The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

1…7273757778…187

Comments

  • photonic69
    photonic69 Posts: 2,672
    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    You will get "phantom" james, i.e. jams of no particular cause, once you reach a critical mass of cars.

    https://news.mit.edu/2009/traffic-0609

    I guess I was the only one here who watched the Royal Society Christmas lectures on geometry and traffic then.

    I wonder how many hours of congestion are caused by people looking at their mobile phones when stuck at junctions and haven't realised the car ahead has pulled away. I see it everyday. Times that by the number of drivers in the 35million cars doing just that. It's so bloody annoying and against the law. They could easily have camera aimed at drivers at lights.


    Sometimes. Maybe. Possibly.

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    You will get "phantom" james, i.e. jams of no particular cause, once you reach a critical mass of cars.

    https://news.mit.edu/2009/traffic-0609

    I guess I was the only one here who watched the Royal Society Christmas lectures on geometry and traffic then.
    I'm well aware of that - it is mainly an issue of people driving too close together. That can easily be solved using existing technology that prevents you getting too close to the car in front. With that and no junctions roads would effectively become railways with a series of independent trains, problem is they would no longer funtion as they need to.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Pross said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    You will get "phantom" james, i.e. jams of no particular cause, once you reach a critical mass of cars.

    https://news.mit.edu/2009/traffic-0609

    I guess I was the only one here who watched the Royal Society Christmas lectures on geometry and traffic then.
    I'm well aware of that - it is mainly an issue of people driving too close together. That can easily be solved using existing technology that prevents you getting too close to the car in front. With that and no junctions roads would effectively become railways with a series of independent trains, problem is they would no longer funtion as they need to.
    I mean, intuitively, if everyone drove cars double the length, the traffic would be slower, would it not?
    _
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.
    Calling rjs to the thread - we need someone qualifies to explain why building up isn't more resource efficient. RC won't believe anyone else.
    I mean, it is literally more land efficient, for starters. Is Los Angeles your ideal city or something?
    Here is a simple Google search for you.

    Once you've run out of energy to rubbish the articles (I estimate about half way down page 3), get back to me.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&oq=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i546l3j0i30i546.25774j0j4&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
    Yeah sure, densely built low rise is great. The key bit is the "dense" bit
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,704
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.
    Calling rjs to the thread - we need someone qualifies to explain why building up isn't more resource efficient. RC won't believe anyone else.
    I mean, it is literally more land efficient, for starters. Is Los Angeles your ideal city or something?
    Here is a simple Google search for you.

    Once you've run out of energy to rubbish the articles (I estimate about half way down page 3), get back to me.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&oq=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i546l3j0i30i546.25774j0j4&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
    Yeah sure, densely built low rise is great. The key bit is the "dense" bit
    Do I get a prize for being right? A badge maybe?
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    TheBigBean said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.
    Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way through :wink:
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.
    Calling rjs to the thread - we need someone qualifies to explain why building up isn't more resource efficient. RC won't believe anyone else.
    I mean, it is literally more land efficient, for starters. Is Los Angeles your ideal city or something?
    Here is a simple Google search for you.

    Once you've run out of energy to rubbish the articles (I estimate about half way down page 3), get back to me.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&oq=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i546l3j0i30i546.25774j0j4&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
    Yeah sure, densely built low rise is great. The key bit is the "dense" bit
    Do I get a prize for being right? A badge maybe?
    Sure. I didn't realise I was the cheerleader for skyscrapers.

    I just recognise we're all moving to denser areas and that trend is global and has been the case for the past 3 centuries, so we should adapt our transportation focus to match how we live :)
    _
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    kingstongraham said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    Or cars parked on the road making it too narrow for two modern cars to pass each other.
    To an extent, that would come down to an obstruction. Although you can also argue it keeps vehicle speeds low in an urban environment. The bigger problem is that many drivers feel causing such inconvenience to motorists is a bad thing and it is better to park partially, or even fully, on the footway instead even when this often still means two cars can't pass.
    It is not an obstruction in the manner of a collision or breakdown, it is just the way urban roads work.
    Sure, it's also historical in many cases as the streets were built before the car was invented or before the explosion in car ownership. Although there are also modern examples where deliberately restricting car parking on plots is used as a way to try to restrict car usage, often without there being reasonable alternative infrastructure, with the predictable chaos it causes.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 27,762
    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Pross said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    Or cars parked on the road making it too narrow for two modern cars to pass each other.
    To an extent, that would come down to an obstruction. Although you can also argue it keeps vehicle speeds low in an urban environment. The bigger problem is that many drivers feel causing such inconvenience to motorists is a bad thing and it is better to park partially, or even fully, on the footway instead even when this often still means two cars can't pass.
    It is not an obstruction in the manner of a collision or breakdown, it is just the way urban roads work.
    To have your car parked on your drive, the house/street needs to have been designed less densely than otherwise to accommodate the space for the cars, thus being space inefficient. That all adds up.

