Jump to content
Dizzy

Manchester Road Accident now - more chaos

Recommended Posts

Flexi time would be a big help there enabling people to stagger their journey times and so make the journeys less crowded. In reality all it really does is shift the working pattern so that people start and finish earlier.

 

I say ban all four wheeled vehicles from towns and give us bikers a fairly clear bit of road to have a tootle on.

 

Get rid of all the town pavements and build underground and overhead walkways for pedestrians and invest in those multi person pedal cycles instead of buses for round town transport. Two people to pedal and the rest as passengers could provide an great employment opportunity for our youth and get them fit at the same time. 8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Undergtound, overground, wombling free.... How would the people get to the shops then Sid if they had to walk underground or overhead? I rather suspect everyone would get in their cars and go shopping in Widnes instead. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ban four wheel drive cars from inner town and city areas! (other than emergency and public services).

 

Ban four wheel drive cars from inner town and city areas! (other than emergency and public services).

 

Great idea. We can use the ringroad instead.

Park and Ride either side of toiwn for those thousands of commuters travelling to work in Warrington who plan everything on our behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Algy’s right in that there won’t be any winners in this argument but fortunately, it’s a debate and not a contest. We all have our own points of view and there’s logic in virtually every argument put forward (including Rods) but somewhere there has to be a solution that could help better the situation without penalising people or going backwards.

Improved roads and fewer bottlenecks would reduce journey times and hence the number of vehicles on the road at any one time. The plusses and minuses of this have been done to death but for me it’s the obvious first choice that penalises nobody and benefits everyone. That said, this action on it’s own won’t entirely solve the problem, especially with Observers growing population, so other plans would be always be needed to run in parallel.

The thing is, we really only have the problems at certain times, while away from this it’s no too bad. Commuting to work accounts for most of the congestion (30% of all car journeys) so if we could reduce this, we’d be hitting at the biggest single cause. But again, rather than just penalise the commuter, maybe financial incentives to encourage employers to recruit locally could be used.

Personally I think people want the freedom of personal transport and even if there were 10 times more busses and they were all free, I think most would still choose the car. 

Bill :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with "the car" is that it's by it's nature anarchistic, apart from central TMS traffic light controls and CCTV, it's controlled by every individual driver = no control. Centrally controlled systems are the only way to provide orderly transport systems and new technology may provide this for road transport eg: driverless cars, which can be "platooned" in groups behind a lead vehicle or under road power sourcing (electro-magnetic?). which may be too expensive. But science fiction writers seem to have more idea than the Gov on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the attitudes of most of their unions, I think you'll find that public transport is pretty anarchistic most of the time!

 

Remember the blackmail demands of the London tube, train and bus drivers used to extort thousands of pounds in "bonuses" just for turning up for work during the Olympics?

 

The tube drivers went on strike again on Boxing Day, and now the station cleaners are threatening to force stations to close by walking out.

 

And these are the same unions who walk out whenever anyone so much as mentions driverless trains - far easier to implement than driverless cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm refering to "systems", not people (unions or otherwise); and systems that are centrally controlled as the most efficient and orderly means of tranporting goods and people from A to B. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Systems" which are centrally controlled are more orderly and efficient? Like communism, you mean? You're going to need to have totalitarian control over ALL of the people who work in your system obs (union or otherwise)!

 

On the contrary, the most efficient, orderly and robust transport "systems" are those which follow the same model as a large data network with the packets of data substituted for individual vehicles. Such systems provide a network of alternative routings between any two points, and provide for each vehicle to have the autonomy to select its own routing based upon information received regarding congestion or other problems across the network as a whole.

 

The key is to provide traffic with multiple alternatives and the information necessary to chose between them, and NOT to force it to slavishly follow some centrally planned, and therefore inherently flawed, prescription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A system controlled by a politician???? You surel'y jest.

