Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
The logic behind it is that though the cyclist/pedestrian and car driver are equal, the outcome of collision between the two isn't. Unless the car driver isn't actually in a car, of course. Unless the driver is particularly large and the cyclist/pedestrian quite small in that scenario, in which case it isn't again.phildo said:
That's pretty much the idea. Congestion costs the economy billions in lost time / inefficient deliveries etc - the principle is that the cost to the driver (who continues to drive) is less than their value of time... so the effect is to shift journeys that can be made in other ways or at other times. The reason for investing in public transport is that if you shift a significant number of car journeys (which is possible) then additional capacity on public transport will be needed. It also helps political acceptability - the government aren't running off with the proceeds and using it elsewhere, revenue is ringfenced. The London Congestion Charge is reinvested.phildo said:
British Rail was one of the most efficient nationalised railways before it was privatised. The privatised railway today consumes five times as much public money as BR did! On top of that numpty civil servants at the Department for Transport try to micro-manage the privatised railway - badly. BR did have the advantage that it was pretty autonomous and left to get on with it.
That's more or less how London works. Transport for London determine the routes, timetables, fares, vehicle standards, then put routes out to tender. The bus operator literally just runs the buses to the contract spec, and all fare revenue goes to TfL (so TfL take all the risk). My view is that with one or two exceptions (e.g. Oxford, Brighton), bus de-regulation has not been a raging success.
Planning officers have to work to national guidance though, so if permission is refused on what might seem like a common sense basis, the applicant could probably appeal and win at Planning Inquiry. There's also an issue about local authorities being reluctant to tackle big companies like Tesco because Tesco's legal and financial resources far outstrip that of your average local authority.
There is the conundrum of what to do with existing developments - lack of charging encourages huge car parks and the drive to a supermarket just for a load of bread type trips.
On the whole (and I am generalising) far too many drivers would like to mow drivers off the road as they don't see that cyclists have a place on the road. The balance would does need to be redressed somehow and attitudes changed. The stats are that the majority of car/cycle accidents are the car's fault. IIRC Holland has presumed liability on the part of a driver if a pedestrian or cyclist is hit and it does seem to work.Cyclists/pedestrians and the law - don't understand your logic. Surely the law shouldn't favour anyone? I think cyclists should have test/licence/insurance and the police should deal with poor driving and poor cycling with equal measure. The method of transport doesn't change the fact that it's a person in both cases and they should be treated as equals. It's bad enough at the moment that a large number of cyclists appear to have an attitude that they are beyond the law without changing the law to make motorists guilty until proven innocent!
edits for appalling grammar/spelling/sentence structure... need coffee
There is limited funding for large transport projects, so any proposal here has got to compete against the rest of the country, based on cost/benefit analysis. On a cost/benefit analysis I'd say a Stafford eastern bypass would be getting towards the bottom of that list because it would cost a shed load of cash for not a lot of benefit. Not a huge fan of cost/benefit stuff, but there has to be a way of prioritising limited dosh.Miss Red said:
But retail is coming into the town - and if congestion was such a major issue in the eyes of the retailers, they wouldn't have bothered coming here... If you take the example of Ventura Park in Tamworth, the congestion there is insane but neither customers nor retailers seem put off by it.
You really are bitter and twisted aren't you?Miss Red said:
Again... didn't know that. Clearly it needs to soirt itself out. There is no room in todays economy for greedy, inefficient, tax consuming things, we must either get rid of the railways, cut back on the service to reduce costs or pout up prices. Tax payer has better things to spend money on these days...............food, gas, leccy, mortgage/rent, petrol, petrol, petrol............................ did I mention petrol? (super unleaded, of course!)henryscat said:
The railways should cost less, but that is a separate subject to the principle of investing public money in them - which does generate an economic return. It is very naive to think that cutting service or putting up prices is the answer. Fares are already rising above inflation and our fares are some of the most expensive in Europe (if not the most expensive).phildo said:
