Jump to content

Manchester Road Accident now - more chaos


Recommended Posts

Anyone interested in the history of roads and their use may find the following website interesting :-

 

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

 

"Motorists are the johnny-come-latelies of highway history. The coming of the railways in the 1830s killed off the stage-coach trade; almost all rural roads reverted to low-level local use. Cyclists were the first group in a generation to use roads and were the first to push for high-quality sealed surfaces and were the first to lobby for national funding and leadership for roads.

 

Without cyclists, motorists wouldn't have hit the ground running when it came to places to drive this new form of transport."

 

 

Best regards

 

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What Inky says hits the nail on the head. The motorist has been treated as a cash cow by successive governments for far too long.

Cyclist, noun: Someone who spends 20 years moaning like hell because he wants a specially-built cycle path that's set back from the traffic, and then, when the budget's approved and the bloody thing i

Good idea. I'll park in Widnes and walk to the shops.

Sorry Rod, as a poster, I am saying that you just don't have a clue about noirmal people in the real world, as your comment aboiut 5 carrier bags shows. You have everyone in little boxes behaving in a certain manner. The fact that every family is different with different needs doesn't fit into your equation, is a bit like the council and the bins. "Making assumptions."

There is a saying, "Stop flogging a dead horse". You will get no converts on here. Enjoy your Christmas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cyclist, noun: Someone who spends 20 years moaning like hell because he wants a specially-built cycle path that's set back from the traffic, and then, when the budget's approved and the bloody thing is finally built, he carries on cycling in the road.
 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone interested in the history of roads and their use may find the following website interesting :-

 

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

 

"Motorists are the johnny-come-latelies of highway history. The coming of the railways in the 1830s killed off the stage-coach trade; almost all rural roads reverted to low-level local use. Cyclists were the first group in a generation to use roads and were the first to push for high-quality sealed surfaces and were the first to lobby for national funding and leadership for roads.

 

Without cyclists, motorists wouldn't have hit the ground running when it came to places to drive this new form of transport."

 

 

Best regards

 

Rod

Men were riding horses before the velocipede was invented and it's not often one see's one of those ridden through town. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote from the site from Rods link "Chicago aims to be a world-class cycling city (you know, like it was in the 1890s)"

 

Says it all really..... Rod and his bunch of cycling dictators want us all back in the dark ages whilst ignoring the fact that we live in the 21st century.

 

These lycra toga-wearing vegetarian liberals are why this town will never recover from the slump it is in.... as Wolfies definition quite rightly points out, they lobby for all the funding (which then takes it away from the actual roads we drive on) to get these facilities and then don't use them...

 

... and as for Rods anaolgy of cyclists paying tax so should be allowed to use the roads when they cycle, I pay road tax, I pay normal tax...... but when I am walking, it doesn't give me the right to walk down the middle of the East Lancs Road and sod the rest of the usesr does it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Men were riding horses before the velocipede was invented and it's not often one see's one of those ridden through town. :rolleyes:

working in Newmarket the other week and there were loads of them on the road Bill.... but not many bikes! :lol:  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt about it, Warrington just plain needs MORE ROADS! Anyone who thinks differently is a complete idiot.

 

We need more high level road crossings over the Ship Canal, more alternative routes from East to West and from North to South which avoid the town centre completely, and more places for people to park for free when they reach their destinations.

 

We need a road NETWORK which provides multiple alternative routes into, across, and around the town. So we need to stop restricting existing routes in some misguided attempt to reduce traffic volumes, and link them together to allow traffic to actually FLOW.

 

The alternative is that drivers will simply take themselves, and the money they spend, elsewhere. Then rod and his ilk will be able to cycle round town to their hearts content without ever being troubled by a car - of course, all of the shops and businesses will have shut down so they'll be pedalling round a ghost town looking for somewhere to do their shopping!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So where does the land come from to build all these "new" roads, who pays for it in this era of austerity and which buildings are to be demolished to make way for these routes? I remember the building of Midland Way, announced as an "expressway", to get traffic across town asap; within weeks, if not days, it was chocker and with the now added accesses and traffic lights, it's as slow as everywhere else. Sorry, just toooo many cars and a finite road space, especially in urban areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made plenty of suggestions for new road routes on here in the past.

 

Utilisation of the Latchford high level railway bridge, part of the TPT and the abandoned railway line west of Latchford to provide another route into town - and link up with the Arpley chord scheme around Brian Bevan island to provide a western bypass. Then a new road from the northern end of the Latchford bridge to the Kingsway bridge or over to Woolston and the Grange employment areas.

 

Buying out or bypassing the toll at the Warburton toll bridge and building a road north from the traffic lights on the A57 up to the M62 and Birchwood. - thus providing an eastern north to south bypass.

