Share the Road

Cameron PMCameron PM Shipmate
I was driving in my right lane, and the chappy next to me on the left had just yielded into his own, designated lane. Instead of continuing on his own path he decided to merge on into my car, push me into oncoming traffic, and scrape the bullocks on the side of my door. My little Kia Rio now has racing stripes she never earned.

He sped off. I never caught his plate.

Take with the shits.
«13456721

Comments

  • Far too many of them about. I often wonder if I should get a dash cam to record some of the idiocy I regularly witness.

    The most common for me is section of motorway I take to get the kids. For a mile and a half there are a series of overhead signs clearly marking left two lanes as for the M73 to Stirling, right two lanes M74 for Glasgow. What happens? At least once a month someone waits to the absolute last minute to get into lane, crossing over the hashed section where the motorway splits. Not unusual for someone to come all the way from the left lane cutting across traffic. Or, as happened last Friday, to cut in front of someone on the M73 lane causing them to swerve and brake to avoid a collision, swerving into my lane so I needed to break. Jerks.

    But, for me the biscuit was taken by a right pillock back in December. A road in Kirkintilloch with a right turn shortly after traffic lights, with a turn lane in the middle of the road. Because of the lights it's very common for oncoming traffic to slow or stop to let people turn right (because the lights are red and they won't be going anywhere anyway). So, I was heading that way following a learner, L-plates all over and big sign on the roof, turning right. Oncoming driver slows and flashes so learner starts to turn - fortunately slowly because as soon as she moves oncoming pillock puts his foot down and cuts in front of her, anyone else would have probably been faster away and been hit.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    What are bullocks? Apart from cattle.

    I love the boy racers who overtake on blind corners on one lane highways out in the bush here. Really smart. Seen more than I expected. Thankfully I've been behind them.
  • I am coming reluctantly to the conclusion that all cars should be equipped with dashcams (and boot/trunkcams for tailgaters) their feed being transmitted in real time to the Highway Patrol.
  • I am coming reluctantly to the conclusion that all cars should be equipped with dashcams (and boot/trunkcams for tailgaters) their feed being transmitted in real time to the Highway Patrol.

    My little automobile has both. I got a discount on my insurance for it :wink:
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Cameron PM wrote: »
    I was driving in my right lane, and the chappy next to me on the left had just yielded into his own, designated lane. Instead of continuing on his own path he decided to merge on into my car, push me into oncoming traffic, and scrape the bullocks on the side of my door. My little Kia Rio now has racing stripes she never earned.

    He sped off. I never caught his plate.

    Take with the shits.

    This is embarrassing. :flushed:

    I pretty much did the same thing a few years ago, when I neglected to check my blind spot. But I didn't hit and run. I stopped and exchanged insurance info with the woman I hit. She was naturally pretty pissed off since she had only recently bought the car. In fact at first she said she had to call the police otherwise she'd come over and sock me. Evidently she said as much on the emergency line! The officer who showed up asked if she had threatened me. I said no. She never made any kind of hostile gestures or got in my face. When she found out I had decent insurance and that I was mild and apologetic, she calmed down. In fact a few days later I followed up and called to ask if she and the friend in her car were alright and if the insurers were helping her. She assured me they were fine and everything was coming along.

    This was the first accident and only accident which was my fault, <sigh> and I've never gotten any violations that were points against my license.
  • Whenever I am annoyed by another driver, I like to convince myself that they are probably a nun.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    We have a saying, based on "The car in front is a Toyota" - "The car with your handlebar tape on its wing mirror is an Audi"
  • Cameron PM wrote: »
    I am coming reluctantly to the conclusion that all cars should be equipped with dashcams (and boot/trunkcams for tailgaters) their feed being transmitted in real time to the Highway Patrol.

    My little automobile has both. I got a discount on my insurance for it :wink:

    Though, if you've got cameras that don't capture the license plate number of the jerk who damages your car then that rather defeats the purpose of having them to enable police and insurance companies track down other parties in an accident.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    We have a saying, based on "The car in front is a Toyota" - "The car with your handlebar tape on its wing mirror is an Audi"

    We can also make observations about BMW drivers getting a fake tan by tailgating other drivers
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    Interesting - while on trip in Norway we saw an idiot driver make a mess of driving on the packed snow in a city. And it turned out that the others, including the Norwegians, were not at all surprised that the car was a BMW. I had not before made the connection between bad driving and that make, but since have seen it confirmed.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    I'm convinced it's a worldwide phenomenon.
  • There's something about driving which brings out so much negative. The expensive car makers keep trying to make "the driving experience" something more than transportation. I have been developing the opinion that discouraging driving is required, which is also a climate change necessity, which is not remedied by electric cars nor making driving easier. Plus a shift in attitude that's probably impossible. Cities are designed around cars.

