Drivers and their problems

Hirsute wrote:

Ferry recently replaced orginally had 110 spaces but due to the size of cars it could only fit 90, hence in part the new ferry.

Noting the problems of "more car" isn't just the "politics of envy".

Anyway, chalk up another data point for something like Jevons Paradox / "what our fathers called luxuries, we term necessities" (society-wide "lifestyle creep") / keeping up with the Joneses?

Also noting that the more the figures are examined (total cost of obtaining the gas, losses when switching over power systems etc.) the less clear it is that this is any less polluting than the older ferry powerplant - even if the new one were closer in size.

Let's hear it for those ever-dependable professional drivers, filmin' & phonin' & forgettin' to steer round roundabouts so we don't have to.

stonojnr wrote:

More grassy knoll nonsense, "Jumanji Junction" words fail sometimes https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/24337313.anger-grass-a14-seven-hills-...

"If the high grass on the approach from Woodbridge could be cut back for just a few feet, cars and motorbikes coming from the right could be seen clearly again."

I can't think of anything else you might have to look for.

"For cars, it is impossible to see over or through the grass."

That's because cars don't have eyes.

David9694 wrote:

He said: “Not only do we all struggle to park on Priory Road but we have seen people travel up to 50 miles per hour – they will go straight into those bollards."

Stop the war on law-deriding motorists! Take out those pesky bollards and they could do 70 easily.

Quote:

He added: “I use Books on the Hill. It's where I buy my books to go on holiday. And sometimes I can’t park, therefore I go off to Clifton or I go off to Cribbs.”

How often does Cllr Canniford go on holiday?  How much of an imposition would it be for him to pay to park on that occasion?

Seems to me that charging for parking might actually help the traders of Hill Road: people will park, do the things they need to do, then move on, leaving a free space (instead of finding a parking space there, thanking the Gods of Parking and then leaving their car there while they go for a nice long walk all around the town…).

slc wrote:

Maybe a problem we would like drivers to have. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx28wr7lge1o But also an opportunity to float my geometric council tax for cars plan. £512 per tonne per year for the first motor vehicle registered to an address. £1024 for the second, £2048 for the third, £4096, ... . Rising with RPI of course.

Quote:

However, Selin Akdenez, who is a single mum and drives an SUV, says parking in London is already expensive, and the prospect of paying more for residential parking is something that she couldn’t afford.

“I disagree because I have a child so I do have to have a bigger car,” she says. “My mother is really old. If she needs a GP appointment or dentist, I have to take her."

I thought that a child is typically smaller than an adult, so why do you need an SUV to fit one? I'm fairly sure from my failing memory that I've seen families going on holiday with MULTIPLE children in just a standard car.

SaveTheWail wrote:

'I was so lucky that I was doing the speed limit' (!)

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17d598vj0qo

If only there was a way to take control of the vehicle speed.

(That is a rare example though of a car "accident" as there's nothing you can do to prevent a deer running into the side of you)

I have to share the same roads with these people, it explains alot.

But just think how big the car will need to be to fit an adult in the rear.

hawkinspeter wrote:

There's nothing you can do to prevent a deer running into the side of you

Nonsense - we just need stronger sentencing for the deer. Flogging and chemical castration should do the trick.

[Am I doing this right?]

hawkinspeter wrote:

typically smaller than an adult, so why do you need an SUV to fit one? I'm fairly sure from my failing memory that I've seen families going on holiday with MULTIPLE children in just a standard car.

Now come on, everyone knows that children, and indeed anyone important, must be placed in an SUV to protect them from, erm, cyclists? Or perhaps large vehicles with a poor of view of nearby objects. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

(That is a rare example though of a car "accident" as there's nothing you can do to prevent a deer running into the side of you)

Disappointing comment - are you not aware of hi-vis?

"I honestly didn't see the car", the deer told our reporter. "I checked before pulling out of the forest as I always do, but it came out of nowhere."

Local officials emphasised the need for drivers to take measures to enhance their visibility to other animal road users, eg. by painting luminous wolves on the sides of their vehicles.

hawkinspeter wrote:

SaveTheWail wrote:

'I was so lucky that I was doing the speed limit' (!)

http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c17d598vj0qo

If only there was a way to take control of the vehicle speed.

(That is a rare example though of a car "accident" as there's nothing you can do to prevent a deer running into the side of you)

Yet even the driver (implicitly) suggests there was something she could have done - she says she now drives (on that road, at least) more cautiously and with better observation.  Had she been driving well within the speed limit, her vehicle and the deer would not have coincided in the first place, but even if they did, the consequences could have been considerably less severe.  If only there were a deer to teach every driver.

David9694 wrote:

Drivers angry about e-scooter and bike bays in Southampton

"Having had a car written off after a driver crashed into his vehicle while it was parked, and claiming drivers speed down the road at 50mph, he felt the bay was also an accident waiting to happen.

He said: “Not only do we all struggle to park on Priory Road but we have seen people travel up to 50 miles per hour – they will go straight into those bollards.""

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24380839.drivers-angry-e-scooter-bike-b...

They can't avoid the bollards, but the parked cars 20 yards down the road are fine?

