Chell Road and Foregate Street restructured again ?

[tek-monkey]

It's hard to argue that cycling is a bad thing, so what is needed is a way to make cycling more attractive. Pavements are not the way forward, but roads are too dangerous. Segregation is definitely the key, but as said above when not possible car drivers need to start obeying the highway code.

I used to ride with an extra strap hanging from my backpack, with a small metal weight on it. When this was flapping around next to me cars gave me a wider berth, because their paintwork was somehow more important than my safety. Very few gave me the legal distance regardless, but at least I got a bit more.

 

[Mudgie]

It would be nice it the town was cleared of unnecessary signage too.

Like that one that gets a bit bigger each year advertising the Soup Kitchen as you're approaching the Garth ?

 

[Mudgie]

Why not slow traffic down on the m6 to 20mph? people die on it every year slowing traffic down to 20mph would make it safer for everyone?
Speed does not kill inappropriate speed kills.
Cyclists kill people every year so why are they not required to have 3rd party insurance and pass a test to prove they have the skills to keep others safe? or remove said licence if their cycling skill level falls below the acceptable standard?
In risk management, you can't eliminate all risks but instead limit them to a level considered acceptable.
Also, 20mph zone does not make roads safer according to DFT.
In many cases, accident and injuries have increased after 20mph zones were introduced.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/17/20mph-limit-dangerous-costly-reverse-council-admits/
One theory of what causes 20 zones to become more dangerous is that all road users become more complacent and willing to take greater risks because they "feel safer" thereby making the road more dangerous.

Do you have the statistics for "Cyclists kill people every year" ?
And what about motorists needing to pass a test every ten years to prove they still have the skills to keep others safe?

 

[Mudgie]

We just need a bit of "carpet bombing" to clear some of the ground first before rebuilding.

There's many an English town or city where 1960s 'planners' did more damage than the Luftwaffe.

 

[cj1]

Do you have the statistics for "Cyclists kill people every year" ?

2.5 people per year in the uk

 

[EasMid]

What happened to the 0.5 person?

 

[tek-monkey]

2.5 people per year in the uk

So what you are saying is cars are way more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians than cyclists are. So do we reduce the threat, or blame the victims?

 

[proactive]

So what you are saying is cars are way more dangerous to cyclists and pedestrians than cyclists are. So do we reduce the threat, or blame the victims?

Blame the victims. It's what Boris does.

 

[Mudgie]

2.5 people per year in the uk

Thank you.
I'm not suggesting that 2½ deaths a year isn't serious but it's nothing compared to air pollution, mainly from road traffic fumes, causing 36,000 deaths a year ..

 

[Thehooperman]

What happened to the 0.5 person?

He wasn't half lucky

 

[cj1]

Thank you.
I'm not suggesting that 2½ deaths a year isn't serious but it's nothing compared to air pollution, mainly from road traffic fumes, causing 36,000 deaths a year ..

But lower speed limits increase air pollution as mpg is reduced which is corrolated to exhaust emissions

 

[Mudgie]

But lower speed limits increase air pollution

Doesn't 36,000 deaths a year suggests we need a lockdown of the most polluting road vehicles ?

 

[kyoto49]

But lower speed limits increase air pollution

Until the speed limits are so low that walking and cycling become the norm and car usage drops, which should be everyone's end goal. This would save everyone's health, the environment and keep everyone safe.

Everytime we choose to drive we cause air pollution, we clog up towns and cities, we generate unwanted noise, road building destroys huge swathes of our natural world and countryside, and we make ourselves unhealthy. Its the selfish choice.

 

[Mudgie]

Until the speed limits are so low that walking and cycling become the norm and car usage drops, which should be everyone's end goal. This would save everyone's health, the environment and keep everyone safe.

Everytime we choose to drive we cause air pollution, we clog up towns and cities, we generate unwanted noise, road building destroys huge swathes of our natural world and countryside, and we make ourselves unhealthy. Its the selfish choice.

And it has been proved in London that in 20mph zones vehicles move more smoothly with fewer accelerations and decelerations and that this driving style produces fewer particulate emissions. I therefore don't believe that "lower speed limits increase air pollution"

 

[kyoto49]

And it has been proved in London that in 20mph zones vehicles move more smoothly with fewer accelerations and decelerations and that this driving style produces fewer particulate emissions. I therefore don't believe that "lower speed limits increase air pollution"

I've driven in them and tbh, if it was a regular thing there is no doubt in my mind I'd rather cycle! Very frustrating!

 

[Lucy]

Some of us don't have the luxury of having the type of business where most/all of the staff can work from home.

I know, but imagine how much easier your journey to Bloxwich will be if I don't have to go there every day. I'm sure some people will want to go in all the time but it should be able to be a choice if we've proven we can work from home for the last year.

 

[proactive]

I know, but imagine how much easier your journey to Bloxwich will be if I don't have to go there every day.

Fortunately I work near Shrewsbury, so journey times to Bloxwich are of little interest to me.

Bloxwich, so nice it manages to make Brownhills look classy.

 

[tek-monkey]

She has a point, the commute feels so much easier on school holidays. With loads less commuters we wouldn't need more roads, or hs2, so I expect to be forced back to work soon.

 

[Thehooperman]

I know, but imagine how much easier your journey to Bloxwich will be if I don't have to go there every day. I'm sure some people will want to go in all the time but it should be able to be a choice if we've proven we can work from home for the last year.

I'm not totally convinced that working from home will be as effective once we get back to "normal" if anything is like what I experienced between the lockdowns when some people went back into offices.

Meetings involved face to face attendees discussing things amongst themselves and forgetting or ignoring that the remote attendees couldn't see or hear what was being discussed.

There were also discussions and agreements being made where office attendees could talk face to face, etc.

I think home working could work and is the way to go but it will need a bit of co-ordination to integrate with those working in offices/workplaces.

 

[tek-monkey]

I'm not totally convinced that working from home will be as effective once we get back to "normal" if anything is like what I experienced between the lockdowns when some people went back into offices.

Meetings involved face to face attendees discussing things amongst themselves and forgetting or ignoring that the remote attendees couldn't see or hear what was being discussed.

There were also discussions and agreements being made where office attendees could talk face to face, etc.

I think home working could work and is the way to go but it will need a bit of co-ordination to integrate with those working in offices/workplaces.

It won't replace it, but 1 or 2 days a week in the office could easily become the norm.