    Our road conditions are probably worse than most. Snow ruts for half the year on side streets. We do see more courtesy at really cold temps and after big snowfalls.

  • Cities are designed around cars.
    Some cities are designed around cars. Most cities are more conveniently navigated by public transport - who in their right mind would choose to drive in New York, London or Tokyo? You would use the underground train network to get around.

    What's designed around cars are suburbs and satellite towns. And, once someone is in a car to get out of their suburb there's a strong tendency to then stay in the car 'til you get to your destination rather than subsequently park somewhere to get a more sensible train or bus. Especially when the train/bus fare is so expensive it's cheaper to drive.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    Cities should be designed around people - then perhaps I'd hate them less. We should reclaim them, but the motor lobby is too strong. If the will was there we could; it's not hard in principle - 20 mph limits in residential and retail areas, priority for pedestrians and cyclists, presumed liability for collisions, driving bans for all careless/inconsiderate/dangerous driving convictions with retests required to regain licence, exclusion of private vehicles from city centres - we could tame the motor vehicle and reclaim our space for people, but anyone trying would be crucified by the press.
  • Penny S wrote: »
    ...And it turned out that the others, including the Norwegians, were not at all surprised that the car was a BMW. I had not before made the connection between bad driving and that make, but since have seen it confirmed.

    In Germany, Mercedes-Benz used to advertise as "the car with the built-in right-of-way." Perhaps BMW has adopted the slogan as its own.



  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Cities should be designed around people - then perhaps I'd hate them less. We should reclaim them, but the motor lobby is too strong.

    When we go back to the UK for a visit, we used to take the train everywhere. But even with advance purchase tickets, the train has been getting more and more expensive, and it's now cheaper for us to hire a car and leave it parked on my parents driveway for a fortnight than it is to buy us all train tickets to and from Heathrow.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Cities should be designed around people
    Cities are, and always have been, designed around people. Some of those people are in cars. The underground can only handle so many people, if you took all the people out of cars and buses, they would overwhelm the system. Pretty sure this is also true for every major city with a train system. And then there are lorries/trucks. Stores and restaurants need supplies and those supplies are not being hand-carried through the city.
    we could tame the motor vehicle and reclaim our space for people, but anyone trying would be crucified by the press.
    The only way to reclaim space for people to get rid of most of them.
    Stricter punishment/ monitoring for dangerous drivers is relatively practicable and perfectly reasonable. I think it should be like driving after 70. Retesting and renewal every 3 years. Kinda don't see it happening, though, but not because of any motoring lobby or the press.

  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Penny S wrote: »
    ...And it turned out that the others, including the Norwegians, were not at all surprised that the car was a BMW. I had not before made the connection between bad driving and that make, but since have seen it confirmed.

    In Germany, Mercedes-Benz used to advertise as "the car with the built-in right-of-way." Perhaps BMW has adopted the slogan as its own.
    I think most of it is because of entitlement. The purchasers of that vehicle class overlaps with the those who feel entitled.
  • Agreed, lilbuddha. (It seems to me that drivers of the Cadillac-branded SUVs often combine the worst traits of both Cadillac drivers and SUV drivers. It's not pretty.)

  • The problem vehicles here are 3/4 ton crew-cab trucks. Ford F-350 is a common example. 4WD, dressed up with a people killing front rack. TV screen on the dashboard which sends and receives phone calls. Distraction plus unable to see anyone under 5 feet tall in front of them.

    It is interesting that the streets used for cars are paid out off public money. Would user pay be worthy? Not toll roads but per km or mile metering and a fee paid. Then incentivise public transit with a combination of low and free fares.

    The only thing good about driving in my province is that auto insurance is all from one company which is publicly owned, no fault, no lawsuits allowed, uninsured collisions are still paid.

    I am tired of the usual springtime nonsense that tells cyclists to wear helmets. Which is all about protecting them from being hit by cars. Better would be to deal with the cause. Also would be good to promote helmet wearing while driving. Which is where the most catastrophic head injuries occur.
  • It is interesting that the streets used for cars are paid out off public money. Would user pay be worthy? Not toll roads but per km or mile metering and a fee paid. Then incentivise public transit with a combination of low and free fares.

