"Thanks Essex, we love you, from Surrey x": NIMBY locals love RideLondon relocation; Lance's controversial Zwift ride; School run not LTNs the real traffic problem, says Cllr; Contador hails golden generation; But cyclists + more on the live blog

It's easy to tell the difference - if you just hit a pothole, you're in Surrey. If you're under salty water, you just left Sussex, heading south. 

I agree that comparing half term and term time traffic seemed to miss the point. But he could have been making a much broader point that congestion is fundamentally caused by volume of traffic, and if fewer people choose to drive (which LTNs are surely designed to encourage) the roads could start to look more like half term all the time. If so, I agree it wasn't particularly well articulated. 

As I understand it, the Councillor is saying that it's too much traffic, much of it school run traffic, that causes congestion - not LTNs. He is right.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

As I understand it, the Councillor is saying that it's too much traffic, much of it school run traffic, that causes congestion - not LTNs. He is right.

Quite. I notice a distinct difference getting to work out of term time - much of my commute ( and the notable difference) is on the motorway, and can bring a journey that is typically 30 mins hol time to 45 mins term time (25mins off peak)

No matter how we cut it, congestion is always "too many cars being driven"

Yes - the stretch of road in the video is one of the 'arterial' routes into Oxford, that would normally be heavily trafficked - it's not in this shot, because there's there's no school run.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

As I understand it, the Councillor is saying that it's too much traffic, much of it school run traffic, that causes congestion - not LTNs. He is right.

Yes - clearly I wasn't being satirical enough - I meant to emphasise his broader point of "So you're sat in a traffic jam (whenever it is) complaining about all the traffic...?"

HarrogateSpa wrote:

As I understand it, the Councillor is saying that it's too much traffic, much of it school run traffic, that causes congestion - not LTNs. He is right.

We have to be careful about labelling all the traffic as school run traffic, as parents are also more likely to take time off work during school holidays.

Traffic is noticably lighter between 5pm and 6:30pm in school holidays, and this is not parents picking their kids up from school as they would have finished earlier.

The difference in number of vehicle movements between free flowing roads and traffic jams might be as low as 15% extra.

Although I do notice at 15:40 every day sigificant traffic near me just after the school has closed. There are plenty of people who do pick their children up by car, even from as close as half a mile.

chrisonatrike wrote:

RE LTNs / traffic in Oxford - had to laugh.  There's no traffic where he is because it's all been blocked by the LTN or got stuck behind a bike. Totally missing the point with the half-term thing - of course what matters is the traffic on a busy rush-hour morning. But no, selfish people want their cul-de-sacs...

oh these entitled people who don't want their resdintial roads used as through routes.

There will never be enough space to meet the demand from car drivers. Stop providing more space. You get the behaviour you encourage if we encorourage car use for every journey by opening up all roads as through routes, widening roads and building new roads, then that is what we get.

If we design cities so that journeys within the city are best undertaken by foot, bike or public transport then it's possible the modal shoft can be changed away from cars first, second and third.

How about a everything withint he ring road, is guarnteed efficient access to the ring road but nto to other parts of the city (other than by the ring road) People would still be able to drive between towns and cities, but it would be pointless drving between locations within the town.

wycombewheeler wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

RE LTNs / traffic in Oxford - had to laugh.  There's no traffic where he is because it's all been blocked by the LTN or got stuck behind a bike. Totally missing the point with the half-term thing - of course what matters is the traffic on a busy rush-hour morning. But no, selfish people want their cul-de-sacs...

oh these entitled people who don't want their resdintial roads used as through routes.

There will never be enough space to meet the demand from car drivers. Stop providing more space. You get the behaviour you encourage if we encorourage car use for every journey by opening up all roads as through routes, widening roads and building new roads, then that is what we get.

If we design cities so that journeys within the city are best undertaken by foot, bike or public transport then it's possible the modal shoft can be changed away from cars first, second and third.

How about a everything withint he ring road, is guarnteed efficient access to the ring road but nto to other parts of the city (other than by the ring road) People would still be able to drive between towns and cities, but it would be pointless drving between locations within the town.

All of the above. (The ring-road / cell solution is certainly in use - Groningen is a good example). The truth is that people in more urban regions and people in more suburban / "residential" places both would like to avoid the negatives of vehicle flow but currently those in the more suburban position are a) protected to a degree by their position (e.g. you're not going to have through-traffic in a cul-de-sac) and b) are often heavier users / more reliant on said vehicles because those areas tend to have more wide-spread residential development and a lower concentration of amenities.

chrisonatrike wrote:

RE LTNs / traffic in Oxford - had to laugh.  There's no traffic where he is because it's all been blocked by the LTN or got stuck behind a bike. Totally missing the point with the half-term thing - of course what matters is the traffic on a busy rush-hour morning. But no, selfish people want their cul-de-sacs...

