Safe Speed Forums

But surely the M6 wax built in the 1970's with 20 years forcast for traffic in mind, 35 years on it is not supprising that some expansion is required. Tha expansion will not continue atthe same rate as broadband and net meeting takes a grip.Also 75% of those who are fit to drive have a car already. most people do not want to drive more than they do today.

We need a duel carriagway/motorway road network that can be accessed within 10/20 miniutes from any point so we all don't need to drive past each others local schools.ask anyone from Hampshire who drives up north, Newbury Bypass was needed and works!

People cruising at 70mph do not create as much polution as those in jams.
We need to stop wasting money on traffic calming and get on with road building on the trunk network.

I want a trunk network that works so people don't drive through my village to avoid a jam on the motorway.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

But what difference does it make if people travel further? The traffic level, and hence the congestion, in a particular area will still be the same.
True, more people might decide to travel to an already crowded area if the commute was a bit easier, but it also works the other way - people might decide instead to travel away from a crowded area but are stopped from doing so because of the length of the commute.
And even if you do end up with the same level of congestion at the end of the day, at least people would have more of a choice about where they live and work. They would not, for example, choose to stay in the same low-paid job, live in the same dodgy area, or live a huge distance from from family and friends just because the commute is easier.
From my perspective, the big difference the length of the commute makes to people's lives is the times they choose to travel. I'm on the road by 7AM in the morning, a good hour before I really need to be, in order to miss the worst of the congestion. If there were more and better roads, I might decide to have an hours more sleep in the morning. And there are probably millions of people in the same situation. Sure, at the end of the day, the congestion might be just as bad as more and more people change their commuting times, but at least they'll be getting more sleep.
I could possibly move closer to work, but then my wife would have a longer commute, and my son would have to be driven to school instead of walking as he does now. And the price of houses
And I probably would not choose to drive through a village and pi** off all the car-haters living there if there was a road bypassing said village.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

I and some friends set up the Open Roadwebsite as a counter to organisations such as Roadblock. So far we haven't managed to expand it to a wider community - but contributions are always welcome.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Then what has it achieved? Yes a few people will be able to live further away from work and live in a nicer area, or a a few people have got better jobs. However a few more people now have a motorway or dual carriage at the end of their garden which is decreasing their quality of life.

I would fully support targetted by-passes that improve everyones quality of life, but I don't agree that Britain needs a huge expansion in it's road building plan which could turn out to be a white elephant if in this technology revolution ever takes off that everyone keeps saying will do.

In that 'particular area' maybe, but what about the areas that the driver now drives into because of their longer journey? And what about other people that are travelling further from other areas - passing through the 'particular area'.

You drive twice as many miles overall, the traffic level overall is doubled. If the roads cannot cope with it then there is congestion.

I'd add to the time argument (that people will commute for a maximum time) the cost element. You commute 1 hour each way on good roads, that's 100 miles a day, 500 miles a week, 23,000 miles a year, 766 gallons, 3,482 litres, £3,400 cost. Not including servicing and depreciation. £50,000 more on the mortgage, just on fuel costs.

This phenomenon is called "BANANA"

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

It's just nimbyism plus "I want cars to slow down outside my house". There is no sense or purpose other than this and certainly not safety. They just call upon the politically correct lobby to support them to justify their own agenda.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I've had a look at the site and they are about as open-minded as BRAKE! and T2000. Any posting from us on this site will just antagonise a wasp-nest of nutters. We seem to be getting our fair share of trolls and puppets at the moment (unlike PH, thank God) and inviting these starry-eyed tree huggers to retaliate will be asking for serious trub...

Reacting to them is like kicking shit - you just get your own shoes dirty...

Josh

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

Oh I agree, but what I originally pointed out is that they try and organise anti-road letter campaigns to public enquiries etc., and I plan to write to just who they suggest, but with the opposing opinion

Nice website btw PeterE, I registered my support.

5766 to be precise.

What makes you so sure of that? But there was an era before human life was on the planet. How long it was in time calculcated today is irrelevant really.

So what? Anyway, I will say that the period of life of the earth before humans appeared was 6 days. So now humans have been on the planet for a very high percentage of its time.

That site seems to have been dead for a year though.

The news page has been regularly updated (not by me - I'm not the webmaster)

However the aim of the site was to stimulate wider interest in campaigning for more road-building, particularly amongst those who may not wish to sign up to some of the other policies of the ABD. Despite being widely advertised it doesn't seem to have done that

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

What makes me so sure? I'm not 'so sure'; I'm quoting approximate figures that studies and evidence strongly suggest. Why, is there a problem?

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Registered my support

_________________
Why can't we just use Common Sense?

Registered like wise - perhaps we all should, independant of SS

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Errm, I have a flint arrowhead that dates back to about 12,000BC. I would consider it to be part of 'recorded history' by its physical presence - a bit more than 6 days before 3760BC.

Whilst I will not decry your beliefs (Plymouth Brethren, Seventh Day Adventist etc.), your grasp of clear and present evidence is rather myopic. Surely the gift of sentience from whichever god worshipped comes with the codecil that humans should strive to better understand the Universe they live in so as to better themselves and make them closer to 'perfect beings'. Please do not consider this any form of attack on you or your beliefs, but this is the first time that I have ever encountered such an opinion...

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...