10MPH limits anyone?

[Linas.P]

This just goes to show that UK is progressing rapidly... backwards. 

I think before long we will need these in front of our cars, as soon we will be driving at below walking pace:

If you interested these are the ideas put forward by "brake" (see link below) which right away sounds like a bunch of people who likes to hinder progress and just brake on everything. I personally don't find their proposals logical as I always thought personal responsibility should always be at the top i.e. pedestrians, cyclists, kids running into the road (or rather their parents) should be the ones who are responsible for their actions. The whole speed reduction thing sounds just like lazy deflection of responsibility i.e. "because I can't be arsed to look around when crossing the road, let's make drivers to drive so slowly as to not cause injury even if I jump right on the bonnet of the car". That really seems like backwards and sick point of view... but maybe I am wrong.

https://www.brake.org.uk/how-we-help/raising-awareness/our-current-projects/news-and-blogs/no-need-to-speed-the-case-for-10mph-limits-in-certain-residential-areas

I even find the statement rather ironic - "We know that most drivers obey speed limits"... well... yes, maybe if they are reasonable speed limits... not 10 or 20 MPH! As well we need to recognise that pollution would actually increase as no car is efficient driving at 20MPH, never-mind 10MPH. The modern cars are most efficient at 60-80MPH, the efficiency is acceptable between 40-50 and 80-100 MPH and then it starts dropping down the further you go down or up. Now sure EVs have less of similar problems, but they are still more energy efficient at ~50MPH than they are at 10MPH... even if we don't directly corelate that with tailpipe emissions.

The sad thig is that now labour seems to have got onto the wrong side of logic and common sense as well (be it not mainstream view), I know it is minority, but it just sets bad precedent, seems like attempt to appease certain groups of grass eating minorities in country:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/12/labour-mp-rachael-maskell-10mph-speed-limit-mark-harper/

I know Telegraph is not exactly the most objective source, but still there is not much to add. Perhaps Ms Rachael Maskell should be checked if she is mentally capable of representing her constituents as she seems to be out of touch or have some issues in her head.  

[Malc1]

😂. I’m thinking Highways Agency, Local Authority  and other ….. purposeful delays in pothole repairs, 3 and 4 Way traffic light controls with roadworks ….. incessant roadworks improvements 🥵 all give rise to automatic Speed Controls often below 10mph …… I’d be surprised if it’s unintentional ….. it works and costs little  🤔

Malc

[Linas.P]

Yes ... and then they say it is our fault "for driving too much"... except they are very happy to collect road tax (which is de facto road tax despite what vegetable variety wants everyone to believe) and only spends ~10% of it, but ten as soon as we want to drive... they say "no no no, you welcome to pay for road, but not to use them".

[Mr Vlad]

Personally the absolute stupidly of that article is the construction/development of Shared public and motorist space! WTF is that all about! There's stupid and then there's moronic. Those developers are true proper moronic.

[Linas.P]

54 minutes ago, Mr Vlad said:

Personally the absolute stupidly of that article is the construction/development of Shared public and motorist space! WTF is that all about! There's stupid and then there's moronic. Those developers are true proper moronic.

Yes - that is how it would look in practice:

Just to quote what exactly "shared space" means we can look at the past:

Quote

The Locomotives Act 1865 (the 'Red Flag Act') reduced the speed limit to 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns and required a man with a red flag or lantern to walk 60 yd (50 m) ahead of each vehicle, and warn horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self-propelled machine.

And you are right - this is just moronic to it's core and I don't even understand why only we (motorists) have to deal with this shaite. Somehow they not proposing "shared space" with trains, where kids would be allowed to play games on the tracks... somehow they are sensible enough to understand that train needs priority, needs to go at speed and are dangerous... but with cars they just can't get it, somehow they still think the streets are playground for everyone... NO! Sorry - streets are for cars, pavements are for people, cars don't drive on pavements or in the parks, people don't loiter on the road, there are dedicated areas where cars cross the pavement to enter the side road and has to give way to pedestrians and as well where there are pedestrian crossings, but in all other places cars have priority and that how it should be... there is nothing to share! And by the way it is impossible to make share use unless we have 2-4MPH limit... which is not coming out of nowhere ~3MPH is walking pace for adult, hence in 19th century they decided these particular limits. The worrying thing is that they are tying to go back to 19th century, because they already implemented 20MPH (which dare I say is controversial), before they have finished with this controversy, they already looking for 10MPH... and make no mistake 5MPH will be next. 

My other tin foil theory - powers that rule just want to distract us with these pointless and blatantly idiotic proposals, so whilst we going to have fight over speeds we can drive, they can do what they need to do unhindered. So they find some absolute idiot somewhere who then creates "brake" idiots society for idiots and creates distraction with their idiotic ideas.