    Clearly you can have a basement garage for example, but then again, that's a flat or a house that otherwise is given away to vehicles.

    Space is a premium where a lot of people live and it will continue to become more sought after as the urbanisation continues.
    To clarify - if they want to dedicate that space to a gym or bike museum, or a model railway room - that's also not my problem. It's up to them how they use the valuable space they have paid for.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,976
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation


    Just glad that I won't be around long enough to have to live in dense population.
    Eugh.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.
    Calling rjs to the thread - we need someone qualifies to explain why building up isn't more resource efficient. RC won't believe anyone else.
    I mean, it is literally more land efficient, for starters. Is Los Angeles your ideal city or something?
    Here is a simple Google search for you.

    Once you've run out of energy to rubbish the articles (I estimate about half way down page 3), get back to me.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&oq=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i546l3j0i30i546.25774j0j4&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
    Yeah sure, densely built low rise is great. The key bit is the "dense" bit
    Densely built anything is hell. I don't recall many people 3 years ago saying "I'm glad I haven't got a bigger garden".
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation


    Just glad that I won't be around long enough to have to live in dense population.
    Eugh.
    You don't want to be that old todger blocking everything that is future proofing because it's not like it was when they grew up?
    _
  • First.Aspect
    First.Aspect Posts: 16,704
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.
    Calling rjs to the thread - we need someone qualifies to explain why building up isn't more resource efficient. RC won't believe anyone else.
    I mean, it is literally more land efficient, for starters. Is Los Angeles your ideal city or something?
    Here is a simple Google search for you.

    Once you've run out of energy to rubbish the articles (I estimate about half way down page 3), get back to me.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&oq=are+skyscrapers+more+space+efficient&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i546l3j0i30i546.25774j0j4&client=ms-android-ee-uk-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
    Yeah sure, densely built low rise is great. The key bit is the "dense" bit
    Do I get a prize for being right? A badge maybe?
    Sure. I didn't realise I was the cheerleader for skyscrapers.
    Just an unfortunate manner, perhaps.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,976
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation


    Just glad that I won't be around long enough to have to live in dense population.
    Eugh.
    You don't want to be that old todger blocking everything that is future proofing because it's not like it was when they grew up?
    No, I just want to live in the countryside.
    I know you opinion is different, and neither of us is wrong.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation


    Just glad that I won't be around long enough to have to live in dense population.
    Eugh.
    You don't want to be that old todger blocking everything that is future proofing because it's not like it was when they grew up?
    No, I just want to live in the countryside.
    I know you opinion is different, and neither of us is wrong.
    Right, but this isn't about you wanting to live in the countryside, but about creating a system that more effectively gets an increasingly urbanised and populous nation around and about.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,976
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation


    Just glad that I won't be around long enough to have to live in dense population.
    Eugh.
    You don't want to be that old todger blocking everything that is future proofing because it's not like it was when they grew up?
    No, I just want to live in the countryside.
    I know you opinion is different, and neither of us is wrong.
    Right, but this isn't about you wanting to live in the countryside, but about creating a system that more effectively gets an increasingly urbanised and populous nation around and about.
    This is something that doesn't concern me, and doesn't care about me.
    I'll be fine.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,604
    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    davebradswmb said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.

    The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.

    And that's despite car sales falling from 1.9 million in 1994 to 1.6 million last year. Car sales peaked in 2016 at 2.7 million. The increase in car registrations is due to older cars remaining on the road a lot longer. Old cars are cheap, and many households have several cars. Many of the houses on the road where I live have paved their front gardens and have 2 or 3 cars parked on it, and they still have another car parked on the road/grass verge, and it isn't a particularly affluent area.
    there is an obvious solution to that, which is to tax very heavily any second car one owns. Household of 2 licences… 3 cars? Tax the third one 10 times over and they will sell it… another no brainer
    What problem is that solving? I'm not massively concerned about cars that are parked up on someone's drive and not being driven.
    You ought to be. Waste of real estate. We all have to live further out from places we want to be, or we can't have the greenery we want.