 

As far as paying for it? Road tax on bicycles and VAT on lycra should cover it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think you'll find the high level railway bridge would/will require some high level investment to make it usable, and havn't they now sold off some of the line land?  As for the money; we've got a cash strapped Council with a 3% drop next year from Gov; and a Gov that would argue that more borrowing to pay for new roads would rekindle the debt cycle and blow our triple A rating. Think however, that the way Gov thinking is going, will be to increase the number of toll roads via private sector investment, (so we can forget Warburton Bridge), and make road use dependent on affordability; thus making sure the Plebs will have to use a bus or the bike.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obs

 

Can’t deny there are a lot of cars but it’s what people want and planners shouldn’t loose sight of when looking for solutions. Sure times are hard but I don’t think the way out is to retract into a shell and hope things will go away. Taking on major engineering challenges is a sure-fire way to get people working and maybe put a bit of money into their pockets to get the economy moving again. 

 

Did you watch Algy’s film about Wilderspool Bridge being built back in the fifties? Loads of people employed for over two years and everyone happy with the results so the question is why can’t we do the same now? Bricks and mortar are just as cheap these days as they were back then and we’ve got bucket loads of labour being paid to sit on their bums all day. If there was a war on we’d do it that’s for certain.

 

The biggest obstacle isn't the cost, its changing the mindset of those who make the decisions. Once that’s done, we just need the balls to say stuff the bureaucracy.     :mrgreen:

 

Bill :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is the idiots who design these roads. Cromwell Avenue. Should have been dual carriageway all the way down just like in Macclesfield and in Widnes and Runcorn.

 

Midland Expressway... should have carried on over to Manchester Road if not further and been a dual carriageway. Instead they dropped it onto one of the busiest roundabouts in the town.

 

Winwick Road now that it is mainly dual carriageway; tends to flow quite well until it hits the cockhedge roundabout and then all hell breaks loose.

 

Bridge Foot. Needs more crossings instead of the dumb one way system with too many lanes which confuses folk.

 

Proper planning could work and a tax on bikes and lycra.... I like that idea! :lol:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow

 

It's novel to see all this 20th century "predict and provide" thinking.

 

Of course if you build more roads you make private car travel more attractive, and then people increase journey distance and frequency and then you are back to square one again. Overlay this with limited resources, reducing car ownership and increasing recognition of the huge public health consequences of such increased emissions and unactive travel and you realise how such thinking is so flawed.

 

That's why great and progressive communities around the world are not abandoning the motor vehicle, but are truly recognising its limitations and that people transit policies need to be multi-mode embracing to be successful. And lower speed limits, together with more and better cycle and pedestrian facilies are key strategies in such plans.

 

Best regards

 

Rod

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrington has more and better cycling provision than it did when I was a kid over 35 years ago. We rode on roads and on footpaths to keep out of the way of cars and trucks because we had common sense. With all the massive expense of the cycleways and facilities that the two wheeled warriors have been provided with today, why don't they use them and instead insist on still using roads when there are lanes and paths available?

Could it be that they are all pig-ignorant people who just want to have an accident I wonder?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow It's novel to see all this 20th century "predict and provide" thinking. Of course if you build more roads you make private car travel more attractive, and then people increase journey distance and frequency and then you are back to square one again. Overlay this with limited resources, reducing car ownership and increasing recognition of the huge public health consequences of such increased emissions and unactive travel and you realise how such thinking is so flawed. That's why great and progressive communities around the world are not abandoning the motor vehicle, but are truly recognising its limitations and that people transit policies need to be multi-mode embracing to be successful. And lower speed limits, together with more and better cycle and pedestrian facilies are key strategies in such plans. Best regards Rod

 

FINALLY!

 

An admission that the whole 20mph rubbish has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it's stated goal of reducing road accidents, and is in fact a thinly disguised way of trying to force people to adopt modes of transport which are COMPLETELY UNSUITED to their needs.

 

It is the duty of our local council to safeguard and promote the economic health of the town. In order to do this they need to make Warrington an attractive destination for employers, employees and shoppers. An efficient road network is ESSENTIAL to acheive this.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the alternative is that large numbers of people simply go elsewhere, the town dies, and rod gets nice quiet roads to cycle on - but has nowhere to go to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Think you'll find the high level railway bridge would/will require some high level investment to make it usable, and havn't they now sold off some of the line land?  As for the money; we've got a cash strapped Council with a 3% drop next year from Gov; and a Gov that would argue that more borrowing to pay for new roads would rekindle the debt cycle and blow our triple A rating. Think however, that the way Gov thinking is going, will be to increase the number of toll roads via private sector investment, (so we can forget Warburton Bridge), and make road use dependent on affordability; thus making sure the Plebs will have to use a bus or the bike.