This sort of concept is not new - "divide and rule"! Whilst we fighting speed limits, cyclists vs. motorists, blackwashing, whitewashing, LGBTHWSIUHUWEH+ topics and so on... we are just have less time to look where the country overall is going... and it is going to shaite!

[Las Palmas]

It could be easier to understand the need for having a man walking in front of the noiseless electric powered cars to warn that something is coming, than in front of a probably not noiseless combustion engine car in 1965.

[PaulWhitt20]

The speed limit in my residential cul-de-sac with no pavement is 30 MPH, but I would neve dream of driving at 30 mph down it. Far to many cars reversing into/out of driveways, people walking, kids playing, cats and dogs roaming and I wouldn't want to damage my nice Lexus by hitting someone/thing.

We have to remember speed limits are limits not a target. How about we abolish all speed limits and make the driver responsible for travelling at a safe speed so they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, PaulWhitt20 said:

We have to remember speed limits are limits not a target. How about we abolish all speed limits and make the driver responsible for travelling at a safe speed so they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear.

Disagree with first bit on it's own, but I agree with second bit quite a lot i.e. just let the drivers choose "safe speed based on conditions". I would start from the point that speed limits should be reasonable and secondly, the road should be built for spec to achieve them. So speed limits may not be target for the driver, but they should indeed by target for authorities developers etc. For me speed limits are at best advisory - "safe speed" is often lower than speed limit, but often it is much higher than posted speed limit e.g. 70MPH on quiet motorway is daft and retarded. There should be no reason why one cannot do 120MPH there.

So it kind of goes go both ways - the speed limits should never be too low or too high, or be targets, or be enforced, and it would be easiest if we focus on driver training the most and just let the drivers to drive at the speed which "safe". Then we should focus on building road which should represent the demand and reality... meaning there should be no queues on the roads as they should be build to match the required capacity, likewise if road is 30MPH, then there should be no cars parked on the sides of kids playing in it... and if there are then authorities should build alternative parking and make sure they enforce the rules i.e. issuing fines to the parents of the kids who play on the road. 

Is it possible to make your residential road safe to drive at 30MPH? I am sure it could be done, parents should take responsibility of their kids, pet owners of their pets, other drivers should take care when they pull out... in fact they should take care when they park, because it is ridiculous how many people are reversing out of their driveways into main road (which is not permitted), if they would park correctly, then they would not need to reverse blind into the road and it will be fine. So have completely different view on "safe speed" is - "can I safely handle my car at that speed and if accident would happen would it be my fault". If the answer is "I can handle my car and if somebody pulls out it will be their fault", then I am driving at "safe speed". If child runs out and I run them over - it is fault of the parents, if I run over dog or cat, that is fault of the owners etc. Now in other hand if I have car on summer tyres lime most people in UK most of the time and it was raining all evening and at night it is -4C, then to be honest I will not be driving at all, because I know there is no speed at which it is safe to drive with summer tyres (or for that matter M+S/Allseason) on ice. Or if I must drive i.e. I am coming home not leaving, then I will be driving as slow as necessary to keep control of the car. 

In short I consider that drivers should not worry about things on the road which should not be on the roads, like toys, pets, kids or somebody reversing into the road, because road is not playground for kids or some sort of caring facility for retards. I will not slow down for that and if it happens that somebody runs in my way and gets hurt - so be it, I will as well make sure they pay every last penny to fix my car. My only concern as a driver is to make sure I myself can be in control of the vehicle, if there is blind corners and I am expecting queue of the cars ahead I need to make sure to adjust the speed so that I could stop, of if there is standing water on the road I will not be driving at speed which could unsettle the car.

[Malc1]

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

which could unsettle the car.

and spill the G 'n T .....  disaster 🤩

Malc

[flookyk]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:07 AM, PaulWhitt20 said:

The speed limit in my residential cul-de-sac with no pavement is 30 MPH, but I would neve dream of driving at 30 mph down it. Far to many cars reversing into/out of driveways, people walking, kids playing, cats and dogs roaming and I wouldn't want to damage my nice Lexus by hitting someone/thing.

We have to remember speed limits are limits not a target. How about we abolish all speed limits and make the driver responsible for travelling at a safe speed so they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear.

That might work if all drivers drove using common sense and drove according to the conditions and what is around them.

Unfortunately that is not the case with a lot of drivers. I live on a main road into my small town with parking on one side only and vehicles having to give way to others coming in the other direction to pass and also has a pedestrian crossing at the top... but you still have many treating it like a race track at 40-50mph instead of the 30mph ..to a point that it is actually dangerous to use the pedestrian crossing with people being seriously injured crossing there.

Also some don't give way to other vehicles and get so close to the parked vehicles that they have taken door mirrors off or hit the site of them.

[Bluemarlin]

On 5/17/2023 at 9:07 AM, PaulWhitt20 said:

How about we abolish all speed limits and make the driver responsible for travelling at a safe speed so they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear.