    If that's what people want to use their property for, it's not my concern. I think it's weird they wouldn't rather have a garden or a basketball hoop, but not my problem.

    If it's on the road, then it starts to become my problem.
    When paving over front gardens becomes a nationwide norm it is quite bad for wildlife (and flooding)
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    pangolin said:

    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    davebradswmb said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.

    The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.

    And that's despite car sales falling from 1.9 million in 1994 to 1.6 million last year. Car sales peaked in 2016 at 2.7 million. The increase in car registrations is due to older cars remaining on the road a lot longer. Old cars are cheap, and many households have several cars. Many of the houses on the road where I live have paved their front gardens and have 2 or 3 cars parked on it, and they still have another car parked on the road/grass verge, and it isn't a particularly affluent area.
    there is an obvious solution to that, which is to tax very heavily any second car one owns. Household of 2 licences… 3 cars? Tax the third one 10 times over and they will sell it… another no brainer
    What problem is that solving? I'm not massively concerned about cars that are parked up on someone's drive and not being driven.
    You ought to be. Waste of real estate. We all have to live further out from places we want to be, or we can't have the greenery we want.

    If that's what people want to use their property for, it's not my concern. I think it's weird they wouldn't rather have a garden or a basketball hoop, but not my problem.

    If it's on the road, then it starts to become my problem.
    When paving over front gardens becomes a nationwide norm it is quite bad for wildlife (and flooding)
    I'm now trying to work out if Rick's high density dvelopment with o front gardn to begin with is better, worse or the same on this front.

    FWIW planning authorities are clamping down on it.

    Another issue with parking in urban areas is the result of turning individual properties into HMOs, also an example of how increased density isn't necessarily good.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,604
    Pross said:

    pangolin said:

    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    davebradswmb said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.

    The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.

    And that's despite car sales falling from 1.9 million in 1994 to 1.6 million last year. Car sales peaked in 2016 at 2.7 million. The increase in car registrations is due to older cars remaining on the road a lot longer. Old cars are cheap, and many households have several cars. Many of the houses on the road where I live have paved their front gardens and have 2 or 3 cars parked on it, and they still have another car parked on the road/grass verge, and it isn't a particularly affluent area.
    there is an obvious solution to that, which is to tax very heavily any second car one owns. Household of 2 licences… 3 cars? Tax the third one 10 times over and they will sell it… another no brainer
    What problem is that solving? I'm not massively concerned about cars that are parked up on someone's drive and not being driven.
    You ought to be. Waste of real estate. We all have to live further out from places we want to be, or we can't have the greenery we want.

    If that's what people want to use their property for, it's not my concern. I think it's weird they wouldn't rather have a garden or a basketball hoop, but not my problem.

    If it's on the road, then it starts to become my problem.
    When paving over front gardens becomes a nationwide norm it is quite bad for wildlife (and flooding)
    I'm now trying to work out if Rick's high density dvelopment with o front gardn to begin with is better, worse or the same on this front.

    FWIW planning authorities are clamping down on it.

    Another issue with parking in urban areas is the result of turning individual properties into HMOs, also an example of how increased density isn't necessarily good.
    Better surely. You have a lot more people living in an area, and yes that specific area will have less green space as a result, but also it means that it doesn't have to sprawl miles out into the countryside.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,103
    rick_chasey said:

    First.Aspect said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.
    Calling rjs to the thread - we need someone qualifies to explain why building up isn't more resource efficient. RC won't believe anyone else.
    I mean, it is literally more land efficient, for starters. Is Los Angeles your ideal city or something?
    The original Idea was that by building in towers there was LOTS of space left for parks and greenery. Guess which bit was cut to save money. On the other hand

    https://www.archdaily.com/976437/how-singapore-is-pioneering-the-way-to-creating-a-greener-urban-environment

    And even in this country.



    But height isn't necessary - you can build at pretty high densities and still have plenty of green.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    I'd quite like to live in a new build again (first house was one) as there are a lot of upsides such as improved efficiency. The main thing that puts me off is having even less personal outdoor space than I do at the moment as the gardens are generally tiny even on fairly large detached houses. Public open space on new developments is great but you still have to share it and I just don't like most other people all that much, especially in those sorts of environments where so many treat it like it is their space.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    kingstongraham said:

    Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.

