A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

transport planning favours cars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old August 15th 07, 07:25 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Erik Sandblom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default transport planning favours cars

Den 2007-08-11 01:18:29 skrev Jeremy Parker :


No, no, the government has it exactly right. What those figures show
is that sitting in a car is 16p per minute more burdensome than
riding a bike, or to put it the other way round, riding a bike is 16p
per minute more fun than sitting in a car.

Ride a bike - it's more fun - the government says so.



I agree, but the question is if the transport engineers are reading the
numbers right. The right way of reading this is that transport projects
must be made to shift motorists to cycling, thereby saving all this money.
Same thing with public transportation; the time cost for passengers is
lower because they can use the time for sleeping and reading.

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies
Ads
  #82  
Old August 16th 07, 06:57 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Daniel Barlow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default transport planning favours cars

Matt B wrote:
Should we suppress the demand for [...]sewage disposal, ... rather than increase the
capacity to satisfy those who need it???


Why, are there more people spouting **** now than there were a decade ago?


-dan
  #83  
Old August 16th 07, 07:02 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MJ Ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 326
Default transport planning favours cars

Matt B wrote:
MJ Ray wrote: [...]
The network (and by that I mean motorway) is simply nowhere near
adequate. [...]


Woosh! The goalposts vanish into the distance, as you replace 'decent'
with the impossible requirement of 'adequate'!


No, I use the two interchangeably. To be decent the network needs to be
adequate. c.f. To be decent you need to be clothed adequately ;-)


You can be decent but clothed inadequately. Using the two interchangeably
is silly.

No European country has an 'adequate' road network in your sense.


Some though are closer, and getting closer still.

The motorway-building argument is like saying there should
be no AUPs on broadband.
Motor traffic is authorised, legal, and absolutely necessary, so how is
it like saying that?


Most broadband traffic is authorised, legal, and just as necessary.
Compare.


So why /do/ they need an AUP?


To suppress demand and stop spending a disproportionate amount catering to
abusers who aren't paying an amount appropriate to what they actually use.
Building motorways everywhere they could be is similar abuse catering.

[...]
A fossil-fuelled car is not more efficient than a fossil-fuelled car - it's
exactly as efficient!


c.f. VW Polo Blue Motion, at 99g/km, and, say, the Lamborghini Diablo
132 at 520 g/km CO2.


So you want to ban Lamborghini Diablos?

More efficient personal mobility means non-fossil-
fuelled vehicles, including bicycles.


Not at all. A typical car passenger is greener than a typical bus or
train passenger, and how efficient is a bike when you need to use a
train to carry you and it for most of many journeys.


The train seldom carries my bike and I only need a train for fairly few
journeys. I don't know what travel patterns you are seeking to facilitate,
but they seem unreasonable.

So do I, and my preferred efficient personal transport is not allowed
on motorways.


No, nor on footpaths, nor on railway tracks. Do you think motorway and
railway travel would be more efficient and more safe if bicycles shared
the infrastructure?


Bicycles can use railway infrastructure in appropriate carriers and some
railway corridors are being upgraded to include cycle tracks.

Building motorways has little benefit for cycling,


On the contrary. It offers the massive potential benefit of freeing the
legacy roads of our communities from their role as high-speed motor
corridors. [...]


Nonsense. It just converts them into high-speed motor corridors feeding
larger, higher-speed (=even less fuel-efficient) motor corridors.

It also adds dangerous
junctions and energy-burning bridges to the existing road network.


Why?


Because, in total, it's cheaper in many senses to burn all the cyclists
than it is to burn motor fuel. Your half-decent CBAs at work again.

I note that you did not explain your superior knowledge of MK's road
network compared to those who've used it every day for years...


I never claimed any "superior" knowledge. I was commenting on my
experiences and my observations.


Back to the peanut gallery with you.

