Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:19:30 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:


I never even suggested banning 4x4s from central London. There are other
measures which could be taken to reduce their use.


That may well be where we differ. I don't see why a 4x4 vehicle
should be considered any different from any other vehicle, in Central
London or otherwise. We may well want a target to reduce the numbers
of private motor vehicles in general in London, but to target a
specific type of *transmission* in such an ill-informed manner is not
a good idea.

I say transmission, because 4x4 vehicles come in many shapes and
sizes, the only thing they *all* have in common being power
transmission to all wheels in some way. Only *some* of them are Range
Rovers, Discoverys etc, and as has been stated even those don't take
as much road space (on the horizontal plane) as people think.

I do understand the argument you're putting across - and it's valid; it
would be silly to target the type of transmission. However, within the
4x4 class, there are a whole set of vehicles that could be classified as
a nuisance - for safety reasons (for the occupants and for other
motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) and environmental reasons. Perhaps
these factors should be concentrated on.

There are also practical factors - the large Range Rovers etc. seem to
have trouble manoeuvring into parking spaces or around each other in
narrow streets, and that has implications for traffic flow. Other bulky
vehicles like vans tend to be driven by people more experienced with
such manoeuvres.

I'm not convinced by the vertical plane argument, as I would have
thought most drivers don't look ahead through other cars as a means of
seeing the road ahead, as visibility is that poor that way.

It's not just the vertical place - as the Range Rover-type vehicles have
a larger cross-section, you have to keep a greater distance to see
things either side of the car.

I find looking through the vehicle ahead gives greater visibility (i.e.
some) of the road ahead than not looking through it (i.e. none).

Conversely, drivers of taller vehicles also have worse visibility of
smaller objects like children, especially to the rear. It's said that in
the States (where I accept that SUVs are generally even larger than the
equivalent here), every year around 80 children are killed by parents
who reverse SUVs and hit them because they can't see them.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dan Gravell wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 16 Feb 2005:

Picking up on the original point, my position is that the car is still
overused given PT provision in London. I consider that in many cases
people are too lazy, or simply do not make a conscious decision to use
PT, as if they have some kind of logical reasoning limit. I come to this
conclusion witnessing the chronic congestion caused almost entirely by
private motor vehicle users in South London.

And there are some people who are simply too scared to use public
transport, reckoning that they'll be mugged, robbed, raped or otherwise
inconvenienced whenever they use it. I know a young woman of 18 whose
mother has simply never allowed her to use public transport in her
entire life, which I find very shocking. But Dad is a policeman, and
Mother says that "Dad tells them" all the dreadful things that go on, so
the young woman has probably never been on a bus or train in her entire
life. I am not easily shockable, but that did shock me!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news:1108538719.cafb1656c83909a1225e9e8e836cdca5@t eranews...
In message , at 00:15:03
on Wed, 16 Feb 2005, d remarked:

Roland Perry wrote:
Something like 90% of journeys in London are by public transport, so
the
remainder who are using their car have obviously got a very good
reason.
Often (amongst those I've asked) it's because they have had very bad
experiences with public transport in the past, and feel they need the
extra flexibility that a car provides.

That statistic does not really mean a great deal though; the fact that
the
public transport system can support that figure is because it is more
scalable.

Most of the commuter rail in and out of London is at bursting point, and
has nowhere to scale *to*. It is at maximum capacity.

The issue is that some individuals still appear to consider the private
motor vehicle (read: car), which is not scalable or anywhere near it, a
good way to get around London. A feel your statistic proves my point.

Only 10%, which means they are the real persistent people who must have
a
*very* good reason.

Some do, I'm sure, but have you considered some are selfish?

Some people would say you were selfish to buy your vegetables at the
supermarket, rather than spending several hours a week digging an
allotment. People's standards vary.

Why? Are supermarkets hideously overcrowded with runaway cans of tomatoes
killing people and ruining the athmosphere? Not having an alotment, or
even having access to one, that's not even possible. Public transport is
there and it works.

I know a
few... That's another, very realistic reason, surely. If they had a bad
episode when they couldn't get a seat between Leicester Square and Covent
Garden, then that's hardly a good excuse to put another vehicle on the
crowded streets of London. I've had some pretty awful experiences on
public
transport, but they're very rare, and I've had more in private transport.

I had more in mind the people who travel 50 miles in from their home town,
and had a bad experience (or two) with the railways. I went back to
driving to work (outside the London area) after Hatfield, for example,
when one day (not the first day after) it took me three hours to get to
work (instead of one).

I can appreciate that - I used to commute from West Berkshire to Hanger Lane
and back every day. I still used trains and the tube - it wasn't as fast as
a car, but it was a LOT cheaper, and kept another private, space-wasting
vehicle off the streets of London. Lots of the people you see driving round
central london are Londoners, too lazy to drive. There are thousands of
them. I know a bunch. Pseudostylish types who use their cars as status
symbols. My boss has a lambourghini, and he drives the 2 minutes from his
house (which we can see from our office) - he's not alone. Someone else I
know drives from west london to North London, practically following the tube
lines, yet still drives his car. It's not about needs for these people, but
wants. It's about image. It's sad

As an aside, where did you get that figure from? I've been looking for a
good stats site for a while.