    If you charge for roads, you must (absolutely must, no questions, and if you disagree, you're wrong) charge by axle weight. Apparently, road damage scales as the fourth power of the axle weight of the vehicle. I'd imagine you could derate that a bit because damage caused by freeze-thaw cycles ought to be shared by everyone. So maybe charge the cube of the axle weight or something.

    (And yes, buses have to pay too.)
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Some cities are designed around cars. Most cities are more conveniently navigated by public transport - who in their right mind would choose to drive in New York, London or Tokyo? You would use the underground train network to get around.
    A lot of American cities actually are designed around cars. The 10 biggest cities in the US are New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Diego, San Antonio, Dallas, and San Jose. The only one of these cities in which you really don't want to own a car is New York. Chicago and Philadelphia have decent public transit. The other 7 cities? Dominated by cars.
  • In Brisbane, our last conservative (confusingly, we call them Liberal) Premier did many stupid things but in the midst of them fixed most of our traffic jams (which, by the way, are mild with anything which you might be accustomed to in any other city of almost 2M people) by building loadsa tunnels. They are fantastic for my blood pressure, but fatal for my bank balance because they're tolled. I think that an impartial transport consultant would have said, the tunnels are free but the CBD roads are charged.
  • ...I am tired of the usual springtime nonsense that tells cyclists to wear helmets. Which is all about protecting them from being hit by cars. Better would be to deal with the cause. ...

    In my experience, the cause is frequently bicyclists who zip through stop signs without pausing, run red lights, veer into the middle of the lane, and otherwise behave as if the laws - both concerning street usage and physics - don't apply to them. I'm a careful driver who yields the right-of-way, and they terrify me with their willful carelessness.

    I'm not supposed to bicycle anymore, but I used to run most of my errands via bicycle, often pulling a little trailer containing a small offspring unit. I always wore a helmet, I always obeyed the law, even when it was inconvenient - and I yielded the right-of-way, even when I had it - because I do respect the laws of physics. The bicyclist is always going to lose in those situations, no matter how "right" she may be.




  • If you charge for roads, you must (absolutely must, no questions, and if you disagree, you're wrong)
    Except that large trucks do the most damage by a significant margin. So those would pay the lion's share of road repair. And what do they carry? Supplies for everyone else. So goods would cost more and this would significantly disadvantage poor people. So the two schemes that make most sense are general fund spending or use taxes such as fuel tax. The best would be a combination of the two.

  • But fuel taxes are diminishing faster than governments can increase them. Efficient modern engines, hybrid, plug in hybrid and all-electric vehicles don't need so much or any taxed carbon fuel.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    ...I am tired of the usual springtime nonsense that tells cyclists to wear helmets. Which is all about protecting them from being hit by cars. Better would be to deal with the cause. ...

    In my experience, the cause is frequently bicyclists who zip through stop signs without pausing, run red lights, veer into the middle of the lane, and otherwise behave as if the laws - both concerning street usage and physics - don't apply to them. I'm a careful driver who yields the right-of-way, and they terrify me with their willful carelessness.

    I'm not supposed to bicycle anymore, but I used to run most of my errands via bicycle, often pulling a little trailer containing a small offspring unit. I always wore a helmet, I always obeyed the law, even when it was inconvenient - and I yielded the right-of-way, even when I had it - because I do respect the laws of physics. The bicyclist is always going to lose in those situations, no matter how "right" she may be.




    Two points - firstly whenever the causes have been subject to meta-analysis, drivers are found to be solely at fault in some 60% of cycle/motor vehicle collisions. So while the zipping in and out may look alarming, we're generally really good at it. I don't condone failure to observe red lights, but it's very seldom a cause of collisions. Secondly, if a cyclist does something daft the main danger he presents is to himself; when a driver does something daft he presents a danger to life and limb for everyone on the road, especially vulnerable road users - those with two wheels or none. It's not symmetrical.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    So while the zipping in and out may look alarming, we're generally really good at it.
    No no no, this is bullshit. Anything that is not part of the regular rules of driving is not excusable by this pretence of logic. Anything alarming or distracting is going to cause poor reaction from drivers. Besides, judging one's own ability is corollary to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
    I don't condone failure to observe red lights, but it's very seldom a cause of collisions. Secondly, if a cyclist does something daft the main danger he presents is to himself; when a driver does something daft he presents a danger to life and limb for everyone on the road, especially vulnerable road users - those with two wheels or none. It's not symmetrical.
    Also bullshit. When a cyclist does something that could get her/him killed, that is almost always going to be a distraction to drivers and potentially causing more mayhem. That the cyclist will likely suffer greater damage does not excuse this.

