The way to break out of the pro-car, anti-car debate?

"sheik yerbouti" wrote in message

they have much higher death rates in those countries

Your sources?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"DRS" wrote in message
...
Why don't we do it in the road?
A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs and
red
lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It sounds insane,
but
it works.

Interesting concept which does not work - fatality accidents and serious
injury accidents throughout countries which have next to no road rules are
horrendous once out of the low speed congested areas. City traffic flows at
the speed of the bikes therefore any impacts are low speed and end up with a
few harsh words and maybe a skinned knuckle.

As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have congested
roads by any world standard - you can drive at 100kph and be expected to
stop - bikes are a name for an easy woman.

"Roger Martin" wrote in message

"DRS" wrote in message
...
Why don't we do it in the road?
A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs
and red lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It
sounds insane, but it works.

Interesting concept which does not work - fatality accidents and
serious injury accidents throughout countries which have next to no
road rules are horrendous once out of the low speed congested areas.

The article clearly distinguishes between the different requirements of low
speed urban areas and higher speed non-urban areas.

City traffic flows at the speed of the bikes therefore any impacts
are low speed and end up with a few harsh words and maybe a skinned
knuckle.

Which is the point of the exercise.

As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have
congested roads by any world standard

As someone who has lived, worked and driven in a fair number of cities
around the world I can safely say that's utter bull****.

- you can drive at 100kph and
be expected to stop - bikes are a name for an easy woman.

I'll let someone else try to parse that little lot.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Plodder wrote:

Accident rates are merely the output of the
processes and limiting oneself to such a one-dimensional criterion of
stupidity is way more stupid than the article...

you're right, accident rates just aren't worth worrying about...

Charlie

"Charlie" wrote in message
...
Plodder wrote:

Accident rates are merely the output of the
processes and limiting oneself to such a one-dimensional criterion of
stupidity is way more stupid than the article...

you're right, accident rates just aren't worth worrying about...

Charlie

I don't remember writing that.

The point is that accident rates are only a single output of the process.
There are others: fear, road rage, de-socialisation and a degree of safety.
No doubt there are more, but I can't be stuffed listing them.

I admit to being dumbfounded how people deal with a world that consists of
shades of grey in such black-and-white terms. The world is more complex than
my poor little mind can comprehend. I'm better off admitting I'm baffled
than reducing it to black-and-white terms and pretending understanding.

I like your sarcasm... keep it coming. But have it make sense! Read out of,
not into, what people write.

Frank

Roger wrote:

Why don't we do it in the road?
A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs and
red
lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It sounds insane,
but
it works.

Interesting concept which does not work - fatality accidents and serious
injury accidents throughout countries which have next to no road rules are
horrendous once out of the low speed congested areas. City traffic flows
at
the speed of the bikes therefore any impacts are low speed and end up with
a
few harsh words and maybe a skinned knuckle.

As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have
congested
roads by any world standard - you can drive at 100kph and be expected to
stop - bikes are a name for an easy woman.

I agree, the concept probably wouldn't work outside of cities and suburban
areas, especially in Aus where people travel many kilometers at high speeds
as a matter of course. Nevertheless, I see no reason why the concept
couldn't work in residential areas. Why not an artery system of major roads
retaining current road rules for high-speed, long-distance travel, changing
to the "intrigue" concept in city and residential streets? You can get to
where you want fast and when you get there, you slow down. Doesn't seem
hard...

Frank

"eb" wrote in message

"DRS" == drs writes:

"Roger Martin" wrote in message


As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont
have congested roads by any world standard

As someone who has lived, worked and driven in a fair number of
cities around the world I can safely say that's utter bull****.

Agreed. 100 KM/H is the limit for normal roads like the Nepean
Highway, Autobahns there is no limit. Driving on those roads 100
KM/H will see you getting overtaken by trucks. 100 MP/H is the
average speed on those roads.

In the UK the speed limit on the motorways may be 70 MP/H yet the
average speed is closer to 90 MP/H. Normal roads like the Nepean
Highway have a limit of 60 MP/H which is roughly 120 KM/H

You can say a lot of things about Australian traffic, saying it moves
fast is not one of them.