Large amounts of traffic funneling through a previously quiet area can have a hugely negative effect on the lives of people living there. Anyone in a quiet area, suddenly exposed to large amounts of traffic due to nearby roadworks will say the same.

wycombewheeler wrote:

called the event, which caused around 12 hours of local road closures on a Sunday each August, the "bane of my life"

REAMIN INDOORS

wycombewheeler wrote:

called the event, which caused around 12 hours of local road closures on a Sunday each August, the "bane of my life"

What a priviliged life they must have, that this is the biggest issue they face.

Yep - the roads are closed for approximately 0.1% of the year.

As I recall (as a participant and Surrey resident - the route went past the end of my road), a lot of roads weren't closed for 12 hours and a lot of closure time was when people were still in bed on a Sunday morning (yes, there was some inconvenience for people but a bit of forward planning would solve a lot of issues). Nearly 2/3rds consulted by SCC said they wanted the event to continue in Surrey - a huge amount as it's usually the objectors who get involved in consultations. But the council, as usual, didn't listen.
Essentially, there was a small group of very vociferous moaners and by the final event there was next to no media co stage about being trapped etc, etc - it was largely being accepted in the same way the London Marathon is. 

As I have stated before on this website, greedy selfish motorists want all the roads all to themselves all of the time. They had the Hasting 10k running race stopped because as the police said "it was too popular".

kingleo wrote:

As I have stated before on this website, greedy selfish motorists want all the roads all to themselves all of the time. They had the Hasting 10k running race stopped because as the police said "it was too popular".

Yeah as bad as cyclists really

kingleo wrote:

I think the cyclists are stupid riding in a group like that on a narrow busy road - before you have a go at me, I've been a club cyclist for 64 years and done thousands of club runs, cycling like that is very selfish and dangerous.

Most of the time cyclists use a small part of the road at the side - not all of the road, apart from professional competitions and some sportives cyclists do not expect to have all of the roads to themselves.

Bungle_52 wrote:

"Matt Hancock (stop laughing at the back) said: "Strange how people get so anti stuff that happens once a year - a bit like fireworks and Halloween. Very very odd."

Fireworks only once a year. Where does he live?

In an ivory tower in the sunlit uplands of Brexit, where the unicorns (any colour available) roam free, undisturbed by explosions or reality.

eburtthebike wrote:

Bungle_52 wrote:

"Matt Hancock (stop laughing at the back) said: "Strange how people get so anti stuff that happens once a year - a bit like fireworks and Halloween. Very very odd."

Fireworks only once a year. Where does he live?

In an ivory tower in the sunlit uplands of Brexit, where the unicorns (any colour available) roam free, undisturbed by explosions or reality.

...or instructions not to get hot and heavy with people outside your household.

Five plus years, now.

Need to let it drop, for your own mental health if nothing else.

YW.

I put my name to that petition, but I look forward with some tepidation to the usual bingo from the usual wingnuts.

We can only hope for an educated, reasoned discussion, because all recent experience suggests that reasonable expectation of that is forlorn and hope is all that's left.

Think it will be killed by politeness and courtesy - "we certainly understand the feelings brought up but this case but there is a more fundamental principle we must uphold ...". I doubt that this will bring failing to stop up to "dangerous". I think the best might be some extra conditions added to the normal "failure to stop".

Fundamentally I believe politicians assume that most stuff - outside of crises or their particular interests - just works, more or less. There already is a defined offence for failure to stop. So the assumption is that this will be detected and prosecuted and presumably will lead to penalties at somewhere a litlle below the maximum level the tariff is set. In this they're the same as the rest of us - give a thing a name and it exists and is managed and the figures for maximum penalties act as a mental "anchor" (like speed limits...). I just don't think it's easy to keep in mind that:

rate of detection times rate of charging times rate of conviction times average penalty actually given times standard parole, reduction for good behaviour, minus any time served

...means that the actual number punished and the size of punishment can be a tiny fraction of what you imagine. As an example witness all the "expert" commentators on that RDFR thread about the Alliston case who were sure - certain - that because similar or "more serious" charges exist for motorists that these would be dealt with with at least equal severity. Any counter examples were anecdote or not comparable.

Whilst I support the overall aim of the proposed legislation it will never succeed with that wording.

They'd be better off targeting the law on 'Failure to Stop'.

Tightening definitions, increasing punishments and removing loopholes there would have far more chance of success.

Presumably, they'll be debating whether they consider that the legislation needs amending (which they dismissed in their initial response) and if so, then they'll be debating the wording. Petitions are for guaging the public's desire for a change rather than just accepting the wording as-is.

I doubt they'll get much into the specific wording - it's not like they're debating something that they'll then vote on whether to put it into law. It's really just a general discussion on the topic, and, as often as not, an opportunity for individual members to exercise their personal, very loosely related, bugbears.

If the goverment subsequently decides it would be a good idea to bring forward legislation (doubtful, since they've already rejected it), that would then go through a scrutiny and revision process which would finesse the wording. (Although that's no guarantee that it ends up as good law.)