Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Traffic Curfew period

JydedaJydeda Posts: 10
edited April 2009 in Commuting chat
If you ask the average commuter why they don’t choose to cycle they will tell you that they feel it is much too dangerous. This is actually a fact. Having cycled for 4 years doing 34 miles a day, I finally decided to store my bikes away because of the number of close shaves I was having. There is a very simple solution to getting people cycling. I would like to recommend that from Mondays to Fridays, between the hours of 7.30am and 9.45am and 5.00pm and 7.30 pm and with the exception of police vehicles, ambulances Fire Engines, Buses and Black Cabs, the enforcement by legislation of a total ban on the use all motorised vehicles on all roads The roads are crammed with cars on a daily basis. Doing needless journeys, Mothers driving 1 kid to school in huge 4 x 4’s , people driving 5 miles to work The essential purpose is to provide a safe corridor period for the average Joe Blogs to cycle to and from work every day. There are several advantages. Drastically lowered carbon emissions, reduced road accidents between cyclist and careless drivers, (I find the professional driving class are much more aware of cyclist than private car owners). Many more people will flock to take up cycling, it will become something of a novelty daily marathon. Cycling is a great fitness workout. Perhaps a 6 month trial period will prove the point that this is a very feasible idea. I long for the day when I will cycle to work on a road absolutely devoid of potential traffic hazards.
Jide A. - London Architect

Do you think a Traffic curfew perioid wil work 0 votes

Will work -Great Idea
0% 0 votes
May work-undecided
0% 0 votes
Wont work- Bad idea
0% 0 votes
«1

Posts

  • whyamiherewhyamihere Posts: 7,598
    The banning of all motorised vehicles is a stupid idea. Banning, for example, HGVs from urban areas at those times might be workable though.
  • I agree with all the positives,however banning motorised transport from towns and cities will not happen because.

    This and all governments are duplicitous, on the one hand they say they want to see better health through people getting out more, and cycling is almost ALWAYS cited as good, however the government still want to collect a nice big fat chunk of tax from the sales of motor fuels, so put simply they will not do it.

    Public transport is inadequate in almost every situation you can think of, take cars out of the equation, and what you get is overcrowded (almost to the point of bursting)buses and trains.

    There is a need for an ifrastrucure that is not solely based around motorised transport. In these recessionary times it would make sense to invest in that infrastructure. It would boost jobs and the economy, and as a nation we would emerge from the recession fiscally and physically fitter.

    Sorry bit of a rant, I'll get mi coat.
    If you see the candle as flame, the meal is already cooked.
    Photography, Google Earth, Route 30
  • Pik n MixPik n Mix Posts: 39
    I sometimes bike i sometimes drive....

    i would be mighty pi55ed off if anyone dictated to me when i could do either of these things!

    what about the fatties that couldnt ride even if they wanted to?

    PnM
  • artaxerxesartaxerxes Posts: 612
    How will large supermarkets in London get deliveries? Are you willing to see a big increase in food costs? I think the way forward is a combination of
    - better education of road users
    - banning 'pay per load' for HGV driver contracts
    - enforce better mirrors on HGVs in London. Ban + fine any HGV entering London with inadequate mirrors.
    - automatic fine of £500,000 to the company that owns the HGV if any injury or death is caused by HGV (regardless of fault). OK maybe this isn't realistic.
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 16,015
    Public transport is inadequate in almost every situation you can think of, take cars out of the equation, and what you get is overcrowded (almost to the point of bursting)buses and trains.

    Obviously you would need more buses but, when you think that one bus can take the place of 70 cars, maybe you wouldn't need so many. And it would certainly speed things up (to the extent that I'd be slower than the bus getting to work rather than faster as I now am!).
    Faster than a tent.......
  • ceecee Posts: 4,553
    how would people who live in the city get in/out?

    I do think that reducing the number of cars on the road is a great idea....but not sure how to go about it. congestion charge is clearly unpopular, but was designed to do exactly this....

    park and ride is under utilised.

    The other problem with buses and public transport is that adding more buses does not make sense for the company....buses are full to bursting at rush hour, but then practically empty all day.
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    Would not work at all. Busses, trains and so on need to be improved (perhaps more investment in subways in places other than London). A decent cycling infrastructure would encourage new people to it, so cycle green-lights, proper lanes on-road that work instead of on paths or that go no where.
  • snookssnooks Posts: 1,521
    Why not charge drivers to use the town centres at that time...Oh...hang on, that didn't work either :(

    It's a nice idea, but unless you'd like to carry all my camera gear to a central London location, or carry it out of London to somewhere I can drive my car at that time, I can't see it working. And that's just me, one person in a city of umpteen million.