Sounds good in theory, but the reason we have speed limits is precisely because of the number of people who aren't either responsible or capable enough to judge what is and isn't safe.

Sadly, when you give people the freedom and responsibility for their own and others safety, it doesn't always end well; which is why you have situations like American school children doing shooter drills and buying bulletproof backpacks.

Governments sometimes make stupid decisions in the name of safety, but they're in a constant battle with the stupidity of the people they're trying to govern.

[Linas.P]

2 hours ago, flookyk said:

That might work if all drivers drove using common sense and drove according to the conditions and what is around them.

Unfortunately that is not the case with a lot of drivers. I live on a main road into my small town with parking on one side only and vehicles having to give way to others coming in the other direction to pass and also has a pedestrian crossing at the top... but you still have many treating it like a race track at 40-50mph instead of the 30mph ..to a point that it is actually dangerous to use the pedestrian crossing with people being seriously injured crossing there.

Also some don't give way to other vehicles and get so close to the parked vehicles that they have taken door mirrors off or hit the site of them.

I know exactly what you mean, but playing devils advocate... maybe it is fault of council for not making off-street parking and making main road as "no parking or stopping". Or perhaps there should be another road altogether avoiding going through centre of village? That against goes to my point - we together as motorists pay close to £40 Billion in road taxes and fuel duty every year... government spends only ~£2-4 Billion per year. So if they would make appropriate funding available for the roads, then perhaps drivers shouldn't contend with parked cars on main road, or main road being restricted to ridiculous 10MPH, because government allowed it to become basically a parking lot and any speed higher than that isn't safe anymore.

Basically what I am saying these two things are directly corelated - the better is the road design the faster we can go on it and I don't think it is unreasonable to say that the faster is always the better, roads are not built just for fun, they have utility and that utility is for the cars to get to their destination as quickly as reasonably possible. On the other hand if road is neglected, poorly designed, compromised with unnecessary obstruction, outright neglected and crumbling etc. then sure - the safe speed will be lower on it. But that is one of key points I always would like to ask - is the road fit for purpose? Is the 30 speed limit is there because your local authorities can't be arsed to maintain it in line with demand, or it is actually desirable to have this road with the cars parked on each side? If the answer is "yes, it is quiet side road on the corner of the village", then sure perhaps limit is fair and drivers are being just unreasonable, but if answer is "well... that is main road connecting multiple villages and towns and it is very busy", then perhaps it shouldn't be 30MPH, there shouldn't cars parked on it, there shouldn't be street level pedestrian crossing (perhaps that should be replaced with underground or overground crossing) and maybe that road should altogether be dual-carriage way? I mean money is there, money was paid, that government decided not to use 90% of it for the purpose it should have been collected for that is a different matter altogether. 

40 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Sounds good in theory, but the reason we have speed limits is precisely because of the number of people who aren't either responsible or capable enough to judge what is and isn't safe.

Sadly, when you give people the freedom and responsibility for their own and others safety, it doesn't always end well; which is why you have situations like American school children doing shooter drills and buying bulletproof backpacks.

Governments sometimes make stupid decisions in the name of safety, but they're in a constant battle with the stupidity of the people they're trying to govern.

It is partially true - driving standards in UK are shockingly bad... and I don't mean just new drivers or current generation. I mean in general - rules are not being followed, they are not being enforced, people do not care how they drive and to be fair nobody cares... beyond just collecting the money. The enforcement as it exists today is done purely for collecting money without and positive or reasonable impact on the driving culture. Speed is not what kills, unsafe speed for the give situation is what kills, sometimes it is fault of driver, sometimes it is fault of the road, but the key point is - speed camera does not know and could not decide what was "safe speed" for give situation. That is why we need human police officers on the roads being both reasonable and flexible to enforce the rules. Perhaps they can look past cars doing 90 or even 100MPH on quiet motorway on a nice day, because let's face it - there is nothing wrong about it... but perhaps they can pull over a pensioner who is doing 60MPH in outside lane and is clearly not overtaking anyone and just hogging the lane and refusing to move over, because that is actually much bigger problem than speeding drivers. It is only the police officer who can observe the situation and intervene appropriately, cameras are not able to do it.

Now we all know why it is done - because of money... having two police officers driving in the car or even stopped and observing the road costs money and if what they end-up doing is just stopping the aforementioned pensioner and giving him verbal warning, then there is no profit to be made. However, once camera is fitted it cost almost nothing and it just continuously generates profit. And this blanket speed reduction is in line with that - reduce speed unreasonably low and result will be poor adherence to the limit, then fit the cameras and you are guaranteed to reek the profits. It is clearly conflict of interests - it is policing not for road safety, but policing for profit.

