on the infernal SWT Teddington loop with a book, struggle a bit in Vauxhall/Waterloo, and read through hops and jumps in the Tube. The ability to read and/or listen to some music trumps breathing exhaust gases while turning into a green ogre.

Mind you, I totally hate the bus in Edinburgh, since everything that requires crossing Princes St. just crawls to a stop, and the pricing and payment options are just bonkers.

tgotb

DrHaggis wrote:

This is something I don't get. Back when I lived in Teddington, I'd never ever think about driving to work (in Bloomsbury). I'd just hop on the infernal SWT Teddington loop with a book, struggle a bit in Vauxhall/Waterloo, and read through hops and jumps in the Tube. The ability to read and/or listen to some music trumps breathing exhaust gases while turning into a green ogre.

My biggest difficulty with public transport is that, inevitably, it transports you from somewhere you aren't, to somewhere you don't want to be. For journeys too long to walk or cycle, a car is the only mode of transport available to most people that will actually take them all the way from where they are, to where they want to be.

An extreme example that surprised me: A few months ago, we needed to travel from SW London to Wick (just South of John O'Groats). The journey can be done by train, but parts of it are slow and it's very expensive, so we flew from Luton to Inverness. We drove to Luton Airport, and hired a car in Inverness for the last part of the journey; doing those legs by train (and bits of bus to connect the dots) would have taken a lot longer. So far, not very surprising. By the time we'd allowed a reasonable amount of time to park the car and check in, added a couple of hours for a delayed flight, and then faffed around getting the hire car at the other end, it took around 12 hours door-to-door. It was about the same on the way back. Now, the surprising thing is that I worked out, if we'd driven the whole way, we'd have taken about the same time, and actually saved money! Additionally, we could have taken as much luggage as we reasonably wanted, and stopped off at interesting places along the way.
If driving from SW London to the Northernmost part of Scotland can be cheaper, quicker and more convenient than doing it by public transport, it's hardly surprising that the car is king for shorter journeys...

mtb-idle

I don't doubt that cars can often be the better bet. You only have to have watched Clarkson on any Top Gear challenge on Dave (okay so many parts of it are faked) to realise that.

My own adult son got so exasperated getting public transport from Ewell to Hanger Lane that he started driving instead. Guess what, even commuting to that well known traffic hell hole on the North Circular it was still quicker and easier to drive.

But c'mon guys, are we really trying to argue that letting cars use a Royal Park, that is meant to be a space for peace and tranquility for those who live in London, is a good idea?

rick_chasey

TGOTB wrote:

DrHaggis wrote:

This is something I don't get. Back when I lived in Teddington, I'd never ever think about driving to work (in Bloomsbury). I'd just hop on the infernal SWT Teddington loop with a book, struggle a bit in Vauxhall/Waterloo, and read through hops and jumps in the Tube. The ability to read and/or listen to some music trumps breathing exhaust gases while turning into a green ogre.

My biggest difficulty with public transport is that, inevitably, it transports you from somewhere you aren't, to somewhere you don't want to be. For journeys too long to walk or cycle, a car is the only mode of transport available to most people that will actually take them all the way from where they are, to where they want to be.

An extreme example that surprised me: A few months ago, we needed to travel from SW London to Wick (just South of John O'Groats). The journey can be done by train, but parts of it are slow and it's very expensive, so we flew from Luton to Inverness. We drove to Luton Airport, and hired a car in Inverness for the last part of the journey; doing those legs by train (and bits of bus to connect the dots) would have taken a lot longer. So far, not very surprising. By the time we'd allowed a reasonable amount of time to park the car and check in, added a couple of hours for a delayed flight, and then faffed around getting the hire car at the other end, it took around 12 hours door-to-door. It was about the same on the way back. Now, the surprising thing is that I worked out, if we'd driven the whole way, we'd have taken about the same time, and actually saved money! Additionally, we could have taken as much luggage as we reasonably wanted, and stopped off at interesting places along the way.
If driving from SW London to the Northernmost part of Scotland can be cheaper, quicker and more convenient than doing it by public transport, it's hardly surprising that the car is king for shorter journeys...

This is what I mean by optimum.
IF every man and his dog did that journey by car, it wouldn't be so fast, would it!

martinc

Whilst I'd agree a car-free park would be preferable, my wife's experience does show the realities:
For over 20 years she worked as a teacher in Sheen, driving there from Kingston. As she said, during the summer it was a pleasant 10min drive through park, during winter a 1hr slog in a jam through Ham. And she wouldn't ride due to basically being scared of riding in park at night.
So if the park was always shut to traffic, that's a constant traffic jam in a residential area... not great for their health either.
I remember the Parks did a lot of commuter research about 10years ago into closing the park to traffic and came to the same conclusion.