    Face it, people have to carry stuff in cars, whether that's their stuff for work, their children to school or just their colleague. It just wouldn't work, trains, tubes and buses are stuffed full at the moment, where would the money come from to fund this?
    FCN:5, 8 & 9
    If I'm not riding I'm shooting http://grahamsnook.com
    THE Game
    Watch out for HGVs
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    Nothing like this will ever happen for one simple reason. It would be a massive vote loser.

    Also remember that many people simply do not have a choice about driving to work, for example many people are contractually obliged to have a car available for work. Some people couldn't use anything other than private motor transport because they have to haul a lot of equipment to and from work. Assuming that everybody is capable of cycling to work is ridiculous. Public transport in this country is laughable so it's not an option for many people, and don't suggest that people should live nearer to work with unemployment as high as it is and the housing market as it is that's a complete non starter.

    So all in all it's got to be a huge NO.
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    A lot of people want choice of work too, dont they. So they want the freedom (for want of a better word) of travelling to the best job they can get but without moving house.

    IMO about 10-20% of traffic at peak times is a little unnecessary. Companies could use a little leeway and massage staff working times (esp office workers) away from the traditional 9 to 5. Also I have seen a fair few vehicles travel a few hundred yards to drop off kiddies to school. Perhaps that should be discouraged? I don't know how many of these mothers are then driving straight to work though.

    I personally think a massive traffic census is in order. Where by people tell the goverment "this is who I am, this is why I drive". No such study seems to have been properly done. Studies seem to be local and small, or AA/RAC or insurance based.
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    downfader wrote:
    Also I have seen a fair few vehicles travel a few hundred yards to drop off kiddies to school. Perhaps that should be discouraged?

    Look what happened when John Prescott suggested something similar. And it was the only time in entire career he said anything sensible.
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    GarethPJ wrote:
    downfader wrote:
    Also I have seen a fair few vehicles travel a few hundred yards to drop off kiddies to school. Perhaps that should be discouraged?

    Look what happened when John Prescott suggested something similar. And it was the only time in entire career he said anything sensible.

    :lol: Yeah I remember that. :lol: He was one to speak though, LOL, twojags nd all that
  • chuckcorkchuckcork Posts: 1,471
    Great idea, now if you can tell me how I get to work on time while carrying my 20 month old child to the creche she goes to (near to my workplace), over a distance of a mere 25 miles, every day in all weathers, I'd be happy to support you.

    Logical answer is to suggest that I get a job closer to home, or have her in a creche closer to home so I could cycle the rest, except it took me 6 months to get a job at all and the operating hours of the creche's nearby would have to be extended an hour and a half each way to allow me to do the drop off pick up and still cycle the 25 miles (a 1 and a half hour ride at the inside)

    Much as I'd love to cycle in every day (I'd be fit as f*ck in no time at all) it just isn't gonna happen, for the time being at least.
    'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....
  • chuckcorkchuckcork Posts: 1,471
    BTW I'm looking to move house to be closer to work in 6 weeks or so, if creche places can be sorted when no.2 child comes on the scene then cycling to work every day may become a more likely proposition, again.
    'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....
  • JydedaJydeda Posts: 10
    I appreciate that every one has different circumstances; however we are speedily approaching the time when we will be forced to consider solutions like this for a variety of reasons.

    Good ideas are like fruit . . . .they are plucked when green and taste bitter . . . but ripen with time.
  • BassjunkieukBassjunkieuk Posts: 4,232
    I think the pole results speaks for itself here, whilst in some utopian future this *might* be a viable solution at the moment I can't see this being anywhere near workable.
    As has been said there actually are some workers who are contractually required to have a vehicle for work, for example when I started working with my current employer I was a mobile field engineer. Initially I dealt with repairing laptops, which could be anything from 7 or 8 a day in central London to 5 or so spread out over the SW area of the M25 - a few times I was even sent over to Reading, Southampton, Bristol and Stevenage!
    Quite how I am expected to carry the tools and parts I need to carry out these repairs I don't know and this is with the best possible type of equipment to repair! Once you get onto the large office laser printers which would normally required swapping over and collecting for workshop repair you'd more then likely need a small van!

    At present I work in a role that means I can cycle to all but one of my work places, the only things stopping me cycling to all of them is that I haven't figured a route out for the last site as it's about 30 miles each way. Even when I do figure out a route I'd still need to drive there to take tools and my laptop in as I couldn't easily carry those in with clothes etc.

    In theory I could get a train to this site but that would mean leaving a full 25 minutes earlier then I do in the car, then relying to 2 trains and a bus and still arriving later then in the car! I'd then have to repeat this whole process in the evening to get home.