I note that you did not answer my question: "Should we suppress the
demand for, say, broadband, hospitals, sewage disposal, ... rather than
increase the capacity to satisfy those who need it???"


I did. Apparently it wasn't explicit enough for you: not only should we,
but we already do! Broadband has AUPs and houses aren't built where the
services can't cope with it.

Tell me, do you even own a motor car?


By that do you /really/ mean _own_, or do you mean "keep", or perhaps
even currently have the use of one.


Cycling is an admirable mode, yes. I enjoy it, you enjoy it. It is not
necessarily practical though, or desirable, for most people to use it
for most journeys. [...]


Impractical for some, I agree, and the failure to develop the road network
sensibly instead of building ever-bigger ever-faster roads is part of the
reason. Why undesirable, though?

[...] OTOH car travel is so [...] desirable (otherwise
why it it such a successful cash-cow)


Obvious: politics.

[...] We need to return our streets and country lanes to the
communities to which they belong, and to "banish" motor traffic to a
dedicated infrastructure (motorways) where they do less harm to everyone
else.


So how will you keep motor traffic off our streets and country lanes?
Massive car parks by motorway junctions?

Puzzled,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

  #84  
Old August 16th 07, 08:09 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!.....
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default transport planning favours cars




"Daniel Barlow" wrote in message
...

Why, are there more people spouting **** now than there were a decade ago?



Because the Enviro-Nazis have gained some prominence.


  #85  
Old August 17th 07, 04:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
David Damerell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,863
Default transport planning favours cars

Quoting I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!..... :
Because the Enviro-Nazis have gained some prominence.


Godwin. You lose. Particularly ironic, given your overtly racist email
address.
--
David Damerell flcl?
Today is Teleute, August.
  #86  
Old August 17th 07, 11:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.caravanning
I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!.....
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default transport planning favours cars



"David Damerell" wrote in message
...
Quoting I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!..... :
Because the Enviro-Nazis have gained some prominence.


Godwin. You lose. Particularly ironic, given your overtly racist email
address.




I've never given much credence to Godwin's (rather odd) law, myself -
although I understand that the nerdier types of Usenet participants still
derive a great deal of pleasure from seeking out infractions of it.

I'm puzzled why 'concerned@massimmigration should be construed by you as
overtly racist' - you didn't come over with your cycle in the back of wagon
from sunnier climes, did you?

Whatever, I would contend that any who is *not* concerned@massimmigration,
should adopt one of the following email addresses for their own use:









Feel free to choose whichever you feel to be the most suitable - but, hurry,
demand for them is continually increasing (particulalrly number two)



  #87  
Old August 18th 07, 05:06 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.caravanning
Tom Crispin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,229
Default transport planning favours cars

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:08:54 +0100, "I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!....."
wrote:

Whatever, I would contend that any who is *not* concerned@massimmigration,
should adopt one of the following email addresses for their own use:


That would be everyone who understands the economic and cultural
benefits that immigrants bring to this country, then.

Many of us recall that bleak period in the 80s of mass emmigration,
when doctors, teachers and nurses were heading for Australia and
America while builders, plumbers and carpenters headed for Germany.
  #88  
Old August 18th 07, 11:50 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.caravanning
Adam Lea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 357
Default transport planning favours cars


"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:08:54 +0100, "I've lost my Dhobi Wallah!....."
wrote:

Whatever, I would contend that any who is *not* concerned@massimmigration,
should adopt one of the following email addresses for their own use:


That would be everyone who understands the economic and cultural
benefits that immigrants bring to this country, then.

Many of us recall that bleak period in the 80s of mass emmigration,
when doctors, teachers and nurses were heading for Australia and
America while builders, plumbers and carpenters headed for Germany.


I always find it ironic when people complain about immigration and then
state they will leave the country if they had the opportunity.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
planning for a unicycle himmhui Unicycling 52 July 18th 07 09:37 AM
Planning a trip Gingerblokey UK 13 May 14th 07 11:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.