But it shouldn't be this way - if there would be more police officers and even if they would be overall more lenient, there would still be better appreciation of the rules. People would still speed, but they would speed within reason... again sometimes best punishment is no punishment, going back to analogy of pensioner, he may say "yeah but I was doing the limit, why should I move over" and he can simply be told that rules says that "it does not matter what speed you doing, you always move over after overtaking, this time you get warning, next time you get 3 points". Again - severity of punishment does not improve compliance, only the likelihood of being caught does... so there is more benefit of being stopped and getting verbal warning, than getting flashed for doing few miles over already unreasonably low limit and paying £100 with 3 points. 

I guess if I summarise in one sentence my response to both is - we should always look for the way we can improve the road and increase the limit, what these retards are doing is opposite, they don't want to deal with shortcoming of roads design and condition and instead want to just blanket reduce the speed i.e. they trying to hide the issue instead of trying to solve it.

[Bluemarlin]

I get what you're saying Linas but, as you say, it all comes down to money.

Let's say they spend the £40 billion collected on roads, and have active and relevant policing, then that money just gets diverted from somewhere else. That might be healthcare, education or housing, and so the money would just have to be collected in another way.

Yes, fines, cameras etc are revenue generators but, unlike private industry, that revenue isn't "profit", that goes to a handful of shareholders, it's public revenue, that gets spent on public services. Every penny not raised in fines and penalties would either have to come from an increase in general taxation, or a reduction in spending on public services.

Sure, there's an argument concerning how well or badly public money is spent, but that's a different discussion. In short though, we can have al the things you suggest, but people wouldn't be prepared to pay the high levels of taxation required to deliver them, or we can have the clumsy approach we have now, because that's all we're prepared to pay for.

In reality, we could have a crime free society, with few restrictions on how we drive, plenty of places to park, significantly lower levels of sickness, and no homeless or hungry people, but people wouldn't accept the conditions or costs required to delivered that. As a result, governments are left to govern on the basis that most people have neither the interest or ability to see the bigger picture, are self interested, and so have to be managed in a way that accepts that, and attempts to deliver a compromised outcome.

The fact that they do that badly is largely a product of the fact that governments are made up of the same type of people they're trying to govern, with all the same faults, flaws and imperfections in how they think and act.

Welcome to  the human race 🙂

[flookyk]

13 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I know exactly what you mean, but playing devils advocate... maybe it is fault of council for not making off-street parking and making main road as "no parking or stopping". Or perhaps there should be another road altogether avoiding going through centre of village? That against goes to my point - we together as motorists pay close to £40 Billion in road taxes and fuel duty every year... government spends only ~£2-4 Billion per year. So if they would make appropriate funding available for the roads, then perhaps drivers shouldn't contend with parked cars on main road, or main road being restricted to ridiculous 10MPH, because government allowed it to become basically a parking lot and any speed higher than that isn't safe anymore.

Basically what I am saying these two things are directly corelated - the better is the road design the faster we can go on it and I don't think it is unreasonable to say that the faster is always the better, roads are not built just for fun, they have utility and that utility is for the cars to get to their destination as quickly as reasonably possible. On the other hand if road is neglected, poorly designed, compromised with unnecessary obstruction, outright neglected and crumbling etc. then sure - the safe speed will be lower on it. But that is one of key points I always would like to ask - is the road fit for purpose? Is the 30 speed limit is there because your local authorities can't be arsed to maintain it in line with demand, or it is actually desirable to have this road with the cars parked on each side? If the answer is "yes, it is quiet side road on the corner of the village", then sure perhaps limit is fair and drivers are being just unreasonable, but if answer is "well... that is main road connecting multiple villages and towns and it is very busy", then perhaps it shouldn't be 30MPH, there shouldn't cars parked on it, there shouldn't be street level pedestrian crossing (perhaps that should be replaced with underground or overground crossing) and maybe that road should altogether be dual-carriage way? 

Many of roads in villages and small towns, like mine, were here before cars were invented .. and had houses here before cars... and no other way to build new roads in or out of the town.

Banning cars parking on these sort of roads would mean banning the majority of house owners from having vehicles and mean no way to get anywhere.

[Linas.P]

No - I disagree. You thinking inside of the box, instead of trying to find solutions for the problem. 

They can reroute the road, if needed they can build tunnel under the town, sure it would be excessive for small town, but say in London that could indeed be way to solve the issue. Likewise I just don't believe there is really nowhere else to park except on the main road and there is no other land in the entire town where the secure off-road parking could be built. Again In central London... maybe, but in Durham?! Really? no spare land? 

It is really depends on perspective - if they wanted to find the solution they would find it, if they specifically want to avoid looking for solution and instead making everyone else's problem then we end-up with 10MPH speed limit everywhere... because there always going to be an excuse - "road was built before cars were invented, there are no off-street parkings, so let's just allow cars to be parked on the road, kids playing on the same road of course, because surely there is no space for playground anywhere else, cyclist cycling on the same road, because again surely there is not space for cycling lanes on the sides... road most likely were built even before bicycle was invented, ohh and pedestrians obviously crossing it anywhere they want, because it is not enough to have pedestrian crossings every 50, as clearly walking 25m either way is too much to ask... well why bother with 10MPH limit, let's just make it into LTN and everyone will be happy, let's put bollards and potted plants on both sides of the village and all the problems are solved... what did you say... ambulance? they can use helicopters... firefighters, insurance will cover fire damage... let's live like in stone age and let's not drive anywhere, because all the problems are because of cars."