    Also another way to look at this. Assuming that your proposed curfew does go ahead what exactly are we going to do with the VAST increase in cyclists? I'm all for getting people on bikes but people who don't want to cycle on bikes are probably more of a risk then car drivers for me. I've spent long enough on the roads in London to be able to judge what other cars and cyclists will do. Most of the time I can spot the bad drivers and have managed to avoid being taken out a few times by spotting osme small actions of the driver that indicates they are about to make a manoeuvre and have failed to look for me! I can still remember when the tube/rail strikes happened in London and how many extra cyclist ended up on the road - cyclist who had probably never ridden their bikes in town before and in my opinion didn't have the road sense to either. The junctions where a total mess and all these new cyclist joustled for position at the front with no care for the obviously faster and more experienced riders behind them! Part of the reason I like my bike so much is that I can get around so quickly and I think with a huge increase in cyclist some of this advantage would be negated.
    Who's the daddy?
    Twitter, Videos & Blog
    Player of THE GAME
    Giant SCR 3.0 - FCN 5
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    Also the other thing about HGVs is that, having worked with deliveries and stock, you need staff to be there when it arrives. If it comes at 5am that means an employer needs to arrange an extra wage, the position is harder to fill as not many like to get up that early...
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    IME HGVs make up a very, very small fraction of rush hour traffic. It is not in the operators interests to have their trucks tied up in gridlock.
  • chuckcorkchuckcork Posts: 1,471
    Jydeda wrote:
    I appreciate that every one has different circumstances; however we are speedily approaching the time when we will be forced to consider solutions like this for a variety of reasons.

    Good ideas are like fruit . . . .they are plucked when green and taste bitter . . . but ripen with time.

    Any government that tried to do this would be facing such opposition even from within its own party that it would never get through parliament. After all you'd have to expect the pollies to lead by example, can you imagine the lard censored 's getting on a bike, much less using public transport and having to mix with their constituents?

    Can you imagine the heads of government departments, permanent secretaries, senior cicvil servants and so forth, for whom a car is a perk, giving it up without a fight?

    I'd agree that it would in even the short term be in the national interest to move away from dependency on the motor vehicle, imports of oil etc, but the alternatives would have to be in place first. But given that rail capacity is stretched as it is to the point where the pricing structure is intended to force people OFF trains in peak hour, the economy would likely collapse in a week. Provision for cyclists would also need to be in place, and unless you work for an enlightened employer its near impossible to find one that has cycle facilities (showers, secure bike storage) as it is now.

    Much as I'd like to see an increase in cycling the political will isn't and likely will never be there.
    'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....
  • CiBCiB Posts: 6,098
    What a nuts idea. The economy works becasue we have a free-flowing system of transport and like it or not most of us go to work in the morning and come home in the evening.

    +1 for the guy who takes his toddler to creche. I take my youngest to school 3 days a week so have to drive to get to the office in a reasonable time. No way could I wait for the school to allow kids in at 8:30 then bike 21 miles to be at work. 2 days a week I get to do my 21 mile time trial to the office. I'd love it to be 3, 4, 5 even. But then I never have a near miss.
  • AndyMancAndyManc Posts: 1,393
    Train stations need park and rides, so all the lazy people can drive direct to the station where hoards of porter monkeys can pick them up from their car in two wheel trolleys and push them to the trains 'guard van' and deposit them on top of each other.





    .
    Specialized Hardrock Pro/Trek FX 7.3 Hybrid/Specialized Enduro/Specialized Tri-Cross Sport
    URBAN_MANC.png
  • BassjunkieukBassjunkieuk Posts: 4,232
    AndyManc wrote:
    Train stations need park and rides, so all the lazy people can drive direct to the station where hoards of porter monkeys can pick them up from their car in two wheel trolleys and push them to the trains 'guard van' and deposit them on top of each other

    Andymanc for PM :-D

    Can we fold them up aswell to save space, after all if I did choose to use a train I want to take my "proper" bike on :-)
    Who's the daddy?
    Twitter, Videos & Blog
    Player of THE GAME
    Giant SCR 3.0 - FCN 5
  • prj45prj45 Posts: 2,208
    I reckon they should shut the tube for two-four weeks in summer to repair it and at the same time ban all private cars from moving in the area, flood the place with pushbikes add on a few more buses.

    Result a lot more people are introduced to cycling, if they don't want to carry on then the tube is back within a few weeks (spanky new after its repairs), or if they don't want to get on a bike in the first place then there's the buses, much more free flowing as there's no cars.

    One short sharp shock for London that would change its future for the better IMO.
  • cjcpcjcp Posts: 13,345
    prj45 wrote:
    I reckon they should shut the tube for two-four weeks in summer to repair it and at the same time ban all private cars from moving in the area, flood the place with pushbikes add on a few more buses.

    Result a lot more people are introduced to cycling,

    It was the closure of the Waterloo and City Line between April-August odd in 2007 which finally got me back commuting on my bike after a break of five years.

    I was walking from W'loo to the City, and often back, instead of using an alternaive tube route, but I got fed up with the 30min each way walk.
    FCN 2-4.