    Yes, those in multi-ton vehicles have a greater responsibility for their driving. This does not absolve cyclists in any way, shape or form for their own behaviours.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Except that what is generally called "zipping in and out" is called by cyclists "filtering", is perfectly legal, is one of the major advantages of using a bike in the city, and should therefore be expected.

    You will note I did not condone illegal behaviour but stand by the assymetry; close passes and left hooks by drivers risk a cyclist's life and limb; there's little a cyclist can do that risks a drivers'. This remains true without excusing illegal cycling.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Except that what is generally called "zipping in and out" is called by cyclists "filtering", is perfectly legal, is one of the major advantages of using a bike in the city, and should therefore be expected.
    Legal manoeuvring should still be done with caution as many drivers do not see other cars, much less cyclists. Safety trumps legality, for the cyclists own sake.
    You will note I did not condone illegal behaviour but stand by the assymetry; close passes and left hooks by drivers risk a cyclist's life and limb; there's little a cyclist can do that risks a drivers'.
    This is a far too simplistic view and appears to posits only one-one-one interactions. Yes, responsibility and risks are symmetrical. But that does not excuse poor road behaviour
    Everyone on the road should drive/ride safely. This does not excuse cyclists simply because they are more likely to end up dead.

  • In Queensland, cyclists must be given 1 metre space in built up areas (< 60kph speed limit), and 1.5m where the speed limit is >60kph. Riders have taken to wearing helmet cams to record car and truck drivers' behaviour. As a car driver, I have to say that cyclists pee me off, particularly when they're in a bunch on a windy country road. But KarlLB's point is valid. All that happens to me is that I get held up for a few seconds and call down fire from heaven on all cyclists. The cyclists are at risk of injury or worse whenever they're on the road.
  • The cyclists are at risk of injury or worse whenever they're on the road.
    Everyone is at risk of injury or worse whenever they're on the road. Cyclists face greater odds of injury or death. Motorists have a greater level of responsibility. None of that changes anything I said.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Except that what is generally called "zipping in and out" is called by cyclists "filtering", is perfectly legal, is one of the major advantages of using a bike in the city, and should therefore be expected.
    Legal manoeuvring should still be done with caution as many drivers do not see other cars, much less cyclists. Safety trumps legality, for the cyclists own sake.

    But equally drivers have a responsibility to be aware of other vehicles around them. The primary solution to drivers who don't see other road users is removal of their driving privileges. Otherwise we're into victim-blaming territory
    You will note I did not condone illegal behaviour but stand by the assymetry; close passes and left hooks by drivers risk a cyclist's life and limb; there's little a cyclist can do that risks a drivers'.
    This is a far too simplistic view and appears to posits only one-one-one interactions. Yes, responsibility and risks are symmetrical. But that does not excuse poor road behaviour
    Everyone on the road should drive/ride safely. This does not excuse cyclists simply because they are more likely to end up dead.

    I never said it did. My point is the people who introduce the danger into the situation - the motorists - need to be primarily responsible for containing that danger. Especially given that analysis shows that the majority of the injuries caused to non-motorised road users are caused by those motorists' failure to do so.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Except that large trucks do the most damage by a significant margin. So those would pay the lion's share of road repair. And what do they carry? Supplies for everyone else. So goods would cost more and this would significantly disadvantage poor people. So the two schemes that make most sense are general fund spending or use taxes such as fuel tax. The best would be a combination of the two.

    You're thinking wrong. Your problem is that poor people are, well, poor. Don't try to fix that by distorting the charges - fix it by giving money to the poor people. My preference is some kind of citizen's basic income.

    But really, what you want is "goods cost more because they damage the roads so much, so we'll shift more goods to rail / use smaller trucks more efficiently / etc." which you lose with your scheme.
  • edited March 2018
    Vehicular cycling needs to die. This is the idea that bicycles are to be ridden like cars. They aren't cars and are only considered to be in special occasions like some intersections. The real answer is bicycles need separate infrastructure. But in the meantime, separate laws for bikes are probably worth considering.

