Marc Brett ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Same thing near here (Teddington: Hapton Road & Coleshill Road for the
curious). A motorcyclist was killed when he attempted a right turn
from a highway onto a rat-run through a residential street. The
council's solution was to impose a 20mph zone on the street. Madness!
A cul-de-sac would have solved the problem much better IMHO, but I'm
sure council had their reasons.

Umm, no, the motorcyclist looking to see if he was turning across the path
of another vehicle would have solved it *even* better, but - hey - that
might actually require some expectation of personal responsibility...

He ****ed up, he paid for it. Life goes on for the rest of us.

"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.

Installing barriers, zig-zag routes or "no entry except for access" signs is
NIMBYist. Residents should not have the right to restrict ordinary traffic
from going along their road, although the situation is different for wide or
long vehicles such as lorries where they are actually a danger/encumberance
to other road users.

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!

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

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

Not sure what you mean there. Chicanes or road narrowings
along a road to make sections single track certainly exist.
Estates with give-ways on the through route also exist.
Estates with the main route made into 2 cul-de-sacs, with
a left-right-left through side roads to join them, exist.

The going round the houses option keeps almost everyone
else on the main roads in North Stockport / South Reddish.

--- "Martin Underwood" wrote:


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


Hmmm... Roads should be open to ALL traffic, should they? Motorways are
roads. Should they be open to foot traffic? Fancy the thought of crowds of
pedestrians walking along the fast lane of the motorway?

Of course not. A road should only be open to the sort of traffic that is
appropriate for it. That's just common sense.

"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... 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. 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.

Mark

--- "Mark" wrote:


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... everyone gets to drive
where they want, and we're all happy

I can't drive. So by your logic, I guess that means no-one's allowed to
drive past my house at all.

In message , John Rowland
writes
Has my idea about leaving through routes but making them zigzaggy been
performed anywhere?

Green Dragon Lane in Brentford have several, with drivers alternatively
swapping the right-of-way (an area high with social housing)

And High Park Road in Kew where there's only one, but it prevents
drivers approaching the crest of a bridge at speed, as there's a tight
bend with a a lot of cars parked either side of the road (an area of
high Tudorbethan suburbanity).

My experience is that they work most of the time, but being sensible I
tend to drive before the morning peak, so don't get the worst of the
school-4x4's.


--
Martin @ Strawberry Hill

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 1.4...

Umm, no, the motorcyclist looking to see if he was
turning across the path of another vehicle would have
solved it *even* better, but - hey - that might actually
require some expectation of personal responsibility...

He ****ed up, he paid for it.

He's not the only one who paid for it. The generation before him paid for
his education and childhood vaccines, and then he died, probably before he
got to pay for the education and vaccines of the next generation.

Life goes on for the rest of us.

His death might not make you sadder, but it does make you poorer, and that's
the reason councils try to prevent road accidents.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

Umm, no, the motorcyclist looking to see if he was
turning across the path of another vehicle would have
solved it *even* better, but - hey - that might actually
require some expectation of personal responsibility...

He ****ed up, he paid for it.

His death might not make you sadder, but it does make you poorer, and
that's the reason councils try to prevent road accidents.

The point remains that it was not the *road's* fault. It was the rider's
fault.

Steve Firth ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

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.

I'd rather see a bike hooning than a car.

Two reasons :-
1. He *knows* that if he ****s up, he's toast.
2. He's taking up a lot less road space, so more likely to be able to get
through a gap.