    "What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
    "It stays down, Daddy."
    "Exactly."
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    One thing that would reduce the amount of traffic would be a properly organised and subsidised public transport system. Unfortunately we have a government that sees public transport as a source of income rather than a public service to be subsidised.
  • chuckcorkchuckcork Posts: 1,471
    GarethPJ wrote:
    One thing that would reduce the amount of traffic would be a properly organised and subsidised public transport system. Unfortunately we have a government that sees public transport as a source of income rather than a public service to be subsidised.

    Whats worse is that public transport is seen as being "subsidised" in a way that roads aren't. If road pricing was introduced so that the subsidy no longer existed then public transport would by comparison be cheaper than more expensive as it is now.
    'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....
  • A total ban is completely unfeasible. Your plan also doesn't take into account those of us who do shifts. If I start at 3pm, in your scheme I'm not going to see any reduction in the traffic volume of my commute.

    I will concede that the majority of traffic is on the roads at peak times.

    A measure of control could be achieved by using a car control system similar to Tokyo, whereby only red badged cars are allowed into the city on mondays and thursdays, blue on tuesdays etc. This could reduce the traffic on any one day.
    Of course this could well lead to those who can afford two or more cars simply just getting another one to put under a different badge, and making parking in certain areas even worse.

    You could try and implement "car free day" once a month, so that people are forced to find an alternative on that day. It could lead to more sympathetic road sharing as drivers will see the other side of the coin.
  • lost_in_thoughtlost_in_thought Posts: 10,563
    chuckcork wrote:
    GarethPJ wrote:
    One thing that would reduce the amount of traffic would be a properly organised and subsidised public transport system. Unfortunately we have a government that sees public transport as a source of income rather than a public service to be subsidised.

    Whats worse is that public transport is seen as being "subsidised" in a way that roads aren't. If road pricing was introduced so that the subsidy no longer existed then public transport would by comparison be cheaper than more expensive as it is now.

    That's what's so insane at the minute - I went from commuting from Essex where I have a house to living in London (well, ealing) and driving back to Essex every weekend.

    My rent in London is cheaper than my train ticket from essex. It's also cheaper to drive to London (I have off-street parking) than it is to take the train.

    Insanity.

    @CJCP - public transport issues got me on the bike in London too - after the bombings Liverpool street kept being evacuated so I couldn't get on the tube and took a bus, saw all the cyclists whizzing past, that was what did it!
  • GarethPJGarethPJ Posts: 295
    chuckcork wrote:
    Whats worse is that public transport is seen as being "subsidised" in a way that roads aren't. If road pricing was introduced so that the subsidy no longer existed then public transport would by comparison be cheaper than more expensive as it is now.

    Road pricing penalises all the wrong people, it prices the poor off the roads no matter how much they need their cars while the affluent can afford it. Indeed those who can afford accountants will no doubt find a way of making it tax deductable and end up getting it free. You could end up with an elitist system where only the rich can afford to use cars and everybody else has to use public transport.

    I know our current PM wouldn't agree, but people must have a choice you can't simply dictate to them.

    The biggest joke of such a system would be that it would cost so much to set up a nationwide road charging system that it would take years to pay for itself. Furthermore it would be farmed out to a private company to operate and this company will expect to make a hefty profit. So it would take even longer before the nation saw any benefit from the scheme.
  • roger_merrimanroger_merriman Posts: 6,165
    chuckcork wrote:
    GarethPJ wrote:
    One thing that would reduce the amount of traffic would be a properly organised and subsidised public transport system. Unfortunately we have a government that sees public transport as a source of income rather than a public service to be subsidised.

    Whats worse is that public transport is seen as being "subsidised" in a way that roads aren't. If road pricing was introduced so that the subsidy no longer existed then public transport would by comparison be cheaper than more expensive as it is now.

    That's what's so insane at the minute - I went from commuting from Essex where I have a house to living in London (well, ealing) and driving back to Essex every weekend.

    My rent in London is cheaper than my train ticket from essex. It's also cheaper to drive to London (I have off-street parking) than it is to take the train.

    Insanity.

    @CJCP - public transport issues got me on the bike in London too - after the bombings Liverpool street kept being evacuated so I couldn't get on the tube and took a bus, saw all the cyclists whizzing past, that was what did it!

    with regard to london's public transport it's problem is is radial so if i living want to go to some where in london other than central i will tend to need to go via central which uses a lot of time, to go to wales where my folks live by public transport takes 5hours plus if one gets every connection etc, to drive takes 2hrs plus and the cost is by public transport is frankly scary!

    at the end of the day public transport is takes one from where you didn't really want to be , to where you didn't really want to get to, which is why personal transport aka cars/bikes are so popular.
Sign In or Register to comment.