    This is useful. Montréal considers différent laws for cyclists than cars. "Bikes are different. The rules are written by drivers but the world has changed and it is time for the rules to change too." Goes on to discuss how equity re safety. I might say that bicycles are obviously not cars and should not be treated as such.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    But equally drivers have a responsibility to be aware of other vehicles around them.
    Of course they do. Which is pretty much bang on to what I've been saying.
    My point is the people who introduce the danger into the situation - the motorists - need to be primarily responsible for containing that danger.
    No. The people who introduce the danger into the situation need to be primarily responsible for containing that danger. Whether they be in car, on a bike or on a motorcycle.
    Especially given that analysis shows that the majority of the injuries caused to non-motorised road users are caused by those motorists' failure to do so.
    This goes with the 'motorists have greater responsibility' thing that I have been saying.

  • Vehicular cycling needs to die. This is the idea that bicycles are to be ridden like cars.

    Although bicycles are ridden like cars in the sense that both cyclists and car drivers want an efficient way to get from A to B. All too often, urban planners view cycling as some kind of leisure activity and design gentle winding cycle paths that meander through parks, rather than thinking of them as "roads for bikes".

    The article has a point about things like stop signs, although with my car driver hat on, there are a whole load of stop signs that I'd like to get rid of as well. My commute has a whole load of pointless stop signs, which aren't as much of a hardship to a car as to a bike, but do significantly increase my fuel consumption.

    But every time I mention this, I'm told that Americans either don't understand or don't obey yield signs, and the only way to get them to do anything at all at a junction is an unambiguous stop sign.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Except that what is generally called "zipping in and out" is called by cyclists "filtering", is perfectly legal, is one of the major advantages of using a bike in the city, and should therefore be expected. ...

    And running stop signs? And running red lights? I sometimes think I'm the only (former) cyclist to actually obey the law.

    And if you zip in and out and get hit because of it, should the driver should be held responsible?

    Bicyclists should be licensed, just as drivers are, and their bicycles should be subject to licensing and inspection. And if one runs a red light, or a stop sign, one should be ticketed. Responsibility is not a one-way street. With privileges come responsibilities, and most of the bicyclists I see on a day-to-day basis are anything but responsible.





  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    I just wish cyclists in my town would use the bike lanes and get the hell off the sidewalk. The law around here says cars have to stay at least three feet away from cyclists. I think cyclists ought to have to stay at least three feet away from pedestrians. I'm so tired of having the crap scared out of me when they whiz past with a half-inch to spare.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    I just wish cyclists in my town would use the bike lanes and get the hell off the sidewalk. The law around here says cars have to stay at least three feet away from cyclists. I think cyclists ought to have to stay at least three feet away from pedestrians. I'm so tired of having the crap scared out of me when they whiz past with a half-inch to spare.

    That too. I shouldn't risk being mown down when I step into a crosswalk, either.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    I just wish cyclists in my town would use the bike lanes and get the hell off the sidewalk.
    The problem with those lanes is that they are often poorly designed and are dangerous as well. They also can be collectors of rubbish, such as rocks and glass and nails and other things detrimental to cyclists.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The problem with those lanes is that they are often poorly designed and are dangerous as well. They also can be collectors of rubbish, such as rocks and glass and nails and other things detrimental to cyclists.

    And all too often, the bike lane is the footpath (or perhaps separated from the footpath by the kind of painted line that is apparently invisible to pedestrians.) I used to cycle around London all the time. There were cycle lanes that I would use, but they were the minority - the majority of the cycle lanes were as lilbuddha describes here - dangerous, and full of broken glass and other street garbage. Faced with a choice between the road and a strip painted up the side of the footpath (probably with trees randomly sprouting from it), I'm on the road every time.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 2018
    My wife and I were walking down a footpath in Naples when we heard a toot from behind. It was a guy on a motorbike wanting us to move out of his way. In that city drivers don't obey red lights, or weren't when we were there. During peak traffic hours, they have traffic wardens who step out in front of cars to make people stop.

    My wife and I had a little white car, and while there were clearly driving customs that people were obeying, neither of us could work them out. So I just drove as fast as I could while the both of us screamed. We left in our wake a trail of gesticulating Neopolitans no doubt saying things like, 'Bloody tourists' but in Italian.

    I told this story to my mate from Sri Lanka expecting him to share my bemusement but he said, 'That's exactly how I drive in Sri Lanka. There are no customs.' He is VERY keen on keeping his car clean and looking good.

    I have a very strong feeling that we who are posting here are in the minority in terms of keeping order on the roads from a worldwide perspective.