Quote:

Ash Cartman (Long Ashton, Liberal Democrat) said he was not against parking charges in principle, but said: “This is less a parking strategy than a financial strategy.”

He added: “It’s a Trojan tax — that’s what I’d call it — secretly bringing in tax rises to fill a gap in council finances.”

…

At the meeting on October 16 where the council executive voted to bring in the charges, council leader Mike Bell (Liberal Democrat) said: “We cannot justify subsidising parking when we are having to cut care services for vulnerable adults and children.”

Was Cllr Cartman not at that meeting, or does he just disagree with the council funding care services?  Is he saying that free parking is more important? Hmm…

brooksby wrote:

Was Cllr Cartman not at that meeting

He was, but he left early.

mdavidford wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Was Cllr Cartman not at that meeting

He was, but he left early.

Clearly someone didn't respect his authoritaaa!

David9694 wrote:

Drivers angry about e-scooter and bike bays in Southampton

"Having had a car written off after a driver crashed into his vehicle while it was parked, and claiming drivers speed down the road at 50mph, he felt the bay was also an accident waiting to happen.

He said: “Not only do we all struggle to park on Priory Road but we have seen people travel up to 50 miles per hour – they will go straight into those bollards.""

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24380839.drivers-angry-e-scooter-bike-b...

That's motonormativity right there. Complain about the bollards (All Praise The Mighty Bollard!) rather than the drivers speeding down the road. Personally, I'd rather that roads have more hazards if they can help reduce driver speeds and get them to pay more attention.

Fake news - it's only cyclists who hit scooterists.

Wait - I think I know the answer to this one...

They need to, er, increase the speed limit to stop the law being brought into disrepute?

chrisonabike wrote:

Another perrenial again - who is still driving with the most points (229 the current winner)?  Meanwhile m'learned friend comes out to defend the indefensible.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8yq063m96o

BBC wrote:

Ms Ashworth [the lawyer] said having hundreds of points was "very much the exception".

"I’ve seen many people try their luck… and the courts are quite rigorous in the way they assess these arguments," she said.

She added people who already have points, or who had escaped a ban based on exceptional hardship, which they cannot apply for on the same grounds more than once in a three-year period, were often "a lot more careful than anybody else on the road".

The absurdity of it deepens when you realise that those points were acquired by the age of 26.

" To be fair it is a completely unsolvable problem…. Like aging, belly button lint, or fascism. "

He does now! I suppose they have to occasionally to prove they exist, but I know their true view of MOTs: an entirely optional extra, which can be avoided by self-certification

David9694 wrote:

views on this?. I can't decide on this - part of me thinks parked and manoeuvring cars act as a kind of traffic calming, and buffering if you're on the pavement.

EDIT - I wonder if this is coming from the realisation of "we can't drive through quickly now - because of those *other drivers*"? If so is it too much to hope that people will start to see that problem is a lot more general? Indeed, one of the big issues with mass motoring?

I guess it's "what do we want from our spaces"? Motor vehicles - driving or parked - take up a significant proportion of our public space. Roads and ready parking facilitate and encourage driving, more driving. While "we can drive there" it will be "we *have* to drive there" and the ability to make any changes which impact driving and parking will be very limited.

If you want buffers - how about cycle *paths* (for pedestrians) or small trees, or mini parks or rain gardens?

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2024/11/20/amsterdams-changing-street...

https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2021/08/rain-gardens.html

If you want traffic calming - apply actual traffic calming like road narrowing, surface treatments (less smooth), horizontal deviations and level changes. Many can be seen in this aricle: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2025/01/08/when-is-there-no-need-for-...

OTOH in the UK we're currently stuck in a cul-de-sac of motornormativity. Without (easy, attractive) alternatives to driving many people will see no choice. (Those alternatives of course are hard to provide - because cars).

And even with heavier parking enforcement than we normally want to fund people will chance it. Which as you allude to more often leads to antisocial or dangerous parking of the "sod it" variety.

mdavidford wrote:

Wait - I think I know the answer to this one...

They need to, er, increase the speed limit to stop the law being brought into disrepute?

Got it!  And if lots of motorists are driving on footways (or even running over cyclists) the last thing we should do is take them all to court, as that will ...

(There is a point that it's often far more practical to go with human nature.  And I do agree with a couple of the posters here that - because human nature - the best way is to make the infra largely "self-enforcing".  However a) people have actually been shown to slow down when we merely change the numbers so why not ** b) I don't think the following idea holds up to scrutiny: "but all the roads with 30mph limits now are because that is the 'natural' speed of all those roads".

* Somewhat surprisingly - perhaps this is partly psychological "anchoring"?  There are likely some minimum conditions also e.g. *some* threat of enforcement and of course a 20 sign doesn't yet get you 20 in the UK - just a bit slower (nor do other speed limits e.g. motorway ones - per national travel survey)

** The reasons are several but a headline one is that there is a measurable relationship between lower speeds and less serious crash outcomes.

Except that they are demonstrably NOT (in this sample size of one, anyway). Otherwise nobody would ever get more points, once they'd been given some, surely?