I am obviously exaggerating, but this is exactly sort of thinking I have issue with. If we not going to look for solutions, we not going to find them. 

[flookyk]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

No - I disagree. You thinking inside of the box, instead of trying to find solutions for the problem. 

They can reroute the road, if needed they can build tunnel under the town, sure it would be excessive for small town, but say in London that could indeed be way to solve the issue. Likewise I just don't believe there is really nowhere else to park except on the main road and there is no other land in the entire town where the secure off-road parking could be built. Again In central London... maybe, but in Durham?! Really? no spare land? 

It is really depends on perspective - if they wanted to find the solution they would find it, if they specifically want to avoid looking for solution and instead making everyone else's problem then we end-up with 10MPH speed limit everywhere... because there always going to be an excuse - "road was built before cars were invented, there are no off-street parkings, so let's just allow cars to be parked on the road, kids playing on the same road of course, because surely there is no space for playground anywhere else, cyclist cycling on the same road, because again surely there is not space for cycling lanes on the sides... road most likely were built even before bicycle was invented, ohh and pedestrians obviously crossing it anywhere they want, because it is not enough to have pedestrian crossings every 50, as clearly walking 25m either way is too much to ask... well why bother with 10MPH limit, let's just make it into LTN and everyone will be happy, let's put bollards and potted plants on both sides of the village and all the problems are solved... what did you say... ambulance? they can use helicopters... firefighters, insurance will cover fire damage... let's live like in stone age and let's not drive anywhere, because all the problems are because of cars."

I am obviously exaggerating, but this is exactly sort of thinking I have issue with. If we not going to look for solutions, we not going to find them. 

I see you don't live in the UK... many villages and older towns here have terraced houses ... the only way to get space for more car parking is to knock down every second street of houses.

[Linas.P]

1 hour ago, Bluemarlin said:

then that money just gets diverted from somewhere else. That might be healthcare, education or housing, and so the money would just have to be collected in another way.

Yes, fines, cameras etc are revenue generators but, unlike private industry, that revenue isn't "profit", that goes to a handful of shareholders, it's public revenue, that gets spent on public services. Every penny not raised in fines and penalties would either have to come from an increase in general taxation, or a reduction in spending on public services.

Sure, there's an argument concerning how well or badly public money is spent, but that's a different discussion. In short though, we can have al the things you suggest, but people wouldn't be prepared to pay the high levels of taxation required to deliver them, or we can have the clumsy approach we have now, because that's all we're prepared to pay for.

In reality, we could have a crime free society, with few restrictions on how we drive, plenty of places to park, significantly lower levels of sickness, and no homeless or hungry people, but people wouldn't accept the conditions or costs required to delivered that. As a result, governments are left to govern on the basis that most people have neither the interest or ability to see the bigger picture, are self interested, and so have to be managed in a way that accepts that, and attempts to deliver a compromised outcome.

No, the money won't get "diverted"... that is what the money was collected for in the first place. That currently it being diverted that is another matter altogether. If we need to take the money from road fund to pay for healthcare, of if we need to create artificial fines to pay for education then something went horribly wrong somewhere long before we arrived to this topic. 

Where the money from speed cameras is spent does not matter - that is completely different subject as you said yourself. Speed cameras and policing should be used STRICTLY only for improving road safety, the money generated is just by-product, it should NEVER matter how much money is generated and how much is spent, if it is then this is exactly the problem we need to discuss. Policing and cameras either increases the safety on the roads or it doesn't, if it doesn't then it should be removed.

Healthcare is shaite as it is, education is shaite as it is, housing is shaite as it is... and not due to lack of money. I would say the same - general taxation is different topic, but it is you who bringing it in... So you can't use it for both argument against improving the roads and one which is out of scope of this discussion.

In principle I agree with you that life isn't perfect, but at the same time I am saying that motorists just seems to be punching bag and cash cow for everyone at the same time... and it shouldn't be that way. But somebody somewhere decided for us that it will be the drivers who will have to cover for all failings everywhere.

