In article , Steve Firth
says...
John Rowland wrote:

His death might not make you sadder, but it does make you poorer

Err no it doesn't. And TBh even if motorcycle deaths cost me a quid
each, I'd rather see 'em dead that using the roads as a race track.

Its not just motorcyclists. I went down the A483 from Chester to
Oswestry a few times in the last fortnight. Basically think of the way
motorbikes weave in and out of traffic and overtake down the white line
when there's oncoming cars and you've a good idea of what alot of four
wheeled vehicle drivers were doing on the single carriageway stretches.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Martin Underwood wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Martin Underwood wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

I know that there are many neighbourhoods where cul-de-sacking has
occurred.

As a driver, I destest cul-de-sacking. If a road exists, it should
be there for through traffic to use as well as residential traffic.

Why?

Because it's a road, and roads should be open to ALL traffic.

Why?

Between Windsor and Ascot, just on the Ascot side of the "peanut-shaped
roundabout" (locals will know the one I mean!) there is a short length
of road that would serve as a valuable way of travelling from Winkfield
or Ascot to Sunningdale, bypassing this roundabout which carries all
traffic between Windsor/Legoland, Windsor Great Park, Sunningdale and
Ascot and gets clogged in the rush hour. Except that it carries "no
entry except for access" signs... The irony is, there are no properties
to be accessed along this road: I stopped and walked along it (it's only
about 200 yards long) to satisfy my curiosity! Coming from Sunningdale
to Winkfield, the situation is even more absurd: the road to Winkfield
is no entry, so everyone going in that direction nips through the car
park of the neighbouring pub which has exits onto both roads!

That does sound rather daft; in that case, unless there's some factor we
don't know about, i'd agree that the road should be open to all traffic.

tom

--
VENN DIAGRAM THAT LOOK LIKE TWO BIG CIRCLES EQUAL BAD PUBLIC POLICY.

On 25 Sep 2004, Mark wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...

Or, best of all, to locate barriers through the neighbourhood such
that through routes will still exist to enable us residents to get out
in any direction, but they will be so zigzaggy that no-one will use
the neighbourghood as a cut through any more.

Fine. But I hope that you nimbies never expect to drive past my house.

You see, for years there's been this implicit agreement that we don't
complain about you driving past our houses, and in return you don't
complain about us driving past your houses...

Actually, no; rather, for decades, there's been this explicit policy that
heavy traffic should be channelled into high-capacity main roads away from
residential areas, so nobody gets everyone else driving past his house.

everyone gets to drive where they want, and we're all happy, even if we
have to put up with the odd car going past.

This isn't about 'the odd car': this is about heavy use of a residential
road as a shortcut.

Now, it seems, selfish nimbies like you want to stop us from driving
past your house, yet you expect to be able to drive past ours.

I don't think John is being at all NIMBYist he he's
not saying "the traffic should use somebody else's residential street",
he's saying "the cars should use the main road"; i'm sure he'd say the
same about anybody else's residential street, if it was being rat-run [1].

tom

[1] I'm fighting the urge to say 'rat-runned' here ...

--
VENN DIAGRAM THAT LOOK LIKE TWO BIG CIRCLES EQUAL BAD PUBLIC POLICY.

"Dan Holdsworth" wrote in message
.
com...
Just because people are using roads for their intended purpose is no
reason to get upset.

In the case of a residential road, surely if its "intended purpose" had been
for it to take large numbers of cars it would have been built much wider
than many/most are? The whole point is that many of these roads were built
in the days before widespread car use/ownership, and simply aren't capable
of sustaining a steady two-way flow of traffic.

Or are you saying that most of London/The South East/Britain was built with
cars in mind?

David Splett wrote:

"Dan Holdsworth" wrote:

Just because people are using roads for their intended purpose is no
reason to get upset.

In the case of a residential road, surely if its "intended purpose"
had been for it to take large numbers of cars it would have been
built much wider than many/most are?

Sounds a bit of a strawman, since the definition of "large numbers" is not
given (and not likely to be readily agreed on).

The intended purpose of roads is to carry road traffic.

The whole point is that many of
these roads were built in the days before widespread car
use/ownership, and simply aren't capable of sustaining a steady
two-way flow of traffic.

Well, perhaps not if lined with two rows of parked motor vehicles. And that
raises another issue...

Or are you saying that most of London/The South East/Britain was
built with cars in mind?

With *traffic* in mind, without a doubt.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.769 / Virus Database: 516 - Release Date: 24/09/04

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Sounds a bit of a strawman, since the definition of "large numbers" is
not given (and not likely to be readily agreed on).

So do you not agree that we now have a *far* greater amount of "traffic" on
the roads in 2004 than in the dreams of a 1904 planner?


The whole point is that many of
these roads were built in the days before widespread car
use/ownership, and simply aren't capable of sustaining a steady
two-way flow of traffic.
Well, perhaps not if lined with two rows of parked motor vehicles. And
that raises another issue...

Given that parking in many suburban streets is now a major problem at
evenings and weekends, is this other issue the imposition of parking
restrictions? If so, where do you propose to park all the displaced cars,
or do they simply disappear?