PS. We are a nation of individuals and will remain so, until the robots take over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not talking about politics or politicians, talking about transportation systems. Forget which airport it is, but a fully automated and computerised baggage handling system gets cases from A to B without traffic jams; and imo, that's the only way you'll start getting large numbers of people from A to B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime over the last few days saw a program on one of the channels showing the new system in I think Hong Kong. It was a metro system that was fully automatic, no drivers, no guards, no cleaners (at least for the outside), all repairs reported and carried out at a special station in under an hour, and that included replacing a faulty bogey. No waiting for the driver to get to the depot just one man sat in a control booth. Press of a button the trains "wakes up" goes through it's safety checks then off it goes to start the day. the platforms had perspex panels that closed just before the train doors did to prevent people from trying to get on at the last minutes. They even had a special train that went along and steam cleaned the track during slack periods.

 

What do we have, trains that were the height of sophistication in the Victorian era and a mental attitude to match. :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have is nostalgia for a bygone age - of the car, which some folk are in denial about losing. Hong Kong is even more densely populated than the UK, so it's no surprise they've arrived at the only solution to people movement in the future. Something for us all to ponder when stuck for hours in our next traffic queue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're still driving Obs? A matter of don't do as I do but do as I say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not "telling" anyone to do anything, merely predicting the future!

BUT it is the present that concerns us. YES, plan for the future. But we ain't there yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think many motorists would have too much of a problem if a decent chunk of the tax money they get robbed of each year went into funding the construction of state of the art underground systems or, less glamorously, state of the art road to rail freight container facilities to allow the railways to be used for what they were designed for - moving stuff not people.

 

What motorists increasingly object to is not getting ANYTHING back in return for all the transport taxes they pay, and seeing what little money does get spent on roads used to artificially restrict traffic flows and give priority to non-paying road users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think many motorists would have too much of a problem if a decent chunk of the tax money they get robbed of each year went into funding the construction of state of the art underground systems or, less glamorously, state of the art road to rail freight container facilities to allow the railways to be used for what they were designed for - moving stuff not people.

 

What motorists increasingly object to is not getting ANYTHING back in return for all the transport taxes they pay, and seeing what little money does get spent on roads used to artificially restrict traffic flows and give priority to non-paying road users.

 

Here's an alternative view from a report that suggests the opposite. Download from http://www.greens-efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Studies/Costs_of_cars/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN.pdf

 

The Guardian commented:-

 

Car pollution, noise and accidents 'cost every EU citizen £600 a year'

Researchers challenge view that drivers are overtaxed, saying they are subsidised by other taxpayers

 

The perennial complaint from drivers that they are excessively taxed has been challenged by a study which concludes that road accidents, pollution and noise connected to cars costs every EU citizen more than £600 a year.

 

The report by transport academics at the Dresden Technical University in Germany calculated that even with drivers' insurance contributions discounted these factors amounted to an annual total of €373bn (£303bn) across the 27 EU member states, or around 3% of the bloc's entire yearly GDP. This breaks down as €750 per man, woman and child.

 

The report recommends that such so-called externalities be factored into the cost of driving, noting that even the €373bn tally does not include costs from congestion or ill health caused by lack of exercise.

 

The idea that drivers are "the cash cows of our society" is wrong, the authors write: "On the contrary, it must be stated that car traffic in the EU is highly subsidised by other people and other regions and will be by future generations: residents along an arterial road, taxpayers, elderly people who do not own cars, neighbouring countries, and children, grandchildren and all future generations subsidise today's traffic."

The study, The True Costs of Automobility, accepts that such calculations necessarily have an element of approximation but give an important overall picture. In a national breakdown it says UK drivers accounted for £48bn of costs, second only to Germany, or about £815 per person per year.

 

The figures deliberately do not offset motoring-connected taxes unless they are specifically ringfenced for car use, for example a motorway toll where the money is set aside for highway maintenance. The authors argue that other motoring levies form part of the general tax pot and are no more reserved for the impact of cars than alcohol duties are reserved for healthcare or policing drink-fuelled disorder.

Even if motoring taxes were taken into account there remains a significant shortfall in the UK. Fuel duty and its associated VAT along with vehicle excise duty contribute around £38bn a year to the Treasury's coffers, £10bn less than the estimated cost.

 

Governments have to get to grips with the issue, said Prof Udo Becker, who led the study, which was commissioned by the Green group in the European parliament: "Internalisation of external costs is the essential thing in a market economy. It's a prerequisite for everything – for individual behaviour and for innovation within the car industry."