From a LUL (or similar) survey done 5-8 years ago. I've no immediate
reference.

So it's bang up to date! Fantastic! Oh, I think you mis-spelled "my
ass".
joking

I don't think that kind of figure varies much from year to year. We'd have
noticed if cars in Central London had doubled (80% by PT, 20% by car) or
halved (95% by PT, 5% by car) from the underlying 90% by PT, 10% by car.

Maybe if nothing in London had changed in the time-frame, but with massive
projects like the congestion charge coming into play, those statistics must
be taken with a massive pinch of salt, as we simply don't know. I'm not
disputing them, I'm just saying these could be accurate figures, or they
could be inaccurate

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:42:03 GMT, d wrote:

It's not about needs for these people, but
wants. It's about image. It's sad

It may also be about comfort. At least if one is driving, even if one is
standing still or doing 3mph most of the way, one is guaranteed a seat.
This is surely the hardest thing about trying to convince people to
drive no further than their nearest railhead.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632896.html
(33 117 in the middle (yes, middle!) of a train at Weymouth Q in 1989)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:54:16 +0000, Dave Arquati
wrote:

I do understand the argument you're putting across - and it's valid; it
would be silly to target the type of transmission. However, within the
4x4 class, there are a whole set of vehicles that could be classified as
a nuisance - for safety reasons (for the occupants and for other
motorists, cyclists and pedestrians) and environmental reasons. Perhaps
these factors should be concentrated on.

Perhaps so. I would expect to see old brick-style Volvo estates, for
example, being targeted in the same way. These may be lower, but are
just as wide and far longer than most SUVs (which is probably a better
term to describe the vehicles concerned) and probably pollute as much.
I doubt they're all that well-designed in terms of crashworthiness for
pedestrians or cyclists, either.

There are also practical factors - the large Range Rovers etc. seem to
have trouble manoeuvring into parking spaces or around each other in
narrow streets, and that has implications for traffic flow. Other bulky
vehicles like vans tend to be driven by people more experienced with
such manoeuvres.

MX is that dangerous and stupid driving of large vehicles is most
likely to be seen in two types of drivers - white van man and
taxi/minicab drivers. Both of these should act professionally with
their vehicles, but often IMX do not.

It's not just the vertical place - as the Range Rover-type vehicles have
a larger cross-section, you have to keep a greater distance to see
things either side of the car.

I presume you mean "wider", as this is not necessarily the case.
Refer to the figures other posters have contributed.

I find looking through the vehicle ahead gives greater visibility (i.e.
some) of the road ahead than not looking through it (i.e. none).

Each to their own. Even on the rare occasion that I do drive a
normal-height car (not often - only if I'm at my parents' house
without my own car, as I'm still on their insurance for such
situations) I wouldn't say I do to any extent. I'm more likely to
keep sufficient distance to either work with what I can see, or to see
around the sides.

Conversely, drivers of taller vehicles also have worse visibility of
smaller objects like children, especially to the rear. It's said that in
the States (where I accept that SUVs are generally even larger than the
equivalent here), every year around 80 children are killed by parents
who reverse SUVs and hit them because they can't see them.

This is the case with most tall vehicles, not just SUVs. I currently
have two cars, the 88" Landy and a Vauxhall Agila 1.2. The latter is
designed as a city car - short in length, narrow, modern,
low-pollution engine and good lock so it can be parked on a proverbial
postage stamp.

It is, however, about 5' "tall", which means that visibility out of
the rear is pretty poor. A decent driver, however, can adapt to this
by looking before they prepare to reverse (getting out if necessary)
or by the use of the side mirrors[1]. Yes, you have a blind spot, but
you do in a high-backed sports car as well.

You could ask me to drive a low-roofed vehicle, but, at 6'4" or
thereabouts, I would decline as I do not fit the majority of them
sufficiently well to be comfortable. I find this to be getting worse
with most manufacturers as they pursue the mecca of a "sporty driving
position" as well - I'm much more comfortable in a vehicle laid out
with a bus/van-style slanted steering wheel.

Anyway, back to the point, I choose not to drive in London. I would
suggest that driving in general in London (and other big cities with
good public transport) should be discouraged, and the type of vehicle
being driven be rather secondary to that.

[1] Some drivers, for some reason, shy away from these. I commented
to a (somewhat younger than I) friend who had recently passed his test
that I tended to reverse-park the Agila by dropping the left-hand
electric mirror down so I could see the rear wheel and the kerb - and
he called that cheating! I'd call it making use of the vehicle's
features.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:23:10 GMT, (Neil
Williams) wrote:

It is, however, about 5' "tall", which means that visibility out of
the rear is pretty poor. A decent driver, however, can adapt to this
by looking before they prepare to reverse (getting out if necessary)
or by the use of the side mirrors[1]. Yes, you have a blind spot, but
you do in a high-backed sports car as well.
snip
[1] Some drivers, for some reason, shy away from these. I commented
to a (somewhat younger than I) friend who had recently passed his test
that I tended to reverse-park the Agila by dropping the left-hand
electric mirror down so I could see the rear wheel and the kerb - and
he called that cheating! I'd call it making use of the vehicle's
features.