As well... sorry to blow the bubble, but when you say "that revenue isn't "profit" which goes to shareholders, it's public revenue which is spent on public services"... that isn't true either. You see the main form of government corruption is lining their own pockets or pockets of their family members... how that is done? Commonly by giving government contract to particular company of party donor or family member, then the said company generates excess profits and lines the pockets of shareholders (this is by far the main reason NHS is on it's knees, services are bad not because there is lack of money, but because the money is wasted at every corner). So when we speaking about "wider picture" that is exactly how it is - we need X amount of money to maintain public services, healthcare, education and hosing are examples, but as well roads and policing are examples as well. We collect X amount of money, but because our government is corrupt, the Y amount of money is misappropriated, wasted, stolen etc. and now we are short of said Y amount of money. There is option of finding all those who were responsible for governing the budget, who abused their power, charge them for treason and have the hung drawn and quartered and recovering the money, the other option is just inventing another tax and finding another group of suckers who can cover the short fall... in this case the drivers have been trough this cycle many times... we pay tax when buying the car, then we pay the tax when buying the fuel, that was not enough, so later as well the tax for driving the car on the road was added, then the additional duty on the fuel was added... and when that is not enough now we need revenue from strategically places speed cameras to get extra money as well!

Call it winging - but I am just no happy with the way things are and if this arrangement, I am just have no plans of being everyone's scapegoat because we have corrupt and inefficient goverment.

 

[Linas.P]

17 minutes ago, flookyk said:

I see you don't live in the UK... many villages and older towns here have terraced houses ... the only way to get space for more car parking is to knock down every second street of houses.

I do live in UK... despite what my location is saying...

I think as well you moving the goal post now, because we were talking about main road going trough the village (maybe I am mistaken, but if there is 50MPH anywhere on that road, then it is likely main road), but now talking about overall suburban sprawl of rows of terraced houses. Presumably there is main road going across and on the sides of that main road there are side roads? So these are two different things... I have no issue for side roads to be 30MPH and have cars parked there, even 20MPH... if it is access road leading to nowhere, then such speed limit is fine... but if it is main road connecting multiple towns, then it is another matter. So I think it is first important to clarify what kind of road we talking about here. 

That said - please show me the street in Durham where there is literally no space for road improvements... How about that - why don't they dig the road-up and build underground parking under entire length of the road? Or for as many cars as reasonably needs parking. This is not some sort of crazy novel idea, underground parking is fairly normal... so why it is normal to have it under the house with 30 flats, but it somehow not appropriate for cul-de-sac with 30 terraced houses?

And finally to be fair - if the houses have to be knocked down to make reasonable road connections possible... then they have to be knocked down... it is not like houses cannot be touched.

Again I am staying with my assumption that solution can always be found if one is looking for it. 

 

 

 

[flookyk]

58 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

I do live in UK... despite what my location is saying...

I think as well you moving the goal post now, because we were talking about main road going trough the village (maybe I am mistaken, but if there is 50MPH anywhere on that road, then it is likely main road), but now talking about overall suburban sprawl of rows of terraced houses. Presumably there is main road going across and on the sides of that main road there are side roads? So these are two different things... I have no issue for side roads to be 30MPH and have cars parked there, even 20MPH... if it is access road leading to nowhere, then such speed limit is fine... but if it is main road connecting multiple towns, then it is another matter. So I think it is first important to clarify what kind of road we talking about here. 

That said - please show me the street in Durham where there is literally no space for road improvements... How about that - why don't they dig the road-up and build underground parking under entire length of the road? Or for as many cars as reasonably needs parking. This is not some sort of crazy novel idea, underground parking is fairly normal... so why it is normal to have it under the house with 30 flats, but it somehow not appropriate for cul-de-sac with 30 terraced houses?

And finally to be fair - if the houses have to be knocked down to make reasonable road connections possible... then they have to be knocked down... it is not like houses cannot be touched.

Again I am staying with my assumption that solution can always be found if one is looking for it. 

 

 

 

I don't live in Durham but a small town nearby.

The road past mine is the old road road on the old A167 which used to go through the town but was bypassed around 80 year ago.. that road is 40mph now because the number of accidents at the junctions from the town to the new road.

The road past mine is the old main road which is 30mph ... a lot of terraced houses here ... the only space for more parking is knocking down streets or walking a few streets away.

[Linas.P]

I can't just guess where it is, but fair enough - let's say the road can't be widened where you live... This is not the case for entire country. As well many of old terraced houses are really nasty (some are very nice, but many are horrible), so it is really not unreasonable to say maybe some of them actually need to be knocked down to make way for more decent houses, maybe with driveways or cellars with underground parking and for roads to be widened.

Other option is simple road hierarchy. There are international level, national level, regional level, local level and access roads. If the major national level road (like M6 or A1M) are build to the standard, then the smaller highways will be used less (say A167 in your case), then if A167 is optimised with proper bypasses, sufficient speed limits and capacity... then nobody will be "rat running" on even smaller local roads, let's take Darlington Rd in Ferry Hill as an example... and then again if we tidy-up that road, then nobody will be driving into the weeds and try to get where they going via access roads. 