 

This was particularly the case for climate change, he said, which unlike accidents was not partially offset by insurance: "With climate change every burning of fossil fuels creates the same amount of damage, so let's charge the population for driving. Then everybody has a choice. They can use a bike sometimes, or the train, they can drive more slowly, they can think about living closer to their work."

 

 

 

 

Best regards

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, if only those two people had not had a bump on Manchester Road and I hadn't mentioned that it was causing a delay at the time :wacko:

 

Anyway..

 

Rod I have not clicked on any of your links yet but one thing did just jump out at me.

 

you say that  

 

"With climate change every burning of fossil fuels creates the same amount of damage, so let's charge the population for driving. Then everybody has a choice. They can use a bike sometimes, or the train, they can drive more slowly, they can think about living closer to their work."

 

Are you not forgetting one major flaw with that statement ie THERE IS A HUGE SHORTAGE OF JOBS THESE DAYS EVERYWHERE and Warrington is no exception so people can't always live close to their places of work nor do they probably want to have to up sticks and move their families to another area for a job that might only be temporary... who knows.  

 

I notice the local Network Warrington bus company are offering FREE bus travel for the unemployed during January (over 3 months unemployed is the criteria) but as there are hardly any jobs around here anyway what is the point ?  If there were any jobs available then people who really wanted them would get to the interviews/ jobs etc anyway regardless of free transport for a month or not !!

 

Also, why do people at the job centre have to sign that they are willing to travel for say 90 minutes to their 'hopeful' new job.  For those relying on busses as a form of public transport for example I guess that means they will be looking no further than Runcorn or maybe Liverpool.  For those who drive well they could be looking as far a field as Wales on a good day.

 

I mean this in the nicest possible way of course... but at times you do seem to be living in a very blinkered world consisting of a one way street which could inevitably lead to a complete dead end and make no difference at all other than it has kept you/our brains active I suppose :oops:  :lol:  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dizzy

 

I think that the comment in the report that "they can think about living closer to their work" was suggested as a "option" rather than a "command". It may not be feasible for all but may be a useful consideration for many.

 

Regards

 

Rod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... but hasn't that always been the case Rod.  ie it's A PERSONAL CHOICE ?  Sadly these days  'personal choice' seems to something that many people are often excluded from for one reason or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Condemmed out of your own mouth I'm afraid Rod.

 

"The figures deliberately do not offset motoring-connected taxes unless they are specifically ringfenced for car use, for example a motorway toll where the money is set aside for highway maintenance."

 

So no account is taken in this report of UK fuel duty, VAT on fuel, VAT on car purchases, VAT on car maintenance, Insurance Premium Tax, Vehicle Excise Duty, speeding fines revenue, parking fines revenue, car park charges, or MOT test revenues - since none of these are ringfenced for car use, or even more general transport use, in the UK. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM IN A NUTSHELL!

 

The report also deals with averages across the whole of the EU. That alone makes it completely meaningless to the UK.

 

For a start, the UK has a MUCH lower road accident rate than many other parts of the EU, leading to lower costs from road traffic accidents than elsewhere. Cars - and especially lorries - in the UK are MUCH more modern and MUCH better maintained than in many other parts of the EU, leading to lower emissions and less pollution than elsewhere. And nowhere else in the EU has such high motoring taxes and other costs (albeit they get funnelled off into "general taxation") to pay for it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok... but hasn't that always been the case Rod.  ie it's A PERSONAL CHOICE ?  Sadly these days  'personal choice' seems to something that many people are often excluded from for one reason or another.

 

Yes, there has always been the option to choose to work closer to home. Many people do it and value the reduction in travel costs that this represents. However there seems little basis for the belief that one should be able to choose to work for a distant employer and expect society to fund or subsidise long private car journies.

 

I certainly would like greater "personal choice" in transport. Many people feel that they cannot cycle to school, work or college because of the speed and volume of motor vehicles. Even you have said that you wouldn't advise cycling because of the fear of the actions of drivers. Its good to see tjhat the council is doing something to address this fear and increase the personal choice available for people to walk or cycle.

 

Rod

Share this post


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...