  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    edited March 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    I just wish cyclists in my town would use the bike lanes and get the hell off the sidewalk.
    The problem with those lanes is that they are often poorly designed and are dangerous as well. They also can be collectors of rubbish, such as rocks and glass and nails and other things detrimental to cyclists.
    That's not an excuse for cycling at a high speed on the sidewalk. Besides, where I live the sidewalks are just as likely as the bike lanes to have stuff like this on them. More, on some streets.

    I have mal de debarquement syndrome; walking is already literally a balancing act for me. It is truly frightening to have someone blow past me on a bike.
  • Bicycles are not pedestrians and neither of them are cars.

    I routinely take up lanes and make cars go slow in winter because you cannot cycle on loose snow (alot like sand), worse with ice under it. Studded bike tires make it entirely safe re skidding and driver fear of killing us makes it safer than summer. It's the only conditions where driver courtesy is routine.

    I also routinely ride on side walks when roadway riding isn't safe. Pedestrians aren't walking much in winter.

    The current problem with pedestrians on the ridiculous shared paths is that often they have earphones or earbuds on/in. They do not hear normal bells. I do have a 120dB horn which will blast through generally am puzzled if I should pass the ped who didn't hear the bell and startle them by passing or blast the horn and startle them. I kinda regret getting the horn. It cannot solve the problem of inadequate infrastructure.
  • I'm told that Americans either don't understand or don't obey yield signs, and the only way to get them to do anything at all at a junction is an unambiguous stop sign.
    If people behind the wheel of a car doesn't understand the rules of the road, and it's not a uniquely American phenomenon, then it would seem that what's required is better driver instruction and driving tests. I'd advocate re-examination of all drivers on a regular basis. It's been 20 years since I passed my test, in that time there have been changes to driving - we've seen the introduction of smart motorways, for example.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    I just wish cyclists in my town would use the bike lanes and get the hell off the sidewalk.
    The problem with those lanes is that they are often poorly designed and are dangerous as well. They also can be collectors of rubbish, such as rocks and glass and nails and other things detrimental to cyclists.

    It's part of a general problem. Investment in infrastructure for cars, but not for other transport options - especially active transport. Investment in cycle lanes means putting the effort in to designing suitable cycle lanes, but also maintenance - which includes regular removal of accumulated rubbish. The same applies to infrastructure for pedestrians.
  • Infrastructure has to be designed for motor vehicles. It can also be designed with bicycles and other transport options, but it doesn't have to be. And, given the realities of funding, that is a difficult road.
    Switching to prioritising cycles and foot traffic is nonsense. Accommodating them better and more safely isn't nonsense, but not as easy or simple as imagined.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Infrastructure has to be designed for motor vehicles. It can also be designed with bicycles and other transport options, but it doesn't have to be.

    Yes it does. The alternative is the noisy, dangerous and fume-filled hells our cities are now. There simply isn't the room, and nor is it aesthetically desirable, for everyone to drive or be driven everywhere. Quite the opposite.
    And, given the realities of funding, that is a difficult road.

    No it isn't. It's purely a matter of what society chooses to do.
    Switching to prioritising cycles and foot traffic is nonsense.

    No it isn't. If our cities aren't to grind to a polluted gridlocked halt, it's an imperative[/quote]
    Accommodating them better and more safely isn't nonsense, but not as easy or simple as imagined.

    It's simply a matter of seeing green transport options (essentially walking and cycling) as the default sensible way of getting around relatively small crowded spaces like cities, and motor vehicles, especially private cars, as the inefficient, terrorising space - hogs they are, to be discouraged.

    And I do mean terrorising. Fear of motor traffic is a major reason parents cite for not allowing children more independence. They're bullied into their houses by there being far too many cars. We don't have to put up with this; we can choose a better and safer environment.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Infrastructure has to be designed for motor vehicles. It can also be designed with bicycles and other transport options, but it doesn't have to be.
    Why not? Why shouldn't we be designing infrastructure for active transportation? Why shouldn't we be putting investment priorities in public transport? Why doesn't the UK have high-speed rail systems comparable to those that were common place 40 years ago in Japan or France, and elsewhere? Why does London have a creaky underground network when Tokyo has individual stations that manage almost as many passengers each day as the entire Tube? Why are we building new roads so people can sit in their little tin boxes when we could be building light rail systems, cycle ways, and other infrastructure to get people out of their tin boxes?

    Why?

Sign In or Register to comment.