    The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.

    in that time the number of petrol stations ha fallen from 13,000 to 8,000
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    rick_chasey said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ricktopia, with green spaces.
    No thanks.


    That's where we're all headed, right? That is where all the trends point to. So you've got to build something around that, rather than just decry that you don't like it and pretend it's not happening already.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation/trend-deck-2021-urbanisation


    Just glad that I won't be around long enough to have to live in dense population.
    Eugh.
    You don't want to be that old todger blocking everything that is future proofing because it's not like it was when they grew up?
    Sometimes it is very apparent that English is not your first language ;)

    In this case you should use the word "codger".

    A todger is an old school word for a gentleman's private parts
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,544
    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.

    The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.

    in that time the number of petrol stations ha fallen from 13,000 to 8,000

    It was one of the things that instrigued me when I cycled to Rome (with five other friends) - why are there soooo many petrol stations still in Italy (or were, in 2013)?
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,976
    briantrumpet said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.

    The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.

    in that time the number of petrol stations ha fallen from 13,000 to 8,000

    It was one of the things that instrigued me when I cycled to Rome (with five other friends) - why are there soooo many petrol stations still in Italy (or were, in 2013)?
    They often have the best cafes. Well, truck stop places at least.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,541
    pangolin said:

    kingstongraham said:

    rick_chasey said:

    kingstongraham said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    davebradswmb said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Just looked at the number of vehicles licenced in the UK for 1994 vs 2022.

    The number of cars has gone up from 21 million to 35 million.

    And that's despite car sales falling from 1.9 million in 1994 to 1.6 million last year. Car sales peaked in 2016 at 2.7 million. The increase in car registrations is due to older cars remaining on the road a lot longer. Old cars are cheap, and many households have several cars. Many of the houses on the road where I live have paved their front gardens and have 2 or 3 cars parked on it, and they still have another car parked on the road/grass verge, and it isn't a particularly affluent area.
    there is an obvious solution to that, which is to tax very heavily any second car one owns. Household of 2 licences… 3 cars? Tax the third one 10 times over and they will sell it… another no brainer
    What problem is that solving? I'm not massively concerned about cars that are parked up on someone's drive and not being driven.
    You ought to be. Waste of real estate. We all have to live further out from places we want to be, or we can't have the greenery we want.

    If that's what people want to use their property for, it's not my concern. I think it's weird they wouldn't rather have a garden or a basketball hoop, but not my problem.

    If it's on the road, then it starts to become my problem.
    When paving over front gardens becomes a nationwide norm it is quite bad for wildlife (and flooding)
    If there isn't already a dropped curved, paving over the front garden also effectively removes a street parking space, so it isn't much different to parking on the street.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,541
    Pross said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.
    Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way through :wink:
    Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.

    Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    TheBigBean said:

    Pross said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.
    Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way through :wink:
    Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.

    Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
    I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.

    I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 19,544
    Pross said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Pross said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.
    Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way through :wink:
    Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.

    Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
    I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.

    I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.

    Apparently my grandfather noticed way back in the 50's that traffic in Bristol always flowed better when the policemen weren't on traffic duty.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,976
    briantrumpet said:

    Pross said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Pross said:

    TheBigBean said:

    Pross said:

    Congestion on roads is caused by junctions not lack of road space. Away from junction the thing that causes a delay is some sort of obstruction along the lines of a collision or breakdown.

    Pedestrians are able to pass each other at "junctions" without so much of a delay though.
    Maybe we should do away with give way lines, roundabouts and traffic lights - just let cars make their own way through :wink:
    Your argument was that the size of a car wasn't contributing to congestion as all congestion is at junctions, but those junctions are far more congested than they would be if cars were only the size of people.

    Also, it is always interesting how, when the traffic lights fail, there is never a queue. Obviously, pedestrians suffer in those cases.
    I never mentioned the size of a car. I was pointing out that it isn’t lack of road space that causes traffic jams, it is junction capacity.

    I’ve actually been an advocate of removing traffic control and segregation in urban areas (in the right situations) for about 15 years. My old boss was very vocal on it and tried pushing a few schemes through but it’s impossible to get beyond the old school thinking in most highway departments (we can’t model this so you can’t demonstrate it will work etc.) and then there’s various pressure groups that deliberately misrepresent the proposals and make it emotive.

    Apparently my grandfather noticed way back in the 50's that traffic in Bristol always flowed better when the policemen weren't on traffic duty.
    Ha!
    My comment was going to be introduce a policeman if you want to really snarl things up. 🤣
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.

Categories