He was talking about urban traffic. Autobahns aren't urban, nor are most
motorways (although the M25 may qualify as an exception). The Nepean
Highway, which is mostly 80kph not 100kph, is urban in the sense it's within
Melbourne's city limits (it starts 6 or 7 km from the CBD). Howeverm his
claim that Melbourne, Sydney etc are not congested is simply crap. I've
driven in London, Amsterdam, Rome, Boston, Singapore and our congestion
compares to any of them. To say they don't means you've either never driven
up Punt Road or Sydney Road (Melb) or Victoria Road or Parramatta Road (Syd)
in peak hour or you've simply never been overseas.

- you can drive at 100kph and be expected to stop - bikes are a
name for an easy woman.

I'll let someone else try to parse that little lot.

Bike ~= something that gets ridden a lot ~= easy woman. Hence terms
in the military like "camp bike" or "Regimental Bicycle."

sigh
I knew that. But how does it fit within the overall text?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Plodder" CORNED BEEF@NOSPAM wrote in message
. au
Roger wrote:

Why don't we do it in the road?
A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs
and red lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It
sounds insane, but it works.

Interesting concept which does not work - fatality accidents and
serious injury accidents throughout countries which have next to no
road rules are horrendous once out of the low speed congested areas.
City traffic flows at the speed of the bikes therefore any impacts
are low speed and end up with a few harsh words and maybe a skinned
knuckle.

As for trying it in Aus - our traffic moves faster - we dont have
congested roads by any world standard - you can drive at 100kph and
be expected to stop - bikes are a name for an easy woman.

I agree, the concept probably wouldn't work outside of cities and
suburban areas,

Nobody, especially not the article, ever said it would, so can we please put
this strawman down once and for all?

especially in Aus where people travel many kilometers
at high speeds as a matter of course. Nevertheless, I see no reason
why the concept couldn't work in residential areas. Why not an artery
system of major roads retaining current road rules for high-speed,
long-distance travel, changing to the "intrigue" concept in city and
residential streets? You can get to where you want fast and when you
get there, you slow down. Doesn't seem hard...

Which is precisely what the article says.

Sheesh.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Plodder wrote:

I don't remember writing that.

The point is that accident rates are only a single output of the process.
There are others: fear, road rage, de-socialisation and a degree of safety.
No doubt there are more, but I can't be stuffed listing them.

fair enough, but accident rates are of enough importance (to your
average person, afaik) to make any sort of traffic management suggestion
that ignores them totally, as in the initial post, beyond ridiculous...

I admit to being dumbfounded how people deal with a world that consists of
shades of grey in such black-and-white terms. The world is more complex than
my poor little mind can comprehend. I'm better off admitting I'm baffled
than reducing it to black-and-white terms and pretending understanding.

I agree, though usenet discussions with crazed cyclists are often more
amusing if you don't

I like your sarcasm... keep it coming. But have it make sense! Read out of,
not into, what people write.

sure
It did sound like you were suggesting the examination of processes
without any understanding of the consequences (which leads to wild,
invented conclusions of 0 value, imho) to be posessing of merit though.
But I accept that's not what you meant...

Charlie

Plodder wrote:

I agree, the concept probably wouldn't work outside of cities and suburban
areas, especially in Aus where people travel many kilometers at high speeds
as a matter of course. Nevertheless, I see no reason why the concept
couldn't work in residential areas. Why not an artery system of major roads
retaining current road rules for high-speed, long-distance travel, changing
to the "intrigue" concept in city and residential streets? You can get to
where you want fast and when you get there, you slow down. Doesn't seem
hard...

cars make up ridiculously large portions of the traffic percentage.
Drivers wouldn't cope with the occasioanl random cyclist / pedestrian
doing whatever they wanted, until perhaps there were enough of them
doing it to get used to. Whether you reach that point before the
elimination of the cyclist / pedestrian population, I'm not confident
I'll stick to advocating large subsidies for scooters / motorbikes...

Charlie