So I think the issue here is at much higher level - national roads are clogged so people choose smaller roads instead of getting stuck in the traffic on motorway, then those get's clogged and drivers find even smaller roads to cut trough traffic... until they literally end-up driving trough somebodies garden. But the issue is no drivers, the issue are the roads - I am pretty sure that any driver would not choose driving on overgrown B-Road if they had an option cruising on motorway instead.

In summary I don't know the specificity of the road you living on, you not willing to share more specific example (and that is fine), but what I am trying to say - if somebody really wanted to solve the issues on your road they could. There are always solution when people are looking for them.

[flookyk]

How exactly would you "tidy up" Darlington Road and Durham Road in Ferryhill (not Ferry Hill)?

Bearing in mind those roads, and others, are bus routes too and a lot of the old shops on Darlington Road have been converted into houses and flats so need parking as well as the houses opposite.

That used to be part of the A167 until they build the bypass undercut as the early motor vehicles could not get up the hills of Darlington Road and Durham Road if going north or south on the A167... these roads are still used for heavy haulage for oversize loads as they can't get under the undercut bridges or those on the A1 Motorway.

[Bluemarlin]

20 hours ago, Linas.P said:

No, the money won't get "diverted"... that is what the money was collected for in the first place. That currently it being diverted that is another matter altogether. If we need to take the money from road fund to pay for healthcare, of if we need to create artificial fines to pay for education then something went horribly wrong somewhere long before we arrived to this topic. 

Where the money from speed cameras is spent does not matter - that is completely different subject as you said yourself. Speed cameras and policing should be used STRICTLY only for improving road safety, the money generated is just by-product, it should NEVER matter how much money is generated and how much is spent, if it is then this is exactly the problem we need to discuss. Policing and cameras either increases the safety on the roads or it doesn't, if it doesn't then it should be removed.

Healthcare is shaite as it is, education is shaite as it is, housing is shaite as it is... and not due to lack of money. I would say the same - general taxation is different topic, but it is you who bringing it in... So you can't use it for both argument against improving the roads and one which is out of scope of this discussion.

In principle I agree with you that life isn't perfect, but at the same time I am saying that motorists just seems to be punching bag and cash cow for everyone at the same time... and it shouldn't be that way. But somebody somewhere decided for us that it will be the drivers who will have to cover for all failings everywhere.

I agree with you that it seems unfair that motorists appear to be a cash cow. However, my point is that, at a simplistic level, a country is managed (locally & nationally) by revenue in and money spent on public services. That revenue can come from general taxation (vat, national and local taxes) as well as road taxes, fines and penalties. Therefore, if general taxes are insufficient to cover general costs, and motoring revenues are spent soley on motoring, then general taxes would have to rise, or public services be cut. Diverting motoring revenue mitigates that need though.

Whilst that seems unfair, there is at least an element of choice with regards motoring costs. One can choose a car with a low or zero tax rate, and one can choose not to break the legal speed limit. It's not perfect, but the alternative is to spend it all on roads, and either raise income tax or cut public services. Personally I'd rather see people fined for breaking traffic laws, instead of public services cut or my general taxes rise, but that's just my opinion.

I wasn't saying that general taxation is out of scope, just that the inefficiencies and corruption with how it's spent is a separate discussion. You are of course right though, in that it's possible that both roads and public spending could be accomodated more effectively if we increased efficiency and eliminated corruption. However, given that I doubt we'll do that any time soon, my point was based on that being the environment we live in, and therefore playing the hand we're dealt.

[Linas.P]

Depends what exactly need to be achieved and what specific problems there are.

Just a a glance - seem like Ferryhill is quite well connected, but Darlington Rd to the south seems to be used almost as a slip road/main city access from A167. So it is pretty much as expected and as I have already assumed - you have unsuitable road (basically a narrow residential street) acting as main city access for all the traffic coming from the south. I do not agree with point that banning the parking would mean "no car ownership". Clearly residents even have access from the back alleys, there is space up and down the street for parking (50-100m away), but I agree this is more dealing with symptoms not the problem and better solutions are available.

I think in this particular case many solutions are possible here. If we purely want to reduce traffic on Darlington Rd to the south and Durham Rd in the north, then we need to create access from A167 directly to B6287/Merrington Road... honestly there is plenty of space for junction as elaborate as you want. Could even be multi-level crossing, multi-level roundabout or whatever. And then blocking the access to A167 from Darlington Rd/Durham Rd in the north (or making them exit only).

Now Merrington Road seems like it is natural bottleneck because of how they decided to undercut A167 instead of tunnelling/covering it (purely as cost saving), so to avoid that I would ideally develop Saddler St and Owen St as alternative crossing points to disperse local traffic and leave B6287/Merrington Road more for east/west main connection.

But again knocking down row of terraced houses and making Darlington Rd a suitable for the purpose is as well an option. So whereas I agree it is nearly impossible to "tidy-up" Darlington Rd to become appropriate for the purpose without knocking down dozen of old houses, it does not mean it can't be improved. In fact I was struggling to even come-up with any ideas just because I was spoiled for choice - it is plenty of space in Ferryhill for improvements if one is looking for solutions, not problems.