Or are you saying that most of London/The South East/Britain was
built with cars in mind?
With *traffic* in mind, without a doubt.

But doubtlessly nowhere near as much as we now have. Do you seriously think
that a narrow road with two rows of cars parked down each side and few
passing-places is *sensibly* used as a through route?

David Splett wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:

[ ... ]

Sounds a bit of a strawman, since the definition of "large numbers"
is not given (and not likely to be readily agreed on).

So do you not agree that we now have a *far* greater amount of
"traffic" on the roads in 2004 than in the dreams of a 1904 planner?

Yes.

And?

The whole point is that many of
these roads were built in the days before widespread car
use/ownership, and simply aren't capable of sustaining a steady
two-way flow of traffic.

Well, perhaps not if lined with two rows of parked motor vehicles.
And that raises another issue...

Given that parking in many suburban streets is now a major problem at
evenings and weekends, is this other issue the imposition of parking
restrictions? If so, where do you propose to park all the displaced
cars, or do they simply disappear?

Happily, not my problem.

I hasten to add that all of our cars are garaged off-road.

Or are you saying that most of London/The South East/Britain was
built with cars in mind?

With *traffic* in mind, without a doubt.

But doubtlessly nowhere near as much as we now have. Do you seriously
think that a narrow road with two rows of cars parked down each side
and few passing-places is *sensibly* used as a through route?

That must depend on what the alternatives are.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.769 / Virus Database: 516 - Release Date: 24/09/04

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Martin Underwood wrote:

Between Windsor and Ascot, just on the Ascot side of the
"peanut-shaped roundabout" (locals will know the one I mean!)
there is a short length of road that would serve as a valuable
way of travelling from Winkfield or Ascot to Sunningdale,
bypassing this roundabout which carries all traffic between
Windsor/Legoland, Windsor Great Park, Sunningdale and Ascot
and gets clogged in the rush hour. Except that it carries "no
entry except for access" signs... The irony is, there are no
properties to be accessed along this road: I stopped and
walked along it (it's only about 200 yards long) to satisfy
my curiosity! Coming from Sunningdale to Winkfield, the
situation is even more absurd: the road to Winkfield is no
entry, so everyone going in that direction nips through the
car park of the neighbouring pub which has exits onto both
roads!

That does sound rather daft; in that case, unless there's some
factor we don't know about, i'd agree that the road should be open
to all traffic.

I would guess that it's been done as a safety measure, as it avoids
right turns on to the B383 at the eastern end, and at the other end
avoids having through traffic crossing the A332 at a cross-roads near a
bend. The local council probably judged that it would be safer to
channel the traffic round the roundabout despite longer journeys and
congestion. Do you (Martin) know what the accident record was before
the road in question was restricted?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...
Hi all,

I live on a residential suburban London road used by many cars as a cut
through, despite the fact that there are no jams to speak of on the main
roads in my area. They use it because it is (by a short amount) the shortest
route between a number of major suburban town centres and pinchpoints in the
road network. The council has sent us all details of their plans to alter
the geometry of a local dangerous scissor junction between two heavily-used
cut-throughs to reduce the number of accidents, and wants our opinions. Both
cut throughs have width restrictions to prevent lorries using them, but this
does nothing to stem the continuous flow of cars.

I don't want the council to alter the geometry of the junction. I want them
to either turn the width restrictions into barriers, or remove the width
restrictions and put barriers where it will be easier to do three-point
turns. Or, best of all, to locate barriers through the neighbourhood such
that through routes will still exist to enable us residents to get out in
any direction, but they will be so zigzaggy that no-one will use the
neighbourghood as a cut through any more. Because the main road routes are
uncongested and only slightly longer than the cut throughs, forcing cars to
divert around a few blocks should remove all incentive to cut through my
neighbourhood.

I know that there are many neighbourhoods where cul-de-sacking has occurred.
They tend to be the poshest neighbourhoods or the scummiest neighbourhoods,
but not the in-between neighbourhoods. I live in an in-between
neighbourhood. How do councils decide which neighbourhoods to cul-de-sack?
How will it affect property values? Will my neighbourhood become posher? Or
scummier?

Has my idea about leaving through routes but making them zigzaggy been
performed anywhere?

I remember a few years back some residents somewhere, in a similar
situation to yours, took matters into their own hands and created
their own "zigzaggy" road layout by parking their cars in such a way
that the rat-runners suddenly found that their short cut was virtually
unpassable. IIRC, the local council responded by agreeing to put
permanent measures in place.

Dunno if this would be an option in your case.

Jim.

Has my idea about leaving through routes but making them zigzaggy been
performed anywhere?

Yes. Clarendon Park, Leicester (which is supposedly a "fashionable"
area). It's practically impossible to drive through between the major
roads on any particular residential street, as they're virtually all
either blocked off or one way at some point, but you can still get
cars into and out of the neighbourhood. The problem comes with trying
to get someone to deliver you anything (especially furniture) as the
lines of cars parked on both sides makes it virtually impossible for
large vans to get onto the streets.