For anyone who has to drive a large vehicle, the ability to see where
the rear wheels are is an important part of reversing. You usually
cannot see out any other way, so use of the mirrors is the only
option. My first vehicle, back in 1956, was a GPO telephone van, with
miniscule rear windows, and the only way to reverse was using the
exterior mirror. It only had one, on the driver's side, but the
experience was a lesson well learnt.

My wife has a Suzuki Wagon R, which I drive a lot. It's the older
version with the large mirrors, and you can have those set to be able
to see the rear wheels all the time, as well as the road behind you.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Chris Tolley wrote:

It may also be about comfort. At least if one is driving, even if one
is standing still or doing 3mph most of the way, one is guaranteed a
seat. This is surely the hardest thing about trying to convince
people to drive no further than their nearest railhead.

Guaranteed a seat, control of the climate, decent quality stereo and peace &
quiet, as well as door to door transport

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:49:07 +0000 (UTC), Terry Harper
wrote:

My wife has a Suzuki Wagon R, which I drive a lot. It's the older
version with the large mirrors, and you can have those set to be able
to see the rear wheels all the time, as well as the road behind you.

I always thought it was a shame that that wasn't continued into the
new model/Vauxhall Agila that I've got. I make very heavy use of the
side mirrors, and just about never use the rear view mirror, because
much of my driving at uni was minibuses. Electric mirrors does
slightly make up for it, mind.

The Landy has big mirrors and they are very useful indeed.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 16:42:03
on Wed, 16 Feb 2005, d remarked:

Some people would say you were selfish to buy your vegetables at the
supermarket, rather than spending several hours a week digging an
allotment. People's standards vary.

Why?

There is a lobby which says that it's environmentally criminal to truck
vegetables halfway across the country (or fly them halfway around the
world), when you could easily make do with ones grown locally. In a
built up area that would have to be an allotment, in the absence of farm
shops.

Different people have different "issues". It's impossible to satisfy
them all simultaneously, if for no other reason than it wouldn't leave
any time to do one's day-job.

Are supermarkets hideously overcrowded with runaway cans of tomatoes
killing people and ruining the athmosphere? Not having an alotment, or
even having access to one, that's not even possible. Public transport is
there and it works.

No, it's not available to many people. You perhaps live in London and
are spoilt, try going outside the M25 and the picture changes
dramatically.

Take what happened to me last night.

Train was supposed to get me to the station (from London) at 20:39, but
as often happens it waited outside the station for ten minutes, so
arrived at 20.50.

Although there's a very good bus service during the day, and even a bus
every hour all through the night, the mid-evening gets a bit grim (by
comparison, most people living outside London would give their right
arms for a bus every half hour after 6pm)

So I missed the 20:41 and 20:46 buses (although given the queue at the
stop when I got there I'm not entirely convinced the latter had just
left).

Next one scheduled for 21:01 but didn't turn up until 21:08

So I was stood around in the cold, in a dodgy part of town, for almost
20 minutes, and got home at around 20:20, 40 minutes after my scheduled
arrival at the station - not bad for a 2.5 mile journey !

Meanwhile, the meeting in London ended, as predicted, at 5pm, but my
train from St Pancras was at 6.30 (to give allowance for delays crossing
London). In the event it did indeed take me 50 minutes from docklands -
thanks to the DLR having some kind of issue (platform completely jammed,
next train in "9 minutes", which is 'forever' on the DLR) so I walked to
Canary Wharf and got the tube.

All in all, getting on for four and a half hours: an unplanned walk, two
tubes, two trains (had to change at Leicester) and a bus.

If I'd driven, my route planning software says 2 hrs 18 minutes door to
door, but allowing for congestion getting to the M11 feeder (only a mile
or two from where my meeting was), let's say two and a half hours.

OK, so the "extra" two hours yesterday (plus the extra two hours going
down - I'd allowed 5 hrs door to door by PT in case of cancellations
etc) won't kill me, but if I was doing a trip like that regularly (and
every trip I make is very similar to the one I described) I'd start to
wonder if PT was the right solution.

It's not about needs for these people, but
wants.

Like you "want" to buy your vegetables and fruit flown in from
California, rather than grow your own?

--
Roland Perry

Stimpy wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote:

It may also be about comfort. At least if one is driving, even if one
is standing still or doing 3mph most of the way, one is guaranteed a
seat. This is surely the hardest thing about trying to convince
people to drive no further than their nearest railhead.


Guaranteed a seat, control of the climate, decent quality stereo and peace &
quiet, as well as door to door transport


So you could say a thoroughly US-american attitude :-( Though even these
guys tend to consider their way (slowly).

Short question: what's the sense in comfort if we knowingly ruin our
environment? Unless proven otherwise combustion engines cause massive
pollution which will cause future generations to live in less quality
than we do - a bit selfish I'd say.

"Green trees? I've heard of these from my grandparents but then their
generation at least had their own car."