[Linas.P]

I think we both agree about the reason why motorists are being used as cash cow... However, I always like to look at the problem, not it's symptoms... Lack of funds and high taxes are symptoms, the actual problem is corruption and diverting motoring revenue is only required because of corruption. And therefore I think eradicating corruption should be considered as primary goal. You can consider me naive and I understand why... this country lived with corruption for centuries, why would this suddenly change? At the same time - this is exactly what government wants us to think - "resistance is futile just pay the tax and shut-up" a.k.a "playing the hand we're dealt". Now if we truly believe this, then we not living in democracy - if people can't do anything about it, then it is dictatorship (and arguments can be made that UK is indeed "parliamentary dictatorship").

Now on second point I kind of disagree... it is illusion of choice actually. If they set one speed limit and one pollution limit and it would stay forever, then yes you can argue that we just need to "respect the limits" and we will be "alright", but this is slippery slope because they keep tightening the limits. Again if we assume they just set the fair limits, then it would be okey, but they are not fair and government literally has conflict of interest here - set the fair limit and nobody will break it, or set it way too low and generate revenue. Again fix the street and make it safe and suitable for 30MPH, or fix main road and make it suitable for 50MPH and get no revenue... or leave them broken as they are, set the limit to 10MPH and as bonus get more revenue. In short - they are incentivised to make roads as bad as possible with limits that are unreasonable as possible, because it makes money. I am not saying all the roads are like this, but there are several examples of "traps" and number of these traps are increasing exponentially. Same for BEVs and low tax cars... it is slippery slope... look at what happened with diesel - people chose what government told them to chose, then they are banned out of cities and penalised. Same will be with BEVs... this concept of taxing "pollution" is deliberately designed to be vague and unfair, because as soon as people figure out the way to pay less tax by choosing cars with low tax, government can pivot, make change in the rules and start charging them. Again - lets think of why we have this issue? Why do we need these stupid taxes and traps on the road? Because we have corruption and we haemorrhaging public funds on every corner... that is why.

I guess in summary - I agree with what you are saying, your perspective here is "realist" and I am more "idealist". I just want this to be spelled out and clear - the taxes on the cars and fines are required to cover for corruption, not for healthcare or education needs. If we don't take taxes from motorists, we don't need to make other services worse (I am not sure they can even be worse than they are already), we just need to eradicate corruption. 

Ohh and by the way - this is again typic "divide and rule move". Majority of motorists would vote in favour of changes which would reduce fines, increase limits, reduces taxes etc. But government know is very well, that if you create narrative that "roads are paying for schools, hospitals and housing", then now suddenly parents don't support reduction because of their kids education needs, older people or the ones with health needs do not support it because they worried about hospitals and the taxes are never reduced, but only increased. But again this is false narrative, we actually can reduce taxes on everything and not lose anything if we get corrupt government out of power. So the more divided we are about the scraps we getting, the less time we have to realise what actual issue is and unite against corruption.

 

[Bluemarlin]

Well therein lies the problem for many things, Linas. Certainly it's possible to have less corruption, as the Scandinavian countries seem to have little, along with one or two others.

However, is it solely a government problem, or a societal one? Politicians don't spring up from nowhere, they come from the society they represent; so do we live in a society that breeds more people who are prone to be dishonest/corrupt?

I certainly feel that we live in one where people appear to be more self interested than community focused. Some people want to drive at whatever speed they like, whilst others feel that to be unsafe; some want to ride bicycles unhindered on main roads, whilst others want nothing to slow their progess in a car; and some want (and do) park wherever they like, regardless of any inconvenience it might cause to others.

People want what they want, and are either not aware, or don't care about the impact, needs or wishes of others, who might want the opposite. There's no attempt to say how can I get what I want, whilst recognising and trying to accomodate the wishes of others who want something different. There's no attempt to compromise, just an attempt by each side to grab as much power as needed to get what they want, even if it's at the expense of others.

This seems to be the culture we live in and, in such an environment, politicians are driven to appeal to those groups with wants, in order to gain votes. Doing so then gives them disproportionate power, which they can then abuse, because their supporters tolerate it in return for getting their needs met.

So yes, we could have honest, non corrupt political leaders, but it wont come from revolution, resistance or protest; in fact the answer is simpler than that. Instead it will come from us choosing our leaders based on their honesty, integrity and genuine desire to try and do what's best for everyone, even if that means we won't always get what we want; instead of voting for those who simply promise to give us what we want.

Democracy isn't simply about meeting the needs of those with the loudest voice, or the most votes, it's about serving everyone as best as possible. That requires compromise and therefore sacrifice, not from politicians, but from those who vote them in. Until we realise and accept that, and that we're part of a community,where others needs are as important as our own, then we'll continue to get the politicians we ask for and deserve.