 

The Latchford bridge probably weighs in excess of 500 tons, and must be plenty strong enough to hold it's own weight up. If it wasn't then the bridge surveyors would be insisting that it is repaired or taken down in their regular inspections. They aren't.

 

If it can hold 500+ tons, then it's not going to take much in the way of refurbishment to make it structurally capable of carrying a few tens of tons of cars at a time.

 

And it's not going to cost a fortune to buy or compulsory purchase a small strip of field next to the Warburton toll bridge toll booth and build a hundred yards of road over the former Mersey river bed - thus rendering the toll (levied on the stone bridge which used to cross the Mersey, not the big steel bridge which crosses the Ship Canal) obsolete.

 

If the council has the money to have the binmen collect the bins half as often but still keep the same number of them employed, then they have the money for a few modest road improvements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inky

 

You know very well from previous conversations that its about reducing road danger so that people have the choice to use whatever mode of transport they wish without fear. Its about providing an equatable road environment.

 

The idea that anyone is being "forced" to cycle or walk is ridiculous. It is the duty of the council to promote the economic health of the town and also the puiblic health of the town. Both are deliverable if better choices are provided for people to use whatever mode of transport they wish. There is much evidence that simply expecting everyone to invest in motor cars to get around is one of the least economic ways to provide transport. As 25% of Warrington households do not have a car then it sound like it is perfectly reasonable to provide a basic standard of equity on the roads for vulnerable road users.

 

That's what the 20mph limits for residential roads is all about. Its being done in Warrington, Liverpool, Lancashire, Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge, Islington, bath, Brighton, Middlesbrough, York, Newcastle, Camden, Hackney, Southwark, Edinburgh and many more places. And its being done after democratic debate and considered decision-making. And its being done just as much for pedestrians as it is for cyclists. And also it reduces car on car casualties as well.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that because Warrington has 20mph limits on residential roads then those using cars will instead drive to Widnes. Any analysis of the facts would tell you that even driving to Widnes you would use the same residential streets to get onto the Widnes road.

 

Efficient road networks are determined by the number of people they can effectively move around. Those towns and cities which cater for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport are far more effective at this than those who rely only on private motor vehicles. I am pleased that Warrington, like those other places mentioned, are moving this way. Its recent LSTF funding was very much around providing better alternatives to motor vehicles in the town and reflects the way that the whole transport issue is changing its focus to multi-mode.

 

I accept that for those wedded to their cars then this provides no advantages other than a better, more inclusive and more economically viable community. I am sorry if you don't see or value this as well.

 

Best regards

 

 

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites
Re your previous posting. What utter nonsense. If our predecessors had thought this way we’d all still be workin downth mill.

 

Think of the early motorized vehicles burning wood and coal and how polluting they were. If back then we’d said lets make the roads only suitable for horses where would we be now? See my point Rod. 

 

I believe that mankind should look to technological developments to solve our problems because that’s the future Rod not in your back to the good old days thinking. Our vehicles have got cleaner and more efficient (by necessity) as their numbers grow and I foresee a time in the not too distant future when they’ll all be zero emissions and running on a form of low cost energy that doesn’t exist at the moment. 

 

We’re problem solvers Rod and as they say, necessity is the mother of invention but remove the necessity and you kill off all innovation.

Is that what you really want?

 

Bill :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill said

 
I believe that mankind should look to technological developments to solve our problems because that’s the future Rod not in your back to the good old days thinking. Our vehicles have got cleaner and more efficient (by necessity) as their numbers grow and I foresee a time in the not too distant future when they’ll all be zero emissions and running on a form of low cost energy that doesn’t exist at the moment. 
 

 

So that's it is it Bill? You are basing your continued over-reliance on motor vehicles on a technology that does not exist at the moment. That sure is some act of faith. The increasing efficiency of cars has mainly led to people buying bigger cars which erode the efficiency gains. But any increase in efficency will not result in increasing health through greater active mobility. It wont lead to greater child independent mobility. It won't lead to greater access for those without cars. It won't lead to elderly people being able to feel comfortable maintaing their pedestrian activity.

 

But you are talking as someone had suggested banning motor vehicles. This is far from anything that I have suggested. I guess that what you fear most is not 20mph speed limits on residential roads, but the fact that society is daring to challenge the supremacy of and unique reliance on the motor vehicle.

 

But as always, whenever the current status quo is challenged with suggestions for moderate changes then opponents like to portray this as extremist.

 

Best regards

 

Rod

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's also ignoring the fact that many parts of the borough (including the village where he lives) have virtually NO public transport services - or at best just a limited service to the town centre with no services to the major employment and retail areas elsewhere in the borough. This leaves the council tax payers in those areas with NO alternative but to use their cars.

 

These council tax payers have a RIGHT to a decent road network which allows them to get where they need to go at a reasonable speed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...